Board games.

My friends and I play a lot of board games, and most of what you guys said, I don't even know. I only know the more known board games

Originally Posted by Bravo

Except a Warhammer 40K match. I've never played it but I have friends who do.

I know they're a bit different, but I like to think of both as the same game.

They're quite compatible too, even if mixing them is quite unfair.

I remember pitting the most powerful High-Elf mage in the world or something like that against a unit of 5 regular Space Marines or something like that.

The poor elf got destroyed so quickly...

Apples to Apples with a group of drunk people is the best thing I've ever done.

Apples to Apples. Best freaking game ever.
And I love Mouse Trap for the contraption thingy :p Sucks when one part gets lost though. Then the game is totally useless

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Talisman.

Pretty awesome game with some expansion board pieces, more characters and items.

We also have Settlers of Catan, but I don't like it all that much. :|

I like Clue and after thinking about it that is the one that I can say that about. It has been a long
time sence I played any others, a lot of them like Monopoly and Chess my brother would make me play all the time because he always won. I got sick of them.

monopoly. me and my friend can sit there for hours just goofing around playing that game.

Originally Posted by Zay

chess!!

(if anyone wants to vs me in online chess vm me immediately)

monopoly for sure....although I play with custom rules

and a childhood favourite.....

HERO SCAPE!




best freaking game ever!!!

i flippin love heroscape! my friends and i used to play it all the time, and we all bought expansion packs to fill a certain paradigm (like one of my friends only played dragons, another was pure samurai, etc) and we'd pretend we were generals of different countries. it was the only time i could get my normal friends to roleplay >.>;;

Originally Posted by Bravo

I did. Top of page 2. It's a good game but if you're gonna play something like that you may as well go the whole hog and play D&D.

Oh, well..it helps to pay attention XD

We play Talisman on our off D&D days

Originally Posted by sailor v

i flippin love heroscape! my friends and i used to play it all the time, and we all bought expansion packs to fill a certain paradigm (like one of my friends only played dragons, another was pure samurai, etc) and we'd pretend we were generals of different countries. it was the only time i could get my normal friends to roleplay >.>;;

Awesome!!

Dude...it's just so epic, you build stages and everything and it just builds to such a climax after everything gets set up, cause it takes ages.

I made my mum swear playing Monopoly when I was a kid. It was my greatest achievement ever.


But landing on a hotel on Mayfair is a rather traumatising experience.

Originally Posted by Bravo

I did. Top of page 2. It's a good game but if you're gonna play something like that you may as well go the whole hog and play D&D.

If the way you're playing Talisman (a competitive, on-rails, straight-out-of -the-box board-game) looks anything like the way you 're playing DnD (a co-operative, off-rails, "these books are just guidelines" RPG) you might be doing something wrong ;p

My major complaint with Talisman is that it takes the worst feature of traditionally maligned games like Risk or Monopoly and makes it considerably worse; Talisman makes "winning" a relative, rather than absolute state, and then goes far out of its way to create balance between competitors.

In Risk, your board position cannot be assessed by how many troops or territories you have, only by how many more of each you have than the average opponent. What looks like a stronger army in an absolute sense may only mean more rolls to deal with if everyone else is similarly strong. Similar things can be said about Monopoly, but not, for example, Settlers of Catan (when you're closer to winning at 8 points than you were at 2 regardless of where everyone else stands).

Under these systems the game can only really be in two states: there can be a strict balance and hours left to play, or a very noticeable imbalance as the game draws to a close. Neither state is particularly fun; a majority of players are always either watching the clock, wondering how the hell they got into this, or far behind struggling to deal with a much stronger opponent.

Now in both Risk and Monopoly, the leading player is rewarded in proportion to their dominance, so once the game enters the imbalanced state it's at least going to be over fairly quickly (usually). In Talisman, the rewards for being in front of the pack are fairly meager, and it's not common for 6 or 7 clear front-runners to be dragged down in the course of the game. You spend even more time in the boring, stale-mated state than ever before, and that's just not good design.