Favorite Board Games?

[quozl]

I would rather bite off my own penis than play Diplomacy.

It's a deal!

[rafial]

On the subject of traditional card games, and games that are masterpieces of design economy, let me recommend Écarté, which was a popular salon game of the late nineteeth century.  I learned about it from David Parlett's wonderful books, and did some popularizing of it in my local circle about a year ago.  I printed up business cards with the rules on one side that I could hand out.

Here's the whole thing:

Écarté: 2 play, 32 cards KQJAT987. Cut for first deal, then alternate. Deal 5 cards each in batches of 3 and  2.  Turn 11th card for trump. Non-dealer (ND) may propose exchange. Dealer (D) may accept or refuse. If accepted, first ND, then D discard up to 5 cards face down, and are dealt new ones from pack. Player may not discard more cards than remain in pack. Exchanges continue until ND plays or D refuses. Play is 5 tricks. ND leads 1st trick, winner of previous trick leads next.  Players must follow suit, must try to win the trick, and must trump if unable to follow. Score 1 pt for 3 tricks won, 2 pts for 5 (vole). If  no cards were exchanged and player who blocked the exchange loses, opponent always scores 2.  1 pt for K of trumps if declared before holding player plays 1st card or to D if turned card is trump K. 5 pts wins.

Typically play for best of 5 or 7 games.

[Christopher Weeks]

I guess I'd rather play Dippy than bite the penis, but I'd rather not play a game than subject myself to another game of Diplomacy.  I've spent way too many hours in the agony that is called Diplomacy to ever do it again.

Chris (who wonders if this will draw more ire than calling for the president's stoning :-)

[Valamir]

As for cards: Hearts and Spades are my favs.

I've recently become enamored of the game Kings, which I understand is a Portuguese/Brazilian game whose name has always been the English word Kings.

10 hands, 10 different objectives (all centering around standard trick taking card play).  Some hands you want to take tricks, some you want to avoid tricks, some you want to avoid taking certain cards.

The first 6 hands are scored negatively and the last 4 are positive.  Nobody wins if the high scorer hasn't gone positive at the end.

I like it because its like playing several different games all in the same game.

[Valamir]

Chris (who wonders if this will draw more ire than calling for the president's stoning :-)

Probably.  Seeing as Diplomacy is just about the perfect game, where as not even his biggest fans would ever thing Bush is a perfect president.

[quozl]

Chris (who wonders if this will draw more ire than calling for the president's stoning :-)

He is who is without sin gets to cast the first stone, you know.

[quozl]

Seeing as Diplomacy is just about the perfect game, where as not even his biggest fans would ever thing Bush is a perfect president.

If it wasn't for those stalemate lines, it would be perfect.

[Valamir]

I've heard it argued that those stalemate lines are part of what makes it perfect.  The arguement was that once you've gone as far as you can with your current allies, the stalemate situation will force the seeking of new partners.

Some diplomacy games go the entire game with largely ad hoc alliances.  Tactical deals that rarely extend more than a couple of turns.

Some turn into camp vs camp early on.  This arguement suggests that the various stalemate positions force a break up of the camps, which mirror say Italy switching sides or Russia bowing out in WWI.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jonathan,

I'm not playing any game right now -- and only had the fantastic pleasure of playing PBEM once.  (Getting to look over the board for a week at a shot really taught me to appreciate the "chess" aspect of maneuvering.  It was also, no surprise here, I'm sure, obsessive for me.)

Ralph,

You summed up what I find important about the stalement line -- its simply one more test of alliances, one more test for what kind of victory a player wants (draw? absolute victory? win with an ally or alone?)  I think its vital to the game's construction.

Christopher

[Jonathan Walton]

I love how this has become the "Diplomacy" thread ;)

To all the guys who hate Dippy with a passion, I think it largely has to do with the type of people you play it with and the attitude they have.  It can definitely make emotions flare high and people without strong social skills, tact, and the ability to make you feel alright about being backstabbed are probably not worth playing with.  It'll just be an excercise in frustration.

Then again, part of it's a personal thing.  If you're not comfortable with certain levels of player-player antagonism, it probably won't work for you.  Personally, I find that these two thing go side-by-side.  The more social skills people have, the more comfortable I feel with them, the more likely I'll feel comfortable being antagonistic, because I know they won't take it personally or start acting like an ass when they're winning.

And quozl, face-to-face is the ONLY way to play.  Anything else is kid's stuff.  Sneaking around, making speeches, conspiring to lock people in bathrooms... I mean, that's half the fun right there! ;)

I've never had issues with stalemate lines, because they haven't been a big part of any of the 15+ games I've played.  None of the players I game with are obsessed enough to learn the stalemate lines.  If it's not in the instruction book, we don't really care about it.  Makes things more interesting, I think, since nobody's pushing towards a line that they're sure they can hold.  Instead, we just give it the old college try, disorganized as it is, and watch what happens.

[coxcomb]

My favs have already been mentioned. They are:

Vinci
Traders of Genoa
Princes of Florence
Puerto Rico

I have owned Blood Royale for years, and the one time I played it the rules were obviously broken as written. It remains the single game that I most want to be cool. I may try to patch the rules someday...

[Christopher Weeks]

I have owned Blood Royale for years, and the one time I played it the rules were obviously broken as written. It remains the single game that I most want to be cool. I may try to patch the rules someday...

Hey, that's cool.  I played it once, the week it hit our local shelves...what, was that 1986?  I remember really, really wanting to like it and deciding that somethign was broken.  but I don't recall what it was.

Chris

[rafial]

I've played Blood Royale about a dozen times (sadly never to conclusion, it's just TOO DAMN LONG for a FF game), and I've never run across any fundemental brokenness (other than the sheer length).  Poorly written rules, yes.

Best game of it I ever saw featured a player who managed to write several marriage contracts that paid him a stipend in perpetuity.  He eventually lost his crown and country, but his dynasty lived on in luxury in Lichtenstein, while the rest of us labored to support him.

I've often fantasized about writing an online server for it.

[Paganini]

That would be cool, rafial. What's your KGS handle?

And, to keep the thread going, I've been playing the Game of Thrones Boardgame recently. I like it a lot.

[rafial]

That would be cool, rafial. What's your KGS handle?

"rafial", oddly enough :)

The Forge room I made this afternoon went away when I logged out, but I'll keep checking into KGS over the next couple days.