My Top 10 Favorite Games That Needed a Second Chance
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- In today’s video I talk about games that took a second play for me to see and appreciate their brilliance (and how much I enjoyed them). I’m so glad I gave these games a second chance.
Ambassadors: Agricola, Ark Nova, Brass, Game of Thrones, Great Western Trail, Libertalia, Root, Tapestry, Terra Mystica, Terraforming Mars, Too Many Bones, Viticulture, Wingspan
Reasons mentioned: bad teach, overwhelming complexity, punishing mechanisms, too new to the hobby, wrong environment, expectations about weight, overstayed its welcome, missing the efficiency puzzle, games with A/B sides for complexity, critical decisions during setup
My Top 10:
10. Challengers
9. Heat
8. Turing Machine
7. Love Letter
6. Lost Ruins of Arnak
5. Everdell
4. So Clover
3. A Feast for Odin
2. Skull King
1. The Castles of Burgundy
00:00 - Introduction
01:15 - Ambassador Picks and Reasons
03:30 - 10-4
14:41 - Top 3
Become a champion of this channel: stonemaier-games.myshopify.co...
podcast link: stonemaiergames.com/about/pod...
Intro animation by Jeff Payne vimeo.com/jaaronpayne 
Игры
Not having to choose your bonus cards in Ark Nova until someone has reached 10 conservation points is a great change from many games where that choice is made during set up. Giving players a chance to progress towards those goals first and understand how the game works is something I hope more designers implement.
I agree, that's a great concept used in Ark Nova.
Ark Nova fits this category for me, each time I play I learn a little bit more and it's become one that I look forward to playing and make time to get it to the table more. Agricola is also kind of like that, the first time I played it seemed like I got nowhere fast but I've come to enjoy it more. I am glad that you mentioned The Castles of Burgundy, I've wanted to play it for a long time, finally got the chance and loved some of it but didn't quite understand it in it's entirety. I may give this another chance.
Really appreciate the humility here. I had several of the same challenges with some of these games and you fessing up to the same thing makes me more willing to go back and try again. Great video, thanks!
I appreciate you saying that. Let me know if you find potential in any of the games you revisit.
Love Letter is SO GOOD! It went from a decent fun filler game to a staple "Gotcha!" game night ender. We end so many game nights with this. And it's so fast that you can't get mad. Because in just a couple of minutes you'll get to start over.
My favorite second-chance game is Innovation! I was so thoroughly outplayed by my opponent the first time I played, I decided to never play it again. It was a disheartening experience. Then I was invited to play again nine months later and agreed to try again. I took the time to really understand the choices my opponent and I were making, and now it is my most-played game!
Thanks for sharing! I bet that's a common reason why some first plays can lead to a bad taste.
I can’t believe COB is your #1. I played it when I was first getting into hobby games about 10 years ago. I didn’t get it at the time and didn’t play it again for like 7 years. Now it’s my all time favorite! Haha
Nice! I'm glad you gave it a second try too. :)
LOVE challengers, and So Clover. Skull King is still on my shelf of shame and I NEED to get it to the table based on how much other people love it.
For some designs, not letting players make enough important decisions before the game starts can also be problematic. It wish more games had a first game set of rules, or at least advanced variants.
This is a hard category for me. Very rarely do I have a wrong first impression on whether a game is for me or not. Even if I get destroyed on my first play I usually see a spark of something that makes me like it and want to play again.
The one exception I can think of is Race for the Galaxy. Games are so short on BGA that I just kept playing and getting smoked until it finally clicked after five or so times and I now love it.
I think improper player count on the box is the most common reason I have struggled with great games in the past. There’s a ton of that out there. Playing power grid at any player count aside from 6 seems like the game isn’t being played to its fullest for example. It seems game designers want to put as wide a player count range as possible sometimes to broaden the appeal. It does some games a disservice that way. Thanks for the video!
Heat became a lot better as I added in the garage and weather mods. It really felt like my car worked with a different strategy than others.
Everdell was definitely one for me. It was one of my first complex worker placement games and we were taught with the Pearlbrook expansion as well. It completely overwhelmed me that time. But now I truly love it and have started to get good at the efficiency puzzle.
Challengers! was also one that the first time we played it at BGG.Spring 2023, we were struggling wrapping our minds around it and teaching ourselves. But once we got through it and then taught it to a group of friends, it really started to shine.
Challengers should have come to mind for me too. I thought it was fine the first time, but the second time I really started to enjoy it.
Personally Everdell continues to be a struggle for me, for the reasons mentioned (e.g., efficiency, extending seasons). I appreciate that others have noted this too. Thanks to this commenter and Jamie for pulling this together. As for design recommendations, just so much to absorb at the beginning has been the difficulty for me. Again, thanks…
I had the same experience with Lost Ruins of Arnak. The first time the rounds were so fast it seemed like you'd accomplish little to nothing.
Your reaction to Feast for Odin is very similar to my time with Fields of Arle.
And your feeling with Skull King is a lot like my plays of The Gallerist. Initially I just didn't get it and after some time with the game it's much more streamline than expected and so crunchy.
Great video and topic. Thanks!
Interesting you compared So Clover to Just One. I compared it to Codenames. I ended up liking So Clover a lot because I thought it had way less downtime than Codenames. So, I liked it first time. Maybe another thing to add to the list of reasons a game didn't go over well the first time is games you're comparing it to.
Scout is that game for me, tried it first with 2 players, sold it right after. Played again few months later with 4 players and immediately purchased it again 😂
Great topic, I've had my eye on castles of burgundy for a while so it might be my next buy! I love hearing about specifics and intricacies of games I don't yet own but want to. For myself it's more about getting others to give a second chance, I struggle to get these on the table:
-Race for the Galaxy (hard for new players to understand the symbols on the cards and how they relate to phases, trade especially. They feel like they're just playing cards even when given help and advice on synergies/engine building, but I have found after a few plays it really clicks)
-Rising Sun (one of my all time favourites, but simply too long to set up and play for others)
Heat beyond the base (by adding the additional mods) was a big difference maker for me (Chris)
What an interesting top ten list ! I might actually have to retry some of these titles myself
Watergate is a game like this for me. And it’s almost by design. The game really sings when both players are familiar with both decks, so you can both anticipate the possible moves and countermoves for the other side. That takes a few games of actually playing before it clicks.
That's a great point about games with strong asymmetry!
Caverna is definitely my number one pick for this. There are so many options for rooms to buy that its overwhelming for new players. I gave it another shot because its one of my dad's favorites
I had very similar first experiences with Love Letter, Lost Ruins of Arnak, and Everdell, which have also grown on me. This video makes me want to give A Feast for Odin another try after a lackluster first game. I was also overwhelmed by the sheer number of worker placement choices, and the polyomino minigame felt very disjointed. I also may be better equipped to handle a heavier game like that after 4 more years into the hobby.
I learned COB on BGA and that really helped me get into it since I could just hover over the tiles instead of consulting a reference guide. Though I admit I didn't fully understand how the scoring worked until after quite a few games and looking at the rulebook 😅
Love Everdell and all expansions! 😻
This is actually such a cool list and probably a really important thing to talk about. So many things are affected by where we're at, who we were with, what exactly was going on at the time. Great video.
Thanks! I agree that the circumstances make a big difference.
I came to check on the comments from your most recent video. Left with new information haha
Pixel Tactics was like this for me. I was interested in the idea of the game, but after the first play, i was like, there must be something I'm missing, cause I'm just not feeling this. The second time it clicked and I fell in love with it.
Mine is a mechanism. I got totally destroyed twice in a row when learning StarRealms, and I did not play a deckbuilder for 3-4 years because of that. As a game designer I eventually felt I needed to try Dominion, now one of my favorite games. Later I bought StarRealms plus some expansions for my kids. I quit my learning game of Challengers in round 3!
The first time I played Friday (using the app) I was really new to board games and had never played a deck builder before, so I had no idea what I was doing and couldn't see how I could possibly win. I came back to the game after playing a whole bunch of Star Realms (again using the app) and it was so much more obvious what I needed to do and how I could improve my hand to beat more difficult hazards deliberately losing to get rid of weak cards.
I think your points about Lost Ruins is why i haven't been able to get it to the table in my group. I've played one full game, then not even half of another before folks bailed.
Thank you for the explanation of Skull King vs Wizard. We’ve played a lot of Wizard with family and friends, and then learned about Skull King in another one of your videos. I consider Skull King, Wizard +. I prefer Skull King and have taught it to those who have played Wizard. Most prefer Skull King except for a few who find it too confusing and the artwork on the cards a bit too different from traditional playing cards. Also glad to see Heat on your list. Surprisingly, it’s the game that now makes it to the table most frequently on game night. A great game for a variety of players with varying skill level. Plus, we tend to have a high player count on game night, so Skull King and Heat fit the criteria.
Thanks for sharing, James! That's great to hear about Skull King and Heat.
I was poorly taught how to play Arboretum years ago which definitely changed how I viewed Arboretum. After having read the rules myself, and later playing it by the rules, it has since made my game collection.
I'm glad you brought up the potential for a poor teach (which is only sometimes the game's fault)--it can definitely impact someone's first experience.
Blood Rage, 7 Wonders Duel, Raiders of the North Sea, Elysium are my second chance games :)
It’s interesting you mention Castles of Burgundy (CoB). I never had an interest in playing the game because of how it looked. When the collectors edition came out I decided to give it a try. After one play with the deluxe Awaken Realms edition, I was completely enthralled by it and knew immediately it would be a forever favorite of mine.
Their version is so beautiful! I played it last summer and loved it.
Wasn't impressed with Isle of Cats the first time I played it. After a couple more plays, I now really enjoy it.
Queendomino was too much for my brain the first few plays, but eventually I figured out how all the scoring mechanisms interact and I grew to love it. Splendor never clicked for me in this way... I play it way too slow 😅
Skull King lives in this weird place in my heart. I LOVE the first half of the game. Very exciting, etc. after the first 5 rounds it's obvious who the winner is. We gave it 4-5 plays because I missed that amazing bidding/card play, but the same thing kept happening. :(
In reverse chronological order:
Dune Imperium: sounds dumb, but I didn’t really get the mechanic where you want to balance what workers to put out versus what cards you can use during refresh to buy from the market versus saving swords for battle. I was sick and it was around midnight when we decided to try it, so it was likely a “me problem.” Now I think this is the best way to design a deck-builder hybrid game.
Expeditions (sorry Jamey): I couldn’t wrap my head around the terminology used for things, like “taking a play action to play a card and activate it to vanquish corruption, which then lets me gather a meld.” Lots of words I was familiar with, but not in this context. But once I got fluent in the game, I now LOVE it!
Minecraft Builders and Biomes: at first I felt like this was too random and didn’t full get the round-based scoring. But after the first play it made sense and underneath the license I’m not interested in, there’s a tight little underrated area control game.
First list where I had 8 out of 10 of the games. Surprisingly, I feel a lot of these are deeply loved by folks in the hobby. Perhaps there’s something to be said for being misunderstood on the first play.
I’m not sure how many games I completely changed my mind on during the second play but there were some games, especially early in the hobby, that after the first play I would have said I was lukewarm on and in spite of that kept looking for opportunities to play it. I think the better I learned my gaming preferences the easier it was for me to say what it was that kept me coming back. Both Viticulture and Tapestry are favorites that I didn’t realize how much I enjoyed until I noticed how often I found myself wanting to play them. Some of it was an issue learning the game but some of it also was as a newer gamer I was anxious to blindly trust public opinion which at the time was especially critical of Tapestry.
I have also played a few games where I was not interested after seeing a demo, teach, or playthrough and then fell in love with once I played it. I’m currently playing Sonic Roll which I was very skeptical about when I saw it at a convention and after playing it I was hooked.
"Both Viticulture and Tapestry are favorites that I didn’t realize how much I enjoyed until I noticed how often I found myself wanting to play them."
This really resonates with me--I've definitely had that happen with other games.
Tapestry was like that for me. But really glad I tried again 🙂
Thanks for giving Tapestry a second chance!
Scythe is in my list! Ended up giving a second chance and put me on a great game journey. Played with overly aggressive experienced players. It's why I give new players red and an easy mat to go with it. I want people to enjoy it as much as I do. I have played over 100 games!!
I appreciate those thoughts. I still don’t really get it after playing it once digitally. Debating whether or not to let it go or play again physically. You may have convinced me to keep it.
It started this great game journey I am on. Now we play table top games ever weekend!!
Scythe is a wonderful game that is maybe number 1 in “well I expected it to be one thing but it was another and so I had a bad experience”.
It’s not a war game. It’s just a really good beautiful euro game with world building elements. The amount of times people have told me they played it once, and they didn’t get to attack at all so they won’t play it again (despite loving other classic euros) astounds and upsets me
I appreciate you giving Scythe another chance!
After watching this I thought of a couple of games I might give a second chance.
Magic the Gathering (no rulebook)
Fluxx (confusing rules)
So Clover is the Dutch version... And just so you know, us Dutchies really don't like to be called German... But because this is such a great channel, we'll cut ya some slack! 😉Keep up the great work...
I'm sorry about that mistake!
@@jameystegmaier just keep up making those great videos and you can make as many mistakes as you want...
This is a good category. Memorably for me, I HATED Lewis & Clark when I played it for the first time on boardgamearena, then gave it a second chance with a physical copy and liked it quite a bit. The Voyages of Marco Polo is a top 10 game for me that I found inscrutable in my first couple of plays. Through the Ages was very tedious the first couple of times while learning the rules, but I've grown to like it more and more with each play.
SUGGESTION: Depending on what presentation software you use, you can probably position your browser tabs to be just outside of the window that viewers see. This would hide spoilers. Personally I don't care too much about being spoiled, but I find myself thinking about not looking at the tabs and that's distracting!
That's a great point about how trying a game digitally first can sometimes not be the best representation of the actual tabletop experience. And thanks for the tip about the tabs! The trick is that I still need to be able to click on the tabs--the screen I see is the same screen you all see. :)
I think a list of games that you like but you think you would have never been able to design yourself. For instance as a musician and songwriter, most pop songs listen to and say "I could imagine myself writing this song" but there are songs that are so unusual that I can't picture myself having written them.
You mention set-up decisions being one of the reasons a game might not hit the first time - If you could do it over with Wingspan, would you approach the 'game start bonus cards' differently? For example, Ark Nova has you discard your 2nd bonus card once somebody hits 10 conservation. Thanks for the video!
That's a good question. Wingspan does involve a decision about cards, food, and bonus cards at the beginning of the game. But I don't think I would change that aspect of it--it isn't a 1:1 comparison to Ark Nova, because in Ark Nova it's almost always the case that players can't get more objectives. In Wingspan, though, halfway through the game a player might have 5 bonus cards. So do they just discard any one of them? Or specifically one of the two they started with? It could still work, but I do think it falls into a different category since it's common for players to gain more bonus cards while playing Wingspan. Our answer to this is found in Wyrmspan: Instead of having a different deck of bonus cards, the end-game bonuses are built into the dragon cards themselves.
@@jameystegmaier Jamey, thanks for your thoughtful response. The issue surrounding gaining bonus cards occurred to me as well, but I wasn't sure if the benefit of avoiding that up front decision was worth designing around that. Discarding 1 bonus card after round 1 (or similar) could work. Obviously Wingspan isn't going to change, but the question was more philosophical in nature - is that a design element that you think you'll use in the future, etc. Thanks again!
"Critical decisions during setup", in Wingspan with new players I have them keep all 5 cards and resources.
I like that house rule! The downside is that it diminishes the importance (and thus the balance) of the forest and wetlands action.
Love this top ten and just topic in general. How many times have we showed someone our favorite game and you finish the game and they go “meh. It was ok”. And you try so hard to convince them that they need to play it again and there’s dozens of reasons a game may not land on the first try. And I tend to like games where strategy is subtle and require a lot of plays to really explore.
Something that I think can happen a lot, which I’m not sure you can avoid as a designer, is the skill level of a play group. And this can go both ways depending on person.
For example, I played Quest for El Dorado three times and decided it wasn’t for me. I won two of those games and just felt like it was pure luck. It didn’t matter that much what anyone did. Then I played it with someone who was experienced and I got trounced. Thats when I started to really like the game because I saw how much skill can come into play.
I’ve seen that happen with a few games. People just assume game is too lucky and it’s not worth their time. Many of Tom Lehmans game fall into this category - so I think you need an experienced player at the table to show that while game has randomness the level of skill is extremely high. On the flip side of course, there are people who lost their first game so badly they just have a rotten taste in their mouth and don’t to feel that again or invest the time to reach a point where they can compete. Food Chain Magnate (my #1) often falls into this category. ,I will say Heat: PttM is still in the first category for me where after 3 plays it just didn’t feel like the decisions mattered that much. But maybe none of us were any good.
Another thing that can happen is playing at a player count that changes the game drastically. One of my all time favorite games is Five Tribes. But I was ready to sell it after my first play. That was at two players. My wife and I were completely overwhelmed by the choices and the game just seemed like it would break our brains. Then I played it at 3 - there’s a major difference, where you only make one more per turn instead of two like you do at 2 player. All of a sudden the game was a tactical master piece. As a designer perhaps explaining the different feelings you’ll have at different counts would be helpful. One of my top 5 games is scythe - but playing it at 2 is basically a different game that I don’t enjoy. Agricola is also a top 5 game, but you should know that at 4+ this game will take a LONG time, and at 2 it will be extremely cut throat.
Combining those two topics somewhat, I think designers could do more explaining what to expect. Take scythe for example. Why not say in the rule book that Nordics are a more difficult faction to play? Everyone told me how nordics are broken and Rusviet are OP. Now nordics are my favorite faction to play. Or, for example, in a five player game Polania will have a harder time using its special ability of double encounters so a more experienced player/gamer should probably take that one? Like you said, a common issue with first plays is it didn’t meet expectations. So why not help level set those expectations on player count, play time, asymmetric powers, etc. I don’t think it ruins the exploration joy of the game - it just helps ease people in and know that you’ve thoughtfully play tested the game
That's a great point about player counts and difficulty levels for asymmetry.
For Scythe, we don't say in the rulebook that the Nordics are more difficult to play because I don't think the Nordic's are more difficult to play. :) I designed the factions in Scythe to be equally difficult (I understand that you may believe differently, but this is the answer to your question).
Interesting. Don’t get me wrong : I’m not saying they’re unbalanced. But if you put four new players to the table, you don’t think the Nordic players will tend to have a lower winning percentage and Rusviet will tend to be higher ?
@@levenzaha I've seen some data that ranks certain factions above others in terms of win rate, though (a) the data may be skewed based on players who choose certain factions more than others and (b) I'm not sure how a faction's win rate is relevant for selecting factions for first-time players.
I can honestly see a variety of reasons for new players to play with each faction in the core game. I wouldn't have a new player start with an Invaders from Afar faction, though.
Glad I gave Arkham horror LCG and Spirit Island a second chanse!
What was it about Arkham horror? I tried it once and didn’t like it at all. I still own it but have never touched it again.
@@drewwilliams2231 1. Intially found Lord of the Rings LCG superior. 2. Lack of ethnicity represented in core box. 3. Art.
I've been playing a bunch of games on BGA arena and I've decided not to pass judgement on them until I've won a game. Otherwise it is hard for me to say that I really get it.
That's an interesting approach!
What is the name of the video that you teach about sequential board games to ramp up complexity to someone in the hobby?
Here is that video: ruclips.net/video/tH0Qbsnh88w/видео.htmlsi=u1ld8l6MkSq395Qc
Thank you@@jameystegmaier I liked that video!
Love letter is supposed to be played over multiple rounds.
That's right! Different numbers of rounds based on player count.
Love letter! That game was absolute TRASH when my partner and i first played it. It was just random and felt like we weren’t making any decisions. So much so that we shelved it for over 5 years.
I’m not sure why we picked it up again, but somehow the next time we did we totally got it. To the point that i have multiple copies now to travel with and in my car glove compartment. It’s just such an easy game to play with only the smallest amount of mental engagement required - it serves a very specific purpose, to kill time and laugh during downtime.
Since getting into it, we’ve discovered many of the variant games using the same core design - my favourite of which is the Lost Legacy series. Those games (well, the combination of all the different Lost Legacy sets) really turns the the OG love letter game into something extra - without too much additional complexity.
But really, it’s a testament to the genius of the original game that Lost Legacy CAN be more complex. Love Letter is fantastic and every gamer should have a copy in their back pocket to bring out when you’re just shooting the shit waiting for your order of beer and pretzels to arrive at your table.
"critical decisions during setup"
I lose at Catan. A lot. And half the time I lose in the setup.
We had a bad teach/setup on this game. My wife ended up between 1 and 12. Another player was between two 6's. Guess who won and who lost.
13:22 It‘s not the German version. :-)
I'm sorry about that! My mistake.
@@jameystegmaier no worries. I just want to let you know. :-)
There is something more that deserves a second chance. Russian board game market.
1) you are the person behind the best modern board games, everyone knows you. Viticulture, wingspan, scythe - they are forever in the boardgame hall of fame. Your 2023 sales are 19% lower than 2022 and 32% lower than 2021. One of the reasons might be abandoning Russian market.
2) Your games are in the highest demand in Russia. Used games are sold at 3x or 4x price. Imagine having to buy a used copy of Wingspan for $180 or used Viticulture for $210. And that’s not the gamers who decided to start the situation we’re all in, so why do they have to pay for it?
3) we understand your motives to abandon Russian game market. But there are still options for you to make money and be legal, and avoid being cancelled. Devir does that. Some ru companies have kz legal entities.
Please consider finding a way to get back. That will be mutually beneficial.
I would love to reignite our partnerships with the two Russian-language publishers we previously worked with so we can service customers in Russia. As soon as Russia stops trying to conquer Ukraine, we're happy to do that. That is a much, much higher priority for me than making a little extra money (and "being cancelled" isn't on my list of motivations at all). Are you in support of a halt to the invasion so you can get Stonemaier Games back to the table again?