Oh dear... BBC News looks at Board Games
Richard Huzzey
formula some chappie has invented to "deduce" which is the best family board
game.
It may be best to avoid this if you're feeling depressed, because it will
only deeepen your frustration with life... Monopoly and things like that
dominate the table, but I was most upset by the assertion that "there has to
be some wild card element, an element of chance, to shake things up and turn
the tables, so that Dad cannot be smug and think he is going to win from the
start."
Richard.
---
Extract the INFORMATION to reply by e-mail...
Visit http://users.ox.ac.uk/~diplo for Oxford's favourite board games club.
Alex
<rwjh_number...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Monopoly and things like that
>dominate the table,
But not just *any* Monopoly - Simpsons Monopoly. That makes it a whole
lot better... >sigh<
koans
factor that put everygame with this theme at the top. Maybe a version of
World In Flame - simpson version - will access the (BBC) top list.
I don't know why but this situation reminds the image of people laughing
when watching Benny Hill.
"Alex" <a@b.c> a écrit dans le message de
news:92jesvo8vhg5tjqv1...@4ax.com...
Jody
"Richard Huzzey" <rwjh_number...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:bq79k1$52a$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3240710.stm has an article
examining a
> formula some chappie has invented to "deduce" which is the best
family board
> game.
Keep in mind, i ~think~ the website www.thetoyshop.com is owned or
operated by the person who made the list. (it's titled as
theentertainer.com)
They don't appear to carry anything but traditional favourites. He
most assuredly didn't rate Settlers,P Rico or Carcassonne, let
alone the others.
There is a form on the bottom of the page to submit your own
favourites :)
jody
Matt Ruff
> ... and clue - simpson version ! Seems like the simpson have and hight fun
> factor that put everygame with this theme at the top. Maybe a version of
> World In Flame - simpson version - will access the (BBC) top list.
Is there a Simpsons Puerto Rico?
-- M. Ruff
RRI1
Yes, eacxh of the buildings has a different Simpson's character:
- Small Warehouse: Apu
- Hospice: Grampa Simpson
- Moe's bar (aka the Office): Moe
etc.
Just kidding!
Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Made with recycled electrons!
Robert Rossney
0.22a + 0.17f + 0.153n + (0.12c - 0.1g) + 0.1s + 0.09e + 0.06d +
0.054l + 0.05m + 0.011c = pfg
where
a = age range
f = fun factor
n = number of people
c = competitive factor
g - argumentative factor
s = stimulation
e = engagement
d = duration
l = longevity
m = mobility
c = complexity
pfg = "perfect family game".
There is another formula that this article didn't use. Though this one
doesn't have coefficients worked out to three significant figures, I think
its results are at least as accurate:
g + ( h/p ) + ( s * n ) - m = spp
where
g = guy with something to sell
h = severity of reporter's hangover
p = size of reporter's paycheck
s = slowness of the news day
n = size of newshole
m = minutes left in the reporter's day
spp = silly puff piece
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Richard Huzzey
I'm no mathematician, but I think your equation looks more reasonable and
sensible than his.
Richard Dewsbery
Why is is after ten years in which we have seen some absolutely marvellous
family strategy games come out of Germany, The Entertainer ( a UK toy shop)
is able to fudge a mathematical formula that says Monopoly is the second
best game for Christmas. What nonsense.
Monopoly is a bad game, for a number of reasons. The game lasts far too
long. The aim of the game is to eliminate players one by one - a very bad
idea given the length of the game. And the game is mostly luck-based,
relying too heavily on dice rolls and random cards - this is a very bad idea
given the length and aim of the game.
Families looking for games to play over Christmas ought to be directed to
some of the truly wonderful titles coming out of Germany. The Settlers of
Catan, for example, which has sold millions of units in mainland Europe -
in a game of Settlers, no player is eliminated early and everyone has
something to do during other players' turns, keeping the fun constant for
the whole hour it takes to play. Other recent hits amongst games players of
all ages that every family should play include Bohnanza and Carcassonne.
But don't let the fact that the games are from Germany put you off - many of
them have been reprinted in English by companies such as Rio Grande Games
and Mayfair Games, both American companies which are giving families 21st
century games rather than tired old "classics". Production standards are
higher than the British public are used to, with better boards and
well-crafted wooden components being just two areas where German boardgames
score highly. Key to the German boadgame's success is the way that they are
designed to allow every player to have fun throughout the game, whether they
are winning or losing.
Of course, you won't find these kind of games in The Entertainer, or Toys R
Us, or Argos - so they don't "fit" the fun formula. Instead consumers have
to seek out a specialist games shop, like Playin' Games in London or Spirit
Games in Burton Upon Trent. And a specialist shop always has helpful and
knowledgeable staff on hand to advise customers who are bewildered by the
wonderful games on offer once they look beyond Monopoly, Cluedo and
Scrabble.
Richard Dewsbery
Chris Camfield
That was a very well-written response; from the way it was written, I'm guessing
you submitted it to the BBC website?
Chris
Rick Jones
>
> It may be best to avoid this if you're feeling depressed, because it will
> only deeepen your frustration with life... Monopoly and things like that
> dominate the table, but I was most upset by the assertion that "there has to
> be some wild card element, an element of chance, to shake things up and turn
> the tables, so that Dad cannot be smug and think he is going to win from the
> start."
Actually I agree with the opinion. I find that any game lacking a
"chaos factor" isn't as interesting as those that are pure strategy. I
like those unexpected events that can turn the tide in a game, the Event
Cards in Empire Builder for example.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Never tell a lie if the truth will do more damage.
Rick Jones
>
> But don't let the fact that the games are from Germany put you off - many of
> them have been reprinted in English by companies such as Rio Grande Games
> and Mayfair Games, both American companies which are giving families 21st
> century games rather than tired old "classics".
I'm one of those people who still prefers those "tired old classics"
to the, IMO, mostly crap games that have been trickling over to the US
shores from Germany for the past decade. Given the option, I'll always
choose Empire Builder, Merchant Of Venus, Blackbeard, Kremlin,
Silverton, Circus Maximus, Titan, Robo Rally and Gunslinger to play long
before I'll choose to play Settlers, Union Pacific, Ra, Tigris &
Euphrates, El Grande, Through The Desert, et al.
> Production standards are
> higher than the British public are used to, with better boards and
> well-crafted wooden components being just two areas where German boardgames
> score highly. Key to the German boadgame's success is the way that they are
> designed to allow every player to have fun throughout the game, whether they
> are winning or losing.
"...fun throughout the game..."? I utterly *HATED* Settlers of Catan
after playing it for the first time. It was quite obvious that I was so
far behind early on that I had *no* chance of catching up, and yet I was
stuck waiting out the end of the game. I would have prefered to have
been knocked out so I could go play solitaire on the computer or count
flowers on the wall, either would have been more fun. I totally avoided
playing Settlers again for years. Finally, I gave in and tried it again
with Cities & Knights. The game was *finally* worth playing, something
the basic game isn't.
I realize that my opinion appears to be a minority and that most US
gamers have been seduced by the dark forces coming out of Germany, but
given the best German game of the past decade versus an average game
from the old Avalon Hill or Mayfair, I'll typically vote for the latter
choice.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Egghead - What Mrs. Dumpty gives to Humpty.
Richard Dewsbery
> to the, IMO, mostly crap games that have been trickling over to the US
> shores from Germany for the past decade. Given the option, I'll always
> choose Empire Builder, Merchant Of Venus, Blackbeard, Kremlin,
> Silverton, Circus Maximus, Titan, Robo Rally and Gunslinger to play long
> before I'll choose to play Settlers, Union Pacific, Ra, Tigris &
> Euphrates, El Grande, Through The Desert, et al.
I should have made it a bit clearer - my post above was a copy of a reply I
sent to the BBC site which asked for comments on their article about the
"fun formula" - which would otherwise have the effect of keeping the
British public in complete ignorance of games of quality whatever their
origin.
99.99% of the readers of the original article will not have heard of MoV,
Silverton or Roborally (which is more likely to be seen in the German
edition around here, anyway). Therefore they are unlikely to equate the
term "classics" as covering them. Chances are, if they've ever played an
Avalon Hill game then they may already have been exposed to the concept of
German games (which was rather the point of my reply to the BBC). The term
"tired old classics" is clearly meant to - and will be understood by 99.99%
of people who read the reply in the original forum - apply to junk like
Monopoly, Cluedo, Mouse Trap, Pictionary etc etc.
> "...fun throughout the game..."? I utterly *HATED* Settlers of Catan
> after playing it for the first time. It was quite obvious that I was so
> far behind early on that I had *no* chance of catching up, and yet I was
> stuck waiting out the end of the game. I would have prefered to have
> been knocked out so I could go play solitaire on the computer or count
> flowers on the wall, either would have been more fun. I totally avoided
> playing Settlers again for years. Finally, I gave in and tried it again
> with Cities & Knights. The game was *finally* worth playing, something
> the basic game isn't.
The point I was trying to make is that in Settlers, no one is eliminated
early - out of contention maybe; not having fun because they'd rather be
playing Empire Builder, or watching football, or knitting, possibly; but
with a damn sight better chance of being involved in the game from start to
finish as opposed to the original author's number 2 pick for the best game,
Monopoly.
Does ANYONE here want to try to argue that QUALITATIVELY speaking, Monopoly
is the second-best game for family fun this Christmas???
Richard
Kurt
board but Richard Dewsbery ...
> Does ANYONE here want to try to argue that QUALITATIVELY speaking,
> Monopoly is the second-best game for family fun this Christmas???
>
Are you mad? I'd rather stab myself in the head than try to derive
enjoyment out of playing Monopoly with my family.
--
Kurt *Kill the nospam to reply*
If you were vegan, you would have to spit...
-- RGMW outtake
Robert Rossney
"Rick Jones" <rtj...@extra.ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vslekk3...@corp.supernews.com...
: I'm one of those people who still prefers those "tired old classics"
: to the, IMO, mostly crap games that have been trickling over to the US
: shores from Germany for the past decade. Given the option, I'll always
: choose Empire Builder, Merchant Of Venus, Blackbeard, Kremlin,
: Silverton, Circus Maximus, Titan, Robo Rally and Gunslinger to play long
: before I'll choose to play Settlers, Union Pacific, Ra, Tigris &
: Euphrates, El Grande, Through The Desert, et al.
:
...
: "...fun throughout the game..."? I utterly *HATED* Settlers of Catan
: after playing it for the first time. It was quite obvious that I was so
: far behind early on that I had *no* chance of catching up, and yet I was
: stuck waiting out the end of the game.
Well, good heavens, it's fortunate nothing like that could ever happen in a
game of Merchant of Venus, Blackbeard, or Titan. I mean, if a few bad die
rolls could knock you out of contention in Titan you might be stuck sitting
it out while the other players took several hours to finish the game. (And
it's also a good thing that we have good American games like Kremlin to
play, and not that crap that's trickling in from Germany.)
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
The Maverick
>
> The point I was trying to make is that in Settlers, no one is eliminated
> early - out of contention maybe
Same difference... the only thing worse than a poorly done elimination
game is a game that pretends not to be one, but is. ;-)
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Richard Huzzey
> Actually I agree with the opinion. I find that any game lacking a
> "chaos factor" isn't as interesting as those that are pure strategy. I
> like those unexpected events that can turn the tide in a game, the
> Event Cards in Empire Builder for example.
I'm perfectly happy to accept some randomness, as we find in most German
games to some degree or another, be that in the draw of the cards, roll of
the dice or order in which plantations come from the stack. Adapting to
random elements, or accounting for their likelihood, is part of the game
when devising your strategy. My point, which I would stand by, is that while
it can throw some unpredictability, it shouldn't be there in sufficiently
large doses to, or for the purposes of, stopping the player playing well to
triumph in many cases. Sometimes a player may, in Settlers, build on tiles
with the same numbers in the knoledge this will either do very well or very
badly, comapred to the more moderate distribution of settlements on
different numbers. It is a viable strategy, that acknoweldges it will be a
gamble rather than the more conservative option, but Settlers isn't
completely reduced to luck, even if it has a healthy dose in the die rolls.
In contrast, I would say that many "family" games contain virtually no
strategic choices that allow you to master (or attempt to master) the random
elements.
It was basically the contention that randomness should be included to
prevent Dad (assumed, it seems, to be the best player) doing well. While
randomness may make him plan for it, it shouldn't be the deciding factor-
far better IMHO to give Dad a handicap by increasing his victory point
requirements or similar.
This is just my view and I do appreciate your own fondness for random events
that shake thinks up could be fun.
Alex
wrote:
>Are you mad? I'd rather stab myself in the head than try to derive
>enjoyment out of playing Monopoly with my family.
You forgot the quotes around "enjoyment".
Tim Synge
> Are you mad? I'd rather stab myself in the head than try to derive
> enjoyment out of playing Monopoly with my family.
So you'll at least have a use for that Cluedo set then? ;-)
Tim.
no spam please
Richard Dewsbery
> > early - out of contention maybe
>
> Same difference... the only thing worse than a poorly done elimination
> game is a game that pretends not to be one, but is. ;-)
I would argue that if you are trying to pitch games for families to play
over Christmas, Dad (or Mom, or maybe even one of the more grown-up kids)
will be less upset about playing from a poor position in Settlers with a
chance at winning (occasionally someone WILL roll nothing but 3's) and
staying involved through trading and the like, than they would be if they
are eliminated 45 minutes into a game of Monopoly lasting 2.5 hours.
Added to which, Settlers tends not to last the same interminable length of
time that Monopoly does.
Richard
Richard Dewsbery
> > enjoyment out of playing Monopoly with my family.
>
> So you'll at least have a use for that Cluedo set then? ;-)
It was Kurt, in the Study, with the Dagger. I win. Next game?
Richard
Gary Barker
> I would argue that if you are trying to pitch games for families to
> play over Christmas, Dad (or Mom, or maybe even one of the more
> grown-up kids) will be less upset about playing from a poor position
> in Settlers with a chance at winning (occasionally someone WILL roll
> nothing but 3's) and staying involved through trading and the like,
> than they would be if they are eliminated 45 minutes into a game of
> Monopoly lasting 2.5 hours.
I'm no fan of Monopoly but it really shouldn't take that long. About an
hour should do it, everything should be bought within 1 or 2 cycles of the
board because of the auction rule then its a bit of trading and houses and
hotels all the way.
GazB
--
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion
Christopher Dearlove
<thema...@volcano.net> writes
>Richard Dewsbery wrote:
>
>> The point I was trying to make is that in Settlers, no one is
>>eliminated
>> early - out of contention maybe
>
>Same difference... the only thing worse than a poorly done elimination
>game is a game that pretends not to be one, but is. ;-)
Getting effectively eliminated early in Settlers is almost always bad
play.
The biggest element of this is initial placement - this is a first game
problem, so in that case use the example setup. (And if you get
boxed in, that was probably your error too.) Probably second is
giving up; I've won a game I almost gave up on but persevered with
- I had the best initial placements but luck had not been on my side.
Dice don't have memory however.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Robert Rossney
"Christopher Dearlove" <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VHWPBeEeh4y$Ew...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk...
: In message <3FCAF975...@volcano.net>, The Maverick
: <thema...@volcano.net> writes
: >Richard Dewsbery wrote:
: >
: >> The point I was trying to make is that in Settlers, no one is
: >>eliminated
: >> early - out of contention maybe
: >
: >Same difference... the only thing worse than a poorly done elimination
: >game is a game that pretends not to be one, but is. ;-)
:
: Getting effectively eliminated early in Settlers is almost always bad
: play.
This is simply untrue. It is very frequently the result of a non-normal
distribution of production die rolls in the opening of the game.
: The biggest element of this is initial placement - this is a first game
: problem, so in that case use the example setup. (And if you get
: boxed in, that was probably your error too.) Probably second is
: giving up; I've won a game I almost gave up on but persevered with
: - I had the best initial placements but luck had not been on my side.
: Dice don't have memory however.
In over 18% of games, one of the two highest-probability production
numbers -- the 6 or the 8 -- will go unrolled in the first 16 turns. If you
fall behind in the number of settlements early in the game because no 6 is
rolled for the first 15 turns and that's where you were planning to get
brick from, your opponents will very probably outproduce you by a factor of
3:2 or 2:1 from that point on.
It's possible to get lucky and overcome this. It's also possible to get
lucky and snag some brick through the use of the robber, or through trade
(though trading ore or wheat for brick in the early game is generally a
tough sell). It is much more likely that you won't.
If you only play four-player Settlers, this will only happen to you about
one game in 20. So it may seem to you as though it's "almost always bad
play" that makes this happen.
But the fact is, one game in five, a player who's made the high-percentage
"good play" move of positioning a settlement next to a 6 or an 8 will come
up dry in the first four complete rounds. And that's usually going to be
enough to knock him out of contention.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>(And
>it's also a good thing that we have good American games like Kremlin to
>play, and not that crap that's trickling in from Germany.)
For certain chocolate-flavored values of Germany, anyway....
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
<http://www.panix.com/~kjm/games-for-sale.html> updated 27 November 2003
Christopher Dearlove
<r...@well.com> writes
>
>"Christopher Dearlove" <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VHWPBeEeh4y$Ew...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk...
>: In message <3FCAF975...@volcano.net>, The Maverick
>: <thema...@volcano.net> writes
>: >Richard Dewsbery wrote:
>: >
>: >> The point I was trying to make is that in Settlers, no one is
>: >>eliminated
>: >> early - out of contention maybe
>: >
>: >Same difference... the only thing worse than a poorly done elimination
>: >game is a game that pretends not to be one, but is. ;-)
>:
>: Getting effectively eliminated early in Settlers is almost always bad
>: play.
>
>This is simply untrue. It is very frequently the result of a non-normal
>distribution of production die rolls in the opening of the game.
No, I stand by my comment. (Well, technically if you always play
well, then by definition most of your eliminations are bad luck. In
this case my comment is that elimination is rare.
>In over 18% of games, one of the two highest-probability production
>numbers -- the 6 or the 8 -- will go unrolled in the first 16 turns. If you
>fall behind in the number of settlements early in the game because no 6 is
>rolled for the first 15 turns and that's where you were planning to get
>brick from, your opponents will very probably outproduce you by a factor of
>3:2 or 2:1 from that point on.
I don't buy this - and I have played quite a lot of the game, and more
importantly I've seen the same people (a little better than I am)
consistently do well in tournaments (much better than if your 18%
above were the end of the story).
First if you are relying on your 6 for all your brick, yes, you aren't
going to do well. Unless it's about the only brick in the game (in
which case all are hurting) trade for it. With a good setup you
should be on a scattering of numbers, usually four or five of the most
common six (or on a port, which has its own compensation).
Something has to come up. And if you can't get brick change
tack - buy cards or build a city. [This is actually where I come up
short, I sometimes stick to a plan too long, even when I should
have, say, abandoned the city I was planning and go for a
different build.]
To be outproduced by 2:1 needs another player with a city, a
town won't do it (it is by definition not one of the eight best
sites). If one player is that much up on all of you the robber
should be on him. Everyone that much up on you is much
less common than that. And still you can play. Yes, the
odds are against you, but not as much as you indicate.
>But the fact is, one game in five, a player who's made the high-percentage
>"good play" move of positioning a settlement next to a 6 or an 8 will come
>up dry in the first four complete rounds. And that's usually going to be
>enough to knock him out of contention.
Coming up dry on one number is this common sure. (Well, I haven't
checked your numbers but they feel reasonable.) That's not the
relevant calculation however.
And yes, I've played games where I was on a 6 (or 8, I forget) and
it only came up once before things really were wrapped up. But
that's a much less common ("rare" I said, and stick with it) and
even then never say die.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Rick Jones
> : after playing it for the first time. It was quite obvious that I was so
> : far behind early on that I had *no* chance of catching up, and yet I was
> : stuck waiting out the end of the game.
>
> Well, good heavens, it's fortunate nothing like that could ever happen in a
> game of Merchant of Venus, Blackbeard, or Titan. I mean, if a few bad die
> rolls could knock you out of contention in Titan you might be stuck sitting
> it out while the other players took several hours to finish the game.
I've been blown out of Titan early in tournament games, but always
found that I then had other things I could do to keep me entertained,
unlike suffering through those other games where you're just being
dragged along in last place until the end.
> (And
> it's also a good thing that we have good American games like Kremlin to
> play, and not that crap that's trickling in from Germany.)
I realize that Kremlin was orginally developed in Europe somewhere,
but it was developed *before* the current style of Eurogames and thus
feels more like a classic gamers' game.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Sex is like air. It's not important unless you aren't getting any.
Gabriel Velasco
things going for it.
1. If it's played properly, without any house rules, you can get through a
game in 1.5 hours.
2. Lots of people are familiar with it.
3. A beginner has a chance against an expert.
4. Played properly (in particular, trading well) it's a very political game
with some room for strategy.
5. There are also many versions from very cheap to deluxe and even fairly
collectable. Try to find a copy
of Ghettopoly.
6. Up to eight people can play, although it plays best with 4 or 5.
7. It's been thoroughly analyzed. For example, we know the chances of
landing on any particular property on a trip around the board (64% for the
railroads). We know the average amount of money you'll earn on a trip
around the board ($170). We know when it's best to stay in jail (when there
are lots of developed properties in front of you). And, there are lots of
other pieces of information that can help you make good trades and maximize
your existing properties.
8. You can participate in world championships.
"Richard Dewsbery" <ric...@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bqd1ba$pnm$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Robert Rossney
: I don't buy this - and I have played quite a lot of the game, and more
: importantly I've seen the same people (a little better than I am)
: consistently do well in tournaments (much better than if your 18%
: above were the end of the story).
As I said, it happens in 18% of games. It happens to one-fourth of 18% of
players. So it will happen to you personally a little less than one game in
twenty. Infrequently enough that you may not even notice it.
: First if you are relying on your 6 for all your brick, yes, you aren't
: going to do well. Unless it's about the only brick in the game (in
: which case all are hurting) trade for it. With a good setup you
: should be on a scattering of numbers, usually four or five of the most
: common six (or on a port, which has its own compensation).
: Something has to come up.
Eventually, sure, something has to. But it doesn't matter if stuff starts
coming up after the other players are outproducing you 3:2 or 2:1.
: And if you can't get brick change tack - buy cards or build a city.
Buying cards only rarely helps you get out of a production hole. And as you
know, upgrading a village to a city as your first build is not likely to be
a winning play in the long term: yes, you get production, but if you don't
expand your road network early, it will very probably be impossible to later
expand to the optimal locations.
: To be outproduced by 2:1 needs another player with a city, a
: town won't do it (it is by definition not one of the eight best
: sites). If one player is that much up on all of you the robber
: should be on him.
This is why I said that you'll be outproduced 3:2 or 2:1, not just 2:1.
It's very easy to rebut an overstated case, but it's not rebutting the case
that I made.
: >But the fact is, one game in five, a player who's made the
high-percentage
: >"good play" move of positioning a settlement next to a 6 or an 8 will
come
: >up dry in the first four complete rounds. And that's usually going to be
: >enough to knock him out of contention.
:
: Coming up dry on one number is this common sure. (Well, I haven't
: checked your numbers but they feel reasonable.)
The odds of not rolling a 6 on two dice in n rolls is (31/36)^^n. The odds
of not rolling a 6 or not rolling an 8 in n rolls is 2*(31/36)^^n.
: And yes, I've played games where I was on a 6 (or 8, I forget) and
: it only came up once before things really were wrapped up. But
: that's a much less common ("rare" I said, and stick with it) and
: even then never say die.
I agree that it's rare. As I said, assuming that you play four-player
games, it will happen to *you* less than one game in 20. But it will happen
to *some player* one game in five.
And yes, it's possible to get lucky and get out of the hole that bad luck
has put you in.
I'm not arguing that no early eliminations are the result of bad play, or
that bad luck inevitably leads to early elimination. I'm arguing that your
original statement, "Getting effectively eliminated early in Settlers is
almost always bad play," is untrue. I've played too many games of Settlers
in which, during the post-mortem, we had to acknowledge that the guy who was
out of the game from the very beginning didn't do anything that the rest of
us wouldn't have done.
Also, note that in EVERY SINGLE followup game to Settlers, Klaus Teuber has
implemented changes to the production rules that mitigate this problem.
Settlers of Nuremburg uses a deck of cards, which forces production numbers
to appear in normal distributions. The Settlers card game uses a single
die, and Starship Catan uses a 1-1-2-2-3-3 die. Settlers of the Stone Age
starts players off with three "settlements" per person on a smaller map that
forces players to share more production numbers with one another. For a
problem that doesn't exist, the game's designer sure put a lot of effort
into solving it.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>For a
>problem that doesn't exist, the game's designer sure put a lot of effort
>into solving it.
Clap, clap.
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
> I realize that Kremlin was orginally developed in Europe somewhere,
>but it was developed *before* the current style of Eurogames and thus
>feels more like a classic gamers' game.
I feel the need to take exception to the tone of this last bit. You
held out nine games that you would rather play than the "mostly crap"
games "trickling" into the US. Of those nine games--Empire Builder,
Merchant Of Venus, Blackbeard, Kremlin, Silverton, Circus Maximus,
Titan, Robo Rally and Gunslinger--not a one of them is one I've played
in the last five years, and I haven't missed them. The clear
implication is that I'm somehow not a "gamer", or not a "gamerly
gamer", or some such nonsense. At that suggestion, sir, I laugh.
I will confess that I've seen your posts along these lines for a
couple of years now, and they always leave me scratching my head. I
can't see any common threads. You've never, that I can recall,
articulated any standards to separate the games you like from the
games you despise, and I'm stumped at trying to guess what they might
be. The games you like were (mostly) published by American publishers
and are all from before 1994. Is your dividing line nostalgia? Long
playing time? American chauvinism? Sheer cussedness?
Robert Rossney
news:39bosvs81l4os64es...@4ax.com...
: I will confess that I've seen your posts along these lines for a
: couple of years now, and they always leave me scratching my head. I
: can't see any common threads. You've never, that I can recall,
: articulated any standards to separate the games you like from the
: games you despise, and I'm stumped at trying to guess what they might
: be. The games you like were (mostly) published by American publishers
: and are all from before 1994. Is your dividing line nostalgia? Long
: playing time? American chauvinism? Sheer cussedness?
Adding up factors, rolling dice, and looking things up in tables?
I too am curious as to what criteria are used to determine that Merchant of
Venus and Blackbeard are clearly superior to Euphrat & Tigris and Puerto
Rico.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Chuang Shyue Chou
"Robert Rossney" <r...@well.com> wrote in message
news:_QUyb.385498$HS4.3178729@attbi_s01...
> As I said, it happens in 18% of games. It happens to one-fourth of 18% of
It has happened to me. I have gone about 19 turns without gaining resources
in a game last year. It was most frustrating. (and I have had good placement
and positions then.) I was just rolling dice later on just to make the
numbers as I just could not catch up.
Michael Abramowski
>
> > > The point I was trying to make is that in Settlers, no one is eliminated
> > > early - out of contention maybe
> >
> > Same difference... the only thing worse than a poorly done elimination
> > game is a game that pretends not to be one, but is. ;-)
>
> I would argue that if you are trying to pitch games for families to play
> over Christmas, Dad (or Mom, or maybe even one of the more grown-up kids)
> will be less upset about playing from a poor position in Settlers with a
> chance at winning (occasionally someone WILL roll nothing but 3's) and
> staying involved through trading and the like, than they would be if they
> are eliminated 45 minutes into a game of Monopoly lasting 2.5 hours.
Depends on the family. If Mom is eliminated early, she can prepare
dinner to be ready when the others finish the game. Next person to be
eliminated helps her in the kitchen. That should increase competition!
> Added to which, Settlers tends not to last the same interminable length of
> time that Monopoly does.
I still have to play a (basic) Settlers game under 90 minutes. To the
people I play with, it seems to lead to more (pleasant, but time
consuming) socializing than Monopoly. Although I haven't played Monopoly
in ages (and never with that group), I would guess that both games would
average at about 2 hours with my usual gaming group.
Still, I do prefer Settlers: what you build there is more tangible, and
it's more than just houses.
Cheers,
Michael
David desJardins
> I too am curious as to what criteria are used to determine that
> Merchant of Venus and Blackbeard are clearly superior to Euphrat &
> Tigris and Puerto Rico.
This seems like a strawman. Rick Jones said that he likes the former
better than the latter, but that he is aware that his view is a minority
one. This seems a perfectly reasonable point of view; he certainly
never said that his preferred games are "clearly superior".
David desJardins
Sebastian Bleasdale
>The odds of not rolling a 6 on two dice in n rolls is (31/36)^^n. The odds
>of not rolling a 6 or not rolling an 8 in n rolls is 2*(31/36)^^n.
Erm, I think you meant that the odds of not rolling a 6 or 8 in n rolls
is (26/36)^^n. Otherwise, the chances of not rolling a 6 or 8 in one
die roll is 61/36, which is obviously nonsense.
--
Sebastian You are a piece of grit and
the world is your oyster
David desJardins
>> The odds of not rolling a 6 on two dice in n rolls is (31/36)^^n.
>> The odds of not rolling a 6 or not rolling an 8 in n rolls is
>> 2*(31/36)^^n.
Sebastian Bleasdale writes:
> Erm, I think you meant that the odds of not rolling a 6 or 8 in n rolls
> is (26/36)^^n. Otherwise, the chances of not rolling a 6 or 8 in one
> die roll is 61/36, which is obviously nonsense.
Robert's formula is an approximation, which is fairly accurate when n is
reasonably large. The exact formula for the probability of "no 6's OR
no 8's in n rolls" is 2*(31/36)^n - (26/36)^n. If n is large (e.g., 10
or more), then this is well approximated by just taking the first term,
because the second term is considerably smaller.
David desJardins
Peter Clinch
> Adding up factors, rolling dice, and looking things up in tables?
>
> I too am curious as to what criteria are used to determine that Merchant of
> Venus and Blackbeard are clearly superior to Euphrat & Tigris and Puerto
> Rico.
About 4 years ago I had a pretty large collection of, as Rick would say,
"Classic Gamers Games". Including Titan, Merchant of Venus etc. I
never got to play any of them (not *quite* true, I'd last played one
against competition in 1989).
I then purchased SoC and Elfenland, and since then we've had reasonably
regular gatherings, usually fortnightly, including several people who
had no previous interest in boardgames. I have managed to get Merchant
of Venus (a game I very much like, btw) played once in that time.
We almost always play German "crap", because it's playable by Normal
Human Beings (TM) in a sensible amount of time without the NHB (TM)
forgetting the rule cases 20 times. Or, put another way, more people
have more fun.
I've kept my copies of Civilization, Titan, MoV and Gunslinger (part
exchanged plenty of others for "crap") as I love them as games, but I
have no expectation of playing them any time soon. Though as it happens
I think E&T is at least as good a game *and* mental exercise than these
"classics", even if that were not the case then I think it's clearly the
case that a game on the table is worth a hundred on the shelf.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Steve Burt
"Gary Barker" <tdo_sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqfq5d$s8m$1...@sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com...
> Richard Dewsbery wrote:
> > I would argue that if you are trying to pitch games for families to
> > play over Christmas, Dad (or Mom, or maybe even one of the more
> > grown-up kids) will be less upset about playing from a poor position
> > in Settlers with a chance at winning (occasionally someone WILL roll
> > nothing but 3's) and staying involved through trading and the like,
> > than they would be if they are eliminated 45 minutes into a game of
> > Monopoly lasting 2.5 hours.
>
> I'm no fan of Monopoly but it really shouldn't take that long. About an
> hour should do it, everything should be bought within 1 or 2 cycles of the
> board because of the auction rule then its a bit of trading and houses and
> hotels all the way.
>
When I was a kid, (and of course had never actually read the rules, like
most people), we played with no auctions for unbought properties, and of
course the pernicious fines on 'Free Parking' rule. And no trading.
So of course the game went on all day, and depended on the dice. But we
liked it that way.
Now, of course, I'd find it torture to play like that, but I suspect a lot
of kids *like* long, random games.
Gary Barker
>
> 5. There are also many versions from very cheap to deluxe and even
> fairly collectable. Try to find a copy of Ghettopoly.
Why would I want to? But if anyone does then Fopp record stores in the UK
seem to have hundreds of copies. At least the one in Leamington Spa does.
GazB
--
Is it just me or does anyone else want to see less mindless chatter and
more swinging through trees?
Chris Camfield
It's been a while since I did a probability course, but using just (26/36)^n
seems plausible, so can you explain this more complicated formula?
By my reckoning, the chance of rolling a 6 is 5/36, the chance of rolling an 8
is the same, so the chance of rolling either in an individual roll is 10/36.
Therefore the chance of not rolling either in a series of n rolls would be (1 -
10/36)^n, which is what Sebastian proposed.
Chris
The Doctor
>
> The odds of not rolling a 6 on two dice in n rolls is (31/36)^^n. The odds
> of not rolling a 6 or not rolling an 8 in n rolls is 2*(31/36)^^n.
Your math is flawed.
According to you, the odds of not rolling a 6 or 8 in one roll is 62/36.
Since this obviously is higher then 1, you are saying that one ALWAYS
rolls other then 6 or 8, which we simply know is not true.
The odds of not rolling 6, and at the same time not rolling 8, are
25/36, for one roll.
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen." - Loesje
Kom spelen, 28 Maart 2004, Noorderspel, Groningen. www.noorderspel.nl
The Doctor
> Robert Rossney wrote:
>
>>
>> The odds of not rolling a 6 on two dice in n rolls is (31/36)^^n. The
>> odds
>> of not rolling a 6 or not rolling an 8 in n rolls is 2*(31/36)^^n.
>
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> According to you, the odds of not rolling a 6 or 8 in one roll is 62/36.
> Since this obviously is higher then 1, you are saying that one ALWAYS
> rolls other then 6 or 8, which we simply know is not true.
>
> The odds of not rolling 6, and at the same time not rolling 8, are
> 25/36, for one roll.
erm, 26/36 *blush*
Lars Wagner Hansen
news:3FCC417E...@nokia.com...
>
> Depends on the family. If Mom is eliminated early, she can prepare
> dinner to be ready when the others finish the game. Next person to be
> eliminated helps her in the kitchen. That should increase competition!
So when Mom is winning the game all the eliminated have to wait for her to
finish, and then she start preparing the dinner :-)
Lars
The Maverick
> In message <3FCAF975...@volcano.net>, The Maverick
> <thema...@volcano.net> writes
>
>> Richard Dewsbery wrote:
>>
>>> The point I was trying to make is that in Settlers, no one is
>>> eliminated
>>> early - out of contention maybe
>>
>> Same difference... the only thing worse than a poorly done
>> elimination game is a game that pretends not to be one, but is. ;-)
>
> Getting effectively eliminated early in Settlers is almost always bad play.
> The biggest element of this is initial placement - this is a first game
> problem, so in that case use the example setup. (And if you get
> boxed in, that was probably your error too.)
None of which change the fact that Settlers can also be an elimination
game... just as you can get eliminated from other elimination games
through bad play.
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
The Maverick
>
> I feel the need to take exception to the tone of this last bit. You
> held out nine games that you would rather play than the "mostly crap"
> games "trickling" into the US. Of those nine games--Empire Builder,
> Merchant Of Venus, Blackbeard, Kremlin, Silverton, Circus Maximus,
> Titan, Robo Rally and Gunslinger--not a one of them is one I've played
> in the last five years, and I haven't missed them.
Well, if Kevin Maroney hasn't played them or missed them, what more
needs to be said?? How dare someone suggest anything to the contrary! ;-)
Robert Rossney
news:voh7k1f...@blue3.math.berkeley.edu...
I believe Sebastian confused "not rolling a 6 *or* not rolling an 8" with
"not rolling a 6 *and* not rolling an 8." I should have been clearer. What
I was talking about was the odds that n turns will go by without *at least
one* of the two highest-probability production numbers being rolled.
And yes, simply doubling the odds that no 6's will be rolled isn't quite an
accurate picture of the odds that no 6's or no 8's will be rolled, as it
counts the case of no 6's *and* no 8's being rolled twice. But as David
points out, that's an insignificant number when the number of turns is as
high as what I was discussing.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Gary Barker
> None of which change the fact that Settlers can also be an elimination
> game... just as you can get eliminated from other elimination games
> through bad play.
Only in extreme circumstances. Just last night I was playing a game where I
was certain I knew who was going to win and who was going to come second. I
was definitely third until a string of good roles eventually won me the
game. Of course that only happened because I hadn't given up and was still
trying to get the robber on the leaders while still making trades and
playing sensibly. I could easily have given it up as a bad job if I thought
I had been "elimninated" when I hadn't. Perhaps you just need to learn to
play better Mav.
Sejanus778
one without production greatly if you copy other players numbers when choosing.
Then more than 1 player gets no card or some cards together.
David desJardins
> It's been a while since I did a probability course, but using just
> (26/36)^n seems plausible, so can you explain this more complicated
> formula?
The probability of "no 6's AND no 8's" is (26/36)^n.
The probability of "no 6's OR no 8's" is 2*(31/36)^n - (26/36)^n.
To obtain the latter formula, add the probability of "no 6's" and the
probability of "no 8's", and then subtract "no 6's AND no 8's" because
these were counted twice.
David desJardins
Christopher Dearlove
<r...@well.com> writes
You've made your point, I've made mine, we'll have to agree to differ
(at least in detail - I think we actually agree what happens, we just
disagree in frequency/importance).
>Also, note that in EVERY SINGLE followup game to Settlers, Klaus Teuber has
>implemented changes to the production rules that mitigate this problem.
>Settlers of Nuremburg uses a deck of cards, which forces production numbers
>to appear in normal distributions. The Settlers card game uses a single
>die, and Starship Catan uses a 1-1-2-2-3-3 die. Settlers of the Stone Age
>starts players off with three "settlements" per person on a smaller map that
>forces players to share more production numbers with one another. For a
>problem that doesn't exist, the game's designer sure put a lot of effort
>into solving it.
Just for the record I agree that luck plays a larger role in Settlers
than I
would like, although not all of the above rules are entirely
satisfactory
in my view. Incidentally Anno 1503 has yet another approach (everyone
produces at the same rate, just not the same things - you can build to
get more control). I'm just of the view that the "early effective
elimination"
is oversold.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
<thema...@volcano.net> writes
>None of which change the fact that Settlers can also be an elimination
>game... just as you can get eliminated from other elimination games
>through bad play.
It's a question of how often. I've disagreed with others in this thread,
but I think all are agreed that sometimes you can be effectively
eliminated from having a chance of winning playing Settlers.
(However personally I always play such that regardless of how
badly I'm doing, play to win anyway. It occasionally works, and
anyway the game isn't that long.)
However it differs from an elimination game in two important ways
- In a true elimination game (e.g. Titan) elimination always happens,
to someone (luck and bad play just affects who). In Settlers it often
doesn't. (I've seen plenty of games where all were in with a chance
at the end, all ending on 8+, even at least one 10-9-9-9 game.)
- In Settlers you aren't actually eliminated. Now some may view that
as a minus (stuck in a game they can't win) and others as a plus
(some people are capable of still enjoying a game they can't win
and can get themselves other targets - coming second, getting
at least 8 points, or whatever). Regardless, it's different.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
<gvel...@austin.rr.com> writes
>I agree that there are some problems with Monopoly, but it also has a lot of
>things going for it.
>
>1. If it's played properly, without any house rules, you can get through a
>game in 1.5 hours.
Which would be a long game of Settlers, and at the upper end of most
modern German games.
>2. Lots of people are familiar with it.
Although I suspect you could teach someone the whole of many games
faster than correcting their understanding of Monopoly.
>3. A beginner has a chance against an expert.
Not a plus point for many of us.
>4. Played properly (in particular, trading well) it's a very political game
>with some room for strategy.
It's a babe in arms on these fronts compared to many much better
games.
>5. There are also many versions from very cheap to deluxe and even fairly
>collectable. Try to find a copy
>of Ghettopoly.
Not sure about what the relevance of the second point is. I don't see
the
former as a plus (although I do have a copy of Das Wasser des Lebens).
>6. Up to eight people can play, although it plays best with 4 or 5.
Monopoly for eight. Aaargh! The last four player game I played froze
into stalemate, I hate to think what eight might do. I'd rather play two
four player games - even of Monopoly.
>7. It's been thoroughly analyzed. For example, we know the chances of
>landing on any particular property on a trip around the board (64% for the
>railroads). We know the average amount of money you'll earn on a trip
>around the board ($170). We know when it's best to stay in jail (when there
>are lots of developed properties in front of you). And, there are lots of
>other pieces of information that can help you make good trades and maximize
>your existing properties.
Definitely not winning me over here either.
>8. You can participate in world championships.
You can participate in world championships for gurning (look it up).
Need
I say more.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Richard Hutnik
on the game and the context. A shorter game where you have no chance
to win is better than a long game where you don't.
So, in light of this, I wouldn't bash either list. And at least Rick
didn't put Monopoly on his list of games he would like to play.
- Richard Hutnik
Rick Jones <rtj...@extra.ev1.net> wrote in message news:<vslekk3...@corp.supernews.com>...
> Richard Dewsbery wrote:
> >
> > But don't let the fact that the games are from Germany put you off - many of
> > them have been reprinted in English by companies such as Rio Grande Games
> > and Mayfair Games, both American companies which are giving families 21st
> > century games rather than tired old "classics".
>
> I'm one of those people who still prefers those "tired old classics"
> to the, IMO, mostly crap games that have been trickling over to the US
> shores from Germany for the past decade. Given the option, I'll always
> choose Empire Builder, Merchant Of Venus, Blackbeard, Kremlin,
> Silverton, Circus Maximus, Titan, Robo Rally and Gunslinger to play long
> before I'll choose to play Settlers, Union Pacific, Ra, Tigris &
> Euphrates, El Grande, Through The Desert, et al.
>
> > Production standards are
> > higher than the British public are used to, with better boards and
> > well-crafted wooden components being just two areas where German boardgames
> > score highly. Key to the German boadgame's success is the way that they are
> > designed to allow every player to have fun throughout the game, whether they
> > are winning or losing.
>
> "...fun throughout the game..."? I utterly *HATED* Settlers of Catan
> after playing it for the first time. It was quite obvious that I was so
> far behind early on that I had *no* chance of catching up, and yet I was
> stuck waiting out the end of the game. I would have prefered to have
> been knocked out so I could go play solitaire on the computer or count
> flowers on the wall, either would have been more fun. I totally avoided
> playing Settlers again for years. Finally, I gave in and tried it again
> with Cities & Knights. The game was *finally* worth playing, something
> the basic game isn't.
> I realize that my opinion appears to be a minority and that most US
> gamers have been seduced by the dark forces coming out of Germany, but
> given the best German game of the past decade versus an average game
> from the old Avalon Hill or Mayfair, I'll typically vote for the latter
> choice.
Kevin J. Maroney
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Rick Jones's tone is one of superiority--he categorizes Merchants of
Venus among the "old classics" and E&T among the "mostly crap". (He
didn't mention Puerto Rico.) While what Robert Rossney said is not a
direct quote, it seems like a fair paraphrase to me.
Scott Hedrick
news:bqd1ba$pnm$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> Monopoly is a bad game, for a number of reasons. The game lasts far too
> long. The aim of the game is to eliminate players one by one - a very bad
> idea given the length of the game. And the game is mostly luck-based,
> relying too heavily on dice rolls and random cards - this is a very bad
idea
> given the length and aim of the game.
This must be some European game named "Monopoly", distinctly different from
the American game by the same name. The Monopoly in the United States, while
it does have some random elements, is very much a game of skill. I
consistently crush other players who treat the American game the way you
describe.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.
Scott Hedrick
news:Xns9444B9...@211.29.133.50...
> Are you mad? I'd rather stab myself in the head than try to derive
> enjoyment out of playing Monopoly with my family.
Try the American version, if you're not afraid to crush their little egos.
Kurt
board but Scott Hedrick ...
> "Kurt" <kur...@nospam.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Xns9444B9...@211.29.133.50...
>> Are you mad? I'd rather stab myself in the head than try to derive
>> enjoyment out of playing Monopoly with my family.
>
> Try the American version, if you're not afraid to crush their little
> egos.
I thought it was all the same, just different variations for place names to
land on (or different pieces for the Simpsons/Pokemon/LOTR/etc versions).
I did play on Playsite once or twice before the site switched hands and the
Hasbro stuff disappeared, but only due to terminal boredom.
--
Kurt *Kill the nospam to reply*
Chaos. They spread the love for the gods through the universe, destroying
the infidels. Kind of like Catholics, but with cooler wargear.
-- RGMW outtake
Gene Wirchenko
>Richard Dewsbery wrote:
>>
>> > > The point I was trying to make is that in Settlers, no one is eliminated
>> > > early - out of contention maybe
>> >
>> > Same difference... the only thing worse than a poorly done elimination
>> > game is a game that pretends not to be one, but is. ;-)
If you are considering being out of the running for a win being
elimination, then most games would fit that category, wouldn't they?
>> I would argue that if you are trying to pitch games for families to play
>> over Christmas, Dad (or Mom, or maybe even one of the more grown-up kids)
>> will be less upset about playing from a poor position in Settlers with a
>> chance at winning (occasionally someone WILL roll nothing but 3's) and
>> staying involved through trading and the like, than they would be if they
>> are eliminated 45 minutes into a game of Monopoly lasting 2.5 hours.
>
> Depends on the family. If Mom is eliminated early, she can prepare
>dinner to be ready when the others finish the game. Next person to be
>eliminated helps her in the kitchen. That should increase competition!
For the kitchen?
>> Added to which, Settlers tends not to last the same interminable length of
>> time that Monopoly does.
>
> I still have to play a (basic) Settlers game under 90 minutes. To the
>people I play with, it seems to lead to more (pleasant, but time
>consuming) socializing than Monopoly. Although I haven't played Monopoly
>in ages (and never with that group), I would guess that both games would
>average at about 2 hours with my usual gaming group.
I do not think I have ever played one that long!
> Still, I do prefer Settlers: what you build there is more tangible, and
>it's more than just houses.
There is something realer about it.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>The odds of not rolling a 6 on two dice in n rolls is (31/36)^^n. The odds
>of not rolling a 6 or not rolling an 8 in n rolls is 2*(31/36)^^n.
The probability of not rolling a 6 or not rolling an 8 in 1 roll
is therefore 2*(31/36)^1 = 62/36? Better than a sure thing?
[snip]
Michael Abramowski
>
> Michael Abramowski <michael.a...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> >Richard Dewsbery wrote:
> >>
> >> I would argue that if you are trying to pitch games for families to play
> >> over Christmas, Dad (or Mom, or maybe even one of the more grown-up kids)
> >> will be less upset about playing from a poor position in Settlers with a
> >> chance at winning (occasionally someone WILL roll nothing but 3's) and
> >> staying involved through trading and the like, than they would be if they
> >> are eliminated 45 minutes into a game of Monopoly lasting 2.5 hours.
> >
> > Depends on the family. If Mom is eliminated early, she can prepare
> >dinner to be ready when the others finish the game. Next person to be
> >eliminated helps her in the kitchen. That should increase competition!
>
> For the kitchen?
> > I still have to play a (basic) Settlers game under 90 minutes. To the
> >people I play with, it seems to lead to more (pleasant, but time
> >consuming) socializing than Monopoly. Although I haven't played Monopoly
> >in ages (and never with that group), I would guess that both games would
> >average at about 2 hours with my usual gaming group.
>
> I do not think I have ever played one that long!
Maybe the problem is that there is usually always at least one newbie
in our group, so we opt for the basic scenario (reducing the importance
of first placement), need to explain the rules and also comment a lot on
people's trades - either with rule/strategy related comments or just for
fun.
Interestingly, one game I played with three newbies was my worst so
far. Final scores were 10/9/9/4. Guess who I was. I was trying the "Two
cities, lots of development cards" strategy to let the others race each
other for the roads. Unfortunately, my first city took ages to complete,
and by that time I was well boxed in. I guess this is one of the
examples where I should have changed strategy.
Or maybe it was just the attitide "He's played the game before - he
even owns it. So let's gang up on him!"
Cheers,
Michael
The Maverick
> Perhaps you just need to learn to play better Mav.
It's amusing that the fans of this "hidden elimination" game would
rather attack someone for pointing this out than admit that Settlers can
be a "hidden elimination" game. But since I put it in the same category
as the person who started this thread, I am not worried about how well I
play or learning to play better... :-)
The Maverick
>
> If you are considering being out of the running for a win being
> elimination, then most games would fit that category, wouldn't they?
From the start (or early going)? That is the problem that originated
the discussion...
Peter Clinch
> Although I suspect you could teach someone the whole of many games
> faster than correcting their understanding of Monopoly.
Good point! In a typical game against people I've never played before I
will not be surprised to dispel myths that: I can buy property on my
first trip around the board; my fines go to the bank; nothing happens on
Free Parking; you can collect rent in Jail; properties not bought are
auctioned; mortgage interest is immediately payable on transferred
properties; housing limits are hard; building has to be as even as possible.
I usually start with checking the rules for exactly what happens to
assets of a player who's just landed on a Killer Space, because I can
never quite remember, but unlike most people and rules in Monopoly I
*know* I have to check them!
FWIW I do like Monopoly. But I like a lot of other things better.
Despite the above it can be the case that knowing you have to sit and
learn rules is enough to put some people off, where finding out in
practice you didn't know them that well doesn't.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Henrik Berg
> Also, note that in EVERY SINGLE followup game to Settlers, Klaus Teuber has
> implemented changes to the production rules that mitigate this problem.
> Settlers of Nuremburg uses a deck of cards, which forces production numbers
> to appear in normal distributions. The Settlers card game uses a single
> die, and Starship Catan uses a 1-1-2-2-3-3 die.
A deck of cards obviously fixes this "problem", but how can using just
a single die or a 1-1-2-2-3-3 die reduce the luck factor?
A single die only changes the distribution. IMHO, this only serves to
increase the luck factor, since whatever "skills" involved in choosing
the best numbers (like 6 and 8 in Settlers) will no longer help you.
Everything is reduced to pure luck.
--
Henrik
Peter Clinch
> This must be some European game named "Monopoly", distinctly different from
> the American game by the same name. The Monopoly in the United States, while
> it does have some random elements, is very much a game of skill. I
> consistently crush other players who treat the American game the way you
> describe.
But that just means the players are clueless where you're not (most
people *still* dream about the final pair of properties as the one set
they Really Want, for example). Put yourself against a group with a few
more clues and the effect of skill will plateau out a *lot* quicker than
in truly skill driven games.
Richard Dewsbery
> >> enjoyment out of playing Monopoly with my family.
> >
> > Try the American version, if you're not afraid to crush their little
> > egos.
>
> I thought it was all the same, just different variations for place names
to
> land on (or different pieces for the Simpsons/Pokemon/LOTR/etc versions).
Exactly the same, except that the Americans use a funny currency called the
dollar. Same dice rolling, same Chance cards. Oh, the streets have
different names, too, but you probably worked that out for yourself.
I know most people *don't* play with the proper rules (because they "know"
how to play), but even with the right rules it just isn't very good. My
subjective opinion, of course, but I've played Monopoly with the right
rules, knew all the probabilities of visiting the properties and the
"strategies" that opens up, and it still isn't a very good game.
Richard
The Doctor
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are considering being out of the running for a win being
>> elimination, then most games would fit that category, wouldn't they?
>
>
>
> From the start (or early going)? That is the problem that originated
> the discussion...
If people are out of contention from the start, they probably would not
play (though Jamaica did send a bobsled team to some winter olympics...)
And I frankly do not know of any games that make this so.
Of course games like chess and Go played against the wrong opponent are
basically lost causes (I doubt I'd hold out for 10 minutes against
Kasparov),and essentially the same will go for Settlers or E&T. Some
people are better at the game then you, and you will most likely lose.
But at least in Settlers and E&T, the luck of the dice or tiles can help
you overcome such a disadvantage, and you will not have lost from the
start because of being worse at the game.
I've seen people get very unlucky in games of Settlers (in fact, I've
been one of them, and of course it usually happens at a tournament), but
I can't say that people ended last for being unlucky in the beginning.
I've actually seen people win that were unlucky in the beginning.
The people that end up last, are usually the people that go unlucky
later in the game.
The Doctor
> Despite the above it can be the case that knowing you have to sit and
> learn rules is enough to put some people off, where finding out in
> practice you didn't know them that well doesn't.
Funny, my experience is exactly the opposite.
People around me will say 'Oh great a new game to learn, kewl, let's play!'
And those same people will have played some game for quite a while, and
then when they play it with me I'll point out that they play some rule
wrong, and they'll just go on complaining how they like it better their
way, all through the night.
Robert Rossney
"Henrik Berg" <henr...@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:voqoeuq...@einn.ifi.uio.no...
These are hardly games of "pure luck." They're games where selecting
production numbers is not strategically important. (Indeed, it's something
that you have very little control over.) For instance, in the Settlers Card
Game, you start with six production regions, one for each number. The issue
in that game is not whether or not you're going to produce. It's *what*
you're going to produce.
Though I didn't mention it (the post was already getting long) both Catan
two-player games offer players several ways to convert resources they don't
want into resources they do. The ports in the Settlers Card Game and the
trade planets in Starship Catan are vital: they help make it possible for
you to get the resources you want regardless of which production number gets
rolled. The games also have mechanisms that let you get any resource you
want -- action cards and the harvest moon in the card game, missions and
pirates in Starship Catan.
Another issue is that in both of these games there are probably twice as
many die rolls as you'd find in a four-player game of Settlers. The games
are designed so that individual production die rolls are much less critical,
because there are so many of them. And the games are much less sensitive to
initial bursts of speed -- for instance, the first settlement you build in
the card game increases your potential production by much less than the
first settlement you build in Settlers does.
Selecting production numbers isn't important in these games. What's
important is making the right choices about how you're going to develop your
position so that bad die rolls don't hamper you too much.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Christopher Dearlove
<pos...@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Exactly the same, except that the Americans use a funny currency called the
>dollar. Same dice rolling, same Chance cards.
That turns out not to be the case. The British Waddington's Monopoly
and American Monopoly which we had as children had different
Chance cards and slightly different Tax spaces.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Julian
>
>
> Well, if Kevin Maroney hasn't played them or missed them, what more
> needs to be said?? How dare someone suggest anything to the contrary!
;-)
Thank you for that constructive and informative contribution to the
conversation. i'm sure we all benfitted from hearing your opinion.
Regards
Julian
Julian
> > long. The aim of the game is to eliminate players one by one - a very
bad
> > idea given the length of the game. And the game is mostly luck-based,
> > relying too heavily on dice rolls and random cards - this is a very bad
> idea
> > given the length and aim of the game.
>
> This must be some European game named "Monopoly", distinctly different
from
> the American game by the same name. The Monopoly in the United States,
while
> it does have some random elements, is very much a game of skill. I
> consistently crush other players who treat the American game the way you
> describe.
If you list die rolls for the game, & state the number of players, I reckon
most people could work out which player is most likely to win, without
knowing anything else.
Referring back to someone's (your?) point about Settlers, it's possible in
Monopoly never to land on a property that isn't already owned by someone. No
fault of your own, how could it be? If that doesn't constitue a fatal flaw,
I don't know what does.
Regards
Julian
Boyd & Michelle Bottorff
> If people are out of contention from the start, they probably would not
> play (though Jamaica did send a bobsled team to some winter olympics...)
> And I frankly do not know of any games that make this so.
I understand that that team is actually becoming quite good.
The Maverick
>
> If people are out of contention from the start, they probably would not
> play
If they were from the planet Vulcan, that would be the logical choice.
> And I frankly do not know of any games that make this so.
Wasn't that a potential problem with Eagle's War?
Rick Jones
>
> I will confess that I've seen your posts along these lines for a
> couple of years now, and they always leave me scratching my head. I
> can't see any common threads. You've never, that I can recall,
> articulated any standards to separate the games you like from the
> games you despise, and I'm stumped at trying to guess what they might
> be. The games you like were (mostly) published by American publishers
> and are all from before 1994. Is your dividing line nostalgia? Long
> playing time? American chauvinism? Sheer cussedness?
Game length, complexity of the rules, a strong theme/game mechanics
combination,... Essentially, features in a game that I find lacking in
most Eurogames.
That's not to say that I dislike all Eurogames. Settlers with C&K,
Union Pacific, Metro, Streetcar, Globopolis, Formula De, are examples of
some that I do enjoy.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
The Maverick
Doesn't that word start with a capital "I"? Not to mention that it was
at the start of the sentence. Just trying to be more instructive... ;-)
The Maverick
>
> Referring back to someone's (your?) point about Settlers, it's possible in
> Monopoly never to land on a property that isn't already owned by someone. No
> fault of your own, how could it be? If that doesn't constitue a fatal flaw,
> I don't know what does.
Hmmm. The newsgroup GIGO detector is flashing wildly...
How does this constitute a fatal flaw? Perhaps because you don't know
how to play the game you are criticizing?
Perhaps you mistakenly think that you need to land on a property to buy
it? This would be the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning, as the rules
permit players to buy properties that they do not land on...
Peter Clinch
> Funny, my experience is exactly the opposite.
> People around me will say 'Oh great a new game to learn, kewl, let's play!'
In a group of gamers, quite possibly. In a group of kids, quite
possibly. In a group of non-gamer adults with time on their hands, not
so probably I think.
Peter Clinch
> That's not to say that I dislike all Eurogames. Settlers with C&K,
> Union Pacific, Metro, Streetcar, Globopolis, Formula De, are examples of
> some that I do enjoy.
Globopolis might come from Europe, and even promote itself as "German
Style", but is it really a "Eurogame"?
"Introducing Globopolis, the new German style strategy boardgame for the
family and hardcore gamers alike!
Globopolis is a highly interactive board game of territorial
acquisition, economic development and aggressive takeover. Imagine a
Global-opoly board game, with aspects of Risk and resources"
Sounds like a few contradictions in terms to me, especially having read
the fairly extensive review in Counter.
The Doctor
> The Doctor wrote:
>
>>
>> If people are out of contention from the start, they probably would
>> not play
>
>
>
> If they were from the planet Vulcan, that would be the logical choice.
>
>
>> And I frankly do not know of any games that make this so.
>
>
>
> Wasn't that a potential problem with Eagle's War?
I bet if this problem exists in some game, it is an unkown one :)
Oh wait, didn't chess have this 'white wins' problem?
The Doctor
> The Doctor wrote:
>
>> Funny, my experience is exactly the opposite.
>> People around me will say 'Oh great a new game to learn, kewl, let's
>> play!'
>
>
> In a group of gamers, quite possibly. In a group of kids, quite
> possibly. In a group of non-gamer adults with time on their hands, not
> so probably I think.
I beg to differ.
Gabriel Velasco
news:3fce7e74$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> If you list die rolls for the game, & state the number of players, I
reckon
> most people could work out which player is most likely to win, without
> knowing anything else.
This statement is simply wrong. Players must decide whether it's good to
pay to get out of jail. They must know when NOT to buy properties - not
very often, but it does come up occasionally. They must know at what point
during the game it's best to develop certain properties, and how far to
develop them to get the best return for their investment. They must be able
to make good trades. They must know when it's to their benefit to cause
housing shortages. They must know which properties to mortgage or which
buildings to sell, if necessary.
It's true that there's a large element of chance, but that's true of many
games. The key is knowing what to do with the choices you do have. It's
true that a person could get a string of bad rolls that would prevent them
from obtaining any properties, but that's the case with any game where
resources are obtained by chance. Knowing how to play Monopoly will give
you a higher percentage chance of winning against people that don't know how
to play. It's possible that a Backgammon expert will lose a single game
against a very lucky beginner, but the expert will win on average. There
are many games where many of the moves are "forced", but knowing what to do
with those few choices that come up can give you a very big advantage over
someone who doesn't know what to do. Tournament Dominoes is a good example
of this. The interesting thing about Monopoly is that as the game
progresses the balance goes from forced moves to choices. At first all the
interesting stuff happens with the dice. Later, all the interesting stuff
happens BETWEEN the dice.
-=Gabriel=-
Christopher Dearlove
<rtj...@extra.ev1.net> writes
> Game length, complexity of the rules, a strong theme/game mechanics
>combination,... Essentially, features in a game that I find lacking in
>most Eurogames.
We can argue over the first and third of these, but I'll stick to the
second.
From context you must be arguing that Eurogames (*) are too simple and
complexity is good. (If you're arguing they're too complex, forget
what's
below, but you must be joking.)
Complexity of rules is bad. No ifs, buts or maybes. Complaining that a
games rules aren't complex enough is missing the point. So why do
some good games have complex rules? Because you may need to
have complex rules to achieve some other objective. Maybe for example
you need complexity in order to achieve a measure of realism, or to
ensure fairness, or to provide lots of options to promote replayability.
But then your objection should be lack of realism, or fairness or
replayability, not lack of complexity.
The most obvious analogy is cost. I like games with good quality wooden
pieces. That increases the cost. I may be prepared to pay for the
quality.
Nevertheless cost is bad, I need something to compensate for the cost.
Likewise I need something to compensate for complexity. The best games
are ones where there's no complexity for the sake of complexity, only
for
the sake of something else.
So what, in your view, is wrong with the games you dislike that needs
complexity to overcome?
(*) Bad term, as there's a company by this name, but no matter.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
<thema...@volcano.net> writes
>Perhaps you mistakenly think that you need to land on a property to buy
>it? This would be the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning, as the rules
>permit players to buy properties that they do not land on...
Only if the other players let you, you can't do it unaided.
(Yes, another player may be forced to do it, but being forced to at the
point where there are still properties left is unusual with a game with
a significant number of players.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
David desJardins
> Complexity of rules is bad. No ifs, buts or maybes.
You do know that this is just your opinion, not Revealed Truth. Right?
David desJardins
The Maverick
> In message <3FCE9E21...@volcano.net>, The Maverick
> <thema...@volcano.net> writes
>
>> Perhaps you mistakenly think that you need to land on a property to
>> buy it? This would be the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning, as the rules
>> permit players to buy properties that they do not land on...
>
> Only if the other players let you, you can't do it unaided.
What? The other players can affect your ability to win the game? AHA!
Another fatal flaw - I hope Julian doesn't get his claws into that
one... ;-)
Rick Jones
> Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> That's not to say that I dislike all Eurogames. Settlers with C&K,
>> Union Pacific, Metro, Streetcar, Globopolis, Formula De, are examples
>> of some that I do enjoy.
>
> Globopolis might come from Europe, and even promote itself as "German
> Style", but is it really a "Eurogame"?
Well, yes, I do see it as a throwback to the older style of games
like those from the original Avalon Hill and Mayfair, hence my reasons
for liking it.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Only in America do people order double cheeseburgers, large
fries and a Diet Coke.
Rick Jones
> In message <vst729c...@corp.supernews.com>, Rick Jones
> <rtj...@extra.ev1.net> writes
>
>> Game length, complexity of the rules, a strong theme/game mechanics
>> combination,... Essentially, features in a game that I find lacking in
>> most Eurogames.
>
> We can argue over the first and third of these, but I'll stick to the
> second.
> From context you must be arguing that Eurogames (*) are too simple and
> complexity is good. (If you're arguing they're too complex, forget what's
> below, but you must be joking.)
>
> Complexity of rules is bad.
I disagree.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Indication of PMS #2 - Shy buys $100 worth of chocolate and
justifies it by saying, "But Honey, I just know it's one of the
major food groups.".
Robert Rossney
news:MGKZB9Bqg4z$Ew...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk...
: Complexity of rules is bad. No ifs, buts or maybes.
I cannot agree. Unnecessary complexity of rules is bad. Inelegance is bad.
But necessary complexity in a game design that is elegant is not a bad
thing.
If you don't believe this, try to "improve" Titan by simplifying it. Get
rid of Titan teleportation, say, or Angel summoning, or Archangels every 500
points.
Now, what I can't get my head around is Rick Jones's assertion that complex
rules are a *good* thing.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Richard Dewsbery
>
> I cannot agree. Unnecessary complexity of rules is bad. Inelegance is
bad.
Absolutely. "Unnecessary chrome", I'd call those rules. For an example,
see pretty much any of the old Avalon Hill rules, where the unnecessary
complexity in the rules did its best to obscure the game underneath.
When a rule moves from being a necessary complexity to an unnecessary
hinderance is a fine line that not many people can actually spot.
And rarely does a game get any better if the rules are made more complex.
> If you don't believe this, try to "improve" Titan by simplifying it. Get
> rid of Titan teleportation, say, or Angel summoning, or Archangels every
500
> points.
The game is sufficiently complex that I'm unlikely to play it - which makes
its complexity a bad thing. Games must already compete for limited amounts
of table time - if they are saddled with the burden of being complex (even
necessary complexity), then that is a bad thing if it makes them less likely
to get played.
Richard
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
> Game length, complexity of the rules, a strong theme/game mechanics
>combination,... Essentially, features in a game that I find lacking in
>most Eurogames.
Thanks for the elaboration.
At this point in my life, I consider game length per se to be a
somewhat negative factor; I'd much rather play E&T or Puerto Rico,
which jam a terrific amount of interesting thought into 45-90 minutes,
than Kremlin, which takes about the same amount of intersting thought
and spreads it out over three hours. (In the groups in which I play,
I'm actually more tolerant of "long"--180-minute--games than many of
my peers; my favorite game of the last two years is Age of Steam.)
And I'm neutral on theme--I've worked on games where theme is
everything, and on abstracts, and on many stages inbetween. I've seen
far too many games in the American market which have what I consider
to be interesting themes wedded to craptastic mechanisms; all in all,
I'd much rather deal with the opposite extreme, well-designed
mechanisms which make no effort to create the illusion of immersion.
On the question of complex rules, I'm definitely of two minds, which
I've written about before:
<http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/FiddlingAbout.shtml>
Basically, yes, a complex rules-set can lead to an interesting game;
as Bob Rossney implied, Titan gains much of its interest from its
layers of rules. (Note that I haven't played a game of Titan against a
human being in nearly 20 years, though I play it against the
computer.) And I know that there are people for whom complexity itself
is a virtue. But I value elegance a great deal, too.
Even given your criteria, I can't see that the games you listed form
two distinct clumps. I can see that one group is "games Rick likes"
and the other is "games Rick doesn't like", but there are games in the
first group which are shorter, less thematic, or shallower than the
games in the second group.
But then, if we all liked the same things, imagine the price of
oatmeal.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
<http://www.panix.com/~kjm/games-for-sale.html> updated 27 November 2003
Richard Dewsbery
> >> buy it? This would be the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning, as the rules
> >> permit players to buy properties that they do not land on...
> >
> > Only if the other players let you, you can't do it unaided.
>
>
> What? The other players can affect your ability to win the game? AHA!
> Another fatal flaw - I hope Julian doesn't get his claws into that
> one... ;-)
It might not be so bad if they were not trading and auctioning because of
some strategic decision. All too often with Monopoly it is out of ignorance
of how the game is meant to be played. Even telling them the rules will not
solve the problem - they either can't or won't adjust the way that they play
the game - sometimes saying something like "That's not how we play it here".
I don't know if the auctioning and trading rules have ever been missing from
the rulebook as published, but it has pretty much entered popular
conciousness regarding how the game is to be played. Strangely these same
people *can* grasp bidding and trading in games like Modern Art or
Settlers - I guess because there they have no preconceptions and the
interactivity isn't obscured by all the clutter (like different rules for
utilities, Chance cards and the like which add nothing to the game's basic
premise).
Richard
Sebastian Bleasdale
>Christopher Dearlove wrote:
>> In message <vst729c...@corp.supernews.com>, Rick Jones
>> <rtj...@extra.ev1.net> writes
>>
>>> Game length, complexity of the rules, a strong theme/game mechanics
>>> combination,... Essentially, features in a game that I find lacking in
>>> most Eurogames.
>>
>> We can argue over the first and third of these, but I'll stick to the
>> second.
>> From context you must be arguing that Eurogames (*) are too simple and
>> complexity is good. (If you're arguing they're too complex, forget what's
>> below, but you must be joking.)
>>
>> Complexity of rules is bad.
>
> I disagree.
In which case you can easily improve all the current Eurogames by
adding spurious rules, modifier tables, etc. to your hearts content.
Improving Settlers, for example, is easy. Instead of rolling those
two dice, you roll sixteen. The player chooses four of them, looks
up the result in a plantation modifier table, which selects one of
the hexes that will produce a bonus good and two which won't produce any.
Each player in turn then rerolls one of the dice of their choice.
The player whos turn it is then may spend knight cards in order to reroll
extra dice. Now add all the dice except for three together. Multiply
that value by the sum of two of the other dice, and add the final one.
If this value is a prime, then the player with the fewest points looses
all their resources, and the process is repeated. If not, then decompose
the value into its factors. The factor which is most frequent gets
the resources produced; in the case of a tie, then you multiply the two
factors together, and those resources get produced.
I recommend that you retry Settlers with these rules. It's a completely
different game.
--
Sebastian You are a piece of grit and
the world is your oyster
Anthony Simons
> Christopher Dearlove wrote:
>
> > In message <3FCE9E21...@volcano.net>, The Maverick
> > <thema...@volcano.net> writes
> >
> >> Perhaps you mistakenly think that you need to land on a property to
> >> buy it? This would be the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning, as the rules
> >> permit players to buy properties that they do not land on...
> >
> > Only if the other players let you, you can't do it unaided.
>
>
> What? The other players can affect your ability to win the game? AHA!
> Another fatal flaw - I hope Julian doesn't get his claws into that
> one... ;-)
>
> the Mav
In total agreement with you here, Mav; Monopoly is NOT flawed in the
least.
However it is an awful game; rather than go through all that
roll-and-move bit to buy properties, I would sooner deal them out at
random and take the deal-making from there. Saves time, similar
effect.
Better still, do it Totopoly fashion; deal some out and auction the
rest off. Fairly unlikely anybody will be dealt a set, but makes the
following auctions crucial. Then get on with the game, and fight over
the houses and hotels.
Gary Barker
>
> However it is an awful game; rather than go through all that
> roll-and-move bit to buy properties, I would sooner deal them out at
> random and take the deal-making from there. Saves time, similar
> effect.
I believe that is an optional rule printed in one of the sets I have. Not
sure if it has always been there though. But theres another occasion where
sales figures isn't an indication of a games quality, I have 2 (or 3) sets
and never play any of them.
>
> Better still, do it Totopoly fashion; deal some out and auction the
> rest off. Fairly unlikely anybody will be dealt a set, but makes the
> following auctions crucial. Then get on with the game, and fight over
> the houses and hotels.
Totopolys main flaw seems to be that the whole training exercise doesn't
tend to affect the outcome. Obviously the more cash you have to bet with
and the influence you have on where your horses get placed makes a
difference, but a good gambler has a good chance anyway.
GazB
--
Is it just me or does anyone else want to see less mindless chatter and
more swinging through trees?
Peter Clinch
> Totopolys main flaw seems to be that the whole training exercise doesn't
> tend to affect the outcome. Obviously the more cash you have to bet with
> and the influence you have on where your horses get placed makes a
> difference, but a good gambler has a good chance anyway.
You need to recheck the rules... (or perhaps they changed between
editions). In mine, a metal horse one that's quite old but not *really*
old, the winner of the game is the owner of the horse that wins the
race. Any amount of money anyone may or may not have is not actually
relevant.
Now this is kind of daft as it is, as it renders the whole tote and
betting business a pointless application of excess chrome plating, but
it does give you the chance to have different types of victory in the
same game (more money vs. more glory).
Pete (just waiting for some time to read the rules of Win Place & Show,
the latest victory on eBay...).
Gary Barker
>
> You need to recheck the rules... (or perhaps they changed between
> editions). In mine, a metal horse one that's quite old but not
> *really* old, the winner of the game is the owner of the horse that
> wins the race. Any amount of money anyone may or may not have
> is not actually relevant.
It certainly looks like I will have to. Mines a 50's or 60's set with
cardboard horses (or whats left of horses when legs and tails fall off).
The box of bits is seperate to the board in much the same way as my old
Monopoly set is.
nospa...@nospampanix.com
Richard Dewsbery <ric...@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't know if the auctioning and trading rules have ever been missing from
>the rulebook as published, but it has pretty much entered popular
>conciousness regarding how the game is to be played.
It is not hard to understand: Monopoly is a "child's first game,"
and those elements are not easily mastered by a child (or, at any
rate, so the parents believe). So it becomes a
roll-and-move-and-do-what-the-square-says game. Talisman, with
houses. By the time a player has reached an age where trading and
auctions would add interest to the game, those elements have been
forgotten.
Peter Clinch
> It certainly looks like I will have to. Mines a 50's or 60's set with
> cardboard horses (or whats left of horses when legs and tails fall off).
> The box of bits is seperate to the board in much the same way as my old
> Monopoly set is.
Yours will predate mine then (mine has one of Waddingtons' big boxes).
I'll dig out the rules over the weekend if I remember and check this
out, as my memory may be failing too...
Pete.