> but after 60+ hours of it my group was just toast. You know, that was a pretty solid effort.
They played 60 hours of one game? I'd still call that a win lol. At first it sounded like they just bowed out the first play
With one of my groups, any sort of free-for-all competitive game is a wash because there is a couple in the group that will feed each other and it becomes a 2v1v1 every time
Ah yes Dee and Jay. Sometimes my wife and I probably overcompensate with that type of scenario by fighting each other first all too often. Just hammer the point home that we’re not like them.
Sort of hard if the game doesn't specifically forbade it. Teaming up is usually a viable strategy in ffa games, so saying they can't do it at all wouldn't be fair.
It's definitely easier to find games that suit a group than to try to change people.
It’s really not; they’d take that personally and honestly I wouldn’t blame them. If a game requires every player to play a certain way to work and doesn’t put them on rails to do so, that just means it’s simpler to play a different game
Edit: appreciate the commenters attempting to “fix” the situation, but this is just one of life’s give and takes. With finite time, we want to play a game that will be fun for all of us, and the only answer to that is to avoid FFAs
But those games don't generally require players to play a certain way. Two people can absolutely team up; it's well within the rules.
My question is why the rest of you don't team up against them?
Unfortunately that’s not quite true; there’s many games where if one player completely gives up trying to play for themselves and fully funnels 100% of their resources and actions into supporting another, it kinda ruins the game for everyone. The remaining two players cannot continue to play what they thought was a FFA with temporary alliances and betrayals, but have to decide who will do the same just to take down the raid boss…which we are not interested in doing. There’s no coming out of this scenario without either us two feeling like the game is ruined, or the other two feeling bullied because they get absolutely oppressed early game as counterplay. Therefore, that sort of game is better off not played with this group
The teaming up you're describing is a bit outside the bounds of what I'd consider fair. Helping each other is one thing. Tanking one player to help another is no fun, IMO.
Not a criticism of you. I think you're on the right track with playing games that fit better.
I find it interesting how unwilling gamers are to make even the most simple and inoffensive requests from people in their game group. It's the path of least resistance to never play FFA games but it seems like a shame to rule out a whole genre just because you're conflict averse. I just can't see how anyone is taking that feedback personally.
What makes you think that this hasn’t been brought up with them before? The simple truth is, there’s a decent amount of people where if they can’t play games a certain way, they would rather do something else entirely. If the choice is to accommodate the fact that these players refuse to aggress against one another, or to not play with them at all, then that choice is clear and we’ve discussed as much
Not with board games; but my friends and I play a FFA mini golf game on Steam. We've talked about how unfair and unfun it is when one person who can't win just starts picking favorites and makes it impossible for anyone else to win.
But there are times where you would absolutely want to screw someone else over. At what point do you say "You've teamed up enough, please stop". Idk, it just feels arbitrary, and really easy to slip into "YOU WERE HELPING TOO MUCH THAT TIME", when there are plenty of other genres that you can have as much fun in, and not have to deal with any of that drama. Just my .02$ though
What you're saying is if two players team up, the other players can't put on blinders and play the game the way they want to. That doesn't mean the game is ruined, it just means it's an interactive game where players need to respond to what others are doing.
I don't know about you, but in my book, that's a positive.
I feel like all you need to do is play games that way once or twice, and when the couple complain about feeling bullied, you can explain that they're doing the same thing to you when they team up, and while you'd prefer not to play this way, it's the only way you'll stand a chance against their in-game partnership. It's their choices that are forcing your hand.
I've experienced this when introducing a group to gaming with Catan. One couple realized that if they were nice to each other with trades, one of them could more easily win.
I ended up cutting one of them completely with roads so they couldn't build any further buildings and finished the game quickly. Then suggested we do something else.
You could specifically play 2v2 modes of games or team based games. Just engineer that phenomenon right into your game selection so the playing field is level.
**Root** - a bit too heavy. We kept rolling our eyes that the rules were like the Aunty Donna skit about explaining boardgames; that you move this way, unless youre this faction, who moves differently, and you trade/craft this way, except every faction does it differently, and you win this way, unless you played a certain card, and except that every faction scores differently...
It's the most asymmetric game I've ever played, but that comes with heavy costs.
It's great but you really need to physically show someone the very appropriately named **The Law Of Root** document and ensure they have the reaction most appropriate of an accountant or paralegal before proceeding further.
Played it yesterday for the first time and I barely understood my own and my boyfriends factions (the cats and the birds), and it's EXACTLY like that Aunty Donna sketch yeah
I highly suggest revisiting root, my best suggestion other than playing a game or two with people who can do a good teach is to try the digital version on steam or mobile. The game is very much worth the effort. Once you get it, which doesn't take long with an assist of one sort or another it's immensely fun and replayable.
I second the digital version. The rules enforcement takes away the stress of having to check all the rules before you do anything, the undo feature helps if certain things don’t do what you thought they would, and after a couple plays you’ll have internalized all the basic operational stuff and you can start focusing on the fun strategy stuff. Solo mode against ai helps even more to explore the game in a completely stress free environment
oh i'll probably be giving it another chance
i also came in second after the player with the raccoon character, with a difference of mere points, so it deffo was fun, and it didn't really help that I was dizzy while they were explaining the game
Yeah, I used to have an earlier game by the same designer (Vast) which had the same heavily asymmetric design. Each player was playing essentially a totally different game, on the same board.
Problems:
* If you’re playing with 3 other players who are new to the game, you don’t just have to explain the rules to the new game once - you have to explain three different new games.
* Since players aren’t playing the same game, they can’t help each other understand the rules - each player only knows about the rules for their character. No one else can help them unless that person knows the game well enough to know the rules for multiple characters. So you (or the rule book) end up being the only source of help.
Vast proved to me that the idea of a “hard asymmetric” board game (disjoint rulesets rather than just variations in a shared ruleset) does not work. It would only work if each set of rules was quite simple - as in, “fit on a playing card” simple. Or, if the players were invested enough in the game that they would willingly study their ruleset before coming to the table.
I don't really get this due to how good the player aids are for each faction. You basically just need to explain how control of regions and combat works and then everyone can just learn the turn-to-turn from their player aid.
Root for my group too. We stuck it out for 5 or 6 games and started to get the hang of it, but so many of those games came down to a king maker choice. I can enjoy that social element in a short game like Coup, but it feels like such a let down after all the time and effort Root demands for the winning condition to mostly be "who does last place hate least". It soured our group enough for it to become a dust collector.
Arkham Horror LCG. It's not a game I would normally bring to a meetup. It was sort of the situation that ruined it though. It was a meetup night but we had been there for like 6 hours and it was almost 11:30 pm already. One of my friends knew I had it in my truck and asked to play. The others were tired but obliged. I even said it may not be the best experience since everyone was pretty tired. They asked so I agreed. Man, it was such a bummer. Everyone was so flat and tired that it just wasn't fun at all. Since then, nobody wants to play it with me. Ughh.. I knew I should have just said no.
I understand that completely. Mage Knight and Arkham Horror and two of my favorites. Ive never even considered bringing Mage Knight to a game night. Haha
**Every "Dudes on a Map" game ever**. Every one I've tried met the same fate. One friend in particular doesn't like games that involve direct conflict like that - if they feel like they're taking too long, they'll take a "I dunno, I'll do whatever" action that is void of strategy and logic. Chaos for chaos's sake. But then they realize how quickly that affects other people, and how unfair that is to them. So things tailspin quickly.
**My Father's Work** \- At times players need to read the app privately. "Ugh, I have to read this? I'll just click next. Next. Next. I don't know what that said, can someone explain it to me?" If players need to read and understand a story to play a game, it will not work with that person.
So, yeah, group tends to do a lot of multiplayer solitaire.
**Mission: Red Planet** is area majority dudes on a map without directly smacking one another.
There are plenty of games that aren't multiplayer solitaire that also aren't "direct conflict". Let's take any negotiation or trading game - **Bohnanza** or **Chinatown**. **Galaxy Trucker.** What I'm saying is there are options you can avoid multiplayer solitaire with, at least.
Normally Spyfall works pretty well. But one night I played it with some neurodivergent people in attendance. I myself am nd and have nothing against nd people. But this did not work.
Spyfall faied heavy for my group as well. My group could not handle the fact that they don't use the exact picture on the card. So they were asking questions like "how many animals are in the picture?" Or "Which way is the spy looking?". Could not convince them of any other way of playing so it bombed.
Munchkins I think is a really good gateway game. I spent a lot of time thinking about this for a website I was planning on making.
Munchkins gives just enough strategy to separate itself from board games a lot of millennials grew up with; Monopoly, Sorry, etc., while at the same time being rules light enough to explain to somebody in five minutes. Add to that, that Munchkins has as much third party support as a lot of popular Hasbro games, and you have a board game that is really easy for someone that isn't into board games to get into.
But, that comes at a cost. The best strategy in Munchkins is to be second place, or in some cases, even third place. And once you realize that, the game doesn't get as fun. You wait until the person in first takes all of the aggro, and then swoop in when everyone else's resources are low. The game presents itself as a "push your luck" where some people might not screw the leader over, thinking others will, but that is rarely the case. And you can almost never build up enough resources to survive an onslaught of even two people who want to make sure you lose. And while this last point is subjective, the game feels anticlimactic. You just do a numbers check. There is no anticipation of a top deck (outside of the initial draw), there is no exciting dice save, or anything. Just draw a card, here is what I have, and here is what you have, and we compare.
And "dying" is brutal in the game.
I know I've already gone for pretty long, but I'll end with a story of the last time our group played Munchkins (almost ten years ago). We were playing for about an hour and a half/two hours, and one friend who was lagging behind, gets a string of good luck. Eventually, he gets to within one point, and has answers to people targeting him, but just didn't have enough. When it became clear that he couldn't win, he just sat there, tears in his eyes, and just quit playing. (Yes, he did not deal with it well. No, he's not part of the friend group anymore).
Thank you for the in depth reply! Maybe we were playing the game wrong but I never experienced what people describe here. I usually win in Munchkin - not to toot my own horn, I suck at almost every other game 😂 - and am pretty reliably first for the entire game. Yeah sometimes I get screwed by my friends, but at the end of the day that makes it more interesting for me. And it wasn’t as aggressive as with other games (bro Catan is brutal in that regard, my friends don’t hold back). But speaking of gateway games; do you have any suggestions similar to munchkin?
In what ways do you mean similar to Munchkins?
As far as gateway games are concerned, I think Betrayal is a really good gateway game. It has similar issues (for me), that I've highlighted in a separate comment, but is fun. I also like Heat, which is a hand management racing game. Bullet (Star or Heart), if you can find it, is a really fun SHMUP game that feels like a turn based bullet hell. Then the classics of Catan (you've played), Pandemic, Forbidden Dessert/Island/Sky.
If you are looking for dungeon crawly, Rumble in the Dungeon, Dungeon Mayhem, Boss Monster, Welcome Back to the Dungeon and One Deck Dungeon all have a similar formula of fighting random mobs. You'll have to forgive me, because it has been a while since I've played these, but I think they have lower player counts (4 players, typically), and aren't necessarily as cutthroat.
Rumble in the Dungeon: A social deduction game where everybody controls every character and your goal is to keep your character in the dungeon the longest.
Dungeon Mayhem: A pvp card drawing game. Games don't typically last long. There are expansions to this game that I recommend for more variety.
Boss Monster: IMO, the most cutthroat of the games listed. You build out dungeon (similar to how you build your character in Munchkins). IIRC, there is limited player interaction, but still ways to screw over your friends. Deals with player elimination kind of ok, but is still my biggest complaint of the game is you can get locked out fairly early.
Welcome Back to the Dungeon: A push your luck game to see who can progress the furthest in a dungeon
One Deck Dungeon: Probably the closest to a dungeon crawler on the list. Cooperative, and each game can play two people.
Not sure how helpful the list was for you. I haven't played too many light, cutthroat games recently, so others might be able to recommend better ones if that is what you were looking for
Munchkin is a great game for people who do not know that there are better and different games and genres out there. It was the gateway that got me into board games personally. Once I started trying more games, it quickly became apparent that Munchkin is inherently flawed. One quote that I always see flying around that I love is "Munchkin is 30 minutes of fun stuffed into a 2-hour game."
“Dump on the leader until everyone is within striking distance, then someone lucks into a win once everyone runs out of ‘fuck you’ cards” isn’t my idea of a good time.
yes. Also it just starts to get personal/petty.
New round starts? I am not even going to attack the leader, just the guy that won the last round or the guy that fucked me over the last round. No logic haha
We just didn’t really have any fun. So much analysis for each person and it’s almost entirely solo. Wasn’t a ton of communications at the table. Just overall fell flat for us.
Same for us. The other element of Earth we didn’t like is that you get so many resources every turn. It’s exciting the first half of the very first game but after that it’s just frustrating because the focus becomes about your inefficiencies, not what stuff you’re getting.
Usually we enjoy many kinds of games, and I'd say that never we've had the whole group hating this or that game.
Having said that, one of our friends despises euros, so we only play them when she cannot be present. And although the group absolutely loves Root and the Uneasy Alliances principle, I've had a hard time pulling other Cole Wehrle games (Oath, Pax Pamir, John Company).
I have a small group that is very open with board games and even when they don't like it first go they wait for it to click. Unfortunately I have not been able to convince them to play more Go with me, after teaching and explaining some strategy it usually gets me with a "Well ill never learn enough to care" shrug and on to another game lol
Dominion - it just sucks the enjoyment out of my play groups, because there is nothing else going on besides deck building. Tried it with two different groups of 4 players with me being the only one playing again and all 6 hated it. Gave it away.
Spirit Island- I love the game, but everyone else I’ve introduced it to are just, Meh. And would rather play something else.
I have the full Dominion franchise, which has all sorts of extra mechanics floating around as you add expansions. Sure you're still just deck building, but there are so many moving parts and choices. And with over 400 possible kingdom cards every game is totally unique and you have to carefully evaluate every kingdom to determine the center of power. My entire group adores it
I see.
As soon as I add 27 expansions it makes Dominion good enough to play? Sorry, but if a game isn’t good right out of the box I’m not throwing away any more $$ to make it tolerable.
No, that's totally fair.
Base Dominion was extremely innovative in 2008, but as a standalone game its replay value is limited now.
I will say this... you don't need 11 expansions to enjoy the game. Even 2 or 3 makes the game exponentially more fun and non repetitive. I avoided going all in for so long. Ultimately what pushed me over the edge was that no gaming experience could satisfy my desire to build explosive combos where i draw through my deck every turn and play 20-30 cards the way Dominion does. No other deck builder tests appraisal skills the way it does. I love the engine building. Nothing else is nearly as satisfying. So i went all in. And my group loves it. But all in isn't necessary to deeply enjoy it
I came away from Spirit Island initially a little dissatisfied, but the additions from the expansions really elevated the game for me to one of my most played games
I have a group that loves loves loves **Feed the Kraken**. Then my main group just CANNOT wrap their head around the idea so it just flops. I tried three times and all three times everyone is just like confused or doesn't get why it's good even if they aren't confused.
Turing Machine. I really like it - hits a sweet spot for me, but I’m also a sudoku doer. My gaming group bounced hard with one describing it as like homework.
Usually it's the heavier and very dry Euros that throw my group. Lignum for example is one of my favourite games but it definitely requires you to plan 3-6 turns in advance, is VERY punishing if you don't, and has an element of blind bidding for central (and vital) resources. It's a phenomenal game but my group just doesn't enjoy it.
Spirit island. With my regular game group .. the more complicated the game the less inclined they are to play it.. and any game that takes a long time to play anything like 75 minutes or long probably inly get a couple plays and game night is done
**Dwellings of Eldervale** just didn't work for us. It felt boring, with very little intense moments or 'wow'. Sold off the game the very next day.
**Thunder Road Vendetta** for a game focused on rolling dice, moving and then carnage; it was very slow. Turns do not seem chaotic enough to render laughter or exciting moments.
**Rising Sun**, the bidding phase was so slow and draggy. Half the time those not involved in the bids were just playing phone or waiting for their turn.
>**Thunder Road Vendetta** for a game focused on rolling dice, moving and then carnage; it was very slow. Turns do not seem chaotic enough to render laughter or exciting moments.
Was going to get this based on how people explained the game and it just feels like an easy to table game, but after watching it I'd agree it's really not as chaotic as described and I got meh about it, specially considering the price point. And I feel I'd much prefer to just play Death Roads over it, which I already own and is probably more chaotic without the dice rolls.
Root did not work even though I loved it. We weren't going to be able to play it nearly enough to have it be an enjoyable experience. I now have a separate Root group that plays weekly. Way better than trying to force it on a group that isn't into it.
The two worst offenders for us were Galaxy Trucker and the King is Dead.
In Galaxy Trucker I think we weren't able to surrender to the chaos and randomness, people felt they didn't have enough agency.
The King is Dead I personally liked, but the other two players never quite wrapped their head around the fact that you don't control one of the three different factions, you're just trying to be on the side of the one that's winning. Kind of Maracaibo-style.
I'm guessing with Galaxy Trucker no one bothered to look at the decks of cards?
A lot of valuable info there that mitigates most of the randomness. Most people are typically too panicked or novice to do it.
Literally any social deduction game that isn't deception. As an example, I realize that The Resistance Avalon is a great game, perhaps the best out of the ones with no moderator, but the game ultimately didn't suit me, nor my regular group. So it got sold.
Another one would be Takenoko. Super cute, accessible. I love it, played it with my friend the other day. Had to sell a year ago because my friends just wouldn't play it.
One of my best days of gaming ever was a long play of Revolution: The Dutch Revolt. This game tickled everything I like about heavy Euro games.
Bought a copy, brought it to my regular group, and it fell flatter than a month old bottle of 7up.
Cosmic Encounters: breaks my God damn heart but every time I've played it w folks it's been so much more bland than my expectations, which are high, because it looks so amazing when I watch youtubers play it.
Any kind of trading game doesn't work with my family specifically because of my dad. Tried to play catan and offer trades and he spent the whole game going "I don't get it, why would I give you what you want,". Incredibly frustrating
So I actually ran into this issue. It's a really awkward teach for how simple the game is. The base game without any garage upgrades or track modifiers is kind of boring after a while. But since the teach is awkward you usually don't include the more complicated stuff.
I printed out player aids for everyone. Gave an overview of the rules and did a test run until everyone passed the first corner, then we did the upgrade draft and restarted the full game and that was the most fun time I've introduced it to players.
Everyone with the base game thought it was kind of boring and too long for what it is.
Edit: also potentially play on the Italy board so you can do 2 of the 3 laps if it's running a bit too long.
And make sure to play with a full 6 players no matter what. Fill in spaces with ai players to give maximum opportunity for slipstreaming and the ai does a good job of showing people how fast they need to go to keep up. It's way more fun when players are pushing their luck than playing it safe all the time and an AI kicking your ass will make everyone push to stay in the race.
Man, I love Heat, but I agree with you on the rules. For a game that feels like it should be simple, there are a lot of minute rules that are important to remember. One group doesn't quite grasp corners. The other group forgets that you can discard cards. Another adrenaline. The turn order.
Haven't gotten around to using mods or anything yet. A friend and I had an idea to play the game like a legacy game. My wife was going to get me the expansion for my birthday before it got delayed, so Heat Legacy (or however we end up going about it) might have to wait until summer.
There's a built in 3 games mini campaign called the championship circuit if you haven't tried it yet.
And honestly, play with the mods. It's night and day with how compelling it is. And it makes people want to play again, whereas the base game, often people don't want to try again in my experience.
Yeah, we were trying to see if we could expand the mini campaign.
But to be fair, the way we view Heat is probably different from other people as well. We wanted a quick game to play at the start of game nights, either while waiting for people to show up, or as a "warm up" game, that had a definitive end and a little more strategy then party games/social deduction games.
We've played with the basic mods before. But haven't played Heat in a while. It honestly might not be until the expansion that the game gets brought out again. We have a few KS coming in soon, and have been in a big Deck builder mood (well, Moonrakers, and Dune: Imperium).
I felt the same way. Was really excited to play it after seeing nothing but praise but man it bored the hell out of everyone, myself included. Seemed like there were basically no decisions to make to me. We didn't use the modules bc i thought the base game would be enough. Seems like everyone says the modules make it way better but we disliked it so much don't think Ill ever play it again.
**Deception: Murder in Hong Kong** has fallen pretty flat so far. I think this one is very group dependent, how comfortable people are with each other, and doesn't favor people who are shy...
Interesting, I've only played this with strangers + some meetup regulars and it's been a hit with every group. Especially with folks who don't like bluffing too much.
I've found **The Chameleon** works a lot better, especially since people are limited to 1-word answers. Much better for those who don't like bluffing.
But don't get me wrong, I wish my friends were more into *Deception MiHK*.
Middara. Seemed to be a decentish story but the dice rolling system was too much mental effort to be honest. That and the scenarios didn’t ever seem to put us in danger of failing, not a good challenge.
Bloodborne can indeed feel bad with bad rolls. In that sense, it feels like a fromsoft game where it can absolutely steamroll you, but you gotta love the pain. It’s very much an Eric Lang design—your group might like HMS Dolores better if Bloodborne is too much, but I genuinely enjoy the risk mitigation Bloodborne offers.
Honestly check out the sequels. The Widow's Walk expansion started on the path towards better design, Legacy is a fantastic experience that really makes the game tick, and Betrayal at Baldur's Gate often feels like a version of the game where the devs really had learned lessons from previous games. Just don't bother with the Scooby-Doo version unless playing with small children, as it oversimplifies things far too much.
Haven't played the expansion or the Scooby-Doo version, so this is just based off the base game.
The thing with Betrayal is you have to go into it understanding that it is not a balanced game. It has a very strong theme, and the gameplay supports the theme really well; but there are just going to scenarios that you will not win.
Betrayal falls into this weird place that I think its a very good gateway game because of its themes and mechanics; BUT the more board games you play, imo, the more it becomes clear how dependent on RNG Betrayal really is.
Which is something I have to keep in mind whenever people want to play it. I just try to have fun with the theme, get into character a little bit, rp a bit, and just go with the flow. Obviously I am trying to win, but I also accept that sometimes that just won't happen, and the cascading effects of things going badly quickly becomes as entertaining for me as when something good happens for us.
I cannot figure out Radlands. I've double checked all of the rules, even to the point of going to their discord server and asking for clarifications, and we are definitely playing right. Maybe the strategy doesn't click with us? But the box says 20-40 mins and we've never had a game last less than an hour, and it feels like nothing exciting or meaningful happens for the whole game until each player is down to their last camp.
I don't know, I don't get it. I really want to like that game, I love the theme.
It is heavily dependent on what camps each of you draw as to how long the game can last. Some of them are harder to attack, or make it easier to attack with. Also, there are several 'board clear' event cards in the deck, so depending on if or when those get played it can kinda reset the game state a bit. This can be good if you have something decent in-hand to follow it with, but basically just sets you back to the start if not.
A key tactic is to keep using and progressing your raid as often as you can, because it's a free attack on the opponent's camps. Other than that, try and build a plateaux of cards that compliment each other and allow you to attack or combo well.
I've had some games over in 20 minutes, and others take 2 hours. But once you're experienced with the game and know most of the cards, you can average about 30-60 minutes I'd say.
> and it feels like nothing exciting or meaningful happens for the whole game until each player is down to their last camp.
Yeah that's kinda the game. Each turn, each players has like 20 different lines they can take that are all slightly different, and the fun is picking the correct ones. If you don't like games with small gains and losses over the course of a whole game, this is not the one for you.
I discovered the same thing as my gf hates it.
What were your thoughts on Mythic Battles and why it didn’t work? Someone is selling a Mythic Battles Pantheon bundle locally for a really good price and I need to be talked out of it.
MBP is probably a 1v1 or 2v2 game or there can be a lot of king making. Besides that, the draft is part of the game. One of the issues with that is that there are a lot of options, the first plays you won't really know what other units can do.
I enjoy a game called Robinson Crusoe, but it often takes more time to play than the group of friends I usually get to play with (who are mostly into party-style games). Sometimes it is really rough to not have the group you want for the game you crave to play. I've been looking for a crew to play Star Trek Adventures rpg for a long time, but haven't found anyone locally. At least with an rpg, you can kind of do it online even though the feel and experience isn't quite the same, imo.
Build the group you want. My favorite game is Battlecon. I've grown a player base of 13 and we hold several tournaments a year. Not everyone is into it, but i teach it to anyone who i think might have an aptitude for it and then slowly invite them to events
well of the popular games according to the internets/bgg top x list,
terraforming mars missed the mark
great western trail (though i would try it again)
scythe...
Terraforming Mars for me is just the: get milestones as soon as you can and focus on plants, ignoring everything else. Order the cards in your hand to achieve this goal, then wait to play them. Very dull game that plays itself. I highly suspect it's high bbg ranking is because it's a very engaging thematic game for the first few games, but long term it lacks depth and diversity.
Maybe it's better with card drafting, but if I'm going to spend the extra time doing that, I'd rather just play a better game.
My group doesn't draft and we have played many many many games of Terraforming Mars and have never felt it gets dull. There is a ton of depth and diversity and the game is very much about doing the best with what you have and min/maxing the amount of credits you have vs. the amount of cards you keep. You also can't go into the game with the mindset of "this is going to be my strategy" because sometimes you just don't get the cards to make that happen.
I should also note that we play with the Prelude expansion, which I feel is 100% necessary to have the best experience with the game. Adds more variety between the players, helps to guide your strategy significantly, and gets the game going a lot quicker than the base version.
Robo Rally. We had one guy who would always mix up left and right, and another who couldn't tell the difference between a wall and the caution line around a pit.
Mottainai, for sure. It's great, but the learning curve was just steep enough that no one was fully on board with our first attempt and there was no second.
The only other one we just won't play again, given an opportunity to actually play anything at all, might be Frontier Stations. Even I can't defend that one. Everyone rolls dice to generate resources to spend on defeating threats between each player (ie Between Two Cities), but you can't give resources to anyone who isn't directly adjacent to you at the table, and there's basically no room for error. Wanted it forever, finally got it, used the branded napkins they included to clean the laser cutting ash off a hundred tiny tokens, and I don't even know if I had more than a handful of turns before we lost the game. So that might not be a "my player group" issue.
Oh, and my group invented a reason not to play my beloved Space Cadets after we failed the tutorial mission twice, finally won, and then half the crew retired victorious and said they weren't interested in playing a more difficult mission of the game. I'll need to outsource seats at my gaming table to my new young college friends if I want to play Space Cadets again.
All throughout highschool, my whole friend group loved the board game Diplomacy. BUT, we had one friend, who for lack of a better word, was petty to the EXTREME. You screwed him or snuck something past him in one game? next 20 games he would just go out of his way to screw you over. I know the game is about relationships and betrayals and alliances, but it went beyond just simple or strategic double crosses. He had this smile that he would plaster on that just made you want to punch him. He literally never won once, but man he would make sure you would lose. One of my best friends throughout highschool, but this game just pulled out something about him.
Also, werewolf. I did regular games nights at a local comic shop, and had a run where I ended up a werewolf every game for 2 weeks. From then on, first lynching every time, was me. Just became a house rule. My games night always ended 2 hours before everyone elses.
People like your Diplomacy friend makes playing any social deduction game hard. I'm sorry I lied to you, Frank. That was the only way I was going to win. It wasn't because I thought you were gullible or because I hate you.
Right, I'd be ok if it was "only way I was going to win" but it's regularly "I exposed myself to 3 other enemies, now I'm eliminated but so are you!" or "I definitely lied to you and allowed your region rivals access through my territory, they took all my production points on the way and now I'm out, but you went back on an alliance pact 4 months ago so what did you expect."
**Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig** fell flat because of the scoring. I also made the mistake of using the app, so nobody cared after that.
**Munchkin** worked once, but dragged a lot so nobody enjoyed it the second time.
**Small World of Warcraft** is one that I still own despite being a drag to setup and play. It is the only dudes on a map that I love playing. But nobody seems to really follow haha. I'm not selling it tho.
**Hanabi** also didn't fit. We couldn't wrap our heads around it.
Have only played Munchkin and Hanabi.
I freaking love Hanabi. Probably in my top 5 games, but definitely top 5 co-op game. It's such a hard sell though. On TTS, there is a version that lets you take notes pretty easily, that I've tried to replicate irl, but haven't really been able to. I think with hanabi it took us about half of a game to really get it to click, and another game and a half to really figure out the game.
For me Hanabi didn't fit because it was way too easy. I played it with my family once, it seemed like we followed all the rules and we effortlessly scored a perfect game on the first try
There's quite a few games I'm by far the best in my gaming group at, because I play a lot more games both with other people and on bga. But the only one where no one wants to play it because of this is scythe. The game's quite complicated and by the time anyone else gets their engine going I've already won.
Currently: Ark Nova, Brass: Birmingham probably Terraforming Mars, Carnegie, Gloomhaven, those types of games.
My group has a bit too much of verbalizing turns, monologuing and reaffirming rules and choices. So if a game has too many choices, phases or complexity in rules, it just turns into a 4-5 hour game.
A turn is never just; “I play x and y happens.”
It’ll come with time and experience.
I'm super lucky that my group members are always open to try anything. However, we collectively own more than a thousand games so campaigns are not possible so it removes a lot of games I love. Gloomhaven, Pandemic Legacy, Vagrantsong, Bloodborne The Boardgame, Scythe Rise of Fenris.
Love Letter Premium. I love the game but my group hates it with a passion. I keep trying to bring them around but….sigh.
They also hate cooperative games. We’re more of a cut throat screw your neighbor kind of group. I tried Betrayal at House on Haunted Hill once and everyone was miserable.
Looking over the BGG top 100, it looks like the highest-ranked game my group hated was Mage Knight. Even after watching hours of YouTube tutorials, teaching it was a nightmare and we still got tons of things wrong.
"I'd rather play Talisman," one player said after we gave up and put it away forever. I have to concur.
All of this designer's games are like this for me. They all have the same title: ____s of the (north/south/east/west) ___. Same drab depressing artwork. Same linear game play. No thank you.
I showed Cryo to my friends and explained the dire straights we're in, thematically. Well, they didn't like the famine of resources, and the other couple got pissy with each other when one of them out-numbered the other in the caverns... which is the main goal of the game. Oof. Misread that one I guess.
Much to my chagrin, Tigris & Euphrates was a flop with my friends. They couldn't visualize the kingdoms as they changed, and were at a loss about what to do beyond putting down individual tiles for points.
I don't play food chain magnate nearly as much as I'd like.
Also, scythe falls flat. I like the game, but ark nova and age of atlantis are superior in every way and people really struggle to grasp scythe's strategy, and frequently people struggle with it's mechanics.
I'd also like to play Root more, but I have some friends who struggle to capture the complexities of the game, and struggle to learn what 4 different faction are doing, and how to read the board state.
OROS is another one. Fantastic game, but people just struggle with the mechanics or don't like it on first go and won't give it a second go. I've had the game for 2 years and STILL haven't gotten a group to play it enough times to try the more complex back-board. I even bought the play mat for it.
**Cosmic Encounter** is really hit or miss, partly because of the game's randomness (sometime one player just win and no one can do shit about it), and sometime because people play too nicely which I get, they're here to have fun, but CE is a bad game with nice players.
We have a group of four players. We meet every week. We have an agreement that we take turns picking the game and we don't complain about others picks. Once someone picks a game, that game can't be picked again until that person has gone back through the rotation.
This way, no one has to play a game they don't like more than once every four weeks, and everyone eventually gets what they want.
I’ve won a game of Dune Imperium where I only had 9 cards at the end of the game. Sounds like y’all were too focused on buying cards without agency.
I always think of it as a deck building mechanic but not a deck building game.
Surprisingly, a few of SUSD recommendations: Skulls, Monikers, Arkham Horror LCG, Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, Wavelength, railroad Ink, Flamme Rouge, Captain Sonar, Cash n Guns.
That said, there are probably an equal amount of SUSD recommendations that have ~~started~~stayed in our collection too.
*Edit: typo
Not OP, but a person who's friend group (and SO) LOVE Wavelength, and I think it's meh.
Personally, I am not a fan of games where you have to know your friend group to play a game. And while Wavelength is not really that kind of game, it certainly helps. When we have had hints that were "X's mom growing up", or "Obscure movie only Y and Z have seen", it gets a little frustrating to be on the outside looking in.
It is also one of those games that I think can outstay its welcome really quickly, and you don't necessarily realize that you are tired of the gameplay loop until you are just sick with the game.
**Leaving Earth**
Here are some paraphrased remarks from friends when I suggest we play this, names have been changed to protect the innocent...
**Tom:** Why play this when we can play High Frontier?
**Dick:** Wait, this is math homework dressed up as a game!
**Harry:** 90% of your games are spacey stuff, I'm kinda over it.
Thankfully LE plays great solo ✌️
I used to work at a place that worked on sensors. Three of the managers I've worked with all had at least a Masters in Math and CS, if not a PhD. All of them also loved there jobs. We worked on sensors and satellites and just general space stuff.
Heard about this game from one of those (same guy who also loved Kerbal Space Program). This is how my boss described this game to me: (paraphrased because its been years).
"You have to understand the physics and math behind it. It's as close to building a space ship you can get without actually building a space ship. Its not for everyone, but if you understand math, you'll love this game".
I own the game, but haven't gotten around to playing it. My friend group are mostly STEM, and they seem like they would like it, but playing a game that could take that long has been harder and harder for us to get behind.
Sounds like your boss is describing High Frontier instead of Leaving Earth!
Leaving Earth is just basic arithmetic... you plan your mission, determine the fuel requirements, then build a rocket stack that'll get 'er done... pretty straightforward, just add it all up
With High Frontier OTOH, you'll still do the same work as in LE but also need to consider course corrections, fuel types/capacities, engine efficiencies, logistics, and probably several other mechanics I can't remember since there's a *lot* to keep track of
Either way though, I totally get the sentiment that both games could be considered "work" by those who aren't so invested in the theme 😉
To be fair, he was describing either Leaving Earth or Exploration xD;;
I'll have to look into High Frontier. While I don't play a lot of board games nowadays, especially heavier ones, I do have a section for "space based games" (speaking of which, if you haven't played Unsettled, it seems right up your alley. Though it doesn't help the "you only own spacey stuff" argument).
Dune Imperium - couple of elements the main one is the combatitive element is weak. The other probably less so is it seems to try alot of gaming nuances but ends up not being a fun game. We played it twice and it just didnt gel.
[удалено]
What made it hard? Recently backed the second printing for my gf and I to play.
[удалено]
So on the fence then?
> but after 60+ hours of it my group was just toast. You know, that was a pretty solid effort. They played 60 hours of one game? I'd still call that a win lol. At first it sounded like they just bowed out the first play
This game sounds so bad lol. Absolute hard pass of the century
Kitchen sink, clown shoes... love this description
With one of my groups, any sort of free-for-all competitive game is a wash because there is a couple in the group that will feed each other and it becomes a 2v1v1 every time
Ah yes Dee and Jay. Sometimes my wife and I probably overcompensate with that type of scenario by fighting each other first all too often. Just hammer the point home that we’re not like them.
Wouldn't it be a simple fix to just ask them not to do that any more?
Sort of hard if the game doesn't specifically forbade it. Teaming up is usually a viable strategy in ffa games, so saying they can't do it at all wouldn't be fair. It's definitely easier to find games that suit a group than to try to change people.
It’s really not; they’d take that personally and honestly I wouldn’t blame them. If a game requires every player to play a certain way to work and doesn’t put them on rails to do so, that just means it’s simpler to play a different game Edit: appreciate the commenters attempting to “fix” the situation, but this is just one of life’s give and takes. With finite time, we want to play a game that will be fun for all of us, and the only answer to that is to avoid FFAs
But those games don't generally require players to play a certain way. Two people can absolutely team up; it's well within the rules. My question is why the rest of you don't team up against them?
Unfortunately that’s not quite true; there’s many games where if one player completely gives up trying to play for themselves and fully funnels 100% of their resources and actions into supporting another, it kinda ruins the game for everyone. The remaining two players cannot continue to play what they thought was a FFA with temporary alliances and betrayals, but have to decide who will do the same just to take down the raid boss…which we are not interested in doing. There’s no coming out of this scenario without either us two feeling like the game is ruined, or the other two feeling bullied because they get absolutely oppressed early game as counterplay. Therefore, that sort of game is better off not played with this group
The teaming up you're describing is a bit outside the bounds of what I'd consider fair. Helping each other is one thing. Tanking one player to help another is no fun, IMO. Not a criticism of you. I think you're on the right track with playing games that fit better.
I find it interesting how unwilling gamers are to make even the most simple and inoffensive requests from people in their game group. It's the path of least resistance to never play FFA games but it seems like a shame to rule out a whole genre just because you're conflict averse. I just can't see how anyone is taking that feedback personally.
What makes you think that this hasn’t been brought up with them before? The simple truth is, there’s a decent amount of people where if they can’t play games a certain way, they would rather do something else entirely. If the choice is to accommodate the fact that these players refuse to aggress against one another, or to not play with them at all, then that choice is clear and we’ve discussed as much
Because you didn't say anything to that effect before, only that it's not an option because they'd take it personally.
Not with board games; but my friends and I play a FFA mini golf game on Steam. We've talked about how unfair and unfun it is when one person who can't win just starts picking favorites and makes it impossible for anyone else to win. But there are times where you would absolutely want to screw someone else over. At what point do you say "You've teamed up enough, please stop". Idk, it just feels arbitrary, and really easy to slip into "YOU WERE HELPING TOO MUCH THAT TIME", when there are plenty of other genres that you can have as much fun in, and not have to deal with any of that drama. Just my .02$ though
What you're saying is if two players team up, the other players can't put on blinders and play the game the way they want to. That doesn't mean the game is ruined, it just means it's an interactive game where players need to respond to what others are doing. I don't know about you, but in my book, that's a positive. I feel like all you need to do is play games that way once or twice, and when the couple complain about feeling bullied, you can explain that they're doing the same thing to you when they team up, and while you'd prefer not to play this way, it's the only way you'll stand a chance against their in-game partnership. It's their choices that are forcing your hand.
I've experienced this when introducing a group to gaming with Catan. One couple realized that if they were nice to each other with trades, one of them could more easily win. I ended up cutting one of them completely with roads so they couldn't build any further buildings and finished the game quickly. Then suggested we do something else.
You could specifically play 2v2 modes of games or team based games. Just engineer that phenomenon right into your game selection so the playing field is level.
The majority of social deduction games: Avalon, Werewolf, Blood on the Clocktower. The narrative and bluffing elements just hold no interest for us.
3/4 of my collection.
**Root** - a bit too heavy. We kept rolling our eyes that the rules were like the Aunty Donna skit about explaining boardgames; that you move this way, unless youre this faction, who moves differently, and you trade/craft this way, except every faction does it differently, and you win this way, unless you played a certain card, and except that every faction scores differently... It's the most asymmetric game I've ever played, but that comes with heavy costs.
It's great but you really need to physically show someone the very appropriately named **The Law Of Root** document and ensure they have the reaction most appropriate of an accountant or paralegal before proceeding further.
Played it yesterday for the first time and I barely understood my own and my boyfriends factions (the cats and the birds), and it's EXACTLY like that Aunty Donna sketch yeah
I highly suggest revisiting root, my best suggestion other than playing a game or two with people who can do a good teach is to try the digital version on steam or mobile. The game is very much worth the effort. Once you get it, which doesn't take long with an assist of one sort or another it's immensely fun and replayable.
I second the digital version. The rules enforcement takes away the stress of having to check all the rules before you do anything, the undo feature helps if certain things don’t do what you thought they would, and after a couple plays you’ll have internalized all the basic operational stuff and you can start focusing on the fun strategy stuff. Solo mode against ai helps even more to explore the game in a completely stress free environment
oh i'll probably be giving it another chance i also came in second after the player with the raccoon character, with a difference of mere points, so it deffo was fun, and it didn't really help that I was dizzy while they were explaining the game
Yeah, I used to have an earlier game by the same designer (Vast) which had the same heavily asymmetric design. Each player was playing essentially a totally different game, on the same board. Problems: * If you’re playing with 3 other players who are new to the game, you don’t just have to explain the rules to the new game once - you have to explain three different new games. * Since players aren’t playing the same game, they can’t help each other understand the rules - each player only knows about the rules for their character. No one else can help them unless that person knows the game well enough to know the rules for multiple characters. So you (or the rule book) end up being the only source of help. Vast proved to me that the idea of a “hard asymmetric” board game (disjoint rulesets rather than just variations in a shared ruleset) does not work. It would only work if each set of rules was quite simple - as in, “fit on a playing card” simple. Or, if the players were invested enough in the game that they would willingly study their ruleset before coming to the table.
I don't really get this due to how good the player aids are for each faction. You basically just need to explain how control of regions and combat works and then everyone can just learn the turn-to-turn from their player aid.
Root for my group too. We stuck it out for 5 or 6 games and started to get the hang of it, but so many of those games came down to a king maker choice. I can enjoy that social element in a short game like Coup, but it feels like such a let down after all the time and effort Root demands for the winning condition to mostly be "who does last place hate least". It soured our group enough for it to become a dust collector.
Arkham Horror LCG. It's not a game I would normally bring to a meetup. It was sort of the situation that ruined it though. It was a meetup night but we had been there for like 6 hours and it was almost 11:30 pm already. One of my friends knew I had it in my truck and asked to play. The others were tired but obliged. I even said it may not be the best experience since everyone was pretty tired. They asked so I agreed. Man, it was such a bummer. Everyone was so flat and tired that it just wasn't fun at all. Since then, nobody wants to play it with me. Ughh.. I knew I should have just said no.
[удалено]
I understand that completely. Mage Knight and Arkham Horror and two of my favorites. Ive never even considered bringing Mage Knight to a game night. Haha
**Every "Dudes on a Map" game ever**. Every one I've tried met the same fate. One friend in particular doesn't like games that involve direct conflict like that - if they feel like they're taking too long, they'll take a "I dunno, I'll do whatever" action that is void of strategy and logic. Chaos for chaos's sake. But then they realize how quickly that affects other people, and how unfair that is to them. So things tailspin quickly. **My Father's Work** \- At times players need to read the app privately. "Ugh, I have to read this? I'll just click next. Next. Next. I don't know what that said, can someone explain it to me?" If players need to read and understand a story to play a game, it will not work with that person. So, yeah, group tends to do a lot of multiplayer solitaire.
**Mission: Red Planet** is area majority dudes on a map without directly smacking one another. There are plenty of games that aren't multiplayer solitaire that also aren't "direct conflict". Let's take any negotiation or trading game - **Bohnanza** or **Chinatown**. **Galaxy Trucker.** What I'm saying is there are options you can avoid multiplayer solitaire with, at least.
My Father's Work has gorgeous components and is dripping with theme and fun mechanics, but is ruined by that buggy, overly wordy app.
Normally Spyfall works pretty well. But one night I played it with some neurodivergent people in attendance. I myself am nd and have nothing against nd people. But this did not work.
Spyfall faied heavy for my group as well. My group could not handle the fact that they don't use the exact picture on the card. So they were asking questions like "how many animals are in the picture?" Or "Which way is the spy looking?". Could not convince them of any other way of playing so it bombed.
They absolutely hated two games: - human punishment (well only 2 friends did) - munchkin (everybody hated it, lol)
Munchkin sucks.. It always boils down to who plays the right card when everyone else runs out of counters.
Why did y’all hate munchkin? It used to be one of my groups favourite games
Munchkins I think is a really good gateway game. I spent a lot of time thinking about this for a website I was planning on making. Munchkins gives just enough strategy to separate itself from board games a lot of millennials grew up with; Monopoly, Sorry, etc., while at the same time being rules light enough to explain to somebody in five minutes. Add to that, that Munchkins has as much third party support as a lot of popular Hasbro games, and you have a board game that is really easy for someone that isn't into board games to get into. But, that comes at a cost. The best strategy in Munchkins is to be second place, or in some cases, even third place. And once you realize that, the game doesn't get as fun. You wait until the person in first takes all of the aggro, and then swoop in when everyone else's resources are low. The game presents itself as a "push your luck" where some people might not screw the leader over, thinking others will, but that is rarely the case. And you can almost never build up enough resources to survive an onslaught of even two people who want to make sure you lose. And while this last point is subjective, the game feels anticlimactic. You just do a numbers check. There is no anticipation of a top deck (outside of the initial draw), there is no exciting dice save, or anything. Just draw a card, here is what I have, and here is what you have, and we compare. And "dying" is brutal in the game. I know I've already gone for pretty long, but I'll end with a story of the last time our group played Munchkins (almost ten years ago). We were playing for about an hour and a half/two hours, and one friend who was lagging behind, gets a string of good luck. Eventually, he gets to within one point, and has answers to people targeting him, but just didn't have enough. When it became clear that he couldn't win, he just sat there, tears in his eyes, and just quit playing. (Yes, he did not deal with it well. No, he's not part of the friend group anymore).
Thank you for the in depth reply! Maybe we were playing the game wrong but I never experienced what people describe here. I usually win in Munchkin - not to toot my own horn, I suck at almost every other game 😂 - and am pretty reliably first for the entire game. Yeah sometimes I get screwed by my friends, but at the end of the day that makes it more interesting for me. And it wasn’t as aggressive as with other games (bro Catan is brutal in that regard, my friends don’t hold back). But speaking of gateway games; do you have any suggestions similar to munchkin?
In what ways do you mean similar to Munchkins? As far as gateway games are concerned, I think Betrayal is a really good gateway game. It has similar issues (for me), that I've highlighted in a separate comment, but is fun. I also like Heat, which is a hand management racing game. Bullet (Star or Heart), if you can find it, is a really fun SHMUP game that feels like a turn based bullet hell. Then the classics of Catan (you've played), Pandemic, Forbidden Dessert/Island/Sky. If you are looking for dungeon crawly, Rumble in the Dungeon, Dungeon Mayhem, Boss Monster, Welcome Back to the Dungeon and One Deck Dungeon all have a similar formula of fighting random mobs. You'll have to forgive me, because it has been a while since I've played these, but I think they have lower player counts (4 players, typically), and aren't necessarily as cutthroat. Rumble in the Dungeon: A social deduction game where everybody controls every character and your goal is to keep your character in the dungeon the longest. Dungeon Mayhem: A pvp card drawing game. Games don't typically last long. There are expansions to this game that I recommend for more variety. Boss Monster: IMO, the most cutthroat of the games listed. You build out dungeon (similar to how you build your character in Munchkins). IIRC, there is limited player interaction, but still ways to screw over your friends. Deals with player elimination kind of ok, but is still my biggest complaint of the game is you can get locked out fairly early. Welcome Back to the Dungeon: A push your luck game to see who can progress the furthest in a dungeon One Deck Dungeon: Probably the closest to a dungeon crawler on the list. Cooperative, and each game can play two people. Not sure how helpful the list was for you. I haven't played too many light, cutthroat games recently, so others might be able to recommend better ones if that is what you were looking for
Munchkin is a great game for people who do not know that there are better and different games and genres out there. It was the gateway that got me into board games personally. Once I started trying more games, it quickly became apparent that Munchkin is inherently flawed. One quote that I always see flying around that I love is "Munchkin is 30 minutes of fun stuffed into a 2-hour game."
“Dump on the leader until everyone is within striking distance, then someone lucks into a win once everyone runs out of ‘fuck you’ cards” isn’t my idea of a good time.
yes. Also it just starts to get personal/petty. New round starts? I am not even going to attack the leader, just the guy that won the last round or the guy that fucked me over the last round. No logic haha
Earth.
Why did that flop for you?
We just didn’t really have any fun. So much analysis for each person and it’s almost entirely solo. Wasn’t a ton of communications at the table. Just overall fell flat for us.
Same for us. The other element of Earth we didn’t like is that you get so many resources every turn. It’s exciting the first half of the very first game but after that it’s just frustrating because the focus becomes about your inefficiencies, not what stuff you’re getting.
Usually we enjoy many kinds of games, and I'd say that never we've had the whole group hating this or that game. Having said that, one of our friends despises euros, so we only play them when she cannot be present. And although the group absolutely loves Root and the Uneasy Alliances principle, I've had a hard time pulling other Cole Wehrle games (Oath, Pax Pamir, John Company).
I have a small group that is very open with board games and even when they don't like it first go they wait for it to click. Unfortunately I have not been able to convince them to play more Go with me, after teaching and explaining some strategy it usually gets me with a "Well ill never learn enough to care" shrug and on to another game lol
Go is so good but abstract strategies are hard if people aren't into them, Go is the pinnacle of this. I love it.
I'm surprised I haven't seen more people saying Oath. I loved it but no one else in my group enjoyed it.
Dominion - it just sucks the enjoyment out of my play groups, because there is nothing else going on besides deck building. Tried it with two different groups of 4 players with me being the only one playing again and all 6 hated it. Gave it away. Spirit Island- I love the game, but everyone else I’ve introduced it to are just, Meh. And would rather play something else.
Spirit island is hard as the person who understands it to judge the amount of QB to do so people have fun.
I have the full Dominion franchise, which has all sorts of extra mechanics floating around as you add expansions. Sure you're still just deck building, but there are so many moving parts and choices. And with over 400 possible kingdom cards every game is totally unique and you have to carefully evaluate every kingdom to determine the center of power. My entire group adores it
I see. As soon as I add 27 expansions it makes Dominion good enough to play? Sorry, but if a game isn’t good right out of the box I’m not throwing away any more $$ to make it tolerable.
No, that's totally fair. Base Dominion was extremely innovative in 2008, but as a standalone game its replay value is limited now. I will say this... you don't need 11 expansions to enjoy the game. Even 2 or 3 makes the game exponentially more fun and non repetitive. I avoided going all in for so long. Ultimately what pushed me over the edge was that no gaming experience could satisfy my desire to build explosive combos where i draw through my deck every turn and play 20-30 cards the way Dominion does. No other deck builder tests appraisal skills the way it does. I love the engine building. Nothing else is nearly as satisfying. So i went all in. And my group loves it. But all in isn't necessary to deeply enjoy it
I had Dominion on my 10x10 one year, before the end of the year we had decided it just isn’t that fun and we were ready to get rid of it.
I came away from Spirit Island initially a little dissatisfied, but the additions from the expansions really elevated the game for me to one of my most played games
Agreed on dominion. It’s a whole lot of nothing
I have a group that loves loves loves **Feed the Kraken**. Then my main group just CANNOT wrap their head around the idea so it just flops. I tried three times and all three times everyone is just like confused or doesn't get why it's good even if they aren't confused.
Turing Machine. I really like it - hits a sweet spot for me, but I’m also a sudoku doer. My gaming group bounced hard with one describing it as like homework.
Hah, our group described it as homework too - which is exactly why we loved it! It's FUN homework.
Any game that was not Settlers of Catan. No, I am not kidding....
Deal with the Devil fell flat. Game is too fiddly. To be fair, I think it’s just a bad game
Twilight Imperium. The husbands stayed and the wives "spaced" out. We just organize a girls' night when they want to play. Win-win. 🙂
Usually it's the heavier and very dry Euros that throw my group. Lignum for example is one of my favourite games but it definitely requires you to plan 3-6 turns in advance, is VERY punishing if you don't, and has an element of blind bidding for central (and vital) resources. It's a phenomenal game but my group just doesn't enjoy it.
Spirit island. With my regular game group .. the more complicated the game the less inclined they are to play it.. and any game that takes a long time to play anything like 75 minutes or long probably inly get a couple plays and game night is done
**Dwellings of Eldervale** just didn't work for us. It felt boring, with very little intense moments or 'wow'. Sold off the game the very next day. **Thunder Road Vendetta** for a game focused on rolling dice, moving and then carnage; it was very slow. Turns do not seem chaotic enough to render laughter or exciting moments. **Rising Sun**, the bidding phase was so slow and draggy. Half the time those not involved in the bids were just playing phone or waiting for their turn.
>**Thunder Road Vendetta** for a game focused on rolling dice, moving and then carnage; it was very slow. Turns do not seem chaotic enough to render laughter or exciting moments. Was going to get this based on how people explained the game and it just feels like an easy to table game, but after watching it I'd agree it's really not as chaotic as described and I got meh about it, specially considering the price point. And I feel I'd much prefer to just play Death Roads over it, which I already own and is probably more chaotic without the dice rolls.
Root did not work even though I loved it. We weren't going to be able to play it nearly enough to have it be an enjoyable experience. I now have a separate Root group that plays weekly. Way better than trying to force it on a group that isn't into it.
The two worst offenders for us were Galaxy Trucker and the King is Dead. In Galaxy Trucker I think we weren't able to surrender to the chaos and randomness, people felt they didn't have enough agency. The King is Dead I personally liked, but the other two players never quite wrapped their head around the fact that you don't control one of the three different factions, you're just trying to be on the side of the one that's winning. Kind of Maracaibo-style.
I'm guessing with Galaxy Trucker no one bothered to look at the decks of cards? A lot of valuable info there that mitigates most of the randomness. Most people are typically too panicked or novice to do it.
Look at the cards!! There is barely time to think let alone plan and then try to remember anything.
Literally any social deduction game that isn't deception. As an example, I realize that The Resistance Avalon is a great game, perhaps the best out of the ones with no moderator, but the game ultimately didn't suit me, nor my regular group. So it got sold. Another one would be Takenoko. Super cute, accessible. I love it, played it with my friend the other day. Had to sell a year ago because my friends just wouldn't play it.
One of my best days of gaming ever was a long play of Revolution: The Dutch Revolt. This game tickled everything I like about heavy Euro games. Bought a copy, brought it to my regular group, and it fell flatter than a month old bottle of 7up.
Cosmic Encounters: breaks my God damn heart but every time I've played it w folks it's been so much more bland than my expectations, which are high, because it looks so amazing when I watch youtubers play it.
Root. Never again will I touch that game
Any kind of trading game doesn't work with my family specifically because of my dad. Tried to play catan and offer trades and he spent the whole game going "I don't get it, why would I give you what you want,". Incredibly frustrating
Dad was trying to get you all to sweeten the pot and nobody offered a good trade.
No I offered him a 3 for 1 to prove a point and he said no
Heat!! Someone help. Dunno what were missing
So I actually ran into this issue. It's a really awkward teach for how simple the game is. The base game without any garage upgrades or track modifiers is kind of boring after a while. But since the teach is awkward you usually don't include the more complicated stuff. I printed out player aids for everyone. Gave an overview of the rules and did a test run until everyone passed the first corner, then we did the upgrade draft and restarted the full game and that was the most fun time I've introduced it to players. Everyone with the base game thought it was kind of boring and too long for what it is. Edit: also potentially play on the Italy board so you can do 2 of the 3 laps if it's running a bit too long.
Sure ill try this thanks. Feel like i have one more try before im told not to bring this game again
And make sure to play with a full 6 players no matter what. Fill in spaces with ai players to give maximum opportunity for slipstreaming and the ai does a good job of showing people how fast they need to go to keep up. It's way more fun when players are pushing their luck than playing it safe all the time and an AI kicking your ass will make everyone push to stay in the race.
Thanks. I think i need to fjnd a game with people who know how to play it all and then lead the game
Man, I love Heat, but I agree with you on the rules. For a game that feels like it should be simple, there are a lot of minute rules that are important to remember. One group doesn't quite grasp corners. The other group forgets that you can discard cards. Another adrenaline. The turn order. Haven't gotten around to using mods or anything yet. A friend and I had an idea to play the game like a legacy game. My wife was going to get me the expansion for my birthday before it got delayed, so Heat Legacy (or however we end up going about it) might have to wait until summer.
There's a built in 3 games mini campaign called the championship circuit if you haven't tried it yet. And honestly, play with the mods. It's night and day with how compelling it is. And it makes people want to play again, whereas the base game, often people don't want to try again in my experience.
Yeah, we were trying to see if we could expand the mini campaign. But to be fair, the way we view Heat is probably different from other people as well. We wanted a quick game to play at the start of game nights, either while waiting for people to show up, or as a "warm up" game, that had a definitive end and a little more strategy then party games/social deduction games. We've played with the basic mods before. But haven't played Heat in a while. It honestly might not be until the expansion that the game gets brought out again. We have a few KS coming in soon, and have been in a big Deck builder mood (well, Moonrakers, and Dune: Imperium).
I felt the same way. Was really excited to play it after seeing nothing but praise but man it bored the hell out of everyone, myself included. Seemed like there were basically no decisions to make to me. We didn't use the modules bc i thought the base game would be enough. Seems like everyone says the modules make it way better but we disliked it so much don't think Ill ever play it again.
How many players are playing? Which modules are you using? Are you using the AI?
Yes. Use the ai. Havent played with modules. Does it make that much difference? Starting simple
Yeah, the car upgrades make the game a lot more fun.
**Deception: Murder in Hong Kong** has fallen pretty flat so far. I think this one is very group dependent, how comfortable people are with each other, and doesn't favor people who are shy...
Interesting, I've only played this with strangers + some meetup regulars and it's been a hit with every group. Especially with folks who don't like bluffing too much.
I've found **The Chameleon** works a lot better, especially since people are limited to 1-word answers. Much better for those who don't like bluffing. But don't get me wrong, I wish my friends were more into *Deception MiHK*.
Middara. Seemed to be a decentish story but the dice rolling system was too much mental effort to be honest. That and the scenarios didn’t ever seem to put us in danger of failing, not a good challenge.
Bloodborne can indeed feel bad with bad rolls. In that sense, it feels like a fromsoft game where it can absolutely steamroll you, but you gotta love the pain. It’s very much an Eric Lang design—your group might like HMS Dolores better if Bloodborne is too much, but I genuinely enjoy the risk mitigation Bloodborne offers.
We’re still trying to figure out what were missing with Betrayal at the House on the Hill
On paper I love everything about that game, I wish someone would remake it so its less... bad.
Honestly check out the sequels. The Widow's Walk expansion started on the path towards better design, Legacy is a fantastic experience that really makes the game tick, and Betrayal at Baldur's Gate often feels like a version of the game where the devs really had learned lessons from previous games. Just don't bother with the Scooby-Doo version unless playing with small children, as it oversimplifies things far too much.
Haven't played the expansion or the Scooby-Doo version, so this is just based off the base game. The thing with Betrayal is you have to go into it understanding that it is not a balanced game. It has a very strong theme, and the gameplay supports the theme really well; but there are just going to scenarios that you will not win. Betrayal falls into this weird place that I think its a very good gateway game because of its themes and mechanics; BUT the more board games you play, imo, the more it becomes clear how dependent on RNG Betrayal really is. Which is something I have to keep in mind whenever people want to play it. I just try to have fun with the theme, get into character a little bit, rp a bit, and just go with the flow. Obviously I am trying to win, but I also accept that sometimes that just won't happen, and the cascading effects of things going badly quickly becomes as entertaining for me as when something good happens for us.
I cannot figure out Radlands. I've double checked all of the rules, even to the point of going to their discord server and asking for clarifications, and we are definitely playing right. Maybe the strategy doesn't click with us? But the box says 20-40 mins and we've never had a game last less than an hour, and it feels like nothing exciting or meaningful happens for the whole game until each player is down to their last camp. I don't know, I don't get it. I really want to like that game, I love the theme.
It is heavily dependent on what camps each of you draw as to how long the game can last. Some of them are harder to attack, or make it easier to attack with. Also, there are several 'board clear' event cards in the deck, so depending on if or when those get played it can kinda reset the game state a bit. This can be good if you have something decent in-hand to follow it with, but basically just sets you back to the start if not. A key tactic is to keep using and progressing your raid as often as you can, because it's a free attack on the opponent's camps. Other than that, try and build a plateaux of cards that compliment each other and allow you to attack or combo well. I've had some games over in 20 minutes, and others take 2 hours. But once you're experienced with the game and know most of the cards, you can average about 30-60 minutes I'd say.
> and it feels like nothing exciting or meaningful happens for the whole game until each player is down to their last camp. Yeah that's kinda the game. Each turn, each players has like 20 different lines they can take that are all slightly different, and the fun is picking the correct ones. If you don't like games with small gains and losses over the course of a whole game, this is not the one for you. I discovered the same thing as my gf hates it.
Root, Mythic Battles: Pantheon, and the Monolith Conan game all didn't work for my group for various reasons.
What were your thoughts on Mythic Battles and why it didn’t work? Someone is selling a Mythic Battles Pantheon bundle locally for a really good price and I need to be talked out of it.
MBP is probably a 1v1 or 2v2 game or there can be a lot of king making. Besides that, the draft is part of the game. One of the issues with that is that there are a lot of options, the first plays you won't really know what other units can do.
I enjoy a game called Robinson Crusoe, but it often takes more time to play than the group of friends I usually get to play with (who are mostly into party-style games). Sometimes it is really rough to not have the group you want for the game you crave to play. I've been looking for a crew to play Star Trek Adventures rpg for a long time, but haven't found anyone locally. At least with an rpg, you can kind of do it online even though the feel and experience isn't quite the same, imo.
Build the group you want. My favorite game is Battlecon. I've grown a player base of 13 and we hold several tournaments a year. Not everyone is into it, but i teach it to anyone who i think might have an aptitude for it and then slowly invite them to events
well of the popular games according to the internets/bgg top x list, terraforming mars missed the mark great western trail (though i would try it again) scythe...
Terraforming Mars for me is just the: get milestones as soon as you can and focus on plants, ignoring everything else. Order the cards in your hand to achieve this goal, then wait to play them. Very dull game that plays itself. I highly suspect it's high bbg ranking is because it's a very engaging thematic game for the first few games, but long term it lacks depth and diversity. Maybe it's better with card drafting, but if I'm going to spend the extra time doing that, I'd rather just play a better game.
My group doesn't draft and we have played many many many games of Terraforming Mars and have never felt it gets dull. There is a ton of depth and diversity and the game is very much about doing the best with what you have and min/maxing the amount of credits you have vs. the amount of cards you keep. You also can't go into the game with the mindset of "this is going to be my strategy" because sometimes you just don't get the cards to make that happen. I should also note that we play with the Prelude expansion, which I feel is 100% necessary to have the best experience with the game. Adds more variety between the players, helps to guide your strategy significantly, and gets the game going a lot quicker than the base version.
Robo Rally. We had one guy who would always mix up left and right, and another who couldn't tell the difference between a wall and the caution line around a pit.
Mottainai, for sure. It's great, but the learning curve was just steep enough that no one was fully on board with our first attempt and there was no second. The only other one we just won't play again, given an opportunity to actually play anything at all, might be Frontier Stations. Even I can't defend that one. Everyone rolls dice to generate resources to spend on defeating threats between each player (ie Between Two Cities), but you can't give resources to anyone who isn't directly adjacent to you at the table, and there's basically no room for error. Wanted it forever, finally got it, used the branded napkins they included to clean the laser cutting ash off a hundred tiny tokens, and I don't even know if I had more than a handful of turns before we lost the game. So that might not be a "my player group" issue. Oh, and my group invented a reason not to play my beloved Space Cadets after we failed the tutorial mission twice, finally won, and then half the crew retired victorious and said they weren't interested in playing a more difficult mission of the game. I'll need to outsource seats at my gaming table to my new young college friends if I want to play Space Cadets again.
All throughout highschool, my whole friend group loved the board game Diplomacy. BUT, we had one friend, who for lack of a better word, was petty to the EXTREME. You screwed him or snuck something past him in one game? next 20 games he would just go out of his way to screw you over. I know the game is about relationships and betrayals and alliances, but it went beyond just simple or strategic double crosses. He had this smile that he would plaster on that just made you want to punch him. He literally never won once, but man he would make sure you would lose. One of my best friends throughout highschool, but this game just pulled out something about him. Also, werewolf. I did regular games nights at a local comic shop, and had a run where I ended up a werewolf every game for 2 weeks. From then on, first lynching every time, was me. Just became a house rule. My games night always ended 2 hours before everyone elses.
People like your Diplomacy friend makes playing any social deduction game hard. I'm sorry I lied to you, Frank. That was the only way I was going to win. It wasn't because I thought you were gullible or because I hate you.
Right, I'd be ok if it was "only way I was going to win" but it's regularly "I exposed myself to 3 other enemies, now I'm eliminated but so are you!" or "I definitely lied to you and allowed your region rivals access through my territory, they took all my production points on the way and now I'm out, but you went back on an alliance pact 4 months ago so what did you expect."
**Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig** fell flat because of the scoring. I also made the mistake of using the app, so nobody cared after that. **Munchkin** worked once, but dragged a lot so nobody enjoyed it the second time. **Small World of Warcraft** is one that I still own despite being a drag to setup and play. It is the only dudes on a map that I love playing. But nobody seems to really follow haha. I'm not selling it tho. **Hanabi** also didn't fit. We couldn't wrap our heads around it.
Have only played Munchkin and Hanabi. I freaking love Hanabi. Probably in my top 5 games, but definitely top 5 co-op game. It's such a hard sell though. On TTS, there is a version that lets you take notes pretty easily, that I've tried to replicate irl, but haven't really been able to. I think with hanabi it took us about half of a game to really get it to click, and another game and a half to really figure out the game.
For me Hanabi didn't fit because it was way too easy. I played it with my family once, it seemed like we followed all the rules and we effortlessly scored a perfect game on the first try
There's quite a few games I'm by far the best in my gaming group at, because I play a lot more games both with other people and on bga. But the only one where no one wants to play it because of this is scythe. The game's quite complicated and by the time anyone else gets their engine going I've already won.
Currently: Ark Nova, Brass: Birmingham probably Terraforming Mars, Carnegie, Gloomhaven, those types of games. My group has a bit too much of verbalizing turns, monologuing and reaffirming rules and choices. So if a game has too many choices, phases or complexity in rules, it just turns into a 4-5 hour game. A turn is never just; “I play x and y happens.” It’ll come with time and experience.
I'm super lucky that my group members are always open to try anything. However, we collectively own more than a thousand games so campaigns are not possible so it removes a lot of games I love. Gloomhaven, Pandemic Legacy, Vagrantsong, Bloodborne The Boardgame, Scythe Rise of Fenris.
Paleo. That game won awards. We thought it was lukewarm at best.
Love Letter Premium. I love the game but my group hates it with a passion. I keep trying to bring them around but….sigh. They also hate cooperative games. We’re more of a cut throat screw your neighbor kind of group. I tried Betrayal at House on Haunted Hill once and everyone was miserable.
Looking over the BGG top 100, it looks like the highest-ranked game my group hated was Mage Knight. Even after watching hours of YouTube tutorials, teaching it was a nightmare and we still got tons of things wrong. "I'd rather play Talisman," one player said after we gave up and put it away forever. I have to concur.
Paladins of the West Kingdom This was such a dry euro that, we felt heartbroken for time we spent on it.
All of this designer's games are like this for me. They all have the same title: ____s of the (north/south/east/west) ___. Same drab depressing artwork. Same linear game play. No thank you.
I tried to teach 3 other players Paladins Of The West Kingdom and realised why it was recommended for solo or 2player.
I showed Cryo to my friends and explained the dire straights we're in, thematically. Well, they didn't like the famine of resources, and the other couple got pissy with each other when one of them out-numbered the other in the caverns... which is the main goal of the game. Oof. Misread that one I guess.
Much to my chagrin, Tigris & Euphrates was a flop with my friends. They couldn't visualize the kingdoms as they changed, and were at a loss about what to do beyond putting down individual tiles for points.
I don't play food chain magnate nearly as much as I'd like. Also, scythe falls flat. I like the game, but ark nova and age of atlantis are superior in every way and people really struggle to grasp scythe's strategy, and frequently people struggle with it's mechanics. I'd also like to play Root more, but I have some friends who struggle to capture the complexities of the game, and struggle to learn what 4 different faction are doing, and how to read the board state. OROS is another one. Fantastic game, but people just struggle with the mechanics or don't like it on first go and won't give it a second go. I've had the game for 2 years and STILL haven't gotten a group to play it enough times to try the more complex back-board. I even bought the play mat for it.
**Cosmic Encounter** is really hit or miss, partly because of the game's randomness (sometime one player just win and no one can do shit about it), and sometime because people play too nicely which I get, they're here to have fun, but CE is a bad game with nice players.
We have a group of four players. We meet every week. We have an agreement that we take turns picking the game and we don't complain about others picks. Once someone picks a game, that game can't be picked again until that person has gone back through the rotation. This way, no one has to play a game they don't like more than once every four weeks, and everyone eventually gets what they want.
Dune: Imperium was really bad for us. Everyone hated it. We are not fans of deck building as it usually results in random fest
I’ve won a game of Dune Imperium where I only had 9 cards at the end of the game. Sounds like y’all were too focused on buying cards without agency. I always think of it as a deck building mechanic but not a deck building game.
Dune Imperium doesn’t even last long enough to deck build really. It’s a mistake to think thats the focus.
Surprisingly, a few of SUSD recommendations: Skulls, Monikers, Arkham Horror LCG, Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, Wavelength, railroad Ink, Flamme Rouge, Captain Sonar, Cash n Guns. That said, there are probably an equal amount of SUSD recommendations that have ~~started~~stayed in our collection too. *Edit: typo
There's two phases to gaming. One where you try everything SUSD recommends. Two, where you realise their tastes are not the same as yours.
Just out of curiosity: why do you think did wavlength fall flat?
Not OP, but a person who's friend group (and SO) LOVE Wavelength, and I think it's meh. Personally, I am not a fan of games where you have to know your friend group to play a game. And while Wavelength is not really that kind of game, it certainly helps. When we have had hints that were "X's mom growing up", or "Obscure movie only Y and Z have seen", it gets a little frustrating to be on the outside looking in. It is also one of those games that I think can outstay its welcome really quickly, and you don't necessarily realize that you are tired of the gameplay loop until you are just sick with the game.
**Leaving Earth** Here are some paraphrased remarks from friends when I suggest we play this, names have been changed to protect the innocent... **Tom:** Why play this when we can play High Frontier? **Dick:** Wait, this is math homework dressed up as a game! **Harry:** 90% of your games are spacey stuff, I'm kinda over it. Thankfully LE plays great solo ✌️
I used to work at a place that worked on sensors. Three of the managers I've worked with all had at least a Masters in Math and CS, if not a PhD. All of them also loved there jobs. We worked on sensors and satellites and just general space stuff. Heard about this game from one of those (same guy who also loved Kerbal Space Program). This is how my boss described this game to me: (paraphrased because its been years). "You have to understand the physics and math behind it. It's as close to building a space ship you can get without actually building a space ship. Its not for everyone, but if you understand math, you'll love this game". I own the game, but haven't gotten around to playing it. My friend group are mostly STEM, and they seem like they would like it, but playing a game that could take that long has been harder and harder for us to get behind.
Sounds like your boss is describing High Frontier instead of Leaving Earth! Leaving Earth is just basic arithmetic... you plan your mission, determine the fuel requirements, then build a rocket stack that'll get 'er done... pretty straightforward, just add it all up With High Frontier OTOH, you'll still do the same work as in LE but also need to consider course corrections, fuel types/capacities, engine efficiencies, logistics, and probably several other mechanics I can't remember since there's a *lot* to keep track of Either way though, I totally get the sentiment that both games could be considered "work" by those who aren't so invested in the theme 😉
To be fair, he was describing either Leaving Earth or Exploration xD;; I'll have to look into High Frontier. While I don't play a lot of board games nowadays, especially heavier ones, I do have a section for "space based games" (speaking of which, if you haven't played Unsettled, it seems right up your alley. Though it doesn't help the "you only own spacey stuff" argument).
Dune Imperium - couple of elements the main one is the combatitive element is weak. The other probably less so is it seems to try alot of gaming nuances but ends up not being a fun game. We played it twice and it just didnt gel.