OOTS #1156 - The Discussion Thread

[Rogar Demonblud]

If you think Monopoly and Risk are bad, stay away from Diplomacy. It's pretty much designed to make you hate your friends.

[Peelee]

If you think Monopoly and Risk are bad, stay away from Diplomacy. It's pretty much designed to make you hate your friends.

I dunno, I think it added a lot to Sins of a Solar Empire.

[zimmerwald1915]

If you think Monopoly and Risk are bad, stay away from Diplomacy. It's pretty much designed to make you hate your friends.
It's okay, they were secretly bastards all along.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you think Monopoly and Risk are bad, stay away from Diplomacy. It's pretty much designed to make you hate your friends. It's a great game. FWIW, most of the early players and authors of D&D in Twin Cities and Lake Geneva area played plenty of Diplomacy.

Stock Market: Late 60's, early 1970's, the stock market game I remember was not a board game. (I do not recall it having a board, but it's been nearly 50 years since I've played it). There was a bit tall cylinder with the names of real companies on it. (General Foods being one of them that I remember). Each turn the cylinder would turn and prices would go up and down. You could buy and sell stocks. Now and again a card got drawn and the slot that revealed the numbers would go up, or down, and massively change the overall state of the market.

Monopoly is a very good game to play when it is raining. But what you do with the players who are, one by one, eliminated is another matter. Making the first one the new Banker is one way ...

[Caerulea]

Worse than Monopoly is Risk!, though. Because if people needlessly gang up on someone, it's unwarranted, unfun for the person (as it removes him from the game completely), and likely to lead to hurt feelings (why did you gang up on me?). But if players act completely rationally, then the game lasts forever, because as soon as you are down to three players (or if you started out with three), then the two runner-uppers will always gang up on the strongest player, and will shift pressure as the balance between players evolves. Likewise, the strongest player, unless he can hope for a swift kill, will always focus on the second most powerful player, to prevent him from getting an edge. Overall, with three rational players fighting each other, you basically reach an equilibrium that makes all three players stay within the same scope of power. Until cards and dice roll get crazy or serious tactical mistakes are made.
The way my group usually resolves this is twofold:
1. Never finish the game, and go do something else. This happens around 70% of the time.
2. The two weaker players gang up on the stronger player. The stronger player of the two requests that other weaker player attack the stronger area, then encourages them to fight it out. Then they come in and take the remaining pieces.

If you think Monopoly and Risk are bad, stay away from Diplomacy. It's pretty much designed to make you hate your friends.
Nah, it's a fine game. Just don't take it too personally if I went back on an alliance 2-3 times in a game. Part of the fun is, uh, "misleading" your friends and relatives and then screwing them over.

—Caerulea

[Ruck]

If you think Monopoly and Risk are bad, stay away from Diplomacy. It's pretty much designed to make you hate your friends.

I played Diplomacy once, drew Italy, and everyone ganged up on me on the first turn. Never again.

And while I do not share zimmerwald's general pessimism about humanity, it does occur to me that most of the people I knew who were really into the game did, in fact, turn out to have been secretly bastards all along.

[Fyraltari]

And while I do not share zimmerwald's general pessimism about humanity, it does occur to me that most of the people I knew who were really into the game did, in fact, turn out to have been secretly bastards all along.

So an accurate portrayal of diplomacy, then.

[Doug Lampert]

Nah, it's a fine game. Just don't take it too personally if I went back on an alliance 2-3 times in a game. Part of the fun is, uh, "misleading" your friends and relatives and then screwing them over.

The one time I played Diplomacy, I did fine. I lied to a grand total of one other player about a grand total of one turn's plans.

My orders, had he done what he said he was going to do, would have resulted in one of his armies bouncing into one of my cities, and otherwise, he'd have done quite well.

Shockingly, he was trying to backstab me, so instead I got two of his cities and one of my ACTUAL allies got another, because his sudden but inevitable treachery had been so blatantly obvious that I was able to correctly predict his entire set of actual orders and to plan my moves accordingly.

The game is, to me, too unrealistic to bother with at the level of time and effort required to play. As I understand it, it's supposed to be a war-game mimicking things like WWI, but in an actual war, telling a very large bunch of soldiers who've been fighting alongside X against Y to suddenly and simultaneously shift to fighting alongside Y against X, is (a) never, ever, under any circumstance, actually going to surprise anyone, (2) going to result in mass confusion in your own side's ranks such that no one does anything effective, and (iii) get you and a bunch of your officials and officers shot by your own men who don't appreciate it being made quite that obvious just how cynical their leaders are.

[The_Weirdo]

It's okay, they were secretly bastards all along.

In a way, this forum is the opposite of Monopoly or Diplomacy. It causes people who despise one another and view them as horrible people to respect and even cherish one another. :smallbiggrin:

Not in your case, mind. I think you're horribly pessimistic and cynical (neither of which are flaws per se), but fighting the good fight.

[Aveline]

Hi, I am calling to ask if the segment named "ragging on Zimmerwald's perspective" can be removed from the program.

[The_Weirdo]

Hi, I am calling to ask if the segment named "ragging on Zimmerwald's perspective" can be removed from the program.

In my defense, I do appreciate Zim's views, I am mostly supportive of them and I believe Zim is among the best contributors here.

[SilverCacaobean]

In a way, this forum is the opposite of Monopoly or Diplomacy. It causes people who despise one another and view them as horrible people to respect and even cherish one another. :smallbiggrin:

Wait that's what it does for you? Weird.

Also, Monopoly and Risk are the only board games I've ever played and the reason I hate board games. I still remember long nights of wnating to kill everyone around me while for some reason I can't explain I continued playing them. How is it possible that these abominations are, if not the most well-known, so very well-known?

[Fyraltari]

Wait that's what it does for you? Weird.

Also, Monopoly and Risk are the only board games I've ever played and the reason I hate board games. I still remember long nights of wnating to kill everyone around me while for some reason I can't explain I continued playing them. How is it possible that these abominations are, if not the most well-known, so very well-known?
Great marketing teams?

[The_Weirdo]

Wait that's what it does for you? Weird.

Also, Monopoly and Risk are the only board games I've ever played and the reason I hate board games. I still remember long nights of wnating to kill everyone around me while for some reason I can't explain I continued playing them. How is it possible that these abominations are, if not the most well-known, so very well-known?

Well, I-forget-his-name-right-now Ruck once called me a school shooter and shortly after we were politely discussing probability and his former profession as a gambler, for example.

[Goblin_Priest]

I played Diplomacy once, drew Italy, and everyone ganged up on me on the first turn. Never again.

And while I do not share zimmerwald's general pessimism about humanity, it does occur to me that most of the people I knew who were really into the game did, in fact, turn out to have been secretly bastards all along.

Ha, that can actually work in your favor. I've had that happen to me a few times, two people tried to backstab me at once, attacked the same region, and cancelled each other out. You can also do that yourself, attack one of your own regions, to nullify an invasion. With proper strategy, backstabbed can be somewhat kept in check.

That said, the game is just atrocious to run, mechanically-speaking. I played the board game a few times, and then moved on to a browser version. That was *much* more fun, to me at least. could play 6 games simultaneously, turns running when all were done or when 12h ran out, or stuff like that. Custom maps, too. That was forever ago, I don't remember the website. But it was fun. I remember being fairly good, without even needing to be all that deceptive. I'd just prepare for backstabs, and then when someone failed a sneak attack on me, I'd steamroll them. And then again. And again. Basically never had to lie or break agreements. Fighting over North America was more fun than over Europe. ;)

[Xyril]

Well, I-forget-his-name-right-now Ruck once called me a school shooter and shortly after we were politely discussing probability and his former profession as a gambler, for example.

That speaks less to the power of the forum and more to your uncommon capacity to forgive.

There's a certain amount of harshness that sometimes comes out when people are debating each other that we should try to be understanding about, but I'm not sure I could be so tolerant of what sounds like a deliberate and premeditated personal attack--one mocking an incredibly tasteless subject matter at that.

I do agree though that this forum does a much better job at promoting, if not civility, then at the very least a sense that everyone here is enjoying themselves, and not trapped in some cycle where they're miserable, and trying to make everyone else miserable, and too proud to be the first one to blink and walk away.

[Kish]

I would be surprised if the Weirdo had ever been accused of having a remarkable capacity to forgive before.

[Anitar]

I would be surprised if the Weirdo had ever been accused of having a remarkable capacity to forgive before.
To be fair, it wouldn't be an accusation in most scenarios.

[The_Weirdo]

That speaks less to the power of the forum and more to your uncommon capacity to forgive.

There's a certain amount of harshness that sometimes comes out when people are debating each other that we should try to be understanding about, but I'm not sure I could be so tolerant of what sounds like a deliberate and premeditated personal attack--one mocking an incredibly tasteless subject matter at that.

I do agree though that this forum does a much better job at promoting, if not civility, then at the very least a sense that everyone here is enjoying themselves, and not trapped in some cycle where they're miserable, and trying to make everyone else miserable, and too proud to be the first one to blink and walk away.

I've had professionals try to madden me, Xyril. As in cause me to become mentally unhinged, not as in anger me. I plain and simply can't afford the mental room to hold a grudge about an Internet thing, simply because priority must be given to much, much worse people and situations I experienced. Oh, sure, I can decide that so-and-so is an (your ad here), but I won't hold it against them.

Besides, Ruck also views me as a morally despicable human being and he discussed the whole gambling thing with me as politely as I did.

Also, I like gamblers and the notion of gambling. Or anything related to luck, really. Luck is one of the things that may cause the weak to defeat the strong, after all.

Finally, of course, since my opinions on certain subjects are often unpopular, I make a point of being unfailingly polite and of always abiding by the forum rules - lest I get banned.


I would be surprised if the Weirdo had ever been accused of having a remarkable capacity to forgive before.

I can forgive small wrongs.

Of course, I can also define "small wrongs" as I please for the purposes of that sentence, so make of that what you will.

[Skull the Troll]

Especially the part where the cat triggers the ring somehow, and the ring somehow makes him regain consciousness. ;)

Searing pain always wakes me up.

[Goblin_Priest]

Searing pain always wakes me up.

Yea, but he's not sleeping.

Go to the coma ward, and slap all of the patients there. Either all of the doctors there are idiots, or they'll be calling the cops on you.

[The_Weirdo]

Yea, but he's not sleeping.

Go to the coma ward, and slap all of the patients there. Either all of the doctors there are idiots, or they'll be calling the cops on you.

Well, sure, but can you imagine how awesome it would be if, by random chance, it worked or appeared to?

[Keltest]

Well, sure, but can you imagine how awesome it would be if, by random chance, it worked or appeared to?

I dunno, the implications of "all the doctors in this hospital are wildly incompetent" seems more horrific than awesome, regardless of how well it worked out for the one guy you woke up.

[Mightymosy]

Indeed I do, but I've never played it - I'm put off by the criticism that is is not so much co-op as it is a solitaire that can be watched by other people - i.e. that any Pandemic game with a chance of being won inevitably has one person making the decisions and directing everyone else. In general, I am weary of any co-op game that is "hardcore difficulty".

I am now slowly saving to purchase Gloomhaven, which keeps getting glowing reviews despite, at first glance, looking like the kind of purple prose setting a mopey 13 year old might come up with.

Grey Wolf
In all fairness, Pendemic CAN be that kind of game, but that greatly depends on the characters of who play it.

If you have one brilliant tactician with a dominant personality, and the other players are passive, it will quickly be the way you descrive it.

But if people of comparable tactical finesse WANT to play Co-op, it is actually a great game! We are always on the fence whether we save the world this time or fail :-)

[Cazero]

The main issue with coop boardgames in general is that they don't properly implement the need to cooperate as opposed to slavishly following instruction from the smart guy. You need asymetric information and communication restrictions for that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The main issue with coop boardgames in general is that they don't properly implement the need to cooperate as opposed to slavishly following instruction from the smart guy. You need asymetric information and communication restrictions for that.

I disagree. Spirit Island encourages cooperation by dividing the board into sections where each player starts with porous borders which encourages cooperation without requiring it. It also plays turns of players simultaneously, so you are too busy with what you can do to tell anyone else what they should do. If I determine I do need help, I ask for it (or if I've got spare capacity, I offer it) and cooperate, but no-one at the tables dictates, because the spirits are so different and have so many options that we simply can't keep it all in mind.

So it goes something like "I can't defend place X. Can you help with that?" "Well, I can move some explorers off, would that work? Or I can defend, but then I need a solution for spot Y" "Well, I can expand there and sacrifice to stop them building" and so on.

Grey Wolf

[Mightymosy]

@Cazero:
As I said, all it needs is people WANTING to play cooperation instead of just slavishly following the smartest player.

Also, once you DO THAT, you wilm realise that people OTHER than the smartest player will come up with good ideas more often than you expect.

That being said, vastly different levels of strategic insight hurt the game experience. You need players who are not TOO far apart from each other, in regard to strategical thinking.

[Peelee]

The main issue with coop boardgames in general is that they don't properly implement the need to cooperate as opposed to slavishly following instruction from the smart guy. You need asymetric information and communication restrictions for that.

Letters From Whitechapel did a good job of this, IMO. The chief inspecter token rotates, so the game actively tries to minimize the one person takes over style. A very forceful person could still try to overpower and built the round's boss into what they want, but that kind of player should be avouded in co-op games to begin with.

Also, GW, I totally recommend that game. It's kind of a mix of co-op and competitive, in that one player is Jack the Ripper and the others are all cops trying to find Jack. Incredibly fun, IMO, Jack is both crazy fun and crazy stressful (not the best word, but I can't think of a better one ATM) to play as, since you know just how close the cops are sometimes.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Also, GW, I totally recommend that game. It's kind of a mix of co-op and competitive, in that one player is Jack the Ripper and the others are all cops trying to find Jack. Incredibly fun, IMO, Jack is both crazy fun and crazy stressful (not the best word, but I can't think of a better one ATM) to play as, since you know just how close the cops are sometimes.

There is only 2 of us: me and my SO, so Co-ops that require one person to be the GM/bad guy/opponent/etc don't work at all. I got Descent into Darkness because it promised that, with the app, a GM wasn't needed, but unfortunately it is clearly tacked-on and it doesn't really work, for example. That's why I'm looking into Gloomhaven as a replacement for it - it has the monster movement rules built in from the start, which hopefully will work better.

Grey Wolf

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yea, but he's not sleeping.

Go to the coma ward, and slap all of the patients there. Either all of the doctors there are idiots, or they'll be calling the cops on you.

Belkar isn't in a coma. He isn't even unconscious from shock. Roy just clipped him hard enough to put him out for a moment.

[Peelee]

There is only 2 of us: me and my SO, so Co-ops that require one person to be the GM/bad guy/opponent/etc don't work at all. I got Descent into Darkness because it promised that, with the app, a GM wasn't needed, but unfortunately it is clearly tacked-on and it doesn't really work, for example. That's why I'm looking into Gloomhaven as a replacement for it - it has the monster movement rules built in from the start, which hopefully will work better.

Grey Wolf

Ah, thought played with friends as well.

It's much less "bad guy/opponent" and more of a board-game version of hide and seek, honestly. Just a significantly more fun one. But regardless, it is definitely adversarial - Jack is trying to evade the cops and has tricks to help him. If that doesn't float your boat, well, you know your boat better than I do.

That analogy kind of got away from me there.

[The_Weirdo]

I dunno, the implications of "all the doctors in this hospital are wildly incompetent" seems more horrific than awesome, regardless of how well it worked out for the one guy you woke up.

Except if they have proven to be competent before that means Slapping Loon is just that awesome.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ah, thought played with friends as well.

I mean, sure, once in a blue moon (that's when Catan gets some play), but we play on our own several times per week. With the little one insisting in participating, too, so they also can't be horrendously taxing since our attention will be divided.

Another co-op we quite enjoy is the Harry Potter Deck Builder ("Battle for Hogwarts"), which has automated opponents of great variety and also happens to be quite nicely themed*

Grey Wolf

* My only real issue is with "galleons", the game's primary currency, since you can get them from multiple cards - such as alohomora - but especially from allies like the Weasleys... who don't really have that much money to spare. I've decided that these "galleons" represent instead "assistance to achieve tasks", which sort of then makes sense. That way, Slytherins are good at blasting things out of the way (damage), Ravenclaws give you extended knowledge (card draw), Hufflepuff are good at supporting and comforting (heals) and Gryffindors help (card purchasing).

[Jasdoif]

There is only 2 of us: me and my SO, so Co-ops that require one person to be the GM/bad guy/opponent/etc don't work at all. I got Descent into Darkness because it promised that, with the app, a GM wasn't needed, but unfortunately it is clearly tacked-on and it doesn't really work, for example. That's why I'm looking into Gloomhaven as a replacement for it - it has the monster movement rules built in from the start, which hopefully will work better.I bought Tabletop Simulator (http://berserk-games.com/tabletop-simulator/) for my sister and our nephew a while back, so we could play card/board games despite how infrequently we're all in the same place these days. It's pretty well named, in that it simulates the tabletop (in 3D, with physics) rather than the game on the tabletop: it has advanced support for shuffling and dealing from decks of arbitrary cards, and automatically rolling and summing sets of dice; but by and large you're manually moving cards and pieces like you would on a physical tabletop.

Anyway, now that I've set some background for co-op games....Wizard's Academy (https://www.3dtotalgames.com/wizard-academy/) is pretty involved, but it was a lot of fun; the monster/environment interaction rules are dense (with how many different types there are that can interact), but detailed to the point that you could run the game solo if you wanted (and don't mind wishing you could be in two places at once the entire game, but I digress), and the general disambiguating rule is "if there's ever multiple legal ways to resolve an effect, the players decide which way to use; if the players can't come to an agreement, the player whose turn it currently is decides". If I was to pick a single mechanic...disaster cards aren't instantaneous: Each player has one, and the start of their turn is playing it and drawing another one; as a result, while they are random everyone has a full turn of forewarning to (hopefully) prepare for (or avoid, or mitigate) their effects.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I bought Tabletop Simulator (http://berserk-games.com/tabletop-simulator/) for my sister and our nephew a while back, so we could play card/board games despite how infrequently we're all in the same place these days. It's pretty well named, in that it simulates the tabletop (in 3D, with physics) rather than the game on the tabletop: it has advanced support for shuffling and dealing from decks of arbitrary cards, and automatically rolling and summing sets of dice; but by and large you're manually moving cards and pieces like you would on a physical tabletop.

It kinda defeats the purpose of giving us a break from the computers, though. If we wanted to play a videogame on the computer, there are plenty we both enjoy, and all significantly cheaper, I must say, than board games.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

It kinda defeats the purpose of giving us a break from the computers, though. If we wanted to play a videogame on the computer, there are plenty we both enjoy, and all significantly cheaper, I must say, than board games.Oh, I understand; my nephew prefers to play games with his school friends these days (he's taken a liking to Betrayal at House on the Hill (https://avalonhill.wizards.com/avalon-hill-betrayal-house-hill), but he forgot to bring it the last time we were all here so I can't evaluate it...and with its three player minimum I don't think it meets your criteria anyway); while my sister and I play Stardew Valley or Don't Starve Together (or more recently, Fortified) rather than board games when she's here, because we communicate better in person in the same room.

Anyway, I brought up Tabletop Simulator up because the Steam Workshop has a lot of recreations of physical board/card games...and I just noticed the official page for Gloomhaven (http://www.cephalofair.com/gloomhaven) recommends one of them for Gloomhaven, so you could conceivably get an in-depth idea of what you'd be getting into before buying a physical copy. I don't think it'd be worth the non-sale $20 solely for that, though.

[Kish]

Betrayal at House on the Hill wouldn't meet his criteria at all; as the "betrayal" in the name suggests, it's not a cooperative game, but rather a one-against-many game in which who is the Traitor is determined when the second phase starts.

I ran a couple games of it in the Structured Games (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?50-Structured-Games) section a while ago.

[Ruck]

I just played Betrayal at House on the Hill for the first time today for work. Seems interesting although some of the rules are a bit ambiguous.

...wait a minute, none of you are my coworkers, are you?

[Peelee]

I just played Betrayal at House on the Hill for the first time today for work. Seems interesting although some of the rules are a bit ambiguous.

...wait a minute, none of you are my coworkers, are you?

Of course not, what a silly thought.

I, of course, am your boss.

[Ruck]

Of course not, what a silly thought.

I, of course, am your boss.

Well, when are you going to get us that Order of the Stick license?

[Peelee]

Well, when are you going to get us that Order of the Stick license?

When you start working hard enough to get me a second beach house, dammit!

[Jasdoif]

When you start working hard enough to get me a second beach house, dammit!...why would you want a dam for the beach? Or, do you mean that you want beach-themed rooms built inside a dam? Save on the electrical bill and go green blue by living at the source, that kind of thing?

[The_Weirdo]

I just played Betrayal at House on the Hill for the first time today for work. Seems interesting although some of the rules are a bit ambiguous.

...wait a minute, none of you are my coworkers, are you?

That depends. Seeing as I work alone, in order for you to be my coworker, you'd need to be a figment of my imagination.

Are you one?

[Peelee]

...why would you want a dam for the beach?

You clearly don't know what our company does.

[Jasdoif]

You clearly don't know what our company does.I feel confident that at most one of us knows what your company's doing. (Operation Vaarsuvius, for which you need the Order of the Stick license, aims to turn your Mount Erebus hangout into an island resort by firebombing the rest of the Antarctic. But that'd call for turning existing dams into beachfront property, not putting dams on existing beachfront property....)

[Peelee]

Mount Erebus

Whats my cat got to do with it? Also, he likes to chill in the basement, not on high. King under the mountain, he is!

[Jasdoif]

Whats my cat got to do with it?Your cat's in charge of the pizza.

[Peelee]

Your cat's in charge of the pizza.

Oh, right. Fun fact, there's a reason I picked that one.

[zimmerwald1915]

You clearly don't know what our company does.
Do you? (https://www.xkcd.com/1293/) There is always an xkcd on point.

[Ruck]

That depends. Seeing as I work alone, in order for you to be my coworker, you'd need to be a figment of my imagination.

Are you one?

For the sake of your imagination, I hope not.


Do you? (https://www.xkcd.com/1293/) There is always an xkcd on point.

Ha, I was thinking of this comic. (https://pbfcomics.com/comics/qpi-interview/) I am a PBF > xkcd guy. Actually, I'm a PBF > all webcomics except this one (and the two can't really be compared).

[The_Weirdo]

For the sake of your imagination, I hope not.

Descartes is a nice person. Descartes is a nice person. Descartes is a nice person.

[Peelee]

Do you?

I fail to see how that's relevant. The CL. Ic clearly had to be deleted for the joke here.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

No, even assuming the party is telling the truth about the existence of three warring superstates*, the war is not going on forever because the two weakest are ganging up on the strongest but because each state ahs a vested interest in the war never ending and therefore is not making a serious attempt to win.


*Which I doubt because one it come from the party and two it's suspicious that Oceania always has one ally and one ennemy and is never in the position of one against two.

Hmmm, that’s very true. I guess 1984 from Winston’s initial perspective then—aware of the shifting alliances, but only guessing at why they happen.


Back to games, I do also quite enjoy Betrayal, Wizard’s Academy, and pretty much anything else you can run on Tabletop Simulator.

[Fyraltari]

Hmmm, that’s very true. I guess 1984 from Winston’s initial perspective then—aware of the shifting alliances, but only guessing at why they happen.

The way I see it there are four possibilities:

1) The world is as described by the party, three warring superstates. I find it the least likely becuase of the reasons above.

2) Oceania rules the entire world. The war instead of going on for economico-dictatorial reason was made up for these reasons and the Party uses the weapons made by the proles to bomb its own people (this last sentence also appy to the two other possiblities).

3) Oceania actually only covers Airstrip One (or maybe just the London area) and the rest of the world is a radiation filled post-apocalyptic setting. The prisoners of war Winston sees being paraded in the street are actually the descendant of London asian population kept under lock for precisely that purpose.

4) Same as the previous one but instead of being a remnant of "civilisation" in a barren world, Airstrip One is a North Korea-like insular nation surrounded by a much more democratic (or maybe even worse, who knows?) world (which may or may not be bombing London).

[Jasdoif]

Anyway, I brought up Tabletop Simulator up because the Steam Workshop has a lot of recreations of physical board/card games...and I just noticed the official page for Gloomhaven (http://www.cephalofair.com/gloomhaven) recommends one of them for Gloomhaven, so you could conceivably get an in-depth idea of what you'd be getting into before buying a physical copy. I don't think it'd be worth the non-sale $20 solely for that, though....or so I would've thought before the noticed the $140 price tag for Gloomhaven on ThinkGeek. (Admittedly, my thoughts would be first be "oh hell no", followed by looking around for a better price, followed by "do I really want a physical copy that much?", followed by "probably not"....)

[Aquillion]

...or so I would've thought before the noticed the $140 price tag for Gloomhaven on ThinkGeek. (Admittedly, my thoughts would be first be "oh hell no", followed by looking around for a better price, followed by "do I really want a physical copy that much?", followed by "probably not"....)You do, though. You really, really do.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

...or so I would've thought before the noticed the $140 price tag for Gloomhaven on ThinkGeek. (Admittedly, my thoughts would be first be "oh hell no", followed by looking around for a better price, followed by "do I really want a physical copy that much?", followed by "probably not"....)

I've seen it discounted for about $100... but yes, that's why I mentioned saving up for it. It ain't cheap.

It does make the tabletop simulator interesting but I do have a couple of questions: I'm guessing it can be used "multiplayer" - i.e can I load the same game in multiple computers so that one can be the game table and others personal screens? If so, how many copies of the thing do I need to buy? We already passed on Stardew Valley multiplayer because buying the game twice doesn't appeal to us. If I need to buy two or three copies of TS just to play one game, suddenly I'm paying $60, which is not much of a savings.

And second, and most crucially, is it even worth it if I have small screens? We have laptops, not massive tables-sized screens. This is a board game that feels like it will use my entire "gaming" table (IKEA's Norden (https://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/10290221/), btw) and maybe need a couple of side tables to boot. I can't help but feel it won't be the same in digital.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

It does make the tabletop simulator interesting but I do have a couple of questions: I'm guessing it can be used "multiplayer" - i.e can I load the same game in multiple computers so that one can be the game table and others personal screens? If so, how many copies of the thing do I need to buy? We already passed on Stardew Valley multiplayer because buying the game twice doesn't appeal to us. If I need to buy two or three copies of TS just to play one game, suddenly I'm paying $60, which is not much of a savings.Well, the host of the table is also a player; so one copy per player is enough. It also has a hotseat mode where turns pass sequentially between players at one computer, but I've never really used it...and doesn't sound like it'd be that much use to you. (And if a game isn't scripted and/or overly demanding about player separation, you could have multiple people at one computer; my nephew and one of his friends did that in a game of Chinese Checkers we were playing online...But I wouldn't take that for granted.)

And yes, the price is annoying; that's why I waited months for a Steam sale and then bought the four-copy pack for $30...though I should note that, should this matter, the paid DLCs for Tabletop Simulator are very well polished and only the host needs to own them; anyone else can play at the same game for free.

(My sister had been going on about Stardew Valley for about a year before I picked it up on sale for $9, so we both already owned it when the multiplayer beta came out.)


And second, and most crucially, is it even worth it if I have small screens? We have laptops, not massive tables-sized screens. This is a board game that feels like it will use my entire "gaming" table (IKEA's Norden (https://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/10290221/), btw) and maybe need a couple of side tables to boot. I can't help but feel it won't be the same in digital.You have a 3D perspective on the table and can tilt and move your view freely; and one of my favorite features is that if there's a card or other image on the object under the cursor, holding "Alt" will superimpose the image at full size (or scaled to fit) on your screen, no matter how far away it is.

Anyway, my sister's never complained about it on her laptop. And I've never had problems with it on my 21" monitor, and Wizard's Academy isn't particularly small (https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2455717/wizards-academy).