I love that Sam does the same things as me when given several dice... 1) Tessellate all your d6s into some kind of pattern with the numbers; 2) Rotate the whole construction so that you can look at the other three patterns you made as by-products; 3) Repeat about 70 times; 4) Push the dice away because you're driving yourself up the wall; 5) Wait 10 minutes; 6) Reach for the dice again and proceed back to Step 1.
Ironically, I only like cooperative games where there is hidden information between the players (such as Battlestar Galatica). Otherwise, I find that in cooperative games with no hidden information, everyone is constantly telling you how to play your turn.
I was fine with the roll and move mechanic.... until I played a real game and then i was like: HOLY CRAP, I CAN CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO DO!!!!!! and i never went back
So I just subscribed. I honestly don't care about boardgames, well maybe thats a bit harsh, but your personalities are so entertaining it makes me want to get into them
#10 Keeping info to yourself in a cooperative game. #9 The game makes you act like a fool. #8 A card of doom. #7 Programmable movement. Well, more than one at a time, at least. #6 Lose a turn. #5 Pulling tiles from a bag. #4 The stupid war rules from Race for the Galaxy. #3 Rolling for actions. #2 Artificial Catch-up Mechanics. #1 Roll & Move.
Pulling tiles from a bag isn't really the mechanic that's bad. It's the idea of going through all sorts turns and actions for a random reward that amounts to nothing.
Yeah sounds like Sam is mad with the level of investment. Don't know the game, but if instead of knowing it was just "few worthless knicknacks" it might even be better. You didn't find a Tomb for a Mummy, but you did find a few arrowheads for example.
Indeed. It's having so much investment stacked on a single random chance. I like to think that there's only two ways of doing randomness right: either you have very little of it, so that it doesn't mess up game plans, or a whole lot of it, so that it evens out.
More random does not even out. Flip a coin once, and you know you are at +1 or -1. Flip a coin twice, there is a 50/50 chance of being at 0. Flip a cone 1000 times, and you could be at -1000. Sure, not likely, but possible. It is possible to prove that the chance of ending up within any finite distance from zero decreases the more tries you do. The distribution will be narrower, relatively speaking, such that if you roll 1000 dice the average will be close to 3.5. However, if you average is off by a tiny fraction (say 3.4) with a 1000 dice rolls the result will be off with 100, which is impossible rolling just one die (which could be off with at the most 2.5). Another factor, apparent in many games, is that many random events are less important. There will still be some crucial events that can turn the whole game around more often than not. In a simple roll and move racing game with no catchup mechanic (roll a die, the first to get to 10, or 100, or 1000 wins). So the person with the best roll on the first turn is more likely to win than the one with the worst roll, regardless of how long the game is.
I love these longer videos with Sam and Zed because the dynamic between the three of you is phenomenal. I'd very much enjoy seeing more of these kind of top ten videos or even some video play throughs of games where the three of you are discussing the game as you play.
Adding to Sam's 'the rich get richer' theme, I experience that in Settlers of Catan. After a couple rounds you know if you are going to have a good chance of winning or not. The placement of your first settlements has a lot to do with the game.
Part of the reason for #10 - concealing information - is that when a game like Shadows Over Camelot is played openly, ALL decisions become group-made ("you should do this") and the more experienced players usually dominate the gameplay. Requiring some personal info, like cards, be hidden inserts some independence for each player.
Getting eliminated in a long game...I got killed off in the first hour of Shogun (the MB Game Master version) and my buddies played for another 8 hours. Ugh. It was on a once-a-year game weekend. Boooorrrriiiiinnnnggg....
Had a somewhat similar experience in Shogun - played 1.5 hours and got eliminated. Nothing else to do until game ended. Not a fan of games that have very long play times and player elimination. Too much time invested for no payout. Could have played two other shorter games in that time.
I enjoy Roll and Move in some Vintage games. It is nice to just roll and move some pawns and take some actions. Some older games have some interesting mechanisms to make the roll and move not as painful.
I can see why you don't like that mechanic, I don't mind it because I try to play that mechanic out. What I mean is I like to take on the challenge of figuring out what combination of cards really hits it home for the one choosing the winner.
Parcheesi is the oldest and best roll and move game because there is strategy involved that games like Sorry and Trouble removed. You can actually divide the dice: if you roll a 4 and a 5, you don't HAVE to go 9 spaces, you can split it up between the pieces.
And, there's a reason to send more than one piece out at a time, since you can intentionally form blockades and such. (Though, the exact count for the end-game can be frustrating, still.)
I may be wrong, but I suspect the reason for Zee's #10 (not being allowed to share information in co-op games) is to try to avoid the "alpha player" problem of one person telling everyone else what to do and basically running the whole show. If you don't know what other people can do, you can't give orders. Not to say that I think this justifies those rules, but I think that may be part of the reason they exist in so many games.
I have played a game of Pandemic, where I may have been the "Alpha Player". it ruined the fun for one of our players. But it is a good rule not to do that lol.
Interesting theory, but the "alpha player" problem is a people problem, not a game problem. You know, that one guy who needs to have control, whom OVER-explains things in games - he's almost always the alpha player....
To be fair to Shadows Over Camelot (which they mentioned specifically,) the point isn't to withhold information. It's to encourage talking in character and encourage players to find a creative way of saying what you want without revealing details. And, it also gives the Traitor a bit of leeway to be "misunderstood."
I really enjoy the vids where you are all together. It feels so fun and natural and not-scripted! I also totally agree with most of your TOP10. I don't know why you did not mentioned shoots and ladders for the TOP1 rule - as the game consists only of roll and move.
I despise MTG blue decks. They're based on not allowing the opponent to make a move-any move. The victim is effectively not playing the game, and there is nothing less fun to do while playing a game than not playing the game.
Mono blue seems old skool to me, but I don't play tournament magic very much. Actually the most annoying deck I own is blue-white control. Put the right spells on isochron scepter and people will range from being annoyed to being pretty upset about it. Your turn, I use the scepter to cast Orim's chant during your upkeep, you can't attack or play spells. There's a reason I rarely play it, because it rarely loses in casual play and it's no fun. So it's not just blue that locks down people. Black can be devastating at locking people down too.
37thgungrunts Says the guy who plays monoblue. Nothing can really punish counterspells, and there just aren't enough options that can't be countered to present a credible defense. The only ways I've found to prevent it are to play blue myself or to refuse to play against those friends who insist on using it. It's indicative of bad game design,
Steampunk Papercut So, you assume I play mono-blue? I don't play mono-anything. If you've got one guy who likes to play blue, plan around it. Or play slivers, problem solved.
Steampunk Papercut Play man lands. Lands that become creatures, OR an aggro deck with many small creatures, OR monoblack (duress is amazing vs counters), OR several of the uncounterable green options. Mono blue hasn't been viable in forever. It's the best support color, but it's terrible on it's own.
As someone who found your hatred of "roll to move" mechanics appreciable and a challenge, thank you for the in-depth discussion of exactly what irks you the most and what can alleviate them. My idea was to have subset numbers on certain tiles that if that number was rolled on a die and within the total move area then you could CHOOSE to stop there, low rolls would still be horrible, though it could be easily implemented on any games you currently held in contempt.
I know im late, but to adress that beginning citadels warlord complaint, I use the diplomat. He comes with the edition that includes expansion characters and districts. The only difference is that instead of destroying, he swaps districts with others.
My family now plays Clue by a unique set of rules. We still do Roll to move, but we ignore the hallways completely. You roll, and can move clockwise or counterclockwise around the board that many rooms. It removes completely the ability some players have of keeping you from ever doing ANYTHING in that game by keeping you from moving rooms, and at least lets everyone play.
I don't know what to call this rant specifically, but the ending to the game Munchkin is more annoying to me than anything I've ever encountered. You're level 9, about ready to defeat a monster and win, but everyone else prevents this from happening. That's fine so far. Everyone else who is level 8 and below are allowed to defeat their monsters and catch up. Whoever is level 9 is the target of the players because they don't want to lose. It just drags on and on until everyone runs out of useful cards and someone finds an easy monster to defeat. But this isn't until hours later. And there is only a slim chance that the player who wins was even close to winning when the original person was so close. It acts as a neat mechanic in the early game, but towards the end, it is just a way for everyone to catch up.
I own over 100 board games, yet their #1 bad rule makes me fill dissed, because Talisman is my 2nd favorite game. Now I know people may not like it. But there seems to be an "aura" if you like Talisman or roll and move games, you are not a "real" gamer. I own a lot of games, and introduce games to my gamer group. Please don't disrespect those of us "real" gamers who like Talisman or other roll & move games.
Doma Agape Talisman is fine because you still get a choice of at least two (sometimes more) directions to go. That gives you sometimes meaningful decisions of whether to go quickly to the treasure/fountain/whatever even though that means going through a nasty space.
In RISK I play with rules that allow eliminated players to rebel in the territories they had in their final round (or former capital throughout the game). They can come back fully into the game with the right dice rolls.
Gotta say, I will ALWAYS prefer the randomness of a dice over cards or tiles in a bag. Cards and tiles are drawn and removed, so the odds are always changing, while a die, is ALWAYS the same odds, every single roll. My d6 always has a 1 in 6 chance. Yes it IS possible to roll 100 times and never get a 6 or whatever, but at the end of the day.... I still had a fair chance at it the entire time. Not, the guy who pulled first had 1 in 5, but the next guy has 1 in 7, and so forth. I'll always take the constant odds over the constantly shifting odds. Granted, I haven't played Thebes, so I WILL admit that it may work because of the theme, but in general, no, I really dislike odds that are always changing.
Jack Luminous Selling a lot of games doesn't make it fun to play. Monopoly in particular has a lot of people buying collectors' editions for nostalgia or for show or even buying it just to have it rather than because they want to play it.
David Harshman Monopoly might be one of the prime examples that show that paradoxically, games don't have to be fun to sell well. It's enough to get popular for looking pleasing and memorable, as well as being easy to understand, and thus more accessible for everybody. I think in Monopoly's case, it was probably thanks to a lot of simple yet elegant eye candy, and most importantly easy to understand rules (while keeping a unique atmosphere). You have a now iconic yet simple board design, the proprietary theme, the little houses, and last but not least the pretty tokens. Despite it being dull and having the tendency to drag out, I never quite hated it, though. Another example for such a game that's even more dull than Monopoly that I absolutely despite since it is the prime example and the worst offender of a roll and move game is *Mensch Ärgere Dich Nicht*. And yet everyone knows it, and it is in every freaking Games Compendium you buy. 99.5% of it is luck-based, the remaining half percent can be managed with an equal amount of brain cells to maintain the strategic aspect of it, which is about which token to move with your die roll when you have multiples outside.
One little thing I would like to bring up about your show. The individual videos are a TAD long. Most top ten videos top in at about half the average length of your top tens. Long videos aren't totally bad, but when I am watching top ten videos, I really am just looking to waste around 10 to 20 minutes max. I might still end up wasting a whole hour total, but I'll waste it on several shorter videos; rather than a few long ones. Personally, I think you might be able to get your individual video's views up quite a bit if you shortened them a little. This video had 136,902 views as of my viewing. It is over a year old at this point. I see no reason why a top10 about a subject as popular as board games shouldn't have amassed closer to a million views over the course of a year. I think length may have something to do with that.
***** ....There is no irony. Two paragraphs of typing probably took him 2min. He can't just place down 4 words and expect them to take that as detailed constructive criticism.
Eric Lawrence If you're a hardcore board game geek, then you most likely want to spent an hour hearing about a zillion games *shrug* I know I do. If you personally don't want a video that long, then just go watch something else...
Hidden information is one of the best ways to avoid the alpha player in coop games. I don't know Salem, but I suspect that this was the reason for the designer to add that rule...
I hate the overall idea of randomizing any action at all. I know it is terribly hard to make a game based only on decisions and skill, and remove any dice, coin flips and etc, but these are the best games for me. Skill over luck! Thats why I fell in love with chess from the very first time I played it, at about age of 7 or 8, if a recall correctly.
Yeah happens. Sometimes hilarious moments can come out of dice rolls in board RPGs but most of the time it is dice roll. As if Im simply playing dice and Im not in RPG.
Sky Lord Panglot I get where you're coming from but I think a game with some randomization is more realistic. A larger force doesn't always win in battle. Too much randomization can ruin a game. The vastly skilled player should win the majority of times. You like what you like though.
Oh yes. Some randomization is OK. But it has to be on the right spot. Not just "roll for everything you do". Cause I played those games. Also yeah you like what you like. The problem is that I dont know how to realiza what I like. I like RPGs, but most of them contain too much dice rolls, which I dont like. If they dont contain mainly dice rolls they involve terrible calculations, which I dont like either. Whats the compromise here Im not sure yet but Ill tell you when I find it. :D
Sky Lord Panglot I would agree with your point. I love randomization but there is a time and place for it. in warhammer 40,000 I can move up 6 in bout I can only run or charge 6D or 2D6. WTF every other game is fixed. I run show and my son runs fast but when we run it is always at the same speed we ran last time. we don't run randomly. it just slow down the game and takes to much a way from "the feel" of the game
Sky Lord Panglot In FATE or Fudge system may be the right spot for you as it is for me: you roll 4dF, a dF being a 1 in 3 chance of getting either blank, a + or a - (or a d6 where 1-2 is -, 3-4 is blank, 5-6 is +), and those results are modifiers to your skills. The distribution for me seems more realistic, still with chances of getting a +4 or -4, but its just about 1% each, and about 65% chances on an avarage roll (-1 through +1). There are even variations made to increase the ~65% chance to nearly 85% i think. Besides, summing up + and - signs is fairly easy.
Put links to each individual subject of the video. Hunting through for ones that are of interest is too much of a chore for many. Oh and learn what Socialism is, that comment was embarrassingly ignorant.
+John D A Soialism does not equal COMMUNISM, Tom. You know that Social Security check that your gonna get in 30 years from now? Guess which type of policy that is.... Ill wait.
Moonawrathic says the dude who either has a trust waiting for him, has a credit rating off the charts bc of his bank connections, has SHARES in bank, or is simply ignorant of the poison of capitalism that is literally killing him with every meal that he takes and is causing the economy to collapse
Michael Carrillo Capitalism is the best system, while it does still have it's flaws. We live in a broken world with a bunch of idiots. The only system that can work with this kind of human condition is one where people are rewarded for their own hard work and effort. Capitalism at it's core.
Moonawrathic yeah no. Capitalism only functions on death. In order for people to be rewarded then others have to be punished. In the extreme that punishment is death. So if you want more LIFE-lyhood then ppl have to DIE. thats exactly what is happening in america with poverty, metabolic disease at outrageous heights all for the sake of "free market" ideals
I actually like the dice roll thing in monopoly (I mean there's no way you're deliberately gonna land on someone else his property if you can to some extend chose how much steps you're gonna take) but I hate it in trivial pursuit and other games where you need to trow an exact number in order to finish.
Artificial Catch-Up: Power Struggle uses this mechanism as a part of the game tactics. You need to be in last place often in order to take advantage of going first (a very big advantage). It is part of the game to try to stay behind as long as you can, until you are forced to go ahead (and then you try to get far ahead and push for the win). It is a neat mechanic as it encourages players to stay near each other in points until you have set up your master plan and can zoom ahead. Now the other player has the advantage of going first to try to catch you before you win the game. Artificial catch-up as a mechanic done really well.
#8: in paper tales there's a card that can singlehandedly win you the game if you get it on round 1: the relic (can't die, at the end of the game get 2 vp for every age counter on it). And when you have it, your opponents are forced to make sub-optimal drafts to prevent you from getting age token synergy, which in turn helps you get better cards from the draft
The best series of programs you have made! The synergy between you too makes it all work. Hope that you will make a top 10 game list over games you can play together with your wife, because it's a cool way to spend time together. Thank you very much for your awesome programs.
I think the real key to good game mechanics is a good chance/strategy balance. If a game is all chance, it's boring. If it's all strategy, it can be intimidating for newer players and can make for poor game replay. Once you've figured out the best way to win the game, there's nothing more to do. A dash of chance can really help with replay-ability and can even up the game a bit for newer players and players who have played it dozens of times. Chance doesn't necessarily have to be brought in as dice rolls or cards though. If players interact with each other enough, that can bring in enough of a random element to make the game fun. Chance that's entirely brought in via dice rolls can get boring and frustrating. "Clue" depends largely on dice rolls for the "chance" element of the game and it's maddening. I think games like "Sorry" and "Parcheesi" are so popular because chance outweighs the strategy component so heavily. The rules are pretty basic, ithey're quick to learn and easy and fast to play. Monopoly doesn't rely as heavily on chance because you have choices to make about what to do with properties so there's a little more strategy.
I hate roll & move mechanics as well, but there's a reason games with them are so popular. Most of them are designed either for kids, or as super simple casual games that anybody can play without thinking too much about the game. There's a reason slot machines are the most popular games at the casino, people want the excitement of a random result, but not the weight of having to decide what to do.
HOUSE RULES 1) Own Secret Units Look at your own secret units anytime you want - except on your own turn. Speeds play without impairing knowledge of own units. Works great for Titan. 2) Timed turns 30 second timer starts after first player is done with their turn. Works great for Robo Rally.
Sometimes I think the off-the-cuff style of these reviews/episodes works pretty well since we get to see the personalities playing off each other but... ugh, sometimes I really wish they'd prepare a little better. You've got the magic of multiple takes and video editing - it's ok to use it!
Powergrid is the best example of catch up machanics done right. I think the fact that it's consistant throughout the game so you can incorporate it into your strategy is what makes it work. Also, the diminishing returns for the company that's expanding most make sense to me thematically . When they are done right, I think catch up rules can be genius and make a game a lot more fun.
(@8:07) Sam talks about the "lose your bid when you lose an auction" mechanic - just thought I'd point out a game where this type of idea works very well, both thematically and balance-wise - Tammany Hall. When you call in election favors, they're gone, whether you ended up needing them or winning the election. It helps keep the number of favor chips at a manageable level too. Thx guys, I found this episode very entertaining.
Memory victory points: where victory points for each player is known public information, but has each player hides them after they receive them. It's just annoying having to play a memory game of who was ahead.
In regards to the "no communication" rule, it is indeed stupid in Witch of Salem. But in some games it isn't, like Shadows Over Camelot. The limited communication role is important to protect the traitor.
"The Hare and the Tortoise" is a game based on catch up mechanics, and it is a great strategic game to play. But indeed these are not artificial catch up mechanics, these are built into the game - and actually very much in the theme of the story :-)
I've actually played a game that implemented the whole "random number of actions" well, and that's the (nowadays rather famous) Space Hulk. Only one side has this mechanic, and the number of extra actions is hidden to the other player. How it works is that every unit has a certain number of actions that it can use every turn, then you can spend extra actions during your turn to simply let your models take more actions. You can also save some actions and use those during the opponent's turn. As the number of extra actions are hidden, this forces you to try and figure out how many actions that it's likely that the other player saved and plan your moves accordingly. Overall, I found that mechanic to be really nice, as it added a lot of tension to the game.
On the subject of number 2 - artificial catch up mechanic, I'm pleased you softened it a little to say it's not inherently a bad idea. In videogames we call it 'rubber banding' and Mario Kart is the king. You only get good power ups if you're near the back. If all players get hit by lightning it lasts longer if you're more in the lead. And then there's the blue shell. It's the way you do it that matters.
I love Eldritch Horror, but I got nailed with several of these annoying mechanics earlier today. First, the game jacked up the difficulty in what I consider an artificial manner by forcing me to draw and resolve an additional mythos card, because one just wasn't enough. The repercussions of those two back to back mythos cards were that I became cursed, which meant I rolled a success on only a 6, and I became detained. And there wasn't a thing I could do about it. Because I was detained, I lost my entire turn, and then I spent 3 consecutive turns praying to get rid of my curse to no avail. And to make matters worse , because I was cursed, I failed a mandatory test and gained a paranoia condition, which consequently made me mad with insanity quite literally as I quit the game. Eldritch Horror might as well have played a single you lose card as I went from what seemed like 95% odds of winning down to 0% in an instant. I was sitting on the gate I needed to close with plenty of clue tokens and on the last mystery. My wife actually had 3 opportunities to roll a single success (50% chance x 3) and win us the game. She rolled a 1, a 2, and finally another 2 even though she was blessed. She was subsequently driven mad as well (in the game that is), which is what led me mad (outside of the game). I packed up the game and don't plan to unleash its horrors again for quite some time.
As soon as "the rich get richer" mechanic was mentioned, I immediately thought of Outpost. Such a cool game concept that this problem mostly ruins. The last 2-3 turns are usually pointless because everyone already knows who is going to win. It was kind of amusing that Tom had trouble remembering the name of "that space mining game."
I s incredibly agree about Trivial Pursuit. We only ever play this with a colored die. Roll a color, get a question, get a cheese! Sure there is still some luck involved when you only need one more color, but it's tons better than the full game, and we usually finish a game in 10-15 minutes, which is fantastic. T.
A small correction for you guys: Take over mechanics were added in the second, not third expansion for Race for the Galaxy (the third expansion added the much hated prestige mechanic which I love). It's still an incredibly valuable expansion in my opinion though because it also greatly expanded any route to a military win (like the 9 victory point planet and rebel cantina which lets you discard for military planets).
at 10:00 - we call that mechanism : if win, win more. i sometimes find it happens in eclipse, when a player has great money resources, which provides more actions, which provides more opportunity for money etc.
2. As they said, there are good ways to do catch-up mechanics if it's thematic. I like lowest score player gets to go first, like in Fresco, where it's just a little bonus. I like it less so in games like Power Grid where players actively avoid jumping into the lead to avoid getting punished by a built-in mechanic. Tom's new game - Nothing Personal - is a great way to do it, where a lot of the card effects you play help you and help another player of your choice.
this might be a couple years old, but every time they mentioned Magic, they mentioned something they haven't done in a long time. They have swayed away from mass reset buttons. I think the one Tom was talking about was Armageddon, destroy all lands. prevents you from playing. The Wrath effects, destroy all creatures has been bumped up a mana, and is part of why you play 2 out of 3 in competitive play. game two, you know it's there. So you don't over commit to the board. I agreed with pretty much everything in thus list, and as someone who does want to create a game leaving what isn't a good idea is a big help.
Sam my gaming group does the exact same thing in Shadows Over Camelot! I still agree the rule is annoying and when playing Shadows without the Traitor mechanic we implemented a house rule where you just say what you have. Thanks for the posting this video!
you should do a list of unwritten tabletop game rules. ex: don't leave the table when it's your turn and make everyone wait for you, be nice to the new player, don't roll the dice on the board because you knock over all the pieces (i've done that to everyone's dismay on settlers of catan). it would just be fun listening to your stories about people you've played with that drive you crazy.
I especially agree on #2 on this list. It's similar to King Making situations, especially where a player is about to win, and then another player, not in a position to win, decide to screw that one over so another player, coming from behind, will eventually win because he/she suddenly has the necessary time to accumulate the necessary points or meet the necessary victory conditions. Thus the conclusion is that it's usually not advantageous to be the one in lead toward the end of a game when everyone can see it. It's better to be second or third, or even last, like in #2 in this top ten list, but just marginally and see someone bust the leader. I think if someone are not winning a game, they should not be encouraged to bust the leader just because they got nothing better to do or they think they improve their winning chances when in fact they improve others even more (and they are probably aware). I've been in that unfortunate position many times and what annoys me the most is that I'm suddenly stuck in that awkward Risk position where you have no other options other than to sit out and wait for the game to end and let someone else win because they was handed the victory, which usually means the game is also unnecessary prolonged. I never mess up someone in a forward position unless it's directly advantageous to me and benefit me the absolute most.
Re-listening to the intro to this list - and the bit on mechanics vs mechanisms. Top 10 Annoying Pedantic Discussions in Gaming A. Mechanic vs Mechanism B. Rulebook v Rule Book v Rulesbook C. It Doesn’t Say I Can’t Do That D. Round v Turn v Action v Phase v Step E. When The Card Says Number of Cards, Does It Count Itself? There. I gave you half. :)
Oh man, gotta love being dazed as a tank in 4e. Leaders and Controllers generally have ranged stuff or don't need to worry about their personal position as much. A lot of strikers have a ranged option, and might be able to chaerg. Tanks basically get to spend the round fixing themselves a sandwich since the majority of what they do is opportunity or immediate actions.
The getting the exact roll to win at the end of trivial pursuit is the annoyance of roll and move combined with an awful artificial catch up mechanic. Trivial pursuit slam is a huge improvement.
I really had no idea board games had a big adult fanbase. This is coming from someone who plays lots of video games. I don't even play board games much at all but I like watching you guys talk about them!
Artificial catch up mechanics / preventing elimination - Cyclades. The first time I played I took one of my friends starting islands at the start of the game. Because of the rule that you can't lose your last space he used the farming action repeatedly and easily won in the end.
3. Rolling for actions can be good if it's a common roll for all players - so if you roll a 1, everybody only gets one action that round - allows interesting choices where one player might be gambling on getting a high roll where another player is playing more cautiously and can complete their plan with a low roll. The Adventurers is a good example of this.
I missed my most hated game mechanism. The ones where players deliberately or indeliberately form coaltions to take out a single player. Like Player A attacks player B in a war of tear and wear and in the next turn Player C jumps in for the coup de grâce. I don't mind it in games like settlers of catan, where everyone tries to steal from the player with the clay monopoly though.
Great video once again. I find it true that takeovers almost never happens in RFTG, BUT, the possibility that they might happen changes the game A LOT. If you`re opponent is going military, you can`t play small rebel worlds, or windfalls that would up your military, etc because it would expose you to takeovers.
On top of what you said, the "kill everything" cards also add the potential for a player in an impossible situation to escape a losing battle and regain the ability to win the game.
I actually like your number 1... I have no problems with roll and move games. It can get frustrating sure but as long as everyone is on the same play level, it doesn't bother me. It's when that roll can give someone a huge advantage that I find there are problems
I think the last rule (and most of them, actually) comes down to a lack of interactivity or control, where your outcome is mostly, if not entirely, dictated by a dice roll (or as with the other rules, a single card draw, or some other bad balancing). After all, people want to win most games by their own skill and strategy, not by luck (I'm better at rolling 6 than you, so HA!). I don't think that move X spaces as indicated by a dice roll is necessarily a bad mechanic, because the player can still be left with a high degree of choice. For example, I think the game Talisman does it right (like somebody who commented earlier). Whenever you roll a die you have a degree of choice as to where you go, always at least 2 options, sometimes more. And these options are very meaningful, beyond the space you land on, because each choice determines which choices you have on the next turn. To add to that, with the later versions, if you don't like a roll, you can use a fate point to do a re-roll, adding more skill/control into the mix. And this works in Talisman, because you usually aren't trying to only go to specifically one spot, you're trying to improve your character by roaming around. There are usually several spots where you would be fine with going to, and most of the time, moving your character does something meaningful. In other roll-to-move games, it's simply a semi-random way of determining who gets around faster, and getting around fast, or getting to a specific spot is the goal. If everybody wants to go to the same place in Clue, it's a competition to see who can roll a die to add to 20 first. It's a pretty meaningless mechanic in that case, and since it is the core determiner of how much you know, it seems a bit unfair (like how they mentioned how unfair it is to have a die roll determine how many actions a player can do on their turn). The variance on how often somebody wins in Clue has to be HUGE. And, that's a pseudo-rant. In short, I don't think roll-to-move is an inherently unfair mechanic, it just depends on how it is implemented. While it is a common offender, I don't think it is the real problem. Not the "#1 bad rule in board games" for sure.
I love that Sam does the same things as me when given several dice...
1) Tessellate all your d6s into some kind of pattern with the numbers;
2) Rotate the whole construction so that you can look at the other three patterns you made as by-products;
3) Repeat about 70 times;
4) Push the dice away because you're driving yourself up the wall;
5) Wait 10 minutes;
6) Reach for the dice again and proceed back to Step 1.
This list makes me want to make a game with all of these mechanics and call it "Frustration."
brilliant
do it
The winner is whoever can hold out the longest before rage quitting.
nevercallmebyname frustration is already a game, it's a remake of ludo, I think
aw
Request: Top Ten House Rules.
it wont get done because house rules imply that modern games are as flawed as older games...and that would be heresy
If you ever play the Firefly Board game, play with 1's as failures. Makes it so much more fun.
Ironically, I only like cooperative games where there is hidden information between the players (such as Battlestar Galatica). Otherwise, I find that in cooperative games with no hidden information, everyone is constantly telling you how to play your turn.
I was fine with the roll and move mechanic.... until I played a real game and then i was like: HOLY CRAP, I CAN CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO DO!!!!!! and i never went back
Awesome guys! Really fun to watch. Please make more!
So I just subscribed. I honestly don't care about boardgames, well maybe thats a bit harsh, but your personalities are so entertaining it makes me want to get into them
I'm a really casual board game fan and I agree, I just enjoy watching them interact and joke with each other.
so do you have your own board game channel now?
#10 Keeping info to yourself in a cooperative game.
#9 The game makes you act like a fool.
#8 A card of doom.
#7 Programmable movement. Well, more than one at a time, at least.
#6 Lose a turn.
#5 Pulling tiles from a bag.
#4 The stupid war rules from Race for the Galaxy.
#3 Rolling for actions.
#2 Artificial Catch-up Mechanics.
#1 Roll & Move.
+Carolina Barreda number 5 wasn't really drawing tiles from a baggy, more like board game induced blue balls.
Roll & Move is an excellent mechanic! Just kidding...
"pulling tiles from a bag" Is it the tiles, the bag, the pulling, or just the conjunction of all three of these aspects that has you so full of anger?
I like programmable movement.
This is what made games like Gunslinger and Woodenships&Ironmen great.
Pulling tiles from a bag isn't really the mechanic that's bad. It's the idea of going through all sorts turns and actions for a random reward that amounts to nothing.
Yeah sounds like Sam is mad with the level of investment.
Don't know the game, but if instead of knowing it was just "few worthless knicknacks" it might even be better. You didn't find a Tomb for a Mummy, but you did find a few arrowheads for example.
Indeed. It's having so much investment stacked on a single random chance.
I like to think that there's only two ways of doing randomness right: either you have very little of it, so that it doesn't mess up game plans, or a whole lot of it, so that it evens out.
More random does not even out.
Flip a coin once, and you know you are at +1 or -1.
Flip a coin twice, there is a 50/50 chance of being at 0.
Flip a cone 1000 times, and you could be at -1000. Sure, not likely, but possible.
It is possible to prove that the chance of ending up within any finite distance from zero decreases the more tries you do.
The distribution will be narrower, relatively speaking, such that if you roll 1000 dice the average will be close to 3.5. However, if you average is off by a tiny fraction (say 3.4) with a 1000 dice rolls the result will be off with 100, which is impossible rolling just one die (which could be off with at the most 2.5).
Another factor, apparent in many games, is that many random events are less important. There will still be some crucial events that can turn the whole game around more often than not.
In a simple roll and move racing game with no catchup mechanic (roll a die, the first to get to 10, or 100, or 1000 wins). So the person with the best roll on the first turn is more likely to win than the one with the worst roll, regardless of how long the game is.
I love these longer videos with Sam and Zed because the dynamic between the three of you is phenomenal. I'd very much enjoy seeing more of these kind of top ten videos or even some video play throughs of games where the three of you are discussing the game as you play.
31:08
Tom: You know how careful I am with my games?
Also Tom: Dice tower review, into my collection!
*smacks the shit out of the game with a hammer*
Adding to Sam's 'the rich get richer' theme, I experience that in Settlers of Catan. After a couple rounds you know if you are going to have a good chance of winning or not. The placement of your first settlements has a lot to do with the game.
We always play pandemic with each player's cards on the table.
And we lose most of the times anyway!
I think the best way to win the game is to cure a virus within the first 3 turns.
I stopped playing that way because it prevents a player from taking over the game.
Is there a different way to play it?
That's how you're supposed to play it.
Part of the reason for #10 - concealing information - is that when a game like Shadows Over Camelot is played openly, ALL decisions become group-made ("you should do this") and the more experienced players usually dominate the gameplay. Requiring some personal info, like cards, be hidden inserts some independence for each player.
If we can just include all of these mechanics in one game, maybe it'll be so bad it'll be good.
EverybodyLovesAlf can we talk about how scary Alf looks... like what the hell
I've ALWAYS hated the "roll the exact amount" mechanic to finish a game, from childhood onwards. It deserves to be number one.
Getting eliminated in a long game...I got killed off in the first hour of Shogun (the MB Game Master version) and my buddies played for another 8 hours. Ugh. It was on a once-a-year game weekend. Boooorrrriiiiinnnnggg....
Had a somewhat similar experience in Shogun - played 1.5 hours and got eliminated. Nothing else to do until game ended. Not a fan of games that have very long play times and player elimination. Too much time invested for no payout. Could have played two other shorter games in that time.
I enjoy Roll and Move in some Vintage games. It is nice to just roll and move some pawns and take some actions. Some older games have some interesting mechanisms to make the roll and move not as painful.
A little late to the video, but my least favorite mechanic is: One player chooses a winner (Apples to Apples, Cards vs Humanity)
I can see why you don't like that mechanic, I don't mind it because I try to play that mechanic out. What I mean is I like to take on the challenge of figuring out what combination of cards really hits it home for the one choosing the winner.
That is true. That is not a mechanic we're super interested in, either.
i LOVED careers! i used to play it with my grandma when i was a kid! its so awesome to hear it mentioned again. thanks!
Parcheesi is the oldest and best roll and move game because there is strategy involved that games like Sorry and Trouble removed. You can actually divide the dice: if you roll a 4 and a 5, you don't HAVE to go 9 spaces, you can split it up between the pieces.
And, there's a reason to send more than one piece out at a time, since you can intentionally form blockades and such. (Though, the exact count for the end-game can be frustrating, still.)
I'm loving these vids. Zee is the best. Love how 3 point of views balance things out so you get all the pro and cons of things. Great job like always.
I may be wrong, but I suspect the reason for Zee's #10 (not being allowed to share information in co-op games) is to try to avoid the "alpha player" problem of one person telling everyone else what to do and basically running the whole show. If you don't know what other people can do, you can't give orders. Not to say that I think this justifies those rules, but I think that may be part of the reason they exist in so many games.
I have played a game of Pandemic, where I may have been the "Alpha Player". it ruined the fun for one of our players. But it is a good rule not to do that lol.
Interesting theory, but the "alpha player" problem is a people problem, not a game problem. You know, that one guy who needs to have control, whom OVER-explains things in games - he's almost always the alpha player....
K Au Are you suggesting there are no game rules designed in an attempt to prevent social problems?
K Au
but mechanics of a game can prevent that
To be fair to Shadows Over Camelot (which they mentioned specifically,) the point isn't to withhold information. It's to encourage talking in character and encourage players to find a creative way of saying what you want without revealing details. And, it also gives the Traitor a bit of leeway to be "misunderstood."
I really enjoy the vids where you are all together. It feels so fun and natural and not-scripted! I also totally agree with most of your TOP10. I don't know why you did not mentioned shoots and ladders for the TOP1 rule - as the game consists only of roll and move.
I despise MTG blue decks. They're based on not allowing the opponent to make a move-any move. The victim is effectively not playing the game, and there is nothing less fun to do while playing a game than not playing the game.
Mono blue seems old skool to me, but I don't play tournament magic very much. Actually the most annoying deck I own is blue-white control. Put the right spells on isochron scepter and people will range from being annoyed to being pretty upset about it. Your turn, I use the scepter to cast Orim's chant during your upkeep, you can't attack or play spells. There's a reason I rarely play it, because it rarely loses in casual play and it's no fun. So it's not just blue that locks down people. Black can be devastating at locking people down too.
So, counter it.
Don't like mono blue control? Find a way to prevent it.
37thgungrunts Says the guy who plays monoblue.
Nothing can really punish counterspells, and there just aren't enough options that can't be countered to present a credible defense. The only ways I've found to prevent it are to play blue myself or to refuse to play against those friends who insist on using it. It's indicative of bad game design,
Steampunk Papercut So, you assume I play mono-blue? I don't play mono-anything.
If you've got one guy who likes to play blue, plan around it. Or play slivers, problem solved.
Steampunk Papercut Play man lands. Lands that become creatures, OR an aggro deck with many small creatures, OR monoblack (duress is amazing vs counters), OR several of the uncounterable green options.
Mono blue hasn't been viable in forever. It's the best support color, but it's terrible on it's own.
As someone who found your hatred of "roll to move" mechanics appreciable and a challenge, thank you for the in-depth discussion of exactly what irks you the most and what can alleviate them. My idea was to have subset numbers on certain tiles that if that number was rolled on a die and within the total move area then you could CHOOSE to stop there, low rolls would still be horrible, though it could be easily implemented on any games you currently held in contempt.
Damn these are all mechanics I was gonna put in the game i was designing.
lol
50 minutes of awesomeness? Time for another Dicetower binge!
I know im late, but to adress that beginning citadels warlord complaint, I use the diplomat. He comes with the edition that includes expansion characters and districts. The only difference is that instead of destroying, he swaps districts with others.
My family now plays Clue by a unique set of rules. We still do Roll to move, but we ignore the hallways completely. You roll, and can move clockwise or counterclockwise around the board that many rooms. It removes completely the ability some players have of keeping you from ever doing ANYTHING in that game by keeping you from moving rooms, and at least lets everyone play.
I don't know what to call this rant specifically, but the ending to the game Munchkin is more annoying to me than anything I've ever encountered. You're level 9, about ready to defeat a monster and win, but everyone else prevents this from happening. That's fine so far. Everyone else who is level 8 and below are allowed to defeat their monsters and catch up. Whoever is level 9 is the target of the players because they don't want to lose. It just drags on and on until everyone runs out of useful cards and someone finds an easy monster to defeat. But this isn't until hours later. And there is only a slim chance that the player who wins was even close to winning when the original person was so close. It acts as a neat mechanic in the early game, but towards the end, it is just a way for everyone to catch up.
Darrek Olson I agree but also bear in mind that Munchkin is just supposed to be a light, "just fun" game. And it doesn't really take "hours" IME.
I am loving these top ten videos! Keep em coming.
Tom Vasel, you're a champ.
Okay Tom, Sam & Z need their own series! Please make this happen! This every other week special has become the highlight of thedicetower videos.
Who's up to the challenge of making a game with the all of these rules? LOL Would it suck so much it became good? like a good bad movie?
It will be like trying to look away from a gruesome car accident. You want you look away, you want to walk away, but you just can't.
I'm glad Zee has been sticking around, these top tens with all 3 of you are great.
I own over 100 board games, yet their #1 bad rule makes me fill dissed, because Talisman is my 2nd favorite game. Now I know people may not like it. But there seems to be an "aura" if you like Talisman or roll and move games, you are not a "real" gamer. I own a lot of games, and introduce games to my gamer group. Please don't disrespect those of us "real" gamers who like Talisman or other roll & move games.
Doma Agape Talisman is fine because you still get a choice of at least two (sometimes more) directions to go. That gives you sometimes meaningful decisions of whether to go quickly to the treasure/fountain/whatever even though that means going through a nasty space.
These videos are highly entertaining, and keep a good pace throughout. Keep doing more!
In RISK I play with rules that allow eliminated players to rebel in the territories they had in their final round (or former capital throughout the game). They can come back fully into the game with the right dice rolls.
Huh. That sounds pretty interesting. Do you have any specific number of troops you like to use for the rebellion?
I love Careers, I picked it up at Goodwill for 2 bucks a couple years ago and it was much better than I expected.
Gotta say, I will ALWAYS prefer the randomness of a dice over cards or tiles in a bag. Cards and tiles are drawn and removed, so the odds are always changing, while a die, is ALWAYS the same odds, every single roll. My d6 always has a 1 in 6 chance. Yes it IS possible to roll 100 times and never get a 6 or whatever, but at the end of the day.... I still had a fair chance at it the entire time. Not, the guy who pulled first had 1 in 5, but the next guy has 1 in 7, and so forth. I'll always take the constant odds over the constantly shifting odds. Granted, I haven't played Thebes, so I WILL admit that it may work because of the theme, but in general, no, I really dislike odds that are always changing.
Backgammon is a good roll & move game with lots of strategy, esp. if you use the doubling cube.
I loved careers as a kid. It was the game that made me realise how stupid Monopoly is.
Every game made me realize how stupid Monopoly is.
xthebumpx one of teh most popular games ever and you're dissing it - teel me just how many bestsellers have you made?
Jack Luminous Selling a lot of games doesn't make it fun to play. Monopoly in particular has a lot of people buying collectors' editions for nostalgia or for show or even buying it just to have it rather than because they want to play it.
David Harshman Monopoly might be one of the prime examples that show that paradoxically, games don't have to be fun to sell well.
It's enough to get popular for looking pleasing and memorable, as well as being easy to understand, and thus more accessible for everybody.
I think in Monopoly's case, it was probably thanks to a lot of simple yet elegant eye candy, and most importantly easy to understand rules (while keeping a unique atmosphere).
You have a now iconic yet simple board design, the proprietary theme, the little houses, and last but not least the pretty tokens.
Despite it being dull and having the tendency to drag out, I never quite hated it, though.
Another example for such a game that's even more dull than Monopoly that I absolutely despite since it is the prime example and the worst offender of a roll and move game is *Mensch Ärgere Dich Nicht*.
And yet everyone knows it, and it is in every freaking Games Compendium you buy.
99.5% of it is luck-based, the remaining half percent can be managed with an equal amount of brain cells to maintain the strategic aspect of it, which is about which token to move with your die roll when you have multiples outside.
I still think that the dissing of Monopoly is down to jealousy - its like musos begrudging the riff of Louie Louie being simple yet highly popular
I completely agree with #7 programmable movement . Played Robo rally for the first time and hated it.!
One little thing I would like to bring up about your show. The individual videos are a TAD long. Most top ten videos top in at about half the average length of your top tens. Long videos aren't totally bad, but when I am watching top ten videos, I really am just looking to waste around 10 to 20 minutes max. I might still end up wasting a whole hour total, but I'll waste it on several shorter videos; rather than a few long ones.
Personally, I think you might be able to get your individual video's views up quite a bit if you shortened them a little. This video had 136,902 views as of my viewing. It is over a year old at this point. I see no reason why a top10 about a subject as popular as board games shouldn't have amassed closer to a million views over the course of a year. I think length may have something to do with that.
do you realize the irony of writing a two-paragraph post on this particular topic? XD
keep in mind that these are boardgamers. an hour feels like a poop in their life ^^
***** ....There is no irony. Two paragraphs of typing probably took him 2min. He can't just place down 4 words and expect them to take that as detailed constructive criticism.
k
Eric Lawrence If you're a hardcore board game geek, then you most likely want to spent an hour hearing about a zillion games *shrug* I know I do. If you personally don't want a video that long, then just go watch something else...
Hidden information is one of the best ways to avoid the alpha player in coop games. I don't know Salem, but I suspect that this was the reason for the designer to add that rule...
I hate the overall idea of randomizing any action at all. I know it is terribly hard to make a game based only on decisions and skill, and remove any dice, coin flips and etc, but these are the best games for me. Skill over luck! Thats why I fell in love with chess from the very first time I played it, at about age of 7 or 8, if a recall correctly.
Yeah happens. Sometimes hilarious moments can come out of dice rolls in board RPGs but most of the time it is dice roll. As if Im simply playing dice and Im not in RPG.
Sky Lord Panglot I get where you're coming from but I think a game with some randomization is more realistic. A larger force doesn't always win in battle. Too much randomization can ruin a game. The vastly skilled player should win the majority of times. You like what you like though.
Oh yes. Some randomization is OK. But it has to be on the right spot. Not just "roll for everything you do". Cause I played those games.
Also yeah you like what you like. The problem is that I dont know how to realiza what I like. I like RPGs, but most of them contain too much dice rolls, which I dont like. If they dont contain mainly dice rolls they involve terrible calculations, which I dont like either. Whats the compromise here Im not sure yet but Ill tell you when I find it. :D
Sky Lord Panglot I would agree with your point. I love randomization but there is a time and place for it. in warhammer 40,000 I can move up 6 in bout I can only run or charge 6D or 2D6. WTF every other game is fixed. I run show and my son runs fast but when we run it is always at the same speed we ran last time. we don't run randomly. it just slow down the game and takes to much a way from "the feel" of the game
Sky Lord Panglot In FATE or Fudge system may be the right spot for you as it is for me: you roll 4dF, a dF being a 1 in 3 chance of getting either blank, a + or a - (or a d6 where 1-2 is -, 3-4 is blank, 5-6 is +), and those results are modifiers to your skills. The distribution for me seems more realistic, still with chances of getting a +4 or -4, but its just about 1% each, and about 65% chances on an avarage roll (-1 through +1). There are even variations made to increase the ~65% chance to nearly 85% i think.
Besides, summing up + and - signs is fairly easy.
I love when these three are all together! Just as a note, programmable movement is one of my favorite all time mechanics!!
Put links to each individual subject of the video. Hunting through for ones that are of interest is too much of a chore for many. Oh and learn what Socialism is, that comment was embarrassingly ignorant.
+John D A Soialism does not equal COMMUNISM, Tom. You know that Social Security check that your gonna get in 30 years from now? Guess which type of policy that is.... Ill wait.
+Michael Carrillo socialism is a terrible and evil system that is poised to ruin the USA.
Moonawrathic says the dude who either has a trust waiting for him, has a credit rating off the charts bc of his bank connections, has SHARES in bank, or is simply ignorant of the poison of capitalism that is literally killing him with every meal that he takes and is causing the economy to collapse
Michael Carrillo Capitalism is the best system, while it does still have it's flaws. We live in a broken world with a bunch of idiots. The only system that can work with this kind of human condition is one where people are rewarded for their own hard work and effort. Capitalism at it's core.
Moonawrathic yeah no. Capitalism only functions on death. In order for people to be rewarded then others have to be punished. In the extreme that punishment is death. So if you want more LIFE-lyhood then ppl have to DIE. thats exactly what is happening in america with poverty, metabolic disease at outrageous heights all for the sake of "free market" ideals
I actually like the dice roll thing in monopoly (I mean there's no way you're deliberately gonna land on someone else his property if you can to some extend chose how much steps you're gonna take) but I hate it in trivial pursuit and other games where you need to trow an exact number in order to finish.
Artificial Catch-Up: Power Struggle uses this mechanism as a part of the game tactics. You need to be in last place often in order to take advantage of going first (a very big advantage). It is part of the game to try to stay behind as long as you can, until you are forced to go ahead (and then you try to get far ahead and push for the win). It is a neat mechanic as it encourages players to stay near each other in points until you have set up your master plan and can zoom ahead. Now the other player has the advantage of going first to try to catch you before you win the game. Artificial catch-up as a mechanic done really well.
I thoroughly enjoy the quirky little music choices between segments. :)
Good job guys. Love watching you 3 talk about top 10 games and stuff. Keep them coming.
#8: in paper tales there's a card that can singlehandedly win you the game if you get it on round 1: the relic (can't die, at the end of the game get 2 vp for every age counter on it). And when you have it, your opponents are forced to make sub-optimal drafts to prevent you from getting age token synergy, which in turn helps you get better cards from the draft
Great episode. Definitely worth watching despite the long duration. I'll watch the Top 10 party games, just to see Sam's reactions.
The best series of programs you have made! The synergy between you too makes it all work. Hope that you will make a top 10 game list over games you can play together with your wife, because it's a cool way to spend time together. Thank you very much for your awesome programs.
I was so excited to see another top 10 list! Keep them coming.
The Top Tens, People's Choices Top 100 Games of All Time, Miami Dice, I really love the videos you do together.
I think the real key to good game mechanics is a good chance/strategy balance. If a game is all chance, it's boring. If it's all strategy, it can be intimidating for newer players and can make for poor game replay. Once you've figured out the best way to win the game, there's nothing more to do. A dash of chance can really help with replay-ability and can even up the game a bit for newer players and players who have played it dozens of times. Chance doesn't necessarily have to be brought in as dice rolls or cards though. If players interact with each other enough, that can bring in enough of a random element to make the game fun. Chance that's entirely brought in via dice rolls can get boring and frustrating. "Clue" depends largely on dice rolls for the "chance" element of the game and it's maddening.
I think games like "Sorry" and "Parcheesi" are so popular because chance outweighs the strategy component so heavily. The rules are pretty basic, ithey're quick to learn and easy and fast to play. Monopoly doesn't rely as heavily on chance because you have choices to make about what to do with properties so there's a little more strategy.
I hate roll & move mechanics as well, but there's a reason games with them are so popular. Most of them are designed either for kids, or as super simple casual games that anybody can play without thinking too much about the game. There's a reason slot machines are the most popular games at the casino, people want the excitement of a random result, but not the weight of having to decide what to do.
HOUSE RULES
1) Own Secret Units
Look at your own secret units anytime you want - except on your own turn. Speeds play without impairing knowledge of own units. Works great for Titan.
2) Timed turns
30 second timer starts after first player is done with their turn. Works great for Robo Rally.
Sometimes I think the off-the-cuff style of these reviews/episodes works pretty well since we get to see the personalities playing off each other but... ugh, sometimes I really wish they'd prepare a little better. You've got the magic of multiple takes and video editing - it's ok to use it!
Powergrid is the best example of catch up machanics done right. I think the fact that it's consistant throughout the game so you can incorporate it into your strategy is what makes it work. Also, the diminishing returns for the company that's expanding most make sense to me thematically . When they are done right, I think catch up rules can be genius and make a game a lot more fun.
(@8:07) Sam talks about the "lose your bid when you lose an auction" mechanic - just thought I'd point out a game where this type of idea works very well, both thematically and balance-wise - Tammany Hall. When you call in election favors, they're gone, whether you ended up needing them or winning the election. It helps keep the number of favor chips at a manageable level too.
Thx guys, I found this episode very entertaining.
Memory victory points: where victory points for each player is known public information, but has each player hides them after they receive them. It's just annoying having to play a memory game of who was ahead.
In regards to the "no communication" rule, it is indeed stupid in Witch of Salem. But in some games it isn't, like Shadows Over Camelot. The limited communication role is important to protect the traitor.
I love to see you three together.
It could be my daily show.
It reminds me of RedLetterMedia's Half in the Bag somehow.
Keep it up!
"The Hare and the Tortoise" is a game based on catch up mechanics, and it is a great strategic game to play. But indeed these are not artificial catch up mechanics, these are built into the game - and actually very much in the theme of the story :-)
I've actually played a game that implemented the whole "random number of actions" well, and that's the (nowadays rather famous) Space Hulk. Only one side has this mechanic, and the number of extra actions is hidden to the other player. How it works is that every unit has a certain number of actions that it can use every turn, then you can spend extra actions during your turn to simply let your models take more actions. You can also save some actions and use those during the opponent's turn. As the number of extra actions are hidden, this forces you to try and figure out how many actions that it's likely that the other player saved and plan your moves accordingly. Overall, I found that mechanic to be really nice, as it added a lot of tension to the game.
On the subject of number 2 - artificial catch up mechanic, I'm pleased you softened it a little to say it's not inherently a bad idea. In videogames we call it 'rubber banding' and Mario Kart is the king. You only get good power ups if you're near the back. If all players get hit by lightning it lasts longer if you're more in the lead. And then there's the blue shell. It's the way you do it that matters.
I love Eldritch Horror, but I got nailed with several of these annoying mechanics earlier today.
First, the game jacked up the difficulty in what I consider an artificial manner by forcing me to draw and resolve an additional mythos card, because one just wasn't enough.
The repercussions of those two back to back mythos cards were that I became cursed, which meant I rolled a success on only a 6, and I became detained. And there wasn't a thing I could do about it.
Because I was detained, I lost my entire turn, and then I spent 3 consecutive turns praying to get rid of my curse to no avail.
And to make matters worse , because I was cursed, I failed a mandatory test and gained a paranoia condition, which consequently made me mad with insanity quite literally as I quit the game.
Eldritch Horror might as well have played a single you lose card as I went from what seemed like 95% odds of winning down to 0% in an instant. I was sitting on the gate I needed to close with plenty of clue tokens and on the last mystery.
My wife actually had 3 opportunities to roll a single success (50% chance x 3) and win us the game. She rolled a 1, a 2, and finally another 2 even though she was blessed.
She was subsequently driven mad as well (in the game that is), which is what led me mad (outside of the game).
I packed up the game and don't plan to unleash its horrors again for quite some time.
As soon as "the rich get richer" mechanic was mentioned, I immediately thought of Outpost. Such a cool game concept that this problem mostly ruins. The last 2-3 turns are usually pointless because everyone already knows who is going to win. It was kind of amusing that Tom had trouble remembering the name of "that space mining game."
I s incredibly agree about Trivial Pursuit. We only ever play this with a colored die. Roll a color, get a question, get a cheese! Sure there is still some luck involved when you only need one more color, but it's tons better than the full game, and we usually finish a game in 10-15 minutes, which is fantastic.
T.
Just started watching your videos recently. Really loving them. You guys are great.
I love what the game "That's Life" did with the Roll & Move mechanic!
I may not agree with everything you guys say but watching you guys talk about games is always interesting and entertaining.
I love how they lead off saying "these are just representative games used as examples," and then #4 is "the stupid war rules in THIS ONE GAME."
A small correction for you guys: Take over mechanics were added in the second, not third expansion for Race for the Galaxy (the third expansion added the much hated prestige mechanic which I love). It's still an incredibly valuable expansion in my opinion though because it also greatly expanded any route to a military win (like the 9 victory point planet and rebel cantina which lets you discard for military planets).
at 10:00 - we call that mechanism : if win, win more. i sometimes find it happens in eclipse, when a player has great money resources, which provides more actions, which provides more opportunity for money etc.
2. As they said, there are good ways to do catch-up mechanics if it's thematic. I like lowest score player gets to go first, like in Fresco, where it's just a little bonus. I like it less so in games like Power Grid where players actively avoid jumping into the lead to avoid getting punished by a built-in mechanic. Tom's new game - Nothing Personal - is a great way to do it, where a lot of the card effects you play help you and help another player of your choice.
this might be a couple years old, but every time they mentioned Magic, they mentioned something they haven't done in a long time.
They have swayed away from mass reset buttons. I think the one Tom was talking about was Armageddon, destroy all lands. prevents you from playing.
The Wrath effects, destroy all creatures has been bumped up a mana, and is part of why you play 2 out of 3 in competitive play. game two, you know it's there. So you don't over commit to the board.
I agreed with pretty much everything in thus list, and as someone who does want to create a game leaving what isn't a good idea is a big help.
Sam my gaming group does the exact same thing in Shadows Over Camelot! I still agree the rule is annoying and when playing Shadows without the Traitor mechanic we implemented a house rule where you just say what you have. Thanks for the posting this video!
great job guys - very entertaining and spot on! nice one, Rick
you should do a list of unwritten tabletop game rules. ex: don't leave the table when it's your turn and make everyone wait for you, be nice to the new player, don't roll the dice on the board because you knock over all the pieces (i've done that to everyone's dismay on settlers of catan). it would just be fun listening to your stories about people you've played with that drive you crazy.
I especially agree on #2 on this list. It's similar to King Making situations, especially where a player is about to win, and then another player, not in a position to win, decide to screw that one over so another player, coming from behind, will eventually win because he/she suddenly has the necessary time to accumulate the necessary points or meet the necessary victory conditions. Thus the conclusion is that it's usually not advantageous to be the one in lead toward the end of a game when everyone can see it. It's better to be second or third, or even last, like in #2 in this top ten list, but just marginally and see someone bust the leader. I think if someone are not winning a game, they should not be encouraged to bust the leader just because they got nothing better to do or they think they improve their winning chances when in fact they improve others even more (and they are probably aware). I've been in that unfortunate position many times and what annoys me the most is that I'm suddenly stuck in that awkward Risk position where you have no other options other than to sit out and wait for the game to end and let someone else win because they was handed the victory, which usually means the game is also unnecessary prolonged. I never mess up someone in a forward position unless it's directly advantageous to me and benefit me the absolute most.
Re-listening to the intro to this list - and the bit on mechanics vs mechanisms.
Top 10 Annoying Pedantic Discussions in Gaming
A. Mechanic vs Mechanism
B. Rulebook v Rule Book v Rulesbook
C. It Doesn’t Say I Can’t Do That
D. Round v Turn v Action v Phase v Step
E. When The Card Says Number of Cards, Does It Count Itself?
There. I gave you half. :)
Oh man, gotta love being dazed as a tank in 4e. Leaders and Controllers generally have ranged stuff or don't need to worry about their personal position as much. A lot of strikers have a ranged option, and might be able to chaerg. Tanks basically get to spend the round fixing themselves a sandwich since the majority of what they do is opportunity or immediate actions.
The getting the exact roll to win at the end of trivial pursuit is the annoyance of roll and move combined with an awful artificial catch up mechanic.
Trivial pursuit slam is a huge improvement.
I really had no idea board games had a big adult fanbase. This is coming from someone who plays lots of video games. I don't even play board games much at all but I like watching you guys talk about them!
Artificial catch up mechanics / preventing elimination - Cyclades. The first time I played I took one of my friends starting islands at the start of the game. Because of the rule that you can't lose your last space he used the farming action repeatedly and easily won in the end.
3. Rolling for actions can be good if it's a common roll for all players - so if you roll a 1, everybody only gets one action that round - allows interesting choices where one player might be gambling on getting a high roll where another player is playing more cautiously and can complete their plan with a low roll. The Adventurers is a good example of this.
I like Tom and Sam too, just the 3 of you together works so well. I hope you stick with it.
Nice summary @ the end for viewers who are short on time. Thanks!
I missed my most hated game mechanism. The ones where players deliberately or indeliberately form coaltions to take out a single player. Like Player A attacks player B in a war of tear and wear and in the next turn Player C jumps in for the coup de grâce.
I don't mind it in games like settlers of catan, where everyone tries to steal from the player with the clay monopoly though.
GREAT shirt Sam! :-)
Great hair Tom.
Good job on the top ten again guys. Fun and informative as always. Please keep them coming!
Great video once again. I find it true that takeovers almost never happens in RFTG, BUT, the possibility that they might happen changes the game A LOT. If you`re opponent is going military, you can`t play small rebel worlds, or windfalls that would up your military, etc because it would expose you to takeovers.
On top of what you said, the "kill everything" cards also add the potential for a player in an impossible situation to escape a losing battle and regain the ability to win the game.
I actually like your number 1... I have no problems with roll and move games. It can get frustrating sure but as long as everyone is on the same play level, it doesn't bother me. It's when that roll can give someone a huge advantage that I find there are problems
You got a very heavy LIKE from me for the rampage at a little after the 20:00 mark!!
I think the last rule (and most of them, actually) comes down to a lack of interactivity or control, where your outcome is mostly, if not entirely, dictated by a dice roll (or as with the other rules, a single card draw, or some other bad balancing). After all, people want to win most games by their own skill and strategy, not by luck (I'm better at rolling 6 than you, so HA!). I don't think that move X spaces as indicated by a dice roll is necessarily a bad mechanic, because the player can still be left with a high degree of choice.
For example, I think the game Talisman does it right (like somebody who commented earlier). Whenever you roll a die you have a degree of choice as to where you go, always at least 2 options, sometimes more. And these options are very meaningful, beyond the space you land on, because each choice determines which choices you have on the next turn. To add to that, with the later versions, if you don't like a roll, you can use a fate point to do a re-roll, adding more skill/control into the mix. And this works in Talisman, because you usually aren't trying to only go to specifically one spot, you're trying to improve your character by roaming around. There are usually several spots where you would be fine with going to, and most of the time, moving your character does something meaningful. In other roll-to-move games, it's simply a semi-random way of determining who gets around faster, and getting around fast, or getting to a specific spot is the goal. If everybody wants to go to the same place in Clue, it's a competition to see who can roll a die to add to 20 first. It's a pretty meaningless mechanic in that case, and since it is the core determiner of how much you know, it seems a bit unfair (like how they mentioned how unfair it is to have a die roll determine how many actions a player can do on their turn). The variance on how often somebody wins in Clue has to be HUGE.
And, that's a pseudo-rant. In short, I don't think roll-to-move is an inherently unfair mechanic, it just depends on how it is implemented. While it is a common offender, I don't think it is the real problem. Not the "#1 bad rule in board games" for sure.