I'm looking for other card games that you all recommend, ideally with some nice juicy design lessons in them.
Netrunner? Dominion? Any of the Sirlin games? Blue Moon?
Netrunner? Dominion? Any of the Sirlin games? Blue Moon?
Other Games
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
Oh, man. Great topic. I could write gobs about this, but because I'm at work, I'll just start with a brief list:
- Dominion is excellent. Grandfather of all the deckbuilding games, and still amongst the best, even if it leans more towards the solitaire end of the spectrum than its successors. Great for both Magic players and non-Magic board gamers alike.
- There have since been a hundred and one riffs on Dominion. I don't own a physical copy, but the iOS version of Ascension is fantastic. It's far and away the game I've logged the most hours with on my phone.
- I tried Sirlin's Puzzle Strike, which is also a riff on Dominion (as much as the designer denies it), but it didn't catch on in our group. Part of its issue is that the first edition was completely balanced around 1v1 play, and didn't scale well for multiplayer, which is how my board game group plays all our games. I've read that multiplayer has since been "fixed" in newer editions, but I don't really feel like dropping more money on this one.
- I also have Sirlin's Yomi, and it's genuinely different from all of the other card games. I haven't gotten too deep into this one, but the little I played of it was a lot of fun. It's a game with a steep learning curve, strategy-wise. I feel like someone who's only mastered Ken and Ryu's special moves, but don't quite know how to string together combos, or figure out all the match-ups.
- 7 Wonders is a good, lightweight drafting game. Unlike Dominion, it's less a deckbuilding game, and more of a Magic booster draft. The quirk is every player plays each card as soon as they draft them, so there's no matches afterwards - the draft itself is the game. There's a fair amount of depth and variety to be had, but its main failing is that in a full seven player table, you have no effect on people sitting across from you, and they can run away with the game while you're helpless to watch.
VibeBox
Contributor
i'm building a cube out of vs system cards.
it was the old marvel vs dc game and it is very fun to play. i'll have to tweak the rules a bit, but i think it will turn out super fun.
you can check out the cards here: http://vssdb.com/db/
it was the old marvel vs dc game and it is very fun to play. i'll have to tweak the rules a bit, but i think it will turn out super fun.
you can check out the cards here: http://vssdb.com/db/
I've lurked for awhile, but had to weigh in on this topic.
Innovation
Trust me on this. It's the only game that comes close to scratching the same itch as Magic for me.
The game is made up of 10 stacks of cards, each representing a different era (Prehistoric, Invention, Modern, etc.). Each card depicts a different technology from that era, and has an "activated ability". You start the game with two Age 1 (Prehistoric) technologies, and go back and forth taking two actions a turn. You can either: a)Draw a card of your current highest tech level; b)Play a card on to "the battlefield"; c)"Activate the ability" of one of your cards in play; or d)Claim an achievement. There are certain requirements to claiming an achievement that steadily increase in difficulty as the game continues.
It's hard to put into words how brilliant the design is. Cards are used for everything, and go to different zones for different purposes. In hand, they are used almost as a currency; on board, they are like permanents with activated abilities; they can go to a score pile and exist as points toward claiming achievements; they can be covered up by newer technologies, and then act as a passive resource.
Currently, there are two expansions, with a third on the way. The first expansion layers more abilities on to the existing structure: Foreshadowing (sort of a Future Sight/Oracle of Mul Daya-like effect); Echo (older technologies give small benefits even when they've become outdated); Score icons (technologies that provide points toward achievements while in play). The second expansion adds historical figures (Ghandi et al.) to the mix. Since they are mortal, they fade away over time, but give large bumps while in play. They're almost like Planeswalkers.
If anyone's interested in learning, give me a holler and I can set up some online teaching sessions. There's a browser-based version of the game, although you lose a lot of the neat physical manipulation that goes on in the game (cards get tucked and splayed in a way that makes more visual sense in person). If any of you are in Seattle, I can show you in person.
TL;DR - I evangelize for a brilliant non-Magic game as my first post on a wonderful Magic forum
Innovation
Trust me on this. It's the only game that comes close to scratching the same itch as Magic for me.
The game is made up of 10 stacks of cards, each representing a different era (Prehistoric, Invention, Modern, etc.). Each card depicts a different technology from that era, and has an "activated ability". You start the game with two Age 1 (Prehistoric) technologies, and go back and forth taking two actions a turn. You can either: a)Draw a card of your current highest tech level; b)Play a card on to "the battlefield"; c)"Activate the ability" of one of your cards in play; or d)Claim an achievement. There are certain requirements to claiming an achievement that steadily increase in difficulty as the game continues.
It's hard to put into words how brilliant the design is. Cards are used for everything, and go to different zones for different purposes. In hand, they are used almost as a currency; on board, they are like permanents with activated abilities; they can go to a score pile and exist as points toward claiming achievements; they can be covered up by newer technologies, and then act as a passive resource.
Currently, there are two expansions, with a third on the way. The first expansion layers more abilities on to the existing structure: Foreshadowing (sort of a Future Sight/Oracle of Mul Daya-like effect); Echo (older technologies give small benefits even when they've become outdated); Score icons (technologies that provide points toward achievements while in play). The second expansion adds historical figures (Ghandi et al.) to the mix. Since they are mortal, they fade away over time, but give large bumps while in play. They're almost like Planeswalkers.
If anyone's interested in learning, give me a holler and I can set up some online teaching sessions. There's a browser-based version of the game, although you lose a lot of the neat physical manipulation that goes on in the game (cards get tucked and splayed in a way that makes more visual sense in person). If any of you are in Seattle, I can show you in person.
TL;DR - I evangelize for a brilliant non-Magic game as my first post on a wonderful Magic forum
BennyD (and hey, are you the guy who invited me to the cubing party a couple of years ago in the East Bay, complete with precon cube decks?), I totally agree with your assessment of Innovation. However, while the rules are straightforward, the learning curve is very steep. The trajectory of many of the matches is VERY swingy, and can feel a bit like "Fluxx for Gamers" if you're not ready for it. (Damn Pirates! Damn Vaccination!) Once you've played a bit and have a sense of what can happen, you can be ready for a lot of the swings. So, if you have a dedicated opponent or two and play a lot against each other, it's fantastic. If you play a lot and are constantly teaching others, I've found they can become frustrated at the seeming randomness.
I'd also like to put a word in for Innovation's designer's OTHER game, Glory to Rome. Personally, I prefer Glory to Rome most of the time. Compared to MTG, it's still a game of "who can break this thing first", with countless strong combos lurking in the cards, and an automatic intensification of each turn as time goes on (through patrons), but I feel that I have more control over the flow of the game. (It's also better as a 3 or 4 person game, if that matters).
Blue Moon is far too straightforward for a cuber, and actually fairly expensive to get now. I have tons of it, have played it for years... and it just doesn't hold my interest.
And yes, Dominion is quite addictive, and still by far the best deckbuilding game out there.
I'd also like to put a word in for Innovation's designer's OTHER game, Glory to Rome. Personally, I prefer Glory to Rome most of the time. Compared to MTG, it's still a game of "who can break this thing first", with countless strong combos lurking in the cards, and an automatic intensification of each turn as time goes on (through patrons), but I feel that I have more control over the flow of the game. (It's also better as a 3 or 4 person game, if that matters).
Blue Moon is far too straightforward for a cuber, and actually fairly expensive to get now. I have tons of it, have played it for years... and it just doesn't hold my interest.
And yes, Dominion is quite addictive, and still by far the best deckbuilding game out there.
CML
Contributor
How do you guys surmount the difficulty of learning a complicated new board game, i.e. you have to understand the rules first (which may take one or two full rounds), and only then does it get strategically interesting? I think I err on the side of not learning new games to this i.e. the games I've played I've played obsessively (poker in all its variants, chess, MTG, Scrabble, StarCraft, StarCraft II) and am wondering if that's a bad cognitive bias of mine and that I should perhaps be more of a dilettante. It's also a germane topic for this primer about M:tG I'm writing with my dad, like I know Cube is great for keeping people interested and solving a lot of the issues with casual play (divergent ability levels, familiarity with the cards, financial and temporal resources, etc.) but how to best hook 'em?
If anyone wants to talk about poker we should talk about poker
If anyone wants to talk about poker we should talk about poker
The best of the new breed of complex board games have a lot of depth and moving parts, but can still be rewarding to play at all skill levels. Something like Agricola, one of my absolute favorites, has done a very good job of allowing people of all levels to have fun playing together. Also, there are usually a ton of resources to help people learn these games--lots of poorly made how-to-play videos and walkthroughs.
So, yes, you should dabble.
CML
Contributor
So like I know I should be into them because then I would have more context by which to judge games, but actually just going over to a friend's house and drinking and wanting to learn the game is a major hurdle for me. Is there anything beyond the videos? I'm more of a text person, but the problem is rules manuals aren't really descriptive
Well, there are basically three phases of learning a game. There's the basic rules section (oh, I have a main phase before and after combat?), the strategy discovery phase (maybe I should leave this guy back to defend instead of attacking) and the mastery phase, which, depending on the game, is potentially infinitely deep.
That first rules section is pretty tedious, and I tend to read the instruction manual on many new games before I play them with a friend. This may also be a function of having friends who are bad at explaining game rules. The manual doesn't really help you with strategy, but it gives you a jump start on getting through that pesky basic rules section, so that you can get to the fun sooner.
That first rules section is pretty tedious, and I tend to read the instruction manual on many new games before I play them with a friend. This may also be a function of having friends who are bad at explaining game rules. The manual doesn't really help you with strategy, but it gives you a jump start on getting through that pesky basic rules section, so that you can get to the fun sooner.
@tomchaps: Yes! As I recall, you were moving to Philly soon and we got you for the morning cube action. Glad to see you're still active in cubing.
@CML: Do you know what type of learner you are, in the teaching pedagogy sense? Visual? Auditory? Kinesthetic? I've found that one person's best approach for learning a new game can often be quite different from another's. I'm very much a visual learner, so rulebooks work fine for me (although most could use more graphical examples). If you're an auditory learner, playthrough and rules overview videos should help. If you don't mind podcasts, I'd recommend this one. If you're a kinesthetic learner, you should really just play through the game, step by step, learning as you go.
As a general recommendation for learning new games, I found that treating the first game as a throwaway, in which the goal is just to learn the rules, is beneficial.
@CML: Do you know what type of learner you are, in the teaching pedagogy sense? Visual? Auditory? Kinesthetic? I've found that one person's best approach for learning a new game can often be quite different from another's. I'm very much a visual learner, so rulebooks work fine for me (although most could use more graphical examples). If you're an auditory learner, playthrough and rules overview videos should help. If you don't mind podcasts, I'd recommend this one. If you're a kinesthetic learner, you should really just play through the game, step by step, learning as you go.
As a general recommendation for learning new games, I found that treating the first game as a throwaway, in which the goal is just to learn the rules, is beneficial.
CML
Contributor
I'm an auditory learner, but I end up doing a ton of reading and writing because other people's verbal prose is often not great. Maybe I'll try Podcasts, but then it's only so often that board game night comes together, and it's even rarer that I know what exactly we're gonna be playing before we get there
I'm extremely competitive but I tend to treat all games as throwaways in one way or the other (like come on this isn't the Pro Tour finals this is getting drunk at Cube, I insist that you take back a stupid play and would like the same courtesy extended towards me)
I'm extremely competitive but I tend to treat all games as throwaways in one way or the other (like come on this isn't the Pro Tour finals this is getting drunk at Cube, I insist that you take back a stupid play and would like the same courtesy extended towards me)
As a side note, a key component of Sirlin's "Playing to Win" mantra was that the best way to have long term growth as a player is to not be focused on winning every individual games. The point is to learn lessons, improve, extend your understanding of the game, be versatile, etc. This is part of what is so frustrating about seeing people throwing cards in anger after getting mana screwed at FNM. No one game matters. What matters is what you take away from it, the internal improvements you make.
Treating every game as a learning experience is a very healthy attitude.
Treating every game as a learning experience is a very healthy attitude.
Alright, I now own Netrunner (the base set, none of the expansions). I also played Star Wars: The Living Card game today, which was supposedly inspired by Netrunner (or so claims my friend). It had an interesting mechanic in that the "deckbuilding" involved picking 10 groups of 6 cards (out of ~20 possible groups) to form your 60 card deck. Not knowing anything about the game though, it felt a bit arbitrary. I'm sure future plays would reveal some layer of strategy there, but for a first timer it was pretty over my head.
I've been looking for an explicitly awesome two-player card game, so the multiplayer "flaw" doesn't even seem so bad (especially considering I never ever play multiplayer Magic). After reading the rules and watching some videos, Netrunner looks like it solves all the issues people have with Magic. You have a lot of control over how you take your actions, so there's no mana screw or flood to worry about. There's even a fixed starting player, so no complaining about the die roll. Also the game looks super interactive. You can't really do anything without considering your opponent, which is really awesome. There's also a high degree of bluffing, asymmetric information, and a built-in "push your luck" mechanic. I can't wait to play.
Surprised no one has yet mentioned Ascension (EDIT: Eric did, in the second post of this thread. D'oh. Cheers to him for being the bigger man: he didn't correct me but rather "Liked" this post). I played a lot of the base set, and then with the first expansion when it came out. Similar rules to Dominion and other DBG, so it was a quick learn. The most notable feature is you play with all the cards each game, and flip up 6 to be the "center row" of both cards you add to your deck and monsters to slay for victory points. The other neat component was the cards you added to your deck had a VP value, but slaying monsters instead gave you VP tokens; the end of the game was tied to when a certain number of VP tokens had been claimed.
IMO, the game was awesome for two-player dueling. Just the right amount of variance from new cards getting added to the center row made every decision there exciting. Then there are cards that allowed you to discard cards from the center row, so a lot of strategy involved denying your opponent cards for their deck as well as strengthening yours. Once you added more players into the mix, the effectiveness of denying went way down; essentially making for a solitaire race.
The first expansion for Ascension added some more interesting mechanics, including catch-up cards which kept games closer longer - but fortunately they weren't at a Blue Shell power level. IIRC, the expansion could be standalone for dueling, if you wanted to try the game, but not at full price.
Thunderstone was our DBG of choice for 3 or 4 players. AEG has been/still is aggressively releasing sets and expansions. This game is essentially "Dominion, but you fight monsters instead of buying VP." I view Dominion as a game for Spikes, and Thunderstone as a game for Johhny and Timmy. When I think about the game from a critical game-design perspective, I can spot several cards and a couple mechanics that are broken (both for being over and under powered). But the game has such awesome flavor and accessibility that it's hard to put down. A fan-made website fixed one of the games worst problems: playing with a subset of cards that lacked interesting synergies/interactions. You checked off the expansions you owned, and individual cards you wanted to play with or exclude, then the javascript app would generate a semi-random set of cards to play with that had good interactivity.
If you are looking for a fun 3-4 player diversion, it's hard to go wrong with Thunderstone. Once players are comfortable with the rules, a play through only takes 45-75 minutes. I'd recommend players start with one of the Thunderstone: Advance sets. The Advance name might suggest a more complex product, but was actually version 2.0 for the game: the rules were cleaned up, new card design that's easier to read, and better design decisions in regards to balanced gameplay. The old cards are technically compatible with the new rules, but you have to understand the awkward templating they used to use.
My cube group used to play these games together before I built my cube. We've revisit them on occasion, and while overall we enjoy cube more these games are fun and make for good variety.
IMO, the game was awesome for two-player dueling. Just the right amount of variance from new cards getting added to the center row made every decision there exciting. Then there are cards that allowed you to discard cards from the center row, so a lot of strategy involved denying your opponent cards for their deck as well as strengthening yours. Once you added more players into the mix, the effectiveness of denying went way down; essentially making for a solitaire race.
The first expansion for Ascension added some more interesting mechanics, including catch-up cards which kept games closer longer - but fortunately they weren't at a Blue Shell power level. IIRC, the expansion could be standalone for dueling, if you wanted to try the game, but not at full price.
Thunderstone was our DBG of choice for 3 or 4 players. AEG has been/still is aggressively releasing sets and expansions. This game is essentially "Dominion, but you fight monsters instead of buying VP." I view Dominion as a game for Spikes, and Thunderstone as a game for Johhny and Timmy. When I think about the game from a critical game-design perspective, I can spot several cards and a couple mechanics that are broken (both for being over and under powered). But the game has such awesome flavor and accessibility that it's hard to put down. A fan-made website fixed one of the games worst problems: playing with a subset of cards that lacked interesting synergies/interactions. You checked off the expansions you owned, and individual cards you wanted to play with or exclude, then the javascript app would generate a semi-random set of cards to play with that had good interactivity.
If you are looking for a fun 3-4 player diversion, it's hard to go wrong with Thunderstone. Once players are comfortable with the rules, a play through only takes 45-75 minutes. I'd recommend players start with one of the Thunderstone: Advance sets. The Advance name might suggest a more complex product, but was actually version 2.0 for the game: the rules were cleaned up, new card design that's easier to read, and better design decisions in regards to balanced gameplay. The old cards are technically compatible with the new rules, but you have to understand the awkward templating they used to use.
My cube group used to play these games together before I built my cube. We've revisit them on occasion, and while overall we enjoy cube more these games are fun and make for good variety.
Thanks for the suggestions Peter. I never really gave Ascension a fair shot, something about its packaging / theme just turned me off to the whole thing. I had never even heard of Thunderstone, but I'll be sure to give it a look.
I also like that you can just say "Blue Shell" as a mechanic and everybody immediately knows what you're talking about.
Interesting... I'll keep this in mind if I get there, but I imagine I'll be playing with the pre-cons for some time.
When I reflect on my past self, I ALWAYS think "I used to be such an idiot! I always fooled myself into thinking I had it all figured out." But now I take comfort in the fact that I've finally reached the point where I've got everything all figured out.
CML
Contributor
rereading some old articles of mine tonight, i've been astonished by how good some of the stuff was, as i typically think of my past selves as imbeclic. sure, it's narcissistic, but living up to some of my finer thoughts of yore is a big albatross. i'm freaking out right now just thinking about it
Changed the thread to just "Other Games" for now.
Thoughts on Catan Dice Game Plus: http://riptidelab.com/?p=138
Thoughts on Catan Dice Game Plus: http://riptidelab.com/?p=138
I just got my copy of Netrunner this weekend, too. I'd played the original back in the day, but the new edition is refreshingly streamlined. Sadly, my opponent--my 7-year old son--got so mad at himself for making a run at an already-observed piece of ice he couldn't break that he literally pulled his hair out. A couple of big fistfuls.
Is this the sign of a good game or a bad game?
Is this the sign of a good game or a bad game?
By the way, I just read your review of the Catan Dice Game. If you (and your wife) want a free, tense, improved, thematic dice game, look here:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/501166/so-knizia-invented-a-really-good-game-and-heres-ho
Decathlon is a masterclass in simple game design. I printed a bunch of scoresheets small enough to fit in an Altoids tin, along with the eight dice, and it's perfect. Seriously, This Is The Yatzhee You Are Looking For.
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/501166/so-knizia-invented-a-really-good-game-and-heres-ho
Decathlon is a masterclass in simple game design. I printed a bunch of scoresheets small enough to fit in an Altoids tin, along with the eight dice, and it's perfect. Seriously, This Is The Yatzhee You Are Looking For.
Well, you can't say he isn't emotionally invested.