Player elimination is used in modern games that are really quick like Exploding Kittens. Games are 15 minutes long so don't need to wait too much and game can be played several times in a row.
@@gunkulator1and I got 2 words for dealing with player elimination other than speed: "ghost players": players who can damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, and attack unrestrained by a body to have to defend.
@@jackofallgamesTV Yeah! But still remember how in Bang! I killed a bandit, he became a ghost, targeted me for revenge, came back next turn because of event card, I killed him again and he targeted me again for the rest of the game.
One of the reasons why Catan/Settler of Catan took was so well received by the public is that it was the first of the more complicated games that had a quick start instructions in it. It was a sheet of paper with all the rules you need to set up and play your first game. In this way they lowered the time you needed to invest to start with it and that helped a lot convincing many families in germany to buy and play it
@@AxelQC and parker bros didnt develop catan, the game is from Klaus teubner and was developed with the KOSMOS-Verlag in Stuttgart (Germany). Parker Bros maybe translated and published it in the USA, but they didnt develop it
I actually don't mind player elimination, but if you want to make it work, you should put it in games made of multiple short rounds (like Love Letter or Wizard's Duel) so that, if you DO get eliminated, it's only for a couple of minutes until the start of the next round.
I'd consider that an exception to the idea that player elimination is a sign of bad game design. On the other hand I got eliminated first or second in a thirty-player game of Werewolf which may have lasted a couple hours, and I'm never playing that game again.
@@sandal_thong8631 werewolf is f***ing AWFUL when it comes to player elimination. One Night Werewolf fixes that like the games i mentioned above by making the game reset each round, and Blood on the Clocktower fixes that by letting eliminated players stick around as ghosts. It's kinda like when you break “rules” in grammar/writing to make the story you want to make. The rules are just guidelines in a lot of cases, but you have to understand WHY the rules are there to understand when it's okay to break them. I think (a lot of) modern game companies are getting better at figuring out when they can break certain rules.
Alternatively, games like Clue where player elimination is fully within said player's own agency and exclusively endgame is fine as well. I do think Clue aged a lot better that many other older board games
No worse feeling than getting your family or friend group together to play a game and then losing first and having to wait there in pure boredom for an hour or two as they finish the game.
A worse feeling: Being hopelessly behind in Catan... and still stuck there in a losing game for the next 90+ minutes. I would rather be able to just enjoy the company or find an alternative diversion than strung along as an required bot hopeless participant.
@@trueStatic One game of Catan I played, I was severely behind, one of the other players was close to winning, and I got a monopoly card, but the player who was winning kept getting rid of their resources on their turn. Except for one turn, that player happened to receive a very large amount of wood. Then I used my monopoly card, then used a knight to steal another resource (because it would be silly to use the knight before using the monopoly card), traded the wood for what I needed, and won it with exactly enough resources.
@@Knowbody42That doesn’t actually sound like you were that behind if you were able to win with a handful of wood and another resource. Secondly you can’t play two development cards in one turn if that is what you did.
Thinking of Player Elimination, the worst example my group experienced was The Oregon Trail card game. Very first round, one guy drew a card that was straight up "You lose". No condition or challenge or anything, just out of the game in less than a minute.
Ouch. We played a game of the LotR co-op game once with the Sauron expansion where we lost before my friend even had her first turn. Still talk about it today.
Bang! 7 player game. Two people played their first turn and the last guy was already out of cards (don't remember how) so he said "I'm gonna grab a beer". When he got back "Is it my turn yet?" "Ehm... no, you died before it was your turn." "Ok, bye" (luckily it was a company teambuilding so he didn't have to sit there doing nothing)
@Kamen42 bad game to choose for team building then. Why eben pick a competitive game at all? I use crazy maze. Collaborative, no wait time as everyone plays at the same time and I even use it in laegee groups and just rotate the players every 1-2 minutes.
00:00 - Intro 00:59 - 10. End time predictability 02:41 - 9. Every turns fun 05:12 - 8. No player elimination 07:25 - 7. Scores less widely far apart inbetween player levels 09:52 - 6. Variable setup 11:30 - 5. Agency 13:43 - 4. Non frustrating luck 16:28 - 3. No direct conflict 18:54 - 2. No humiliating winning / collaborative games 21:40 - 1. Diversity of games Very fascinating video! I would add few extra things: - good artworks (old games were sometimes quite crude) - non-boring rules manual (not all games but some have very good instructions, like mini game tutorial - Unlock -, or increasing complexity over time - Clank Legacy!) - Extensions to add replayability and surprise (Carcassone). This is related to part 6 but the difference is more drastic than randomization at set up. - More story telling (even Codename has a story, it is not just abstract) I'm sure we can find and discuss some others, though they may be more specific to a subgenre of game in particular :P
i mostly disagree with the point you added, the most popular old game have been reprinted many time, with modern artwork, new story and alternative rule, i'm not sure for the rules manual since i already know old game rules, but they totally could be improved in the reprinted version.
@@gizel4376 You arguments seems to go un favor of what I said : old games are printed with extensions, new stories and rules, new artwork too ^^ So there is solething to this to appear modern. Anyway, sure, design isnt everthything. It is just an ingredient, part of the soup. I just finished to read an entire book about modern boardgames (Histoire du jeu de société by 404 editions, from 2022) and a lots of modern authors will tell about design and how it is important to them. You can't concieved a Dixit, a Machinarium or a Unlock without good artworks. There are inteviews of authors who fight with editors for 2 years just for a design concept important to them, like material used tokens. Previous games manufacturer would have just go for the cheaper way according to their testimonies. Lots of Magic the Gathering players have started buying the cards before knowing the rule, just because of the artwork. Public is receptive to good design.
@@XRaym yeah i mean that's right, those point are important and weren't present back then, but those are point that old game have an easy time fixing when reprinting new version, the other point of the video are mainly point that aim at the core mechanics of the game and can't be fix without changing completly the game.
@@gizel4376 The video is 10 reasons modern games are better know. I dont know why design quality should be excluded if it is part of them. You can't have game without design, even as minimalist, old or modern. It is through design that players interact with the game. If there is an evolution of game designs and manufacturing quality (and there is), which makes gaming better, it worths be noticeing in some way, especially considering how important it is for some modern game authors (I really invite you to read the book mentionned there are at least 40 interview of creators, really inspiring).
Can u suggest a game that has good replayability? Right now I'm thinking of buying terraforming mars.I'm looking forward to playing this with my group of friends who visit me nearly every day. Or is there some other game like catan or ticket to ride that you could suggest? I would be very happy if u suggest something fun and something that has a lot of elements during play(ie it should not be too simple and straightforward such that it gets boring after sometime).
You've put into words so well what makes board games different nowadays. Catan was definitely a gateway game for me, playing it around 2002 for the first time, and liking it so much. We used to play Monopoly maybe two times a year, but after being introduced to Catan we played it hundreds of times with friends and family, it was so addictive. My mom, who never used to play any games, even competed in the Dutch Catan championship one year. It really sparked my love of board games. I'm fortunate to live only 2 hours by car from Essen, so I've been to Spiel many times. Some of my best memories are playing games at Spiel all day, and eating out at restaurant Ponistra after the fair closes.
My game design, now selling at Barnes and Noble, called MOSAIC is totally playable in a time limit because there are a finite number of tiles and every time you play a tile it progresses the game.
I've always found it hilarious how people are *so* in love with Catan and talk about how well it's designed and how fun it is. The game is TERRIBLE - even worse than player elimination, you can easily end up in a situation where you are still playing, but have not only no chance of winning, but are not even able to take any actions. I'm not going to pretend it's not a good game, it is - but it's not a "great" game.
@@mylesleggette7520 I remember playing it a while back with some people at a game store on game nite and I did NOT get a lucky start and because of the positioning I had no access to the places where the die rolls were higher probability for getting resources and I knew from the start that I was in trouble and the whole damned game I was just going through the motions but unlike the other players I could barely get any resources. It was depressing.
it was the most millenial thing I've ever heard, lol. sums up what's wrong with the generation prior to mine, they want everything handed to them, because of a lie sold to them by the boomers.
I always appreciated how Catan gives you something to do even when it's not your turn. When someone else rolls the dice, you are still engaged because you collect resources, and you can still participate in trading. You are still engaged. I guess that goes under 9. Every turn is fun (even your opponents' turns). Anyway, great list, and I took notes! That was just an opportunity to shout out Catan that I felt would have fit!
"Every turn is fun," what a joke! I've played hundreds of games of Catan where I had nothing to do for 10+ turns in a row because of bad rolls and robbers.
@@robertlewis6915 Pirates and Explorers expansion adds coins to the game. if you don't get a resource from a roll you get 1 coin in your turn you can buy up to 2 resources for 2 coins each. it really saves players who didn't put their starting settlements in the best places you don't have to buy the expansion to try that feature out. make your own coins
@@whoeveriam0iam14222 I say this as somebody who loves the paper-path perk in C&K expansion: that sounds boring. I have and have played E&P (it's about four feet from my chair currently), and I vaguely remember exploiting that mechanic unmercifully. I did not like that expansion, though, so it could have soured me on it. In any case, the random rolls that do you in are just part of the fun. It's amazing when somebody rolls a 12 and you realize that you get 3 cards from that because you built a settlement and a city next to it for other resources without even realizing (this happened in a game I played recently, to an opponent). It's not amazing to be on the losing end of, but that's how things be and part of the fun is laughing when it happens.
On point 8. No player elimination, another good solution I've seen is that if a game does in fact eliminates players, Its a much muuuuuuch shorter gameplay experience and you don't feel left out because of how fast a game is and you often play several "rounds".. Coup comes to mind.
The way dungeons and dragons gets around the issue of rolling dice after taking actions is by encouraging you to play through your mistakes. It is almost always possible to come back from a sticky situation. But when you are truly destroyed it gets to be a fun story
Yeah, it's kinda odd that DnD was brought up in a list that preceded a statement about "confrontation games", when DnD is the complete opposite It's a game of collaboration. And as such, your failures are not failures, but new plot points in an ongoing story
@@pseudonymous7557 this is why I much prefer the open ended role-playing part of DnD rather than the dice-chucking combat a lot of people focus too much on
Games in general have evolved, not just board games: video games, for example, have this trend too. The fun of early games was mostly based on rewarding success, and when you didn't progress towards the game's goals, you were likely having a stressful time. Modern games are designed with a completely different idea in mind: the process of playing them should be fun and rewarding itself, and whether you you're lagging behind the others or being on top of the mountain, the games should always offer you something. Some people like this process-oriented approach, but other people think games like this are too casual and the process doesn't feel very rewarding for them even when they're doing great, so they seek for a more contrastive and challenging experience, so while some may enjoy the modern type of games, others may prefer the early type of games.
Just make games where the process of playing is fun AND there is a very difficult goal to strive for. Like modern sonic games where the movement is fun and beating the game is easy but getting the S rank on all the stages is a much greater challenge.
Well, videogames is a whole other can of worms, while it's certainly true that they have evolved over the years the actual "fun" aspect of games have taken a back seat for game developers who now have to, a majority of the time, focus on profit by including anti consumer practises, be that micro transactions or pre order bonuses or whatever, along with tight deadlines leaving games rushed and porly put together ofcourse not every game is like that but gaming as a whole is not all on an upswing as compared to say the early 2000s It isn't just about making games as fun as possible anymore This doesn't really apply to most boardgames as there isn't any "game breaking glitches" or whatever, there can be oversights ofcourse but if a board game is bad that's it you just don't play it, if a videogame is bad it can be because of a number of reasons that could in theory be patched at a later date (ofcourse boardgames can also recieve updated versions but what im saying is that they only have to focus on making it fun while videogames has to find ways to make as much of a profit as possible while using as little effort as possible... at least sometimes) I personally don't like what i see in the modern videogame industry, i do definitelly think there are great games being made still but the amount of avarice being shown by huge companies like activision and EA really dampens the whole experience i must say
Lately, I’ve seen a video Mario games and how they tackle difficulty. Mario players are of a truly wide variety of age, skill and experience with Mario games. They do it by offering help if a player clearly struggles with a level or section. On the other hand, they offer stuff that’s difficult to get, but not necessary to finish the game (e.g. saving the princess). The skill required to 100% most games is really high.
@@EmilForsberg_GRYBO True. Most board games have yet to deevolve to the state of microtransactions and pay to win. ;) Though arguably the video games took this from TCGs like Magic with their random boosters.
It all comes down to player agency. People want to feel like their choices are impactful. That’s why I think the best-aged “old game” is Diplomacy since it’s all about player choices and interaction unlike Monopoly and life, which are deterministic to a large degree. Edit: as a wargamer, I don’t think the friendliness and non-combative nature of modern games is necessarily better or worse, but rather a matter of taste. Many of the best wargames have also come out in the past 10 years (see COIN series, Warroom, Root, etc)
I agree - I like combative games myself. But I do think the trend with modern games is towards friendlier games, and wanted to highlight the benefits that many players enjoy - even if it isn't as important for me. Some people will find it better, others not.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first point, unless after finally getting seven people together prepared to put the time in, you draw Austria get ganged up on and are out of the game by A02.
@@coolsunday6339 yeah it still can have an player elimination problem under certain conditions, but it’s a wargame what can you do! Most of the balancing comes from natural table dynamics, rather than the map and starting positions. if you play the table, ah-hem, diplomatically enough you can almost alway avoid being completely eliminated early game tho. Clawing your way back in can be its own interesting challenge
Great summary! And R.I.P. Klaus Teuber, who passed away this week. He managed to bring so much new and varied to the gaming world that many modern games have built upon.
I love the gentle mix of humor you sneak into your videos. Keeps the videos highly engaging while not being so overwhelming as to detract from the main point of the video.
This is the first video I watched from you just now and I instantly fell in love with your charm - the way you speak and present and the jokes sprinkled in makes it a soothing and very enjoyable experience that even had me laugh out loud.
According to the official rules: Monopoly's choices when landing on a purchasable space are not buy it or do nothing, its buy it or the property gets auctioned off with ownership going to the highest bidder. Every purchasable space on that board gets bought the first time someone lands on that space, just not necessarily by the person who lands there. Also if you play Monopoly with the official rules it is a 2 hr, or less, game.
A friends family would speed play Monopoly, fourty five minutes was a long game. They were playing using auction property rules, and as soon as the dice landed, the next player was picking them up to roll. I couldn’t keep up so lost pretty fast most times. But it was a revelation to learn that there was a ‘different’ way to play the game.
It's still a bad game (in terms of optimizing enjoyable/interesting gameplay). Imo trying to win an auction or swindle my friends into a bad trade isn't the rush I play for🤷♀️ I prefer to stab them in the back before they get the chance to respond like a proper diplomat 😂
@@solsystem1342 There's tons of high level strategy for "how to win" with official monopoly rules. And it really comes down to which properties are worth how much. Fastest way to win is expertly drive up auction prices without ever winning, and then once everyone else is too poor to bid powerfully, just swoop in and pick properties up for low cost. But you can also do well by being selective enough, even if you overpay, if you can get a set of 3 and develop them. All it takes is 1 person landing on them for the price to pay off.
One small note about those two choices in Monopoly (buy or don't): if you choose don't, by the rules you're supposed to have the "bank" player auction the property off (if I remember right, starting at the mortgaged price on the back). At this point, anyone can acquire the property, even the person who refused to initially buy it. If it seems like there's no down side to triggering an auction, you'd be right; it's meant to both include all players and to speed up the acquisition of property so that players can haggle with each other to trade for monopolies (with which they can of course drain others of their money, but that's a different point). The way of play where if you don't buy the property you just move on isn't the proper way to play by the rules of the game, but for some reason we all do it.
Good point. There is strategy as you said to putting the property up for bid, especially if you're the only one left with cash on hand. Though I think his original point is still valid that there's not much to do on a turn.
@@sandal_thong8631playing it “the right way” you can have players haggling and/or setting houses up by the second go around the board. And as far as being in jail, you have the option to immediately pay the fine, or take the three turns chance to roll doubles. Its a great “safe haven” tactic as other players land on your houses and you get paid while in jail
I find it a good rule modification to always auction the properties or make their price higher to some degree so giving them to auction becomes a viable choice because you can't just buy everything you land on to.
One traditional game that deserves a mention is backgammon. The dice rolls give variety. The doubling die is a neat mechanism for skipping any "boring" end games. It even scales well to any number of players e.g. three players can each play two simultaneous games, one against each opponent.
If you love backgammon, the same guy that designed hive designed another one based on backgammon called tatsu. Simple but adds a few little changes. But I get you I personally love backgammon, checkers and nine men's morris. I will happily play abstract strategy games and I like that I have a few more options now.
I don't understand your point about the doubling die. Endgames aren't boring because the game mechanism makes the game finite and prevents it taking too many turns. The doubling die has effect only if you're playing for stakes; that is, gambling. And playing simultaneous games is a terrible idea! Concentrate on one game, finish it, then start the next game.
@@naughtscrossstitches No, the doubling cube lets you challenge the other player to double the stakes or resign, hence ending the game more quickly if one player is way ahead.
I've always felt that backgammon was a ultimately a gambling game. After you play several games, you realize there is only one correct strategy, which is boringly rudimentary, and the only thing that differentiates you from a similarly knowledgeable player is the luck of the die.
I generally don’t like hidden teams games, but there’s one exception I love to play: Battlestar Galactica. It solves the player elimination problem in two ways: if a player is revealed to be a cylon they keep playing openly against the humans, and if a human is killed they simply choose a new character to replace their previous one. It also helps if the group you’re playing with are fans of the show.
Arkham Horror also handles player deaths by having them create new characters. I'm not sure which game the idea originated from, but I think it's ingenious.
Really enjoyed this video as it touches a very personal chord. When creating Pirate's Cove, Paul and I had recurring conversations about this very topic and how toxic old-school board games could feel. Finding a way to tap into the social fun of competition without it feeling toxic and over-before-it-begins was a clear goal. A design goals was to ensure players felt they still had a chance to win up until the last turn. Imho, this is one of the best imported ideals from Euro games and the world of board gaming is better for it!
@@Khornedevotee Yes or in general the games that basically let you pick your friends' minds by encouraging personal interpretations. Then again he'd want to keep this brief in order for non-games to even watch it. The one thing about catch-up mechanics is that you do not literally want things to remain undecided until the last turn. A player with consistently good decisions losing it all at the last moment to someone who did nothing but rubber-band behind them up to that point is no fun either.
I love the innovation with modern board games. Nowadays it's not just every theme you can choose from, but even game mechanics. Want a game that feels like a classic card game yet still modern? Look at the trick taking genre! Want a game where the whole mechanic is talking to each other? Negotiation games, social deduction games! So many options in this modern age.
@@capuchinosofia4771 some good negotiation games include 'The Resistance', there's a futuristic themed one or a fantasy themed one (and the fantasy themed one, called 'The Resistance: Avalon' adds some interesting yet easy to understand mechanics). Alternatively there's 'Murder: Deception in Hong Kong' which is another great social deduction game that easily incorporates people who might not otherwise speak too much. Regarding negotiation games, the most core game of this type might be 'Chinatown', but there's plenty others. Zoo Vadis is a good one that recently had a kickstarter that might still have late pledges open. Your friend is Board Game Geek! Google 'Board Game Geek Negotiation games', or social deduction games, you should get a list of the highest rated games from there 😊
I am slightly surprised Dominion wasn't mentioned as a good modern game in either of the categories, but man was this list still amazing. Thank you for the hard work you put into this and for the great points you bring up. This is definitely going to my favorites list
Deckbuilder (and their variants) are even one step further, basically a revolution 2.0. They are so far removed that comparisons to older boardgames fail altogether, missing the point of this video.
I appreciate that Dominion was arguably the game which began the deck building subgenre, but I also feel that deck builders that have come out since Dominion run with the concept better (Star Realms, Clank, etc.)
I was literally just thinking about you and this channel yesterday, wondering when you might upload again! Imagine my surprise when I saw this in my feed :) glad to see another one of your videos!
I love the jokes having a bit more bite than you'd expect from a board-game video. And these spicy bits are thrown in sparsely so they catch me off-guard with a chuckle every time. It's a clever and charismatic way of keeping the viewer engaged. I might be starting to drift away mentally when all of a sudden I have to go: "Wait a minute? Did the man just blatantly gaslight me?" "Was that a same-sex marriage joke I just heard?" etc. This is great script-writing plane and simple. Thx for the amazing video!
Regarding player elimination, I do appreciate it when long games where you can very much be put grossly behind without much achievable agency does still offer elimination or an option to concede, such as in Through the Ages. Because in a lot of cases it's worse to have to keep playing after you've already lost than it is to get eliminated and not have to keep spending effort on nothing.
Shoutouts to Sid Sackson. The man was designing board games back in the 70's and he pioneered a lot of the principles in this very video. His masterpiece "Acquire" is getting a reprint soon. Highly recommended.
random board placement does not mean it is not possible to develop a dominant strategy , because catan's core gameplay is dice rolling the only strategy that matters is getting your towns on the highest number of probable dice rolls....
I'm surprised when you talked about werewolf you didn't mention the super-popular spin-off "One Night Ultimate Werewolf", which entirely eliminates player elimination by condensing the game into one turn where the town either kills a werewolf, the tanner, or an innocent (and wins/loses accordingly)
It was a far stretch, but I was hoping that Blood on the Clocktower would get mentioned - it's by far the best social deduction game out there in many people's opinions.
@@Planerary I have a friend that hates social deduction and is Arab so even If she joins, we would have to memorize all the roles… Also, it’s expensive. For reference, I don’t have enough to buy love letter. Still, good for u
I want to add number 11: keep players engaged. No 5 players games like Risk with 10 minutes turns that make you wait an eternity untill it is your turns. Turns nowadays are quick and often you can benefit from another players turn as well. Or even games where everyone plays at the same time like 7 Wonders.
Great point. I will rule out any game where you can expect a 10 minute wait between turns. Love the Eclipse 1st ed simultaneous play option where two players on opposite sides of the map can take their turns at the same time, allowing larger player counts with half the downtime.
Back in the 2000s, I really believed that multiplayed video games will easily replace board games. But seeing how the gaming industry is less about fun social experiences and more about deceiving kids into entering their parents credit card details into their system, I think board games are a much better social gaming experience again.
I think the renaissance in board games is influenced by the emergence of computer games. A lot of game design principles from one carry seamlessly into the other. In fact, I don't think I know any video game designers who haven't tried to make a board game or at least a homebrew tabletop system, and I'd wager a lot of board game designers have tried their hand at video game design as well, be it mods or custom content for games that enable it. Auto-chess comes to mind as a particularly "board-gamey" design of a game, and Paradox Interactive got their start adapting board games to PC.
@@TheMonkeystickI studied computer games development in university and, while it wasn't a massive part of the course, board games were examined in one module and designing a board game was a group project. So yes, the people that make one are very much thinking about the other.
I think I heard that this frustration was the original purpose of monopoly. I think the game originally was meant to show players how unfair it is when there are monopolists. which i think the game shows very well lol But very good video! very well edited! this channel gets a follow from me!
No its not. Its that most people do not know how to play the game at all, so they make stupid decisions that prolong the game unnecessarily. For example they put tax money and other fines on "free parking", when the very purpose of those events is to remove cash from the game. Then they refuse to trade property, which is the activity that brings the game to its conclusion fastest, and allows the most room for strategy: if you think the game is just 'luck' this is most probably caused by an unwillingness to trade. Negotiation used to be a common skill used by people all the time. Now, not so much. Either way, the game is only supposed to take about an hour. If it takes more than two, youre definitely doing it wrong. The frustration about the game that you mention comes from not understanding what every person who plays sport understands: losing is not important, and another opportunity will always come along next week. You must risk losing in order to win, otherwise the game bogs down and no-one gets anywhere. The whole game becomes a chore to be endured until everyone gives up and does something else: the lesson is that without giving someone else what they want, you cant get what you want and the results are awful. ie the exact opposite conclusion you came to.
Youre right. The original version of the game featured mechanics that allowed people to work together. It was stolen, butchered, and turned into Monopoly by the exact kind of people it was criticizing.
John, tremendous! Thank you! I finally feel like this video shares all the reasons I tell (with kindness) my non-gaming friends WHY todays modern board games are created better in more enjoyable ways without some of the frustrations of much older games. Feel like I can pass this on to others to help them understand. Thanks for your quality tongue-in-cheek content. Love it!
It's a great video indeed! I only disagree with no-direct-conflict games being described as modern and better than direct conflict ones. There are cut-throat, conflict based games in many genres, from skirmish games and war games through area control or even economic ones like Food Chain Magnate. It doesn't make them any less state-of-the-art design-wise than German style euros. Tbh these euros have been getting pretty stale in the last decade or so.
@@robertchmielecki2580 I don't say that no-direct-conflict is better in the video, it's just implied by the title. Really the video is about how games have changed over the years, and for most points it is "better", but I couldn't make it 9 Reason Board Games Are Better and 1 Reason Board Games Are Different. Besides, for some people it is better, for others not. I agree that there are great designs that have plenty of conflict in, some that I love. But really I was trying to make a video about the differences of modern games, and on average they are overwhelmingly less aggressive. It's impossible to cover every detail of modern games without a million caveats and a boring video. And I do also state that there are still aggressive games being made, and there's more than ever.
8:04 I'm not keen on catch-up mechanisms. It means that playing well enough to get an early lead seems futile, because the catch-up mechanism gives your opponent an unearned advantage.
It essentially forces you to save up potential to go first at the right time. Done properly, this makes it a lot of fun for people loving strategy but in most cases it turns out the way you described it.
Sounds like an issue with "passive" catchup mechanics. Active ones where either the "loser" must correctly take advantage of, or where the "leader" must carefully use their "advantage" to turn it into real advantage, tends to be better in my experience. Also if you're "losing" but actually have an advantage, then you're not really losing are you? It's just misleading heuristics. Pro players would intentionally take advantage of it. Granted, it can lead to frustration when beginners think they're making the right play, only to realize they aren't...
Also if you manage to still win despite the "unearned advantage" other players get, that's just a power move that proves how well your play really is. Unless visible dominance is what you're after, but are you sure you wanna play with less challenge?
It shouldn't feel that way if the comeback mechanic is properly tuned. If properly tuned, then a player who gets an early lead should be discernibly ahead of the other player(s), but not by as much as they would have if not for the catch-up mechanism.
I love still risk but risk Europe truly is an improvement. The battle mechanics still rely on rolling but the layered attacking makes battles strategic instead of just luck. The crown collection system also prevents the constant back and forth and makes every move feel more valuable.
I love anything but the original RISK. "Look at me, I holed up in Australia, woohoo!" If you haven't tried it, Metal Gear Solid RISK is a true treat. Even with the awful original world map, it adds so much depth. Objective system so the game is put on a timer (can end as early as three turns), characters to add strategy, ability cards, and the mobile battleship Outen Haven that allows for amphibious landings--even into Australia.
@@danielpayne1597Australia isn't even a god postion, at most it means you spend 5 minutes wiping that player out last, and for the rest of the game it's a way to get out more troops but that's all
@@calebbarnhouse496 Border numbers are more important than anything else in RISK. A free +2 all game means you'll always be advantaged over the poor suckers who tried going for Europe. The Americas and Africa are decent, but all have 2-3 borders and thus are easy enough to break into.
I found number 6 kinda funny, because although yes chess starts out the same way every time and Catan has variable setup, the idea that modern games like Catan can't be mastered as well because "they're different every time you play them" is probably incorrect. I haven't done the math, but I am fairly certain there are more possible games of chess than catan, so each game of catan is arguable *more* similar to another than each game of chess.
When I was a kid, my brother loved playing risk and I hated it. I gave one great memory from it though. I captured all of Asia, and my brother tried to force his way in, but I had one army he couldn't defeat for like 5 or 6 turns in a row
Great video! A few points I'd like to add: 6:45 - In addition to those, one worth a lot mentioning is Blood on the Clocktower. It builds on Werewolf's foundation (you still have an evil player killing people at night, usually) but turns it into so much more, and removes player elimination very elegantly. 10:17 - I completely agree with your point, chess is only fun when two players of similar skill/experience level are playing. But I have to nitpick your reason: it's not exactly because the pieces start at the same position. A variant of chess called Chess960 has randomized starting positions, and that doesn't change the situation really. Opening preparation goes out the window, but the stronger chess players are still superior in every other area of the game. Just compare Chess960 tournament results with regular chess ratings, and you'll see the top players are still top players.
On Chess, when I said "the pieces start out in the same way" I meant they also have the same movement abilities. It was a simplification to keep the video snappy, but I agree - I'm sure that Chess pros will win no matter the opening arrangement - it's about the understanding of how the pieces move and seeing openings.
@@actualol I disagree on chess only being fun with two roughly equal players because I (a total chess noob) recently played against my dad who has been playing in a local chess club that regularly has matches against other clubs and it was realy fun. I actually managed to checkmate him in one of our games. I was playing not to win but to make as little mistakes as possible, which he later told me is the way he approaches chess. According to him in chess you aren't playing against your opponent but your own mistakes. In my opinion chess is a beautiful and fun game if you approach it with the intent to learn not to win, it's like a competative puzzle both players try to "solve" but every move changes the puzzle. The goal is to "solve" the half that is controlled by your opponent while also preventing them from "solving" yours. And of course it can be frustrating to play against a more skilled opponent if your only goal is winning but that is unavoidable in any primarily skill-based game.
Edit: this is just me asking about perceived inconsistency in the video, please correct me if I interpreted something wrong. Also you think to much randomness is bad and then you don't like chess because it isn't random enough? So, do you want skill based games or luck based games or do you think a game is bad if it doesn't manage to be both? Games like Chess and Go are fun because they can be mastered. Games like yahtzee are fun because anyone can win. They aren't bad games they are games for different people. A person who wants to learn how the game works and improve with every match plays chess. A person who enjoys a game of chance plays yahtzee. A game doesn't have to be fun for everyone. The attitude that things have to be fun for everyone to be good is a blight on media. Though I will agree that board games are perhaps the medium where that versatility is most impactfull. I was born after Settlers of Catan released and I loved playing Monopoly as a kid because we adjusted the rules to be more luck based. All the taxes and similar losses go in the middle of the board and the next to land on free parking gets it all, you can build houses on any property you own regardless of if you have the monopoly (though maybe you needed to land on the property again to so I can't remember). I loved playing risk and the in my opinion better (but significantly longer) Shogun. I adore playing werewolf. You know what games I never realy got into: Catan and Carcassonne. Carcassonne is fun but my inner perfectionist hates when I realise I can't build my city the way I want. And I don't know why I didn't like Catan but I didn't (probably was just me being bad at it). They are all great games just not for everyone. And that is fine.
@@kossowankenobi A woman said she hated Candyland so stacked the deck so her kid would win quickly. He then said she had to keep drawing until she won too!
Always a good day when there’s a new Actualol video! I particularly appreciated the point about good luck vs bad luck. My husband likes Risk, while I think it’s fiddly and obnoxiously luck heavy because of those dang dice. And it can go on FOREVER… 😂
The digital version is a lot better. The randomization can be set to remove edge cases, and it is far faster because the dice rolls for the entire battle can be done at once. The setup can also be done automatically.
I'm just bored of playing on the same Risk map. Everyone has the same 3 strategies. So I've been making my own maps on poster board for about a decade.
I went into this video agreeing that board games are better than ever but then you seemed to want to convince me of the opposite. Only points I could agree on were 5.) Agency and 1.) Options 10.) I like the longer games. its harder to get people together who are willing to play multi-session games but they can be far more rewarding when you do get to play. 9.) It is ok to let a turn sit. There is a problem I notice in modern games where they tend toward more addictive but not necessarily more fun. Besides if only one turn out of 3 is exciting it makes that one turn all the better. If every turn is excited I just tend to get exhausted. 8.) I miss the player elimination. My friends and I regularly add in perma-death as a house rule to games like Munchkin and Zombies! Not every game needs it but some games it benefits. It adds so much tension and increases excitement for actually winning. If you want to be a good host make sure that a secondary game or other entertainment is set up for the eliminated. Furthermore werewolf has been the most popular party game at all the recent parties I have gone to and the Resistance is available to play as well. ( I obviously just have a different friend group) 7.) I hate all the new rules that Force a game to be balanced. Some negative feedback might be appropriate for some games but there are plenty that take this concept too far. In a game where a blowout is possible the close games are so much better. in a game that is always close you cannot get that true pyrrhic victory feel. 6.) I love some variable setup but the way you present it trashed the mastery I love in games with set starts. It just sounds like you are unwilling to master a game. 5.) Fully agree. Players need agency and a strong sense of they could have done better if they played differently. 4.) Luck of the draw can be just as frustrating as luck of the die roll, both are dependent on how they are used in the game. Luck prior to and post a decision have different meanings to players and the game. I like that both exist but you cannot just blanket say that luck after a decision is bad and luck before a decision is better since it depends on what the game is going for. In risk it is all about taking the risk and not knowing the outcome. There is a suspense in the decision making and in the rolling of the dice that I do not want to loose in modern games. 3.) Once again a little variety is nice but direct conflict is the point of some games and other games are not necessarily better because they lack that. 2.) Pandemic is fine but my friends and I have been looking for ways to add some competition back into that game. I do not like the "everyone's a winner!" attitude that grips modern society. There is a game my wife and I love "Terraforming Mars" where the players share a common goal but still compete for points as that goal is being accomplished. 1.) Variety! This is why modern gaming is better and I still agree with that despite me disagreeing with all the former points. We are exploring every avenue possible with board games, and game makers are understanding better than ever the consequences of the different rule sets and thus can better tailor a game to fit in its own niche. I am fine with some games existing with all the things you mention. What I don't want is an elimination of the opposites, I want those games to be even better at what they do well.
Great video and excellent information for board game creators to consider. It was super helpful to detect some flaws in my designs and come up with better ideas. Thanks a lot, got a new subscriber 😉
As someone who grew up in the 60s and 70s and played those few games that you mentioned, particularly Risk and Monopoly, ad nauseum, I agree with your main thesis. I will say that as kids, pre-video-games, we had a lot of fun playing those games and I cannot even count the number of hours of fun we got out of them as they were one of the few things to do on rainy summer days or cold winter evenings after school. We did dabble in some of the early Avalon Hill wargames but those standards remained our staples. Most Risk games ended with an "earthquake" once it was pretty clear who was going to come out on top. Monopoly, unfortunately, was even worse for us because of some ill-advised house rules that did nothing but lengthen the game and make the luck factor even more pronounced. I agree, games are better now but there is a lot more to compete with them for our leisure time including more decent TV programming, video games (online, multiplayer, and solo), more varied sports, etc. Even with the more varied and much better designed boardgames of today, I think youngsters of today don't play a lot of board games in favor of other activities.
Love the video. I've heard a lot of these points in my game design lectures, and it's nice to see them analyzed through board games, especially with the great examples!
Board games are to video games like animated movies are to live-action ones. They're both different types of the same medium, and therefore serve to learn from each other.
The way I play werewolf, we add a lot of different roles and a host to regulate them so everyone always has something to do, the game is fast, and the players who get out still have fun watching the chaos unfold before them. This gets to a point where people are begging to be the host, who is basically a dead player the whole game, but they get to see everything that is happening. Another great solution to this problem is one night werewolf, where there is only one night, and the villagers just have to vote out one of the two or three werewolves in that one night.
Exactly this for us too. We don't play anyone as a regular villager (though we do tend to use the normal werewolves, a lot of the alternates feel kind of gimmicky). We usually play with some combo of the seer, witch, spellcaster, bodyguard, matchmaker, ghost, hunter, tanner, stuff like that to keep it engaging for everyone. I always host and it's always incredibly amusing for me. Also I don't know where all these people who criticize werewolf are getting into games of it that last an hour. Maybe if you're playing with 99 people somehow, but our rounds are usually in the 5-10 minute window and nobody is bored. The dead people all just wind up looking at each others' cards (and those of the people still playing) and watching the chaos unfold in quiet bemusement. We've played hundreds of rounds and I still get begged to bring it to every party. I genuinely don't get the hate (although social deduction games and only social deduction games forever can admittedly get kind of old). The problem I have is that my friend group is kinda large and so we very quickly break the upper player limit for most non-party type games which means a lot of social deduction and party games and little of anything else. Which sucks cause I definitely love the big heavy strategic games the best, and it's rare to get the chance to play them. I know some people will break off into multiple groups and play more than one game at once which...maybe. It always seemed a bit odd to me though.
What is even worse about werewolve is that it is the best strategy for the werewolves to kill the best players first, leading to them being frustrated and the game to be boring as all the players that could make the game interesting are dead
Yea. Which is why I love Clocktower so much. Killing the best player first means they are likely to be trusted more and they can still participate in discussion and has a final vote. No they do not know who the evil players are.
@alex neo yoo I just read through the description and visited their website and this game looks just like the perfect deduction game😅😂 Problem now are just at least 150€🥲
@@pinkunicorns3185 yea everything looks good except for the price but you just need to find a person who has it and can run it. Don't have to buy it yourself or split with the group.
I used to play werewolves with friends over WhatsApp. We made custom stories and characters at some point too. Dying wasn't really bad because there was an underworld in which we could laugh at the villagers struggling lol.
Some of our favorite games blend a mix of new and old elements. Betrayal at House on the Hill is partly luck based (dice roles) but requires strategy and communication, starts off cooperative but then turns 'aggressive' with a traitor eventually showing up, and while it can include player elimination, that is not often the traitor's ultimate goal. Another good one is Eldritch Horror; fully co-operative, every character is unique in their abilities, no wasted turns, a factor of luck, but can also be incredibly punishing at times. But it fits, considering your goal is to stop one of the heavy hitters from the Cthulu mythos from arising and/or the destruction of the world. It also limits player elimination - most of the time if your character dies, you just grab a new one and rejoin that turn, but the act of dying helps bring the end of the game closer to the end. And while you can be outright eliminated in a few situations, almost all of those don't come into play until the game is almost over anyway, typically after the group is well on their way to a total loss.
One thing you didnt mention was that there are alot of modern games with a “solo” mode where you can play by yourself if you want. Here’s a few if anyone interested -Parks -Fallout Wasteland Warfare(can be expensive) -60 second city(made for 2 people but can be played solo but very difficult)
I've played solitaire games of Viticulture, Scythe, Terraforming Mars, Warhammer Quest Card Game, and It's a Wonderful World many times during the Pandemic. I think it would definitely be worth making a solitaire video.
Nice list... I have some asterisks on some of them. Having to leave the game up overnight... Or several weeks is not always bad. Neither is player elimination. And... Chess (and similar) not being "friendly" is a problem with the player - not the game. Multiplayer solitaire is not an invention for the better
@GeorgeDCowley when I was in middle school, 3 friendsand I had a neverending game of monopoly set up in the section of my shed we claimed as our clubhouse. It was fun , except when someone was sick/grounded/etc and we either couldn't play for days on end or risk upsetting the missing friend by starting a new game without them.
I am already a big fan of boardgames and I actually own quite a lot of the games displayed here. Still watched the entire video though, and somehow still got a new perspective. Great video!
3:32 But in Monopoly, if you're in jail, you aren't completely passive. You can still collect rents. You try to make modern board games look good by comparing them all to Monopoly, and telling us only Monopoly's bad points. You do it down by saying it punishes you, but it seems that you're punishing Monopoly.
Collecting rents when in jail is a flaw in the game. Any time I tell someone I'm into board games, they say "Like Risk and Monopoly?" so that's what people think of. Also, those are the games that are most likely to result in someone getting angry and tipping over the board, making people not want to play board games ever again. So they deserve the analysis and criticism for bad gameplay dynamics leading to that situation. The first object of a game is to have fun.
Yet the thing is that Monopoly’s bad elements are not used in such a way anymore. I too enjoyed Monopoly the last time I played it, but now that I have gotten some real games, you can’t deny it flaws in every aspect. Just like a lot of those games popular among non-hobbyists that only became popular because they were here before the current gen games, like Risk, Scrabble and Clue for example. And yes, I do still think Scrabble (while, using the app) and Clue are fun, but they are very definitely underdeveloped compared to the games that get published nowadays. I’m sure if Risk, Monopoly, Scrabble or Clue was designed right now, not a single publisher would want to publish it. There are some actually well designed old games though, chess and Rummikub still serve fine as games, and probably will in the future too.
You really summed up why I don’t like Werewolf. My college’s board game club was big and every meeting would have a big werewolf game at the end for those who wanted to play. It was cool to play with about 15+ people consistently, but getting eliminated early sucked. Usually you had to leave the game you were playing to play werewolf and ruin that game for everyone else, then you die on night one and go back into the main room and have nothing to play because everyone else is playing already.
I grew up in the 90s but my mom brought board games from her time living in Germany and so I mostly played collaborative games even though they were not yet popular in the USA.
I really enjoy Dice Forge because even though it's a game centered around rolling dice, it gives the players a lot of agency. Also, because you get to choose which faces you put on your dice and how you arrange them, the dice become part of your strategy and you get more invested in the rolls than if you were just rolling normal d6.
Great piece of work!!! Modern gamers always like to say how much they dislike Risk or Monopoly but you have given us 10 very good reasons why. When I started to watch I wondered how you would get to 10 reasons, but they are all solid reasons. One thing is undeniable though... those old games are still around and are still selling... I do not really consider Chess as a boardgame, Chess is something that has to be studied, you can play it if you know how the pieces move, but that is not really playing Chess. My father in law played Chess on the internet and in a local club, but still had dozens of books about Chess so he could keep up with his opponents. To me it is not a boardgame if you have to study for it or have a certain level of insight and intellect, a boardgame has to be fun, and yes a Lacerda-game is not for everyone either, but you do not need to study to be able to play it.
Agreed. Chess is very different. It is a skill that must be studied and practiced. It is closer to being a general in a military battle or a lawyer in a trial.
best way I would compare it is that chess is Street fighter and something like Risk is Smash with items. Street fighter and smash are fighting games, however in street fighter you have to study combos, learn how to play neutral, etc to be competitive at a basic level. however smash (with items) is a free for all random fest where even the best players can be screwed by luck.
One of the reasons they are still around is nostalgia, and the other is that there's one company, Hasbro, that owns American tabletop game companies: Wizards of the Coast, Avalon Hill, Milton Bradley and Parker Brothers. It's not in their interest to spend money innovating games, when they have sure-fire sellers year-in and year-out, perhaps just offering another version of Monopoly that has different property names.
@@sandal_thong8631 That’s not to say they don’t try to have new versions of the game to play (Cheaters and City for Monopoly, or the objective-based revamp of Risk, and its longform Legacy version), or try to make more accumulating rules for Monopoly (1 dice movement piece clocks or other in-game timers to end the game via wealth instead of last man standing)
@@sandal_thong8631that's a very bad way of looking at it, those games sell tons of copies every year despite being "bad" why? Because they aren't bad, risk is a great game, one of the best boardgames yea you can get bad dice, but in my group I play risk with when I can the luckiest person ALWAYS gets wiped out first, because they have no strategy, yea occasionally I will run through a max troop count territory and accomplish nothing, but it's OK because your strategy needs to keep that in mind
I love that you mention that there are still combative games in modern tabletop. My personal favorite is a game called "Red Dragon Inn" (RDI). Ironically it has many of the "flaws" you bring up with older games: - elimination - attack other players - luck based! But at the same time the theme is built into the game that supports enjoying those aspect. RDI takes the concept of carusing at a bar, puts it into DnD style fantasy, and applies cartoon slapstick humor. With character based decks this makes the aggressive mechanics feel like a natural part of the theme as you gamble, drink, and bar fight your way to victory.
I played it for the first time this weekend and enjoyed it a lot, even though I was the first player eliminated. Watching others duke it out and the combos some of them did was really great!
If the game is over in just a couple turns after the first player is eliminated, then it can be considered an exception to the "bad design" of eliminating a player and having them wait half an hour or more for the game to end.
@@sandal_thong8631 that's true of any elimination game, that is why I point out RDI specifically as the theme, comedy, and overall balance is aimed at keeping everyone in as long as possible. Even when you have a bad run and get an early knock-out it's usually a huge moment in the game. It's not perfect by any means, but it's doing its best to mitigate the flaws.
I like this video. You're clearly passionate but not annoying, which seems a tricky balance for many content creators. Nice video and audio, also. I look forward to watching more of your videos!
Fantastic! Was looking forward to this video and you delivered. EDIT: Similar to Mark Brown of Game Maker's Toolkit, would love this to turn into some tools & tips for designing games and then a board game "game jam", with you selecting and reviewing the top entries. Naturally, entries would need to meet modern design standards as part of entry.
Fantastic video! It explains why I loved Yahtzee so much when I was a kid. You roll the dice and *then* decide what to do with them. Games like Tiny Epic Galaxies or Under Falling Skies add a lot more, but the basic mechanic is the same.
There are some great points in this video but there's something to be said for character building experiences. Those canes and learning to suck it up moments have their value. Much of real life does involve luck and circumstances that you can't control. Learning to deal with those situations is important. So, don't throw away those old games.
I have nothing against modern games, but losing a turn because of a role of a dice is part of the fun. It brings an element of chance. With the mix of chance and skill, you get an exciting game. Chess is a great game, but if you don't have the skill, then you'll always lose, hence the lack of interest for some. Monopoly is mostly chance, and so, a bit boring. Modern games try to be lick American football where by over the years the game has evolved to only have the 'exciting' plays. Rugby, however, has some very dull moments, such as the endless resetting of scrums, but that's what makes the game great and makes people appreciate the hard battles and the exciting moments. Having excitement at every turn isn't all that exciting. It's the mixture of chance and skill that creates an exciting game. The chance of having your tactics scuppered and the skill to overcome the difficulty.
Very odd to cite Dead of Winter as a positive example of input randomness when the most memorable thing about it is the dice that has a 1 in 12 chance of killing you instantly whenever you travel between zones
No game is a perfect example. I needed a game that had input randomness using dice and Dead of Winter was the only one I had to hand. I'm not declaring these games perfect, simply highlighting aspects of their design that are worthy of note.
@@actualol Well I think the 1 in 12 instant death dice is a positive feature of the game, so it might be perfect, but doesn't really serve the argument. Castles of Burgundy has solely input randomness with its use of dice.
@@actualol I just tried my farm shop from the library because you recommended it and its a good example of rolling first and decide how to allocate dice later. I wont buy the game (small shelf) but want to play a few more rounds before returning it.
Monopoly was meant to be both a long-term game (for a time when there wasn't much else to do in one's free time), as well as a message on societal economic structure, and the version we play is only half of it. The board was meant to have two game modes, Landlord's game (Monopoly as we know it) and Prosperity, the game mode which the Parker Brothers removed from their product. The general gist of Prosperity's game rules, when someone lands on another's tile, instead of paying the owner (landlord), they pay Land Rent into the community chest. BUT when someone lands on the community chest tiles, the stored wealth is distributed evenly to ALL players. There's a few more stipulations, most of it around Georgist economics, but the main point was to show the difference in how the two games make the players feel, and how it shows that monopolization and large-scale private land ownership actively drives its tenants further into poverty- while more equitable land rights distribution leads to a betterment for all.
Thanks. Good point, which I read in a book about Monopoly. I also enjoyed reading Henry George's economics book, _Progress and Poverty._ But those who own land, don't want others to know. That's why California has been in budget trouble since 1978's Proposition 13, restricting property taxes. Similarly when it came down to it, American universities sold their slaves, not their land to raise revenue, and they don't want to talk about doing either.
About luck, it is important to distinguish input randomness and output randomness. Input randomness is when something random happens before you get to do something about it, and then you get to act upon it as you wish (think, drawing a card at the beginning of your turn and choosing if you want to use it). Output randomness happens after you have a choice (think attacking a place and then rolling dice to see if it worked). Both have their place in games, but when it comes to certain things input randomness can feel a lot fairer because you feel like you are adapting and you get a say in how things turn out. You can still get bad luck, it can still be unfair, but at least you got to make the most of it. Output randomness can undermine strategy, because it leaves things up to chance in a place where you can’t control. This means that whilst it can work really well in some places (like in risk taking games where pushing your luck is the point) but in others it can be frustrating as you still loose even though you did everything as well as you could have. It is worth mentioning that it isn’t a matter of this type of luck is good and this one is bad, but rather it is important to be aware of how luck can affect a game differently depending on when and where it is used
6:10 One Night Werewolf is the best alternative to werewolf, the chaos that comes when you realize halfway through that you are actually the werewolf is so fun! And the companion app is awesome
Hard agree. I find it sad that there is still so many people who never/rarely play board games. My all-time favorite is still catan, but mostly the expansions, which added even more layers. And also, we have some household rules that may or may not distort the balance in favor of more peaceful evenings without people banging their heads in after getting cut off :D
Okay I have to make something clear in case of Monopoly. Going to Jail is vital part of the strategy in this game. If there are places left to buy you want to get out as quick as possible, BUT when other players have orange and red monopolies you want to stay in prison as long as possible, because you are safe there. Choosing how to deal with prison is a very misunderstood concept of this game
I went over a friend's house to play Bang! and was eliminated before my turn in the first game and managed only one round in the second. That was the last time I played it. It wasn't fun to sit around.
I do think a lot of these are to taste. Some are a matter of having the right friend group, or a large enough gathering to cushion flaws that hurt small groups. Games now address or embrace these problems in different ways, which is great.
Great video, and I appreciate your caveat at the end. I would also add that there are many modern games that scale very well, or feel very different, depending on the players. Ticket to ride is a prime example. It can be a great family friendly game you play with your Nephew or grandparents... or it can be a brutally competitive game where you purposely block people once you see where they are going. Games like this are awesome as they use simple rules as a framework, and allow the user to feel like they are in control.
@@actualol I actually lol'ed when you said you don't put your route down to block other players. My focus is definitely *not* on getting the most points for myself. My focus is making sure I get more points than everyone else, and if stopping someone else getting points is the best way to do that, you bet I will.
@@xorsyst1 Yes, many people who played the American version, would block that one-train link in the East as their first turn. There's another one in the South like between New Orleans and Houston, I think, that could be worth doing to frustrate someone, and to grab that corridor early. The expansion 1910 with reduction in the cross-country routes' points and having a bonus for most tickets made, really changed the game for different play.
Okay, there are a bit of aggressive moves in Ticket To Ride that will bring out the hate in the group. Specifically Nashville to Atlanta, that move is like throwing down the gauntlet, whether you do it early, basically declaring you have one of 5 possible big tickets, or whether you do it late, just to screw someone over who is trying to complete the big ticket. It can be table turning to say the least.
My friends typically do it early just in case we get one of the big tickets & to mess with any other player that might get them if we don't. Its pretty much an automatic first move in my household.
Thank you John! You're a real Profi in explaining what is running the success of boardgames. As a german boardgamer since the 70ies it was really impressive to remember the own expieriences with the games you told about. For me and my wife it's one of the three most relevant points we expierience vicinity. What a pleasure, what luck!
I was wondering if you have ever tried Stone Age before. It is personally one of my favorites, because of you can choose different strategies, block of you friends for gaining the right resources, and still rely on dice rolls. Thank you for your great reviews and videoes!
I always talk about Werewolf vs The Resistance. 😆 Glad you support it! Got eliminated in the first round 3 games in a row. Never played it afterward. The Resistance FTW. ✊
I agree that Catan was a massive game changer when it was released, but I personally find it currently in the same tier list as Monopoly or Risk. This because it is possible to 'wall off' other players causing them to no longer be able to expand/play, or be unlucky and keep getting no resources (or if you do, they could get stolen before it is your turn) . You can influence the chance of getting resources, by settling on higher probability tiles (6/8 or, 5/9), but just like you mentioned in Risk (14:30) you can consistently roll bad.
Catan (Like Risk) has a lot of "invisible" skill expression. The best players are consistently making slightly better decisions than their opponents and they slowly gain an advantage because of it. You make decisions on the margins and you win on the margins. The best player doesn't win every time, they win more than their fair share. Some people don't like these kinds of games, but I don't mind them. I don't need to win every time even if I play the best.
#10 and #2 are the worst things about modern board games. So many of these games are just six people solving their own little puzzles and after 40 minutes we do a bunch of math to find out who solved the puzzle the best. Games should be dramatic and exciting, especially the moment when somebody wins. Sometimes you need a game that you know will take less than an hour, and sometimes you want a safe game that could never cause an argument because nobody cares enough, but sometimes I want to play a game with teeth.
What I love is the shift from luck mechanics to push-your-luck mechanics in some modern games, where you are still at the mercy of something unpredictable, but you get rewarded for accepting greater risks, and if you happen to draw/roll terribly, you have no one to blame but you for your greed and not settling for something smaller, but safer
Player elimination is used in modern games that are really quick like Exploding Kittens. Games are 15 minutes long so don't need to wait too much and game can be played several times in a row.
Exploding Kittens actually gets faster as more players are eliminated so the wait is not all that long.
@@gunkulator1 Good point!
@@gunkulator1and I got 2 words for dealing with player elimination other than speed: "ghost players": players who can damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, and attack unrestrained by a body to have to defend.
Yes, usually when asked about "Euro" games, I state it as no player elimination unless it's a short filler game.
@@jackofallgamesTV Yeah! But still remember how in Bang! I killed a bandit, he became a ghost, targeted me for revenge, came back next turn because of event card, I killed him again and he targeted me again for the rest of the game.
One of the reasons why Catan/Settler of Catan took was so well received by the public is that it was the first of the more complicated games that had a quick start instructions in it. It was a sheet of paper with all the rules you need to set up and play your first game. In this way they lowered the time you needed to invest to start with it and that helped a lot convincing many families in germany to buy and play it
Interesting how that contrasts with the 'complex midweight' games popular nowadays
@@revimfadli4666 I wouldn't say it contrasts, Catan opened up the market by bringing 'complex midweight' games to the family board game evening
It's not even that great of a game. I can name a few dozen I'd rather play, and none of them were developed by Parker Bros.
@@AxelQC and parker bros didnt develop catan, the game is from Klaus teubner and was developed with the KOSMOS-Verlag in Stuttgart (Germany). Parker Bros maybe translated and published it in the USA, but they didnt develop it
@@tamadesthi156 I never said they did.
I actually don't mind player elimination, but if you want to make it work, you should put it in games made of multiple short rounds (like Love Letter or Wizard's Duel) so that, if you DO get eliminated, it's only for a couple of minutes until the start of the next round.
I'd consider that an exception to the idea that player elimination is a sign of bad game design.
On the other hand I got eliminated first or second in a thirty-player game of Werewolf which may have lasted a couple hours, and I'm never playing that game again.
@@sandal_thong8631 werewolf is f***ing AWFUL when it comes to player elimination. One Night Werewolf fixes that like the games i mentioned above by making the game reset each round, and Blood on the Clocktower fixes that by letting eliminated players stick around as ghosts.
It's kinda like when you break “rules” in grammar/writing to make the story you want to make. The rules are just guidelines in a lot of cases, but you have to understand WHY the rules are there to understand when it's okay to break them. I think (a lot of) modern game companies are getting better at figuring out when they can break certain rules.
Bonus points if the game is exciting to observe, that way you can have fun watching the remaining players even after you've been eliminated.
Alternatively, games like Clue where player elimination is fully within said player's own agency and exclusively endgame is fine as well.
I do think Clue aged a lot better that many other older board games
@@valarmis The roll-the-dice dynamic is really bad. I play _P.I._ now for a Clue-like deductive reasoning game; one of my favorites.
"and you told me you love gaslighting, remember?" 10/10 underrated comedy
No worse feeling than getting your family or friend group together to play a game and then losing first and having to wait there in pure boredom for an hour or two as they finish the game.
I see your heckling game has room for growth.
A worse feeling: Being hopelessly behind in Catan... and still stuck there in a losing game for the next 90+ minutes. I would rather be able to just enjoy the company or find an alternative diversion than strung along as an required bot hopeless participant.
@@trueStatic One game of Catan I played, I was severely behind, one of the other players was close to winning, and I got a monopoly card, but the player who was winning kept getting rid of their resources on their turn. Except for one turn, that player happened to receive a very large amount of wood. Then I used my monopoly card, then used a knight to steal another resource (because it would be silly to use the knight before using the monopoly card), traded the wood for what I needed, and won it with exactly enough resources.
@@Knowbody42That doesn’t actually sound like you were that behind if you were able to win with a handful of wood and another resource. Secondly you can’t play two development cards in one turn if that is what you did.
@@lifetake3103 It wasn't just a handful of wood.
Thinking of Player Elimination, the worst example my group experienced was The Oregon Trail card game. Very first round, one guy drew a card that was straight up "You lose". No condition or challenge or anything, just out of the game in less than a minute.
Ouch.
We played a game of the LotR co-op game once with the Sauron expansion where we lost before my friend even had her first turn. Still talk about it today.
Bang! 7 player game. Two people played their first turn and the last guy was already out of cards (don't remember how) so he said "I'm gonna grab a beer". When he got back "Is it my turn yet?" "Ehm... no, you died before it was your turn." "Ok, bye" (luckily it was a company teambuilding so he didn't have to sit there doing nothing)
To be fair that fits the original computer game. No idea why it's included in a mp board game though
@Kamen42 bad game to choose for team building then. Why eben pick a competitive game at all? I use crazy maze. Collaborative, no wait time as everyone plays at the same time and I even use it in laegee groups and just rotate the players every 1-2 minutes.
@@borstenpinsel The teambuilding activities were already done, this was during the evening drinking part.
00:00 - Intro
00:59 - 10. End time predictability
02:41 - 9. Every turns fun
05:12 - 8. No player elimination
07:25 - 7. Scores less widely far apart inbetween player levels
09:52 - 6. Variable setup
11:30 - 5. Agency
13:43 - 4. Non frustrating luck
16:28 - 3. No direct conflict
18:54 - 2. No humiliating winning / collaborative games
21:40 - 1. Diversity of games
Very fascinating video!
I would add few extra things:
- good artworks (old games were sometimes quite crude)
- non-boring rules manual (not all games but some have very good instructions, like mini game tutorial - Unlock -, or increasing complexity over time - Clank Legacy!)
- Extensions to add replayability and surprise (Carcassone). This is related to part 6 but the difference is more drastic than randomization at set up.
- More story telling (even Codename has a story, it is not just abstract)
I'm sure we can find and discuss some others, though they may be more specific to a subgenre of game in particular :P
i mostly disagree with the point you added, the most popular old game have been reprinted many time, with modern artwork, new story and alternative rule, i'm not sure for the rules manual since i already know old game rules, but they totally could be improved in the reprinted version.
@@gizel4376 You arguments seems to go un favor of what I said : old games are printed with extensions, new stories and rules, new artwork too ^^
So there is solething to this to appear modern.
Anyway, sure, design isnt everthything. It is just an ingredient, part of the soup.
I just finished to read an entire book about modern boardgames (Histoire du jeu de société by 404 editions, from 2022) and a lots of modern authors will tell about design and how it is important to them. You can't concieved a Dixit, a Machinarium or a Unlock without good artworks. There are inteviews of authors who fight with editors for 2 years just for a design concept important to them, like material used tokens. Previous games manufacturer would have just go for the cheaper way according to their testimonies.
Lots of Magic the Gathering players have started buying the cards before knowing the rule, just because of the artwork. Public is receptive to good design.
@@XRaym yeah i mean that's right, those point are important and weren't present back then, but those are point that old game have an easy time fixing when reprinting new version, the other point of the video are mainly point that aim at the core mechanics of the game and can't be fix without changing completly the game.
@@gizel4376 The video is 10 reasons modern games are better know. I dont know why design quality should be excluded if it is part of them.
You can't have game without design, even as minimalist, old or modern. It is through design that players interact with the game.
If there is an evolution of game designs and manufacturing quality (and there is), which makes gaming better, it worths be noticeing in some way, especially considering how important it is for some modern game authors (I really invite you to read the book mentionned there are at least 40 interview of creators, really inspiring).
Can u suggest a game that has good replayability? Right now I'm thinking of buying terraforming mars.I'm looking forward to playing this with my group of friends who visit me nearly every day. Or is there some other game like catan or ticket to ride that you could suggest? I would be very happy if u suggest something fun and something that has a lot of elements during play(ie it should not be too simple and straightforward such that it gets boring after sometime).
You've put into words so well what makes board games different nowadays. Catan was definitely a gateway game for me, playing it around 2002 for the first time, and liking it so much. We used to play Monopoly maybe two times a year, but after being introduced to Catan we played it hundreds of times with friends and family, it was so addictive. My mom, who never used to play any games, even competed in the Dutch Catan championship one year. It really sparked my love of board games. I'm fortunate to live only 2 hours by car from Essen, so I've been to Spiel many times. Some of my best memories are playing games at Spiel all day, and eating out at restaurant Ponistra after the fair closes.
Thanks for sharing your story. It's incredible how powerful Catan has been.
Catan was my favorite Game for so long. From like 1996-2009. But nowadays it is a bit old. Like the Classics (Monopoly and Risk) in the 90s. :-D
My game design, now selling at Barnes and Noble, called MOSAIC is totally playable in a time limit because there are a finite number of tiles and every time you play a tile it progresses the game.
I've always found it hilarious how people are *so* in love with Catan and talk about how well it's designed and how fun it is. The game is TERRIBLE - even worse than player elimination, you can easily end up in a situation where you are still playing, but have not only no chance of winning, but are not even able to take any actions. I'm not going to pretend it's not a good game, it is - but it's not a "great" game.
@@mylesleggette7520 I remember playing it a while back with some people at a game store on game nite and I did NOT get a lucky start and because of the positioning I had no access to the places where the die rolls were higher probability for getting resources and I knew from the start that I was in trouble and the whole damned game I was just going through the motions but unlike the other players I could barely get any resources. It was depressing.
"I don't want character, I want a 5-bedroom house!"
Ouch. I think we all felt that one a bit.
it was the most millenial thing I've ever heard, lol. sums up what's wrong with the generation prior to mine, they want everything handed to them, because of a lie sold to them by the boomers.
@@kyona5422 Who? Gen-X? What was the lie?
Some of us felt sorry for whiners.
I want both. And Boomers took both from us.
@@girlbuu9403 Strong always take from weak
This man 100% lost a game of monopoly recently
in monopoly, everybody loses.
More like lost 20 years ago and swore never to play again 😂
@@JP_in_Oregon Can a game of monopoly even be won? I feel like we never managed to finish one.
I’ve won my last 3 games of Monopoly. 🤪
Like we played Monopoly two times for like 5 hours and went to sleep. Its too long
I always appreciated how Catan gives you something to do even when it's not your turn. When someone else rolls the dice, you are still engaged because you collect resources, and you can still participate in trading. You are still engaged. I guess that goes under 9. Every turn is fun (even your opponents' turns). Anyway, great list, and I took notes! That was just an opportunity to shout out Catan that I felt would have fit!
Except when you roll 3' fifteen times out of twenty and only one person has a 3.
@@robertlewis6915 so true 😭
"Every turn is fun," what a joke! I've played hundreds of games of Catan where I had nothing to do for 10+ turns in a row because of bad rolls and robbers.
@@robertlewis6915 Pirates and Explorers expansion adds coins to the game. if you don't get a resource from a roll you get 1 coin
in your turn you can buy up to 2 resources for 2 coins each. it really saves players who didn't put their starting settlements in the best places
you don't have to buy the expansion to try that feature out. make your own coins
@@whoeveriam0iam14222 I say this as somebody who loves the paper-path perk in C&K expansion: that sounds boring. I have and have played E&P (it's about four feet from my chair currently), and I vaguely remember exploiting that mechanic unmercifully. I did not like that expansion, though, so it could have soured me on it.
In any case, the random rolls that do you in are just part of the fun. It's amazing when somebody rolls a 12 and you realize that you get 3 cards from that because you built a settlement and a city next to it for other resources without even realizing (this happened in a game I played recently, to an opponent). It's not amazing to be on the losing end of, but that's how things be and part of the fun is laughing when it happens.
On point 8. No player elimination, another good solution I've seen is that if a game does in fact eliminates players, Its a much muuuuuuch shorter gameplay experience and you don't feel left out because of how fast a game is and you often play several "rounds".. Coup comes to mind.
The way dungeons and dragons gets around the issue of rolling dice after taking actions is by encouraging you to play through your mistakes. It is almost always possible to come back from a sticky situation. But when you are truly destroyed it gets to be a fun story
Yeah, it's kinda odd that DnD was brought up in a list that preceded a statement about "confrontation games", when DnD is the complete opposite
It's a game of collaboration. And as such, your failures are not failures, but new plot points in an ongoing story
Exactly, the fun comes from telling a story with twists and turns, and drama. Not necessarily "winning"
@@pseudonymous7557 this is why I much prefer the open ended role-playing part of DnD rather than the dice-chucking combat a lot of people focus too much on
Games in general have evolved, not just board games: video games, for example, have this trend too. The fun of early games was mostly based on rewarding success, and when you didn't progress towards the game's goals, you were likely having a stressful time. Modern games are designed with a completely different idea in mind: the process of playing them should be fun and rewarding itself, and whether you you're lagging behind the others or being on top of the mountain, the games should always offer you something. Some people like this process-oriented approach, but other people think games like this are too casual and the process doesn't feel very rewarding for them even when they're doing great, so they seek for a more contrastive and challenging experience, so while some may enjoy the modern type of games, others may prefer the early type of games.
Just make games where the process of playing is fun AND there is a very difficult goal to strive for. Like modern sonic games where the movement is fun and beating the game is easy but getting the S rank on all the stages is a much greater challenge.
Well, videogames is a whole other can of worms, while it's certainly true that they have evolved over the years the actual "fun" aspect of games have taken a back seat for game developers who now have to, a majority of the time, focus on profit by including anti consumer practises, be that micro transactions or pre order bonuses or whatever, along with tight deadlines leaving games rushed and porly put together
ofcourse not every game is like that but gaming as a whole is not all on an upswing as compared to say the early 2000s It isn't just about making games as fun as possible anymore
This doesn't really apply to most boardgames as there isn't any "game breaking glitches" or whatever, there can be oversights ofcourse but if a board game is bad that's it you just don't play it, if a videogame is bad it can be because of a number of reasons that could in theory be patched at a later date (ofcourse boardgames can also recieve updated versions but what im saying is that they only have to focus on making it fun while videogames has to find ways to make as much of a profit as possible while using as little effort as possible... at least sometimes)
I personally don't like what i see in the modern videogame industry, i do definitelly think there are great games being made still but the amount of avarice being shown by huge companies like activision and EA really dampens the whole experience i must say
Lately, I’ve seen a video Mario games and how they tackle difficulty. Mario players are of a truly wide variety of age, skill and experience with Mario games. They do it by offering help if a player clearly struggles with a level or section. On the other hand, they offer stuff that’s difficult to get, but not necessary to finish the game (e.g. saving the princess). The skill required to 100% most games is really high.
@@EmilForsberg_GRYBO True. Most board games have yet to deevolve to the state of microtransactions and pay to win. ;)
Though arguably the video games took this from TCGs like Magic with their random boosters.
@@ViolosD2I yes, that is very true, trading card games is something else entirely
14:04 They're not over-thinking; you're under-patient. If you want a game without so much thinking, play Snakes and Ladders.
It all comes down to player agency. People want to feel like their choices are impactful. That’s why I think the best-aged “old game” is Diplomacy since it’s all about player choices and interaction unlike Monopoly and life, which are deterministic to a large degree.
Edit: as a wargamer, I don’t think the friendliness and non-combative nature of modern games is necessarily better or worse, but rather a matter of taste. Many of the best wargames have also come out in the past 10 years (see COIN series, Warroom, Root, etc)
I agree - I like combative games myself. But I do think the trend with modern games is towards friendlier games, and wanted to highlight the benefits that many players enjoy - even if it isn't as important for me. Some people will find it better, others not.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first point, unless after finally getting seven people together prepared to put the time in, you draw Austria get ganged up on and are out of the game by A02.
@@coolsunday6339 yeah it still can have an player elimination problem under certain conditions, but it’s a wargame what can you do! Most of the balancing comes from natural table dynamics, rather than the map and starting positions. if you play the table, ah-hem, diplomatically enough you can almost alway avoid being completely eliminated early game tho. Clawing your way back in can be its own interesting challenge
On god I love diplomacy. Mostly I love how fun it is trying to make deals and not worrying about one bad dice roll to throw you off.
you also have Risk
Great summary! And R.I.P. Klaus Teuber, who passed away this week. He managed to bring so much new and varied to the gaming world that many modern games have built upon.
I love the gentle mix of humor you sneak into your videos. Keeps the videos highly engaging while not being so overwhelming as to detract from the main point of the video.
This is the first video I watched from you just now and I instantly fell in love with your charm - the way you speak and present and the jokes sprinkled in makes it a soothing and very enjoyable experience that even had me laugh out loud.
Thx, I really like your videos - you greatly balance rational content and entertainment :-)
Thank you so much 🙏
According to the official rules: Monopoly's choices when landing on a purchasable space are not buy it or do nothing, its buy it or the property gets auctioned off with ownership going to the highest bidder. Every purchasable space on that board gets bought the first time someone lands on that space, just not necessarily by the person who lands there. Also if you play Monopoly with the official rules it is a 2 hr, or less, game.
Fun fact, Monopoly was made by a socialist specifically to show that capitalism sucked.
A friends family would speed play Monopoly, fourty five minutes was a long game. They were playing using auction property rules, and as soon as the dice landed, the next player was picking them up to roll. I couldn’t keep up so lost pretty fast most times. But it was a revelation to learn that there was a ‘different’ way to play the game.
It's still a bad game (in terms of optimizing enjoyable/interesting gameplay). Imo trying to win an auction or swindle my friends into a bad trade isn't the rush I play for🤷♀️
I prefer to stab them in the back before they get the chance to respond like a proper diplomat 😂
@@solsystem1342 Lol...yes stabbing them in the back when they least expect it.
I will note that I never said Monopoly was good.
@@solsystem1342 There's tons of high level strategy for "how to win" with official monopoly rules. And it really comes down to which properties are worth how much. Fastest way to win is expertly drive up auction prices without ever winning, and then once everyone else is too poor to bid powerfully, just swoop in and pick properties up for low cost. But you can also do well by being selective enough, even if you overpay, if you can get a set of 3 and develop them. All it takes is 1 person landing on them for the price to pay off.
One small note about those two choices in Monopoly (buy or don't): if you choose don't, by the rules you're supposed to have the "bank" player auction the property off (if I remember right, starting at the mortgaged price on the back). At this point, anyone can acquire the property, even the person who refused to initially buy it. If it seems like there's no down side to triggering an auction, you'd be right; it's meant to both include all players and to speed up the acquisition of property so that players can haggle with each other to trade for monopolies (with which they can of course drain others of their money, but that's a different point).
The way of play where if you don't buy the property you just move on isn't the proper way to play by the rules of the game, but for some reason we all do it.
Good point. There is strategy as you said to putting the property up for bid, especially if you're the only one left with cash on hand. Though I think his original point is still valid that there's not much to do on a turn.
@@sandal_thong8631playing it “the right way” you can have players haggling and/or setting houses up by the second go around the board. And as far as being in jail, you have the option to immediately pay the fine, or take the three turns chance to roll doubles. Its a great “safe haven” tactic as other players land on your houses and you get paid while in jail
I find it a good rule modification to always auction the properties or make their price higher to some degree so giving them to auction becomes a viable choice because you can't just buy everything you land on to.
One traditional game that deserves a mention is backgammon. The dice rolls give variety. The doubling die is a neat mechanism for skipping any "boring" end games. It even scales well to any number of players e.g. three players can each play two simultaneous games, one against each opponent.
If you love backgammon, the same guy that designed hive designed another one based on backgammon called tatsu. Simple but adds a few little changes. But I get you I personally love backgammon, checkers and nine men's morris. I will happily play abstract strategy games and I like that I have a few more options now.
I don't understand your point about the doubling die. Endgames aren't boring because the game mechanism makes the game finite and prevents it taking too many turns. The doubling die has effect only if you're playing for stakes; that is, gambling. And playing simultaneous games is a terrible idea! Concentrate on one game, finish it, then start the next game.
@@rosiefay7283 i think they're talking about if you roll a double you get to move 4 pieces?
@@naughtscrossstitches No, the doubling cube lets you challenge the other player to double the stakes or resign, hence ending the game more quickly if one player is way ahead.
I've always felt that backgammon was a ultimately a gambling game. After you play several games, you realize there is only one correct strategy, which is boringly rudimentary, and the only thing that differentiates you from a similarly knowledgeable player is the luck of the die.
I generally don’t like hidden teams games, but there’s one exception I love to play: Battlestar Galactica. It solves the player elimination problem in two ways: if a player is revealed to be a cylon they keep playing openly against the humans, and if a human is killed they simply choose a new character to replace their previous one. It also helps if the group you’re playing with are fans of the show.
Outstanding game. My game group played it every Thursday night for years. Wish they'd reprint it.
"...bears, beats, BATTLESTAR GALATICA"
Arkham Horror also handles player deaths by having them create new characters. I'm not sure which game the idea originated from, but I think it's ingenious.
Really enjoyed this video as it touches a very personal chord. When creating Pirate's Cove, Paul and I had recurring conversations about this very topic and how toxic old-school board games could feel. Finding a way to tap into the social fun of competition without it feeling toxic and over-before-it-begins was a clear goal. A design goals was to ensure players felt they still had a chance to win up until the last turn. Imho, this is one of the best imported ideals from Euro games and the world of board gaming is better for it!
Ikr? It was like the point of the games shifted from "winning" to "having fun" and it was a revelation
I'm surprised Mysterium was not mentioned. That is all teamwork. Also a very fun and cozy game which I really like.
@@Khornedevotee Yes or in general the games that basically let you pick your friends' minds by encouraging personal interpretations. Then again he'd want to keep this brief in order for non-games to even watch it.
The one thing about catch-up mechanics is that you do not literally want things to remain undecided until the last turn. A player with consistently good decisions losing it all at the last moment to someone who did nothing but rubber-band behind them up to that point is no fun either.
I love the innovation with modern board games. Nowadays it's not just every theme you can choose from, but even game mechanics. Want a game that feels like a classic card game yet still modern? Look at the trick taking genre! Want a game where the whole mechanic is talking to each other? Negotiation games, social deduction games! So many options in this modern age.
Absolutely! We are spoilt for choice 😁
There are even games built around collaboration between players because the game itself is the enemy/opponent, kind of like Jumanji
Any recomendations for negociation/social deduction games?
@@capuchinosofia4771 some good negotiation games include 'The Resistance', there's a futuristic themed one or a fantasy themed one (and the fantasy themed one, called 'The Resistance: Avalon' adds some interesting yet easy to understand mechanics). Alternatively there's 'Murder: Deception in Hong Kong' which is another great social deduction game that easily incorporates people who might not otherwise speak too much.
Regarding negotiation games, the most core game of this type might be 'Chinatown', but there's plenty others. Zoo Vadis is a good one that recently had a kickstarter that might still have late pledges open.
Your friend is Board Game Geek! Google 'Board Game Geek Negotiation games', or social deduction games, you should get a list of the highest rated games from there 😊
Aren't trick-taking card games some of the oldest, if not the oldest, form of card games?
I am slightly surprised Dominion wasn't mentioned as a good modern game in either of the categories, but man was this list still amazing. Thank you for the hard work you put into this and for the great points you bring up. This is definitely going to my favorites list
Deckbuilder (and their variants) are even one step further, basically a revolution 2.0. They are so far removed that comparisons to older boardgames fail altogether, missing the point of this video.
Dominion doesn't really fit the list.
I appreciate that Dominion was arguably the game which began the deck building subgenre, but I also feel that deck builders that have come out since Dominion run with the concept better (Star Realms, Clank, etc.)
I don’t think he likes dominion if I am remembering correctly. I love it tho!
I am surprised he didn’t mention through the ages
I was literally just thinking about you and this channel yesterday, wondering when you might upload again! Imagine my surprise when I saw this in my feed :) glad to see another one of your videos!
This is a brilliant analysis. I think this would be really useful for any video game designer as well as any board game designer.
I love the jokes having a bit more bite than you'd expect from a board-game video. And these spicy bits are thrown in sparsely so they catch me off-guard with a chuckle every time. It's a clever and charismatic way of keeping the viewer engaged. I might be starting to drift away mentally when all of a sudden I have to go: "Wait a minute? Did the man just blatantly gaslight me?" "Was that a same-sex marriage joke I just heard?" etc. This is great script-writing plane and simple. Thx for the amazing video!
Agreed! I've seen a few Actualol videos a long time ago but these were golden. Will be looking at more of his videos now because of this!!
I watched this video twice and I think you misheard something because he doesn't mention gaslighting even once.
Regarding player elimination, I do appreciate it when long games where you can very much be put grossly behind without much achievable agency does still offer elimination or an option to concede, such as in Through the Ages. Because in a lot of cases it's worse to have to keep playing after you've already lost than it is to get eliminated and not have to keep spending effort on nothing.
Shoutouts to Sid Sackson. The man was designing board games back in the 70's and he pioneered a lot of the principles in this very video. His masterpiece "Acquire" is getting a reprint soon. Highly recommended.
The other guy at 3M (started in 1962) designer Alex Randolph too.
Absolutely.
Acquire is maybe the first game ever published to truly fulfill all of the points brought up in this video. A classic far ahead of its time.
Dispatcher (1958, Avalon Hill) came out 4 years before 3M even existed. And show many principles of the heavy Euro.
People saying „I don‘t play/watch movies/read books…“ also give me shiver. And now you made me understand why 😊. Thanks for another great video 👍
My ex couldn't understand why anyone would have a bookcase in their living room. Should have been a red flag.
There are other hobbies. Book worms are often elitusts of the worst kind.
random board placement does not mean it is not possible to develop a dominant strategy , because catan's core gameplay is dice rolling the only strategy that matters is getting your towns on the highest number of probable dice rolls....
I'm surprised when you talked about werewolf you didn't mention the super-popular spin-off "One Night Ultimate Werewolf", which entirely eliminates player elimination by condensing the game into one turn where the town either kills a werewolf, the tanner, or an innocent (and wins/loses accordingly)
It was a far stretch, but I was hoping that Blood on the Clocktower would get mentioned - it's by far the best social deduction game out there in many people's opinions.
@@Planerarylucky you, not everyone has 8+ ppl to play with.
No, not dissing BotC, as I love it too.
@@alixx_legenddark_xx2819 I literally just coerced my colleagues and friends into playing it, and encouraged them to bring others.
@@Planerary I have a friend that hates social deduction and is Arab so even If she joins, we would have to memorize all the roles…
Also, it’s expensive. For reference, I don’t have enough to buy love letter.
Still, good for u
@@alixx_legenddark_xx2819 I feel like you're being quite aggressive here, there's no need for that
I want to add number 11: keep players engaged. No 5 players games like Risk with 10 minutes turns that make you wait an eternity untill it is your turns.
Turns nowadays are quick and often you can benefit from another players turn as well. Or even games where everyone plays at the same time like 7 Wonders.
That's a great point!
Great point. I will rule out any game where you can expect a 10 minute wait between turns. Love the Eclipse 1st ed simultaneous play option where two players on opposite sides of the map can take their turns at the same time, allowing larger player counts with half the downtime.
You are amazing. I'm disenchanted with so much board game content on TH-cam these days. You rock.
Thank you 😊
This was fascinating. I noticed years ago that “modern” board games are way better than the ones I grew up with, but I never really understood why
Back in the 2000s, I really believed that multiplayed video games will easily replace board games. But seeing how the gaming industry is less about fun social experiences and more about deceiving kids into entering their parents credit card details into their system, I think board games are a much better social gaming experience again.
I think the renaissance in board games is influenced by the emergence of computer games. A lot of game design principles from one carry seamlessly into the other. In fact, I don't think I know any video game designers who haven't tried to make a board game or at least a homebrew tabletop system, and I'd wager a lot of board game designers have tried their hand at video game design as well, be it mods or custom content for games that enable it. Auto-chess comes to mind as a particularly "board-gamey" design of a game, and Paradox Interactive got their start adapting board games to PC.
@@TheMonkeystickI studied computer games development in university and, while it wasn't a massive part of the course, board games were examined in one module and designing a board game was a group project. So yes, the people that make one are very much thinking about the other.
I think I heard that this frustration was the original purpose of monopoly. I think the game originally was meant to show players how unfair it is when there are monopolists. which i think the game shows very well lol
But very good video! very well edited! this channel gets a follow from me!
No its not.
Its that most people do not know how to play the game at all, so they make stupid decisions that prolong the game unnecessarily. For example they put tax money and other fines on "free parking", when the very purpose of those events is to remove cash from the game. Then they refuse to trade property, which is the activity that brings the game to its conclusion fastest, and allows the most room for strategy: if you think the game is just 'luck' this is most probably caused by an unwillingness to trade.
Negotiation used to be a common skill used by people all the time. Now, not so much.
Either way, the game is only supposed to take about an hour. If it takes more than two, youre definitely doing it wrong.
The frustration about the game that you mention comes from not understanding what every person who plays sport understands: losing is not important, and another opportunity will always come along next week.
You must risk losing in order to win, otherwise the game bogs down and no-one gets anywhere. The whole game becomes a chore to be endured until everyone gives up and does something else: the lesson is that without giving someone else what they want, you cant get what you want and the results are awful. ie the exact opposite conclusion you came to.
Youre right. The original version of the game featured mechanics that allowed people to work together. It was stolen, butchered, and turned into Monopoly by the exact kind of people it was criticizing.
John, tremendous! Thank you! I finally feel like this video shares all the reasons I tell (with kindness) my non-gaming friends WHY todays modern board games are created better in more enjoyable ways without some of the frustrations of much older games. Feel like I can pass this on to others to help them understand. Thanks for your quality tongue-in-cheek content. Love it!
Thanks, please do pass on 🙂
It's a great video indeed! I only disagree with no-direct-conflict games being described as modern and better than direct conflict ones. There are cut-throat, conflict based games in many genres, from skirmish games and war games through area control or even economic ones like Food Chain Magnate. It doesn't make them any less state-of-the-art design-wise than German style euros. Tbh these euros have been getting pretty stale in the last decade or so.
@@robertchmielecki2580 I don't say that no-direct-conflict is better in the video, it's just implied by the title. Really the video is about how games have changed over the years, and for most points it is "better", but I couldn't make it 9 Reason Board Games Are Better and 1 Reason Board Games Are Different.
Besides, for some people it is better, for others not. I agree that there are great designs that have plenty of conflict in, some that I love. But really I was trying to make a video about the differences of modern games, and on average they are overwhelmingly less aggressive.
It's impossible to cover every detail of modern games without a million caveats and a boring video. And I do also state that there are still aggressive games being made, and there's more than ever.
Go play an economics textbook, lol!
Maybe I will
There is a mod for the computer game Hou4 lnwon as TNO, and it has a very complex and realistic economy mechanic, so...
8:04 I'm not keen on catch-up mechanisms. It means that playing well enough to get an early lead seems futile, because the catch-up mechanism gives your opponent an unearned advantage.
It essentially forces you to save up potential to go first at the right time. Done properly, this makes it a lot of fun for people loving strategy but in most cases it turns out the way you described it.
Sounds like an issue with "passive" catchup mechanics. Active ones where either the "loser" must correctly take advantage of, or where the "leader" must carefully use their "advantage" to turn it into real advantage, tends to be better in my experience.
Also if you're "losing" but actually have an advantage, then you're not really losing are you? It's just misleading heuristics. Pro players would intentionally take advantage of it. Granted, it can lead to frustration when beginners think they're making the right play, only to realize they aren't...
Also if you manage to still win despite the "unearned advantage" other players get, that's just a power move that proves how well your play really is. Unless visible dominance is what you're after, but are you sure you wanna play with less challenge?
It shouldn't feel that way if the comeback mechanic is properly tuned. If properly tuned, then a player who gets an early lead should be discernibly ahead of the other player(s), but not by as much as they would have if not for the catch-up mechanism.
@@mvmlego1212 agreed
I love still risk but risk Europe truly is an improvement. The battle mechanics still rely on rolling but the layered attacking makes battles strategic instead of just luck. The crown collection system also prevents the constant back and forth and makes every move feel more valuable.
I love anything but the original RISK. "Look at me, I holed up in Australia, woohoo!" If you haven't tried it, Metal Gear Solid RISK is a true treat. Even with the awful original world map, it adds so much depth. Objective system so the game is put on a timer (can end as early as three turns), characters to add strategy, ability cards, and the mobile battleship Outen Haven that allows for amphibious landings--even into Australia.
@@danielpayne1597Australia isn't even a god postion, at most it means you spend 5 minutes wiping that player out last, and for the rest of the game it's a way to get out more troops but that's all
@@calebbarnhouse496 Border numbers are more important than anything else in RISK. A free +2 all game means you'll always be advantaged over the poor suckers who tried going for Europe. The Americas and Africa are decent, but all have 2-3 borders and thus are easy enough to break into.
I found number 6 kinda funny, because although yes chess starts out the same way every time and Catan has variable setup, the idea that modern games like Catan can't be mastered as well because "they're different every time you play them" is probably incorrect.
I haven't done the math, but I am fairly certain there are more possible games of chess than catan, so each game of catan is arguable *more* similar to another than each game of chess.
John thank you for making such quality content. Whenever you upload my day gets better.
What an approachable and visually appealing summary! Love it! My new go-to gaslighting video for muggles.
When I was a kid, my brother loved playing risk and I hated it. I gave one great memory from it though. I captured all of Asia, and my brother tried to force his way in, but I had one army he couldn't defeat for like 5 or 6 turns in a row
“You can only march forward towards an inevitable end”. Was not expecting to get an existential crisis from this video
Spiel is one of the best conventions each year. Living near to Essen Germany I always look forward to visit Spiel and experience the new games there
Great video! A few points I'd like to add:
6:45 - In addition to those, one worth a lot mentioning is Blood on the Clocktower. It builds on Werewolf's foundation (you still have an evil player killing people at night, usually) but turns it into so much more, and removes player elimination very elegantly.
10:17 - I completely agree with your point, chess is only fun when two players of similar skill/experience level are playing. But I have to nitpick your reason: it's not exactly because the pieces start at the same position. A variant of chess called Chess960 has randomized starting positions, and that doesn't change the situation really. Opening preparation goes out the window, but the stronger chess players are still superior in every other area of the game. Just compare Chess960 tournament results with regular chess ratings, and you'll see the top players are still top players.
about 6:45, also Battlestar Galactica
On Chess, when I said "the pieces start out in the same way" I meant they also have the same movement abilities. It was a simplification to keep the video snappy, but I agree - I'm sure that Chess pros will win no matter the opening arrangement - it's about the understanding of how the pieces move and seeing openings.
Ah I should have see this comment earlier. And yea blood on the Clocktower removes player elimination very elegantly.
@@actualol I disagree on chess only being fun with two roughly equal players because I (a total chess noob) recently played against my dad who has been playing in a local chess club that regularly has matches against other clubs and it was realy fun. I actually managed to checkmate him in one of our games. I was playing not to win but to make as little mistakes as possible, which he later told me is the way he approaches chess. According to him in chess you aren't playing against your opponent but your own mistakes. In my opinion chess is a beautiful and fun game if you approach it with the intent to learn not to win, it's like a competative puzzle both players try to "solve" but every move changes the puzzle. The goal is to "solve" the half that is controlled by your opponent while also preventing them from "solving" yours. And of course it can be frustrating to play against a more skilled opponent if your only goal is winning but that is unavoidable in any primarily skill-based game.
Edit: this is just me asking about perceived inconsistency in the video, please correct me if I interpreted something wrong.
Also you think to much randomness is bad and then you don't like chess because it isn't random enough? So, do you want skill based games or luck based games or do you think a game is bad if it doesn't manage to be both? Games like Chess and Go are fun because they can be mastered. Games like yahtzee are fun because anyone can win. They aren't bad games they are games for different people. A person who wants to learn how the game works and improve with every match plays chess. A person who enjoys a game of chance plays yahtzee. A game doesn't have to be fun for everyone. The attitude that things have to be fun for everyone to be good is a blight on media. Though I will agree that board games are perhaps the medium where that versatility is most impactfull. I was born after Settlers of Catan released and I loved playing Monopoly as a kid because we adjusted the rules to be more luck based. All the taxes and similar losses go in the middle of the board and the next to land on free parking gets it all, you can build houses on any property you own regardless of if you have the monopoly (though maybe you needed to land on the property again to so I can't remember). I loved playing risk and the in my opinion better (but significantly longer) Shogun. I adore playing werewolf. You know what games I never realy got into: Catan and Carcassonne. Carcassonne is fun but my inner perfectionist hates when I realise I can't build my city the way I want. And I don't know why I didn't like Catan but I didn't (probably was just me being bad at it). They are all great games just not for everyone. And that is fine.
3:52 "Old games are obssesed with you not playing them." So true. Well said! 😂
They were designed to keep kids inside (Candyland, polio), so the longer the better.
I remember spending long Saturday afternoons; failing to roll that six to start.
@@kossowankenobi A woman said she hated Candyland so stacked the deck so her kid would win quickly. He then said she had to keep drawing until she won too!
Always a good day when there’s a new Actualol video!
I particularly appreciated the point about good luck vs bad luck. My husband likes Risk, while I think it’s fiddly and obnoxiously luck heavy because of those dang dice. And it can go on FOREVER… 😂
The digital version is a lot better. The randomization can be set to remove edge cases, and it is far faster because the dice rolls for the entire battle can be done at once. The setup can also be done automatically.
I'm just bored of playing on the same Risk map. Everyone has the same 3 strategies. So I've been making my own maps on poster board for about a decade.
I went into this video agreeing that board games are better than ever but then you seemed to want to convince me of the opposite. Only points I could agree on were 5.) Agency and 1.) Options
10.) I like the longer games. its harder to get people together who are willing to play multi-session games but they can be far more rewarding when you do get to play.
9.) It is ok to let a turn sit. There is a problem I notice in modern games where they tend toward more addictive but not necessarily more fun. Besides if only one turn out of 3 is exciting it makes that one turn all the better. If every turn is excited I just tend to get exhausted.
8.) I miss the player elimination. My friends and I regularly add in perma-death as a house rule to games like Munchkin and Zombies! Not every game needs it but some games it benefits. It adds so much tension and increases excitement for actually winning. If you want to be a good host make sure that a secondary game or other entertainment is set up for the eliminated. Furthermore werewolf has been the most popular party game at all the recent parties I have gone to and the Resistance is available to play as well. ( I obviously just have a different friend group)
7.) I hate all the new rules that Force a game to be balanced. Some negative feedback might be appropriate for some games but there are plenty that take this concept too far. In a game where a blowout is possible the close games are so much better. in a game that is always close you cannot get that true pyrrhic victory feel.
6.) I love some variable setup but the way you present it trashed the mastery I love in games with set starts. It just sounds like you are unwilling to master a game.
5.) Fully agree. Players need agency and a strong sense of they could have done better if they played differently.
4.) Luck of the draw can be just as frustrating as luck of the die roll, both are dependent on how they are used in the game. Luck prior to and post a decision have different meanings to players and the game. I like that both exist but you cannot just blanket say that luck after a decision is bad and luck before a decision is better since it depends on what the game is going for. In risk it is all about taking the risk and not knowing the outcome. There is a suspense in the decision making and in the rolling of the dice that I do not want to loose in modern games.
3.) Once again a little variety is nice but direct conflict is the point of some games and other games are not necessarily better because they lack that.
2.) Pandemic is fine but my friends and I have been looking for ways to add some competition back into that game. I do not like the "everyone's a winner!" attitude that grips modern society. There is a game my wife and I love "Terraforming Mars" where the players share a common goal but still compete for points as that goal is being accomplished.
1.) Variety! This is why modern gaming is better and I still agree with that despite me disagreeing with all the former points. We are exploring every avenue possible with board games, and game makers are understanding better than ever the consequences of the different rule sets and thus can better tailor a game to fit in its own niche. I am fine with some games existing with all the things you mention. What I don't want is an elimination of the opposites, I want those games to be even better at what they do well.
Great video and excellent information for board game creators to consider. It was super helpful to detect some flaws in my designs and come up with better ideas.
Thanks a lot, got a new subscriber 😉
An awful lot of thought went into this, and it was worthwhile - very interesting stuff. And well-presented. Thanks for all your hard work 🙂
Thank you for appreciating it ☺️
As someone who grew up in the 60s and 70s and played those few games that you mentioned, particularly Risk and Monopoly, ad nauseum, I agree with your main thesis. I will say that as kids, pre-video-games, we had a lot of fun playing those games and I cannot even count the number of hours of fun we got out of them as they were one of the few things to do on rainy summer days or cold winter evenings after school. We did dabble in some of the early Avalon Hill wargames but those standards remained our staples. Most Risk games ended with an "earthquake" once it was pretty clear who was going to come out on top. Monopoly, unfortunately, was even worse for us because of some ill-advised house rules that did nothing but lengthen the game and make the luck factor even more pronounced. I agree, games are better now but there is a lot more to compete with them for our leisure time including more decent TV programming, video games (online, multiplayer, and solo), more varied sports, etc. Even with the more varied and much better designed boardgames of today, I think youngsters of today don't play a lot of board games in favor of other activities.
Love the video. I've heard a lot of these points in my game design lectures, and it's nice to see them analyzed through board games, especially with the great examples!
Board games are to video games like animated movies are to live-action ones. They're both different types of the same medium, and therefore serve to learn from each other.
The way I play werewolf, we add a lot of different roles and a host to regulate them so everyone always has something to do, the game is fast, and the players who get out still have fun watching the chaos unfold before them. This gets to a point where people are begging to be the host, who is basically a dead player the whole game, but they get to see everything that is happening. Another great solution to this problem is one night werewolf, where there is only one night, and the villagers just have to vote out one of the two or three werewolves in that one night.
Exactly this for us too. We don't play anyone as a regular villager (though we do tend to use the normal werewolves, a lot of the alternates feel kind of gimmicky). We usually play with some combo of the seer, witch, spellcaster, bodyguard, matchmaker, ghost, hunter, tanner, stuff like that to keep it engaging for everyone. I always host and it's always incredibly amusing for me.
Also I don't know where all these people who criticize werewolf are getting into games of it that last an hour. Maybe if you're playing with 99 people somehow, but our rounds are usually in the 5-10 minute window and nobody is bored. The dead people all just wind up looking at each others' cards (and those of the people still playing) and watching the chaos unfold in quiet bemusement. We've played hundreds of rounds and I still get begged to bring it to every party.
I genuinely don't get the hate (although social deduction games and only social deduction games forever can admittedly get kind of old). The problem I have is that my friend group is kinda large and so we very quickly break the upper player limit for most non-party type games which means a lot of social deduction and party games and little of anything else. Which sucks cause I definitely love the big heavy strategic games the best, and it's rare to get the chance to play them. I know some people will break off into multiple groups and play more than one game at once which...maybe. It always seemed a bit odd to me though.
This was most intriguing. Great content, brilliant delivery. I'm amazed, and now subscribed. Thank you!
What is even worse about werewolve is that it is the best strategy for the werewolves to kill the best players first, leading to them being frustrated and the game to be boring as all the players that could make the game interesting are dead
Yea. Which is why I love Clocktower so much. Killing the best player first means they are likely to be trusted more and they can still participate in discussion and has a final vote. No they do not know who the evil players are.
@alex neo yoo I just read through the description and visited their website and this game looks just like the perfect deduction game😅😂
Problem now are just at least 150€🥲
@@pinkunicorns3185 yea everything looks good except for the price but you just need to find a person who has it and can run it. Don't have to buy it yourself or split with the group.
I used to play werewolves with friends over WhatsApp. We made custom stories and characters at some point too. Dying wasn't really bad because there was an underworld in which we could laugh at the villagers struggling lol.
Some of our favorite games blend a mix of new and old elements. Betrayal at House on the Hill is partly luck based (dice roles) but requires strategy and communication, starts off cooperative but then turns 'aggressive' with a traitor eventually showing up, and while it can include player elimination, that is not often the traitor's ultimate goal.
Another good one is Eldritch Horror; fully co-operative, every character is unique in their abilities, no wasted turns, a factor of luck, but can also be incredibly punishing at times. But it fits, considering your goal is to stop one of the heavy hitters from the Cthulu mythos from arising and/or the destruction of the world. It also limits player elimination - most of the time if your character dies, you just grab a new one and rejoin that turn, but the act of dying helps bring the end of the game closer to the end. And while you can be outright eliminated in a few situations, almost all of those don't come into play until the game is almost over anyway, typically after the group is well on their way to a total loss.
One thing you didnt mention was that there are alot of modern games with a “solo” mode where you can play by yourself if you want. Here’s a few if anyone interested
-Parks
-Fallout Wasteland Warfare(can be expensive)
-60 second city(made for 2 people but can be played solo but very difficult)
I've played solitaire games of Viticulture, Scythe, Terraforming Mars, Warhammer Quest Card Game, and It's a Wonderful World many times during the Pandemic. I think it would definitely be worth making a solitaire video.
Nice list... I have some asterisks on some of them.
Having to leave the game up overnight... Or several weeks is not always bad.
Neither is player elimination.
And... Chess (and similar) not being "friendly" is a problem with the player - not the game.
Multiplayer solitaire is not an invention for the better
Not always bad because?
@GeorgeDCowley when I was in middle school, 3 friendsand I had a neverending game of monopoly set up in the section of my shed we claimed as our clubhouse. It was fun , except when someone was sick/grounded/etc and we either couldn't play for days on end or risk upsetting the missing friend by starting a new game without them.
Thanks for creating this; I believe this will be my ‘go to’ video for informing newbies what modern board games are all about.
I am already a big fan of boardgames and I actually own quite a lot of the games displayed here. Still watched the entire video though, and somehow still got a new perspective. Great video!
3:32 But in Monopoly, if you're in jail, you aren't completely passive. You can still collect rents.
You try to make modern board games look good by comparing them all to Monopoly, and telling us only Monopoly's bad points. You do it down by saying it punishes you, but it seems that you're punishing Monopoly.
Collecting rents when in jail is a flaw in the game. Any time I tell someone I'm into board games, they say "Like Risk and Monopoly?" so that's what people think of. Also, those are the games that are most likely to result in someone getting angry and tipping over the board, making people not want to play board games ever again. So they deserve the analysis and criticism for bad gameplay dynamics leading to that situation. The first object of a game is to have fun.
Yet the thing is that Monopoly’s bad elements are not used in such a way anymore. I too enjoyed Monopoly the last time I played it, but now that I have gotten some real games, you can’t deny it flaws in every aspect. Just like a lot of those games popular among non-hobbyists that only became popular because they were here before the current gen games, like Risk, Scrabble and Clue for example. And yes, I do still think Scrabble (while, using the app) and Clue are fun, but they are very definitely underdeveloped compared to the games that get published nowadays. I’m sure if Risk, Monopoly, Scrabble or Clue was designed right now, not a single publisher would want to publish it.
There are some actually well designed old games though, chess and Rummikub still serve fine as games, and probably will in the future too.
You really summed up why I don’t like Werewolf. My college’s board game club was big and every meeting would have a big werewolf game at the end for those who wanted to play. It was cool to play with about 15+ people consistently, but getting eliminated early sucked. Usually you had to leave the game you were playing to play werewolf and ruin that game for everyone else, then you die on night one and go back into the main room and have nothing to play because everyone else is playing already.
Ouch, that sounds like a nightmare! Especially when the first kill is so arbitrary anyway.
You should try Clocktower. Dieing early still able to participate.
I grew up in the 90s but my mom brought board games from her time living in Germany and so I mostly played collaborative games even though they were not yet popular in the USA.
I really enjoy Dice Forge because even though it's a game centered around rolling dice, it gives the players a lot of agency. Also, because you get to choose which faces you put on your dice and how you arrange them, the dice become part of your strategy and you get more invested in the rolls than if you were just rolling normal d6.
Great piece of work!!! Modern gamers always like to say how much they dislike Risk or Monopoly but you have given us 10 very good reasons why. When I started to watch I wondered how you would get to 10 reasons, but they are all solid reasons. One thing is undeniable though... those old games are still around and are still selling... I do not really consider Chess as a boardgame, Chess is something that has to be studied, you can play it if you know how the pieces move, but that is not really playing Chess. My father in law played Chess on the internet and in a local club, but still had dozens of books about Chess so he could keep up with his opponents. To me it is not a boardgame if you have to study for it or have a certain level of insight and intellect, a boardgame has to be fun, and yes a Lacerda-game is not for everyone either, but you do not need to study to be able to play it.
Agreed. Chess is very different. It is a skill that must be studied and practiced. It is closer to being a general in a military battle or a lawyer in a trial.
best way I would compare it is that chess is Street fighter and something like Risk is Smash with items. Street fighter and smash are fighting games, however in street fighter you have to study combos, learn how to play neutral, etc to be competitive at a basic level. however smash (with items) is a free for all random fest where even the best players can be screwed by luck.
One of the reasons they are still around is nostalgia, and the other is that there's one company, Hasbro, that owns American tabletop game companies: Wizards of the Coast, Avalon Hill, Milton Bradley and Parker Brothers. It's not in their interest to spend money innovating games, when they have sure-fire sellers year-in and year-out, perhaps just offering another version of Monopoly that has different property names.
@@sandal_thong8631 That’s not to say they don’t try to have new versions of the game to play (Cheaters and City for Monopoly, or the objective-based revamp of Risk, and its longform Legacy version), or try to make more accumulating rules for Monopoly (1 dice movement piece clocks or other in-game timers to end the game via wealth instead of last man standing)
@@sandal_thong8631that's a very bad way of looking at it, those games sell tons of copies every year despite being "bad" why? Because they aren't bad, risk is a great game, one of the best boardgames yea you can get bad dice, but in my group I play risk with when I can the luckiest person ALWAYS gets wiped out first, because they have no strategy, yea occasionally I will run through a max troop count territory and accomplish nothing, but it's OK because your strategy needs to keep that in mind
Jon is really nailing the "Mark Brown of board games" thing with this video and I'm here for it.
Now who's the Adam Millard of Boardgames? Luke Hector?
I love that you mention that there are still combative games in modern tabletop. My personal favorite is a game called "Red Dragon Inn" (RDI). Ironically it has many of the "flaws" you bring up with older games:
- elimination
- attack other players
- luck based!
But at the same time the theme is built into the game that supports enjoying those aspect. RDI takes the concept of carusing at a bar, puts it into DnD style fantasy, and applies cartoon slapstick humor. With character based decks this makes the aggressive mechanics feel like a natural part of the theme as you gamble, drink, and bar fight your way to victory.
I played it for the first time this weekend and enjoyed it a lot, even though I was the first player eliminated. Watching others duke it out and the combos some of them did was really great!
If the game is over in just a couple turns after the first player is eliminated, then it can be considered an exception to the "bad design" of eliminating a player and having them wait half an hour or more for the game to end.
@@sandal_thong8631 that's true of any elimination game, that is why I point out RDI specifically as the theme, comedy, and overall balance is aimed at keeping everyone in as long as possible. Even when you have a bad run and get an early knock-out it's usually a huge moment in the game. It's not perfect by any means, but it's doing its best to mitigate the flaws.
Many thanks to Klaus Teuber. Thanks to him, we have a variety of board games today that would never have been possible without him.
I like this video. You're clearly passionate but not annoying, which seems a tricky balance for many content creators. Nice video and audio, also. I look forward to watching more of your videos!
Thank you! 👍
Fantastic! Was looking forward to this video and you delivered.
EDIT: Similar to Mark Brown of Game Maker's Toolkit, would love this to turn into some tools & tips for designing games and then a board game "game jam", with you selecting and reviewing the top entries.
Naturally, entries would need to meet modern design standards as part of entry.
Fantastic video! It explains why I loved Yahtzee so much when I was a kid. You roll the dice and *then* decide what to do with them. Games like Tiny Epic Galaxies or Under Falling Skies add a lot more, but the basic mechanic is the same.
There are some great points in this video but there's something to be said for character building experiences. Those canes and learning to suck it up moments have their value. Much of real life does involve luck and circumstances that you can't control. Learning to deal with those situations is important. So, don't throw away those old games.
I have nothing against modern games, but losing a turn because of a role of a dice is part of the fun. It brings an element of chance. With the mix of chance and skill, you get an exciting game. Chess is a great game, but if you don't have the skill, then you'll always lose, hence the lack of interest for some. Monopoly is mostly chance, and so, a bit boring.
Modern games try to be lick American football where by over the years the game has evolved to only have the 'exciting' plays. Rugby, however, has some very dull moments, such as the endless resetting of scrums, but that's what makes the game great and makes people appreciate the hard battles and the exciting moments. Having excitement at every turn isn't all that exciting. It's the mixture of chance and skill that creates an exciting game. The chance of having your tactics scuppered and the skill to overcome the difficulty.
Thank you very much for the video! It also looks really useful for a beginner Indie Dev learning the basics of game design.
Very odd to cite Dead of Winter as a positive example of input randomness when the most memorable thing about it is the dice that has a 1 in 12 chance of killing you instantly whenever you travel between zones
No game is a perfect example. I needed a game that had input randomness using dice and Dead of Winter was the only one I had to hand. I'm not declaring these games perfect, simply highlighting aspects of their design that are worthy of note.
@@actualol Well I think the 1 in 12 instant death dice is a positive feature of the game, so it might be perfect, but doesn't really serve the argument. Castles of Burgundy has solely input randomness with its use of dice.
@@actualol I just tried my farm shop from the library because you recommended it and its a good example of rolling first and decide how to allocate dice later. I wont buy the game (small shelf) but want to play a few more rounds before returning it.
@@AndreasBolor Yes, My Farm Shop is a good example. I think I didn't choose it because of how unknown it is and the unappealing box cover.
I really didn't like Dead of winter, once a character gets to a location they often stay there for the entire game.
Monopoly was meant to be both a long-term game (for a time when there wasn't much else to do in one's free time), as well as a message on societal economic structure, and the version we play is only half of it. The board was meant to have two game modes, Landlord's game (Monopoly as we know it) and Prosperity, the game mode which the Parker Brothers removed from their product.
The general gist of Prosperity's game rules, when someone lands on another's tile, instead of paying the owner (landlord), they pay Land Rent into the community chest. BUT when someone lands on the community chest tiles, the stored wealth is distributed evenly to ALL players. There's a few more stipulations, most of it around Georgist economics, but the main point was to show the difference in how the two games make the players feel, and how it shows that monopolization and large-scale private land ownership actively drives its tenants further into poverty- while more equitable land rights distribution leads to a betterment for all.
Thanks. Good point, which I read in a book about Monopoly. I also enjoyed reading Henry George's economics book, _Progress and Poverty._ But those who own land, don't want others to know. That's why California has been in budget trouble since 1978's Proposition 13, restricting property taxes. Similarly when it came down to it, American universities sold their slaves, not their land to raise revenue, and they don't want to talk about doing either.
This is an excellent and well researched video. I love introducing modern board games to people that have only played Monopoly, Clue, or Uno.
added to my favorites list ✅ n that codenames shout out near the end made me subscribe.
About luck, it is important to distinguish input randomness and output randomness. Input randomness is when something random happens before you get to do something about it, and then you get to act upon it as you wish (think, drawing a card at the beginning of your turn and choosing if you want to use it). Output randomness happens after you have a choice (think attacking a place and then rolling dice to see if it worked).
Both have their place in games, but when it comes to certain things input randomness can feel a lot fairer because you feel like you are adapting and you get a say in how things turn out. You can still get bad luck, it can still be unfair, but at least you got to make the most of it. Output randomness can undermine strategy, because it leaves things up to chance in a place where you can’t control. This means that whilst it can work really well in some places (like in risk taking games where pushing your luck is the point) but in others it can be frustrating as you still loose even though you did everything as well as you could have.
It is worth mentioning that it isn’t a matter of this type of luck is good and this one is bad, but rather it is important to be aware of how luck can affect a game differently depending on when and where it is used
6:10 One Night Werewolf is the best alternative to werewolf, the chaos that comes when you realize halfway through that you are actually the werewolf is so fun! And the companion app is awesome
@@kerryanne The atmospheric music is so classic too
This the perfect reply to the question I always get when I say that I enjoy board games: 'Oh, like Monopoly?'
Perhaps you should carry around a small screen to play it on every time you have to answer the question. I'll allow it.
Hard agree. I find it sad that there is still so many people who never/rarely play board games. My all-time favorite is still catan, but mostly the expansions, which added even more layers. And also, we have some household rules that may or may not distort the balance in favor of more peaceful evenings without people banging their heads in after getting cut off :D
Okay I have to make something clear in case of Monopoly. Going to Jail is vital part of the strategy in this game. If there are places left to buy you want to get out as quick as possible, BUT when other players have orange and red monopolies you want to stay in prison as long as possible, because you are safe there. Choosing how to deal with prison is a very misunderstood concept of this game
I went over a friend's house to play Bang! and was eliminated before my turn in the first game and managed only one round in the second. That was the last time I played it. It wasn't fun to sit around.
I do think a lot of these are to taste. Some are a matter of having the right friend group, or a large enough gathering to cushion flaws that hurt small groups. Games now address or embrace these problems in different ways, which is great.
Great video, and I appreciate your caveat at the end. I would also add that there are many modern games that scale very well, or feel very different, depending on the players. Ticket to ride is a prime example. It can be a great family friendly game you play with your Nephew or grandparents... or it can be a brutally competitive game where you purposely block people once you see where they are going. Games like this are awesome as they use simple rules as a framework, and allow the user to feel like they are in control.
Yes, that's a really great point. Carcassonne is the same, you can really play it in the style that suits your group.
@@actualol I actually lol'ed when you said you don't put your route down to block other players. My focus is definitely *not* on getting the most points for myself. My focus is making sure I get more points than everyone else, and if stopping someone else getting points is the best way to do that, you bet I will.
@@xorsyst1 Yes, many people who played the American version, would block that one-train link in the East as their first turn. There's another one in the South like between New Orleans and Houston, I think, that could be worth doing to frustrate someone, and to grab that corridor early. The expansion 1910 with reduction in the cross-country routes' points and having a bonus for most tickets made, really changed the game for different play.
Okay, there are a bit of aggressive moves in Ticket To Ride that will bring out the hate in the group. Specifically Nashville to Atlanta, that move is like throwing down the gauntlet, whether you do it early, basically declaring you have one of 5 possible big tickets, or whether you do it late, just to screw someone over who is trying to complete the big ticket. It can be table turning to say the least.
My friends typically do it early just in case we get one of the big tickets & to mess with any other player that might get them if we don't. Its pretty much an automatic first move in my household.
Thank you John! You're a real Profi in explaining what is running the success of boardgames.
As a german boardgamer since the 70ies it was really impressive to remember the own expieriences with the games you told about.
For me and my wife it's one of the three most relevant points we expierience vicinity.
What a pleasure, what luck!
Keep on grinding, your channel deserves millions of followers, you’ll get there!
I was wondering if you have ever tried Stone Age before. It is personally one of my favorites, because of you can choose different strategies, block of you friends for gaining the right resources, and still rely on dice rolls. Thank you for your great reviews and videoes!
Yeah it's a good one!
I always talk about Werewolf vs The Resistance. 😆 Glad you support it! Got eliminated in the first round 3 games in a row. Never played it afterward. The Resistance FTW. ✊
I agree that Catan was a massive game changer when it was released, but I personally find it currently in the same tier list as Monopoly or Risk. This because it is possible to 'wall off' other players causing them to no longer be able to expand/play, or be unlucky and keep getting no resources (or if you do, they could get stolen before it is your turn) . You can influence the chance of getting resources, by settling on higher probability tiles (6/8 or, 5/9), but just like you mentioned in Risk (14:30) you can consistently roll bad.
Catan (Like Risk) has a lot of "invisible" skill expression. The best players are consistently making slightly better decisions than their opponents and they slowly gain an advantage because of it. You make decisions on the margins and you win on the margins. The best player doesn't win every time, they win more than their fair share. Some people don't like these kinds of games, but I don't mind them. I don't need to win every time even if I play the best.
#10 and #2 are the worst things about modern board games. So many of these games are just six people solving their own little puzzles and after 40 minutes we do a bunch of math to find out who solved the puzzle the best. Games should be dramatic and exciting, especially the moment when somebody wins. Sometimes you need a game that you know will take less than an hour, and sometimes you want a safe game that could never cause an argument because nobody cares enough, but sometimes I want to play a game with teeth.
What I love is the shift from luck mechanics to push-your-luck mechanics in some modern games, where you are still at the mercy of something unpredictable, but you get rewarded for accepting greater risks, and if you happen to draw/roll terribly, you have no one to blame but you for your greed and not settling for something smaller, but safer