
Board games are back, thanks to lessons designers learned from computer games - ohjeez
https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals
======
aaron-santos
While it's true that negative feedback either by the game's mechanics or the
interaction with other players is a feature of newer boardgames, there are a
few other points that are just as important.

These games for the most part lack a player elimination mechanic. When games
can last a couple of hours, players see early elimination as a failure in
design. Board game designers then strive to keep everyone in the game and
actively participating until the end of the game. This pairs nicely with
hidden or partially hidden victory point systems.

Direct confrontation is largely replaced with competition over action
selection, resources, and softer forms of territory control. Players with bad
experiences of being ganged-up on are open to the competition of being the
first to gobble up pools of resources, or shut out other players from taking
exclusive actions.

I'm not that familiar with video games take on these ideas, but my little
experience says they tend to do the opposite.

~~~
TheGRS
Yep, I can't think of a competitive video game that does any of these things
well. Maybe this is an untapped market?

Twitch controls and player elimination are still huge with video games. Battle
royale modes and MOBAs are very in, but any multiplayer game I remember
playing a lot of was usually centered around this. FPS games, RTS games,
fighting games, they are all about your reaction speed. A lot of modes will at
least let you play the whole match of a game, but still require a heavy amount
of confrontation and twitch gameplay. Turn-based games are a slog to play
multiplayer though, so I can understand why that's the case.

There are a lot of people who enjoy twitch board games though, games like
nerts or slamwich (both of which I'm not a huge fan of), so maybe the opposite
is true of board games: that there's an untapped market out there for this
style. I do really enjoy Spot-It for some reason however :)

~~~
0xcde4c3db
M.U.L.E. is the closest thing I can think of, and I don't know that it's had
anything even resembling a worthy successor. There were a few attempts, but as
far as I know none of them were very well-received.

~~~
b0rsuk
Settlers of Catan is practically M.U.L.E. refined. You start by buying land,
then the land bears resources. When you sell to other players, you can ask any
price you want. You build up by laying down roads, towns and cities, tech up
with random development cards. The most common dice result - 7 - is the Thief,
which lets the current player rob any other for half of their resources
rounded down.

If you liked M.U.L.E., you will love Settlers of Catan.

~~~
entropy_
Just a small correction. The Robber(or Thief) in Catan doesn't allow you to
steal half another player's resources, you just steal one card. However, if
any player has 8 or more resource cards in their hands when '7' is rolled,
they need to discard half rounded down.

------
cthalupa
Board games are back because the Euro game designers kept it alive during what
was largely a board game dark age through most of the world. They broke back
through into other markets, and re-invigorated creativity elsewhere.

There's been a ton of exciting developments in boardgames over the past few
years. Legacy games introduced a whole new element to board games, starting
with Risk Legacy, and richly continued by others, including Pandemic Legacy,
which has reigned supreme at #1 on BoardGameGeek, the largest boardgaming
website, for quite some time.

Dungeon crawlers that are more influenced by D&D and other pen and paper RPGs
have been big, with things like Mage Knight, Descent, and more recently
Gloomhaven being smash hits.

Board games with "AI" players, like Mansions 2e mentioned in the article, or
the automata in Scythe, are influenced by video games in that you can even
play single player against a psuedo-player, but not in many other fashions.

Even incredibly niche, boutique, and expensive games like Kingdom Death:
Monster which is basically three games and a wallet draining miniature
addiction in one very large box have become quite massive.

~~~
pluma
German here. Board games were never gone so I'm not sure what the article
headline is trying to say. I guess this is an American perspective? Most of
the "innovations" the article mentioned sound mostly like they're responsible
for _Americans_ developing a new interest in board games.

"Legacy" games, while somewhat innovative, sound like they're borrowing from
pen and paper games (where characters might come back for new campaigns)
rather than computer games (although CRPGs were heavily influenced by pen and
paper from the start).

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I think that's right. The OP is on an English site written in American
English; the audience is likely that.

~~~
pluma
> English site written in American English; the audience is likely that

Does the term "lingua franca" mean anything to you?

Considering most sites with an international audience use English and most of
those use American English specifically, this does not seem like a foregone
conclusion.

HN is an English site mostly written in American English, do you therefore
reckon its content is intended for an American audience?

~~~
falsedan
> _HN is an English site mostly written in American English, do you therefore
> reckon its content is intended for an American audience?_

Yes. The coverage and topics are heavily weighted towards companies in the Bay
Area + local US events.

------
hkmurakami
I disagree with the article's suggestion for Settlers for boardgame newcomers,
since the serial turn ordering causes long wait times, and lack of a comeback
mechanic causes 1 or more players to be "out of the running" all too often for
30+ minutes of the game.

A small gamespace setup with Dominion, or 7 wonders (parallel turns, multiple
paths to victory) are better intros imo.

~~~
ashark
7 Wonders probably wins for best _average_ popularity among our mixed-interest
gaming group, when there are over four people who want to play. It has an
intimidating rules explanation compared to some, but plays _way_ easier than
it sounds. Would second the recommendation.

Sushi Go! is another good "getting people into not-awful board games" game.

~~~
dep_b
7 Wonders is played to death here. Catan and Ticket didn't spark that much
fanatism, people wanted to play but they wouldn't be planning and calling a
week ahead. The thing about 7 Wonders is that you keep learning new stuff
about the game, every game is different and new players still can win their
first game with a bit of help, luck and wits. But if I lose (and I lose plenty
of games) I'm always intrigued why I'm lost and what I could do next time, it
never really feels bad. Also people that cannot deal with setbacks, somebody
else doing something that thwarts their strategy or losing (I shall refrain
from naming them ;) ) never get angry with this game.

Looking into buying a dungeon crawler now (cool map and miniatures preferred)
and another game like 7 Wonders, perhaps Puerto Rico.

~~~
barrkel
I think the complexity in 7 Wonders is, how should I say, "cheaply" generated.
That is, the complexity is right there in the details, and there are so many
details. I far, far prefer emergent complexity than that kind of explicitly
designed complexity. It's a kind of complexity that rewards nerding out and
learning combos and chains.

~~~
Abundnce10
> I far, far prefer emergent complexity than that kind of explicitly designed
> complexity.

Can you recommend any games?

~~~
b0rsuk
Lords of Scotland is a fiendishly tricky game that appears simple at first.
It's _very_ quick to teach, but there is both strategic and tactical aspect to
it and many non-obvious paths to victory. Beware of high player interaction
(some people like it, some are hurt). It's rather chaotic in higher player
kinds, you need to appear relatively harmless to win.

Tigris and Euphrates is an old classic that has very few tile types to place,
but they result in complex outcomes. I can't say very much about it because I
only played it once on a game show, but it's on my to-buy list.

~~~
v-erne
I cannot recommend Tigris and Euphrates enough. It used to be at the top of
BoardGameGeek in the old days. Some of my friends likes to sell it to newbies
as 'its like chess, but for four person'. By the way, author of this game
(Knizia) is a master Board game builder and has created many more games worth
looking into.

------
replicatorblog
Also important to highlight the role of Kickstarter. Of the 100 top grossing
projects in Kickstarter history, 26 are Tabletop Games. Board game gameplay
has certainly become more sophisticated, but we're nearly 10 years into a
funding revolution brought about by Kickstarter. It's not too much of a
stretch to say that Kickstarter has had a similar effect on board games that
YC did on startups.

~~~
b0rsuk
I appreciate KS made more games happen, but some of these games are just
overhyped. Scythe is good but not as great as the hype would make you believe.
Zombicide is... well, probably amusing if you enjoy swarms of mindless zombies
as your opponents in video games ? Terraforming Mars is quite good though. A
bit rough and swingy, but good.

~~~
pavel_lishin
But it shows that there has always been sufficient interest in board games to
make it worth developing them, but there wasn't a particularly good way to
signal that - at least in America - to the people who would develop them.

------
failrate
Board games have been experiencing steady growth since the 90s, largely due to
games like Catan breaking through to the North American market.

While board game designers surely must have learned from video game design,
the success of board games cannot be attributed to this cross pollination.
Video game designers, of course, have also learned from board games.

One factor that the article mentioned that I do think is increasing purchases
is YouTube videos, especially "Let's Play" videos. There, the correlation
between video games is clearer, but it's nothing to do with design.

~~~
jackweirdy
Out of interest, what are the most popular Let's Play videos for board games?
The only one I'm aware of is Wil Wheaton's channel, which I've only watched
snippets of.

~~~
cableshaft
Rahdo Runs Through and GameNight! are both popular Youtube series that are
basically let's plays. Dice Tower is mostly reviews but they do stream videos
of them playing games from time to time. There's probably a few others.

There are a bunch of other popular Youtube series for reviews, but not as many
for let's plays.

------
scarmig
_Betrayal at the House on the Hill_ is a pretty social and friendly game. It
gives the illusion of making choices, but usually the right one is pretty
obvious, and everything after that is pretty random, so anyone can win. It's
rare (though possible) for someone to die and sit around waiting for half an
hour.

Much of that makes it frustrating for extreme gamerz, but for people who
aren't invested in complicated rule sets and deep strategies, it's perfect.

~~~
tptacek
The only thing that bugs me about Betrayal is that it feels like the game can
get "used up"; if you've played a scenario once, a huge game mechanic
(imperfect information) is lost on the second playthrough.

~~~
ygra
There are 50 scenarios, though, and the rules include provisions to choose a
different scenario if you'd get one you've already played. That happened only
twice to us so far, though. Yes, technically the game is less fun after
playing it 50 times. But that's a lot of fun hours until then.

------
on_and_off
One thing that video games have learned is how to 'onboard' the player.

Portal is a good example. It tells you the bare minimum before hand in the
first minute : move mouse to aim, wasd to move and then every other rule of
the game is learned along the way.

I just can't stand board games that consist of 20 minutes of explanation
followed by one hour of game.

~~~
vanderZwan
Most of the better games are played more often than once...

Explaining rules is a bit like installing software: you do it once, then you
run the software as often as you like. If you have to do that every time,
maybe the problem is that you're not using the same computer twice.

~~~
blincoln
One doesn't know if they're really going to like the game until they play it
at least once, though.

I'm with on_and_off - modern tabletop games have too much upfront rule-
memorization required before one can even start playing. They're actually
worse than videogames in that respect, because with a videogame, at least the
UI typically implicitly provides some indication of the ways that the player
can interact with the game world. i.e. if I click on a unit or building in
_StarCraft_, I get a panel of options for what it's capable of doing.

I'm happy that so many people seem to like them, but the amount of effort that
needs to be expended before the actual fun starts (and potentially throughout
the game) is generally too much for me. I'd probably like them a lot if they
were played on some sort of shared table display, where each player would get
an interactive list of allowed actions at each turn, instead of having to
constantly refer back to the manual.

~~~
vanderZwan
> _One doesn 't know if they're really going to like the game until they play
> it at least once, though._

That is fair, for this I tend to rely on the same thing that I rely on for
films and music: a group of friends with varying tastes in "game aesthetics",
through which I can get a decent picture of a game by asking different
people's opinions. It's easy to forget that this is a luxury not everyone has,
though.

RE: comparison to StarCraft: you're underestimating your pre-existing
familiarity, forgetting that at one point you had to learn how RTSes work, and
that the interface for them has not significantly changed in the last twenty
years. Similarly, if you play a lot of board games, you'll notice a lot of
mechanics are repeated between different games, and rules are a lot quicker to
pick up than twenty minutes (it's kind of comparable to how learning
programming languages becomes a lot easier after the first few).

Yes, there obviously is more feedback in computer games, but on the other
hand: the only reason you know how to use those units, is because they were
introduced one at a time in a campaign.

It is difficult to introduce a slow learning curve to boardgames, unless you
start with simple rules and have an "advanced rules for experienced players"
section that you can try out after a few games. That only works for a few
types of games.

Perhaps this is one of those things where mobile phone apps could help out?

~~~
cableshaft
Yeah, this is a good point. Imagine immediately playing a game of Starcraft
with no knowledge of the units and how they interact with each other and not
even any real good idea of what you're supposed to do with an RTS game in the
first place. You'd spend 20 minutes floundering about and get murdered by an
opponent that knows what they're doing. You have to learn what each unit does
and how they work together and how to get resources etc etc somewhere. Usually
it's in a campaign that drip feeds the tutorial at once.

A board game that's designed to be an isolated game session that plays in
about an hour simply can't afford to drip feed rules to you over the session,
because by the time it finished drip feeding you the rules, the game would
have been finished already.

------
b0rsuk
An unique aspect of board games is how extremely moddable they are. People are
making house rules all the time (sometimes because they're bad players who
can't handle a certain strategy, sometimes because the game actually _is_
unbalanced). People bring their homemade expansions. Modding a game can be as
simple as "let's try a game where everyone starts with X or Y!".

Board games also have very few quitters. A person who quits mid-game is
usually labeled a jerk and avoided in future. Players might cheat or turn over
the table, but griefers can face anything up to physical violence. Players
have power to police themselves as they see fit.

Also, while board games are relatively expensive, a whole group can play a
single copy. This is almost unheard of in video game world. One example was
Starcraft 1 "spawn" feature, another - Age of Wonders 3, where you can play
expansions you purchased with people who don't own it. It avoids splintering
the multiplayer community. It pays to do some research before buying a game or
trying it out a few times.

------
ajanuary
The byline "thanks to the lessons their designers have learned from computer
games" is pretty much bollocks, and also not reflected in the article.

~~~
b0rsuk
If anything, computer games have much to learn from board games. Tight,
elegant game mechanics. Widespread mechanic innovation.

In computer game world, Heroes of Might and Magic III is called a sequel. In
board game world, it would be called an expansion - no joke. The rules are
almost the same, almost all additions are incremental.

------
byron_fast
Someone needs to mention Carcassonne. Far better than Settlers in many ways,
for new or experienced players.

~~~
koonsolo
100% agree. For me it's also easier to play with the entire family, going from
grandparents to grandkids.

------
Axsuul
I don't dabble with video games very much because I find it to be mostly a
solitary experience and they tend to have addictive game mechanics.

Board games on the other hand force you to become social and is often times
responsible for bringing your groups of friends together more frequently as
well as being a toehold into new social circles.

~~~
b0rsuk
Computer games used to be social, they just found out more profitable ways to
milk people.

Dedicated servers in shooter games were social and more exciting. Every server
was a mini community for players who frequented it, usually because they had
"good ping" there. All skill levels mixed together, so on one hand it could be
frustrating when a very good player mopped up, but at the same time you could
learn from the best. You don't learn much from people just as good as you.

Local multiplayer (same computer), even split screen games were a thing.

Basically all multiplayer games made before the Internet took off were social.
Playing DooM in 4 player deathmatch required bringing 4 computers together.

~~~
lazyjones
> Dedicated servers in shooter games were social and more exciting. Every
> server was a mini community for players who frequented it, usually because
> they had "good ping" there

WoW was even more social before they changed things for worse by allowing
character transfer between servers and random groups over all realms. It went
from getting to know other players by stumbling upon them frequently to being
able to experience the whole content while avoiding social activities
altogether.

------
ck425
One design aspect not mentioned here - I don't know if it has an official name
or not - is the idea of sub-goals. By which I mean mini achievements, not
always explicit, beyond the main goal that players can achieve.

Dominion is a great example of this. I rarely win but I have great fun
building a stupidly optimised deck. For me building the 'perfect' deck is as
fun a goal as winning. I once bought two colonies (highest victory card) in
once turn, and even though I lost by a few points I felt like I'd won.

This feature is increasingly popular in new games.

------
b0rsuk
Lords of Scotland is a criminally underrated card game that's fun for
beginners and masters as well. Actually I haven't seen anyone master it yet.
Like many best games (yes, it means 7 Wonders isn't one) it has simple rules
and few components which lead to complicated outcomes. I'm frequently asked to
pull it out of my bag. It has both tactical and strategic aspects (you don't
draw new cards at the start of new round).

The only potential flaw is high player interaction and potential to hurt
feelings, but then again it's what many players love about it. Technically it
_is_ a bidding game, but most cards you play affect other players, sometimes
directly destroying theirs. Kingmaker syndrome is there, but I view it as an
interesting puzzle how to win when all other players are out to get me. Except
for last rounds, no one is beyond chance of winning.

\----------

RoboRally is a very fun game about robots racing in a factory. Each player is
dealt 9 program cards (move 2, move 1, turn left, turn right, U-turn,
backpedal...) and has to put them in 5 registers. All players do this
simultaneously, and a 30-second hourglass is turned over when second-last
player finishes. Once done, all players reveal their 1st register and perform
the action, then 2nd register, and so on. Robots bump and displace each other,
fire lasers at the end of each register phase, move onto conveyor belts, avoid
pits, rotating floor, pushers and even collect upgrades. It's a hectic game
where making an error results in visually amusing consequences. It's very
light on rules, instead it demands more from spatial imagination.

------
herge
Pandemic Legacy is a real gem. Me and my friends are having a great time
playing it. Even if you have played pandemic to death, the twists at every
month make each game distinct and encourages you to try different strategies
and characters.

~~~
b0rsuk
Try Robinson Crusoe: Adventures on a Cursed Island. This cooperative game is
an amazing story generator, is so difficult it forces you to think hard, and
scenarios are highly randomized depending on what comes up. Theme is very
strong in that game.

------
bluetwo
I'm curious if people have any recommendations for good strategy iPad games
based on board games. Catan is good. Carcassonne is good. Monopoly is painful.

What others do people play regularly?

~~~
mercutio2

      - Puerto Rico
      - Race for the Galaxy
      - Splendor
      - Lords of Waterdeep
      - Agricola
      - Le Havre
    

I don’t exactly recommend them, because I think they’re hard to understand if
you haven’t played in real life, but also:

    
    
      - Terra Mystica
      - Steam

------
spectrum1234
As someone somewhat new to this genre I must Puerto Rico is an amazing game.
The online play is fantastic too (on board game area). Also pretty great is
Hansa Teutonica and PowerGrid.

Currently I am pretty addicted to Puerto Rico online. The turn based or real
time options are perfect.

~~~
b0rsuk
Race for the Galaxy is upgraded Puerto Rico. Turns are simultaneous so it's no
longer deterministic who wins, development is randomized through cards (highly
balanced at that), there are variable player powers. You can check it out with
an open source app "Keldon AI", but brutally tough neural networks based
computer opponent won't tell you why it plays the way it does. It doesn't
know.

Also check out Troyes. Alternating turns like in Puerto Rico, decisions are
highly meaningful (more interaction than in PR and RftG) and it always feels
like resources are scarce but many things you'd like to do. It's a bit more
complex than PR. Each playthrough is randomized depending on what crafts and
events come up.

------
hellbanner
My friend just put a boardgame up on Kickstarter, was funded within a day by
friends. [0]

Board games offer easy prototyping and are enjoyable by a larger audience than
computer games (which typically require certain hardware + specific twitch
skills)

[0] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1019118800/sun-rush-
str...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1019118800/sun-rush-strategy-
board-game)

------
strictnein
This article mentions Mansions of Madness Second Edition. It's a good game,
but the companion app should be used on a tablet (the article mentions a
phone), preferably one with a stand.

If you're into H.P. Lovecraft, Eldritch Horror is an even better game, since
it kind of captures the vibe of a number of the stories.

------
godelski
Anyone here use tabletop simulator?

~~~
johannes1234321
Yesterday this was in the front page, I have it on my "try out list":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15810268](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15810268)

------
golergka
> SORRY, YOU NEED TO ENABLE JAVASCRIPT TO VISIT THIS WEBSITE.

What the hell? It's just an article

------
vanderZwan
What the article does not really go into is how designers iterate on game
ideas introduced by previous games, taking the parts that were interesting,
and changing the rules that are detrimental to the enjoyment of the game.

Take Werewolves, for example[0]. This is a classic roleplaying game,
considered one of the originators of the "social deduction" genre. It pits
villagers against werewolves hiding among them, where either all villagers end
up eaten by the remaining werewolves, or all werewolves are lynched by the
remaining villagers. See link for a full description, but the important bit
here is that:

\- the villagers can only win by determining who the werewolves are, but there
are no in-game reasons to suspect anyone of being a werewolf; it is 100% based
on roleplaying.

\- the game is played out through a process of elimination, removing two
players per turn (one suspected werewolf, one werewolf snack). If the group is
ten people, that means some people will be watching from the sidelines most of
the time.

Both of these issues can be big hurdles to enjoying the game.

 _Resistance_ is a "second generation" social deduction game, which removed
player elimination[1]. Players are resistance fighters trying to topple an
oppressive regime, with a few double agents among them trying to sabotage
their efforts. Each turn, players decide together which two or three members
will go on missions. If the saboteurs bluff themselves into being sent, they
must try to sabotage the mission while deflecting suspicions that it is
because of their doing. Meanwhile, the resistance has to figure out who the
saboteurs are, to avoid sending them on missions. Which side wins depends on
how many missions succeed or fail.

More recently, the lack of in-game discussion starters was solved in
_Deception: Murder in Hong Kong_ , where players are investigators trying to
solve an ongoing murder case, and one or two of them are secretly the
murderer(s)[2]. It adds a clue system that is a bit hard to explain here, but
in practice immediately provokes discussion while still maintaining the social
deduction aspect[3].

So over two "generations" of game design, two major flaws were eliminated from
an otherwise very innovative game genre. And this kind of stuff happens
everywhere: all kinds of new, innovative mechanics to solve specific problems
are shared and remixed.

[0] [https://www.werewolves.com/werewolf-
game/](https://www.werewolves.com/werewolf-game/)

[1]
[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41114/resistance](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41114/resistance)

[2] [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/156129/deception-
murder-...](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/156129/deception-murder-hong-
kong)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDWvHrt6kG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDWvHrt6kG0)

------
andy_ppp
Draughts is not in Islington it’s in Haggerston... apart from that,
interesting article.

------
Havoc
Microtransactions?

------
mwfogleman
boardgamearena.com. That is all.

