This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wizards of the Coast, who own Dungeons and Dragons, have been in the news lately because their OGL 1.1 was leaked. The OGL was an open source-like license, originally from 2000, which allowed people to create D&D-related works and which was supposed to not be revocable, as confirmed by its drafters. WOTC is trying to revoke it by using a clause referring to "authorized" versions of the license and claiming to have de-authorized the earlier license. The new replacement license requires giving 25% of your revenue to WOTC, makes you send a copy of your content to WOTC which they can then publish for free, and they can revoke it at any time making all your products instantly unsalable.
After backlash from fans, WOTC officially released a 1.2 license instead, which has similar problems, but worded a bit more subtly.
The culture war element comes from this clause:
I hope the problems with this are obvious to everyone here. I absolutely don't want a world where people with the wrong political beliefs can be barred from producing game materials. But every objection I've seen to this clause by fans has been a twenty Stalins objection: WOTC has produced discriminatory material in the past and can't be trusted to do this properly. There have been calls to have WOTC outsource this to an independent tribunal. Just, take it out because even people with unpopular opinions should be able to put them in games? No, nobody believes that.
(Links are trivial to google, but it's hard to find a site that has everything correct all at the same time, and is up to date as well, and also engages in trustworthy journalism in general. This EFF post at least covers part of the initial controversy, though you'll have to follow links to see what's in the license.)
This is far from the first thing that has had me despising WotC. A few years back they went after and probably ultimately killed Hex TCG which was a wonderful and ambitious online card game that I enjoyed while it was around. It seems to be their basic strategy to release games and the rent seek off of the products as much as humanly possible. If Board games as a wider industry operated the way wizards of the coast does we would not be living in the board game golden age like we are now and I hope they are punished for it.
What are some great current board games?
What kind of game are you interested in?
I'll plug Spirit Island as far and away the best board game I've played this decade. It's a complex cooperative game where you play as natural spirits of a lush island with the game automating a joint enemy, the Invaders who try to explore the island, build their towns and cities on it, and than ravage it for its natural resources, causing blight and slowly killing the island, the native people, and the spirits. Your goal as a team is to scare them away, or get rid of them, or just flat-out kill them as the case may be.
I will write a multi paragraph review of this game given the slightest provocation, so I will merely say that it is unique among cooperative games by scaling incredibly gracefully with player count (you can play this game solo and it is in fact consistently the #1 solo board game on BGG) and being near immune to quarterbacking (which constantly plagues games like Pandemic). The theme is incredible, the gameplay is incredible, the spirits are fun and evocative ... this game is an 11 / 10 for me. My brothers and I have played literally over a thousand games between the three of us.
Why do you say it’s immune to quarterbacking? I love the game, but I’ve only been able to consistently win by micromanaging each play, which gets tough with 3 or 4 players without riding herd to whole game.
Interesting; I'd be curious to hear more about what spirits you're playing as well as what difficulty you're playing at. My guess is either you are wildly more experienced than the rest of your group, or your entire group is inexperienced -- or you're just a lot smarter than I am!
My reason for saying Spirit Island is largely immune to quarterbacking is twofold. First, the Spirits play very, very differently. If you're playing Pandemic, everyone has the same basic actions available to them -- move, cure disease, discover a cure, etc. Each "role" really is tantamount to a very minor buff (usually to one action) and rules change. It is therefore fast and easy for someone with good game knowledge to scan the basic problem on the board and tell the next player the ideal solution.
But in Spirit Island, while the underlying mechanics are the same (everyone does Growth, gains Energy, and plays their cards), each Spirit has a very different play pattern and flow. You have to think about which growth option to take, which tracks to open up in which order, which cards to play in order to hit which innates ... in order to quarterback a new player piloting, say, Spread of Rampant Green, I'd have to have a very deep understanding of how to play the Spirit efficiently, such that I could play it with my eyes closed. I'd have to have all its starting cards plus their elements plus their tracks and growth options memorized or discernable at a glance, more or less, and that isn't even taking into account whatever powers they have drafted since the game started.
I'm not saying it's impossible to get to this point -- now that I've played hundreds and hundreds of games, some of the spirits with easy play patterns (River Surges in Sunlight, for example) I could probably quarterback if I wanted to, but if I'm playing with a new player it's actually both easier (for me) and more fun (for everyone) for me to grab one of their lands, drop a reminder token on it, and tell them "I'll handle this ravage for you, nbd". I could tell them "OK, this turn you need to pick your second growth option, both from cardplays, and, uh, what minor did you draft last turn again? Let me just see your hand real quick." Like I said, though, it's actually easier for me to just handle one of their lands and let them worry about the rest of it. I don't think quarterbacking is actually optimal even if you're trying to help out a less experienced player.
The other reason I'm skeptical that quarterbacking really works in practice is my own experience with two-handed play. I play a lot of solo games -- true solo, where I'm piloting one Spirit. I'm not exaggerating when I say I'm extremely good at Spirit Island. I can win against any Level 6 adversary with a near-100% win rate and when I'm interested in a challenge, I'm playing double adversaries around Difficulty 13-14. I have beaten 6/6 Adversaries before (albeit with very specific matchups). However, when I try to double-hand Spirits (even two Spirits I know well!), it is dramatically more difficult to actually play the game! It's really hard for me to keep track of everything that's going on if I'm playing two Spirits at once; I get confused about my game flow for each Spirit, make a lot more minor tactical mistakes, and the game gets bogged down as I try (and largely fail) to stay organized. It's difficult for me to imagine someone piloting a Spirit and then wanting to control the second one for a new player. I just haven't seen it happen. Maybe you're smart and fast enough that you can play your Spirit quickly and then jump over to another player and be able to tell them what to do, but if so you're a lot faster at board games than I am.
So to conclude a long-winded response, I think Spirit Island largely dodges the problem of quarterbacking because:
Each Spirit plays sufficiently differently that it's quite difficult to tell at a glance the correct set of moves for someone else.
Even if you are sufficiently experienced to do so, it's still easier and more fun for you to just handle a few more lands than literally try to play a second spirit.
The only place I've even been tempted to quarterback is when playing a Difficulty 0 game with new players and they're piloting an easy spirit that I know quite well -- but again, it's still both easier and more fun for me to help out with their lands and drop Gift cards on them every turn I can.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh it's too broad of a question to answer easily but I'd love to answer in detail. There are all sorts of different types to explore depending on your tastes. The two broadest categorizations are the Euro game and the Ameritrash(this is a term of endearment) with euro games focusing more on tight puzzles to really crunch on with your brain while American style games still often have crunchy puzzles but with increased amount of random chance, direct player conflict and above all theme.
Past that classification there are all sorts of different experiences you can have but you may need to answer a couple questions for me to point you in the right direction, are you looking for games for a consistent group of players? There are 'legacy' type board games where each time you play them you modify the board with stickers and card packs in a campaign type experience. What is the age cohort you would like to play with? There are great modern games simple enough for kids. Would you like to cooperate with or fight against the other players? How about an asymmetric game where one player is against all the others? Cooperative experiences of board games have come a long way.
There's probably more factors as well if you have any particular goal.
Just so I actually answer you question if you're not that interested. Somewhat diverse set of games I'd recommend without hesitation:
Betrayal Legacy - Or the original 'Betrayal at house on the hill' if legacy doesn't appeal to you. Explore a randomly generated haunted house collecting boons and detriments until you trigger a haunting in which one or more players are suddenly trying to take down the rest of the group.
Treasure Island - One player is the pirate captain who picks a place on a map to bury treasure and is imprisoned by his crew as they search the island marking where they'd dug with dry erase markers and getting hints each round from the pirate captain.
Blood on the Clocktower - we actually have a motte discord group(albeit it's half rdramanaughts) where we play this one in a slightly modified format. It's an evolution on the classic werewolf where there is a demon and a number of other roles that need to each use their special abilities to find and execute them.
Gaia Project - This is a pretty classic euro style game. Over a few rounds each player uses their faction to try and colonize planets and rack up victory points.
Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective - This one is like a classic choose your own adventure book with extra components meant to be played along or with others(definitely recommend with others)
Ticket to ride - You draft cards and try to complete railroad routes across the united states(or other locations with expansions). Deep enough for adults to enjoy together but really shines in being appropriate for all ages.
Betrayal at House on the Hill is the most ridiculously unbalanced game that I actually wholeheartedly recommend. IME the vast majority of monsters are ridiculously over or under powered, but IMO this actually kind of works for the game: either 4/5 players have fun taking down an axe murderer and some zombies (fun adventure!) or 4/5 players are running around desperately trying to survive one more turn against a vampire ("horror movie").
If you've not played the legacy variant yet I definitely recommend, and of course the balance isn't all that important. One of my favorite thing about asymmetric games that go a little theme heavy is that the balance isn't really all that important as long as it is not blatantly broken. A game with a terrible winrate for some role with a group that plays regularly just means the person who finally wins with it is a legend. Look at demons in Blood on the clocktower, they don't win all that often in games I've played but when they do or even just do really well they're praised for it.
Do you mean asymmetrical games?
Speaking of asymmetrical games and going on a slight tangent, it is funny how the Vagabond in Root is probably underestimated instinctively by new players (he's just one guy in a game where factions deploy dozens of units and buildings), yet is widely regarded as OP to the point of houserules for nerfing him, banning certain classes of Vagabond and/or having an agreement to take turns whacking him at all times.
Yes, edited
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How current are we talking? I would say we've been in a golden age of board games for the past 10-20 years, so there's a good wide range there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link