What games do Wizards designers play?

[Zimri]

Off-Topic, apparently you're not supposed to play Monopoloy to WIN, at least that's what I was told after one game I played with family members where I was squeezing them for every dime like a b@#tard.

See now D&D (certainly) and WoW (in my sunshiny happy spot) Shouldn't be played to win. Monopoly on the other hand; Invest and trade wisely, sucker people into deals when they are more beneficial to you and of little to no benefit to them (although the perception may be otherwise) , heck even make strategic alliances ,as far as the game allows, that will let you and your "ally" crush the other players just assure that the way the loot falls benefits you more than them. Know the rules, play by them and be merciless while looking like the friendly neighbor (don't cackle with glee while rubbing your hands together until the end.)

 

[JustinA]

Actually, I personally think the main design flaw with monopoly is that there are so few times you can actually make meaningful decisions. Player elimination is just a bonus sucky design element.

One of the saddest conversations I ever had was with a guy who wanted to spend inordinate amounts of time discussing the "strategy" of Monopoly.

There is no strategy to Monopoly: You roll the dice. You buy every piece of property that you land on and can afford. Then there are some very marginal decisions of consequence in where and how you build up the houses and hotels on your property.

The only thing remotely interesting about the game is the interaction of proposing and closing trade deals.

Off-Topic, apparently you're not supposed to play Monopoloy to WIN, at least that's what I was told after one game I played with family members where I was squeezing them for every dime like a b@#tard.

However, this is something to remember: Very few people actually play boardgames in order to win the game. The boardgame is simply something to do to pass the time while engaging in low-impact socializing. This is why games like MONOPOLY and SORRY and CANDYLAND are successful.

This is also why early exit-points in these games are not as consequential. Even if you get knocked out, you're still able to socialize while the game continues.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

See now D&D (certainly) and WoW (in my sunshiny happy spot) Shouldn't be played to win. Monopoly on the other hand; Invest and trade wisely, sucker people into deals when they are more beneficial to you and of little to no benefit to them (although the perception may be otherwise) , heck even make strategic alliances ,as far as the game allows, that will let you and your "ally" crush the other players just assure that the way the loot falls benefits you more than them. Know the rules, play by them and be merciless while looking like the friendly neighbor (don't cackle with glee while rubbing your hands together until the end.)

I didn't even get to cackle or laugh manically, and I was accused of poor sportsmanship for crushing my competition and hearing the lamentations of their portfolios.

 

[jmucchiello]

Actually, I personally think the main design flaw with monopoly is that there are so few times you can actually make meaningful decisions. Player elimination is just a bonus sucky design element.

Take Candyland or The Game of Life. You make no decisions in a "game" of Candyland. And just one decision in Life. But they also somehow are fun. Candyland has the purpose of teaching children their colors and how to take turns. Life is fun because you can laugh at the "events" that take place (and as I learned from my wife it is used by little girls as a role-playing game in so far as you name your spouse and six kids). So a lack of meaningful decisions is not always a design flaw depending on your audiance. Early elimination usually is.

 

[Glyfair]

Actually, I personally think the main design flaw with monopoly is that there are so few times you can actually make meaningful decisions.

I don't think it's really a design flaw. In my experience, if you want the masses to play a game you want a game they can win. The more and more you make strategic decisions important, the smaller the group of players who regularly win. People want to play games they win on occasion, and most people don't want to apply themselves to a game (sports may be different, or may not).

Chess if often considered one of the iconic strategy games, However, I'll bet there are more players who play monopoly regularly than chess.

 

[Vigilance]

I don't think it's really a design flaw. In my experience, if you want the masses to play a game you want a game they can win. The more and more you make strategic decisions important, the smaller the group of players who regularly win. People want to play games they win on occasion, and most people don't want to apply themselves to a game (sports may be different, or may not).

Chess if often considered one of the iconic strategy games, However, I'll bet there are more players who play monopoly regularly than chess.

You also want a game with very few actual rules to remember and that you get up and running quickly.

Think about how fast you can explain monopoly to someone, as opposed to, say, D&D.

Think about how soon after opening the box you can be in the middle of your first game of Yahtzee, again, as opposed to D&D.

These things make those games more popular.

Heck, even MTG has a very simple and straightforward premise.

 

[Glyfair]

You also want a game with very few actual rules to remember and that you get up and running quickly.

Think about how fast you can explain monopoly to someone, as opposed to, say, D&D.

Think about how soon after opening the box you can be in the middle of your first game of Yahtzee, again, as opposed to D&D.

These things make those games more popular.

True. My point still holds that the many of the games we'd consider well designed aren't going to be games that are well designed if they are going for that mass market appeal.

 

[MerricB]

However, there's a vast difference between Monopoly and other good family games that have been designed recently, that do have meaningful decision making throughout.

Ticket to Ride for instance...

Cheers!

 

[blargney the second]

Speaking of playing other games, I tried out Puerto Rico for the first time today. I liked it a lot and find myself wondering how to bring some of its game elements into D&D... (ie competition for a variety of relatively scarce resources)
-blarg

 

[MerricB]

Speaking of playing other games, I tried out Puerto Rico for the first time today. I liked it a lot and find myself wondering how to bring some of its game elements into D&D... (ie competition for a variety of relatively scarce resources)
-blarg

Well, D&D isn't really very much like Puerto Rico: the players all co-operate, they don't compete.

(Although, you could write out a number of feats on cards and require players to draft the feats they pick at each level, and have less cards available than people who want them...)

A scarcity mechanic like Puerto Rico would more fit a game like Amber DRPG, where the players compete against each other.

Of course, if you move your D&D campaign towards a more mercantile focus, where the players are merchant princes or the like, then more of Puerto Rico's concepts could come into play.

It's worth noting that Puerto Rico has a gamist approach to what it simulates; there's really not much reason that everyone couldn't buy a hospice if they wanted to. D&D tends to a more realistic (hah!) approach (though not without gamist elements).

Cheers!