Shitty board games and Cards Against Humanities Bickering

[lamaros]

[fake edit:] before people simply dismiss it as philosophical masturbation, the work done by those philosophers has greatly influenced every kind of system that needs to assess something 'objectively' (to make it to be objectively true or false in the context of the rules and systems governing it). So it has be of great importance to law or governance for example.

So has the work of people who disagree with such views. I don't get what it has to do with Monopoly, as discussed here.

[jakonovski]

I think we should totally start arguing about capitalized Objectivism now. 

[Jeff Kelly]

Hey, you guys couldn't let go and went the "mad as a hatter" route of arguing about the semantics and definition of objective vs. subjective so don't get irritated when people argue with you over semantics. I suggested everyonone should stop two pages ago, if you don't or can't then don't get mad when people join in on the action.

So if we do argue over philosophical semantics of terms then at least get the definitions right guys. Optionally you could just stop being insane, realize that it's a fruitless discussion wasted over a game we really shouldn't be arguing about and get on with your lives. Your choice not mine so don't blame me if I indulge your madness by participating in the discussion.

[Yegolev]

Somehow this thread is exactly what I'd expect to see from a group of boardgame neckbeards.

I'm not saying this is a bad discussion.  It's more fun than Monopoly.

[Phildo]

I said in another thread that we needed a linguistics thread.  This one is getting there nicely.

For the record, an official definition of the word "objective" is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice".  Concepts like "good" and "bad" are extraordinarily vague and we should probably start by defining them as something other than "I, and other people like myself, do not enjoy this game."

And now I'm done using quotes for the rest of the week.

[Jeff Kelly]

The original definition of objective as it concerns philosophy, logic and reasoning is slightly different though. Objective might now generally be used in the sense you described but if we go full neckbeard on the discussion then let's use the original definition instead.

"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject". Or more generally propositions that only depend on the extrinsical or intrinsical properties of the object of the debate, hence objectivism. In contrast to propositions that depend on the relationship the subject has to the object, hence subjectivism.

Hume, Descartes, Kant et al. or in the last century Popper wrote all kinds of treatises on the subject of subjectivism vs. objectivism. In that context you could reason about what makes a game objectively bad, if you come up with a reasonable and bias free definition of the term "bad" and can prove that the game fits your objective definition of "badness" without resorting to subjective categories. You can't objectively debate if a game is "fun" or not though because fun is by definition a subjective category since it depends on the " individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings" of the subject.

[Hawkbit]

Hume, Descartes, Kant et al

Everyone involved in this thread gets a bit pat on the back.  Seriously, folks.  You earned it.

[Goreschach]

Hume, Descartes, Kant et al

Everyone involved in this thread gets a bit pat on the back.  Seriously, folks.  You earned it.

I just want you all to know that I personally take credit for all of this.

[Pezzle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6AhepWgYg4

[Teleku]

Holy fuck, I turn away from this thread for just a little bit, and BOOM!  What the fuck happened in here?

[Soln]

Monopoly also has a runaway leader problem.

[Jeff Kelly]

Everyone involved in this thread gets a bit pat on the back.  Seriously, folks.  You earned it.

You all wanted to go full neckbeard on this discussion, so let's get full neckbeard on the discussion. 

It could have been so simple. You could all just have agreed that Monopoly is not a particularly good game or you could all just have agreed that you agree to disagree. Instead you chose to debate subjective vs. objective and argue semantics. So if you all would rather be silly and argumentative over fucking Moniopoly then that's fine. Let's all argue semantics, the definition of objectivism and subjectivism, moral objectivism, the history of the philosophical debates on the subject and how the debate got shaped by Descartes, Kant, Locke and Hume and what 20th century philosophers like Popper made of it. 

It would make all of that hubbub about the merits of Monopoly or lack thereof at least somewhat worthwhile and interesting.

I'm all for being silly and argumentative since you all seem so down to it.

[eldaec]

Monopoly also has a runaway leader problem.

I always find this a strange way of describing a game problem.

The issue I have isn't that leaders become unassailable, the issue I have is that games don't end when it happens.

I know what you mean and agree etc, just always found that term misses the point.

[Jeff Kelly]

I guess that's where one part of the dislike for Monopoly and similar type games comes from. They drag on for far too long even when it's clear that one player will eventually win.

[Teleku]

Well, not always.  Usually when we play, if one guy becomes the obvious leader, everybody on the table bands together against him.  If you hit a hotel and have to sell off your crap, you give all your shit away to the next most powerfull guy.  Monopoly matchs become bitter blood matchs where nobody is allowed to win.  Which is probably why we never ever finish a game.

[Jeff Kelly]

In my opinion games where players play against each other either have to limit the number of turns per game so that a game has a definite end or they need to have a win condition that is achievable withing a set timeframe.

In the former a winner is determined after the last turn is over so games last a deterministic amount of time. This is probably the best game mechanic for games where you can't come up with a good "win condition".  In the latter you have to come up with a clear and achievable goal that will determine the winner and you have to design your game in a way that this goal can be achieved without the whole game turning into a stalemate.

Otherwise you end up with a game where everyone already knows who has lost and who has won but where the players are expected to continue playing until all losing players are eliminated, or you'll end up with a game that is hard to win and where it takes a long time to get to a point where someone has won. (or to determine that everyone is bored and stop playing)

In the worst case you get games like Avalon Hill's "Diplomacy!" where nobody will ever win the game if all players are at least semi-competent at the game. (to be fair though in case of "Diplomacy!" it's by design)

Runaway leader is fine if the game ends once you get to that state. If your win condition is 'last man standing' though then it will get ugly.

[eldaec]

Hmm, I'm not convinced limited number turns is the only way stop eternal tear-down-the-leader matches, but certainly agree designers need to do something.

Cosmic Encounter for instance has a design that means players hands grow in power to allow someone to overcome the group, plus it allows joint victories.

[Samwise]

Well, not always.  Usually when we play, if one guy becomes the obvious leader, everybody on the table bands together against him. 

The thread has now come full circle back to Munchkin.   

[Yegolev]

I suppose we can put that element into the Objectively Bad (In The Philosophical Sense) column.

The OBITPS column.

[Ironwood]

Speaking of bad, games shop owners in Glasgow are ignorant cunts. So there's that.

[Samwise]

I'm not sure if "pick on the leader" is always necessarily bad, although there are lots of ways for it to be bad.  If it just results in painfully and spitefully protracting a game that should already be over, that's pretty bad.  In Munchkin it's bad for other reasons as well -- everyone  expends a lot of resources (one-shot cards) to take down the leader, and then when the next person in line wins because nobody has anything left to stop them, it just feels anticlimactic.

On the other hand in a game where the "leader" can change easily, "pick on the leader" can help keep the game balanced.  I guess the important element is that you can identify the leader and meaningfully impact them well in advance of their victory being assured.  Catan is a good example, e.g. all else being equal the person with the highest VP is probably going to get hit with the robber more often than not, and that slows them down a little so others can catch up.  

In both Monopoly and Munchkin someone can shoot ahead to an insurmountable advantage very quickly with a few lucky draws/rolls before anyone else can react, and opportunities to hinder them are limited, especially in the early game -- there's no point whatsoever in messing with someone early in a game of Munchkin because "bad thing" effects are usually very minor at low levels, so the competitive part of the game doesn't start until people start getting within a turn of victory.

[Morat20]

But we can all agree the blue shell in Mario Kart is fucking bullshit, right? :)

[Ghambit]

So, long ago I fell into the "Duel of Ages" trap that Vasel laid for everyone.  It's a shitty boardgame.  Do not buy.  Unless, you've got a really good gaming group.  They have to be fast and they have to be smart and creative.  It plays like crap for the herp derp crowd.  And w/o the 1st expansion it's pretty much horrible.

[Samwise]

But we can all agree the blue shell in Mario Kart is fucking bullshit, right? :)

That was EXACTLY what I thought of when I was talking about the Munchkin "everyone trip up the winner so the guy in second place can win instead" effect.  Although at least in Mario Kart you can try to avoid the blue shell by anticipating it and letting someone else pass you for just a second.  Munchkin is more like if the blue shell could be used as an automatic interrupt right as the winner was about to cross the finish line.

[Chimpy]

I thought the blue shell hit everyone in front of the person who shot it on its way to the leader?

Oh wait, I am thinking of the orb in Crash Team Racing.

[Yegolev]

Speaking of bad, games shop owners in Glasgow are ignorant cunts. So there's that.

Is Glasgow the exporter or the importer of these cunts?  I had always assumed these guys were bred in and escaped from rogue labs at a nearby university.