Yeah, played all kinds of those games. Played those hell out of those FASA games like Battletech, and Renegade Legion back in the day, plus lots of other Hex-and-chit games now and them.
Harpoon was just shit.
Punto banco, i.e. “North American baccarat.” The game is entirely played out by the croupier, and the “player” makes zero choices; it’s entirely a game of chance. All the player does is bet, and is primarily just a spectator like everyone else.
The outcome would be predetermined if every game went through all 5 community cards and everybody stayed in. But that’s not at all what happens most of the time. The cards are really secondary to the game. The main game mechanic is betting and playing the other players. It’s a really, really good game. I’m not much of a player myself, but there is a lot of skill to playing it well.
There’s an easy way to make Candyland more of a game. Since you draw cards and move based on the card you draw, set it up so that each player is dealt a stack of 5 cards, like a poker hand. On each player’s turn, they draw a card, then play one of the 6 cards they have in their hand. That way there is real decision-making involved, as you can somewhat plan ahead. And there is some tension involved because you don’t know what cards your opponents hold.
This is derived from the “advanced” rules that came with my daughter’s game, which has you draw two cards and play one.
I’m not sure the game would be that much better but I’m curious to see how it would be.
But you could not bet on those things in a way that made sense or in a way that exhibited different levels of skill. You unquestionably can do those things in poker.
This is true of most casino games. Roulette lets you choose numbers but any choice is as good as any other; some other games has no element of strategy, like Keno, slot machines or craps, and the ones that do like blackjack can be learned very quickly (or you can just sit there with a strategy card, which pretty much any casino allows) and once you learn it you’re still stuck at a disadvantage that can never be altered. I’m not sure I’d even call those “games” in the sense that I think of Monopoly or chess as “games.” Only the poker room really is a game in that sense.
I can’t imagine trying to play it with paper and pencil. It sounds like the worse parts of older D&D on steroids. Loved the computer version of it though. As did many of you, it looks like.
I’d heard buzkashi was the national sport of Afghanistan. It sounds like full contact polo, with a much more gruesome ball.
Re, poker, the games expert John Scarne said about poker that it’s not much of a game without the betting element. I forget if it was Barry Goldstein or Doyle Brunson who expanded on that, with the idea that the bets had to be conceivably large enough to cause some stress in the bettor, in order for the game to be fun.
Aside: I’ve heard that in Nevada, the official procedure for resolving tied elections is for the tied candidates to play a single hand of five-card stud. With the stakes set like that, it does in fact become a trivial game, and in effect no different from a coin flip… but I do have to admit that it’s a lot cooler than a coin flip.
And I should add, if everybody simply made a bet before the hand was even dealt and no further betting could occur. But that is most definitely not at all what happens. Much of the time, it never gets far enough to see who ends up with the highest poker hand.
Why stud poker, though? The whole point of stud poker (7 card or 5 card) is to have multiple rounds of betting, similar to Hold’em, though rather than blinds everyone antes a predetermined amount.
If the only thing on the line is the election, why not just 5-card draw?
I would assume because then there is some element of skill involved. With 5-card stud and no betting, the cards you get are the cards you get, and essentially, it’s a coin flip.
But it’s deciding a tied vote. Isn’t the “coin flip” entirely the point?
Auctions? I’ve played Monopoly (or, as I call it Monotony) my entire life and have no idea what you’re talking about.
The official rules say that when a player lands on an unowned property, they can buy it for the listed price. But if he chooses not to buy it for that price, the property is auctioned off and whoever bids the most buys the property. Many people don’t use this latter rule; if the player who landed on the property doesn’t buy it, the property just remains unowned until somebody else lands on it and buys it.
This variant does change the game because it slows down the rate in which properties are bought. It also adds randomness to the game because the only way you can buy a property is to land on it. And the lack of auctions means there’s usually more money circulating in the game.
Wow. That rule is completely unknown to me.
Thinking about starting a “Worst, ‘AAA’ video game” thread.
Yes that was pulykamell’s point. You want it to be a coin flip: If you allow players to make a choice, (as in Draw poker) it is no longer so.
There are also auctions in case of a house or hotel shortage (the game comes with only 32 houses and 12 hotels). If there’s just one house left and more than one person claims to want it, it gets auctioned off.
I have to come in here to put in a dishonourable mention for Betrayal at the House on the Hill. For those of you who haven’t met it, it’s sort of an RPG-ish boardgame where you play a stereotypical group of dumb teenagers investigating the haunted house. You explore the house and find stuff and then the monster is revealed…
Except that it’s basically Snakes-and-Ladders in an expensive Halloween costume. It is not a game. The exploring and finding are completely random and depend entirely on your ability to roll dice and draw cards. When the Plot is revealed, one player is randomly chosen as the Bad Guy and given a random objective, which the Good Guys have to stop. Depending on the random items collected, one side or the other may be massively overpowered. Depending on the random room draw, either sides’ objective may be anything from trivial to impossible.
I understand some people like it for the story-telling elements, but really, why not just play an RPG?
It doesn’t come up as often as you would expect. The basic strategy of Monopoly is you should buy the property if you can. So auctions are relatively rare.
I think a more interesting variant would be a rule that lets the player who auctions a property be the seller. A player who lands on an unowned property can buy it for its list price or choose to put it up for auction. And if they choose to auction it off, they collect the winning bid instead of the bank. (In the rare case where a player bid on a property they were auctioning off and won, they would then pay the bank.) This would give players an incentive to put properties up for auction, which would broaden the strategy of the game.
I also suggest a variant rule that uses dice drafting, which mitigates another random element of the game.