# Uh, no thanks, I'll play this instead.



## Wycen (Dec 28, 2008)

So last week before Christmas I played another game of Agricola.  I played with the uber couple who've played so many times they consistantely get 30 or 40 points in a 4 or 5 player game.  

I've decided to move Agricola to my "no thanks" list of games.  These are games I don't want to play, usually with certain people.  Or in some cases these are games you simply have no interest in at all.

Other games on my list:

Settlers of Catan.  Yes, great gateway game but for some reason I don't care about playing it.  Maybe because I've never won, (yes, something as silly as that affects my judgement).  Seems like the only way to get ahead is being a jerk and cutting off another persons growth, especially in a 4 player game (have not played with the 5-6 player expansion). 

Taluva.  Love the art but only recently did someone take the time to explain the 'like tiles expansion' rules fully.  I'd pass if certain people play in the same game.   

Hacienda.  I like this one, but again if certain friends are playing I'd rather play something I have a better chance of winning.

Saint Petersburg.  Bleh!

Jungle Speed.  More of a party game, but I was reminded of this yesterday before we started Bang!  Our host brought it out with several others and thankfully it was tossed aside because the pregnant lady didn't want to jostle herself too much.

So are there games you'd prefer not to play with certain people you know?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 28, 2008)

There is a friend of mine with whom I should never ever again play Trivial Pursuit (as a team).

Individually, we each were formidable.  Together, we were a disaster.

Every time she thought I was absolutely right, her answer was the correct one.  Every time I relented and went with her answer, my answer was the correct one.  We ended up with one pie wedge and a lot of buddies who were red-faced from laughing.

OTOH, my buddies and I are forbidden from suggesting Taboo as a party game if the teams are "Guys vs Girls."  I swear, the last time we played, it was like we were a groupmind.  Our "in-jokes" allowed us to guess the correct answers in just seconds- followed by guys gasping for air in laughter and women gaping in amazement and miffitude.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 28, 2008)

Munchkin is one game there are some friends I can't play it with.  They take the game too seriously and they don't get the screw your opponent attitude of the game.  There are some couples I won't play it with as they will work together as one and make it not fun.

Axis and Allies there are some people we play with that we purposely have only play certain countries.  

Mostly though the people themselves choose not to play the games they don't like or would ruin for other people.  So, it is not as big of deal with us.


----------



## Wycen (Jun 11, 2009)

I can safely add Qwirkle to my list now.  I had liked the game, but after the whipping I got last night, nope, not gonna play it anymore.  

And the reason I played it was to avoid playing St. Petersburg and new expansion.  

And I lost at Hacienda.  Which we played instead of Puerto Rico, another game I'm not fond of. 

Yep, pretty much that was a lousy game night.  Interesting to note, nearly all these games are brought by the same person.  Huh.


----------



## scitadel (Jun 11, 2009)

Talisman!!! I refuse to play that game anymore. Give me Prophecy any day.

Container has been banned from play by my group - mostly 'cause they didn't like how complex and intertwined the economy was.


----------



## Tewligan (Jun 11, 2009)

Wycen said:


> I can safely add Qwirkle to my list now.  I had liked the game, but after the whipping I got last night, nope, not gonna play it anymore.



Oh, come on! So, you used to like the game, but now you refuse to play it just because you lost one night? Between that and the reasoning for some of the games in your first post, I have to say that it kind of sounds like you're a bit of a sore loser.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 11, 2009)

I can sort of sympathize.  There are certain games that lend themselves to a level of rote play that gives someone who plays it all the time an unbeatable advantage.  You're only choice is to play enough times to learn those optimal patterns, which isn't exactly fun.   My best friend used to love the Avalon Hill Civilization board game, but he'd determined an optimal path through the game, and there weren't enough random events to reliably shake him off the path.  So it became a game where someone had to give up their strategy and concentrate on screwing with him every turn.  Not fun.

We also used to have one guy that *hated* for games to end.  Rather than play to win, he'd play to keep anyone from winning so the game would go on as long as possible.  Very, very frustrating.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 11, 2009)

Wycen said:


> I can safely add Qwirkle to my list now.  I had liked the game, but after the whipping I got last night, nope, not gonna play it anymore.
> 
> And the reason I played it was to avoid playing St. Petersburg and new expansion.
> 
> ...




The goal of playing is to win, but it's not the _reason_ for playing.

If you can't stand to lose, you might want to quit board gaming entirely.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 15, 2009)

I can't say there's a game I won't play with certain people or because I don't win, but there are games i won't play because they are often not much fun.

Axis & Allies, Monopoly, Risk, Carcasonne are big ones.  I recently played Pandemic again and I don't like the whole "this is what everyone needs to do" group mind aspect of it.  It's more like a discussion than a board game, so it may soon make the list.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't have a list of games I won't play in particular, except for Clue which I find exceptionally tedious.  I _do_ have a list of people that I'm wary of playing games with, for various reasons.

However, any game that is "twitch"-based I'm not as likely to enjoy, and so I tend to avoid those.  By twitch-based I mean that it relies on reflexes or quick perception rather than being able to think at my own speed.

My GM refuses to play Apples to Apples, which I love to tease him about.


----------



## Dyson Logos (Jun 21, 2009)

I play Carcassonne almost religiously.

I've won one game out of the last 44. We're keeping track.

Love the game.

It's not about winning, it's about trying to win and having fun.


----------



## Nimloth (Jun 21, 2009)

*My list*

I won't play Risk.  

I also have a friend I tend not to play with.  He is smart, a good tactician and LUCKY. When you combine all those qualities he tends to win way more than his fair share of games (80%+).


----------



## Blackbrrd (Dec 30, 2009)

Wycen said:


> Settlers of Catan.  Yes, great gateway game but for some reason I don't care about playing it.  Maybe because I've never won, (yes, something as silly as that affects my judgement).  Seems like the only way to get ahead is being a jerk and cutting off another persons growth, especially in a 4 player game (have not played with the 5-6 player expansion).




I don't like the part where you are constantly screwing your buddies. I can play it with some of my friends, while with others it gets nasty. I am relatively good at it though, so I have won a couple of games.

I like games like Arkham Horror where you are cooperating - it's the same reason I like rpg's.

I have come to dislike games with informal alliances, somebody always feel screwed.


----------



## Wycen (Dec 31, 2009)

Some possible additions to my 'no thanks' list.

Twilight Imperium.  Too dang long.

Android.  Also pretty long, but I would probably play it again if
the rules were explained better.

Small World.  I'm not sure what it is about this game, but it strikes
me as a _meh_ experience.  I think it might be because it 
encourages you to exploit the weakest neighbor.

Le Havre might eventually be on the list.  I'll have to play it with
different people first.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 31, 2009)

Dyson Logos said:


> I play Carcassonne almost religiously.
> 
> I've won one game out of the last 44. We're keeping track.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more.  I suck at Carcassonne (for example) and rarely win but it's still fun to play.  Same with other games.

I have no Won't Play list.  Especially with people I've not played a particular game with.  The crowd can totally change the experience and I'm not missing out on that.  

I can also totally understand getting burned out on a game or being in a rut due to familiarity with all the players at the table.  Nothing wrong with that.  Great excuse to bust out a new game!


----------



## Punnuendo (Dec 31, 2009)

Games I won't play:

Talisamn, Arkham Horror - I put these together because I have the same problem with each. What is a fun game play experience for the first hour and a half turns into drudgery for me when you are still doing the same things two or even three hours later. Both of these games just last way too long for their mechanics to support in my opinion. Oddly enough, I love games like Twilight Imperium that are even longer, but remain fun and interesting to me throughout.

Pandemic - Just don't enjoy playing it. Played a couple of times with different groups and the game just isn't fun for me.

Are You the Traitor? - Really, is this anything more than just a simple guessing game?

Bang! - Only because I've played it far far far too many times.

RoboRally - Another game that I simply just do not enjoy playing.


----------



## Cadfael_Corwith (Dec 31, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There is a friend of mine with whom I should never ever again play Trivial Pursuit (as a team).
> 
> Individually, we each were formidable. Together, we were a disaster.
> 
> Every time she thought I was absolutely right, her answer was the correct one. Every time I relented and went with her answer, my answer was the correct one. We ended up with one pie wedge and a lot of buddies who were red-faced from laughing.




Long ago I stopped playing Trivial Pursuit with my brother. He is a couple years younger than me and the youngest in the family. After I went to college, he was at home alone and bored a lot. So, he read the cards. 

Well, one day we're playing and the question is about some secondary character in a British Novel that no one at the table had ever heard of. Of course, he knew it! I looked at him and just started laughing...

Of course, my wife will never play Monopoly with me again.  We were dating and she was killing me.  Had 2 or 3 color groups and the railroads to my one color group.  Well, every time she got up to get something, I snuck $500 out of the bank.  She still killed me (something about her having tons of cash flow and me having none), but at least it lasted a lot longer.  This was back when being together was the important thing.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 31, 2009)

Punnuendo said:


> Are You the Traitor? - Really, is this anything more than just a simple guessing game?




It all depends on who you are playing with.  I've had some good groups were people got into character and made it a lot of fun.  But since it does so depend on the people playing it does make it a weak but simple game.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Jan 10, 2010)

Diplomacy. Getting stabbed/eliminated is always rough, but some folks take it personally, which isn't fun to see.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 13, 2010)

Flatus Maximus said:


> Diplomacy. Getting stabbed/eliminated is always rough, but some folks take it personally, which isn't fun to see.




My parents' old gaming group in the 80s had a rule for Diplomacy - couples come to the game in separate cars.

Just in case.

-Hyp.


----------



## cattoy (Jan 13, 2010)

Munchkin - I'd rather play the 'watch the paint dry' game than munchkin.

That Killer Bunnies game - ditto.

Arkham Horror - depends on what expansions are in play and if that one guy is coming...


----------



## Stormonu (Feb 13, 2010)

Monopoly.  I cannot stand that game - it's so up to chance that a monkey has about the same chance of winning in the game as everyone else.  And it takes forever to finish.

I'm also reluctant to play Trivial Pursuit, based on the topic.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 14, 2010)

I never play Diplomacy any more. The first time we played it my friends and I reach a stalemate and the game lasted for four days, two of them straight without any sleep. So I said to hell with it and just let one of them take over a country so the game can end. They were really peeved at me for that.

Nobody plays Monopoly with me any more because I am really lucky and I win 90% of the time. Same with Risk. One time I amassed over fifty armies right next to one guys castle. After that he never played against me again. The other thing I like to do is with this one particular now ex friend of mine is if I'm down to a few property cards, I will quit the game and give them to somebody else other than him along with what remaining money money I have left. I refuse to let him win so he can brag about how stupid I was.

I never play Battletech or Warhammer or similar miniatures games because I suck at miniatures games and when I lose too much I get really upset at myself. Plus, whenever I lose all of my friends just tell me I'm being retarded anyway.


----------



## Abisashi (Jun 14, 2010)

Wycen said:


> Settlers of Catan.  Yes, great gateway game but for some reason I don't care about playing it.  Maybe because I've never won, (yes, something as silly as that affects my judgement).  Seems like the only way to get ahead is being a jerk and cutting off another persons growth, especially in a 4 player game (have not played with the 5-6 player expansion).




When I play with my family, the robber doesn't prevent the hex he is on from producing, which makes the game much more friendly.


----------



## Wycen (Jun 15, 2010)

There could be other games by now I might put on my list but the last half year I've been studying more than gaming and in particular the last 3 months I've barely made it to Tuesday board gaming due to a professor liking to assign tests and assignments due Wednesdays.  And I have her in two classes.

I may get a game soon I can't play simply because it'll be in German, since I asked my parents to bring something back from their vacation.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 15, 2010)

Axis & Allies - I would rather dodge traffic than play this game.

Titan - I won't say I'd *never* play this game again, but one friend makes this a really difficult choice of game.

Risk - The basic version of this game is too dull. I prefer the LotR version that has quests and a variable end to the game, not just ending with total world domination.

Milles Borne - My wife remembered this game fondly from her childhood, but we both found the game to be completely unplayable.

"Twitch" games - I agree with the above poster. Some games that have a single twitch aspect to them are still played on family game nights with the "twitch" aspect houseruled away.

Rail Baron - I actually *love* this game, but you need a whole long weekend just to play it.


----------



## Wycen (Jul 8, 2010)

Got a lot of playing in over the July 4 weekend and sadly I think I'm going to put a game on the list, at least conditionally or temporarily.

Kingsburg.

I love the game.  I like the randomness mixed with calculating and the player interaction (by screwing other players for the number they wanted).

But when your highest roll is 16 and that's because of the pity dice compared to the leader who claims to have found the best path to victory and continues to prove it, it's just frustrating.  

Maybe if we play using the expansion, but for now, sorry Kingsburg, even though I do love the game.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 12, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> My GM refuses to play Apples to Apples, which I love to tease him about.




There's a group of relatives that I won't play Apples to Apples with.  They like to choose winning cards based only off of what they think is funny (never paying attention to anything resembling a good match), and think that random non-sequitor answers are the funniest things in the world.  I stopped playing with them after I realized this and won twice in a row by throwing completely random cards.  Interestingly, many of the people in the group will be fun to play with when there is a different group present.

I also don't play Risk with some people I know who openly admit to cheating at it.  I like playing Risk.  I don't like needing to closely watch a player for hours on end while being afraid to go to the bathroom.


----------



## Verdande (Jul 13, 2010)

I won't play Monopoly- at first it's pretty cool, but after the second hour the charm's worn thin.

I also don't really like playing Trivial Pursuit; the people who want to play it are the ones who are "trivia buffs" and they end up stomping all over everybody else. 

Starcraft (the board game) can get tiring, since we always play super defensive and so sit around amassing an army until one side obviously wins, then the other side quits. Whee!


----------



## oni no won (Jul 28, 2010)

The one game I absolutely will not play any more is *Puerto Rico*.  I hate that game with a passion partly due to my experience playing with a group of people and my inability to wrap my head around the concept of the game.  It is one of those games where if you are unfortunate to sit next to an experienced player, you will find yourself being exploited.  Also, since there is no luck in this game, an experienced player will always win.

Another game I hesitate to play is *Settlers of Catan* when playing with married couples.  Everytime there was a married couple playing it (in my experience), they gave each other an advantage by teaming up.


----------



## renau1g (Jul 29, 2010)

I won't play 52 card pickup

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL4Mfbp76U0]YouTube - Son Learns 52 Card Pickup[/ame]


----------



## stonegod (Jul 29, 2010)

oni no won said:


> Another game I hesitate to play is *Settlers of Catan* when playing with married couples.  Everytime there was a married couple playing it (in my experience), they gave each other an advantage by teaming up.



Not in this household. My wife is brutal at that game. I think she's upset the cats win.


----------



## renau1g (Jul 29, 2010)

Yeah I agree with stonegod. My wife yelled at me because I was being "too easy" on her the first time we played it so since then all bets are off and it's a great time.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 29, 2010)

oni no won said:


> Another game I hesitate to play is *Settlers of Catan* when playing with married couples.  Everytime there was a married couple playing it (in my experience), they gave each other an advantage by teaming up.



Ha! Bwah ha ha ha ha! All the married couples I know, myself included, do the _opposite _of teaming up when we play Settlers.

I really dislike Munchkin. It's fun up to about lvl 8 out of 10, but trying to win moves from fun to annoying and tedious.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I won't play 52 card pickup
> 
> YouTube - Son Learns 52 Card Pickup




I wish there was a M:tG card that let you do that.  And if there was, I'd SO put Chaos Orb in that deck, too.


----------



## Sammael (Jul 30, 2010)

I'm close to never playing Arkham Horror again, particularly with more than one expansion at a time. I can't honestly recall the last time we managed to win the game, and cards like "Cthulhu appears. You must fight Cthulhu alone." are just beyond insane. Particularly when you pull more than one such card during a session.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 30, 2010)

Sammael said:


> I can't honestly recall the last time we managed to win the game, and cards like "Cthulhu appears. You must fight Cthulhu alone."



I love this card! I wish we'd draw it more often (while in the correct other world). The one time someone had to fight Cthulhu was one of the most memorable encounters, since the player - almost - managed to win. Everyone was excited, cheering with every success rolled. Great times!

If you don't like this kind of thing, it's obviously not the right game for you


----------



## arscott (Jul 31, 2010)

I've actually seen that card turn into an unexpected game win.  The character was 1 round away from being devoured when he actually beat cthulhu, sealing a gate he didn't have the clue tokens to seal on his own.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jul 31, 2010)

I won't play spit. With anyone.

In college I played Axis & Allies and Napoleon in Europe with my roomies. Half of them had best buddies in the group, and the other half were history buffs. After about the sixth game, I got tired of losing. They're hella fun games, but they get boring when played with the same predictable group over and over again.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Aug 1, 2010)

I won't play Diplomacy with certain people because it causes hurt feeling when the inevitable betrayal occurs.

I prefer not to play RoboRally.  I just dislike the game.  No real reason.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 1, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I love this card! I wish we'd draw it more often (while in the correct other world). The one time someone had to fight Cthulhu was one of the most memorable encounters, since the player - almost - managed to win. Everyone was excited, cheering with every success rolled. Great times!
> 
> If you don't like this kind of thing, it's obviously not the right game for you



I'm fine with playing a game where you fight overwhelming odds, I just don't like losing _every damn time_, particularly when it's due to a random event instead of my own incompetence.

If I had the time to play Arkham on a daily or even weekly basis, maybe it'd be better. But playing it once a month... it just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 2, 2010)

Sammael said:


> If I had the time to play Arkham on a daily or even weekly basis, maybe it'd be better. But playing it once a month... it just doesn't cut it.



I can feel your pain. I already had a lot of solo games under my belt before we started our first group games. I think it took four or five games before we achieved our first victory as a group.

Winning solo (with multiple investigators) is comparatively easy, since the investigators cooperate perfectly, are always willing to hand over items, don't waste time hunting monsters (unless necessary), etc.

But playing with a group is definitely more fun. The only complaint I have about Arkham Horror is that sometimes a game can drag on endlessly. This usually happens when you get a good start, have sealed a couple of gates and then the game suddenly shifts, e.g. with a nasty rumour, or gate bursts, or stuff! leading slowly but inevitably to a final combat after, say, six hours. Losing such a game can definitely be frustrating.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 11, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I can feel your pain. I already had a lot of solo games under my belt before we started our first group games. I think it took four or five games before we achieved our first victory as a group.
> 
> Winning solo (with multiple investigators) is comparatively easy, since the investigators cooperate perfectly, are always willing to hand over items, don't waste time hunting monsters (unless necessary), etc.
> 
> But playing with a group is definitely more fun. The only complaint I have about Arkham Horror is that sometimes a game can drag on endlessly. This usually happens when you get a good start, have sealed a couple of gates and then the game suddenly shifts, e.g. with a nasty rumour, or gate bursts, or stuff! leading slowly but inevitably to a final combat after, say, six hours. Losing such a game can definitely be frustrating.



Six hours?  That should only happen if you've got 6+ players (which is gonna be a long game anyway) and there isn't someone savvy with the rules to avoid looking things up.  Also, it's rare.  Any game with so many moving parts can suffer drag if the right situations happen.  I can't hold that against the game especially when the great majority of the time it's a blast.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 12, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Winning solo (with multiple investigators) is comparatively easy, since the investigators cooperate perfectly, are always willing to hand over items, don't waste time hunting monsters (unless necessary), etc.




Wow. We got to the stage where we were adding in the extra hard rules because we found the game was just too easy to beat (5+ players, various old ones, various expansions).

Mind you, we did that whole cooperation thing. Aren't you supposed to?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 9, 2010)

I think Clue is the only one that fits the criteria for me.  (I hate Stratego for example, but that is the game, not the people it might be played with.)  With Clue, I've never met anyone that plays "intermediate" as I do.  If it is casual players that deduce nothing, I always win.  If it is advanced players that pursue all the possible deductions to the N-th degree, it takes forever.  I kind of like for a detective game to be a mix of deduction, intuition, and luck.  Seems I'm alone. 

Now, I've been "that guy" that they won't play with, too.  My friends in high school refused to play Kingmaker with me anymore after the six player session where they all ganged up on me, but I won anyway by manipulating Parliment. 

Mille Borne, Mexican Train Dominos, and several other games are ones that I like, but don't much care for with only two players.  The game changes too much when without something to avoid a "head-to-head" runaway scenario.


----------



## Wycen (Nov 11, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I think Clue is the only one that fits the criteria for me.  (I hate Stratego for example, but that is the game, not the people it might be played with.)  With Clue, I've never met anyone that plays "intermediate" as I do.  If it is casual players that deduce nothing, I always win.  If it is advanced players that pursue all the possible deductions to the N-th degree, it takes forever.  I kind of like for a detective game to be a mix of deduction, intuition, and luck.  Seems I'm alone.




You might want to give Mystery Express a try.  You'll get to enjoy playing it once and the others will quite possibly say "we should have played Clue instead".

The game has deduction, but chance is involved as the clues get passed around and you have to remember who passed you what.  Then they tack on a timed memory component, which nearly eveybody disliked when we played.  My thought was simply to remove 1 or 2 of the possibilities.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Nov 12, 2010)

Quantum said:


> .... So I said to hell with it and just let one of them take over a country so the game can end. They were really peeved at me for that.
> 
> ....The other thing I like to do is with this one particular now ex friend of mine is if I'm down to a few property cards, I will quit the game and give them to somebody else other than him ....




I have a friend who has a tendency to do stuff like this, he only gets invited to like 50% of the games we play because he usually ruins the fun for everybody around the table. 

One game of Transport Tycoon he transported goods on another guys rails just to give him points. We agreed that those extra points weren't being added and if he wanted to play games he wouldn't disrupt the game in that manner.


----------



## lin_fusan (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm not too interested in playing Twilight Imperium anymore. I've played it five-ish times, and it's not just that it's too long, but after Turn 2 (which takes an hour), I've already realized that I've screwed up, meaning I will be a point behind everyone else for the rest of the game (the other 7 hours). 

I've never been a fan of Munchkin, even though everyone else I know loves the game. It might be because I don't really feel that there are meaningful choices in the game. 

Fluxx is a game that I like in concept, but after several plays, realize that there is an optimal play every hand, it's just that there isn't any real reason to think of an optimal play.

I've noticed that I don't tend to enjoy longer, heavier games. I still like Puerto Rico, for example, but it tends to take too much brainpower and time than I have at 7pm.


----------



## Wycen (Aug 29, 2011)

We played several party games a few weeks ago and one of them in particular was just not up to the task.  Maybe with a group of well read or travelled scholars it might work, though I still question the fun factor: Wise and Otherwise.

One of my friends mentioned that in previous play people would write things down just in order to see if she could read them with a straight face, I'm guessing dirty jokes.  I really wish I had done that.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 29, 2011)

lin_fusan said:


> I'm not too interested in playing Twilight Imperium anymore. I've played it five-ish times, and it's not just that it's too long, but after Turn 2 (which takes an hour), I've already realized that I've screwed up, meaning I will be a point behind everyone else for the rest of the game (the other 7 hours).




I'll agree with you with a slightly different point of view.  The math of the game is too straight-forward and gameplay is predictable.  I've played it 7 times with the same group of players and won six with six different races by following the same strategy.  1. Keep control of the speaker token, 2. Play the Imperial card, 3. Avoid fighting.

As to the 7 hour thing, that happens when players think the game is about combat and forget about the victory point track.  Our games lasted about 4 hours with 5 players.


----------



## Gronin (Aug 29, 2011)

oni no won said:


> Another game I hesitate to play is *Settlers of Catan* when playing with married couples.  Everytime there was a married couple playing it (in my experience), they gave each other an advantage by teaming up.




I have played this game with my wife at the same table several times and all I can say is "I wish!"


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 29, 2011)

The new version of Gamma World...

Everything I read about the game made me believe I would highly enjoy it.  However, after a friend of mine bought it, and I played it, I learned that I have trouble enjoying the game.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 29, 2011)

Wycen said:


> We played several party games a few weeks ago and one of them in particular was just not up to the task.  Maybe with a group of well read or travelled scholars it might work, though I still question the fun factor: Wise and Otherwise.



While I'm not a huge fan of the game, I don't think the "well read or travelled" bit really applies: you're not supposed to be able to recognize the actual saying. Rather, the idea is that players create sayings that have just the right combination of wisdom and goofiness to sound real, just like the real sayings. Actually recognizing the sayings would ruin the premise.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 29, 2011)

Fast Learner said:


> While I'm not a huge fan of the game, I don't think the "well read or travelled" bit really applies: you're not supposed to be able to recognize the actual saying. Rather, the idea is that players create sayings that have just the right combination of wisdom and goofiness to sound real, just like the real sayings. Actually recognizing the sayings would ruin the premise.





You can't lose if you don't play but if you don't play you've already lost.


----------



## Janx (Aug 30, 2011)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> We also used to have one guy that *hated* for games to end.  Rather than play to win, he'd play to keep anyone from winning so the game would go on as long as possible.  Very, very frustrating.





Some study I read about ascribe that behavior as a difference in male and females in games.

Males played to win and thus looked to end the game. females played to socialize and thus would tend to make moves to extend the game.

In college, my buddy Kris always won Risk.  So the goal for everybody else was to live longer than Craig.

Which is another wierd thing.  Nerds were predominatly singled out and picked on.  So what kind of games do nerds invent?  Games where you can single someone out and pick on them.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 30, 2011)

Janx said:


> Some study I read about ascribe that behavior as a difference in male and females in games.
> 
> Males played to win and thus looked to end the game. females played to socialize and thus would tend to make moves to extend the game.



Perhaps broadly, but sportsmanship should overcome that in anyone over the age of 8. The 15-20 people I regularly play boardgames with understand that it's your responsibility from the moment you agree to play to:


*Play through to the end of the game*. The only exceptions are games where your leaving won't affect the game status (though such games are rare) or if some real life element interferes.
 
*Play to win and play for position*. The latter means that even if you know you can't win you still play to do as well as you can: in a game with points or other varying finishers you play for the highest position you can.
 
*Play only the current game*. If you feel like Bob screwed you in the last game you played, this is an all new game, no spending the game trying to screw Bob in revenge.
 
*No kingmaking*. To the extent possible -- and a few games make this impossible but most do not -- do not play in ways that will help one player more than another if it's not to benefit yourself. This extends 2 and 3.
 
*No cheating*. Not ever, in any way. (If the game allows for it, like Illuminati, and everyone agrees to play by that rule then it's not really cheating.)
People who can't manage to be good sports don't get invited back. It's almost surprising how, when almost everyone is playing this way, pretty much everyone else comes around.



> Which is another wierd thing.  Nerds were predominatly singled out and picked on.  So what kind of games do nerds invent?  Games where you can single someone out and pick on them.



Dunno about that. I mean yeah, there are plenty of games like that, but the thousands of "eurogames" I play have little or none of it, and I can assure you they're definitely invented by nerds.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Aug 30, 2011)

I haven't yet found a game I will refuse to play.  A couple come close, but I merely will do my best to dissuade the party from playing due to the poor design of the game and/or the fact that its rules allow for tediousness.  

Risk and Monopoly fit in this category for the same reason: there's a high degree of probability that 1 player will be out of the game, but the game will still go on for hours.  There's no way in which that can be considered "fun."

Uno fits in the category for the sheer fact of it being entirely possible for the game to never end, since it is based primarily on chance (drawing the right cards at the right time).

But if people REALLY want to play those games, I'll play them.  Most of the time, people seem quite surprised at the reasons I give, and are more than willing to play a game that everyone can get on board with.

There are, however, PEOPLE I will not play with, and the OP would be a perfect example: people who will refuse to play games simply because they don't win enough.  There's no positives such people bring to the table, I'm afraid ... it's best to simply make sure I'm always playing a game they're not, and I purposefully do not invite such people to our regular Game Night events.

Also, won't play with blatant cheaters.


----------



## Wycen (Aug 30, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> You can't lose if you don't play but if you don't play you've already lost.




This makes me think you've played the game!


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 30, 2011)

Wycen said:


> This makes me think you've played the game!





My loss?


----------



## Janx (Aug 30, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> But if people REALLY want to play those games, I'll play them.  Most of the time, people seem quite surprised at the reasons I give, and are more than willing to play a game that everyone can get on board with.
> 
> There are, however, PEOPLE I will not play with, and the OP would be a perfect example: people who will refuse to play games simply because they don't win enough.  There's no positives such people bring to the table, I'm afraid ... it's best to simply make sure I'm always playing a game they're not, and I purposefully do not invite such people to our regular Game Night events.





Most normal people don't think about game design.  This is why they have house rules in Monopoly about the putting all fines in a pot and landing on the whatever it was called square to win the pot.  It unbalances the game, and keeps money out of circulation (the bank can run out).

On your latter point, if you are in a group of 5 people and can't ever win 1 in 5 games, how much fun are you having?  

Now somebody could look at it as training, you have to pay your dues to get good at the game. For example, I spent 6 months playing darts in my boss's office every day, getting my butt handed to me.  Then I started winning, and became one of the top players in the group.

On the other hand, I suck at games like Chess.  While I am a smart guy, I don't think moves ahead or any of that mumbo jumbo.  I therefore don't enjoy the experience of always losing to anybody with any skill for the game (which are really the only people who play chess).

In a way, I think you have it backwards.  A person who doesn't want to play a game because they don't win enough/never win, knows they are not a proper competitor for you and would drag you down.  They are effectively advocating playing a game where both of you can enjoy it (or at least negating 1 title that you don't share in common).


----------



## Janx (Aug 30, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> But if people REALLY want to play those games, I'll play them.  Most of the time, people seem quite surprised at the reasons I give, and are more than willing to play a game that everyone can get on board with.
> 
> There are, however, PEOPLE I will not play with, and the OP would be a perfect example: people who will refuse to play games simply because they don't win enough.  There's no positives such people bring to the table, I'm afraid ... it's best to simply make sure I'm always playing a game they're not, and I purposefully do not invite such people to our regular Game Night events.





Most normal people don't think about game design.  This is why they have house rules in Monopoly about the putting all fines in a pot and landing on the whatever it was called square to win the pot.  It unbalances the game, and keeps money out of circulation (the bank can run out).

On your latter point, if you are in a group of 5 people and can't ever win 1 in 5 games, how much fun are you having?  

Now somebody could look at it as training, you have to pay your dues to get good at the game. For example, I spent 6 months playing darts in my boss's office every day, getting my butt handed to me.  Then I started winning, and became one of the top players in the group.

On the other hand, I suck at games like Chess.  While I am a smart guy, I don't think moves ahead or any of that mumbo jumbo.  I therefore don't enjoy the experience of always losing to anybody with any skill for the game (which are really the only people who play chess).

In a way, I think you have it backwards.  A person who doesn't want to play a game because they don't win enough/never win, knows they are not a proper competitor for you and would drag you down.  They are effectively advocating playing a game where both of you can enjoy it (or at least negating 1 title that you don't share in common).


----------



## DumbPaladin (Aug 30, 2011)

Janx said:


> In a way, I think you have it backwards.  A person who doesn't want to play a game because they don't win enough/never win, knows they are not a proper competitor for you and would drag you down.  They are effectively advocating playing a game where both of you can enjoy it (or at least negating 1 title that you don't share in common).





I see what you're saying.  I agree in large part.

My problem comes when people begin to compile entire LISTS of games they 'refuse' to play, as the OP has used this thread to do.  1 or 2 games people dislike? Totally understandable.  8 or 10 games? That's being overly difficult.

Quite a few of those games are likely to be games I want to play, even if just once, and having dealt with an ex-invitee to our Game Night events who had a list of games she REFUSED to play ... it gets to be a joykill, and struck the group, I think correctly, as unpleasant and selfish.

That's where I begin to draw the line.  Last Game Night, we played Pit.  Everyone wanted to play but me ... but I didn't even bother to vocalize that it's not really my favorite game, because what would be the point, except to rain on everyone's parade?


----------



## Janx (Aug 30, 2011)

on the topic of games I prefer not to play:

chess, because I am too stupid for it

Fluxx, because we played the piss out of it when it came out, and are frankly bored of it, despite other people having discovered it in its current edition

I only like to play Risk with people who aren't big Risk fans.  Big Risk fans are like chess players and then i have no chance.  I have only ever won 1 game of risk (2010AD risk), and in that, I had negotiated peace with all but 1 player, and my fellow players helped in my defense and I won.

For informal parties, I do not like to break out any of the more complex games, because I don't remember the rules and my fellow gamers who do have an extra advantage.  It ends up being some newb needs coaching, so I help with that, which weakens my already weak defense against the player who remembers the rules and core strategy and whoops arse.

As an odd aside, I do find that I like board games converted to video games (risk, monopoly, catan, carcasonne, ticket to ride).  It really streamlines play to not have to muck with all the setup and fiddling with stuff.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 30, 2011)

Janx said:


> Most normal people don't think about game design.  This is why they have house rules in Monopoly about the putting all fines in a pot and landing on the whatever it was called square to win the pot.  It unbalances the game, and keeps money out of circulation (the bank can run out).



Worse, it makes the game literally take three to ten times as long. Monopoly is designed to be a game where people can't pay and are eliminated; when played by the rules it takes about 90 minutes, but when you give big piles of money to players randomly, never letting it leave the game, the thing takes hours and hours.

Which is especially horrible for such a lousy game.


----------



## Wycen (Aug 30, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> 8 or 10 games? That's being overly difficult.




Well, do you have any idea how many games are listed on Board Game Geek?  I do not.  Maybe there is a list somewhere.  I suspect the total number of games available to play is ginormous.  And since games will continue to come out, the list will only get bigger.  10 or 20 games out of hundreds or thousands, is that really overly difficult?  What about those who buy games and later sell them or trade them away because they don't like em?  

The funny thing is I can and have been persuaded to play games I don't like (damn you St. Petersburg!).  If I'm continually asking who's turn it is and it ends up being mine, chances are I'm playing because I want to chat and hang out with those people and the game is an unfortunate victim of my quirks.


----------



## Orius (Aug 30, 2011)

Janx said:


> So what kind of games do nerds invent?  Games where you can single someone out and pick on them.




I'm struggling to see how D&D, the nerdiest of all games, fits into this assertation.

Games I won't play?

Mark me down for Monopoly as well.  How the hell does that game remain popular?  Inertia, I'll wager.  

I hate Risk too.  Can't stand the mechanics.  Oh you just took Australia?  Fine you win, I don't fell like wasting the next several hours of my life.

Life.  I hate that schmaltzy pile of dreck.  It's dull and insipid.  I also always manage to land on that one stupid space where the weird aunt leaves you a ton of cats to care for which burns a huge hole in my finances.  I refuse to play unless granted immunity to that space.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 30, 2011)

Wycen said:


> Well, do you have any idea how many games are listed on Board Game Geek?



Since I can, as of now there are 53,489 boardgames:







FWIW, 22,269 RPG items (so far):






And 16,013 videogames so far (it's pretty new):


----------



## Wycen (Aug 30, 2011)

Orius said:


> Life.  I hate that schmaltzy pile of dreck.  It's dull and insipid.  I also always manage to land on that one stupid space where the weird aunt leaves you a ton of cats to care for which burns a huge hole in my finances.  I refuse to play unless granted immunity to that space.




It has been so long since I've played that I think it would be fun, but then, we eventually changed the rules and tried to get huge caravans of polygamist families with multiple cars on the track.  Still only one place on the board was active, but now that I'm thinking about it, we should have played each car separately.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Aug 31, 2011)

Wycen said:


> Well, do you have any idea how many games are listed on Board Game Geek?  I do not.  Maybe there is a list somewhere.  I suspect the total number of games available to play is ginormous.  And since games will continue to come out, the list will only get bigger.  10 or 20 games out of hundreds or thousands, is that really overly difficult?  What about those who buy games and later sell them or trade them away because they don't like em?
> 
> The funny thing is I can and have been persuaded to play games I don't like (damn you St. Petersburg!).  If I'm continually asking who's turn it is and it ends up being mine, chances are I'm playing because I want to chat and hang out with those people and the game is an unfortunate victim of my quirks.





Honestly, Wycen, in my opinion it is a little overly difficult to compile a long list of games you refuse to ever play.  "Would prefer not to play" or "will try to dissuade people from playing" would seem more cooperative.  But put the shoe on the other foot: don't you think it's possible there are games you really enjoy playing that are not at ALL someone else's cup of tea?  But they may not be vocalizing this, as in my above "Pit" example?

I'm a little surprised by this thread honestly, because while I haven't exactly kept track of your posts on here, your stance is still one that surprised me as not fitting with your general positive personality.  

I agree that there are times when people would much rather just socialize than play a game.  There are also really good games for allowing major socializing while they're played.  Have you considered simply suggesting to your friends & associates a gap in between different games to talk and catch up for a few minutes?


----------

