I was fine with the roll and move mechanic.... until I played a real game and then i was like: HOLY CRAP, I CAN CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO DO!!!!!! and i never went back
Ironically, I only like cooperative games where there is hidden information between the players (such as Battlestar Galatica). Otherwise, I find that in cooperative games with no hidden information, everyone is constantly telling you how to play your turn.
Pulling tiles from a bag isn't really the mechanic that's bad. It's the idea of going through all sorts turns and actions for a random reward that amounts to nothing.
Yeah sounds like Sam is mad with the level of investment. Don't know the game, but if instead of knowing it was just "few worthless knicknacks" it might even be better. You didn't find a Tomb for a Mummy, but you did find a few arrowheads for example.
Indeed. It's having so much investment stacked on a single random chance. I like to think that there's only two ways of doing randomness right: either you have very little of it, so that it doesn't mess up game plans, or a whole lot of it, so that it evens out.
More random does not even out. Flip a coin once, and you know you are at +1 or -1. Flip a coin twice, there is a 50/50 chance of being at 0. Flip a cone 1000 times, and you could be at -1000. Sure, not likely, but possible. It is possible to prove that the chance of ending up within any finite distance from zero decreases the more tries you do. The distribution will be narrower, relatively speaking, such that if you roll 1000 dice the average will be close to 3.5. However, if you average is off by a tiny fraction (say 3.4) with a 1000 dice rolls the result will be off with 100, which is impossible rolling just one die (which could be off with at the most 2.5). Another factor, apparent in many games, is that many random events are less important. There will still be some crucial events that can turn the whole game around more often than not. In a simple roll and move racing game with no catchup mechanic (roll a die, the first to get to 10, or 100, or 1000 wins). So the person with the best roll on the first turn is more likely to win than the one with the worst roll, regardless of how long the game is.
I love that Sam does the same things as me when given several dice... 1) Tessellate all your d6s into some kind of pattern with the numbers; 2) Rotate the whole construction so that you can look at the other three patterns you made as by-products; 3) Repeat about 70 times; 4) Push the dice away because you're driving yourself up the wall; 5) Wait 10 minutes; 6) Reach for the dice again and proceed back to Step 1.
So I just subscribed. I honestly don't care about boardgames, well maybe thats a bit harsh, but your personalities are so entertaining it makes me want to get into them
#10 Keeping info to yourself in a cooperative game. #9 The game makes you act like a fool. #8 A card of doom. #7 Programmable movement. Well, more than one at a time, at least. #6 Lose a turn. #5 Pulling tiles from a bag. #4 The stupid war rules from Race for the Galaxy. #3 Rolling for actions. #2 Artificial Catch-up Mechanics. #1 Roll & Move.
Getting eliminated in a long game...I got killed off in the first hour of Shogun (the MB Game Master version) and my buddies played for another 8 hours. Ugh. It was on a once-a-year game weekend. Boooorrrriiiiinnnnggg....
Had a somewhat similar experience in Shogun - played 1.5 hours and got eliminated. Nothing else to do until game ended. Not a fan of games that have very long play times and player elimination. Too much time invested for no payout. Could have played two other shorter games in that time.
I despise MTG blue decks. They're based on not allowing the opponent to make a move-any move. The victim is effectively not playing the game, and there is nothing less fun to do while playing a game than not playing the game.
Mono blue seems old skool to me, but I don't play tournament magic very much. Actually the most annoying deck I own is blue-white control. Put the right spells on isochron scepter and people will range from being annoyed to being pretty upset about it. Your turn, I use the scepter to cast Orim's chant during your upkeep, you can't attack or play spells. There's a reason I rarely play it, because it rarely loses in casual play and it's no fun. So it's not just blue that locks down people. Black can be devastating at locking people down too.
37thgungrunts Says the guy who plays monoblue. Nothing can really punish counterspells, and there just aren't enough options that can't be countered to present a credible defense. The only ways I've found to prevent it are to play blue myself or to refuse to play against those friends who insist on using it. It's indicative of bad game design,
Steampunk Papercut So, you assume I play mono-blue? I don't play mono-anything. If you've got one guy who likes to play blue, plan around it. Or play slivers, problem solved.
Steampunk Papercut Play man lands. Lands that become creatures, OR an aggro deck with many small creatures, OR monoblack (duress is amazing vs counters), OR several of the uncounterable green options. Mono blue hasn't been viable in forever. It's the best support color, but it's terrible on it's own.
I can see why you don't like that mechanic, I don't mind it because I try to play that mechanic out. What I mean is I like to take on the challenge of figuring out what combination of cards really hits it home for the one choosing the winner.
Adding to Sam's 'the rich get richer' theme, I experience that in Settlers of Catan. After a couple rounds you know if you are going to have a good chance of winning or not. The placement of your first settlements has a lot to do with the game.
I may be wrong, but I suspect the reason for Zee's #10 (not being allowed to share information in co-op games) is to try to avoid the "alpha player" problem of one person telling everyone else what to do and basically running the whole show. If you don't know what other people can do, you can't give orders. Not to say that I think this justifies those rules, but I think that may be part of the reason they exist in so many games.
I have played a game of Pandemic, where I may have been the "Alpha Player". it ruined the fun for one of our players. But it is a good rule not to do that lol.
Interesting theory, but the "alpha player" problem is a people problem, not a game problem. You know, that one guy who needs to have control, whom OVER-explains things in games - he's almost always the alpha player....
To be fair to Shadows Over Camelot (which they mentioned specifically,) the point isn't to withhold information. It's to encourage talking in character and encourage players to find a creative way of saying what you want without revealing details. And, it also gives the Traitor a bit of leeway to be "misunderstood."
Hidden information is one of the best ways to avoid the alpha player in coop games. I don't know Salem, but I suspect that this was the reason for the designer to add that rule...
I own over 100 board games, yet their #1 bad rule makes me fill dissed, because Talisman is my 2nd favorite game. Now I know people may not like it. But there seems to be an "aura" if you like Talisman or roll and move games, you are not a "real" gamer. I own a lot of games, and introduce games to my gamer group. Please don't disrespect those of us "real" gamers who like Talisman or other roll & move games.
Doma Agape Talisman is fine because you still get a choice of at least two (sometimes more) directions to go. That gives you sometimes meaningful decisions of whether to go quickly to the treasure/fountain/whatever even though that means going through a nasty space.
Scrabble is the ULTIMATE violator of the baggy draw rule. That is really where 90% of the game is played. It does not matter how big ones vocabulary is or where the word was played. Its simply the difference bt drawing an x, a, o, u, q, e, s, and a t. as opposed to five straight I's in a fuckin row. That's why Scrabble is a mediocre at best game to me.
Brian Benedict OOOOOOOH that is a better game. It takes out the luck aspect by playing words in certain parts of the board, and allows for more similar words to be spelt, instead of praying that you can play your word before someone else takes that spot.
I know im late, but to adress that beginning citadels warlord complaint, I use the diplomat. He comes with the edition that includes expansion characters and districts. The only difference is that instead of destroying, he swaps districts with others.
I don't know what to call this rant specifically, but the ending to the game Munchkin is more annoying to me than anything I've ever encountered. You're level 9, about ready to defeat a monster and win, but everyone else prevents this from happening. That's fine so far. Everyone else who is level 8 and below are allowed to defeat their monsters and catch up. Whoever is level 9 is the target of the players because they don't want to lose. It just drags on and on until everyone runs out of useful cards and someone finds an easy monster to defeat. But this isn't until hours later. And there is only a slim chance that the player who wins was even close to winning when the original person was so close. It acts as a neat mechanic in the early game, but towards the end, it is just a way for everyone to catch up.
I actually like the dice roll thing in monopoly (I mean there's no way you're deliberately gonna land on someone else his property if you can to some extend chose how much steps you're gonna take) but I hate it in trivial pursuit and other games where you need to trow an exact number in order to finish.
Parcheesi is the oldest and best roll and move game because there is strategy involved that games like Sorry and Trouble removed. You can actually divide the dice: if you roll a 4 and a 5, you don't HAVE to go 9 spaces, you can split it up between the pieces.
And, there's a reason to send more than one piece out at a time, since you can intentionally form blockades and such. (Though, the exact count for the end-game can be frustrating, still.)
So many people believe that Risk takes extremely long times to play, like 3-4 hours or even much longer... If you are taking over 2 hours for Risk, you are playing wrong. You are either in a room full of skittish players who are too scared to attack, or you are probably not following some of the rules correctly. In my experience, most games are over in 60-90 min, even with 5-6 players. The game is called Risk for a reason. You need to take risks to win.
In RISK I play with rules that allow eliminated players to rebel in the territories they had in their final round (or former capital throughout the game). They can come back fully into the game with the right dice rolls.
My family now plays Clue by a unique set of rules. We still do Roll to move, but we ignore the hallways completely. You roll, and can move clockwise or counterclockwise around the board that many rooms. It removes completely the ability some players have of keeping you from ever doing ANYTHING in that game by keeping you from moving rooms, and at least lets everyone play.
In regards to the "no communication" rule, it is indeed stupid in Witch of Salem. But in some games it isn't, like Shadows Over Camelot. The limited communication role is important to protect the traitor.
Jack Luminous Selling a lot of games doesn't make it fun to play. Monopoly in particular has a lot of people buying collectors' editions for nostalgia or for show or even buying it just to have it rather than because they want to play it.
David Harshman Monopoly might be one of the prime examples that show that paradoxically, games don't have to be fun to sell well. It's enough to get popular for looking pleasing and memorable, as well as being easy to understand, and thus more accessible for everybody. I think in Monopoly's case, it was probably thanks to a lot of simple yet elegant eye candy, and most importantly easy to understand rules (while keeping a unique atmosphere). You have a now iconic yet simple board design, the proprietary theme, the little houses, and last but not least the pretty tokens. Despite it being dull and having the tendency to drag out, I never quite hated it, though. Another example for such a game that's even more dull than Monopoly that I absolutely despite since it is the prime example and the worst offender of a roll and move game is *Mensch Ärgere Dich Nicht*. And yet everyone knows it, and it is in every freaking Games Compendium you buy. 99.5% of it is luck-based, the remaining half percent can be managed with an equal amount of brain cells to maintain the strategic aspect of it, which is about which token to move with your die roll when you have multiples outside.
The most annoying rule or mechanic to me is Zombiecide's Targeting mechanic when firing into an adjacent tile or zone and how you have to aim at a survivor first, and the priority going down the list just seems wrong to me.
Put links to each individual subject of the video. Hunting through for ones that are of interest is too much of a chore for many. Oh and learn what Socialism is, that comment was embarrassingly ignorant.
+John D A Soialism does not equal COMMUNISM, Tom. You know that Social Security check that your gonna get in 30 years from now? Guess which type of policy that is.... Ill wait.
Moonawrathic says the dude who either has a trust waiting for him, has a credit rating off the charts bc of his bank connections, has SHARES in bank, or is simply ignorant of the poison of capitalism that is literally killing him with every meal that he takes and is causing the economy to collapse
Michael Carrillo Capitalism is the best system, while it does still have it's flaws. We live in a broken world with a bunch of idiots. The only system that can work with this kind of human condition is one where people are rewarded for their own hard work and effort. Capitalism at it's core.
Moonawrathic yeah no. Capitalism only functions on death. In order for people to be rewarded then others have to be punished. In the extreme that punishment is death. So if you want more LIFE-lyhood then ppl have to DIE. thats exactly what is happening in america with poverty, metabolic disease at outrageous heights all for the sake of "free market" ideals
I enjoy Roll and Move in some Vintage games. It is nice to just roll and move some pawns and take some actions. Some older games have some interesting mechanisms to make the roll and move not as painful.
Gotta say, I will ALWAYS prefer the randomness of a dice over cards or tiles in a bag. Cards and tiles are drawn and removed, so the odds are always changing, while a die, is ALWAYS the same odds, every single roll. My d6 always has a 1 in 6 chance. Yes it IS possible to roll 100 times and never get a 6 or whatever, but at the end of the day.... I still had a fair chance at it the entire time. Not, the guy who pulled first had 1 in 5, but the next guy has 1 in 7, and so forth. I'll always take the constant odds over the constantly shifting odds. Granted, I haven't played Thebes, so I WILL admit that it may work because of the theme, but in general, no, I really dislike odds that are always changing.
I do have to disagree on the "Reset Button" in instances like MtG. Normally it just pushes a game back yes, but in MtG where you have multiple deck types competing it's a valid strategy and doesn't reset the game. Proper decks get better with those cards while a deck that can be affected by it badly should be built to recover from them if need be. I am glad they removed the card Armageddon. Destroying ALL lands for that cheap is pretty bad for pacing.
I hate the overall idea of randomizing any action at all. I know it is terribly hard to make a game based only on decisions and skill, and remove any dice, coin flips and etc, but these are the best games for me. Skill over luck! Thats why I fell in love with chess from the very first time I played it, at about age of 7 or 8, if a recall correctly.
Yeah happens. Sometimes hilarious moments can come out of dice rolls in board RPGs but most of the time it is dice roll. As if Im simply playing dice and Im not in RPG.
Sky Lord Panglot I get where you're coming from but I think a game with some randomization is more realistic. A larger force doesn't always win in battle. Too much randomization can ruin a game. The vastly skilled player should win the majority of times. You like what you like though.
Oh yes. Some randomization is OK. But it has to be on the right spot. Not just "roll for everything you do". Cause I played those games. Also yeah you like what you like. The problem is that I dont know how to realiza what I like. I like RPGs, but most of them contain too much dice rolls, which I dont like. If they dont contain mainly dice rolls they involve terrible calculations, which I dont like either. Whats the compromise here Im not sure yet but Ill tell you when I find it. :D
Sky Lord Panglot I would agree with your point. I love randomization but there is a time and place for it. in warhammer 40,000 I can move up 6 in bout I can only run or charge 6D or 2D6. WTF every other game is fixed. I run show and my son runs fast but when we run it is always at the same speed we ran last time. we don't run randomly. it just slow down the game and takes to much a way from "the feel" of the game
Sky Lord Panglot In FATE or Fudge system may be the right spot for you as it is for me: you roll 4dF, a dF being a 1 in 3 chance of getting either blank, a + or a - (or a d6 where 1-2 is -, 3-4 is blank, 5-6 is +), and those results are modifiers to your skills. The distribution for me seems more realistic, still with chances of getting a +4 or -4, but its just about 1% each, and about 65% chances on an avarage roll (-1 through +1). There are even variations made to increase the ~65% chance to nearly 85% i think. Besides, summing up + and - signs is fairly easy.
Part of the reason for #10 - concealing information - is that when a game like Shadows Over Camelot is played openly, ALL decisions become group-made ("you should do this") and the more experienced players usually dominate the gameplay. Requiring some personal info, like cards, be hidden inserts some independence for each player.
One little thing I would like to bring up about your show. The individual videos are a TAD long. Most top ten videos top in at about half the average length of your top tens. Long videos aren't totally bad, but when I am watching top ten videos, I really am just looking to waste around 10 to 20 minutes max. I might still end up wasting a whole hour total, but I'll waste it on several shorter videos; rather than a few long ones. Personally, I think you might be able to get your individual video's views up quite a bit if you shortened them a little. This video had 136,902 views as of my viewing. It is over a year old at this point. I see no reason why a top10 about a subject as popular as board games shouldn't have amassed closer to a million views over the course of a year. I think length may have something to do with that.
***** ....There is no irony. Two paragraphs of typing probably took him 2min. He can't just place down 4 words and expect them to take that as detailed constructive criticism.
Eric Lawrence If you're a hardcore board game geek, then you most likely want to spent an hour hearing about a zillion games *shrug* I know I do. If you personally don't want a video that long, then just go watch something else...
I can't stand the random victory condition mechanic as seen in Killer Rabbits. Winning that game is winning a lottery. There is no strategy other than get as many tickets (carrots) as you can before the game ends.
I hate roll & move mechanics as well, but there's a reason games with them are so popular. Most of them are designed either for kids, or as super simple casual games that anybody can play without thinking too much about the game. There's a reason slot machines are the most popular games at the casino, people want the excitement of a random result, but not the weight of having to decide what to do.
I think number 5 is wrong. It is not really the pulling itself i would say but the "get nothing". Not that i know that particular game but if you e.g. pull sooner or later every tile out of a bag i actually think that mechanism is cool because you know the chance increase for the next turn.
#7 makes me think of Robo Rally one of my favorite board games of all time. Me and my family laugh so hard when we play that game, it is supposed to all go wrong that is the point :D
Nick Eberle I think it's more a thing of those comments that make people go up a wall like "I didn't want to turn that way"... cause I love Robo Rally, it makes me laugh all the time, but the fact is I was really split between laughing and shouting when someone just said "I didn't want to do that, I had the other card" well then pay attention to the game... I don't mind being screwed, I mind people who mess up because they just don't feel like paying enough attention to the game.
I think the real key to good game mechanics is a good chance/strategy balance. If a game is all chance, it's boring. If it's all strategy, it can be intimidating for newer players and can make for poor game replay. Once you've figured out the best way to win the game, there's nothing more to do. A dash of chance can really help with replay-ability and can even up the game a bit for newer players and players who have played it dozens of times. Chance doesn't necessarily have to be brought in as dice rolls or cards though. If players interact with each other enough, that can bring in enough of a random element to make the game fun. Chance that's entirely brought in via dice rolls can get boring and frustrating. "Clue" depends largely on dice rolls for the "chance" element of the game and it's maddening. I think games like "Sorry" and "Parcheesi" are so popular because chance outweighs the strategy component so heavily. The rules are pretty basic, ithey're quick to learn and easy and fast to play. Monopoly doesn't rely as heavily on chance because you have choices to make about what to do with properties so there's a little more strategy.
The "roll and move" thing has always spoilt "Cluedo" (as it's spelt over here) for me. You guys are dead on there I think. It's just so damn frustrating when you get three turns of rolling a 1/2 and then someone else takes you to a room that you already have in your hand and so know isn't the right one!
+H0lyMoley Totally agree, when I play Cluedo we don't move the characters upon accusation, I have had games where I have been actively prevented from winning by the abuse of this mechanic. I don't think the roll to move is so bad on the new game board because you can actually get around most of the house by passing from one room to another or using the secret passages. I think the designers really listened on this and tried to come up with a way to at least mitigate it. For those who haven't played the new one: more of the rooms have connecting doors I think the only places that don't are the Games Room, the Bathroom and the Courtyard.
+Emma Giudice personally, I hated the new map. Then again, I've been playing the Clue (or Cluedo) with two dice for as long as I can remember. So long, in fact, that I thought it was supposed to be played with that many. Also, I don't see how abuse of the suggestion mechanic can prevent someone from making a winning accusation as, in most versions of the game, you don't have to be in any particular place to make an accusation.
CAREERS did SO well addressing this issue. When i first played Careers what when I realised that family games didnt have to be ALL about luck.. If you can find a copy of Careers; buy it. Its rare.
I missed my most hated game mechanism. The ones where players deliberately or indeliberately form coaltions to take out a single player. Like Player A attacks player B in a war of tear and wear and in the next turn Player C jumps in for the coup de grâce. I don't mind it in games like settlers of catan, where everyone tries to steal from the player with the clay monopoly though.
Also, the war rules remind me of those special rules in RPGs that make the game harder by their complexity, not by low chances. I don't want to use this or that ability, because the rules for it are too complex.
"The Hare and the Tortoise" is a game based on catch up mechanics, and it is a great strategic game to play. But indeed these are not artificial catch up mechanics, these are built into the game - and actually very much in the theme of the story :-)
I agree with the kingmaker mechanic being incredibly broken. This happens to me in games where I don't even think it is a particularly large problem because all of my friends have created this in-joke where I am not allowed to win at the games I bring. If I am ever winning or close to second, they will all gang up on me just so I can't win. So yeah, games with a kingmaker, and games where it is easy to single out and shut down a specific person.
Yeah. It’s a little kids’ game, so it doesn’t matter, but basically if you had a computer you could just leave it playing and then it could tell you who won. There’s not point in being there. See also, Mousetrap.
That annoying mechanic in the 5-6 player version of Settlers, where everybody gets to build at the end of every turn. What a way to remove almost all of the tension that made the game great. Needless to say we convieniently 'lost' the 5-6 player rule book. Fully agree that roll and move is the worst. 'Snakes and Ladders' anyone?
One I would add is Cyclades bottleneck over Mars/Ares - you need this to expand your kingdom especially in a 4 player game and you can go for many turns where you can not do hardly anything. Then at the end, you could be in last place and all of a sudden get Mars and take over a neighbor and win the game.
Muchkin has to have one of my favorite catch up mechanisms. If anyone's hand is over the card limit at the end of their turn they have to give cards to the weakest player. Its completely under the control of the players that are doing well.
I really had no idea board games had a big adult fanbase. This is coming from someone who plays lots of video games. I don't even play board games much at all but I like watching you guys talk about them!
Re-listening to the intro to this list - and the bit on mechanics vs mechanisms. Top 10 Annoying Pedantic Discussions in Gaming A. Mechanic vs Mechanism B. Rulebook v Rule Book v Rulesbook C. It Doesn’t Say I Can’t Do That D. Round v Turn v Action v Phase v Step E. When The Card Says Number of Cards, Does It Count Itself? There. I gave you half. :)
Partnerships in competitive games like many Trick-taking games or area-control style games like Rising Sun. This will put me off the game quicker than anything. Also not a huge fan of straight 2v2/3v3/4v4/etc. style games Drawing a "death to all players/progress" card or die roll Simple "Dice to resolve combat" mechanics-meaning no way to mitigate the dice be it cards, stats, your exp. etc. Roll for actions or movement Semi-Coops with too much take that mechanics combined with long gameplay
"Skip your turn" is the reason I can't stand Small World. Not only do you skip your turn, you skip it EVERY OTHER time it's your turn! It's compounded by the fact that downtime is big in that game. You're waiting forever for your turn and then you skip it half the time. Just way too much downtime and AP in what's supposed to be a lite game. I don't get why it's so hugely popular.
Interesting video...but the obvious thing is.... if you dont like a specific rule.. .CHANGE IT!!! to one that suits your needs.HOUSE RULES. I would be interested in a video where the guys discuss HOUSE RULES - the best they have witnessed, best implemented. For example they moaned about Clue using dice rolls for movement yet one version (PC game) lets you have a standard amount of movement points. I used to run a small Scabble playing group and we never adhered to the time limit rule, allowed people to use dictionaries, have access to a 2 letter word list....which never caused any problem...BUT the "official" variant for use of the blank tiles, where you could "recycle" them always caused a bit of debate IMHO dice rolls for movement or actions are OK ...IF another part of the game has a heavy element of choice or strategy or logic. I think it works in Clue as an example because the game is primarily about eliminating the people,weapons and places
Resident Evil Card Building game. I love it to death, top game my friends and I play. However, i see your points with some of the mechanics. I can sum it up with one game. Super close game, only 2 cards left in the mansion. My turn, I blow through my whole deck using actions and Damage, have more than enough to kill Boss, but draw the "Losing player kills next monster instantly." He won...
I'd actually disagree that turn reverse is always (or even frequently) a bad thing. Take your basic card games where you can do something that affects the next player, of whom you have limited knowledge. Phase 10 is a great example. We went on a binge of this game for a while, and added reverse cards. The net effect was that you now had to keep track of what two players were collecting (specific numbers/colours) and not just the player who always takes the next turn. This mechanic works well pretty much in only that scenario - where you can do something to benefit or hurt the next player only, which is common enough in card games. (In Phase 10, you can pick up the top discard card, or the top face-down card, and if you notice the next person on a colour phase is picking up yellows, you know not to lie any down.)
HOUSE RULES 1) Own Secret Units Look at your own secret units anytime you want - except on your own turn. Speeds play without impairing knowledge of own units. Works great for Titan. 2) Timed turns 30 second timer starts after first player is done with their turn. Works great for Robo Rally.
I'm going to have to disagree about the programmable movement type game. The chaos that results in people messing with each other's programs is one of the core mechanics of the game. So here's a question: If you were given access to completely redesign Robo Rally, River Dragons, etc. how would you change it? While your #1 may be justified I can't help but feel that it's a bit unfair. Sure games like Clue and Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit are games that fall victim to this mechanic but these are also games that come from a classic era where the only other real board games out there were games like Chess, Go, and Othello. It's like deriding black and white TV shows for not being in color. Creating board games like this was a relatively new art form when these games came out and there really wasn't much else to go by. It was only in the past 20 years that board gaming started to evolve into what we see today. Sure there are some exceptions to the rule but these didn't catch on like today's modern board games have. Are there any modern and GEEKY board games that have come out that use this mechanic? I've played a lot and I have yet to find another boardgame that uses this beyond these classics. As for my pet peeves with boardgames I have a couple though they are somewhat related. First, I abhore the directions for determining who goes first. Sometimes it can be interesting like in Pandemic where the last person who was sick goes first (at least then it kinda goes with the theme) but why not just say "choose a random player to go first"? You don't need any fancypants way of determining this, just let the players figure it out and move on. Second, a friend made an argument for, and after thinking on it I'd have to completely agree: that one of the worst rules in a specific game lies within Munchkin. It's the rule that whoever owns the game is the ultimate authority on any ruling (read the rules: it's in there). What an awful mechanic for determining important decisions. It's literally the "It's my yard" rule in boardgame form. You know when you were a kid and a friend invites you over to play tag and the following exchange occurs: You: *tag friend* You're it. Friend: Nuh uh! You didn't hit me! You: Of course I did you've got a red hand print on your face. Friend: Nuh uh! It's my yard I've got my anti-red-hand-print thing on. Ya. Sure I'll play Munchkin so long as the owner of the game isn't actually playing and even then I think it's an awful game so it's often a last resort for me(this is the game that never ends....yes it goes on and on my friend...) Otherwise I thought it was a decent list =).
memoir 44 "behind enemy lines". I just want to rip that thing into 1000 pieces. Game of Thrones in any of it's variants is also a killer. The game is at fastest 60 minutes per player with lose of lost bid currency and you can't be knocked out, you just sit and king make. My #1 would be king making. Just find a way to knock a player out instead of letting a player with a grudge dictate who wins. 4 hours of playing just to have the last place player dictate who wins just kills me. Small World, A Game of Thrones, Kemet, etc..
Role switching cards or mechanics, where you literally change board states with someone. Someone is winning? Play this card and get all their stuff. Saboteur and 7 Dragons have these mechanics. 2nd is hidden public information. By thus I mean information that is publically given but kept secret requiring you to memorize what went in. Usually this involves hiding chips in a bag or keeping cards flipped over. For example in Puerto Rico your victory tokens are a secret even though with a pen and paper you could keep track of every ones points. In El Grande you can put tokens in a Castillo, but it's public knowledge how many put in, but then you just have to remember the number. Lastly in Abyss the cards sent to the council are turned over, but are publically revealed before so again, you are required to remember what was put where.
I think the last rule (and most of them, actually) comes down to a lack of interactivity or control, where your outcome is mostly, if not entirely, dictated by a dice roll (or as with the other rules, a single card draw, or some other bad balancing). After all, people want to win most games by their own skill and strategy, not by luck (I'm better at rolling 6 than you, so HA!). I don't think that move X spaces as indicated by a dice roll is necessarily a bad mechanic, because the player can still be left with a high degree of choice. For example, I think the game Talisman does it right (like somebody who commented earlier). Whenever you roll a die you have a degree of choice as to where you go, always at least 2 options, sometimes more. And these options are very meaningful, beyond the space you land on, because each choice determines which choices you have on the next turn. To add to that, with the later versions, if you don't like a roll, you can use a fate point to do a re-roll, adding more skill/control into the mix. And this works in Talisman, because you usually aren't trying to only go to specifically one spot, you're trying to improve your character by roaming around. There are usually several spots where you would be fine with going to, and most of the time, moving your character does something meaningful. In other roll-to-move games, it's simply a semi-random way of determining who gets around faster, and getting around fast, or getting to a specific spot is the goal. If everybody wants to go to the same place in Clue, it's a competition to see who can roll a die to add to 20 first. It's a pretty meaningless mechanic in that case, and since it is the core determiner of how much you know, it seems a bit unfair (like how they mentioned how unfair it is to have a die roll determine how many actions a player can do on their turn). The variance on how often somebody wins in Clue has to be HUGE. And, that's a pseudo-rant. In short, I don't think roll-to-move is an inherently unfair mechanic, it just depends on how it is implemented. While it is a common offender, I don't think it is the real problem. Not the "#1 bad rule in board games" for sure.
I love Eldritch Horror, but I got nailed with several of these annoying mechanics earlier today. First, the game jacked up the difficulty in what I consider an artificial manner by forcing me to draw and resolve an additional mythos card, because one just wasn't enough. The repercussions of those two back to back mythos cards were that I became cursed, which meant I rolled a success on only a 6, and I became detained. And there wasn't a thing I could do about it. Because I was detained, I lost my entire turn, and then I spent 3 consecutive turns praying to get rid of my curse to no avail. And to make matters worse , because I was cursed, I failed a mandatory test and gained a paranoia condition, which consequently made me mad with insanity quite literally as I quit the game. Eldritch Horror might as well have played a single you lose card as I went from what seemed like 95% odds of winning down to 0% in an instant. I was sitting on the gate I needed to close with plenty of clue tokens and on the last mystery. My wife actually had 3 opportunities to roll a single success (50% chance x 3) and win us the game. She rolled a 1, a 2, and finally another 2 even though she was blessed. She was subsequently driven mad as well (in the game that is), which is what led me mad (outside of the game). I packed up the game and don't plan to unleash its horrors again for quite some time.
My #1, games that contain mechanics or allow for strategies that turn a 2 player game into solitaire. Two infuriating examples, MTG "I built my deck around this unstoppable card combo, so if I draw it I win!" and X-Wing Bumpmaster "if I manage to run into you, your ships do nothing for the rest of the game!"
I think a lot of it depends on the game and its intent. For example, "lose a turn" randomly is annoying. Losing a turn because of an attack gives people something to do to affect the other players. Roll a die to move is a little simple and random, but it's good for family games or kids games like Life, Chutes and Ladders, etc. These games are designed to get people doing stuff together, not to turn you into the world's greatest strategist. I will agree wholeheartedly that catchup mechanics need fine tuning. "Rich get richer" or "do bad to get the welfare win button" are bad mechanics, especially in a long game (i.e. 3+ hours) where you might be stuck for hours in a game. I would rather be eliminated early than play 80% of a multi-hour game knowing I'm going to lose.
Wonder how Tom would feel about Wild West Exodus(WWX) and Song of Blades and Heroes(SBH). WWX uses a deck of cards with each player having their own deck. Each card has an amount of action points you can spend when activating a unit and each unit has their own card. WWX does have a few mechanics to off set this via resource management though. SBH... Well you basically are trying to succeed on a dice roll with a gambling mechanism. It risks giving your opponent actions on your turn or even handing passing the turn. I prefer WWX out of any.
26:30 If it's only one step that's just preselection, a lot of games have simultaneous actions that are revealed after everyone chooses; that doesn't equal programming. I think Sam gets a similar feeling from programming as the rich get richer; it's that frustration of things snowballing/spiraling out of control and a mistake early leads to things going horribly awry. Some people find this hilarious, others hate it. To me it's just not that interesting; I prefer a more nuanced and interactive game where decisions allow you to adapt. They are also awful for people who experience AP.
The Dice Tower You guys gonna make a top ten space games? Im looking into space games because I love space but it seems like notable space games are few and far between. I don't care for rise of the galaxy, I understand Twilight I3 is gonna be in the top 3, but what about quantum? What about some other games? It seems space games were popular during the 70s etc give or take a decade LOL but... Now I feel like there's so many zombie games and goofy party games but not much space games. And the ones who do space games, it feels like euro games in space, or you know something like that.
Rule #3 applied to Piquet. Wanted to like it, didn't. Played a Napoleonic game where I did nothing for three hours but check morale while the opposing player got to have an active part in the game. Watched my army rout off the table, saw my cavalry get charged by infantry, run away, get caught by the pursuing foot and surrender. Wondered why I bothered to show up to play..
the way you guys had the description and number of the topic of what you were talking about AFTER you talked about it is just odd and doesn't make sense. You should put that first, then talk about it. Also yeah Monopoly SUUUUCKS! Roll to move is shit. Acquire is the better game every day of the week.
One of mine is: Keep playing after the game is over. For example: in Survive! the rules say to keep flipping tiles until you get the volcano, but once everyone gets all their guys off the island, into thee safe spots, what's the point? And similarly, when you are eliminated from a game, but you keep playing (but barely, doing like 1 action that doesn't affect you in any way). If you get eliminated, but the game keeps making you play, you should still be able to win somehow OR get back into the game.
Re: Trivial Pursuit rolling. I don't like roll and move either. But it can be a great equalizer by introducing such a strong luck factor. If you just want to find out who knows more you can read the cards to each other. Not knocking the list, I see why it's annoying.
As soon as "the rich get richer" mechanic was mentioned, I immediately thought of Outpost. Such a cool game concept that this problem mostly ruins. The last 2-3 turns are usually pointless because everyone already knows who is going to win. It was kind of amusing that Tom had trouble remembering the name of "that space mining game."
This list makes me want to make a game with all of these mechanics and call it "Frustration."
brilliant
do it
The winner is whoever can hold out the longest before rage quitting.
nevercallmebyname frustration is already a game, it's a remake of ludo, I think
aw
Request: Top Ten House Rules.
it wont get done because house rules imply that modern games are as flawed as older games...and that would be heresy
If you ever play the Firefly Board game, play with 1's as failures. Makes it so much more fun.
I was fine with the roll and move mechanic.... until I played a real game and then i was like: HOLY CRAP, I CAN CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO DO!!!!!! and i never went back
Ironically, I only like cooperative games where there is hidden information between the players (such as Battlestar Galatica). Otherwise, I find that in cooperative games with no hidden information, everyone is constantly telling you how to play your turn.
Pulling tiles from a bag isn't really the mechanic that's bad. It's the idea of going through all sorts turns and actions for a random reward that amounts to nothing.
Yeah sounds like Sam is mad with the level of investment.
Don't know the game, but if instead of knowing it was just "few worthless knicknacks" it might even be better. You didn't find a Tomb for a Mummy, but you did find a few arrowheads for example.
Indeed. It's having so much investment stacked on a single random chance.
I like to think that there's only two ways of doing randomness right: either you have very little of it, so that it doesn't mess up game plans, or a whole lot of it, so that it evens out.
More random does not even out.
Flip a coin once, and you know you are at +1 or -1.
Flip a coin twice, there is a 50/50 chance of being at 0.
Flip a cone 1000 times, and you could be at -1000. Sure, not likely, but possible.
It is possible to prove that the chance of ending up within any finite distance from zero decreases the more tries you do.
The distribution will be narrower, relatively speaking, such that if you roll 1000 dice the average will be close to 3.5. However, if you average is off by a tiny fraction (say 3.4) with a 1000 dice rolls the result will be off with 100, which is impossible rolling just one die (which could be off with at the most 2.5).
Another factor, apparent in many games, is that many random events are less important. There will still be some crucial events that can turn the whole game around more often than not.
In a simple roll and move racing game with no catchup mechanic (roll a die, the first to get to 10, or 100, or 1000 wins). So the person with the best roll on the first turn is more likely to win than the one with the worst roll, regardless of how long the game is.
We always play pandemic with each player's cards on the table.
And we lose most of the times anyway!
I think the best way to win the game is to cure a virus within the first 3 turns.
I stopped playing that way because it prevents a player from taking over the game.
Is there a different way to play it?
That's how you're supposed to play it.
I love that Sam does the same things as me when given several dice...
1) Tessellate all your d6s into some kind of pattern with the numbers;
2) Rotate the whole construction so that you can look at the other three patterns you made as by-products;
3) Repeat about 70 times;
4) Push the dice away because you're driving yourself up the wall;
5) Wait 10 minutes;
6) Reach for the dice again and proceed back to Step 1.
If we can just include all of these mechanics in one game, maybe it'll be so bad it'll be good.
EverybodyLovesAlf can we talk about how scary Alf looks... like what the hell
So I just subscribed. I honestly don't care about boardgames, well maybe thats a bit harsh, but your personalities are so entertaining it makes me want to get into them
I'm a really casual board game fan and I agree, I just enjoy watching them interact and joke with each other.
so do you have your own board game channel now?
Damn these are all mechanics I was gonna put in the game i was designing.
lol
#10 Keeping info to yourself in a cooperative game.
#9 The game makes you act like a fool.
#8 A card of doom.
#7 Programmable movement. Well, more than one at a time, at least.
#6 Lose a turn.
#5 Pulling tiles from a bag.
#4 The stupid war rules from Race for the Galaxy.
#3 Rolling for actions.
#2 Artificial Catch-up Mechanics.
#1 Roll & Move.
+Carolina Barreda number 5 wasn't really drawing tiles from a baggy, more like board game induced blue balls.
Roll & Move is an excellent mechanic! Just kidding...
"pulling tiles from a bag" Is it the tiles, the bag, the pulling, or just the conjunction of all three of these aspects that has you so full of anger?
I like programmable movement.
This is what made games like Gunslinger and Woodenships&Ironmen great.
Getting eliminated in a long game...I got killed off in the first hour of Shogun (the MB Game Master version) and my buddies played for another 8 hours. Ugh. It was on a once-a-year game weekend. Boooorrrriiiiinnnnggg....
Had a somewhat similar experience in Shogun - played 1.5 hours and got eliminated. Nothing else to do until game ended. Not a fan of games that have very long play times and player elimination. Too much time invested for no payout. Could have played two other shorter games in that time.
I despise MTG blue decks. They're based on not allowing the opponent to make a move-any move. The victim is effectively not playing the game, and there is nothing less fun to do while playing a game than not playing the game.
Mono blue seems old skool to me, but I don't play tournament magic very much. Actually the most annoying deck I own is blue-white control. Put the right spells on isochron scepter and people will range from being annoyed to being pretty upset about it. Your turn, I use the scepter to cast Orim's chant during your upkeep, you can't attack or play spells. There's a reason I rarely play it, because it rarely loses in casual play and it's no fun. So it's not just blue that locks down people. Black can be devastating at locking people down too.
So, counter it.
Don't like mono blue control? Find a way to prevent it.
37thgungrunts Says the guy who plays monoblue.
Nothing can really punish counterspells, and there just aren't enough options that can't be countered to present a credible defense. The only ways I've found to prevent it are to play blue myself or to refuse to play against those friends who insist on using it. It's indicative of bad game design,
Steampunk Papercut So, you assume I play mono-blue? I don't play mono-anything.
If you've got one guy who likes to play blue, plan around it. Or play slivers, problem solved.
Steampunk Papercut Play man lands. Lands that become creatures, OR an aggro deck with many small creatures, OR monoblack (duress is amazing vs counters), OR several of the uncounterable green options.
Mono blue hasn't been viable in forever. It's the best support color, but it's terrible on it's own.
31:08
Tom: You know how careful I am with my games?
Also Tom: Dice tower review, into my collection!
*smacks the shit out of the game with a hammer*
A little late to the video, but my least favorite mechanic is: One player chooses a winner (Apples to Apples, Cards vs Humanity)
I can see why you don't like that mechanic, I don't mind it because I try to play that mechanic out. What I mean is I like to take on the challenge of figuring out what combination of cards really hits it home for the one choosing the winner.
That is true. That is not a mechanic we're super interested in, either.
Adding to Sam's 'the rich get richer' theme, I experience that in Settlers of Catan. After a couple rounds you know if you are going to have a good chance of winning or not. The placement of your first settlements has a lot to do with the game.
I may be wrong, but I suspect the reason for Zee's #10 (not being allowed to share information in co-op games) is to try to avoid the "alpha player" problem of one person telling everyone else what to do and basically running the whole show. If you don't know what other people can do, you can't give orders. Not to say that I think this justifies those rules, but I think that may be part of the reason they exist in so many games.
I have played a game of Pandemic, where I may have been the "Alpha Player". it ruined the fun for one of our players. But it is a good rule not to do that lol.
Interesting theory, but the "alpha player" problem is a people problem, not a game problem. You know, that one guy who needs to have control, whom OVER-explains things in games - he's almost always the alpha player....
K Au Are you suggesting there are no game rules designed in an attempt to prevent social problems?
K Au
but mechanics of a game can prevent that
To be fair to Shadows Over Camelot (which they mentioned specifically,) the point isn't to withhold information. It's to encourage talking in character and encourage players to find a creative way of saying what you want without revealing details. And, it also gives the Traitor a bit of leeway to be "misunderstood."
I've ALWAYS hated the "roll the exact amount" mechanic to finish a game, from childhood onwards. It deserves to be number one.
Who's up to the challenge of making a game with the all of these rules? LOL Would it suck so much it became good? like a good bad movie?
It will be like trying to look away from a gruesome car accident. You want you look away, you want to walk away, but you just can't.
Hidden information is one of the best ways to avoid the alpha player in coop games. I don't know Salem, but I suspect that this was the reason for the designer to add that rule...
I own over 100 board games, yet their #1 bad rule makes me fill dissed, because Talisman is my 2nd favorite game. Now I know people may not like it. But there seems to be an "aura" if you like Talisman or roll and move games, you are not a "real" gamer. I own a lot of games, and introduce games to my gamer group. Please don't disrespect those of us "real" gamers who like Talisman or other roll & move games.
Doma Agape Talisman is fine because you still get a choice of at least two (sometimes more) directions to go. That gives you sometimes meaningful decisions of whether to go quickly to the treasure/fountain/whatever even though that means going through a nasty space.
Scrabble is the ULTIMATE violator of the baggy draw rule. That is really where 90% of the game is played. It does not matter how big ones vocabulary is or where the word was played. Its simply the difference bt drawing an x, a, o, u, q, e, s, and a t. as opposed to five straight I's in a fuckin row. That's why Scrabble is a mediocre at best game to me.
+Michael Carrillo Try "Upwords"
Brian Benedict
You mean "Upwards" right?
+Michael Carrillo Nah... The game called "upwords". It's a better word game than scrabble by a mile.
Brian Benedict
OOOOOOOH that is a better game. It takes out the luck aspect by playing words in certain parts of the board, and allows for more similar words to be spelt, instead of praying that you can play your word before someone else takes that spot.
Fester Blats and even an expert scrabble player would get screwed over by the draw most often than any other reason for losing.
I know im late, but to adress that beginning citadels warlord complaint, I use the diplomat. He comes with the edition that includes expansion characters and districts. The only difference is that instead of destroying, he swaps districts with others.
17:35 Your not supposed to show cards in pandemic? I have been playing this game wrong. (And will continue to do so I might add)
I don't know what to call this rant specifically, but the ending to the game Munchkin is more annoying to me than anything I've ever encountered. You're level 9, about ready to defeat a monster and win, but everyone else prevents this from happening. That's fine so far. Everyone else who is level 8 and below are allowed to defeat their monsters and catch up. Whoever is level 9 is the target of the players because they don't want to lose. It just drags on and on until everyone runs out of useful cards and someone finds an easy monster to defeat. But this isn't until hours later. And there is only a slim chance that the player who wins was even close to winning when the original person was so close. It acts as a neat mechanic in the early game, but towards the end, it is just a way for everyone to catch up.
Darrek Olson I agree but also bear in mind that Munchkin is just supposed to be a light, "just fun" game. And it doesn't really take "hours" IME.
I actually like the dice roll thing in monopoly (I mean there's no way you're deliberately gonna land on someone else his property if you can to some extend chose how much steps you're gonna take) but I hate it in trivial pursuit and other games where you need to trow an exact number in order to finish.
Parcheesi is the oldest and best roll and move game because there is strategy involved that games like Sorry and Trouble removed. You can actually divide the dice: if you roll a 4 and a 5, you don't HAVE to go 9 spaces, you can split it up between the pieces.
And, there's a reason to send more than one piece out at a time, since you can intentionally form blockades and such. (Though, the exact count for the end-game can be frustrating, still.)
So many people believe that Risk takes extremely long times to play, like 3-4 hours or even much longer...
If you are taking over 2 hours for Risk, you are playing wrong. You are either in a room full of skittish players who are too scared to attack, or you are probably not following some of the rules correctly. In my experience, most games are over in 60-90 min, even with 5-6 players. The game is called Risk for a reason. You need to take risks to win.
In RISK I play with rules that allow eliminated players to rebel in the territories they had in their final round (or former capital throughout the game). They can come back fully into the game with the right dice rolls.
Huh. That sounds pretty interesting. Do you have any specific number of troops you like to use for the rebellion?
My family now plays Clue by a unique set of rules. We still do Roll to move, but we ignore the hallways completely. You roll, and can move clockwise or counterclockwise around the board that many rooms. It removes completely the ability some players have of keeping you from ever doing ANYTHING in that game by keeping you from moving rooms, and at least lets everyone play.
Tom Vasel, you're a champ.
In regards to the "no communication" rule, it is indeed stupid in Witch of Salem. But in some games it isn't, like Shadows Over Camelot. The limited communication role is important to protect the traitor.
I loved careers as a kid. It was the game that made me realise how stupid Monopoly is.
Every game made me realize how stupid Monopoly is.
xthebumpx one of teh most popular games ever and you're dissing it - teel me just how many bestsellers have you made?
Jack Luminous Selling a lot of games doesn't make it fun to play. Monopoly in particular has a lot of people buying collectors' editions for nostalgia or for show or even buying it just to have it rather than because they want to play it.
David Harshman Monopoly might be one of the prime examples that show that paradoxically, games don't have to be fun to sell well.
It's enough to get popular for looking pleasing and memorable, as well as being easy to understand, and thus more accessible for everybody.
I think in Monopoly's case, it was probably thanks to a lot of simple yet elegant eye candy, and most importantly easy to understand rules (while keeping a unique atmosphere).
You have a now iconic yet simple board design, the proprietary theme, the little houses, and last but not least the pretty tokens.
Despite it being dull and having the tendency to drag out, I never quite hated it, though.
Another example for such a game that's even more dull than Monopoly that I absolutely despite since it is the prime example and the worst offender of a roll and move game is *Mensch Ärgere Dich Nicht*.
And yet everyone knows it, and it is in every freaking Games Compendium you buy.
99.5% of it is luck-based, the remaining half percent can be managed with an equal amount of brain cells to maintain the strategic aspect of it, which is about which token to move with your die roll when you have multiples outside.
I still think that the dissing of Monopoly is down to jealousy - its like musos begrudging the riff of Louie Louie being simple yet highly popular
The most annoying rule or mechanic to me is Zombiecide's Targeting mechanic when firing into an adjacent tile or zone and how you have to aim at a survivor first, and the priority going down the list just seems wrong to me.
Put links to each individual subject of the video. Hunting through for ones that are of interest is too much of a chore for many. Oh and learn what Socialism is, that comment was embarrassingly ignorant.
+John D A Soialism does not equal COMMUNISM, Tom. You know that Social Security check that your gonna get in 30 years from now? Guess which type of policy that is.... Ill wait.
+Michael Carrillo socialism is a terrible and evil system that is poised to ruin the USA.
Moonawrathic says the dude who either has a trust waiting for him, has a credit rating off the charts bc of his bank connections, has SHARES in bank, or is simply ignorant of the poison of capitalism that is literally killing him with every meal that he takes and is causing the economy to collapse
Michael Carrillo Capitalism is the best system, while it does still have it's flaws. We live in a broken world with a bunch of idiots. The only system that can work with this kind of human condition is one where people are rewarded for their own hard work and effort. Capitalism at it's core.
Moonawrathic yeah no. Capitalism only functions on death. In order for people to be rewarded then others have to be punished. In the extreme that punishment is death. So if you want more LIFE-lyhood then ppl have to DIE. thats exactly what is happening in america with poverty, metabolic disease at outrageous heights all for the sake of "free market" ideals
I enjoy Roll and Move in some Vintage games. It is nice to just roll and move some pawns and take some actions. Some older games have some interesting mechanisms to make the roll and move not as painful.
Gotta say, I will ALWAYS prefer the randomness of a dice over cards or tiles in a bag. Cards and tiles are drawn and removed, so the odds are always changing, while a die, is ALWAYS the same odds, every single roll. My d6 always has a 1 in 6 chance. Yes it IS possible to roll 100 times and never get a 6 or whatever, but at the end of the day.... I still had a fair chance at it the entire time. Not, the guy who pulled first had 1 in 5, but the next guy has 1 in 7, and so forth. I'll always take the constant odds over the constantly shifting odds. Granted, I haven't played Thebes, so I WILL admit that it may work because of the theme, but in general, no, I really dislike odds that are always changing.
I do have to disagree on the "Reset Button" in instances like MtG. Normally it just pushes a game back yes, but in MtG where you have multiple deck types competing it's a valid strategy and doesn't reset the game. Proper decks get better with those cards while a deck that can be affected by it badly should be built to recover from them if need be. I am glad they removed the card Armageddon. Destroying ALL lands for that cheap is pretty bad for pacing.
I hate the overall idea of randomizing any action at all. I know it is terribly hard to make a game based only on decisions and skill, and remove any dice, coin flips and etc, but these are the best games for me. Skill over luck! Thats why I fell in love with chess from the very first time I played it, at about age of 7 or 8, if a recall correctly.
Yeah happens. Sometimes hilarious moments can come out of dice rolls in board RPGs but most of the time it is dice roll. As if Im simply playing dice and Im not in RPG.
Sky Lord Panglot I get where you're coming from but I think a game with some randomization is more realistic. A larger force doesn't always win in battle. Too much randomization can ruin a game. The vastly skilled player should win the majority of times. You like what you like though.
Oh yes. Some randomization is OK. But it has to be on the right spot. Not just "roll for everything you do". Cause I played those games.
Also yeah you like what you like. The problem is that I dont know how to realiza what I like. I like RPGs, but most of them contain too much dice rolls, which I dont like. If they dont contain mainly dice rolls they involve terrible calculations, which I dont like either. Whats the compromise here Im not sure yet but Ill tell you when I find it. :D
Sky Lord Panglot I would agree with your point. I love randomization but there is a time and place for it. in warhammer 40,000 I can move up 6 in bout I can only run or charge 6D or 2D6. WTF every other game is fixed. I run show and my son runs fast but when we run it is always at the same speed we ran last time. we don't run randomly. it just slow down the game and takes to much a way from "the feel" of the game
Sky Lord Panglot In FATE or Fudge system may be the right spot for you as it is for me: you roll 4dF, a dF being a 1 in 3 chance of getting either blank, a + or a - (or a d6 where 1-2 is -, 3-4 is blank, 5-6 is +), and those results are modifiers to your skills. The distribution for me seems more realistic, still with chances of getting a +4 or -4, but its just about 1% each, and about 65% chances on an avarage roll (-1 through +1). There are even variations made to increase the ~65% chance to nearly 85% i think.
Besides, summing up + and - signs is fairly easy.
Part of the reason for #10 - concealing information - is that when a game like Shadows Over Camelot is played openly, ALL decisions become group-made ("you should do this") and the more experienced players usually dominate the gameplay. Requiring some personal info, like cards, be hidden inserts some independence for each player.
One little thing I would like to bring up about your show. The individual videos are a TAD long. Most top ten videos top in at about half the average length of your top tens. Long videos aren't totally bad, but when I am watching top ten videos, I really am just looking to waste around 10 to 20 minutes max. I might still end up wasting a whole hour total, but I'll waste it on several shorter videos; rather than a few long ones.
Personally, I think you might be able to get your individual video's views up quite a bit if you shortened them a little. This video had 136,902 views as of my viewing. It is over a year old at this point. I see no reason why a top10 about a subject as popular as board games shouldn't have amassed closer to a million views over the course of a year. I think length may have something to do with that.
do you realize the irony of writing a two-paragraph post on this particular topic? XD
keep in mind that these are boardgamers. an hour feels like a poop in their life ^^
***** ....There is no irony. Two paragraphs of typing probably took him 2min. He can't just place down 4 words and expect them to take that as detailed constructive criticism.
k
Eric Lawrence If you're a hardcore board game geek, then you most likely want to spent an hour hearing about a zillion games *shrug* I know I do. If you personally don't want a video that long, then just go watch something else...
Roll and move is OK in racing games like Formula D. The mechanism seems more like a relic of a bygone era.
I can't stand the random victory condition mechanic as seen in Killer Rabbits. Winning that game is winning a lottery. There is no strategy other than get as many tickets (carrots) as you can before the game ends.
I hate roll & move mechanics as well, but there's a reason games with them are so popular. Most of them are designed either for kids, or as super simple casual games that anybody can play without thinking too much about the game. There's a reason slot machines are the most popular games at the casino, people want the excitement of a random result, but not the weight of having to decide what to do.
I think number 5 is wrong. It is not really the pulling itself i would say but the "get nothing". Not that i know that particular game but if you e.g. pull sooner or later every tile out of a bag i actually think that mechanism is cool because you know the chance increase for the next turn.
I love Careers, I picked it up at Goodwill for 2 bucks a couple years ago and it was much better than I expected.
I completely agree with #7 programmable movement . Played Robo rally for the first time and hated it.!
Backgammon is a good roll & move game with lots of strategy, esp. if you use the doubling cube.
I really hate artificial ketchup too, does not taste good.
how about a top ten board game mechanics?
i LOVED careers! i used to play it with my grandma when i was a kid! its so awesome to hear it mentioned again. thanks!
#7 makes me think of Robo Rally one of my favorite board games of all time. Me and my family laugh so hard when we play that game, it is supposed to all go wrong that is the point :D
Nick Eberle I think it's more a thing of those comments that make people go up a wall like "I didn't want to turn that way"... cause I love Robo Rally, it makes me laugh all the time, but the fact is I was really split between laughing and shouting when someone just said "I didn't want to do that, I had the other card" well then pay attention to the game... I don't mind being screwed, I mind people who mess up because they just don't feel like paying enough attention to the game.
I think the real key to good game mechanics is a good chance/strategy balance. If a game is all chance, it's boring. If it's all strategy, it can be intimidating for newer players and can make for poor game replay. Once you've figured out the best way to win the game, there's nothing more to do. A dash of chance can really help with replay-ability and can even up the game a bit for newer players and players who have played it dozens of times. Chance doesn't necessarily have to be brought in as dice rolls or cards though. If players interact with each other enough, that can bring in enough of a random element to make the game fun. Chance that's entirely brought in via dice rolls can get boring and frustrating. "Clue" depends largely on dice rolls for the "chance" element of the game and it's maddening.
I think games like "Sorry" and "Parcheesi" are so popular because chance outweighs the strategy component so heavily. The rules are pretty basic, ithey're quick to learn and easy and fast to play. Monopoly doesn't rely as heavily on chance because you have choices to make about what to do with properties so there's a little more strategy.
The "roll and move" thing has always spoilt "Cluedo" (as it's spelt over here) for me. You guys are dead on there I think. It's just so damn frustrating when you get three turns of rolling a 1/2 and then someone else takes you to a room that you already have in your hand and so know isn't the right one!
+H0lyMoley Totally agree, when I play Cluedo we don't move the characters upon accusation, I have had games where I have been actively prevented from winning by the abuse of this mechanic. I don't think the roll to move is so bad on the new game board because you can actually get around most of the house by passing from one room to another or using the secret passages. I think the designers really listened on this and tried to come up with a way to at least mitigate it. For those who haven't played the new one: more of the rooms have connecting doors I think the only places that don't are the Games Room, the Bathroom and the Courtyard.
+H0lyMoley spoilt and spelt? WTF are you saying?
@Moonawrathic:- I think he means spoiled as in ruined .... and then that "Clue" is spelled "Cluedo" in some countries.
+Emma Giudice personally, I hated the new map. Then again, I've been playing the Clue (or Cluedo) with two dice for as long as I can remember. So long, in fact, that I thought it was supposed to be played with that many. Also, I don't see how abuse of the suggestion mechanic can prevent someone from making a winning accusation as, in most versions of the game, you don't have to be in any particular place to make an accusation.
+Moonawrathic check out a dictionary.
I love baseball. I've seen games with scores that high.
CAREERS did SO well addressing this issue. When i first played Careers what when I realised that family games didnt have to be ALL about luck.. If you can find a copy of Careers; buy it. Its rare.
are you really wearing a blazer over a muppets tshirt
Awesome guys! Really fun to watch. Please make more!
I missed my most hated game mechanism. The ones where players deliberately or indeliberately form coaltions to take out a single player. Like Player A attacks player B in a war of tear and wear and in the next turn Player C jumps in for the coup de grâce.
I don't mind it in games like settlers of catan, where everyone tries to steal from the player with the clay monopoly though.
All monopoly rules....
Zee: "I love dice" I want to stay on this show! "I love dice"
I am loving these top ten videos! Keep em coming.
Also, the war rules remind me of those special rules in RPGs that make the game harder by their complexity, not by low chances. I don't want to use this or that ability, because the rules for it are too complex.
50 minutes of awesomeness? Time for another Dicetower binge!
"The Hare and the Tortoise" is a game based on catch up mechanics, and it is a great strategic game to play. But indeed these are not artificial catch up mechanics, these are built into the game - and actually very much in the theme of the story :-)
SAM, STOP FIDGETING WITH THOSE DARN DICE! You went very quiet, concentrate on vituperation, not on minutely adjusting dice. Great video otherwise.
mooo hahahah you guys have so much fun :) Glad you did not see my new board game which has no working mechanics and 1000 dice dropps per hour :D
Love you guys! Great videos!
Best roll & move game: Formula D/Dé!
I just had a great idea! They should make a game with all of these rules in it, and they'd make millions!
I agree with the kingmaker mechanic being incredibly broken. This happens to me in games where I don't even think it is a particularly large problem because all of my friends have created this in-joke where I am not allowed to win at the games I bring. If I am ever winning or close to second, they will all gang up on me just so I can't win. So yeah, games with a kingmaker, and games where it is easy to single out and shut down a specific person.
Surely the worst "game" for worst mechanic- Snake and Ladders.
do you actually KNOW that games history - read about and come back - its not as bad as you will think and it makes sense within its concept
Yeah. It’s a little kids’ game, so it doesn’t matter, but basically if you had a computer you could just leave it playing and then it could tell you who won. There’s not point in being there. See also, Mousetrap.
That annoying mechanic in the 5-6 player version of Settlers, where everybody gets to build at the end of every turn. What a way to remove almost all of the tension that made the game great. Needless to say we convieniently 'lost' the 5-6 player rule book.
Fully agree that roll and move is the worst. 'Snakes and Ladders' anyone?
One I would add is Cyclades bottleneck over Mars/Ares - you need this to expand your kingdom especially in a 4 player game and you can go for many turns where you can not do hardly anything. Then at the end, you could be in last place and all of a sudden get Mars and take over a neighbor and win the game.
Muchkin has to have one of my favorite catch up mechanisms. If anyone's hand is over the card limit at the end of their turn they have to give cards to the weakest player. Its completely under the control of the players that are doing well.
I really had no idea board games had a big adult fanbase. This is coming from someone who plays lots of video games. I don't even play board games much at all but I like watching you guys talk about them!
Re-listening to the intro to this list - and the bit on mechanics vs mechanisms.
Top 10 Annoying Pedantic Discussions in Gaming
A. Mechanic vs Mechanism
B. Rulebook v Rule Book v Rulesbook
C. It Doesn’t Say I Can’t Do That
D. Round v Turn v Action v Phase v Step
E. When The Card Says Number of Cards, Does It Count Itself?
There. I gave you half. :)
Partnerships in competitive games like many Trick-taking games or area-control style games like Rising Sun. This will put me off the game quicker than anything. Also not a huge fan of straight 2v2/3v3/4v4/etc. style games
Drawing a "death to all players/progress" card or die roll
Simple "Dice to resolve combat" mechanics-meaning no way to mitigate the dice be it cards, stats, your exp. etc.
Roll for actions or movement
Semi-Coops with too much take that mechanics combined with long gameplay
"Skip your turn" is the reason I can't stand Small World. Not only do you skip your turn, you skip it EVERY OTHER time it's your turn! It's compounded by the fact that downtime is big in that game. You're waiting forever for your turn and then you skip it half the time. Just way too much downtime and AP in what's supposed to be a lite game. I don't get why it's so hugely popular.
Interesting video...but the obvious thing is.... if you dont like a specific rule.. .CHANGE IT!!! to one that suits your needs.HOUSE RULES.
I would be interested in a video where the guys discuss HOUSE RULES - the best they have witnessed, best implemented.
For example they moaned about Clue using dice rolls for movement yet one version (PC game) lets you have a standard amount of movement points.
I used to run a small Scabble playing group and we never adhered to the time limit rule, allowed people to use dictionaries, have access to a 2 letter word list....which never caused any problem...BUT the "official" variant for use of the blank tiles, where you could "recycle" them always caused a bit of debate
IMHO dice rolls for movement or actions are OK ...IF another part of the game has a heavy element of choice or strategy or logic. I think it works in Clue as an example because the game is primarily about eliminating the people,weapons and places
For reseting the board, CAN I GET A PLANAR CLEANSING???
Resident Evil Card Building game. I love it to death, top game my friends and I play. However, i see your points with some of the mechanics. I can sum it up with one game. Super close game, only 2 cards left in the mansion. My turn, I blow through my whole deck using actions and Damage, have more than enough to kill Boss, but draw the "Losing player kills next monster instantly." He won...
I'd actually disagree that turn reverse is always (or even frequently) a bad thing. Take your basic card games where you can do something that affects the next player, of whom you have limited knowledge. Phase 10 is a great example. We went on a binge of this game for a while, and added reverse cards. The net effect was that you now had to keep track of what two players were collecting (specific numbers/colours) and not just the player who always takes the next turn. This mechanic works well pretty much in only that scenario - where you can do something to benefit or hurt the next player only, which is common enough in card games.
(In Phase 10, you can pick up the top discard card, or the top face-down card, and if you notice the next person on a colour phase is picking up yellows, you know not to lie any down.)
HOUSE RULES
1) Own Secret Units
Look at your own secret units anytime you want - except on your own turn. Speeds play without impairing knowledge of own units. Works great for Titan.
2) Timed turns
30 second timer starts after first player is done with their turn. Works great for Robo Rally.
I'm going to have to disagree about the programmable movement type game. The chaos that results in people messing with each other's programs is one of the core mechanics of the game. So here's a question: If you were given access to completely redesign Robo Rally, River Dragons, etc. how would you change it?
While your #1 may be justified I can't help but feel that it's a bit unfair. Sure games like Clue and Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit are games that fall victim to this mechanic but these are also games that come from a classic era where the only other real board games out there were games like Chess, Go, and Othello. It's like deriding black and white TV shows for not being in color. Creating board games like this was a relatively new art form when these games came out and there really wasn't much else to go by. It was only in the past 20 years that board gaming started to evolve into what we see today. Sure there are some exceptions to the rule but these didn't catch on like today's modern board games have. Are there any modern and GEEKY board games that have come out that use this mechanic? I've played a lot and I have yet to find another boardgame that uses this beyond these classics.
As for my pet peeves with boardgames I have a couple though they are somewhat related.
First, I abhore the directions for determining who goes first. Sometimes it can be interesting like in Pandemic where the last person who was sick goes first (at least then it kinda goes with the theme) but why not just say "choose a random player to go first"? You don't need any fancypants way of determining this, just let the players figure it out and move on.
Second, a friend made an argument for, and after thinking on it I'd have to completely agree: that one of the worst rules in a specific game lies within Munchkin. It's the rule that whoever owns the game is the ultimate authority on any ruling (read the rules: it's in there). What an awful mechanic for determining important decisions. It's literally the "It's my yard" rule in boardgame form. You know when you were a kid and a friend invites you over to play tag and the following exchange occurs:
You: *tag friend* You're it.
Friend: Nuh uh! You didn't hit me!
You: Of course I did you've got a red hand print on your face.
Friend: Nuh uh! It's my yard I've got my anti-red-hand-print thing on.
Ya. Sure I'll play Munchkin so long as the owner of the game isn't actually playing and even then I think it's an awful game so it's often a last resort for me(this is the game that never ends....yes it goes on and on my friend...)
Otherwise I thought it was a decent list =).
memoir 44 "behind enemy lines". I just want to rip that thing into 1000 pieces. Game of Thrones in any of it's variants is also a killer. The game is at fastest 60 minutes per player with lose of lost bid currency and you can't be knocked out, you just sit and king make. My #1 would be king making. Just find a way to knock a player out instead of letting a player with a grudge dictate who wins. 4 hours of playing just to have the last place player dictate who wins just kills me. Small World, A Game of Thrones, Kemet, etc..
I thoroughly enjoy the quirky little music choices between segments. :)
Role switching cards or mechanics, where you literally change board states with someone. Someone is winning? Play this card and get all their stuff. Saboteur and 7 Dragons have these mechanics.
2nd is hidden public information. By thus I mean information that is publically given but kept secret requiring you to memorize what went in. Usually this involves hiding chips in a bag or keeping cards flipped over.
For example in Puerto Rico your victory tokens are a secret even though with a pen and paper you could keep track of every ones points. In El Grande you can put tokens in a Castillo, but it's public knowledge how many put in, but then you just have to remember the number. Lastly in Abyss the cards sent to the council are turned over, but are publically revealed before so again, you are required to remember what was put where.
I think the last rule (and most of them, actually) comes down to a lack of interactivity or control, where your outcome is mostly, if not entirely, dictated by a dice roll (or as with the other rules, a single card draw, or some other bad balancing). After all, people want to win most games by their own skill and strategy, not by luck (I'm better at rolling 6 than you, so HA!). I don't think that move X spaces as indicated by a dice roll is necessarily a bad mechanic, because the player can still be left with a high degree of choice.
For example, I think the game Talisman does it right (like somebody who commented earlier). Whenever you roll a die you have a degree of choice as to where you go, always at least 2 options, sometimes more. And these options are very meaningful, beyond the space you land on, because each choice determines which choices you have on the next turn. To add to that, with the later versions, if you don't like a roll, you can use a fate point to do a re-roll, adding more skill/control into the mix. And this works in Talisman, because you usually aren't trying to only go to specifically one spot, you're trying to improve your character by roaming around. There are usually several spots where you would be fine with going to, and most of the time, moving your character does something meaningful. In other roll-to-move games, it's simply a semi-random way of determining who gets around faster, and getting around fast, or getting to a specific spot is the goal. If everybody wants to go to the same place in Clue, it's a competition to see who can roll a die to add to 20 first. It's a pretty meaningless mechanic in that case, and since it is the core determiner of how much you know, it seems a bit unfair (like how they mentioned how unfair it is to have a die roll determine how many actions a player can do on their turn). The variance on how often somebody wins in Clue has to be HUGE.
And, that's a pseudo-rant. In short, I don't think roll-to-move is an inherently unfair mechanic, it just depends on how it is implemented. While it is a common offender, I don't think it is the real problem. Not the "#1 bad rule in board games" for sure.
I love Eldritch Horror, but I got nailed with several of these annoying mechanics earlier today.
First, the game jacked up the difficulty in what I consider an artificial manner by forcing me to draw and resolve an additional mythos card, because one just wasn't enough.
The repercussions of those two back to back mythos cards were that I became cursed, which meant I rolled a success on only a 6, and I became detained. And there wasn't a thing I could do about it.
Because I was detained, I lost my entire turn, and then I spent 3 consecutive turns praying to get rid of my curse to no avail.
And to make matters worse , because I was cursed, I failed a mandatory test and gained a paranoia condition, which consequently made me mad with insanity quite literally as I quit the game.
Eldritch Horror might as well have played a single you lose card as I went from what seemed like 95% odds of winning down to 0% in an instant. I was sitting on the gate I needed to close with plenty of clue tokens and on the last mystery.
My wife actually had 3 opportunities to roll a single success (50% chance x 3) and win us the game. She rolled a 1, a 2, and finally another 2 even though she was blessed.
She was subsequently driven mad as well (in the game that is), which is what led me mad (outside of the game).
I packed up the game and don't plan to unleash its horrors again for quite some time.
My #1, games that contain mechanics or allow for strategies that turn a 2 player game into solitaire. Two infuriating examples, MTG "I built my deck around this unstoppable card combo, so if I draw it I win!" and X-Wing Bumpmaster "if I manage to run into you, your ships do nothing for the rest of the game!"
I think a lot of it depends on the game and its intent. For example, "lose a turn" randomly is annoying. Losing a turn because of an attack gives people something to do to affect the other players. Roll a die to move is a little simple and random, but it's good for family games or kids games like Life, Chutes and Ladders, etc. These games are designed to get people doing stuff together, not to turn you into the world's greatest strategist. I will agree wholeheartedly that catchup mechanics need fine tuning. "Rich get richer" or "do bad to get the welfare win button" are bad mechanics, especially in a long game (i.e. 3+ hours) where you might be stuck for hours in a game. I would rather be eliminated early than play 80% of a multi-hour game knowing I'm going to lose.
Wonder how Tom would feel about Wild West Exodus(WWX) and Song of Blades and Heroes(SBH). WWX uses a deck of cards with each player having their own deck. Each card has an amount of action points you can spend when activating a unit and each unit has their own card. WWX does have a few mechanics to off set this via resource management though. SBH... Well you basically are trying to succeed on a dice roll with a gambling mechanism. It risks giving your opponent actions on your turn or even handing passing the turn. I prefer WWX out of any.
26:30 If it's only one step that's just preselection, a lot of games have simultaneous actions that are revealed after everyone chooses; that doesn't equal programming. I think Sam gets a similar feeling from programming as the rich get richer; it's that frustration of things snowballing/spiraling out of control and a mistake early leads to things going horribly awry. Some people find this hilarious, others hate it. To me it's just not that interesting; I prefer a more nuanced and interactive game where decisions allow you to adapt. They are also awful for people who experience AP.
The Dice Tower You guys gonna make a top ten space games? Im looking into space games because I love space but it seems like notable space games are few and far between. I don't care for rise of the galaxy, I understand Twilight I3 is gonna be in the top 3, but what about quantum? What about some other games? It seems space games were popular during the 70s etc give or take a decade LOL but... Now I feel like there's so many zombie games and goofy party games but not much space games. And the ones who do space games, it feels like euro games in space, or you know something like that.
Rule #3 applied to Piquet. Wanted to like it, didn't. Played a Napoleonic game where I did nothing for three hours but check morale while the opposing player got to have an active part in the game. Watched my army rout off the table, saw my cavalry get charged by infantry, run away, get caught by the pursuing foot and surrender. Wondered why I bothered to show up to play..
the way you guys had the description and number of the topic of what you were talking about AFTER you talked about it is just odd and doesn't make sense. You should put that first, then talk about it. Also yeah Monopoly SUUUUCKS! Roll to move is shit. Acquire is the better game every day of the week.
One of mine is: Keep playing after the game is over. For example: in Survive! the rules say to keep flipping tiles until you get the volcano, but once everyone gets all their guys off the island, into thee safe spots, what's the point?
And similarly, when you are eliminated from a game, but you keep playing (but barely, doing like 1 action that doesn't affect you in any way). If you get eliminated, but the game keeps making you play, you should still be able to win somehow OR get back into the game.
Re: Trivial Pursuit rolling. I don't like roll and move either. But it can be a great equalizer by introducing such a strong luck factor. If you just want to find out who knows more you can read the cards to each other. Not knocking the list, I see why it's annoying.
As soon as "the rich get richer" mechanic was mentioned, I immediately thought of Outpost. Such a cool game concept that this problem mostly ruins. The last 2-3 turns are usually pointless because everyone already knows who is going to win. It was kind of amusing that Tom had trouble remembering the name of "that space mining game."