Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Games and Gaming: Why I don't like board games

Bottom of Page

1 to 73 of 73

  1.  
  1.  # 1
    At Gen Con this year, I was on a panel with the three hosts from the Brilliant Gameologists podcast called "A Salon on Gameology." During it, I figured out why I'd rather do almost anything else than play a board game.

    The panel was meant to discuss what makes a good game, and what one wants out of games. (The language in the title is purposefully overblown.) During the conversation we asked whether games can be good or bad (we determined they could be), what made a game good or bad (it does or does not meet its objectives), and what you want out of games.

    My answer: I like to be creative with my friends. And a light went on over my head. No matter how good a board game is, it's not a creative activity. This is not to say that board games are for stupid people or that they don't take brains or strategic and tactical thinking, but they're non-creative. Even if I enjoy playing a board game, afterwards I find myself wishing I'd been creative with these people. If they're not into roleplaying games, then I find myself wishing I'd spent that time talking to them.

    This was a satisfying realization for me. All of my gamer friends like playing board games and the most I ever say is "Ok, I'll do that with you because I like you and you like that." I was wondering why I was so weird. Why these people who I loved loved doing something that always made me feel quite "meh."

    Now I know. I think.
  2.  # 2
    Neither is watching a movie with friends. Or sharing a meal with friends or a beer. Do you dislike or feel meh about those things?
    •  
      CommentAuthorNeko Ewen
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 3
    I think you're on to something here. Even when I come across a board/card game that I don't mind playing, I still feel like I'm playing "a thing that's kind of like an RPG, only with a lot of the really good parts taken out for some reason."
    • CommentAuthoragony
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 4
    I wouldn't say all Board games require no creativity. We get creative as hell when we play Bang! or BSG. Generally though, your point is valid and I hadn't really thought of boardgames that way.
  5.  # 5
    Posted By: Bret GillanNeither is watching a movie with friends. Or sharing a meal with friends or a beer. Do you dislike or feel meh about those things?

    Good points, Bret.

    You know, obviously, that I love watching movies with friends. I don't drink, but that's an easy one to dismiss: it's being social, and that's fine. As for movies?

    I'm not sure. Maybe I see it as grist for future discussions? I know when I see a movie with friends, I want to do so because I want to share my effusive enthusiasm for something with other people. As for why that doesn't apply to board games, I don't know.

    Thanks for fucking up my equanimity.
  6.  # 6
    Posted By: agonyI wouldn't say all Board games require no creativity. We get creative as hell when we play Bang! Generally though, your point is valid and I hadn't really thought of boardgames that way.

    I haven't played Bang. Where does the creativity come in?
    •  
      CommentAuthorBret Gillan
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 7
    See I don't know - playing a board game is for me like solving a puzzle with or against my friends. It's a different kind of activity completely. Playing a board game like Agricola or Puerto Rico I'm trying to figure out my best strategy or course of action, running variables and plans in my head. It gives me a totally different kind of reward and stimulation, like drawing vs. putting together a jigsaw puzzle.

    As a huge board game fan I think making some sort of direct comparison between RPGs and board games is missing the point. Like, "I figured out why I don't like going to bars. Because I can't get a nice big entree and they don't have a good selection of steaks."
  8.  # 8
    Posted By: Bret GillanSee I don't know - playing a board game is for me like solving a puzzle with or against my friends. It's a different kind of activity completely. Playing a board game like Agricola or Puerto Rico I'm trying to figure out my best strategy or course of action, running variables and plans in my head. It gives me a totally different kind of reward and stimulation, like drawing vs. putting together a jigsaw puzzle.

    This is all correct. It's just that it's non-creative, like I said. So it's a different kind of fun, but it's the kind I'd rather not engage in.

    Posted By: Bret GillanAs a huge board game fan I think making some sort of direct comparison between RPGs and board games is missing the point.

    I don't understand. I don't think I'm saying one is good and the other is bad. I'm just identifying the key difference between them, and realizing that's why I prefer one to the other.
    • CommentAuthorboulet
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 9
    A game like pictionary involves a little bit of creativity in my view. At least there is something of a pseudo imaginary space. That's my explanation for kicking ass when I play with an old friend with whom I can share more obscure pictorial associations and win the game.
    • CommentAuthoragony
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 10
    Posted By: Robert Bohl
    Posted By: agonyI wouldn't say all Board games require no creativity. We get creative as hell when we play Bang! Generally though, your point is valid and I hadn't really thought of boardgames that way.

    I haven't played Bang. Where does the creativity come in?


    It's a Wild West card game where take on the roll of the Sheriff or an Outlaw. The creativity comes in through roleplaying shooting at people and the game encouraging you to be over the top. When we pass dynamite around the table we feign throwing a stick through the air, it can be a riot.

    I also edited in Battlestar Galactica the Boardgame to my original post (BSG). Another game which encourages creativity through adopting to specific roles and requiring interesting social dynamics with the other players.

    Games like Catch Phrase/Taboo require a bit of creativity as well. Any game which possesses choice which isn't purely tactical has legitimate room for creativity.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBret Gillan
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 11
    Sorry, I somehow missed your response to my questions. I swear it wasn't there before. I'm not being contentious, I was just saying that your identification of why you don't like board games doesn't make sense to me. If you don't care for non-creative activities, then kills a lot of possible social activities beyond just board games. Probably the majority of social activities we engage in.
  12.  # 12
    Posted By: Bret GillanSorry, I somehow missed your response to my questions. I swear it wasn't there before. I'm not being contentious, I was just saying that your identification of why you don't like board games doesn't make sense to me. If you don't care for non-creative activities, then kills a lot of possible social activities beyond just board games. Probably the majority of social activities we engage in.

    Yeah I actually like non-creative social activities, too. Like I said, just having a conversation is preferable to board games to me.

    Maybe it's:

    * Board games eat up a lot of social space.
    * They're non-creative.
    * I don't love them with the burning intensity that I do movies and concerts, where I can overlook the lack of creative outlet despite the monopolizing of the social space.

    --

    The thing is I'm not trying to draw proscriptive lines for anyone. I know that I don't enjoy board games, and I'm trying to figure out why. The missing creativity piece is the best answer I can think of for my own very-real feelings on the matter.

    It's like, I have empirical data about my own reaction to playing board games. I'm trying to figure out why. This is one hypothesis.
    • CommentAuthorElizabeth
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 13
    I'm with Bret; I feel like saying "I don't like board games because they're not RPGs" is like saying "I don't like broccoli because it makes a terrible hat."

    I feel like board games work, for me, for the following reasons:

    - Topic of conversation with friends: during a movie you shouldn't talk, unless you're rewatching something good, or purposely watching something terrible, and the social contract says it's cool. You have all of the "topic of conversation" stuff that's good about a movie for after the game, only you also get to talk to your friends DURING the game.

    - Strategy is creativity, it's just not narrative creativity: it's totally fun to see the way my friends' minds work managing resources, deciding courses of action, plotting future moves. It's a really satisfying and fascinating thing to go brain-to-brain against a friend that way. I guess I just take umbrage at your assertion that telling a story together is the only kind of creativity there is. I've played board games that required a resourcefulness and flexibility of thought that are unmatched in a lot of the usual RPG subjects.

    - No worries about creative agenda: everyone who gets together to play a board game is getting together to play the same game. There are occasional drifts in rules (We don't use the river in Carcasonne, you're allowed to swap out a blank tile on the board with the letter in Scrabble) which are easy to explain, easy to justify, and most importantly-- are obvious and clear and people are self-aware enough to point out the change. Whenever I sit down to play an RPG with new folks, I'm apprehensive about whether our play styles will mesh, even if I'm good friends with the people. I never have to worry about that with friends and board games; at most I just have to worry about whether I like the same kinds of games my friends do.


    I don't know. I love RPGs, and I love board games, and I'm certainly not saying that one is superior to the other. I do certainly feel that one is not inherently INferior to the other. I mean, hell, I write RPGs.. but the most fun GAME I've played in the last year was Settlers of Cattan on my birthday. Everyone was loud and laughing and having fun, making crazy alliances and cursing the dice, having bidding wars based on machismo and not strategy. If I could get that PLUS story out of every RPG I played, I'd never pick up a board game again-- but I can't.

    (Enter the board-game RPG hybrids like Transantiago, It's Complicated, and Time and Temp here.)

    Edit: crossposted with Rob and Bret above. I'm baffled by your constant and consistant use of the phrase "non-creative" here, Rob. Have you ever tried thinking creatively in the process of playing a board game? It might be a real lightbulb moment for you.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 14
    Are you sure you don't just dislike the competitive aspect of boardgames?
  15.  # 15
    First, folks, I don't want this to turn into "Rob says why RPGs are better than board games." That's emphatically not what this is about. It's about me trying to figure out why I don't enjoy board games. Why I'd rather do almost anything else with my friends than play board games.

    Elizabeth: I think we have different definitions of what the word "creativity" means. I don't see strategic thinking as creativity. This is not to put a value judgment on the words "creativity" or "strategy," though.

    Robert: That's certainly an element of it, I'm sure. I'm not a big one for constant competition when interacting with my friends. However, a little competition in RPGs doesn't bother me that much, and I've had very similar feelings about non-competitive board games. So yeah, it's a piece, but it's not the whole pie.
    • CommentAuthorJoe Beason
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 16
    It makes sense to me that you're focused on your relative enjoyment of RPGs and BGs. They fit the same niche: a leisure activity usually performed indoors around a table or some such, in which the participants are focused on a specific task. Movies, TV, concerts are about observing rather than doing; cooking or other domestic projects have a point other than just fun; sports and dancing usually take place outside the home (or local game shop); eating, drinking and/or talking usually doesn't have a pre-set agenda of what's going to be done, and can be grafted on to the game niche easily enough. Group playing of videogames is in the same category.

    There's a few other things that share the niche, but these days people usually don't get together with friends for impromptu sing-alongs or play readings.
    • CommentAuthoramoeba
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 17
    What's the definition of a game, and does it even involve "creativity"?
    Perhaps RPGs/Story Games aren't even truly "games" in the original sense, but rather a form of art?
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 18
    Rob, do you like any social games that are non-creative? Poker, tag, Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft?

    Graham
  19.  # 19
    Shut up Rob, I don't know why you hate people who like board games so much.

    (Couldn't resist, it is the Internet)

    You know, I love love love cooperative board games like Pandemic and Shadows Over Camelot, but I am lukewarm and getting lukewarmer about straight-up competitive games. I think this is because my friends take them very seriously, and that makes both winning and losing not fun for me. I can play competitive games with people who don't give a shit all night, and it is a rewarding social activity.
    • CommentAuthorValamir
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 20
    So to try to get deeper on the OP.

    Rob, what is it about being creative with friends that is more enjoyable/fulfilling/other for you than being strategic or tactical with friends. Clearly its a personal preference, but since you had the epiphany of what was missing from boardgames perhaps that can be insightful into what is present in RPGs. What do you find particularly compelling about being creative socially that would make you rather spend "game time" roleplaying than boardgaming?
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 21
    Posted By: Jason MorningstarYou know, I love love love cooperative board games like Pandemic and Shadows Over Camelot, but I am lukewarm and getting lukewarmer about straight-up competitive games. I think this is because my friends take them very seriously, and that makes both winning and losing not fun for me. I can play competitive games with people who don't give a shit all night, and it is a rewarding social activity.


    Oh, I really like this. I'm the same. I like playing Scrabble, but not with people who get all tactical and concerned with winning.

    Graham
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 22
    Rob B:

    When you say "creative", you mean that as in " we created something" rather than " I used my brain a bunch", right?
    • CommentAuthorJoe Beason
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 23
    I don't like to be too intense about competitive games, either. Just playing is winning enough.

    I also prefer to play with people I know. I'd rather play a game I wasn't crazy about with friends and family than play a game I love with strangers.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 24
    Posted By: Elizabeth- Strategy is creativity, it's just not narrative creativity: it's totally fun to see the way my friends' minds work managing resources, deciding courses of action, plotting future moves. It's a really satisfying and fascinating thing to go brain-to-brain against a friend that way. I guess I just take umbrage at your assertion that telling a story together is the only kind of creativity there is. I've played board games that required a resourcefulness and flexibility of thought that are unmatched in a lot of the usual RPG subjects.

    Beat me to it. Some of the most deeply creative experiences of my life have come while playing competitive games. Tournaments in particular.

    Posted By: Elizabeth- No worries about creative agenda: everyone who gets together to play a board game is getting together to play the same game. There are occasional drifts in rules (We don't use the river in Carcasonne, you're allowed to swap out a blank tile on the board with the letter in Scrabble) which are easy to explain, easy to justify, and most importantly-- are obvious and clear and people are self-aware enough to point out the change. Whenever I sit down to play an RPG with new folks, I'm apprehensive about whether our play styles will mesh, even if I'm good friends with the people. I never have to worry about that with friends and board games; at most I just have to worry about whether I like the same kinds of games my friends do..

    Oh, god yes. And playing a RPG with a pickup group is such a roulette game.
  25.  # 25
    One note, while I keep saying "this is about my feelings on board games," it occurs to me that it sounds like I don't want other people to talk about their feelings about board games. I do. That's totally cool and fine with me. I just mean that I'm not trying to tell people What's True.

    Also "I don't like" is willfully misleading. I played Magic: The Gathering every week for about 5 years and spent thousands of dollars on cards. I obviously enjoyed it. However, I never left a game feeling really satisfied.

    --

    Graham, I like Rock Band, but not the other things you listed. There's something about (nearly) playing music with people that feels different from board games, to me.

    Jason: When I was playing Magic, I always wanted to play team games. Something about working with someone mitigated for me the ugly feelings I got when I was competing with my friends. I think I don't like competitive games not because I'm not an inherently competitive person, but because I am very competitive and I don't like the guy I become when I get that way. I feel everything too intensely and it's fucking stupid. This is a problem I have with competitive RPGs, too.

    Ralph: I'm trying to figure that out. I think I feel fulfilled when my friends and I have made a story together (or at least a narrative). I feel like we've done something, made something, rather than just passed time. I don't know, though. Those might just be nice words I'm telling myself.

    Robert: Your definition of my definition of creativity feels right.
    • CommentAuthorJumanji83
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 26
    I like winning at board games. I can get very competitive.

    The problem is, long winded strategy games like Chess and Risk bore the hell out of me.

    I've enjoyed Clue for a long time, because it let me use my deductive habilities. Someone suggested Mystery at the Abbaye to me, and I should try it someday.

    I kinda like trivia games, and those are the games I am most competitive at. But those games are only fun for those versed in the featured trivia.

    Pictionary and similar guessing games are fun because they are about communicating something through other means.

    Just like some of you don't like to game with people who take them too seriously, or who are too competitive, I tend to get frustrated with someone who don't have their mind on the game while we play, because they won't give me a suitable challenge, and that takes away from my victory.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 27
    Posted By: Jumanji83The problem is, long winded strategy games like Chess and Risk bore the hell out of me.
    Hmm...I'm meh on most boardgames, but I really like Chess. Go figure.
    • CommentAuthorValamir
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 28
    Ralph: I'm trying to figure that out. I think I feel fulfilled when my friends and I have made a story together (or at least a narrative). I feel like we've done something, made something, rather than just passed time. I don't know, though. Those might just be nice words I'm telling myself.


    This is stuff I find really interesting.

    So you spend 3 hours of your life doing something. Maybe some other social activity you would have come out knowing your friends better / having bonded more / other. When you role play you come out with a narrative story as a intangible "object" that you can share or treasure yourself in the future. When you board game you come out feeling like time has passed but you have nothing to show for it. Is that close to what you're thinking?

    When I play board games I come out feeling like I just gave my brain a work out. So its fulfilling (as opposed to time wasting) in the same way that a physical work out would be. Do you not get that same feeling, or are you getting your mental workout in someother fashion that does it better for you so board games feel like an inferior option perhaps?

    Have you played less Euro more Theme Heavy games...something like Star Craft, or Game of Thrones, or Twilight Imperium. Or older games like Diplomacy, or Civilization, or Britannia. I find that more theme heavy games often deliver a narrative experience akin (although typically on a more sweeping scale) than the more abstract Euros (the old Euro vs. Ameritrash debate). If you've tried some of those more theme heavy games was it better at giving you the feeling that you've "made something" then more Euro-ish games or no?
  29.  # 29
    Posted By: Neko EwenI think you're on to something here. Even when I come across a board/card game that I don't mind playing, I still feel like I'm playing "a thing that's kind of like an RPG, only with a lot of the really good parts taken out for some reason."


    That's really ironic for me. When I got back into designing story games and RPGs after spending a lot of time designing board games, I felt like I was adding a bunch of nebulous fluff (role-playing, continuous narrative) to an otherwise functional, elegant game.

    As Elizabeth said, it's such a headache trying to encourage fruitful voids when it's so much easier to establish clear, concrete rules.

    It's the difference between expressionist painting and a photograph. One inspires, the other communicates. One is open to interpretation, the other is clear and deliberate.
    •  
      CommentAuthornemomeme
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 30
    Posted By: Jason Morningstar I think this is because my friends take them very seriously, and that makes both winning and losing not fun for me. I can play competitive games with people who don't give a shit all night, and it is a rewarding social activity.


    I've been hosting a boardgame club for twelve years. Lots of people have come and gone over the years but it's filled entirely with people who take their joy from the game and from the social aspects of the gathering without taking winning or losing too seriously. I feel really fortunate in this. I think it may be because Portland is just really laid back...
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 31
    Weirdly, I'm now really curious to see a boardgame you'd design, Robert.

    Seriously. So far I'm seeing a couple of elements that stand out:

    Some competition would be there (spice), but not constant competition(cutthroat).

    By the end-game, something would have necessity been created that wasn't there before.

    Some kind of co-operative or team play is inherently part of the game; Players couldn't strictly go it alone.
    • CommentAuthorElizabeth
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 32
    Posted By: DanielSolis
    Posted By: Neko EwenI think you're on to something here. Even when I come across a board/card game that I don't mind playing, I still feel like I'm playing "a thing that's kind of like an RPG, only with a lot of the really good parts taken out for some reason."


    That's really ironic for me. When I got back into designing story games and RPGs after spending a lot of time designing board games, I felt like I was adding a bunch of nebulous fluff (role-playing, continuous narrative) to an otherwise functional, elegant game.

    As Elizabeth said, it's such a headache trying to encourage fruitful voids when it's so much easier to establish clear, concrete rules.

    It's the difference between expressionist painting and a photograph. One inspires, the other communicates. One is open to interpretation, the other is clear and deliberate.


    Yes, totally. It's to the point where I kind of have to stop thinking of my RPG designs as "games" and just think of them as "Easier, better ways to play pretend."
    • CommentAuthorValamir
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 33
    Posted By: Elizabeth

    Yes, totally. It's to the point where I kind of have to stop thinking of my RPG designs as "games" and just think of them as "Easier, better ways to play pretend."


    But why? Why do that?

    Why does an RPG design just have to be an easier way to play pretend. Why shouldn't you let your experience with and joy at manipulating boardgames spill into and inform your RPG designs. Why make the effort to keep them seperate?
  34.  # 34
    Designing an RPG is hard. Designing a game is not that hard, designing an RP tool is not that hard, designing an RPG that works, is hard. Where the mechanics have real depth, where the story has real depth, and the story and the mechanics feed into one another fully and directly.

    And when I say "Game", that's the real "problem". The concrete rules, RPgs as classically giving an open framework versus the prescriptive tone of Games, where you know what's all you can do, the mechanics being meaningful and chewy, the "end-result" many equate with games, etc.
    • CommentAuthorElizabeth
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 35
    Posted By: Valamir
    Posted By: Elizabeth

    Yes, totally. It's to the point where I kind of have to stop thinking of my RPG designs as "games" and just think of them as "Easier, better ways to play pretend."


    But why? Why do that?

    Why does an RPG design just have to be an easier way to play pretend. Why shouldn't you let your experience with and joy at manipulating boardgames spill into and inform your RPG designs. Why make the effort to keep them seperate?


    It does anyway. I mean, It's Complicated is essentially a board game that you roleplay. But when my boardgaminess is left unchecked, the board becomes the game and the RPG stuff becomes incidental, or the game becomes an impediment to the roleplaying, which is a peeve of mine.
  36.  # 36
    This is exactly what I encountered as well, in most of my explorations of competitive story games.
  37.  # 37
    Posted By: ValamirWhen you role play you come out with a narrative story as a intangible "object" that you can share or treasure yourself in the future. When you board game you come out feeling like time has passed but you have nothing to show for it. Is that close to what you're thinking?

    Maybe, yes (remember, this is me taking a feeling and retroactively applying logic to it). The "object," though, is an utterly ephemeral one which is experienced by none of us the same way. That's partly fun, too.

    Posted By: ValamirDo you not get that same feeling, or are you getting your mental workout in someother fashion that does it better for you so board games feel like an inferior option perhaps?

    Maybe it's that that mental workout isn't as important to me. I certainly enjoy it. However, a good roleplaying game can give me that as well as the creative fulfillment, too.

    Posted By: ValamirHave you played less Euro more Theme Heavy games...something like Star Craft, or Game of Thrones, or Twilight Imperium.

    Of late, I've pretty much only played Euro games.

    Posted By: komradebobWeirdly, I'm now really curious to see a boardgame you'd design, Robert.

    I'd probably wimp out and make a hidden roleplaying game. But you've got me thinking about it, at least.
    • CommentAuthorMike Holmes
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 38
    Fascinating. I've been touching on this subject off and on for a while now. I have some friends who are boardgamers of the first degree, who are theorists on Boardgamegeek.com, and it's interesting to talk about RPGs from their perspective. An interesting quote from one of them, which I'll have to paraphrase:

    "I've never played any RPG that wasn't horribly broken as a game."

    I'll get back to that.

    Rob, I'm probably being a bit didactic, but I think you should have used some other term than creativity. I think I can feel what you mean, but obviously some folks feel that boardgaming is a creative activity. I'm one of them. And, to channel Ron for a moment, I think you're just talking about "Creative Agenda" here. "Narrative" as an output is, to me, too simple. That is, narrative might be what you're looking for, but RPGs provide other outputs that board games do not. For example that product of "simulationism" play, where you feel that the world of has some sort of tangibility to it.

    That might not be anything you're looking for, but I don't think you've ruled it out.

    And, of course, Ralph's question gets to the crux of things. Is it really the narrative as an output that you're cherishing after the fact? Do you really remember those things well? I rarely recall details of play well after a while (no moreso than I can tell you what I did last Monday). From that POV, the term "Creativity" is perfectly accurate. What I think you miss, whatever the specific of the agenda is, is the ACT of creating the sort of thing that you want to create. Who cares about output, was it fun while actually playing? It's the act, not the result, that I think matters.

    As the "meta-agenda" if you will, what separates RPGs from boardgames is what Ron calls Exploration. I've tried to define what this is in very concrete terms, and it's not easy. Where does revealing the board in a boardgame with a hidden set up differ from having your character wander around and discover things in a RPG? For instance.

    Here's my one theory that I think sorta has some credibility to it: in a RPG, the question of what is over the next hill has a potentially infinite number of answers. Even if we limit things by genre, or other limitations, that simply makes it a smaller infinity. In a boardgame, there's only so many things that could be over the hill. If you've played the game, in fact, you probably have a pretty good idea of the range of possibilities. In being like the real world, in being potentially infinite, RPGs have a quality that is much more like real life. And, so in exploring, no matter how you explore, or what agenda, you feel like you're not simply in a tiny sandbox, but in a realm that is as large as the real world.

    And that, to me, makes a big difference somehow.

    Anyway, back to Bill, and RPGs being broken. Given the infinite number of potential things that can happen in a RPG, mechanically there's always some point at which the judgment of one or more participants comes into play. Usually the GM. Deciding something like "should we bother to roll."

    Can you imagine in Monopoly having players say, "Eh, don't bother rolling to see where you land, just head to GO."

    I think that it is this fact, and factors that extend from it, that make the boardgamers feel that all RPGs are completely imperfect playing fields. I mean Bill is a guy who also says that having any random element in a boardgame makes it worse design. Because it becomes in some small way less of a clear test of your abilities to manipulate the game better than your opponent. Consider that perspective for a while.

    It is, unfortunately, quite possible that the two viewpoints are irreconcilable. How can you have an infinity of possibilities, and yet no judgment involved in deciding how to adjudicate the outcome? How can you write rules to cover everything? As Bill puts it... what do you do when your opponent in the arena decides to throw sand in your face?

    Mike

    P.S. I'm kinda with Morningstar in how I don't like games to be competitive in the sense of having to hate your opponent to win. OK, that's an overstatement, but I'm referencing the movie "Searching For Bobby Fischer" (which, if you haven't seen it, you must as it is key to all of this I think). There are two quite distinct "gamist" agendas involved there. I tell people that I don't play to win so much as to explore creative strategies when I play. And that seems somewhat valid. But, know what?

    Maybe I'm just scared of losing when trying hard to win. And have created an agenda that does not allow me to lose. Just some food for thought.
  39.  # 39
    Mike: I think it's quite possible that people read judgment into my calling the playing of boardgames to be a non-creative act. I also think no matter how many times I say I don't mean it to be, they're still going to read it that way. For that, I'm sorry.

    You might be right that I have a different idea of what creativity is and I'm too narrowly restricting its meaning.

    I do think that I enjoy the act of creation over having a created thing at the end. I certainly do appreciate looking back on a story and seeing the structure and the fun, but that's secondary to the momentary enjoyment of doing the thing. Thinking up stuff, imagining it, sharing those imagined ideas with others, infecting them with my mind viruses and seeing how they mutate inside them, etc.

    As far as broken games, it's kind of a cheat, but if you include "this is this person's judgment" as a rule, then it's sortakinda not broken. But I get why people might roll their eyes at that.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 40
    On a total tangent, are there any multi winner boardgames? I don't mean games where it's team play and one faction wins, but actually games where there can be multiple wins in different categories at the end of the game?
    • CommentAuthorElizabeth
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 41
    I also think your definition of creation is as lax as your definition of creativity is strict. You've done something, you told a story, but unless you recorded it, nothing is created. It's ephemeral. I mean, by what you're saying, putting together a puzzle with friends SHOULD be as satisfying as roleplaying.

    Not trying to give grief, I'm interested in this dichotomy you've got going on and want to understand it. But I don't think the words you're using mean the things you mean, and I'm getting confused as a result.
    • CommentAuthorElizabeth
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 42
    komeradebob, Vincent's working on a game we call "The Emperor's Children," where you can win in any of three categories. Anyone who wins two or more is technically the "winner," but it's fun to choose one objective and go for it, too.
  43.  # 43
    Posted By: Elizabeth- No worries about creative agenda: everyone who gets together to play a board game is getting together to play the same game.

    This bit is unfortunately not at all true. If you like you can term it "agenda" rather than "creative agenda", but one very common way of playing board games is the celebration of everyone choosing their moves to maximize their probability of winning the game. When some people are doing that and others are just throwing in a little bit of what to them feels like competition (this is how I think of what many in this thread say they like from a board game), it often works okay, but you get things that look exactly like creative agenda clashes. Kingmaking. "He always wins!". Taking competition "too seriously". AFAICT these are all symptoms of getting different things from play. Riding bikes for the camaraderie with an occasional "race you to the tree!" is a wholly different activity than a bike race.

    I've never played, read, or heard of an RPG that wasn't horribly broken as a game where the players are celebrating everyone choosing their moves to maximize their probability of winning the game. I doubt it's possible, and that's fine, as long as everyone's aware of the agenda differences.

    There's another bit to separate out here, I think... there's everyone choosing their moves to maximize their probability of winning the game, there's not doing that, there's feeling competitive and not feeling competitive, and there's taking winning/losing seriously and not. These are three separate axes. Absolutely separate. When playing a board game my favorite mode is maximize probability, feel competitive, don't take winning seriously. Poker? Maximize probability, don't feel competitive, take winning seriously. D&D4e's combat encounters? Don't maximize probability, feel competitive, take winning seriously. Burning Wheel's Fight!? Don't maximize probability, don't feel competitive, don't take winning seriously.

    I've met people who I feel like have never experienced one side or the other of every one of these axes (except the not-maximizing-probability-of-winning one).
    •  
      CommentAuthorRyan Macklin
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 44
    Posted By: Robert BohlMike: I think it's quite possible that people read judgment into my calling the playing of boardgames to be a non-creative act. I also think no matter how many times I say I don't mean it to be, they're still going to read it that way. For that, I'm sorry

    For one thing, they're non-creative for you. But that's some damned loaded language you're engaging in by not adding the "for you/me" part. I mean, I read the implicit "for you/me", but a straight-up read says you're criticizing someone else's fun. Even if you don't mean to be.

    So, I play quite a bit of chess. I love chess. It used to be my favorite game, it's how I met my best friend, and overall the game is in my opinion a Hallmark of Creation.

    The moment one of us is playing to win, though, I mentally check out. Long ago, I realized what I like about chess is that the way I was brought up to play it is metaphor for conversation. And that's colored many of my competitive games over the years. What I like these days is playing with people who will then happily discuss after the game where it went in different directions and the like -- thus the game becomes context for fascinating conversation. (And with really good friends, the conversation happens during the game.)

    And I'll have words with anyone who says conversation with friends is non-creative.
    •  
      CommentAuthorping
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 45
    Posted By: Jason MorningstarYou know, I love love love cooperative board games like Pandemic and Shadows Over Camelot, but I am lukewarm and getting lukewarmer about straight-up competitive games. I think this is because my friends take them very seriously, and that makes both winning and losing not fun for me. I can play competitive games with people who don't give a shit all night, and it is a rewarding social activity.

    Jason, reading my mind! I too have drifted further and further away from competitive games, but I still love Pandemic and Lord of the Rings or Shadows. Yes, I can only play competitive games with those that don't take it seriously and well, that means I don't play a lot of competitive games. I cannot stand it when players are gleeful (I've seen 40-year old guys hop up and down with childish glee) when they score points or beat someone else or worse, deliberately screw someone else and so upset when it happens to them. Ugh. As Jason says, it ruins the winning or the losing.

    A lot of boardgames seem to be about racking up points via some metaphor while barely interacting with the other players and in that case, I'd rather play solitare. It's hard enough these days with everyone's adult lives to get a bunch of people together that I'd rather do some group activity that's social than an activity that's just doing something by yourself near other people doing the same thing.

    [edited to fix the citation]
    •  
      CommentAuthorJarvis
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 46
    Everyone can relax a bit, we know Robert's not a dick and he's not trying to criticize other people's fun. Sometimes I feel like words said by a friend in conversation would be granted all kinds of context and leeway, but words read on screen are suddenly taken only at face value. Benefit of the doubt people.

    I'm totally with you Robert, but the biggest disadvantage of boardgames for me is the lack of Story. I love stories, whether creating them (RPGs), watching them (movies), or reading them. Stories seem to give reason and value to what's happening on the table or on the screen.

    Just as I won't watch a kickboxing championship on DVD, I also don't play the Street Fighter video games or pretty much any collectible card games. To me these are all just fight after fight with no context, no drama, and often no reason to be there outside the entertainment of the battles themselves. This doesn't mean I have something against fighting though. I'll watch 300 or play Mass Effect all day long, but that's because these tell a story in my mind.

    RPGs are my favorite way to tell or watch an unfolding story so they are naturally preferable to boardgames. That being said, Betrayal at House on the Hill (and to a lesser extent Arkham Horror) is a fantastic boardgame that succeeds in telling a story better than any other boardgame I've seen.

    The second reason I dislike boardgames is because 95% of them are competitive. I'm not a competitive dude and I hate the idea that my fun or my win must come at the expense of someone else's. This level of competition rarely, if ever, enters the RPGs I play and makes them preferable to boardgames yet again.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJohnstone
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 47
    Rob, is it perhaps a lack of investment on your part, rather than a lack of creativity in the activity?

    When I strategize in an rpg, I like it because I'm invested in a story and in characters.

    When I strategize in a board/card game (a strategy game!), it just seems like an intellectual exercise, because I'm not invested.
  48.  # 48
    Jarvis: I was just thinking about how to deal with the semantic clusterfuck the thread has flirted with becoming, and decided to say something much like what you did.

    Empirical fact: Whenever I consider or finish playing a board game, I think of the things I could have done with those people instead that I would have liked better.

    Hypothesis: If I'm going to be in a social environment, I'd prefer to talk with them or create or share art with them. Stories are a great way to satisfy the latter, and creating stories are a great way to satisfy both. You get to talk, as well as create and share art.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNathan H.
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 49
    I don't see strategy and creativity as being that different.
    I don't consider ketchup and mustard to be that different either.
    People excel at being divisive.
    Excel.
  50.  # 50
    This reminds me of a recent gamer gathering I attended. About twenty-five players of D&D or WoD of various editions, all kind of awkwardly making idle chit-chat. Most didn't know each other, as the point of the gathering was to allow different players to meet each other.

    I decided to bring a couple games (and I turned out to be the only one who brought any). I brought Rumis because it's a four-player puzzle game with colorful pieces that are fun to watch carefully being placed together. I brought Tsuro because it's a very simple game for up to eight players that is highly competitive, but very short so the sting of a loss doesn't linger very long. Neither of these produce any kind of fiction.

    Rumis got played a bit, but Tsuro was the big hit of the gathering. Eight people gathered around the board and a handful more watched from the sidelines. Total strangers were high-fiving each other, laughing, smack-talking and generally having a grand ol' time.

    Towards the end of the party, I was talking to the host who was pleased that the mixer was such a success and that he hoped some new D&D groups would form out of the occasion. However, he made a passing comment about Tsuro being nice, but he wanted to get some real games going after this party.

    I wish I could remember his exact words, but it just seemed odd to me to be so dismissive of something that produced tons of uproarious fun in ten minutes between strangers when it would've taken far longer with a traditional RPG. Isn't there room for both in the fun-o-sphere?
    • CommentAuthorsven
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 51
    At some point earlier this year I realized that playing badminton made me feel almost exactly the same way as a really, really good rpg experience. The difference being: a good badminton session is, at least for me, much, much easier to achieve. Plus it makes me sleep better and shrinks my belly.

    It is not the physical activity in itself that makes me feel so good about badminton (Even if that helps, I like running too because of the physical aspect. But running lacks the other qualities) it is that it forces me to take tactical decisions in a fraction of a second plus the excitement in not knowing how your opponent will answer to your last shot. It was an epiphany for when I realized that this, at least on a psycological level was the same for me as a successful group improv without hesitation. In the moment each point in the game is like collaborative fantasy. (I could have used squash as an example instead, but I have more fun badmintone opponents these days)

    (Reality check: Can anyone identify with this?)

    I think theoretically I could enjoy boardgames in the same way, (I do truly enjoy some boardgames, I carry a large Eufrat and Tigris infatuation, for example) but often the stress of intellectual achievement and trying to best your opponents during the boardgame make me sad. Of course, Eufrat and Tigris should be enough to make anyone happy anytime, but that's a rare gem.
  52.  # 52
    Daniel, this is exactly it.

    The board-game is "filler". It's fun, it's enjoyable, but it's not seen as the goal.

    It's seen as something to do while waiting for the last player, as something to do when you want something 'less serious', which carries connotations.

    It's not that they don't enjoy board-games, but they are people who RP. This is a meeting of role-players. And other things come second.
    It's just as most people would treat a first dish, and would want it to taste good, but it pales in importance compared to the main dish.
    •  
      CommentAuthorxenomouse
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 53
    Posted By: sven(Reality check: Can anyone identify with this?)
    I thoroughly enjoy playing racquetball. My win average is dismally low, but I enjoy running around and making crazy shots off the back wall. It's obviously a competitive game, but I enjoy the experience regardless of the outcome.
    • CommentAuthorsven
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 54
    Posted By: xenomouse
    Posted By: sven(Reality check: Can anyone identify with this?)
    I thoroughly enjoy playing racquetball. My win average is dismally low, but I enjoy running around and making crazy shots off the back wall. It's obviously a competitive game, but I enjoy the experience regardless of the outcome.


    That isn't completely an answer, but it is probably impossible to understand exactly what I mean. (I am also not a good player. I am mediocre in badminton and squash, I am truly awful in racquetball and tennis.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorSquidLord
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 55

    I'll admit, I'm completely adrift when it comes to this "boardgames don't have story" thing. Seriously, I'm so out of the loop on this that I'm starting to wonder if I'm not playing some other class of games that involves boards and little movey-things, but aren't boardgames as you guys are defining them.

    Situations? Absolutely, check. Environments? For everything but the most abstract Euros, and even then they pay lip service to them? Check. Characters? In quite a lot of boardgames, not only characters but individuated roles with meaningful choices that different ones can make, so check check. Conflict-driven scenes? That's largely the whole point of the mechanics, to resolve conflict and the whole premise of the game generally starts in conflict. I'm sorry, but I'm wholly missing where the "story" isn't here.

    Let's go out on a limb and head off into the rarefied contexts of card games, which are on the average more contextless than most boardgames. Poker, for example. It contains individualized contextualized Scenes (each hand), conflict (take the hand), and meaningful choices everywhere. And if you don't think there's narrative, I dare you to talk to enthusiastic poker players after a game. Their rendition of the back-and-forths along with the table-talk comes out as gripping as the most hardcore of the Forgites' or Story-Gamers' discussion of their characters' successes and failures and how it might fit into a narrative. The conflicts have a different complexion, but the story part of them are very, very similar. (And before you say "the cards are the content while my stories are about human drama!" recognize the poker player without an investment in your character would likely say "well, their content is all about rolling some piddly dice combinations;" you miss the story by focusing on the expression.)

    Rob, I think you may have really shot yourself right in the foot by suggesting boardgames are "non-creative," no matter how you meant it. I can absolutely buy that they're not artifactually creative; that is, the aim is not in and of itself to create a narrative. Narrative falls out as a result of experiencing and retelling, and many board games are pretty much the apotheosis of the SG implicit maxim "the mechanics should all serve to create the experience." Creative play in boardgames are exactly how one succeeds in them; that's the point.

    (Games like Capes and Shock have successfully decoupled the idea of "singular protagonist play" as the only or even best way to have even solid RPG stories, and that used to be one of the biggest RPG-vs-boardgame hammers to swing. And I don't even know where to start when we edge over into solo and same-side-friendly wargame/RPG hybrids like the games Two Hour Wargames put out or boardgames like Last Night on Earth which feature strongly defined protagonist roles for players vs a zombie/antagonist-controlling GM. Where do those fit into the "boardgames are non-creative" architecture?

    Rob, I have to say, I don't think the issue is that these games aren't creative or don't create stories, it's just that you don't like the stories they generate. And that's fine, because I think Burning Wheel is kind of a crappy story-weaver myself, marking me as an SG heretic. That said, there's a big difference in saying "I don't like that story" (an aesthetic judgement) compared to "I realized those games are non-creative." And that should have been fairly obvious early on.)

    • CommentAuthormadunkieg
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 56
    Posted By: SquidLordI'm sorry, but I'm wholly missing where the "story"isn'there.
    I think that the difference is in how we deal with constructing meaning, or perhaps, to what degree we must rely upon meaning construction in order to play. I don't have to know what a King is to play chess, I just have to know how it works in the game. In a roleplaying game, when presented with a King, I need to have a general understanding of what a King is, but I may not precisely know what a King may do.

    I think this thread's arguments run a funny parallel to the the very matter being discussed. When people get down to arguing the nitty gritty definitions of particular words, they can go on forever as we battle back and forth to control the language. Once a particular definition is chosen, outcomes can be arrived at fairly quickly, but they are often only tenuously related to the original point of view. Essentially, changing definitions is a bit like shifting the thread topic. Other arguments are presented through story. While we may not agree with the use of a word or concept in a story, we can often understand the general point of view being presented and explore it with counter-stories without ranging too far off-topic. Unfortunately, it's harder to come to solid conclusions from stories. In a sense, these two approaches are not dissimilar to boardgames and rpgs, respectively. And no, I don't think people's preference for one argument method or another has any connection to their preferences for boardgames or rpgs.

    Bah, I'm rambling.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNeko Ewen
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 57
    Posted By: SquidLordSituations? Absolutely, check. Environments? For everything but the most abstract Euros, and even then they pay lip service to them? Check. Characters? In quite a lot of boardgames, not only characters but individuated roles with meaningful choices that different ones can make, so check check. Conflict-driven scenes?That's largely the whole point of the mechanics, to resolve conflict and the whole premise of the game generally starts in conflict.I'm sorry, but I'm wholly missing where the "story"isn'there.

    There's definitely some kind of disconnect here, because in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience with board games, I'm just not seeing how board games provide these things in a substantive and meaningful way. Stuff like environments and characters exist, but even in relatively simulation-oriented games they seem to ultimately boil down to metaphors for how you do stuff with dice, cards, pawns, etc. The difference between Anglo and Euro board games is that in the latter the metaphor is weaker, but regardless the role-playing/imaginary space/whatever you want to call it is not the primary goal.

    I'm not totally sure how to really articulate how I feel about it, but I think it's like, I really enjoy playing "let's pretend," and I'm willing to try out most any kind of game that will help that work better, but I'm not competitive/strategic/tactical/logical/whatever enough to sufficiently enjoy the game elements on their own. Without the let's pretend part, I don't really feel the need to do an activity that involves other people.
    • CommentAuthorthreegee
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 58
    I really don't like word games like Scrabble or Apples to Apples.

    Oh, sorry. I thought this was random revelation hour. So, just what was the point of saying "I just realized I don't like competition. Just what do you think of that, suckas!" beyond trolling to kill time? Does it help me design a better game to know that some people can't Step On Up, so they play on safer ground, instead? Because I knew that.

    Really, inquiring minds what to know.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     # 59
    Robert didn't start off with anyhthing about competition. That was something I asked him about.

    Also, Robert said that his problem, if anything, was being overly competitive.

    Does that satisfy your curiosity?
    • CommentAuthorHiQKid
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 60
    Two personal thoughts.

    Some time ago, I created an RPG ("Struggle") with very competitive elements. It was designed for two players, very quickly, and it wasn't perfect. But it had some good bits. My friend and I tried it, and had an interesting story. We both enjoyed ourselves; but it was clear that I enjoyed it more than he did. He seemed kind of... let down, after. But he decided to play it again.

    So we did, much to the same result. He said to me after, "I think you've got some good ideas here, and this could be a good game. But it's not a game for me.". He stated the competitive elements (and the fact that they overwhelmed the story at times), as one reason. I think Rob had a similar moment here ("I'm sure this is great, but it's just not for me"), and it's actually got me thinking about a few things.

    The other thought involves Magic. I've played that for longer than I've played RPGs, but probably less often - at least 7 or 8 years, though. And every time I play in a "serious" environment, like a tournament or at a card store (with strangers), I feel kind of "meh". Not bad, but not great.

    But when I'm with friends, playing, I enjoy myself much more. And it's not just who I'm playing with. We still play to win, always, to the best of our ability. But A) We try to do it in fun ways, and B) We don't really care all that much.

    But, primarily, the "fun" I get when playing Magic is the same "fun" I get when playing many RPGs (Beast Hunters comes to mind, as does Baron Munchausen) - throwing each other into tricky situations and watching them escape. It's racing to find the right solution. It's doing something clever or tricky. It is, on occasion, drawing the right card at the right time.

    I'm rambling here, but the main point is this: Both RPGs and board/card games have spectrum of playing styles, both within types of games and within a particular game. This isn't really news, but it affects people all the time - and I daresay there's interesting, not-fully-explored design lessons in that fact.

    - Alex D.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJarvis
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     # 61
    Posted By: DanielSolisTsuro was the big hit of the gathering
    Weird. I fucking love Tsuro and yet it has arguably the least story of any boardgame. Revising my opinion . . . now!

    Posted By: SquidLordSituations? Absolutely, check. Environments? Check. Characters? check check. Conflict-driven scenes?
    Okay, you got me. Something is definitely happening in most, if not all, boardgames. A story is definitely there. Why does it feel so different from an RPG then? Allow me to revise my "boardgames have no story" claim above.

    Maybe it's that boardgames seem to focus on the destination instead of the journey. I'm having a hard time putting this feeling into words, but bear with me a moment. Boardgames and the social conventions surrounding them seem to encourage, reward, and acknowledge cool results. The micro processes of an individual turn pale in comparison to the overall win/lose result. The awesome in a boardgame seems to come only from achieving the awesome result, the win.

    RPGs and the social conventions surrounding them finds awesome in everything from cool ideas, witty dialog, well-timed betrayals, big reveals, interesting twists, momentous die rolls (crits as well as fumbles), and even smart character backgrounds. The character background thing is especially funny, because RPGs are one of the only activities I know that reward you for playing before you actually sit down to play.

    Many boardgames seem like elaborately detailed versions of a coin toss or High Card. In the end, I feel left with little more than the feeling of a win or a loss. Many kids games leave so much to chance that you may as well be flipping a coin because there's little to no strategy involved. For me, this simple result of A or B (win or lose) is not worth the investment of time it took to reach it. RPGs take a LOT of time, no doubt, but they're about all the little things in between winning or losing.

    Comparing boardgames to RPGs, for me, is like comparing a movie's plot synopsis to actually watching the movie. The synopsis still tells you 'what happens' but leaves out all the good bits of the film. If this analogy were perfect though, the plot synopsis would have to take just as long to read as the movie would to watch. (This is where you chime in with a list of boardgames that play out in 20 minutes and I counter with a list that play out in 10 hours.)

    The classic game Clue has the same premise as many classic RPG adventures. They both tell the same 'story', but I offer that the emphasis falls in different places. Boardgames seem to emphasize the mechanics, allowing the story to be fluff. RPGs seem to emphasize the story, allowing the mechanics to be fluff. This is why I will always argue that D&D 3-4th Ed. is actually a boardgame, albeit heavy on fluff.

    Damn. Now I want to go make mini-rpgs out of all those classic boardgames. Candyland, Clue, Mousetrap and the like would all make for some pretty strange rpgs...
    • CommentAuthorJosh Crowe
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2009
     # 62
    When you first brought this point up I called bullshit. The reasoning I had then has been pretty well covered by others here (use of the word "creative.") So I think that aspect has been put to bed.

    Fact: Board games do not meet many of Rob's Payouts. And Rob has a high payout threshold

    Board games are complex and have a steep learning curve to understand and enjoy(or they are simplistic and boring anyway). If you have fun mastering systems, that is a payout for you. Other payouts are winning, mastering systems, developing strategies, executing tricky plays, learning obscure strategies. I am further going to guess that Rob thinks all those things are a bore fest. There are of course more payouts but I think that covers the topic well enough for this discussion. So whatever you might call these things, like creative, Rob is not really turned on by them. And to Rob's credit he has played Race for the Galaxy and Dominion and he gave them what almost anyone would call a fair chance.

    Now we get to Werewolf. Rob hates this game, a fact that had to be dragged out of him. And the game itself is very simplistic and boring. Except for the human interaction part. If you like "Lie to Me" the TV show or the study of deception and bodylanguage then this game is fantastic. Rob does not, something he is very reluctant to discuss. This goes to the general "human interaction" payout.

    Cap that off with Rob's extroversion and you have a guy who does not just dislike things. He dislikes them enough to talk about it, do a podcast about it and then start a prolonged discussion thread. Extroverts need a high level of external stimulation to stay engaged. So if you are an introvert it may be hard to understand his vehemence of this topic.

    After playing with Rob a few times my guess is that he wants to do this thing that he enjoys and he also wants the things that others do to entertain him as well. I think the second part might be the most telling. As GM in Misspent Youth you actually don't get that much creative time, but you are in a position to egg on people to entertain you.

    In conclusion, I think that "being creative*" misses the mark. I think that is only part of the story. I think Rob wants to be creative and hear others being creative as well, to keep his stimulation up.

    Thoughts on that Rob?

    *creative being defined here as being "what Rob likes to do."
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2009
     # 63
    I like board games, but my best board game experience ever (chess against the sister of the junior champion, I still remember it) is not as good as even a mediocre RPG experience. Don't know why that is.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWolfe
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2009
     # 64
    Just as a clarification: Rob, do you include card games in this? It seems you do, as various card games have been mentioned.

    A week or so ago, we played a game of Bang! that I think maybe you might have liked. I was the sheriff. My deputy was the first to go down (I did not shoot the deputy). The renegade, who can act as a deputy in a pinch (because his win condition requires that he and the sheriff be the last two remaining, then he has to gun the sheriff down) went down next. This left me with two outlaws who no longer had to pretend to have any goal other than taking me down forthwith. It was tense, and they were confident. A combination of luck (a lot of luck) and the right strategies kept me alive until the dynamite I'd begun moving around the table finally crippled one of the outlaws so I could take her out. Then it was down to me and the remaining outlaw. As we traded shots back and forth, it soon became apparent that the odds were in my favor. When the dust cleared, I stood alone, wounded but victorious.

    At no point did we actually roleplay in the sense of talking in character, or acting on motivations other than mechanical. But we did create a narrative nonetheless. One I still remember pretty well over a week later.

    Does this sound like something you'd enjoy, or does it also fall flat?
  65.  # 65
    Josh: I am touched and vaguely aroused with how closely you monitor my reactions to things and the elaborateness of the theory you've built up. It doesn't ring true to me, or perhaps it's more like it reads as an elaborate way of saying "Rob doesn't like what he doesn't like." A payout is "something that you like," for example.

    Jason: Your reaction is similar to mine, only since that is the case it doesn't feel right to say I like board games (even though I sometimes do find things to enjoy).

    Lance: I can't really tell. I'd be willing to give it a shot. I was at X9 games the other day when Emily bought Bang so maybe we can try that later.

    --

    This conversation has gone so well I'm tempted to retreat to my earlier position: Board games and RPGs take up similar social space. Given that, I like RPGs more than board games, almost any time I play a board game, I could have played an RPG instead that I would have liked more.
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2009
     # 66
    Posted By: Robert BohlJason: Your reaction is similar to mine, only since that is the case it doesn't feel right to say I like board games (even though I sometimes do find things to enjoy).


    It doesn't feel right at all to say that I don't enjoy board games. I do enjoy them. Many board games I enjoy a lot, chess highest among them. But I like RPGs better. I won't turn down if someone offers me a good cheesburger, but I like steak fajitas better.
    • CommentAuthortadk
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2009
     # 67
    Posted By: Robert BohlAt Gen Con this year, I was on a panel with the three hosts from theBrilliant Gameologistspodcast called "A Salon on Gameology." During it, I figured out why I'd rather do almost anything else than play a board game.

    The panel was meant to discuss what makes a good game, and what one wants out of games. (The language in the title is purposefully overblown.) During the conversation we asked whether games can be good or bad (we determined they could be), what made a game good or bad (it does or does not meet its objectives), and what you want out of games.

    My answer: I like to be creative with my friends. And a light went on over my head. No matter how good a board game is, it's not a creative activity. This is not to say that board games are for stupid people or that they don't take brains or strategic and tactical thinking, but they're non-creative. Even if I enjoy playing a board game, afterwards I find myself wishing I'd been creative with these people. If they're not into roleplaying games, then I find myself wishing I'd spent that time talking to them.

    This was a satisfying realization for me. All of my gamer friends like playing board games and the most I ever say is "Ok, I'll do that with you because I like you and you like that." I was wondering why I was so weird. Why these people who I loved loved doing something that always made me feel quite "meh."

    Now I know. I think.


    This is a cool observation. I will state I can see this point of view totally. One friend of mine from HS is a master at the strategy board game. He also thinks in statistics, counts cards automatically and is a radiologist. That said his brain wiring is set up that way, where he really is not into traditional board games.

    Personally I see many parallels between board games and the vast majority of Indie RPG designs as well. I have stated this opinion more than once, so I would ask where do you see similarities or do you not? Just curious.
    • CommentAuthortadk
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2009
     # 68
    Now that I have read the whole discussion, I see what you are saying Rob.
    For me I do not want competitiveness in my RPG experience
    The only competition is the players (characters) in the very traditional simulationist gaming I prefer against the world/environment/setting/campaign/use the term you like.

    I do enjoy cooperation and competition in my boardgame world and experiences.

    You do not have to get as much from a boardgame as I do
    All good


    Thanks for posting Rob
    • CommentAuthorPaul T.
    • CommentTimeAug 28th 2009
     # 69
    I can relate strongly to the statement that "I prefer RPGs to board games because they're about being creative together with other people", even though I agree that "creative" is a laden word that might not be quite the correct word for this situation.

    I think it has something to do with story. Something to do with the whole "suspension of disbelief" circuit we have in our heads as human beings. Something about how we can invest in fictional situations and characters.

    When I watch a movie or a read a book I'm really enjoying, I really feel an emotional link to that story. If I'm reading a wonderful novel, and suddenly the protagonist died, with no explanation, no statement, nothing, I would feel pretty upset, possibly for the rest of the day (depending on how much I'd been into that novel). It's a good thing "good" stories don't do that (with some rare exceptions). When I play a board game, I don't really experience that identification. Same goes for environments, worlds, cultures, etc--even though they're imaginary, there is a thrill in discovering them. People can feel "lost" within an imaginary world.

    When I play a board game, I don't find myself imagining anything. I suppose I could, but it wouldn't be shared with the other players. And roleplaying games perform a little magic trick on us: they allow other people to participate actively in our imagination. I imagine a situation and I say, "You're playing George, Mary. What do you do?" In a tricky little sleight of hand, I've invested something I've imagined with a life of its own, through my friend Mary. My imaginary story, my imaginary world has come to life, it has become "real".

    Now, I think that a Poker game or a chess match can be just as much of a story. It's a question of whether we're invested in the actors or lead characters. If you were to make a movie about a Poker game, you wouldn't just get two people to sit down and hang a camera above the table, would you? That wouldn't be a story to most people, because what's the point? What's at stake? That's why Hollywood can make a story about a Poker game, but they have to attach some meaning to the characters--so-and-so is the underdog, so-and-so is a villain, and the life of this Hot Chick over there is at stake!

    Then anyone watching can willingly invest in that Poker game. I'm going to guess that for you, Robert, playing a game of Poker, or Settlers of Catan would be exciting IF it took place in the middle of a long roleplaying campaign, and the players in the game were important characters in the story, with each move have some impact on the fiction (even if it's just the hero's imaginary bank account that's at stake). Am I wrong?

    By the same token, someone who is a Poker nut DOES see that footage of the Poker match as a story. Because he or she is already invested in the characters playing--they know who they are, whether they have won in the past, and so on. Something is at stake for them.

    So, there are many common points. Players in a boardgame ARE being creative in choosing strategies, and their opponents can enjoy that creativity ("Ooh! Nice move!"). Players in an RPG are being creative ("Ooh! Nice plot twist! Nice characterization! Great French accent!"), and enjoying each others' input. Not so different on the creativity front, perhaps. Though I daresay it does feel different--probably because the playing field is so much more wide open.

    Tied into that is the whole "premise/Premise/theme" concept: what does the story Say? When I last played Dogs in the Vineyard, I saw one player's Dog kill a young, unarmed girl to protect the medical equipment he thought he needed to save his mother. He was sure he was justified; I felt his character was a murderer. That was INTERESTING, right? I learned something about myself, about him, and about how I might judge a hypothetical situation were it to occur in real life. Very interesting.

    ...all that to come to the same conclusion as Ralph: this is pretty hard to nail down, if at all possible. But, Robert, I feel exactly the same way as you do. Enjoying the thread, too, thanks.
  70.  # 70
    I'm much more interested in board games and card games than rpgs. I enjoy some rpgs, but not as much as a good game of munchkin, or settlers. Creative thinking isn't limited to the kind of collaboration in an rpg. Strategy, and tactics require creative thinking as well. Creative thinking is a how method more than a what. I enjoy the strategies, and one-up's-man-ship that board games instill, not because I only like competing with my friends, but because it offers us an activity to bond over. I do also enjoy the frequent pint shared between us, even just conversation.
  71.  # 71
    Posted By: Jason MorningstarI am lukewarm and getting lukewarmer about straight-up competitive games. I think this is because my friends take them very seriously, and that makes both winning and losing not fun for me. I can play competitive games with people who don't give a shit all night, and it is a rewarding social activity.


    I feel this way much of the time, too. I played Blue Moon with my fiance this evening, and she handed me my ass. And I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of the game. But I can't play Magic anymore, because people are so hardcore competitive about it and either way it's not fun.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaul B
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2009
     # 72
    Oh man...I absolutely love hardcore competitive board games. But I don't like playing them with hardcore win-at-all-costs players. Sportsmanship and fair play -- and a clear social contract that we are *playing the game* and not each other -- are absolutely required for me to have a good time.

    There are a couple folks in my gaming circle who never learned sportsmanship, and are willing to resort any means available to them to win a game. That includes exerting psychological or social pressure, kingmaking and other not-part-of-the-game techniques. And that kills it for me every time.

    That said, I'm totally okay with games like Poker or Battlestar Galactica, because those out-of-the-game pressures pretty much ARE the game (talk about an Ourobouros of a definition, yikes!). There's not really enough tactical depth in, say, Poker to play it in a completely aboveboard, emotionally honest way. Bluffing, outright lying and other forms of dishonesty (everything except outright cheating) are accepted parts of the social contract of Poker, so it's all good.
  73.  # 73
    Interesting thread.

    I think "boardgame" kindles up an image in people's minds - Eurogames, Monopoly, Trivial Pursuits. Games that have set rules and set strategies. They are problem solving games rather than exercises in creative writing or story telling.

    But boardgames don't have to be that limited. For instance...

    A group of players lay out a map of London and pick characters to champion in a Sherlock Holmes mystery. Each turn they buy the right to make up a clue in the game. Another player decides how likely it is to exist. Other players may offer counter-arguments. What happens is settled by a dice roll. No one knows who did it at the start of the game but everyone knows at the end because the made up clues point right to them.

    Sounds like a story game, right? It's also a boardgame. I've got a whole line of games that work the same way to do murder mysteries, Cthulhu horror, action adventure and more. They are Engle Matrix Games.

    A board game is just a medium of play rather than what the play is about. RPGs started off as miniatures games but moved beyond them. Some Indie RPGs now (I'm thinking of The Mountain Witch) sound like they could be done as boardgames quite nicely.

    Personally I like a good boardgame because it gives me a play experience that doesn't demand too much from me. It is a light mental exercise. Heavily creative RPGs (especially ones that require many sessions to play) ask more than I can give. They aren't bad for doing that, they just aren't geared for people in my stage of life. In the end it's all about being social.

    Chris Engle

1 to 73 of 73

  1.