Plot twist: I'm not talking about video games, I'm talking about the old fashioned kind of games like board and card games.
Do people still play these anymore, and if so, which ones are your favorites?
Even if you don't play them now, which ones were big back when you were young/growing up?
The Missus and I play cribbage every night. We used to play Dutch Blitz.
Cribbage, backgammon.
I'm a board game nerd and play games like Catan, Game of Thrones, Terraforming Mars, and Twilight Struggle. I also play a good amount of poker. I used to play cribbage a lot with family, but only get to play occasionally when I go camping with some of my midwestern friends.
Chris
Magic: the Gathering, except I haven't had any people to play it with in several years.
For my business I actually run a blog that has about 250 different card games (https://www.denexa.com/alphabetical-game-index/) on it. So I have a few really obscure favorites from that list. Cash (https://www.denexa.com/blog/cash-card-game/) is a great one for four players in partnerships. Thirteen (tien len) (https://www.denexa.com/blog/thirteen/) is a go-to when I want just a quick game to pass the time (like during a break at work or waiting on something to start), since that lasts just a few minutes per game. Page One (https://www.denexa.com/blog/page-one/) is a delightfully simple Japanese trick-taking game with no score; you just draw when you can't follow suit, and the first to run out of cards wins.
I'm a huge fan of
Dungeons & Dragons (fifth edition) too. It got a bad rap back in the 80s from people that didn't know what the game was actually about. But basically you and your friends invent fictional characters that go on some sort of adventure and periodically roll dice to see what happens. It's a lot like a video game, except nothing is predetermined, and you can try whatever you want to achieve your goal, as long as the dice will let you. The title (and most of the pre-written adventures) suggests that you'll be spending most of your time going through dungeons and slaying monsters, but nothing says you have to: the last time we played we went to the Queen's birthday party.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2021, 05:58:56 PM
Do people still play these anymore
The tabletop gaming community is HUGE and has been for a long time before the pandemic. Most of the "old-fashioned" board games that you play with your family like Monopoly and Sorry and such are disliked by this community, because game design is a much more developed art than it was back then. Modern board games are generally much more balanced and allow for more interesting interactions than "roll a die and move so many spaces". Settlers of Catan is a good starting point, and then there's things like Carcassone, Ticket to Ride, and Pandemic (love that game but I haven't played it since 2019 for obvious reasons) to give you an idea of what's possible.
There's a game store here in Norman that sells all of these games, but they also have a library with a playable copy of each (plus a whole bunch of games they don't carry for sale), and you can pay $5 to have access to all the games you'd want all night.
Monopoly so long as the real rules are used. It drives me up the wall when people use Free Parking as a pay out or ban things like auctions or trades.
Monopoly is fun until you play a game that's been designed in the last 25 years or so. Then you realize why it's always kind of sucked.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 08, 2021, 06:40:39 PM
Monopoly so long as the real rules are used. It drives me up the wall when people use Free Parking as a pay out or ban things like auctions or trades.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 06:54:46 PM
Monopoly is fun until you play a game that's been designed in the last 25 years or so. Then you realize why it's always kind of sucked.
If he likes it, he likes it. It doesn't matter if you don't. This is not a thread about games with universal appeal.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 08, 2021, 06:59:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 08, 2021, 06:40:39 PM
Monopoly so long as the real rules are used. It drives me up the wall when people use Free Parking as a pay out or ban things like auctions or trades.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 06:54:46 PM
Monopoly is fun until you play a game that's been designed in the last 25 years or so. Then you realize why it's always kind of sucked.
If he likes it, he likes it. It doesn't matter if you don't. This is not a thread about games with universal appeal.
So what you're saying is... this isn't a monopoly :-P
I am not a big fan of Monopoly myself, but then again, I generally prefer card games to board games. It seems like board games usually have a bit too much luck and a bit too little strategy for my liking, while card games tend to have a better balance.
Of course, this could be influenced by the fact that I haven't played many "modern" board games... at least, I don't recognize many of the names mentioned so far, and I don't think games like The Farming Game count as modern...
20 questions
Double Ditto
Blank Slate
Uno
Pictionary
and Monopoly sucks.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 08, 2021, 06:59:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 08, 2021, 06:40:39 PM
Monopoly so long as the real rules are used. It drives me up the wall when people use Free Parking as a pay out or ban things like auctions or trades.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 06:54:46 PM
Monopoly is fun until you play a game that's been designed in the last 25 years or so. Then you realize why it's always kind of sucked.
If he likes it, he likes it. It doesn't matter if you don't. This is not a thread about games with universal appeal.
And I've played a lot of them. Monopoly stuck with me I guess because it has strategy in the stock game and is still relatively approachable for most people. The problem getting away from the designed rule set or with custom games. My wife picked up something called "Firebaughnopoly" which has free parking pay out and changed all the chance/community chest cards.
Dominoes, Uno, and Boggle
I'm actually terrible at Uno, but the kids love it. We play either the "one card draw" method, or we have a randomizer which spits out between 0-4 cards at a button press.
We've found most rounds go on a little too long for "keep drawing until you can play something" version (which I don't recall in the rules but seems to be the most popular).
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 08, 2021, 06:59:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 08, 2021, 06:40:39 PM
Monopoly so long as the real rules are used. It drives me up the wall when people use Free Parking as a pay out or ban things like auctions or trades.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 06:54:46 PM
Monopoly is fun until you play a game that's been designed in the last 25 years or so. Then you realize why it's always kind of sucked.
If he likes it, he likes it. It doesn't matter if you don't. This is not a thread about games with universal appeal.
It is not a question of like or dislike, but rather that Monopoly is not a particularly well-balanced game, owing to the fact that it relies on a 2d6 system and doesn't really do anything to mitigate the roll-frequency bell-curve that is inherent to a 2d6 roll. So a Monopoly game comes down to basically a question of has anyone playing figured out how to exploit this, and if multiple players have, who manages to do it first. The next several hours are then that player slowly sucking money out of everyone else.
People can still have fun with a badly-constructed board game, but that doesn't make it a good game. Most people having fun with Monopoly are more having fun with their friends and not with the game itself, and that's okay.
If you like the idea of Monopoly but want something balanced, I'd suggest
Acquire by Sid Sackson.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 08, 2021, 06:59:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 08, 2021, 06:40:39 PM
Monopoly so long as the real rules are used. It drives me up the wall when people use Free Parking as a pay out or ban things like auctions or trades.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 06:54:46 PM
Monopoly is fun until you play a game that's been designed in the last 25 years or so. Then you realize why it's always kind of sucked.
If he likes it, he likes it. It doesn't matter if you don't. This is not a thread about games with universal appeal.
It is not a question of like or dislike, but rather that Monopoly is not a particularly well-balanced game, owing to the fact that it relies on a 2d6 system and doesn't really do anything to mitigate the roll-frequency bell-curve that is inherent to a 2d6 roll. So a Monopoly game comes down to basically a question of has anyone playing figured out how to exploit this, and if multiple players have, who manages to do it first. The next several hours are then that player slowly sucking money out of everyone else.
People can still have fun with a badly-constructed board game, but that doesn't make it a good game. Most people having fun with Monopoly are more having fun with their friends and not with the game itself, and that's okay.
And there are other exploits in the game line hogging up property on yellow or Orange due to the probability in landing spots because of players being in jail. I try to at least hold some of those properties given that they usually are the first to have stuff built on them.
Right, holding the orange properties is basically what I'm getting at, since that's the biggest exploit to the 2d6 bell-curve in the game, though I think there are others. I have always wanted to try playing Monopoly with 1d12 instead of 2d6 just to see how much that balances it, but the sort of people who have d12s around the house tend to want to spend their time playing games that aren't Monopoly. :P
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
It is not a question of like or dislike
Actually, it is. This is a thread about people's favorite games, that is, the ones they like the most or at least a lot, and you presented a rejection or criticism or of what someone liked. That is, you found some reason why they are having fun wrong, or at least naively. And (as you can see) that drives me nuts.
I used to play Scrabble, but I haven't since my ex left.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 08, 2021, 07:31:15 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
It is not a question of like or dislike
Actually, it is. This is a thread about people's favorite games, that is, the ones they like the most or at least a lot, and you presented a rejection or criticism or of what someone liked. That is, you found some reason why they are having fun wrong, or at least naively. And (as you can see) that drives me nuts.
I did no such thing. Nowhere have I criticized Max for liking the game. If he (and his fellow players) enjoys it, he enjoys it. With a game there is nothing more important than if the players are enjoying themselves, and if they can do that despite misbalanced rules, then more power to them.
I mentioned D&D upthread–I'm guilty of having accidentally misbalanced sessions several times. Whoops, sometimes I misread the rules, or fail at math, and then bad things happen. But apparently my players are still having fun, cause we keep playing every week. And that's all that matters. There is no board game police that comes around and writes you a ticket for improper game balance.
That being said, it is
easier to enjoy a game that
is balanced, because it is more fair. Someone who enjoys putting thought into the game they're playing will find a more well-constructed game more fun to play. But it is also possible to have fun while playing a game, in ways that do not depend on the game at all. If you're playing with family members from out of town, chances are the fun you're having is because you're getting to spend time doing something social with your family and it really doesn't matter what, if anything, is on the table in front of you. There is nothing wrong with this.
People can have fun driving a PT Cruiser.
Basically, the point I was making is that, if you are the sort of player that enjoys board games for the games themselves, it can be rewarding to explore the games beyond what Walmart carries and to check out some of the new stuff that's out there, because there is a lot to explore beyond the old classics. And once you are exposed to the newer titles, there are things about Monopoly that just won't sit as well as they used to.
Quote from: Takumi on March 08, 2021, 07:37:25 PM
I used to play Scrabble, but I haven't since my ex left.
Well, at least you didn't get stuck with them. Losing eight points sucks.
Wow I'm surprised I'm not the only one to say cribbage. That game's pretty fun. Some of my other favorites:
Monopoly (original game, original rules. No Mickey Mouse Monopoly or anything like that)
Pictionary (or Charades)
Poker
Rummikub
Scrabble (probably my favorite, except my family doesn't really like playing it)
And those I do not like (or get old quickly):
War
Uno
And one that looks extremely fun, but I haven't played:
Deadball
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 08, 2021, 07:31:15 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
It is not a question of like or dislike
Actually, it is. This is a thread about people's favorite games, that is, the ones they like the most or at least a lot, and you presented a rejection or criticism or of what someone liked. That is, you found some reason why they are having fun wrong, or at least naively. And (as you can see) that drives me nuts.
I did no such thing. Nowhere have I criticized Max for liking the game.
This is what you said:
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 06:54:46 PM
Monopoly is fun until you play a game that's been designed in the last 25 years or so. Then you realize why it's always kind of sucked.
I have trouble interpreting that comment in a complimentary or even a neutral fashion. I agree with what you said after that, though.
That was meant as a criticism of Monopoly, not Max, and I believe Max took it in the manner it was intended based on his response.
In any event, it seems we were on the same page all along!
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 08:23:23 PM
That was meant as a criticism of Monopoly, not Max, and I believe Max took it in the manner it was intended based on his response.
In any event, it seems we were on the same page all along!
If anyone is wondering I didn't take offense, I don't see how I would given this is all subjective opinions. I'm sure there are lots of games I like that others probably don't.
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 07:14:22 PM
20 questions
Oh, man... yes!
And also that thing you toss around where you have to guess the word it's thinking of... [webny99 quickly googles "electronic guess the word game"] ...
Catch Phrase! It probably wouldn't be as much fun now, but it was a ton of fun on bus and car trips back in middle and high school.
For all you Monopoly haters, there is this that came out in 1973: (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Tw4AAOSwKb1eqyy7/s-l640.jpg)
And they came out with a new version that I saw is available in several department-store websites: (https://www.onlinetoys.com.au/363-big_default/anti-monopoly-game.jpg)
Quote from: Big John on March 08, 2021, 10:02:10 PM
For all you Monopoly haters, there is this that came out in 1973: (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Tw4AAOSwKb1eqyy7/s-l640.jpg)
And they came out with a new version that I saw is available in several department-store websites: (https://www.onlinetoys.com.au/363-big_default/anti-monopoly-game.jpg)
I'm curious now, has there ever been a Communism variant on Monopoly that anyone is aware of? Considering the time period the game came out and was popular there must have been at least one.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
It is not a question of like or dislike, but rather that Monopoly is not a particularly well-balanced game, owing to the fact that it relies on a 2d6 system and doesn't really do anything to mitigate the roll-frequency bell-curve that is inherent to a 2d6 roll. So a Monopoly game comes down to basically a question of has anyone playing figured out how to exploit this, and if multiple players have, who manages to do it first. The next several hours are then that player slowly sucking money out of everyone else.
People can still have fun with a badly-constructed board game, but that doesn't make it a good game. Most people having fun with Monopoly are more having fun with their friends and not with the game itself, and that's okay.
(quoting from this post rather than going back to your first post)
I agree with what you say about Monopoly, and am curious what some general principles are that avoid stuff like this happening with board games. In other words, what do some of the "better" board games have in common? It seems to me that most board games I've played tend to be either exploitable or primarily luck-based, or sometimes both, whereas I prefer something with more strategy and only a dose of luck, hence my preference for card games.
Where would a game like Life fit into the spectrum of board games? Or Risk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(game))? (Both games I like better than Monopoly, but by no means the best out there...)
Quote from: formulanone on March 08, 2021, 07:20:40 PM
Boggle
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 08, 2021, 08:10:49 PM
Scrabble
Agree with both of these, especially Scrabble. I'm mostly familiar with Boggle because we used to play it in English class.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 08, 2021, 07:37:25 PM
I used to play Scrabble, but I haven't since my ex left.
Well, at least you didn't get stuck with them. Losing eight points sucks.
I see what you did there...
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2021, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
It is not a question of like or dislike, but rather that Monopoly is not a particularly well-balanced game, owing to the fact that it relies on a 2d6 system and doesn't really do anything to mitigate the roll-frequency bell-curve that is inherent to a 2d6 roll. So a Monopoly game comes down to basically a question of has anyone playing figured out how to exploit this, and if multiple players have, who manages to do it first. The next several hours are then that player slowly sucking money out of everyone else.
People can still have fun with a badly-constructed board game, but that doesn't make it a good game. Most people having fun with Monopoly are more having fun with their friends and not with the game itself, and that's okay.
(quoting from this post rather than going back to your first post)
I agree with what you say about Monopoly, and am curious what some general principles are that avoid stuff like this happening with board games. In other words, what do some of the "better" board games have in common? It seems to me that most board games I've played tend to be either exploitable or primarily luck-based, or sometimes both, whereas I prefer something with more strategy and only a dose of luck, hence my preference for card games.
Where would a game like Life fit into the spectrum of board games? Or Risk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(game))? (Both games I like better than Monopoly, but by no means the best out there...)
First off, I think it's worth noting that the taste in board games is extremely diverse and a game that plays really well for certain players' taste will not be favorably received by other players. Degree of luck and skill is one part of it, but there are also a number of different game mechanics that go into a game, and some of them you'll like and some of them you won't. For instance, I've found I really don't like card games that involve a hand-size limit. This enforces a use-it-or-lose-it sort of play style on the players, and having to choose a card or action I have to discard, or forcing me to play a card at a suboptimal time, stresses me out. I'd much rather play a game where I can hang onto that until the right time to play it presents itself. There's really no way of learning your personal taste without simply going out and playing a bunch of games to refine your "palate" and see what kind of game you like.
Also, there are entire genres of games that aren't represented among the classic game set because they've been invented more recently than the classic games have. There's worker-placement games, where you get a limited number of "workers" and you have to determine the optimum place to put them on the board (
Agricola by Uwe Rosenberg is often cited as the best of the genre, but I find
Carcassonne by Klaus-Jürgen Wrede is a good introduction). There's deckbuilders, where you start with a limited number of cards in your personal deck, and use money cards to buy additional cards over the course of the game that you add to your deck, which allow you to take more actions (
Dominion by Donald X. Vaccarino is a great first deckbuilder). And there's even more. Again, you just kind of have to try them all out and see what you click with and what you don't.
Every game falls somewhere along the continuum of luck versus skill. At one end, you have something like a slot machine that has no skill at all. At the other, you have something like chess, where there is no random chance at all. I find that to accurately judge where a game falls on continuum, it helps to imagine how hard it would be to intentionally
lose the game. (How hard it is to win is different–you may just not know enough about the game to win, or you're playing against someone better.) There is no way to intentionally lose at a slot machine, for instance, whereas it's definitely possible to intentionally lose at chess. Is there any way to intentionally lose Life? It'd be kind of hard, because there are so few decision points in the game. And people tend to have very personal opinions about where the sweet spot on that continuum is for a good game.
It's important to note that the mere presence of random chance doesn't mean a game is necessarily primarily luck-based. Instead, the skill may come in
managing randomness. Great examples are poker and Contract Bridge. In poker, you look at your cards and if they suck you just don't play. In Bridge, you take a more defensive tack and just do what you can to prevent your opponent from making their contract. The skill is in recognizing when you are in a favorable or unfavorable position, and playing accordingly at that point.
As to what makes a good or a bad game, here's an interview (https://www.denexa.com/blog/game-design-mechanics-game-balance-makes-good-game/) I did with a couple of guys who know what they're talking about way more than I do on the subject. (It's been a while and the store has changed its name, so I need to go back and fix the dead links there, but maybe I'll have that done by the time you read this.) They reiterate a few of the points that I've made here, and also go a bit more into depth about game balance and mechanics and things like that. There's definitely lots more stuff written on the subject on the Internet if you want to learn more, though.
Settlers of Catan.
Uno played with a standard deck of cards. If you want a Norman Rockwell type scene in your head, two friends and I would always play this in the office in middle school after we got called in waiting to see the assistant principal for being edgelords. Which was a lot.
Quote from: index on March 09, 2021, 04:05:06 AM
Uno played with a standard deck of cards.
Crazy Eights? Or did you work in skips, draws, and reverses somehow? (There are a lot of Crazy Eights variants that do that.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 04:18:52 AM
Quote from: index on March 09, 2021, 04:05:06 AM
Uno played with a standard deck of cards.
Crazy Eights? Or did you work in skips, draws, and reverses somehow? (There are a lot of Crazy Eights variants that do that.)
The latter, variants. Jack added two, queen skipped, king reversed, and we treated aces as a wild card or a draw four+wild depending on the color, red or black.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 11:03:53 PM
For instance, I've found I really don't like card games that involve a hand-size limit. This enforces a use-it-or-lose-it sort of play style on the players, and having to choose a card or action I have to discard, or forcing me to play a card at a suboptimal time, stresses me out. I'd much rather play a game where I can hang onto that until the right time to play it presents itself.
What about a game like Magic, where there's a limit of 7 (unless a card changes it), but it's rare to go above that number (and if you do, you probably have some unusable cards in your hand)?
Card games:
Poker (Texas Hold 'Em, Omaha, Omaha H/L)
Euchre
Hearts
Cards Against Humanity
Exploding Kittens
Board games:
Risk
Stratego
Scrabble
Right now I don't have all that many board games at home. We have two different versions of Monopoly (one the NASCAR version someone gave me, the other a "Mega Monopoly" version), but since it's just the two of us we don't generally play them.
I also have something that might appeal to some folks here: Computer Rage (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/9572/computer-rage). This may be the geekiest board game ever. For me it provokes childhood nostalgia because my fifth-grade teacher had this in the classroom and used to let us take it to the cafeteria to play during lunch. The game has binary dice (so rolling 1-1-1 means you rolled a 7) and is almost certainly the only board game out there with an "Output Queue" space. I found a copy on eBay some years ago.
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/fFLnRzklPeVOnjermbOywA__imagepagezoom/img/VpciehBPPA3Fc73EPQLAVO-OcjM=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic614630.jpg)
I enjoy Trivial Pursuit, but we don't have a copy because, again, it wouldn't be much fun with just the two of us, plus I'd win easily every time because my wife is less into trivia and such than I am.
I ought to look through my mom's basement for old board games. Some we enjoyed a lot when we were kids:
Parcheesi (and a similar game called "Aggravation" that's probably deemed unsafe now because the pieces are marbles)
Scotland Yard
Dungeon (board game based on D&D)
I know Mom has our old Star Wars board games (Escape from Death Star and Destroy Death Star) somewhere, as well as the Game of Life (the 1970s version) and another old version of Monopoly. I don't remember how many of our other board games are in her basement, but I recall we had Risk but didn't play it very often, and I had the Mad Magazine Game but it wore out its entertainment value too quickly. I know there are others down there, but off the top of my head I don't know what. I suppose Mom wouldn't care if I took them all, but I don't have a good storage space for them unless I build another shelf in the garage.
My brother and mother used to like playing Scrabble. I stopped playing it with them years ago due to certain "house rules" they have that make the game take way too long (among other things). Plus I have a bad memory from the early 1980s: I didn't know their house rules weren't part of the actual rules and I got embarrassed by that at school once.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 11:03:53 PM
First off, I think it's worth noting that the taste in board games is extremely diverse and a game that plays really well for certain players' taste will not be favorably received by other players. ...
Every game falls somewhere along the continuum of luck versus skill. At one end, you have something like a slot machine that has no skill at all. At the other, you have something like chess, where there is no random chance at all. ...
It's important to note that the mere presence of random chance doesn't mean a game is necessarily primarily luck-based. Instead, the skill may come in managing randomness. Great examples are poker and Contract Bridge. In poker, you look at your cards and if they suck you just don't play. In Bridge, you take a more defensive tack and just do what you can to prevent your opponent from making their contract. The skill is in recognizing when you are in a favorable or unfavorable position, and playing accordingly at that point.
As to what makes a good or a bad game, here's an interview (https://www.denexa.com/blog/game-design-mechanics-game-balance-makes-good-game/) I did with a couple of guys who know what they're talking about way more than I do on the subject. ...
Thanks! That was all really interesting, including some points (luck vs. skill, managing randomness) that make a lot of sense and had just never occurred to me before, at least not in those terms. Great interview, as well.
Quote from: 1 on March 09, 2021, 07:21:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 11:03:53 PM
For instance, I've found I really don't like card games that involve a hand-size limit. This enforces a use-it-or-lose-it sort of play style on the players, and having to choose a card or action I have to discard, or forcing me to play a card at a suboptimal time, stresses me out. I'd much rather play a game where I can hang onto that until the right time to play it presents itself.
What about a game like Magic, where there's a limit of 7 (unless a card changes it), but it's rare to go above that number (and if you do, you probably have some unusable cards in your hand)?
This was a point I was interested in as well. What about card games played in rounds? For example, in a game like Rook where you start with a certain number of cards, but can still choose when to play which card (although there are some limits, like having to play the color if you have it). I don't find that type of game stressful, exactly, but it can be challenging and kind of fun to decide how to play your hand (I suppose this could also be considered managing randomness to some degree, especially if you pay close enough attention to know which cards have been played, but there's some luck as well).
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2021, 08:03:56 AM
Scotland Yard
That reminds me of Clue. And there's another British-themed one where you're tasked with finding the villain and it makes certain noises depending on where he is and how far he's traveled. Can't remember what it's called, though, and not even Google could help. I'll have to see if we still have it at home.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2021, 08:03:56 AM
I stopped playing it with them years ago due to certain "house rules" they have that make the game take way too long (among other things).
Our number one house rule seems to be exactly that: take as long as humanly possible to find a word with one more point than something you've already found.
I made a Python program that is Extended UNO. It has an 1824-card deck from these games:
- UNO, including the action cards from many themed sets
- UNO Hearts (listed separately because the real game plays like a trick-taking game)
- Your standard 52-card deck, plus two jokers (wild), plus the Six-Handed 500 extension (11-13 of each suit) and the 21 trumps in a tarot deck (no knights, though)
- Rack-O (these cards and the 21 trumps have no color; instead, the two-digit ones have two digits; e.g. a Rack-O 12 can be played as a 1, 2, or 12)
- Skip-Bo; play on a number one less, e.g. a Skip-Bo 8 can be played on a 7 but not an 8 (color matches still work)
- Phase 10
- Rook
- Sorry, with three different color schemes; Sorry card refills next player to 7 cards, but is not a wild
- Five Crowns
- Some, but not all, Monopoly Deal cards. Its number is the value in the upper right corner, and its color is the property color (brown = purple), or if it's an action card, the card color.
- Rage, number cards only
- Sorry! Card Revenge (non-action cards are "add one" just like Skip-Bo)
- Sorry! Revenge Card Game (yes this is a different game from the above, and they're not "add one" cards unlike the above)
- Super Taki (this game actually plays like UNO for real, but with more complicated action cards)
- Farkle Flip (if you're forced to draw multiple cards, except for the opening hand, and you draw a Farkle, you can reveal it, and you stop drawing)
- DOS
- O'NO 99
- Bottle Imp
- Haggis
- Tichu
The game has 7 colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, black), but not at equal frequency, and some cards (described above) have no color, and a few Monopoly Deal cards have two colors. Numbers are not restricted to 0-9, but lower numbers are more common than higher numbers.
Some of the complicated parts are from the UNO specialized action cards. For example, the Farkle stop drawing mentioned above even if it's not your opponent – Star Trek Uno has a wild card where you have the option to discard your hand and replace it with a new hand of the same size. Then there is the Racer X card (also from a specialized UNO deck), which starts a minigame where you must play cards one higher than the previous card, ignoring all actions, and the first player who can't is forced to draw 3 cards. (Keep in mind that regular UNO decks have no numbered action cards.) There's a Minecraft UNO Creeper where each opponent draws 3 when you
draw it (except in the initial hand), unless blocked (yes, these cards exist, too).
All cards have a number except for some action cards. Wilds that wouldn't otherwise have a number are 0, so you can play a 0 (or a Skip-Bo 1) on a regular wild; many decks have the equivalent of a wild. Draw 2 cards are 2s (and Harry Potter UNO has Draw 3s instead, which are 3s), and wild draw 4s are 4s; since a player can always call the rarest color out of seven after playing a wild (which is useful if it's your penultimate card and your last card is colorless), there's always the option to match number instead.
The game draws from an infinite deck, and the opponents don't cheat. You can only play out of turn when prompted, and if more than one player would do something at the same time (or has the option to play at the same time in response to something), it goes in turn order. The game tells you which cards are valid plays at any given time.
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2021, 08:35:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2021, 08:03:56 AM
Scotland Yard
That reminds me of Clue. And there's another British-themed one where you're tasked with finding the villain and it makes certain noises depending on where he is and how far he's traveled. Can't remember what it's called, though, and not even Google could help. I'll have to see if we still have it at home.
....
I forgot about Clue. Scotland Yard was a bit different and might be the sort of game that would interest folks here (except one poster who is against mass transit) because the fugitive has to use London's transportation network (taxis, buses, the Tube, and ferries) to try to escape the other players.
Edited to add: Discussing detective games reminds me that my brother had a game someone gave him called 221B Baker Street. As the name implies, it was Sherlock Holmes themed. I don't remember us playing it much because I think we decided it was too complicated.
Scotland Yard >>> Clue.
That said, my kids and us like playing Clue because it's such a stupid game.
Forgot about Clue, that's another favorite of mine. I even got the SNES version for Christmas last year.
I used to play Magic: the Gathering quite a bit. I don't play anymore but I still participate in the game's community and was a rules advisor for the game until they discontinued that program.
One of our favorite games is Phase 10.
I picked up "Flip Uno" on a whim this year as a little stocking stuffer for my wife. Each card is two sided. Basically, it's regular Uno on one side (with a few modern changes to Action/Wild cards), and then a 2nd Uno game on the other side, again with regular Uno 0 - 9, but with different colors, and various Action/Wild cards. The 2 sided cards don't match up, so if you're holding two Red 9's, the other side could be a Purple 3 and a Green Reverse. The action cards include 'Flip', which means everyone flips their hands to the other side, and you flip the draw and discard piles too. Yes, you can see the backside of other's cards when they're holding them, so there is some strategy involved playing a flip card.
At first, it seemed a bit confusing, but became a lot of fun once we played it a few times.
This thread is giving me the urge to go on eBay and pick up a copy of Trump: The Game and send it to my brother in May as a birthday present. He would not appreciate it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2021, 09:36:15 AM
This thread is giving me the urge to go on eBay and pick up a copy of Trump: The Game and send it to my brother in May as a birthday present. He would not appreciate it.
Hahaha...I have that game sitting in the living room right now! I got it probably 30 years ago, and it's basically sat in the Attic since. I don't think I every truly played it. The box looks like a box sitting in the attic for 30 years, but the game inside is actually in pretty good shape.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 08, 2021, 07:37:25 PM
I used to play Scrabble, but I haven’t since my ex left.
Well, at least you didn't get stuck with them. Losing eight points sucks.
I don’t know, it wasn’t all bad. She hated losing, but it also turned her on for some reason.
Um...anyway, I’ve never played Clue.
I've always enjoyed cribbage and euchre as my favorite card games, and Trivial Pursuit as a board game. I need to check out some of these newer games, although I bought a copy of Exploding Kittens during their Kickstarter but haven't ever had the opportunity to play it.
Quote from: formulanone on March 08, 2021, 07:20:40 PM
I'm actually terrible at Uno, but the kids love it. We play either the "one card draw" method, or we have a randomizer which spits out between 0-4 cards at a button press.
We've found most rounds go on a little too long for "keep drawing until you can play something" version (which I don't recall in the rules but seems to be the most popular).
I'm a real stickler about going by the original rules (or at least the very first revision of them). Draw only one card. No stacking action cards. There does exist one ambiguity in the original rules: If you play a Wild Draw Four illegally, and another player calls you out on it and makes you draw cards, does your Wild Draw Four still stand? In our house rules, the answer is yes, but I'm not opposed if you say it shouldn't stand.
Quote from: index on March 09, 2021, 04:28:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 04:18:52 AM
Quote from: index on March 09, 2021, 04:05:06 AM
Uno played with a standard deck of cards.
Crazy Eights? Or did you work in skips, draws, and reverses somehow? (There are a lot of Crazy Eights variants that do that.)
The latter, variants. Jack added two, queen skipped, king reversed, and we treated aces as a wild card or a draw four+wild depending on the color, red or black.
I was taught a similar game in Poland back in the late 1990s. (I still have the deck of cards, and it throws people off that W is Jack and D is Queen.) After a while, though, I rediscovered Crazy Eights and forgot all about that Polish version.
I also like dominos. My favorite dominos game is Chicken Foot.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2021, 09:31:32 AM
Phase 10.
That's another one of my favorites, except we don't have it at home. Really fun.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 11:31:25 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 08, 2021, 07:20:40 PM
I'm actually terrible at Uno, but the kids love it. We play either the "one card draw" method, or we have a randomizer which spits out between 0-4 cards at a button press.
We've found most rounds go on a little too long for "keep drawing until you can play something" version (which I don't recall in the rules but seems to be the most popular).
I'm a real stickler about going by the original rules (or at least the very first revision of them). Draw only one card. No stacking action cards. There does exist one ambiguity in the original rules: If you play a Wild Draw Four illegally, and another player calls you out on it and makes you draw cards, does your Wild Draw Four still stand? In our house rules, the answer is yes, but I'm not opposed if you say it shouldn't stand.
I only learned about the Challenge rule last year, when we got the randomizer. We've always just kept the announced color going, to preserve sanity (after all, if they'd been caught bluffing, it doesn't really matter so much).
When we used to play for points 30-35 years ago, I thought I was pretty good; but few folks want to break out a scoring pad, they just want to get onto the next game.
Quote
I also like dominos. My favorite dominos game is Chicken Foot.
We play that one too; we use scoring (each dot [pip] is a point and you want the fewest number overall) but I wonder if the dynamic changes much by taking away the scoring, and just go for absolute wins. Everyone is very patient while we tally up the scores, but nobody seems to care much if we want to try it for Uno. Playing all 13 rounds with a Double-12 set takes about 5 hours, so it's usually spread out over two weekends.
So far, I have yet to get a "chicken foot" or "chicken leg" right out of the box.
I also like the basic game, best played with 3-4 and a double-six set with spinner pins on a table that isn't fancy.
Quote from: formulanone on March 09, 2021, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 11:31:25 AM
I also like dominos. My favorite dominos game is Chicken Foot.
We play that one too; we use scoring (each dot [pip] is a point and you want the fewest number overall) but I wonder if the dynamic changes much by taking away the scoring, and just go for absolute wins. Playing all 13 rounds takes about 5 hours, so it's usually spread out over two weekends.
Oh, you forgot one key part of the scoring: a double-blank is 50 points.
Quote from: 1 on March 09, 2021, 07:21:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 11:03:53 PM
For instance, I've found I really don't like card games that involve a hand-size limit. This enforces a use-it-or-lose-it sort of play style on the players, and having to choose a card or action I have to discard, or forcing me to play a card at a suboptimal time, stresses me out. I'd much rather play a game where I can hang onto that until the right time to play it presents itself.
What about a game like Magic, where there's a limit of 7 (unless a card changes it), but it's rare to go above that number (and if you do, you probably have some unusable cards in your hand)?
That's better, but it still bothers me, because there's a chance that the unusable cards will become usable in latter stages of the hand, and I will be wishing I had been able to keep them.
I have never really been into MTG or other CCGs because much of being good at the game involves being either lucky or rich enough to get the right cards to add to your deck.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 03:17:12 PM
I have never really been into MTG or other CCGs because much of being good at the game involves being either lucky or rich enough to get the right cards to add to your deck.
Yeah. Deck building seems to be half of the fun for people who enjoy playing those kinds of games.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 09, 2021, 04:22:06 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 03:17:12 PM
I have never really been into MTG or other CCGs because much of being good at the game involves being either lucky or rich enough to get the right cards to add to your deck.
Yeah. Deck building seems to be half of the fun for people who enjoy playing those kinds of games.
Right, and I don't mind that. Building a deck that accomplishes whatever strategy you want could be really fun (and is why I like deck-builders like Dominion). The problem I have with CCGs is that you can't go on the Wizards of the Coast website and say, order 20 swamps, 5 of [insert monster here], and a couple [insert action card here]. Instead, you have to buy foil-wrapped booster packs with a couple dozen cards in them and hope a card that you want is in there. So if there's a rare card that makes your deck good you either have to buy hundreds of those packs and hope you get lucky, or go on eBay and pay an inflated price for it. And some of the very best cards have limited print runs, cause that makes WOTC more money.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 07:48:13 PM
And some of the very best cards have limited print runs, cause that makes WOTC more money.
The best cards (specifically the Power Nine) have limited print runs because they're in the first set ever made, and they weren't expecting the game to be a huge hit, nor did they know those cards were extremely powerful, having nothing to compare it to. After the first set, they stopped printing them.
Have they really only taken 9 cards out of print in the whole time the game's been running? I thought it was far more frequent than that.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 08:07:31 PM
Have they really only taken 9 cards out of print in the whole time the game's been running? I thought it was far more frequent than that.
Only about half of cards get reprinted. Sometimes it's because rules changes make them complicated, sometimes it's because they doesn't fit flavor purposes for the newer sets, quite often it's because they're not powerful
enough (many of the earlier cards are bad because they were afraid of printing cards that were as powerful as the Power Nine and therefore would have to be banned in most formats), and sometimes they just haven't gotten to it yet.
Older cards can be used in some formats, but not others.
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:00:44 PMDutch Blitz.
Definitely the fastest game I've ever played. That makes it a lot of fun.
As for the loudest game I've ever played, well, that would have to be Pit.
Cards Against Humanity especially if all involved parties have had some drinks
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2021, 09:48:01 PM
As for the loudest game I've ever played, well, that would have to be Pit.
We don't even use the Bear or Bull card at all. Just the commodity cards, a bell, and a lot of yelling.
Pit is the only indoor game during which I've seen someone body-block a clergyman.
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2021, 01:55:34 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2021, 09:48:01 PM
As for the loudest game I've ever played, well, that would have to be Pit.
We don't even use the Bear or Bull card at all. Just the commodity cards, a bell, and a lot of yelling.
Oh, the Bear and Bull cards are part of what makes it IMO. It takes the game to another level of excitement and frenzy (although you might not need that if you've got participants body-blocking each other even
without those cards).
I like Monopoly. Sure, it sucks when the dice don't roll the way you want them to. But there's more skill involved than people like to believe.
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2021, 10:22:58 PM
I like Monopoly. Sure, it sucks when the dice don't roll the way you want them to. But there's more skill involved than people like to believe.
Yes and I've been to A.C. so I know which streets were the inspiration behind the names on the board itself.
I enjoy Monopoly, Sorry! Or the LIFE game. Brings back memories...
I'm not really into board games but I like monopoly.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 14, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
I'm not really into board games but I like monopoly.
Same here. I used to play them when I was younger.
No love for Spades around here, ehh?
I don't play it a lot, but its a fun game when you have a foursome that knows how to play
Euchre has been mentioned - thats a fun and quick game
Hearts is good fun, also
No love for Contract Bridge?
I've been a semi-serious player for 20-25 years. I used to play a lot at organized tournaments (the "Duplicate" variation of Bridge) in the eastern US - at least until COVID-19 put a stop to gatherings like that.
A good part of my "Travel Mapping" route list came from travel to and from these tournaments LOL.
And as a kid, my family had an entire closet of board games - some classics (Monopoly, Life, Sorry), some a bit more obscure (Dealer's Choice, Masterpiece), some of the "Bookshelf" games (Acquire, Bazaar), and dozens whose names escape me right now.
Haven't played actual Monopoly in years... Though I was introduced to Monopoly DEAL!, and have enjoyed many a game of that over the last few years.
I haven't really done any games since Covid shut everything down (Usually at least once a week I'd get together with some friends at a local brewpub for some games prior).
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2021, 10:22:58 PM
I like Monopoly. Sure, it sucks when the dice don't roll the way you want them to. But there's more skill involved than people like to believe.
The dice not rolling the way that you want them to isn't the problem. The problem is that when you have two dice, probability dictates that the results fall on a bell curve, so that the result of a game is preordained if someone figures out the most frequently-visited spaces (jail) and sets up 7 spaces away from them (the oranges).
This mathematical phenomenon is why the number 7 is a key number in craps (it is the most likely outcome of rolling 2d6, followed by 6 and 8, then 5 and 9, and so on).
1d12 won't help. It still follows a bell curve; the only difference is that it's over multiple turns instead of one.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 15, 2021, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2021, 10:22:58 PM
I like Monopoly. Sure, it sucks when the dice don't roll the way you want them to. But there's more skill involved than people like to believe.
The dice not rolling the way that you want them to isn't the problem. The problem is that when you have two dice, probability dictates that the results fall on a bell curve, so that the result of a game is preordained if someone figures out the most frequently-visited spaces (jail) and sets up 7 spaces away from them (the oranges).
This mathematical phenomenon is why the number 7 is a key number in craps (it is the most likely outcome of rolling 2d6, followed by 6 and 8, then 5 and 9, and so on).
Settlers of Catan figured out the 2d6 7 needs dealt with, hence why it is the "Robber" throw in that game
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 07:29:55 PM
1d12 won't help. It still follows a bell curve; the only difference is that it's over multiple turns instead of one.
Why would a fair 1d12 follow a bell curve? The only reason 2d6 follows a bell curve is because there are more ways to make 7 with 2d6 than there are any other number:
(https://i.imgur.com/8u8B6Zy.png)
(Apologies for the quick and dirty book scan, but I couldn't find anything on the Internet that displays what I'm talking about this artfully.)
On a d12, though, there is only one way to make any number, so each number should theoretically come up 1/12 of the time. Unless I'm missing something on the math here.
The only weird thing would be the result of making 1 a valid throw. I don't know what the implications of that would be, if any.
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 15, 2021, 07:30:51 PM
Settlers of Catan figured out the 2d6 7 needs dealt with, hence why it is the "Robber" throw in that game
Right, and it is also why the 6 and 8 tokens are printed in red. (Each of the tokens also displays a number of dots showing the relative likelihood of being thrown.)
Over two turns, it would be 2d12. Over three turns, it would be 3d12.
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Over two turns, it would be 2d12. Over three turns, it would be 3d12.
No, it doesn't
2nd roll is n+1d12. Counting the "total" combined rolls, even if you roll a 1 on the first roll, you can follow with a 12 and put the 13th spot in play. That is not possible on Roll 1. If you roll a 12 initially, you have a completely new outcome set on your 2nd roll. Everything in-between is a varying probability of having a potential outcome 2 (or more) rolls in a row or an outright new outcome
Also, every throw is an independent event. Assuming a "balanced" 1d12, no individual throw favors any particular number. On a pair of dice, 2d6 or 2d12, you will have an uneven distrubtion of numbers, due to the 2 die not being independent events
The suggestion you make is like saying there is some bell curve to Roulette. Hint: There is not. It is basically a 1d38 die (except that it is a wheel)
Just remember, when the event happens, the probability becomes 1. :D
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 15, 2021, 07:57:49 PM
The suggestion you make is like saying there is some bell curve to Roulette. Hint: There is not. It is basically a 1d38 die (except that it is a wheel)
It doesn't matter what the previous number is in roulette. In Monopoly, where you are after two turns is the sum of each turn. Since jail is common, so is 13 spaces past jail (ignoring how doubles to get out of jail works).
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 08:05:37 PM
It doesn't matter what the previous number is in roulette. In Monopoly, where you are after two turns is the sum of each turn. Since jail is common, so is 13 spaces past jail (ignoring how doubles to get out of jail works).
That doesn't affect the roll distribution, though.
Look at the chart I posted on the last page: the most frequent roll is 7, because there are more combinations on two six-sided dice that result in a sum of 7 than any other number. Say you are starting from Jail and roll 2d6. Because of the roll distribution, the most likely space you will land on is 7 spaces after jail, the Community Chest space in the middle of the oranges. The two next most likely spaces to land on are St. James Place (rolling a 6) or Tennessee Avenue (rolling an 8).
If you start on Jail and roll 1d12, each space from St. Charles Place through the Chance space in the middle of the reds is equally likely, because every number 1—12 on a d12 can only be rolled one way (since they each appear as one face of the die), therefore they are equally likely to be rolled.
The most commonly landed on property in Monopoly (with the standard 2d6) is 14 spaces past jail – not 6 or 8 (7 isn't a property, but it's still less common than 14 because you can't roll doubles with a 7). You have to look past a single turn.
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 08:38:31 PM
The most commonly landed on property in Monopoly (with the standard 2d6) is 14 spaces past jail – not 6 or 8 (7 isn't a property, but it's still less common than 14 because you can't roll doubles with a 7). You have to look past a single turn.
That space–Illinois Avenue–is 7 spaces after the Community Chest space that is 7 spaces after Jail. Thus, it is the result of rolling two sevens in a row (among other things). Or the likeliest next result after already landing on the likeliest space coming out of Jail.
Using 1d12, you only have a 8% chance of landing on that Community Chest space when starting from jail, and you also only have an 8% chance of ending up on Illinois if you do land on the Community Chest space. Using 2d6, you have a 17% chance of landing on the Community Chest space (since 6 of the possible 36 dice rolls land you there), and then a 17% chance of landing on Illinois Avenue after that.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 15, 2021, 08:49:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2021, 08:38:31 PM
The most commonly landed on property in Monopoly (with the standard 2d6) is 14 spaces past jail – not 6 or 8 (7 isn't a property, but it's still less common than 14 because you can't roll doubles with a 7). You have to look past a single turn.
That space–Illinois Avenue–is 7 spaces after the Community Chest space that is 7 spaces after Jail. Thus, it is the result of rolling two sevens in a row (among other things). Or the likeliest next result after already landing on the likeliest space coming out of Jail.
Using 1d12, you only have a 8% chance of landing on that Community Chest space when starting from jail, and you also only have an 8% chance of ending up on Illinois if you do land on the Community Chest space. Using 2d6, you have a 17% chance of landing on the Community Chest space (since 6 of the possible 36 dice rolls land you there), and then a 17% chance of landing on Illinois Avenue after that.
14 is 7+7 or 6+8 or 8+6. Isn't that what makes it so common? (Pressed for time, not working out the math myself right now.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 15, 2021, 08:49:51 PM
Using 1d12, you only have a 8% chance of landing on that Community Chest space when starting from jail, and you also only have an 8% chance of ending up on Illinois if you do land on the Community Chest space. Using 2d6, you have a 17% chance of landing on the Community Chest space (since 6 of the possible 36 dice rolls land you there), and then a 17% chance of landing on Illinois Avenue after that.
With 1d12, 13 is more common than 14. You have a 1 in 12 chance of landing on 13 past jail after two turns, since you need the correct number for the second roll, and whatever you roll first never makes it impossible. (It's also possible to land on it after 3 or more turns, but that's much rarer.)
Googling 4d6, the chance of rolling 14 is 146/1296, or 11.3%. More of a difference than I thought (1 in 12 is 8.3%), but not the (17%/8%)² that you implied.
Your understanding of probability is not correct. 2d6 rolled twice is not equivalent to 4d6.
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2021, 08:51:20 PM
14 is 7+7 or 6+8 or 8+6. Isn't that what makes it so common? (Pressed for time, not working out the math myself right now.)
Yes.
I'm loving the 2d6 dice discussion. Getting me warmed up for Vegas Spring Break and the Craps table!
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 15, 2021, 08:58:14 PM
Your understanding of probability is not correct. 2d6 rolled twice is not equivalent to 4d6.
Can you explain it to me? I can't wrap my mind around the statistical difference between the two scenarios:
(a) Rolling two dice with my right hand and two dice with my left hand, then counting the total number of pips;
(b) Rolling two dice and counting the number of pips, then rolling two dice again and counting the number of pips.
That is to say, what is wrong with my approach below?
All possible combinations of two rolls, two dice each roll:
(https://i.imgur.com/C89P859.png)
Distribution of total pips:
(https://i.imgur.com/kD6IY1V.png)
On 2d6, a roll of 7 has a 6/36 = 17% chance (because there are six ways to roll 7, out of 36 equally likely combinations). On 4d6, a roll of 14 has a 146/1296 = 11% chance of coming up.
(Thanks for doing the combination analysis for me. I was going to do something similar with d4s to reduce the number of combinations, but it got tedious so I stopped.)
The difference between rolling twice as opposed to rolling a combined roll is also important in the context of a game, because something can happen as a result of the first roll that affects the second (for example, you land on a Chance space that moves you to Go or Jail or back 3 spaces, or you land on a space that bankrupts you so there is no way to even do the second roll).
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 15, 2021, 08:58:14 PM
Your understanding of probability is not correct. 2d6 rolled twice is not equivalent to 4d6.
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
Can you explain it to me? I can't wrap my mind around the statistical difference between the two scenarios:
(a) Rolling two dice with my right hand and two dice with my left hand, then counting the total number of pips;
(b) Rolling two dice and counting the number of pips, then rolling two dice again and counting the number of pips.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2021, 04:48:47 PM
On 2d6, a roll of 7 has a 6/36 = 17% chance (because there are six ways to roll 7, out of 36 equally likely combinations). On 4d6, a roll of 14 has a 146/1296 = 11% chance of coming up.
But we're not only talking about rolling 7 twice. We're talking about a total of 14 over the course of two rolls, which can be accomplished in 146 ways out of 1296–same as rolling all four dice at the same time. Right?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2021, 04:48:47 PM
The difference between rolling twice as opposed to rolling a combined roll is also important in the context of a game, because something can happen as a result of the first roll that affects the second (for example, you land on a Chance space that moves you to Go or Jail or back 3 spaces, or you land on a space that bankrupts you so there is no way to even do the second roll).
Yes, that will affect the probability in real life, because all spaces are not equal. But, when it comes to the actual rolling of the dice, I still don't see the difference.
At this point I would have to consult the experts who taught me this to be confident in not getting details wrong going forward. Such is the problem with math.
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2021, 05:05:10 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2021, 04:48:47 PM
The difference between rolling twice as opposed to rolling a combined roll is also important in the context of a game, because something can happen as a result of the first roll that affects the second (for example, you land on a Chance space that moves you to Go or Jail or back 3 spaces, or you land on a space that bankrupts you so there is no way to even do the second roll).
Yes, that will affect the probability in real life, because all spaces are not equal. But, when it comes to the actual rolling of the dice, I still don't see the difference.
Yeah, unless there is some kind of intermediate outcome based on the first of two rolls, rolling a pair of dice twice produces the same outcome probabilities as rolling four dice once.
Monopoly to change "outdated" Community Chest cards: https://www.radio.com/news/monopoly-replaces-outdated-community-chest-cards-in-makeover
Quote from: Big John on March 21, 2021, 04:20:55 PM
Monopoly to change "outdated" Community Chest cards: https://www.radio.com/news/monopoly-replaces-outdated-community-chest-cards-in-makeover
"You have invented a time machine. Keep this card. After rolling, before you move, you may put it on the bottom of the Community Chest pile and reroll the dice. This card may be sold or traded."
"Your GPS hasn't been updated and you take a wrong turn. You must switch places with another player. Act as if you landed on the new space you are on, but the player you swapped with does not draw a Community Chest card."
"Your car is having problems. For the next two rolls, roll one die instead of two."
"Stimulus check! If you have less than $1,000 and don't own any monopolies, collect $600."
"Crap! The next player to roll a 7 must pay $100."
Quote from: Big John on March 21, 2021, 04:20:55 PM
Monopoly to change "outdated" Community Chest cards: https://www.radio.com/news/monopoly-replaces-outdated-community-chest-cards-in-makeover
But...finishing in second place in that beauty contest is the unexpected reward for something nobody thought they were contesting. It's only a diss if you're vain on a level of children's stories, but a promotion for just being yourself. It's a reward because your mother always thinks you look good. It's the complement you never knew you needed. And even though it won't save you much when landing on someone else's hotel, it's that extra mint on your pillow.
One really has to be lacking antidepressants to find a negative meaning for that card. At no time does the card ask anyone to bear their chest, make it rain one-sided bills, or throw the prettiest player into the volcano* for the card to have any deleterious effect on morale and gender stereotypes.
* house rules may vary.
How do you even end up in a beauty contest without entering? Were unexpected beauty contests, where everyone in some store or whatever would be rounded up and you might get given $10 for being prettier than everyone but one person, a thing back in the 1930s when the game was made? And if not, would someone enter a beauty contest if they didn't think they'd get first prize?
(https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/208/20857/2085792.gif)
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 14, 2021, 08:39:36 AM
(https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/208/20857/2085792.gif)
Look carefully. The closest side of the game board to the reader has 8 spaces between corners. The actual Monopoly board has 10.
Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2021, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 14, 2021, 08:39:36 AM
(https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/208/20857/2085792.gif)
Look carefully. The closest side of the game board to the reader has 8 spaces between corners. The actual Monopoly board has 10.
Look carefully. The kids don't have the correct number of fingers.
Look carefully. The dad's nose is disproportionately large for his face.
Look carefully. The mom's eyes go nearly all the way to the top of her skull.
Look carefully. The boy is wearing Calvin's shirt.
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2021, 10:25:15 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2021, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 14, 2021, 08:39:36 AM
(https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/208/20857/2085792.gif)
Look carefully. The closest side of the game board to the reader has 8 spaces between corners. The actual Monopoly board has 10.
Look carefully. The kids don't have the correct number of fingers.
Look carefully. The dad's nose is disproportionately large for his face.
Look carefully. The mom's eyes go nearly all the way to the top of her skull.
Look carefully. The boy is wearing Calvin's shirt.
Look carefully. The mom is a cyclops whose eyeball has two pupils. (Perhaps she's distantly related to Sonic the Hedgehog.)
Quote from: 1 on March 21, 2021, 04:27:27 PM
Quote from: Big John on March 21, 2021, 04:20:55 PM
Monopoly to change "outdated" Community Chest cards: https://www.radio.com/news/monopoly-replaces-outdated-community-chest-cards-in-makeover
"You have invented a time machine. Keep this card. After rolling, before you move, you may put it on the bottom of the Community Chest pile and reroll the dice. This card may be sold or traded."
"Your GPS hasn't been updated and you take a wrong turn. You must switch places with another player. Act as if you landed on the new space you are on, but the player you swapped with does not draw a Community Chest card."
"Your car is having problems. For the next two rolls, roll one die instead of two."
"Stimulus check! If you have less than $1,000 and don't own any monopolies, collect $600."
"Crap! The next player to roll a 7 must pay $100."
"Trains have been delayed! Each player owes $100 per railroad owned."
"It snowed in Texas! If you own any utilities, pay $250"
"Your wife is divorcing you! Give everything to the bank, you lose!"
My favorite game is played on mats, and it's called wrestling.
My favorite table-top game is arm-wrestling.
As for board games, about the only two that I've ever been able to get interested in are Chess and Monopoly. I did read some of the earlier discussion about how people can exploit Monopoly because of the dice system. I hadn't given it that much thought before. My personal strategy is usually to buy as many properties as feasible up-front, and then build on the cheaper properties as quickly as possible. I've known a fair amount of people who are really good at Chess, and I think it's because they have more patience than I do.
I'd really like to get better at chess, but I've never managed to find anyone to play with that is about my skill level. Either I completely demolish them or they completely demolish me, neither of which is much fun.
I say about chess the same thing that I've heard some people say about Rook: I'd like to learn how to play it, but it seems fairly complicated, and I don't get it just from watching.
Quote from: webny99 on April 16, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
I say about chess the same thing that I've heard some people say about Rook: I'd like to learn how to play it, but it seems fairly complicated, and I don't get it just from watching.
Chess is actually stupidly simple. Getting
good at it is what's complicated!
Rook is also pretty simple–it's just a trick-taking game played with non-standard cards. If you're not familiar with the genre, try starting with Whist (https://www.denexa.com/blog/whist/) and, once that becomes old hat, you should find Rook less daunting.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2021, 06:36:35 PM
Rook is also pretty simple–it's just a trick-taking game played with non-standard cards. If you're not familiar with the genre, try starting with Whist (https://www.denexa.com/blog/whist/) and, once that becomes old hat, you should find Rook less daunting.
It's actually not that nonstandard. You have a fourteenth card in each suit, that's all.
Quote from: 1 on April 16, 2021, 06:49:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2021, 06:36:35 PM
Rook is also pretty simple–it's just a trick-taking game played with non-standard cards. If you're not familiar with the genre, try starting with Whist (https://www.denexa.com/blog/whist/) and, once that becomes old hat, you should find Rook less daunting.
It's actually not that nonstandard. You have a fourteenth card in each suit, that's all.
"Non-standard" in this case means a proprietary deck that can only be purchased from one supplier. In the US and England, that'd be any deck that can't be derived from one or more 52-card decks composed of A-K-Q-J-10...2 in diamonds, hearts, clubs, and spades. (Other countries have different standard decks, often with only 32 cards, using different suits, like bells and leaves.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2021, 06:36:35 PM
Rook is also pretty simple–it's just a trick-taking game played with non-standard cards. If you're not familiar with the genre, try starting with Whist (https://www.denexa.com/blog/whist/) and, once that becomes old hat, you should find Rook less daunting.
Yeah, I know - I've played Rook a lot, so I was sort of using that to think about how someone else might feel about my similar take on chess. Rook really isn't that hard, although I do still make an occasional blunder when I don't think things through properly, especially as the bidder. I'd be afraid of doing the same thing in chess.
Catching your opponent in a blunder, and exploiting when your opponent has made a blunder, is basically what all of chess is about.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2021, 08:03:54 PM
Catching your opponent in a blunder, and exploiting when your opponent has made a blunder, is basically what all of chess is about.
Well, right, and I can't stand the thought of the outcome hinging on a stupid error I made. I know that's part of the fun, but I tend to prefer long games that hinge on the cumulative and can't completely unravel in a single play or two.
Quote from: webny99 on April 16, 2021, 09:46:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 16, 2021, 08:03:54 PM
Catching your opponent in a blunder, and exploiting when your opponent has made a blunder, is basically what all of chess is about.
Well, right, and I can't stand the thought of the outcome hinging on a stupid error I made. I know that's part of the fun, but I tend to prefer long games that hinge on the cumulative and can't completely unravel in a single play or two.
Can't argue with that. It can be really satisfying when you make a mistake, catch your error, and manage to successfully recover.
Just picked up three new ones for my gaming group.
Azul - Super light, easy to teach to anyone, deceptively strategic
Wingspan - A little more involved, among the prettiest games I've ever seen, I think this one would appeal to most
Brass: Birmingham - A lot heavier, but easily the best game of the bunch
Chris
I know this is an old thread, but no need to start a new one. I've been playing a ton of Age of Steam lately and since I know there are a lot of railfans on this site too, I was curious if anyone else had ever played any train games.
I referenced board games in my original post. If I was to pick a video game the one I always find my way back to is Doom, Doom II and Final Doom. The original games are so well designed and there is so much community WAD maps to load up for new experiences. I never really got into the source port stuff or Brutal Doom much.
Backgammon or poker, either in person or online, no keepsies