by stessier » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:07 am
by PLW » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:12 am
stessier wrote: Ignoring any marriage related issues...
by Smoove_B » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:17 am
by stessier » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:18 am
PLW wrote:More seriously, blocking your opponent is definitely a legit strategy. BUT, if there are social norms about how to play a game and one person is following those norms while the other is not, then that can unbalance the game in favor of the one who is breaking the norms.
by Archinerd » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:21 am
by coopasonic » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:21 am
by Daveman » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:53 am
by Isgrimnur » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:02 am
by hentzau » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:29 am
by coopasonic » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:35 am
by LordMortis » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:51 am
by El Guapo » Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:26 pm
by Blackhawk » Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:53 pm
by Chaz » Tue Sep 06, 2016 1:23 pm
by $iljanus » Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:03 pm
by TheMix » Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:07 pm
by baelthazar » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:39 pm
stessier wrote:PLW wrote:More seriously, blocking your opponent is definitely a legit strategy. BUT, if there are social norms about how to play a game and one person is following those norms while the other is not, then that can unbalance the game in favor of the one who is breaking the norms.
I could see that, but it was only the second time we played. Everyone was concentrating on completing their routes and it just happened to be obvious which one she needed. I guess discussion up front before the next game is going to be required. It's not a lot of fun if everyone just cedes the right of way to see who can get the most points.
by killbot737 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:45 pm
by Scoop20906 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:35 pm
by Scoop20906 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:51 am
by Isgrimnur » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:41 am
by El Guapo » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:57 am
Scoop20906 wrote:I am learning your lesson Stess. I was playing a board game with my wife and son and I learned the is normal competitive gaming and family gaming.
Family gaming is more about the social experience and trying to make everyone feel good. Stepping on others fun is considered bad form. At least I learned that after I played to win and my wife refused to play with me for six months. Now I make sure they both have a great time and we are have a much better time. I rarely win but I'm happier being there with me family.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by Lordnine » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:03 pm
Isgrimnur wrote:Or play something with a DM/one-to-many adversarial relationship.
by Holman » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:35 pm
by Remus West » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:44 am
LordMortis wrote:Know your audience? There are different levels of competitiveness. If your wife likes to play just to see how things work out and you like to play a little cut throat, then one of you needs to change your compatibility or you probably shouldn't play together.
For instance, I absolutely hate playing with king makers. That's a compatibility I can't deal with. It's a viable way to compete but I don't find it enjoyable and I'll tend to avoid games that can have a strong king maker leaning with players who tend to play a king maker style of game. "If I can't win then, then I will lose badly and take out the person who hurt my most." I'm not good at games of high diplomacy and positioning myself to take advantage of holding back the reigns to make allies. I also don't enjoy tend to enjoy them.
I also am not a fan of a level of competition that doesn't allow you to go "shit, I didn't mean to do that" if undoing something doesn't alter a past reveal of new information. I will shy away from that sort of detail oriented game with that sort of detailed planning person.
I can change most other compatibilities including my level of competitive play based on whom I am playing with.
Also, if you are gamer by nature and your wife is not (don't know if that is true but it feels true) then onus is on you to change how you play to accommodate her if you want to game or perhaps gently tutor her, if she is not offended by being told to consider the consequences of her actions. In this case is she is receptive to learning by instruction "You might not want to do that. I can easily block that move. If you go that. You would force me to do this." I am very much receptive this kibitz style of game play. Others would protest "Would you just let me play!"
by Anonymous Bosch » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:54 pm
BoardGameGeek.com wrote:Step Three: How Can I Win?
“The Hamster” (2-5 minutes)
Your players now know HOW the game works and HOW they do things in the game, but generally don’t have any concept of WHY they would do any of these things.
It is at this time that you will have to get the hamster running in the heads of your players, by sharing some of the different strategic paths one might try to follow for victory. Players, especially non-gamers, need a few basic frameworks to try to follow to succeed in the game.
Games are most fun when all players are working their hardest to win the game, the competition makes it fun. We have all played games where one or more people stop trying to win and the game rapidly disintegrates into stupidity. The same situation can occur if someone has no idea of how to win the game, they will make seemingly random moves out of frustration. This will make the game no fun for them and much less fun for everyone else.
This is where a basic understanding of the strategy of the game is essential. Before you start the game “the hamster” portion is when you give general strategy tips, common beginner pitfalls, and typical long term strategies.
BoardGameGeek.com wrote:To Win or not to Win?
Ahhhh, Game Ethics. As a teacher of the game, and at the same time as a participant you will be put in some interesting ethical choices. The most difficult being: should you try your hardest to win the game?
This is an eternal question. With many of these games, especially the more complex games with a higher learning curve, an experienced player will probably be able to crush a set of beginners to the game. Should you sandbag a game to make it closer or even to let someone else win?
Here is what I believe, you are free to agree or disagree with this opinion. You will have to make this decision for yourself for each game depending upon the situation, but I urge you to remember the Golden Rule, whatever you do, you need to make sure that the people playing the game have a good time. It would be nice for one of the other players to win; it will certainly increase their enjoyment of the game. But I also believe in the game having a sense of honesty and integrity. I do not believe a player should win the game if they played poorly. You can show the players that skill is important in playing the game, so winning the game yourself is not necessarily a bad thing, you just have to be careful how you win the game so that the other players still have a positive experience.
Here is what I do when introducing games but as I said, you will have to make your own ethical decisions for each different situation.
- If a game has a high luck factor, I will play the game all out. In a game like Settlers, even if you are playing your best, you can lose the game due to awful dice rolls.
- If I am playing a game with a steep learning curve and little luck that I have a lot of experience with, I will play the game well, but maybe not quite all out. There is certainly no need to run up the score.
- If an opportunity arises to seriously wreck one of my opponents, even if it greatly enhances my position. I might seek an alternative move even if it may be not completely optimal. Once again, the second game is where you crush them mercilessly.
Now, I have heard of players, who are willing to sit out of a game and just act as teacher, without participating in the game, especially when introducing one of the more complex games. As much as I think this is a noble idea and would certainly encourage people to try this, I personally like to play in the games and maybe I am just too selfish to do this sort of thing. But I think there is also something to be said for having an experienced player in the game and letting the others players see how an experienced player plays the game.
by Chrisoc13 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:03 pm
Archinerd wrote:That is within the spirit of the game and is often part of the winning strategy. You did nothing wrong.
That said, there are different types of board gamers and it sounds like your wife isn't the cut-throat type. Don't steal her cities in Carcassonne if you don't want to piss her off in that game too.
Of course, she just may be mad because she had set her expectations for a friendly game, perhaps because you were playing with your daughter or perhaps because of the colorful board.
If you can convince her to ever play the game again, see what she does next time. Maybe she'll be out for revenge or maybe she's just one of those people you'll have to decide to play nice with if you want to preserve your out of game relationship.
by Kelric » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:30 pm
by Blackhawk » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:40 am
by Smoove_B » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:50 am
by LordMortis » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:54 am
Smoove_B wrote:There was a whole thread on BGG last year about etiquette in Dead of Winter. For those that don't know, the game potentially contains a hidden traitor element. While there are ways for individual players to win doing good things and the group of players to win in a cooperative environment, the hidden traitor only wins if their specific goal is realized - a goal that always harms the other members and the group as a whole. The etiquette issue was that if you're the hidden traitor and it becomes impossible for you to sabotage the game and thereby win, is it considered bad form to then actively prevent the other players from winning - so that in the end, no one wins. I was of the mind that it's not - you're the hidden traitor and only win by yourself. If you can't win (either because you don't have the right cards or the game will be ending in X number of turns), why wouldn't you stop the other players from winning if you could? Anyway, people were out of their minds in the thread thinking it was an unforgivable sin to play that way and if you did, you wouldn't be asked back to the group to play board games ever again.
by TheMix » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:08 am
by Smoove_B » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:12 am
TheMix wrote:. Any play where the player gets zero benefit from it, and where it hurts other players, becomes suspect in my book. When you are playing games for fun (even if competitive), there really shouldn't be maliciousness.
by coopasonic » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:18 am
Smoove_B wrote:TheMix wrote:. Any play where the player gets zero benefit from it, and where it hurts other players, becomes suspect in my book. When you are playing games for fun (even if competitive), there really shouldn't be maliciousness.
See that's the thing. Ruining the game for everyone else is one thing. However, if you can't win and would thereby lose if you don't still actively try and stop the other players from winning...what's the point of being a hidden traitor? You're pushing for a "everybody loses the game" condition instead of "you lost/they won". That's still fun and not being vindictive at all.
by TheMix » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:30 am
by Lordnine » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:07 am
by Smoove_B » Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:04 pm
TheMix wrote:I agree with coop. You don't get a new win condition. You lost. BUT... technically, you are still part of the "group". So in some ways, if they win, you still "win". In a real life situation, if I was a hidden traitor and couldn't meet my victory conditions, I'd just keep that aspect hidden and go along with the win. Otherwise, it starts to sound like the 3rd grade battle cry of "If I can't play, no one can play." Or, "I'll take my ball and go home." Essentially, it becomes about ruining the game for everyone.
by LordMortis » Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:21 pm
Lordnine wrote:There is another scenario that I unfortunately see all too often in my group. That is, the person who thinks they’ve lost and gives up, thus creating a power vacuum for someone else to win who wouldn’t have gotten the chance otherwise. To me this is even more annoying than the vindictive person. It’s possible to react to someone who is trying to make you lose; it’s harder to stop to a person who is allowing someone else to win.
Smoove_B wrote:Except the hidden traitor cards state that if the group wins, as the hidden traitor (regardless of whether or not your identity is revealed) you lose. You can only win the scenario by completing your hidden traitor goal, so if that's not possible pushing the others into a position where they can't win fits. IMHO, of course. If you as the hidden traitor cannot win and then just sit back and let the other people playing complete their goals to win the game IMHO it's the same as siting back and helping them to win (in Lordnine's example). I say that because before you figured out you couldn't win, you were actively working against them and by doing so stopping them from meeting their goal(s). If you can't meet your goals, I'm of the mind you shouldn't then "throw in the towel" and let them meet theirs.
I understand that group dynamics differ, but what I've learned from all this is that if I were playing with a group of strangers, I'd make sure all the possible permutations of how things could play out were discussed and everyone understood and agreed what was appropriate.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests