What games do Wizards designers play?

MerricB said:
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...

I've played a number of family games that have meaningful decision making throughout in the last few years. None of them, however, seem to be as popular as Monopoly or headed in that direction (OK, maybe Settlers of Catan could qualify).

Of course, that could change in time. Also, it doesn't mean I wouldn't choose them over Monopoly. The question is whether Joe or Jane Average would choose them over Monopoly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hmm - I'm suddenly thinking in terms of the opportunity costs of taking certain actions. Perhaps a magic-poor environment where only one spell can be cast by any of the combatants per round. (Afterthought: and nobody can cast a spell two rounds in a row.)
 
Last edited:

Glyfair said:
I've played a number of family games that have meaningful decision making throughout in the last few years. None of them, however, seem to be as popular as Monopoly or headed in that direction (OK, maybe Settlers of Catan could qualify).

Of course, that could change in time. Also, it doesn't mean I wouldn't choose them over Monopoly. The question is whether Joe or Jane Average would choose them over Monopoly.
Ticket to Ride makes a better gateway board game then Settlers. As much as settlers is simple it does contain a few too many fiddly bits. TtR is simpler without sacrificing decision making.
MerircB said:
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).
I don't look at it as there being only two "hospices" on the island. The building benefits represent how you've made side deals to better your business. PR is really an abstract game since most of the game mechanics have very little correlation to exploiting natural resources and shipping them back to Europe. You could completely retheme PR as an asteroid mining game where the buildings become "ship modules", plantations become ore extraction miners, etc and it would play basically the same way.

PR of course is not a game for the masses. It has lots of subtle interactions that require one to master the game in order become good at the game. When you first play you don't know which building give the best payout for their cost. You have to learn the subtleties to master the game. There are even (a few) opening libraries for PR like the openings in chess are "known". Personally, I prefer Princes of Florence as it is even more of brain burner.
 

blargney the second said:
Hmm - I'm suddenly thinking in terms of the opportunity costs of taking certain actions. Perhaps a magic-poor environment where only one spell can be cast by any of the combatants per round. (Afterthought: and nobody can cast a spell two rounds in a row.)
There are board games that use an Action Point mechanic where all the things one can do on one's turn are valued at 1-4 AP and you have 10 AP to spend on your turn. Unspent AP are lost at the end of your turn. Go to boardgamegeek and advance search on Action Point Allowance System for hundreds of examples.

Moving that to a tactical combat simulation, you can imagine different attack options having different costs. Attack with a light weapon for 2 AP, larger and two-handed weapons for 3 AP. Feats could change the AP costs of actions. The number of AP you have each round could be something like level / 4 + Dex mod. Or BAB/4 + Int mod. Spells could have costs other than just 1 standard action. Movement would be factored in somehow.

If you wanted to get really complex AP could recover based on an Ability mod and that would dictate how often you act rather than relying on "rounds". Recovery from a heavy slashing attack would be slower than from a light piercing attack.

If I were to go deeply into this I'd factor in some form of segmented movement and everyone would move and act simultaneously.
 



Glyfair said:
I've played a number of family games that have meaningful decision making throughout in the last few years. None of them, however, seem to be as popular as Monopoly or headed in that direction (OK, maybe Settlers of Catan could qualify).

Of course, that could change in time. Also, it doesn't mean I wouldn't choose them over Monopoly. The question is whether Joe or Jane Average would choose them over Monopoly.

The trouble is that all these new games are *really* new. 10 years isn't that long, and that's how long Settlers has been about. (Well, 12 or 13, but close) Ticket to Ride? 3 years.

Monopoly has the Skaff Effect working for it, but another game could conceivably knock it off... possibly.

Cheers!
 

MerricB said:
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.

Except that buying a hospice is a waste of money! Save up for that wharf!
 

MerricB said:
The trouble is that all these new games are *really* new. 10 years isn't that long, and that's how long Settlers has been about. (Well, 12 or 13, but close) Ticket to Ride? 3 years.

Yes, Monopoly has a lot of history working for it. It also has a lot of marketing behind it to keep it in the public eye. You're unlikely to ever see Settlers of New York City or Spongebob of Catan. (Speaking from New Zealand, where we just got a new here&now edition of Monopoly.)
 

davidschwartznz said:
Yes, Monopoly has a lot of history working for it. It also has a lot of marketing behind it to keep it in the public eye. You're unlikely to ever see Settlers of New York City or Spongebob of Catan. (Speaking from New Zealand, where we just got a new here&now edition of Monopoly.)

You never know. Both T2R and Settlers have various themed sets; see also Carcassonne.

Cheers!
 

Remove ads

Top