Uh, no thanks, I'll play this instead.

[Janx]

But if people REALLY want to play those games, I'll play them. Most of the time, people seem quite surprised at the reasons I give, and are more than willing to play a game that everyone can get on board with.

There are, however, PEOPLE I will not play with, and the OP would be a perfect example: people who will refuse to play games simply because they don't win enough. There's no positives such people bring to the table, I'm afraid ... it's best to simply make sure I'm always playing a game they're not, and I purposefully do not invite such people to our regular Game Night events.

Most normal people don't think about game design. This is why they have house rules in Monopoly about the putting all fines in a pot and landing on the whatever it was called square to win the pot. It unbalances the game, and keeps money out of circulation (the bank can run out).

On your latter point, if you are in a group of 5 people and can't ever win 1 in 5 games, how much fun are you having?

Now somebody could look at it as training, you have to pay your dues to get good at the game. For example, I spent 6 months playing darts in my boss's office every day, getting my butt handed to me. Then I started winning, and became one of the top players in the group.

On the other hand, I suck at games like Chess. While I am a smart guy, I don't think moves ahead or any of that mumbo jumbo. I therefore don't enjoy the experience of always losing to anybody with any skill for the game (which are really the only people who play chess).

In a way, I think you have it backwards. A person who doesn't want to play a game because they don't win enough/never win, knows they are not a proper competitor for you and would drag you down. They are effectively advocating playing a game where both of you can enjoy it (or at least negating 1 title that you don't share in common).

 

[DumbPaladin]

In a way, I think you have it backwards. A person who doesn't want to play a game because they don't win enough/never win, knows they are not a proper competitor for you and would drag you down. They are effectively advocating playing a game where both of you can enjoy it (or at least negating 1 title that you don't share in common).

I see what you're saying. I agree in large part.

My problem comes when people begin to compile entire LISTS of games they 'refuse' to play, as the OP has used this thread to do. 1 or 2 games people dislike? Totally understandable. 8 or 10 games? That's being overly difficult.

Quite a few of those games are likely to be games I want to play, even if just once, and having dealt with an ex-invitee to our Game Night events who had a list of games she REFUSED to play ... it gets to be a joykill, and struck the group, I think correctly, as unpleasant and selfish.

That's where I begin to draw the line. Last Game Night, we played Pit. Everyone wanted to play but me ... but I didn't even bother to vocalize that it's not really my favorite game, because what would be the point, except to rain on everyone's parade?

 

[Janx]

on the topic of games I prefer not to play:

chess, because I am too stupid for it

Fluxx, because we played the piss out of it when it came out, and are frankly bored of it, despite other people having discovered it in its current edition

I only like to play Risk with people who aren't big Risk fans. Big Risk fans are like chess players and then i have no chance. I have only ever won 1 game of risk (2010AD risk), and in that, I had negotiated peace with all but 1 player, and my fellow players helped in my defense and I won.

For informal parties, I do not like to break out any of the more complex games, because I don't remember the rules and my fellow gamers who do have an extra advantage. It ends up being some newb needs coaching, so I help with that, which weakens my already weak defense against the player who remembers the rules and core strategy and whoops arse.

As an odd aside, I do find that I like board games converted to video games (risk, monopoly, catan, carcasonne, ticket to ride). It really streamlines play to not have to muck with all the setup and fiddling with stuff.

 

[Fast Learner]

Most normal people don't think about game design. This is why they have house rules in Monopoly about the putting all fines in a pot and landing on the whatever it was called square to win the pot. It unbalances the game, and keeps money out of circulation (the bank can run out).

Worse, it makes the game literally take three to ten times as long. Monopoly is designed to be a game where people can't pay and are eliminated; when played by the rules it takes about 90 minutes, but when you give big piles of money to players randomly, never letting it leave the game, the thing takes hours and hours.

Which is especially horrible for such a lousy game.

 

[Wycen]

8 or 10 games? That's being overly difficult.

Well, do you have any idea how many games are listed on Board Game Geek? I do not. Maybe there is a list somewhere. I suspect the total number of games available to play is ginormous. And since games will continue to come out, the list will only get bigger. 10 or 20 games out of hundreds or thousands, is that really overly difficult? What about those who buy games and later sell them or trade them away because they don't like em?

The funny thing is I can and have been persuaded to play games I don't like (damn you St. Petersburg!). If I'm continually asking who's turn it is and it ends up being mine, chances are I'm playing because I want to chat and hang out with those people and the game is an unfortunate victim of my quirks.

 

[Orius]

So what kind of games do nerds invent? Games where you can single someone out and pick on them.

I'm struggling to see how D&D, the nerdiest of all games, fits into this assertation.

Games I won't play?

Mark me down for Monopoly as well. How the hell does that game remain popular? Inertia, I'll wager.

I hate Risk too. Can't stand the mechanics. Oh you just took Australia? Fine you win, I don't fell like wasting the next several hours of my life.

Life. I hate that schmaltzy pile of dreck. It's dull and insipid. I also always manage to land on that one stupid space where the weird aunt leaves you a ton of cats to care for which burns a huge hole in my finances. I refuse to play unless granted immunity to that space.

 

[Fast Learner]

Well, do you have any idea how many games are listed on Board Game Geek?

Since I can, as of now there are 53,489 boardgames:

FWIW, 22,269 RPG items (so far):

And 16,013 videogames so far (it's pretty new):

 

[Wycen]

Life. I hate that schmaltzy pile of dreck. It's dull and insipid. I also always manage to land on that one stupid space where the weird aunt leaves you a ton of cats to care for which burns a huge hole in my finances. I refuse to play unless granted immunity to that space.

It has been so long since I've played that I think it would be fun, but then, we eventually changed the rules and tried to get huge caravans of polygamist families with multiple cars on the track. Still only one place on the board was active, but now that I'm thinking about it, we should have played each car separately.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Well, do you have any idea how many games are listed on Board Game Geek? I do not. Maybe there is a list somewhere. I suspect the total number of games available to play is ginormous. And since games will continue to come out, the list will only get bigger. 10 or 20 games out of hundreds or thousands, is that really overly difficult? What about those who buy games and later sell them or trade them away because they don't like em?

The funny thing is I can and have been persuaded to play games I don't like (damn you St. Petersburg!). If I'm continually asking who's turn it is and it ends up being mine, chances are I'm playing because I want to chat and hang out with those people and the game is an unfortunate victim of my quirks.

Honestly, Wycen, in my opinion it is a little overly difficult to compile a long list of games you refuse to ever play. "Would prefer not to play" or "will try to dissuade people from playing" would seem more cooperative. But put the shoe on the other foot: don't you think it's possible there are games you really enjoy playing that are not at ALL someone else's cup of tea? But they may not be vocalizing this, as in my above "Pit" example?

I'm a little surprised by this thread honestly, because while I haven't exactly kept track of your posts on here, your stance is still one that surprised me as not fitting with your general positive personality.

I agree that there are times when people would much rather just socialize than play a game. There are also really good games for allowing major socializing while they're played. Have you considered simply suggesting to your friends & associates a gap in between different games to talk and catch up for a few minutes?