-
John Clair
United States
Los Angeles
California
-
From http://jesterstadiumgames.blogspot.com/2012/01/best-games-fo...
A while back I posted a list of the best gateway games, or games that both gamers and non-gamers enjoy, and I also asked for suggestions to add to the list. Here is the extended list. These are games you can pull out among non-gamer friends and not scare them off, and maybe even end up with them wanting to play more.
More suggestions to add to the list are always welcome.
Top of my list:
Dominion: Fast, easy to learn, but still plenty of strategy and depth.
Settlers of Catan: This game is becoming the new Monopoly. Every body's heard of it, but in this case, everybody also actually likes it. Lot's of luck. Make sure to trade a lot, it's more fun, and a good strategy.
Ticket to Ride: (The train game) Not a lot of luck, very simple, lots of fun.
Carcassonne: Awesome game. Also does not have tons of luck, and is plenty simple.
Stone Age: Good strategy game. Beautiful board. Worker placement isn't my favorite, but this game is enjoyable.
Lord of the Rings: Cooperative games are a good place to start. New folks wont feel like they have no hope against these nerdy gamers. This game has great art and fun teamwork.
Shadows over Camelot: Also Cooperative, and another popular, not too nerdy theme.
Others:
Thurn and Taxis
Fresco
Forbidden Island: Real positive comments for this game as a gateway game.
Shadow Hunters
Atlantis
Railroad Tycoon/Railways of the World: (Recommendation: The Eastern US map) Pretty hefty game.
Thebes
Alhambra
Hansa Teutonica
Finally, Arkam Horror. Several people mentioned this one, and I've played and really enjoy it. But as a gateway game it's pushing it a little. Very theme heavy, and uses lots of role playing game lingo, which ups the dorkiness factor dramatically and can scare away normal people. Kudos if you get normal people to want to play a second game.
Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:38 pm
-
John Clair
United States
Los Angeles
California
-
From http://jesterstadiumgames.blogspot.com/2011/11/risk-is-under...
Risk is the classic conquest game, and where young kids learn their geography. It also has a ton of different variants, including the latest, Risk Legacy, which has a revolutionary concept that each game will have an impact on future games. Jury is still out on this. However, this article is about the original form of the game, basic world map, conquer the world.
The main complaints against Risk are: 1. Too much luck; 2. Boring strategy. I’ll grant the first one. If you don’t like games with a significant luck element, you won’t like Risk. Nevertheless, I’ve seen a 12-game Risk win streak in the past. Try and tell me that that is all luck.
Regarding strategy, I’d like to suggest the hand shake deal making rule, which vastly changes the dynamics of the game strategy. As I’ve explained in the previous post on Monopoly, the hand shake rules means that any treaty made involving future turns can be backed out on at any point by any party unless the players involved made a physical hand-shake on the treaty. Once the hand shake is made, players may not, under any circumstances back out of a treaty without all parties involve agreeing to the change.
For exchange purposes, players have several things with which they can trade.
1. Current troops. A player can offer another player current troops he has. Troops can be traded to an adjacent enemy space only (remember, at least one troop always has to be left on a space).
2. Future troops. A player can offer another player troops he will receive. When he would place X troops on his territories, the player with whom he made the treaty places his troops on his territories instead.
3. Cards (note: any card trading should be done at a random draw or by the choice of the giving player. Under no circumstances should a player be allowed to show other players exactly what he’s got in his hand, though he can tell (and lie) about what he’s got. There should always be an element of doubt regarding who has a set).
4. And most importantly, cease-fires.
The exchange of cease-fires should always be done on a turn limit: “I will not attack any territory you control for my next three turns if you won’t attack any territories of mine for the next three turns.” Also, there should be a maximum, cease-fire turn limit. I suggest 4, and on the 3rd turn both parties may agree to extend for another X turns less than 4. Importantly, cease-fires can apply to just individual territories: “I won’t attack you in central America on my next turn, if you don’t attack me in Western or Eastern United States on your next turn.” They can also have varying lengths, and this is where things get tricky: “I will give you all the troops I get on my next turn, and won’t attack you anywhere for the next two turns if you don’t attack me anywhere for the next 4 turns.”
The real art and strategy becomes treaty manipulation, which really changes the feel of the game, and adds a miles worth of depth. Let me give an example from a game I observed. Joe had a couple awful turns in a row and had been reduced to just one territory with 11 troops on it. All other players, at this point pretty much discounted him as a serious contender, but none were willing to bash an army against Joe to finish him off for fear of getting attacked by other more imposing players. At the same time Joe was in a position to break several players’ holds on continents. He made single turn deals with multiple players to not break their continent in exchange for multiple turns of no attacks on any of his territories, which at that point looked pretty good to the other players since Joe only had one territory at the time, and they had no desire to attack it anyway. However, this left him multiple turns to make non-continent breaking attacks with no fear of a counter attack, while his opponents bashed each other. By the time the treaty expired, Joe had taken Europe and was back in the game.
Final notes: I suggest you house-rule the troop number received from sets to max out at 12. Horses should be worth 3 and Cannon’s 5. And the best strategy, by the way, is to go for Australia first.
-
John Clair
United States
Los Angeles
California
-
From http://jesterstadiumgames.blogspot.com/
Monopoly has a fairly bad repor with gamers. Just take a look at its rating on BBG. And to be fair, I understand why. If I invented monopoly today, it's unlikely I'd be able to find a company that would be willing to publish it. In fact, publishers would probably laugh at me behind their backs, thinking "who, now-a-days, would ever want to buy a game where you roll a die and go around a board in a circle?" The truth of the matter is, probably not many.
Monopoly is very dated, both in looks and in mechanics; most people try to spice it up with house rules, it's heavily weighted toward lucky dice rolls, and it's stereotyped as taking forever. I won't make the argument that it's a classic, and therefore worth playing, though it's status as a classic does give it an advantage over other games if you're trying to get non-gamers to come play. Instead I'll make the argument that the game is actually a good, fun game, based upon the merits of it's own rules.
The real trick to playing a great game of monopoly is to firmly stick to the anything-goes, deal-making rule, the hand-shaking expansion to that rule, and the survive-to-the-end, for better or worse mentality.
The anything-goes rule means what it sounds like, any deal you can think of is legit. Trade, buy properties, buy shares in properties, sell insurance, buy turns, chance cards, whatever.
The hand-shake expansion rule is pretty essential (also essential to making Risk much more fun). What this means is that any deal made that involves a future payment or exchange can be retracted or backed out on at any point by any party unless the players involved made a physical hand-shake on the deal. Once the hand shake is made, players may not, under any circumstances back out of a deal without all parties involve agreeing to the change, even if this means one player going bankrupt.
Finally, the survive to the end mentality is important, but not essential, and merely means, if you are losing don't be satisfied with giving up, or decide you can't win, so therefore give all your properties for cheap to your favorite other player. No. fight till the bitter end, and stay in as long as you can. You'd be surprised what you can do with few properties, little money, and some great negotiating.
Statement: The beginning of a monopoly game is almost all luck. False. Yes there is a lot of luck. But once a few properties start to fall, the deal making can commence. "I'll give you $50 now, if you agree that on your next roll, if you land on the un-owned New York Ave, I get to buy it from you for $300." Make deals, swap dice roll chances, make long term deals on properties no one owns yet based on probablity of landing on it, etc. Increase your odds of landing on the key properties you need, or try pre-buying properties no one owns yet by giving players money in exchange for selling you the property at a set price if they happen to land on it. You need cash, aution your turn: "Highest bidder gets to buy off of me any property I land on this turn for $300."
In the mid-game, while most players roll around the board hoping to get that last green or red property to finish their monopoly, it's time for a good negotiator to buy shares in other peoples properties, or make deals to get a monopoly. "I'll trade you my yellow property for your red property, so that we both have monopolies. Then let's split all earning from the yellows and reds 50-50."
In the end game, buy and sell insurance. "Look man. I've got Hotels on all the greens, and you're about to run into them. If you give me $100 now, I'll give you a free ride if you land on them on your next turn."
You've got to have some imagination, make all kinds of deals, and make them often. If you are winning you can sit back a bit more, let the dice do the carnage. If your losing you got to play scrapy, sidel up to one of the winning players and help them take down other big players in exchange for getting you back in the game. A great game of monopoly has almost constant discussion.
And remember you're never out of the game. In a six player game, I once saw a player how had only two properties win the game. Monopoly can be a lot deeper than it looks on first pass.
-
John Clair
United States
Los Angeles
California
-
Review From http://jesterstadiumgames.blogspot.com/2011/10/game-review-l...
One of the earlier Lord of the Rings games, this co-op Lord of the Rings game created by Reiner Knizia, pits 2 to 5 players, playing as Hobbits, against the dark challenges of Middle Earth and, of course, Sauron. I like that they threw in Fatty Bulger as the 5th hobbit. For those who do not know the books well, Fatty is a friend of our four beloved and intrepid hobbits, who nearly ended up on the journey as well. The game is very loyal to the books, and uses a lot of the classic artwork from some of the illustrated versions.
The players essentially follow the path of Frodo and Sam, taking the Ring ever closer to Mt. Doom, while also leaving all their friends behind and getting closer and closer to immediate death. The game is beautifully made, and if you like co-op games you'll probably be a big fan. It builds suspense and tension very effectively as it progresses. I do have a few critiques however. First, the game essentially begins in Moria, which is kind of lame. Fortunately, the Friends and Foes expansion fixes this problem nicely. Second, there isn't really any character progression, which I think is a key element to the brilliance of the books, and I feel in so many other ways this game is really trying to be the board game version of the books (unlike a game like War of the Ring which is trying to be the Lord of the Rings version of Risk, but better. No disrespect. All great games). Really the old character progression is weather the ring corrupts you more or less. Otherwise, the hobbit characters are static throughout the game.
The Friends and Foes expansion I think is a great addition, really expounding upon the story and game play, and keeps the tension at a higher level right off the bat. The expansion incorporates more of the story, including the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, Bree, the Ents, and all the stuff at Isanguard. It also adds a new challenge, evil foes to block your way. I like the foes, except that they come with a second winning condition: Defeat all the foes and you win. 1. This is too easy. 2. This feels like a lame victory, and has little to no suspense involved. 3. It breaks from the books is a bad way. I suggest house ruling it. Keep the foes, but you still need to destroy the Ring to win.
The Sauron expansion alows one player to play as the Dark Lord Sauron. I have not yet gotten to play, but I look forward to trying. I've heard mixed reviews so far. I can foresee everyone wanting to be the Dark Lord rather than a chubby hobbit, which could present a problem. Could add a lot to the teamwork element though since you can't openly discuss all your plans.
The most recent expansion is the Battlefields expansion, which incorporates a new set of boards and battles from the books. I also have yet to play this expansion. Sounds interesting and responses seem mixed, sounds like the biggest problem is that is fails to fit smoothly in with the base game, and feels like a distracting side battle going on. I look forward to giving it a try as well though.
-
John Clair
United States
Los Angeles
California
-
From http://jesterstadiumgames.blogspot.com/2011/10/miscellaneous...
Its common knowledge among awesome people that games are great for famlies, communities and the world in general by bringing people together in healthy, competitive, or often not so competitive, social interaction. Video and computer games don't have quite the same reputaion, but heck, they can solve AIDS maybe...check this out:
http://techland.time.com/2011/09/19/foldit-gamers-solve-aids...
-
John Clair
United States
Los Angeles
California
-
From http://jesterstadium.blogspot.com/2011/10/game-review-citade...
The beauty of Fantasy Flights top selling game, Citadels, is in the player interaction. Players attempt to build the biggest brightest city by collecting money and constructing buildings. At the start of each round a group of character cards are passed around, and each player selects one character face down. Turns then play out based on which player chose which character. The characters that go early have weaker abilities (usually, though it depends on the circumstance) but they can mess with players who chose more powerful characters that take their turn later.
The key strategy to the game is guessing which character each player chose, or will choose, and predicting what decision they will make with that character. This repeated mechanic makes for fabulous mind games and builds in intensity and importance as the game progresses.
A nice element that I've found by playing the game many times, is the ability for a come from behind win. The advantage definitely falls to the players in the lead, which is good. I dislike games where those winning always get screwed so that there's no point to being in the lead except at the last possible moment. However, my dislike is even greater for games where the player with an early lead becomes virtually impossible to beat. Citadels finds a great middle ground. A few well executed masterstrokes from players in the back of the pack can get them right back in it, while a front runner who can skillfully dodge the assassination and theft attempts of those behind him can hold an early lead to the finish.
While the character choosing at the start of each round does slow the game play down, especially if you get players who love to deliberate on every decision, the game is worth it.
One warning; watch out for some of the building cards in the expansion set. Some are great and make the game more fun. Others are way too powerful for no extra cost and add an unwanted layer of luck for those fortunate enough to draw them.
|
|
