Board Games

[Bartmanhomer]

I play a lot of board games when I was a kid, Chutes and Ladders, Monopoly, and my favourite board game of all time Chess.

[Cikomyr]

I play a lot of board games when I was a kid, Chutes and Ladders, Monopoly, and my favourite board game of all time Chess.

Don't force kids to play Monopoly. It's a horrible game that causes grief and tears.

[Bartmanhomer]

Don't force kids to play Monopoly. It's a horrible game that causes grief and tears.

I don't have any kids so don't worry.

[Narkis]

And chutes and ladders is not a game at all. You never make a single decision as you play. It's all dice rolls. Might as well be playing craps.

Chess is legit though, I'll grant you that. :)

[Bartmanhomer]

And chutes and ladders is not a game at all. You never make a single decision as you play. It's all dice rolls. Might as well be playing craps.

Chess is legit though, I'll grant you that. :)

Well, Chutes And Ladders come with a board so it considers it. Chess is legit because you can make a decision with one move.

[Cikomyr]

And chutes and ladders is not a game at all. You never make a single decision as you play. It's all dice rolls. Might as well be playing craps.

Chess is legit though, I'll grant you that. :)

Chutes and Ladders has no decision, it's still an entertaining game in my opinion when you are sufficiently young and just want the thrill.

Checkers is also a solid classic for simple rules yet subtle gameplay.

[Narkis]

Chutes and Ladders has no decision, it's still an entertaining game in my opinion when you are sufficiently young and just want the thrill.

Checkers is also a solid classic for simple rules yet subtle gameplay.

That doesn't say much. Young children have a unique ability to be entertained by almost anything.

Checkers is solid, I agree. And if you want dice in your classic game, there's always backgammon.

[Cikomyr]

That doesn't say much. Young children have a unique ability to be entertained by almost anything.

It's true. I suppose. Still, I liked it more than ****ing Parcheesi. Because it ended fast, which is the big grudge against Monopoly.

If you wanna try a good version of Monopoly, try Monopoly Empire. It has a quick ending after 30 minutes of play

[Narkis]

It's true. I suppose. Still, I liked it more than ****ing Parcheesi. Because it ended fast, which is the big grudge against Monopoly.

If you wanna try a good version of Monopoly, try Monopoly Empire. It has a quick ending after 30 minutes of play

Oooh, I've always wondered how that game was called in English. Parcheesi's greek name is "Grumpy" (like the dwarf), and I found it an accurate description.

And Monopoly Empire might be better than regular Monopoly by virtue of the pain ending sooner, but that doesn't actually make it good.

[Cikomyr]

Oooh, I've always wondered how that game was called in English. Parcheesi's greek name is "Grumpy" (like the dwarf), and I found it an accurate description.

And Monopoly Empire might be better than regular Monopoly by virtue of the pain ending sooner, but that doesn't actually make it good.

I don't disagree. But if you know people insist on Monopoly, insist on Empire and nothing else.

[Amechra]

And chutes and ladders is not a game at all. You never make a single decision as you play. It's all dice rolls. Might as well be playing craps.

Chutes and Ladders was actually originally a teaching tool for religious virtues over in India. Similarly, Monopoly is based off of a game intended to show the evils of monopolies (which also wasn't fun, because that wasn't the point). There's a reason that playing them is like pulling teeth.

Could be worse - Candyland is entirely determined by the initial shuffle.

[Man_Over_Game]

Similarly, Monopoly is based off of a game intended to show the evils of monopolies (which also wasn't fun, because that wasn't the point).

Interestingly enough, Monopoly was designed around making people suspicious of inequality, and the developer hoped that this suspicion of unfairness would continue as young players grew into adults. Elizabeth Magie believed early wealth gave a major advantage into someone's success, meaning more success for those who already have it (inversely, less success for those who don't...which is, in essence, inequality), and so made a game riddled with Positive Feedback Loops to better educate people on what that actually looks like.

Cynically, I believe the few Negative Feedback Loops (mechanics that punish winning players) that are in Monopoly are meager and meaningless (Pay X per Hotel) in order to be a reflection of how punishments are handled by real world business (company gets into lawsuit, gets sued $5m for an abuse that made them $20m). Monopolies, despite the potential penalties, are always worth it.

The original game, Landowner, was also released with a separate set of rules called Prosperity, where players work together to accomplish a goal. But it turns out that being a selfish jerk is more popular and fun, so Landowner became a much bigger hit.

[Bartmanhomer]

Imagine if board games was a fighting game.

[tyckspoon]

Imagine if board games was a fighting game.

Basically David Sirlin's whole thing http://www.sirlin.net/about

[Bartmanhomer]

Basically David Sirlin's whole thing http://www.sirlin.net/about

Wow. That's amazing.

[Brookshw]

I'm currently in love with Deep Madness, a co-op horror game by Diemension(al?) Games. Very Lovecraft feel, very brutal and challenging, you can definitely die/lose easily. Good story that you can explore. I recommend it if they do another reprint. The company just did their initial kickstarter for Dawn of Madness, I backed it as soon as I had the spare cash.

[sleepy hedgehog]

A overlooked niche is cooperative board games.

I recently got The Big Book of Madness, it was a lot of fun, but it reminded why I don't like most of them.
When each players resources are public information, why am I playing with other people?
I could just be walking around the board making all the decisions.
I do like ones like Mysterium though.

My friend just got Puerto Rico, and the Suburbia expansion.
And they've been tons of fun.
The upgrade chips really add a lot to Suberbia.
Letting you double down on a particular strategy.

[IthilanorStPete]

I recently got The Big Book of Madness, it was a lot of fun, but it reminded why I don't like most of them.
When each players resources are public information, why am I playing with other people?
I could just be walking around the board making all the decisions.
I do like ones like Mysterium though.

My friend just got Puerto Rico, and the Suburbia expansion.
And they've been tons of fun.
The upgrade chips really add a lot to Suberbia.
Letting you double down on a particular strategy.

I got the Suburbia Collector's Edition on Kickstarter. I'd played the original before, and have played the CE with the base game tiles/mechanics; haven't tried any of the expansions yet. I'm looking forward to that, though; the components are really nice, it's a fun experience to play.

[Name_Here]

I recently got The Big Book of Madness, it was a lot of fun, but it reminded why I don't like most of them.
When each players resources are public information, why am I playing with other people?
I could just be walking around the board making all the decisions.
I do like ones like Mysterium though.

You could which is a big problem with coop games. Lord knows I've played Arkham Horror enough that I can't lose against the base game if people follow my instructions. But unfortunately that's not a very fun experience for anybody at the table nor is it a particularly fun experience for me.

But when I was playing regularly with a dedicated group it was like solving a puzzle with my friends and when we were doing good those are by far some of my favorite times in gaming.

[Cikomyr]

Well.. You play with other people to enjoy their company? Or to challenge your thought making process.

[Dire_Flumph]

It's why I tend to invest mainly in coop games now. They're still fun with other people, it's more forgiving to differing levels of player knowledge and skill to all have fun together, and I can always still play by myself if I want but don't have a group together.

Gloomhaven, Zombicide (Black Plague and Invader), Pandemic, Mice & Mystics, FFG's Living Card Games (Lord of the Rings, Arkham Horror, Marvel Champions), Deep Madness and Journeys in Middle-Earth have all gotten a lot of table time recently because of this. Hoping to play Cthulhu: Death May Die soon.

Still get competitive games in though, and I'm always up for Star Wars: Armada.

[Majin]

I got Gloomhaven for christmas, played 4 scenarios so far. Really loving it! I dunno if I'll be playing campaign with another group, but I like still like the idea of a shared world, that what another party does affects the whole world. The mechanics are well-implemented too, and the rules are clear enough that the game flows pretty smoothly. Though I still seem to notice after every game that I'd missed or misinterpreted some rule. Maybe in time we'll actually play a game without breaking any rules.

Really, the only gripe I have with the game is that it's a pain to put away Guess I should look into buying one of those inserts.

[Balain]

Board Games that have a special place in my heart:

Shadowlord!
The New Dungeon
Princes of Florence
Mystery of the Abbey
Shogun
Mule

Some of my favourite board games:

Napoleon in Europe
Terraforming Mars
Root
Gloomhavenm

Games I haven't played in a long time but played way too much in the past:

Order of the Stick
Small World
Shadows over Camelot
Puerto Rico
Primordial Soup
Dominion
Munchkin
Chez Geek
Nuclear Escalation
Bootleggers

[Continental Op]

I have played countless hours of board games, but in my current (cough *older*) age and starting to play with my kids I find I am liking cooperative games more. My current favorite is Arkham Horror: the Card Game. It uses a deck of card to simulate a character, and you go through a campaign based on Lovecraft's stories. And you can play with friends or by yourself, which is highly useful in these strange, virus-riddled times.

I also like the Lord of the Ring card game (also by Fantasy Flight), but Arkham Horror does a better job of feeling like you are going through a campaign. You keep the same character and their deck changes with experience between stories. Fun stuff.

[Eldan]

I own everything AH:LCG and I will unironically call it the best game ever. Because it is the best game ever.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I recently got The Big Book of Madness, it was a lot of fun, but it reminded why I don't like most of them.
When each players resources are public information, why am I playing with other people?
I could just be walking around the board making all the decisions..

I have found that most co-ops that have strict turns for each player tend to be bad, because it means whomever is playing their turn is backseat-driven by everyone else, who have nothing else to do.

I have had the best success, therefore, with games where all player's decisions must be made at the same time, and then resolved - see Spirit Island or Gloomhaven. Yes, Gloomhave has turns, but the cards are set down in advance of the resolution - every player chooses which cards to put down at the same time, and after that the resolution is pretty much pre-defined (yes, some decisions are still made in response to the actions that came before, but there is a lot less wiggle room at that point to tell others how to play).

On the other hand, the Battle for Hogwarts is strictly turn-based, and is still fun, so it is not a universal rule - probably, it just comes down to Sturgeon's Law.

Grey Wolf

[BRC]

I have found that most co-ops that have strict turns for each player tend to be bad, because it means whomever is playing their turn is backseat-driven by everyone else, who have nothing else to do.

I have had the best success, therefore, with games where all player's decisions must be made at the same time, and then resolved - see Spirit Island or Gloomhaven. Yes, Gloomhave has turns, but the cards are set down in advance of the resolution - every player chooses which cards to put down at the same time, and after that the resolution is pretty much pre-defined (yes, some decisions are still made in response to the actions that came before, but there is a lot less wiggle room at that point to tell others how to play).

On the other hand, the Battle for Hogwarts is strictly turn-based, and is still fun, so it is not a universal rule - probably, it just comes down to Sturgeon's Law.

Grey Wolf

There are some games that do a good job of avoiding table-captaincy, Aeon's End for example, which manages to have the internal mechanics of a turn be complex enough that table captaincy becomes more awkward than anything (A semi-randomized turn order, and the fact that a lot of the real decisions are around deckbuilding also helps).

the worst games from a table-captain perspective are the ones like Big Book of Madness and Captain is Dead, that require complex, and specific, coordination between players to enable plays, but otherwise have relatively simple turns. Ideally, those games become a fluid engine of cooperation, but it can often devolve into the person with the best grasp of the game (or just the strongest personality) having a Plan and dictating it to everybody else, with the game kind of falling apart if The Plan is not followed.

[Velaryon]

I used to really enjoy Lunch Money, but I think it would be better with a few tweaks (reworking or removing a few bad cards, and redesigning the cards so that they better explain their function and require less rules memorization to play).

Mag Blast is another one I enjoyed back in the early 2000's. The version I have now has different art than the one I played back then, which I don't like as much though.

I would also like to throw out a mention of Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards, which isn't a terribly complex game but is still fun and relatively easy to pick up.

On the subject of cooperative games, Hanabi is clever and pretty fun. The actual goal is very simple, and amounts to little more than playing the different suits in order. But the fun comes from the fact that you can never look at your own cards, and have to rely on very limited hints from other players in order to play them.