Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 8941802" data-attributes="member: 6690965">The single game I've put the most time into is Netrunner, and it's the best example I can think of for that kind of play in the board game space. Outside of some unusual situations, the victory condition in that game is managing to look at between 3-5 agenda cards from your opponent's deck. Your opponent is obligated to include somewhere between 7-21 of them, most likely 9-11. You can choose to look at the top card of their deck, a random card from their hand, every card they've secretly discarded, or a specific card they've laid facedown on the table. All the other cards are used to play out an elaborate negotiation of the costs &amp; consequences to take any of those actions, with most information kept secret until the moment it's brought to bear. As the game progresses, you're consistently weighing where you think you're mostly likely to see one of those cards, and the likeliest (and worst possible) consequences of any given action.Outside of that, I do have a general preference for games with low randomness, however. I play a lot of Splotter games, infamous for not having any random elements past setup and as few there as they can justify, and lately a lot of 18XX games. Those are highly interactive and routinely produce novel board states that need to be thought through, but do not involve any random resolution.I don't necessarily think you're looking in the right space though. It's not the consequences of any given action that's the unsettling bit, it's the uncertainty of the scope of the game, and the inability to make any plans. It's not clear how to string 3 actions together to drag the game state into the position you want it, if by the time you completed those 3 actions the game state you wanted at the beginning might not be relevant anymore.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 8941802, member: 6690965"] The single game I've put the most time into is Netrunner, and it's the best example I can think of for that kind of play in the board game space. Outside of some unusual situations, the victory condition in that game is managing to look at between 3-5 agenda cards from your opponent's deck. Your opponent is obligated to include somewhere between 7-21 of them, most likely 9-11. You can choose to look at the top card of their deck, a random card from their hand, every card they've secretly discarded, or a specific card they've laid facedown on the table. All the other cards are used to play out an elaborate negotiation of the costs & consequences to take any of those actions, with most information kept secret until the moment it's brought to bear. As the game progresses, you're consistently weighing where you think you're mostly likely to see one of those cards, and the likeliest (and worst possible) consequences of any given action. Outside of that, I do have a general preference for games with low randomness, however. I play a lot of Splotter games, infamous for not having any random elements past setup and as few there as they can justify, and lately a lot of 18XX games. Those are highly interactive and routinely produce novel board states that need to be thought through, but do not involve any random resolution. I don't necessarily think you're looking in the right space though. It's not the consequences of any given action that's the unsettling bit, it's the uncertainty of the scope of the game, and the inability to make any plans. It's not clear how to string 3 actions together to drag the game state into the position you want it, if by the time you completed those 3 actions the game state you wanted at the beginning might not be relevant anymore. [/QUOTE]

Verification