Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sudgy]

4) Ask the players if they want any brief strategy advice

This is another good point.  Sometimes people get mad at me for not explaining any strategy, and some people don't care and just want to get on with it.

[liopoil]

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

While this seems pretty trivial, it's pretty important. It annoys me when players make in-game actions for reasons other than trying to win in games with 3+ players.

Depends on the game. If it's more of a story-telling game,  I don't mind playing to tell a more interesting tale.

Hmmm, what's an example of such a game? I don't think I've played such a game.

[scott_pilgrim]

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

While this seems pretty trivial, it's pretty important. It annoys me when players make in-game actions for reasons other than trying to win in games with 3+ players.

Depends on the game. If it's more of a story-telling game,  I don't mind playing to tell a more interesting tale.

Hmmm, what's an example of such a game? I don't think I've played such a game.

In Apples to Apples, if you're playing to win, then whenever you're the judge, you should be thinking "which card did player X play?" where player X is the current player with the fewest green cards.  Judging according to matching the category is completely irrelevant, because you want to win, and the best way to do that is to make sure no one else pulls ahead of you.  Whereas the way you're "supposed" to play is to not think about winning while judging, but just making the most appropriate judgment.

I'm not sure if that's quite what eHalcyon is talking about, but it's an example where playing to win is different from the intended gameplay (which is a really bad thing IMO, one of the reasons I don't like Apples to Apples).

[Awaclus]

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

While this seems pretty trivial, it's pretty important. It annoys me when players make in-game actions for reasons other than trying to win in games with 3+ players.

Depends on the game. If it's more of a story-telling game,  I don't mind playing to tell a more interesting tale.

Hmmm, what's an example of such a game? I don't think I've played such a game.

RuneQuest.

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

While this seems pretty trivial, it's pretty important. It annoys me when players make in-game actions for reasons other than trying to win in games with 3+ players.

Depends on the game. If it's more of a story-telling game,  I don't mind playing to tell a more interesting tale.

Hmmm, what's an example of such a game? I don't think I've played such a game.

In Apples to Apples, if you're playing to win, then whenever you're the judge, you should be thinking "which card did player X play?" where player X is the current player with the fewest green cards.  Judging according to matching the category is completely irrelevant, because you want to win, and the best way to do that is to make sure no one else pulls ahead of you.  Whereas the way you're "supposed" to play is to not think about winning while judging, but just making the most appropriate judgment.

I'm not sure if that's quite what eHalcyon is talking about, but it's an example where playing to win is different from the intended gameplay (which is a really bad thing IMO, one of the reasons I don't like Apples to Apples).

I haven't played Apples to Apples, but isn't it pretty similar to Cards Against Humanity? At least in CAH, the intended way and playing for the win usually overlap a lot, since you have to spend all of your good cards to get points, so it's more likely that the funniest ones are by players with the lower scores. Against people who aren't playing for the win, though, sometimes you might get an opponent who picks his card so fast that you can tell that his is going to be the best one, which might result in you attempting to choose the second best card, and the other players attempting to submit the card that you will find the second best, but I actually think that this is pretty cool, too. In the situation where all of your opponents have equally many points, from a competitive standpoint, it doesn't matter which card you pick, so you might as well pick the best.

[liopoil]

Never played RuneQuest, and Apples To Apples is a terrible game, largely for that reason, so I don't play it. If the story is a major part of the game that I wouldn't be annoyed by players furthering the story, but I also probably wouldn't enjoy playing that game as much.

[pacovf]

He's probably thinking about Role-Playing Games. Sometimes you shouldn't take the optimal solution, because the character you are role-playing as wouldn't. It makes for a better story/game.

[eHalcyon]

Two big ones are probably Tales of the Arabian Nights and Agents of SMERSH, which both use the same story telling system.  I haven't personally played either of those.

One that I have played is Betrayal at House on the Hill.  I am far more inclined to take gambles with poor odds to benefit the story being told.  When I roll the dice, will it result in incredible success or epic failure?  I'm also completely forgiving when others play sub-optimally.  If it makes the scenario more interesting and more fun, I am all for it.  Betrayal isn't a competitive game to me, even though it has "winners" and "losers".

[ipofanes]

To go back to the original question, I got Space Alert for Christmas, unboxed it and read out the rulebook to my family. This was, I think, the worst introduction to a game I ever had. I mean, the instructions are meant to give you chuckles, but it took ages before we could do anything.

Also, I remember a quite shoddy introduction to "The Battle of the Halji" but I think primarily it was the game that sucked.

[pacovf]

Chvatil's rulebooks are not meant to be read to people. They are meant for one person to read them, and then transcribe them to other players. They are funny to make that initial lecture a bit less dry. It does mean that refering to the rulebook midgame is somewhat painful, because it's full of "filling".

[ipofanes]

The Tash-Kalar rules are well-organized and atmospheric at the same time.

[amalloy]

Chvatil's rulebooks are not meant to be read to people. They are meant for one person to read them, and then transcribe them to other players. They are funny to make that initial lecture a bit less dry. It does mean that refering to the rulebook midgame is somewhat painful, because it's full of "filling".

There are two separate rulebooks included with space alert: the funny one with a bunch of filling ("How to be a space explorer in seven easy lessons" or something like that), and then a dry and to-the-point one, much shorter, titled "Rule Book". When my group learned to play it we had a great time reading the fluffy one to each other, even if it meant it took us longer to get pieces on the board. But if you're in more of a hurry, the condensed rulebook should have everything you need.

[popsofctown]

This lady tried to teach us Uchronia at the last meetup I went to..  It was pretty disastrous because she clearly didn't really know the rules. That's kind of a cardinal sin for me at the end of the game, it's ok if someone explains things in a poor manner or doesn't warn me about the right things so there is a "gotcha" rule during the game, but if the person teaching me the game can't maintain a legal gamestate everything kind of falls apart..

[KingZog3]

This lady tried to teach us Uchronia at the last meetup I went to..  It was pretty disastrous because she clearly didn't really know the rules. That's kind of a cardinal sin for me at the end of the game, it's ok if someone explains things in a poor manner or doesn't warn me about the right things so there is a "gotcha" rule during the game, but if the person teaching me the game can't maintain a legal gamestate everything kind of falls apart..

If I start with the wrong rules, I play with the wrong rules till the end. That way there's no surprises, and we can all agree that we need to play again with the correct rules.

[Awaclus]

This lady tried to teach us Uchronia at the last meetup I went to..  It was pretty disastrous because she clearly didn't really know the rules. That's kind of a cardinal sin for me at the end of the game, it's ok if someone explains things in a poor manner or doesn't warn me about the right things so there is a "gotcha" rule during the game, but if the person teaching me the game can't maintain a legal gamestate everything kind of falls apart..

If I start with the wrong rules, I play with the wrong rules till the end. That way there's no surprises, and we can all agree that we need to play again with the correct rules.

Usually, in my family, we determine if there is someone who's at an advantage or at a disadvantage because of changing the rules mid-game, and if there isn't (basically, if nobody objects to it), we change them. Otherwise, we'll either start a new game, stop playing completely, or continue with the wrong rules depending on how retarded the wrong rules make the game, how long we have been playing with those rules already and how late it is.

This happens a lot, since both me and my brother often have designed games we'd like to playtest, and the rules itself might sometimes turn out to be completely ridiculous.

[eHalcyon]

This lady tried to teach us Uchronia at the last meetup I went to..  It was pretty disastrous because she clearly didn't really know the rules. That's kind of a cardinal sin for me at the end of the game, it's ok if someone explains things in a poor manner or doesn't warn me about the right things so there is a "gotcha" rule during the game, but if the person teaching me the game can't maintain a legal gamestate everything kind of falls apart..

If I start with the wrong rules, I play with the wrong rules till the end. That way there's no surprises, and we can all agree that we need to play again with the correct rules.

This is generally how we do it as well.  It happened with Kemet the first couple times I played it.

It's actually pretty important to my process as well.  Reading the rulebook is one thing, but it helps to have a context for those rules.  After my initial play of the game, I tend to re-read the rulebook because it's easier for me to process it then, and it makes it easier for me to identify the little mistakes we made.