Lose and Learn

It's 1991.  I am 6. My dad and I pick...

Read more...

One example I forgot to bring up- when playing Descent 1e with friends, as overlord I’d slow them down, web the warrior, etc, and I’d win. It was a miserable time for 2-4 other people though, and I soon had a pile of plastic that no one except me enjoyed. Even though it’s not an RPG, I think you still have to be careful what kind of experience you’re curating. Sometimes it’s not about winning and losing, but how you go about winning.

I realize this is more narrative than discussion but I feel that games that allow your attrition strategy (attriting the other players patience if nothing else) are just bad games UNLESS there is a specific counter but the other players just refuse to use it. Plenty of games have odd ball tactics (thinking of Stone Age's hunger strategy) that CAN be specifically countered if the other players recognize it and specifically spoil you. Kind of like just letting a player hoard all the science cards in 7 Wonders, at some point the other players either start taking those cards for themselves (even if they don't want them) just to deny the science focused player the win or hey, it was a legit strategy no one bothered to counter.

But a game that allows a player to just act in a way to spoil the other players but has no direct counter is just a badly designed game.

I feel like a lot of designers often do have a type of play in mind and don't do the playtesting necessary to stress the boundaries and corners of their designs to mitigate guys like you. Players kind of have to have an agreement to not stress the game in certain ways.

Also, hope you feel better and get life back on track.