Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5285205" data-attributes="member: 177">Interesting....You see, while the folks at boardgamegeek are generally correct that the common house rules (or, more often, poorly understood rules) of Monopoly don't generally lead to better game play, I find the criticism a little ironic, and oddly parallel to RPGs.&nbsp; Most of the supposedly &quot;great board games&quot; I see these days need a special turn track monitor, and a person expert in the rules to lead new players by the nose through their first half-dozen games before the player can be expected to get the hang of it.&nbsp; I don't see how that's any less a turn-off for most folks than poorly house-ruled Monopoly.&nbsp;&nbsp; Physician, heal thyself! Especially when the single-resource model of Monopoly tends to lend itself to that runaway-winner phenomenon even when played by the book, I begin to wonder... is a &quot;geek&quot; about a particular topic is in a good place to critique based on what non-geeks want out of the same activity?Now, RPGs have the same learning-curve issues.&nbsp; Very few games created these days have rules of compelling simplicity and subtlety found in chess or backgammon, say.&nbsp; The difference, of course, is that Monopoly isn't designed to have a human referee or game master to mitigate issues, and standard boardgames are supposed last a few hours, while most RPGs can last a lifetime.&nbsp; Different design goals lead to different needs and tolerances for the same behavior.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5285205, member: 177"] Interesting.... You see, while the folks at boardgamegeek are generally correct that the common house rules (or, more often, poorly understood rules) of Monopoly don't generally lead to better game play, I find the criticism a little ironic, and oddly parallel to RPGs. Most of the supposedly "great board games" I see these days need a special turn track monitor, and a person expert in the rules to lead new players by the nose through their first half-dozen games before the player can be expected to get the hang of it. I don't see how that's any less a turn-off for most folks than poorly house-ruled Monopoly. Physician, heal thyself! Especially when the single-resource model of Monopoly tends to lend itself to that runaway-winner phenomenon even when played by the book, I begin to wonder... is a "geek" about a particular topic is in a good place to critique based on what non-geeks want out of the same activity? Now, RPGs have the same learning-curve issues. Very few games created these days have rules of compelling simplicity and subtlety found in chess or backgammon, say. The difference, of course, is that Monopoly isn't designed to have a human referee or game master to mitigate issues, and standard boardgames are supposed last a few hours, while most RPGs can last a lifetime. Different design goals lead to different needs and tolerances for the same behavior. [/QUOTE]

Verification