Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35171 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20840 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7430 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3981 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3507 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2080 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2587 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2258 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2500 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3022 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3698 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2626 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2463 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2291 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2510 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

Rule 0 or Playing Within the Spirit of the Game

More
23 Oct 2014 18:13 #189211 by Shellhead
The designer of Republic of Rome made it entirely possible that all players could lose the game. How is it outside the spirit of the game if one player wields that spectre of defeat to influence the behavior of other players? Is this significantly different than the typical co-op game alpha dog pressuring other players to follow a particular strategy?
The following user(s) said Thank You: madwookiee, wadenels

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 19:44 #189214 by Gary Sax

KingPut wrote: I was in the Malloc Republic of Rome game and I will never play Republic of Rome again unless everyone puts in $20.00 and if we lose the game we take the $100 and donate it charity so that people have something tangible to lose.


^Kingput said in one sentence what I've been trying to say all along. But I believe it is possible to have a game group who plays (mostly) within a single game. These games will work if that is true.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 20:27 #189216 by Cambyses
I don't know that I'm the kind of person who really believes that the only reason to play boardgames is to have fun. But I sure as shit know that playing in order to ensure we DON'T have a good time cannot be an acceptable reason. I admit I'm having have a hard time understanding why anyone would tank a game just because they can't win.

I completely understand (and agree with) where your analysis is coming from, Gary, but isn't metagaming part of the enjoyment of a game like, say, Cosmic Encounter? Does the fact that a lot of Cosmic Encounter happens above the table make it more poorly constructed, by these parameters?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2014 07:31 #189220 by KingPut
For me somebody going into a co-op game thinking I'm going to tank this game if I can't win is no different than somebody going into a multiplayer competitive game and saying they'll flip the table if they have no chance to win.
The following user(s) said Thank You: SuperflyPete, Erik Twice

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2014 07:32 #189221 by DukeofChutney
I have played RoR about 5 times i think, all bar one of these games was tanked. The one that wasn't people just let me win because they were fed up. In all the others someone has taken a bigish lead, flopped their ego on the table a bit and the others have responding by crashing the game. I think it is very difficult to win the early scenario if your table is very competitive and mine is. I've someone is making a big deal out of them winning, i am not sure you can blame the table for wanting to stop them at any cost. There ae ego's on the line here after all. Imo, RoR will only work if your players don't have much ego and don't mind seeing a winner. I think this unlikely however because it is such a screw your neighbor game and these tend to spark peoples egos.

Also +1 to Kingputs idea. That would make RoR work a little better i think.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2014 08:25 #189222 by Sagrilarus

DukeofChutney wrote: In all the others someone has taken a bigish lead, flopped their ego on the table a bit and the others have responding by crashing the game.


But isn't this part of the game? Isn't working the room an aspect of the play? I'll agree there likely shouldn't be a red button on the board available to all, but if someone flops their ego on the table I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

S.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wadenels

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2014 08:35 #189223 by SuperflyPete

Sevej wrote:

VonTush wrote: A game where you have to invoke Rule: 0 more often than not is bad design.
Not to say that I'm in favor of being a dick, but a game that is volatile to where you have to remind people to play within The Spirit of the Game is bad design.

I long to be in that spot that Malloc was in...That is playing the game because he's now influenced how people think about any future games with him. A brilliant play!


This. I agree with this. I mean... Battlestar Galactica and The Resistance work without Rule 0.


Not to mention a host of other games, the least of which is Shadows over Camelot.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2014 08:54 - 24 Oct 2014 09:01 #189225 by Sagrilarus
Yeah, but at what point do you tell a designer "you need to shut out a specific design option because some people don't like it"? People that like more socially-oriented gaming deserve a few titles too.

So Malloc says, "pay me tribute or I flush." This isn't a necessarily a binary ultimatum, especially coming from him. It's the opening of negotiations. Granted, if Malloc uses it as a "only I get to win or everybody loses" ploy to the final turn then he's a douche bag and falls into Rule 0. He would be open to the consequences. But he doesn't strike me as someone that isn't willing to listen to counter-offers. Or act on them.

Those of you saying "the game ends when the game ends" . . . a noble concept that doesn't survive reality. The back-pressure on being a dick is the beginning of the next game. That's a solid metaphor for your entire life. Like it or not it's always in play.

You guys need to play Junta again. A game where they had to write lying into the rules to make sure players understood the nature of the game.

S.
Last edit: 24 Oct 2014 09:01 by Sagrilarus.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wadenels

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2014 09:30 #189228 by Shellhead
I would love to play Junta some day. Thanks to a post here at F:AT, I picked up an inexpensive West End edition several years ago, but still can't get it on the table.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2014 10:39 #189230 by Erik Twice

DukeofChutney wrote: Imo, RoR will only work if your players don't have much ego and don't mind seeing a winner.

I would never play with anyone who gets upset if someone else wins at a game. I really can't believe how anyone would, really. :/

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.201 seconds