Whenever I suggest it people always get sheepish and intimidated by the prospect of a ludicrously complex game that takes literal months to complete for some unknowable reason
The primary issue with Monopoly, from a game design standpoint, is two-fold, first, there is never a reason not to buy a property when you can afford to, meaning there are effectively no real decisions to make (auctioning alleviates this a bit as deciding how much to bid can be an interesting decision point, but overall it’s not a big enough part of the game to really help, especially when you encounter issue 2), second, there is a distinct lack of catch up mechanics, the vast majority of the time it becomes fairly obvious who is going to win fairly early on due to getting a significant lead fairly early on, meaning you can know the winner within the first half hour and be able to do anything to effect that outcome for the next three and a half hours of gameplay before you reach that conclusion. A game either needs to be quick or have catch up mechanics to keep it interesting throughout the game, otherwise it’s just unfun to watch your friend win over the course of several hours, and even winning can be boring unless you’re particularly sadistic since nobody else is having any fun at that point.
I’ve never played with houserules, and while it’s been around 20 years since I last played so I’m not entirely certain how long the games actually were, I never played a game of monopoly that didn’t feel like it took absolutely forever to play and it pretty much always ate up an entire afternoon. There definitely wasn’t a game that lasted less than an hour. My family were always big on reading the rules and referencing the rulebook when we couldn’t remember a specific rule in the moment. Since movement is random and the game doesn’t end until everyone except one player is bankrupt, it can legitimately take an incredibly long time to finish the game playing as normal, even when one player gets an early enough lead that there’s no way to catch up.
Also, it’s worth noting that my description of the problem with monopoly is taken directly from a lecture by a game design professor I took a class with in college. Four hours might be an exaggeration, but the fact of the matter is most games take way too long to play and are actively unfun for the majority of the playtime since there are no real decisions/choices to make and the outcome is determined *very* early on in the vast majority of playthroughs. That is bad game design. Good games are not an exercise in frustration due to being unable to affect the outcome for most players most of the time.
Agreed. At a family reunion some years ago, I played a game of Monopoly-with-the-actual-rules with some of my cousins who are also serious boardgamers (we just finished this year’s family reunion, which was a week long and involved three or four board games each day with those same cousins), just to see what it would be like, and it *still* lasted way too long, and it was *still* obvious who was going to win far in advance of the actual end of the game, and it *still* wasn’t very fun.
I’ll stand in exception, as an avid board gamer who grew up playing Monopoly and enjoyed it. Sure, it’s a gambling game- there’s little strategy whatsoever- however, the purchase or not purchase metric is not as simple as is being suggested; for instance, purchasing the light blues (and developing them) can be rather useless, since they are relatively low impact. Whereas getting the reds, orange, or yellow sets can win the game.
FWIW, I have always played Monopoly with trades available, and half the fun was in making trades with opponents.
To add to that, as a gambling game, the tide can reverse pretty effectively if/when the lead player gets one of the taxes cards from chance community chest; especially the more expensive of the two can bankrupt an aggressively expensive player. Monopoly is not such an obvious win- even if you can see who is likely to win early on.
i’m sure a handful of the current group would get a kick outta D&D tho sarah might find LARPing more fulfilling b/c she’d actually get to hit someting XD
The story I remember hearing is that Monopoly was originally designed as “here’s why capitalism sucks” and some asshole decided to steal it to make it a mass market product, which instantly made the entire game make sense to me.
Yeah, the mechanic where one player grabs an early lead through sheer dumb luck and then spends the next four hours grinding everyone else slowly into the dirt is entirely deliberate.
It depends on the initial property distribution. If no one actually has a developable set when the properties are all claimed — which I find is pretty common if you’ve got more than two players — it can drag on for-fucking-ever, with rental money just basically being passed around the board, and Go income pretty much covering other expenses, until someone hits a run of bad luck and the wheels come off.
… Extra Creditz literally put out a Youtube video this past week explaining the history of Monopoly, so if you’re interested, just search for that creator doing that topic on that platform and you should find it. It’s a pretty good video – watched it myself. Obvioulsy.
My theory is that getting to choose one of the cute, I mean enticing player markers is the most fun I’ll ever have with Mon0poly. The point of the game is right there in the title! Have fun mortgaging your little boot or whatever.
Or to expand on that, the players get to choose (acquire) a relatively low stakes item, which is the last real choice some make in the rest of the game. Kinda like how it’s fun to choose a new set of Summer plates or something at Target, yet never acquire enough capital to buy a house or a real table to put them on.
It took me a minute to parse that sentence correctly and figure out that you weren’t talking about a game called “Real Fuck Monopoly”. Which at least sounds more entertaining than regular Monopoly.
digital Monopoly on Switch is way more fun… mostly because you can put in an AI player to bully.
Just remember – the difficulty is actually how bullshit their rolls will be. Hard literally cheats. However, luck aside, the AI is always stupid and doesn’t understand that mortgaged property is worth less than normal.
I find that a lot of games depend on who you play them with. Some games like monopoly or risk can just be really painful in general though. I have found that I don’t like playing games like Catan if some (or all) of the other players are really competitive. If people are going to be very competitive (especially getting rub it in your face mean), I prefer games that take the competition out of the equation for the most part (possibly cards against humanity, mild meld or a cooperative game). I want to play a game to relax, have fun and socialize. Being competitive with aomeone else isn’t fun to me, and can end up with hard feels imo. Thr only time I have found that competitive games go well is when I am playing with laid back friends or family that are also just playing for fun. I have been in 2 casual groups, a small pinochle group and a monthly group that plays bunco. The bunco group sometimes gets teenagers/pre-teens that are very antsy about winning. It tends to make the whole experience less enjoyable for everyone, as otherwise we just joke around about how the dice are rolling and don’t care too much. I do find that having money involved in any game significantly increases the competitiveness, and decreases thr enjoyment for me. Due to this, I don’t tend to use money when playing games, even ones with betting like pinochle, as you can play those games without money.
On a my personal experience side note, the card game Pit can get even the quiestest person yelling. A mildly competitive game with a bit of a twist is the card game Wizard. Everyone looks at their own cards and knows what trump is, and then makes a bet about how many tricks they will win. You want to get exactly what you bet, not over or under. Since you don’t know what is in everyone else’s hand, the result can be quite random, losing with what you thought was a good card and winning with what you thought was a horrible card. It can sometimes result in a form of slight cooperation, as you try to play your cards right to help someone get a trick they want and you don’t want. Much of what happens is luck, though the more players there are or the further in the game you are (more cards dealt out) the better the guess you can have on what is out there.
See, I don’t consider myself particularly competitive, as I can have a good time winning or losing, but I’m always kind of confused and kind of bothered by the people who play games like you do. That’s not a dig at you, as you’d probably be bothered by playing with me too, neither way is wrong, per se, just incompatible.
I’m of the opinion that anything worth doing at all is worth doing well, so I take everything pretty much equally seriously, this means I can joke around and have fun doing just about anything, but it also means that even when doing things purely for fun, like games, I operate at the best of my ability. In games this means I do my best to win, and many can see that as being competitive, but honestly, I have have had more fun losing some games than winning, as it means I’m playing against someone competent who can provide me with a real challenge, if I’m always winning I just feel like I’m bullying the other player(s), and it gets boring since I already know the outcome before I start. I consider caring about the outcome, at least insofar as putting forth effort goes, to be part of the basic premise of the game, so when a player genuinely doesn’t seem to care about the game and doesn’t seem to even try to win, it feels kind of disrespectful to me since they’re not even trying to engage with the game as intended. Like, if playing the game is superfluous to the situation, why even play in the first place? There’s plenty of other ways to spend time with friends and family and enjoy each others’ company, including just hanging out and chatting, so why play a game if the game doesn’t matter? I just can’t wrap my head around the idea of not engaging with something seriously just because it’s fun, since to me fun is a reason to take something *more* seriously, not less.
Good point. One of my siblings is aggressively noncompetetive (but only in games) to the point that they will feel uncomfortable with power imbalances and suggest changing rules so that everybody wins to some degree. Bo-ring! I didn’t want a community project… I want to use strategy and be entertained!
I think some of it is in the goal in playing a game… like, the overall goal is to have fun, and if sometimes people find that better created by something focused on a shared experience, and some people want to be competitive about it. And I think either is fine, though I don’t consider “as the game intends” to be a reason to be serious about it.
Sometimes I play games with my friends who get real competitive, and I’m just over here having a fun time doing whatever, convincing people to trade an ore for an ore as a show of goodwill between our people. And sometimes I play with that attitude and still win, which is extra funny with the friend who has been trashtalking the whole time.
I wouldn’t say that I don’t put in any effort. I would try my best (which may or may not be good depending on the game). I am just not the type of person to play a multiplayer game if it ends up frustrating or people start yelling or mocking others for it. There is a difference between trying your best and being overtly competitive about something. If someone says that they are going to crush me just as we start playing a game (especially a game that I have never played before), I am going to be a bit leery about playing with them vs someone who is cheery even if they lose. There is enough stuff in my life (work, etc) that I have to be competitve and stress over that I don’t want to do it during my fun time. I understand that is how some people have fun, but it isn’t my cup of tea. I also understand that it can be really frustrating to play with someone that doesn’t understand the game and doesn’t care to try. I have had a few pinochle partners that are not only oblivious about not strategising over the table, but also really don’t know how to bid, pass or play a hand no matter how many games you play with them. I just shrug it off and enjoy the conversation, but I know that it could drive other people crazy. When I play scrabble with my mom’s family, we tend to help each other out if they can’t think of a word with the letters that they had. Part of it might have been due to me being young at first, and then at the end my grandma having memory issues. I know that some people would find it cheating, but it can be fun spotting a good spot that they didn’t notice and helping them out. Even with her gone, I still play with older relatives or acquaintances who might not be able to play without a little help keeping track or keeping score. I just know that with games, there is a lot of personal preference involved, and I would have for someone to be scared away from playing board or card games just because they were exposed to only one form. There is a lot of variety out there and different playing styles. Just because you don’t fit with one game or group doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t fit in with another.
Yeah, I agree that people shouldn’t get so competitive that they get mad or mean about it, I only got into a shouting match over a game once and that was because another player was blatantly cheating but was somehow convinced she was in the right (it was Uno, and she introduced a houserule I had never heard of before in the middle of the game, at first she insisted it was a real, official rule, so I pulled up the official Uno rulebook online and asked her to show me where the rulebook said she could do what she did, and after reading it and failing to find the rule she was citing she just pointed to the rule encouraging houserules, the other two players genuinely didn’t care and were acting like *I* was the bad guy for insisting on fair play, so I didn’t even get the chance to point out that the rule encouraging houserules specifically says the players need to agree on houserules *before* the game starts, and as nobody had ever mentioned that houserule to me, obviously I hadn’t agreed to it, since every time I tried to argue my point I’d get cut off by one of the other three, I have sworn off Uno entirely because of this, a game so reliant on houserules to be fun at all that they don’t even bother to include the rulebook in the box most of the time is a terrible game and only exists as argument bait since almost nobody actually knows the rules of the game).
I also enjoy cooperative games, and when I’m playing with people who I know either won’t be a challenge to play against or don’t have fun with competitive play, I try to bring out co-op games. Unfortunately co-op games tend to be the most complex in my experience, so it can be tricky to convince people to play if they aren’t already heavily into board games. A lot of people find more complex games to be daunting and don’t want to bother learning to play, no matter how shallow the learning curve actually is.
I guess maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about with regard to competitive players. Most people I’ve met that complain about people being competitive complain about people playing to win and getting good at the game, but it sounds like your issue is more with poor sportsmanship which I agree is a problem. I find games are boring if you always win with little to no challenge, and they are frustrating if you always lose with little to no chance of winning, so I want to be good at the game, but also play against challenging opponents. Trash talking can be fun with the right group, but if people are doing that when they don’t even know your temperament then they are just being rude, and the desire to win should never take precedence over the players having fun.
I also agree that different playstyles can all be valid but also potentially incompatible. There have been times when watching actual play shows I’ll comment that I don’t think I’d have fun playing with one player or another because the way they play the game frustrates me, and people think I’m being a hater saying they’re way of playing is wrong somehow, when that isn’t my point at all, I just think the way they play games and the way I play games are incompatible with one another.
Yeah. My wife and I sometimes play Scrabble or Clue but we don’t keep score. It’s just a fun way to entertain each other with a shared intellectual challenge.
Chess I see as mainly about getting inside your opponent’s head. The players learn interesting things about each others’ planning and perception. Perhaps that’s a weird way to socialize, but then I’m weird.
I’m reminded of the card game Golf, which has some completive chance/strategy elements, but can benefit from some cooperative elements. That’s a fun game with the right group.
Settlers of Catan is fine with 3 players, but with 4 players, at least one person will get screwed. Unless you’re playing with the fish expansion which makes the edge spaces valuable, then 4 players is fine.
I would second several of your points- many modern games (Katan, Carcassonne, Ticket to Ride, Smallworld, & more) are extremely unfun when you’re playing with highly competitive folks; and emotions can and do run high. Otoh, I personally cannot stand Apples to Apples (and let’s be honest, Cards against Humanity is just dirty Apples to Apples) because it winds up just feeling like a popularity contest; you can usually tell who playedd what card.
Also, shout-out for mentioning Pit, one of the most fun games I have ever played… When playing with a rambunctious group. I have played games of Pit with people that were calmer, and it’s literally excruciating in those circumstances.
The thing about comic strips is that the amount of time between panels, and especially between strips, isn’t strictly defined.
Also possibly Lucy has a teleport-to-board-games-opportunity power, like Joyce can teleport to Dorothy or Dina can teleport to incorrect dinosaur trivia.
I feel like while Sarah would appreciate the friendship destroying spirit of diplomacy, her social issues would prevent her from actually being good at and enjoying the game.
I played SoC like twice and the people I played it with the wrong people. That game is dead to me. Do sre the people. I sincerely hope to never see them again.
I’ve actually seen a lot of pushback to Settlers in board game circles. Some folks don’t much care for the colonialism aspect (seeing the “robber” as an indigenous person) though I’ve always assumed Catan was uninhabited. But more it’s about the randomness of the dice rolls leading to folks not being able to take game actions.
I’ve also seen comments about how the initial placement of settlements has too large an impact to the point where some thing the game’s basically over from opening moves.
Actually, when I heard there was hate on Catan, I assumed it would be about the “colonialism” aspect, but most of what I found was about game mechanics.
Man, I love Ticket to Ride, even if it’s kind of baffling that what is CLEARLY a game about being a railroad tycoon pretends to be an Around the World in Eighty Days knockoff.
It’s a graph theory game that pretends to be a train game even though it has nothing to do with trains. Fortunately, it’s an *excellent* graph theory game, and placing tiny plastic trains on a map is fun.
Are Walky and Dorothy even invited? People keep assuming it, but we haven’t seen any actual indication of it, and given that this is Becky and Dina’s party, and Becky is trying to even up the getting-drunk-with-Joyce stakes, and even at the best of times tries to exclude Dorothy out of jealousy, I’m not sure that’s a good assumption.
Board games can be tricky depending on the party vibe– like, some games you can join for a quick round, hop out as needed, like Apples to Apples, but that doesn’t work so well for Catan. That said, most of the parties I go to are the type that heavily feature board games, so I support this endeavor.
Ah yes, Monopoly. A game specifically designed to be so agonizingly un-fun that its players would realize the need for meaningful anti-trust regulation, but that was then appropriated by the capitalist overlords to the point that some people find it genuinely fun. Kinda like how hot peppers specifically evolved capsaicins for the purpose of not being eaten, and now we cultivate and eat them for precisely that purpose.
The difference is that eating hot peppers can be genuinely enjoyable, while Monopoly is just a miserable reminder of our capitalist hellscape even when you win.
I was forced once to play Monopoly. My ex betrayed my by striking a deal and anyways, I literally flipped the table and sent pieces flying everywhere. It was a low for my anger issues, but honestly a high for one of the most satisfying feelings in the world. If you haven’t literally flipped a folding table with a board game on it, I recommend it. 10/10
I think that one of Human’s evolutionary strategies, if you would, is having the ability to eat a bunch of poisonous things for fun. Food that other animals can’t eat is pretty great for the ones that can.
The only, and I mean it, the ONLY time I’ve ever had fun at Monopoly, was years ago wherein one of my friends was grinding us peasants into nothing, and before it was too late we decided we should join forces. From each according to their abilities, we pooled our resources into a single pot, and re-nationalized everything.
Peppers are an interesting example of how evolution works. Individual pepper plants get eaten, but the result of humans liking peppers’ attempts at chemical warfare is that there are probably significantly more pepper plants than if we didn’t.
The point of Monopoly is to take turns turning the crank of a moderately complex set of arbitrary rules and tangible counters, to keep the players focused on a shared set of skills for long enough, but not too long, as a structured form of socialization. It just happens to look like cut-throat real estate trading.
It’s not a college party without Cards Against Humanity, but I doubt Lucy brought that. That and any truth or dare based game is basically a recipe for a party which will forever be remembered in awe and infamy in the minds of its attendees.
I mostly know Apples to Apples as the church game where nobody explained the rules to me and thus I tried to answer every prompt as correctly as possible. Idk why I did not make that mistake with CAH
Not gonna pile on with the Default Board Game Hate, that’s already covered. What I will say is, there are hundreds of board games out there, and at least one of them is Bloody Palace Mode from Devil May Cry. I’m intensely curious about that one.
Top one is Catan
Next one is purple, making me think either Taboo or Balderdash
I think Monopoly is third but it could be a special version of it
Then Scrabble, fairly confident on that one
Those four color squares have to be The Game of Life
Those pawns look like Sorry! but could also be regular Parcheesi. I’m going Sorry! though
Ticket to Ride
That fancy looking box could be a lot of things, maybe one of those Chess/Checkers/Backgammon/etc. collections?
Second from the bottom looks so distinct, I hate that I can’t place it
And bottom is easily Apples to Apples
These games are so mainstream I’m taking it as a win that we can’t figure one of them out. Obscure games is where it’s at! Although Apples to Apples is absolutely a good choice here.
I ran it past my board gaming discord and got nothing, which makes me wonder if it’s either not a real game (unlikely in a pile of obviously real games) or if it’s a special edition box that isn’t common.
I used to be obsessed with Monopoly as a kid. It’s a lot less fun as an adult because no one wants to trade or sell anything, so you just have to hope they get chance cards and go bankrupt or waste all their turns in jail while you build houses and hotels for them to land on when they get out.
I don’t get the hate for it. It’s exactly the same as Apples to Apples but with swearing. People can say some atrocious stuff in it I guess, but generally if you want to actually win a round you have to be funny, not just shocking.
There’s a lot of fucked up stuff in it, which is part of the point, but it definitely helps if you know that you’re playing with people with the same/similar values as you. One of my friends really likes it, so my friend group plays sometimes, but house rules are you can toss out any card that makes you uncomfortable, and my friend has pruned their deck of some of the worst cards.
This is what we did too, drop the cards that either make people uncomfy on sight or prune them as you go if something particularly heinous pops up, don’t be afraid of the expansion decks (to fill out what you’ve removed) and you’ll end up with a deck of pretty funny stuff that can create cute inside jokes.
Ehh, there’s a tonne of potentially-bigoted things in it, so while I’ve had fun with people I trust to be mocking the *bigotry* rather than the targets of it, I have noticed even in those groups there are usually blind spots. I would hate to play it with anyone I didn’t trust a lot.
I have a dark and surreal sense of humour, but a lot of people people carry a lot of unconscious bias and can’t tell the difference from just being a nasty edgelord, and I don’t want to encourage that.
The humor aside… just not very interesting. I’ve had just as much success from that game randomly grabbing cards (only briefly looking to see what my answer was if picked), and I’ve even “won” by doing that.
There’s no strategy, really. It’s just repetitive and boring.
As a friend of mine noted, “Games of CAH are never “won”… they’re abandoned.”
I like Board Games. Not Monopoly. But other board games. Board games make it easier for me to socialize, it gives me something to focus on other than the fear of doing something wrong, or being in the way. Or annoying somebody by existing. It gives me a save topic to talk about too.
In my usual role as Designated Outlier I’ll proudly declare that I like Monopoly. Most other board games seem pointless. Give me a game with either a compelling story, or no story at all (e.g. mancala), but not a weak story.
I was in the wargaming society at the University of British Columbia around the year 2000, just when Eurogames started to get big. We and the Science Fiction Society had a copy of Settlers of Catan that people played every day for two years straight – exams, christmas and new years, no joke. We wore out the cards and had to buy a new game.
Given that this is set in the year 20XX (and that Joyce has already played Apples to Apples), it’s likely that Lucy has a stack of Eurogames there. One that definitely does NOT include monopoly, risk or axis and allies.
(A&A has seen better days, Risk is only good for destroying friendships and Monopoly is just shit!)
Gosh the opinion that board games are just monopolly and other snakes and ladders and only involve stupid dice throwing is more durable than satanic TRPGs
But
alcohol and board games that people know the rules are a good idea.
alcohol plus a board game that people don’t know the rules plus different approaches to the game bad idea
(Having said that, I sometimes enjoyed playing it with the family when my nephew was younger. Not the actual game, but the metagame of “Make sure this terrible cheat isn’t taking money from the bank when nobody’s looking”. I never won that one either, but it was more fun.)
I feel like there’s a lack of choice. Even in other chance base games such as Catan there is at least decisions you can make to negate the luck aspects.
As an avid player of board games and the owner of several shelves of them to an unhealthy degree… i completely agree with Sarah. Board games are horrible and no one enjoys playing them.
The best Uni party I went to, I brought the rules to the Discworld card game Cripple Mr Onion, and the required deck of mixed British and Italian playing cards (because the Discworld deck has eight suits). Mind you, that was a SF&F Society party.
Board games have always been something I considered annoying until I started playing, and then I had fun with the people I enjoy having fun with.
Then the next time board games come out, I’m looking side-eyed at them again like I expect to be annoyed, and I forgot that last time was fun, like the other times before that… It’s a weird cycle.
Monopoly was originally intended to teach people about the damage from unchecked capitalism. But then capitalism got ahold of it and corrupted it for its own purposes. Which is why we hate it today.
People hate Monopoly, because they never play an actual game of Monopoly. If you go by the true rules, a game goes by relatively quick, as all the properties are snatched up, in a couple of go arounds; what drags the game out is people elect not to purchase the property they land on, but by the actual rules, if the person who lands on the property doesn’t want to buy it, it goes to auction, starting at the foreclosure price on the back. All property is sold back to the back, at the price marked on the back. What people think is Monopoly, are house rules, that have been passed around.
Try Boom & Bust Monopoly. During Boom times, all prices, rents, etc. are doubled. During Bust times they are halved. We go from Normal to Boom to Bust to Normal, changing whenever someone lands on GO by exact count. Mortgage a property during Boom, lift the mortgage during Bust. Weep when you are forced to do the opposite. (inspired by a Monopoly knock-off that did this with a board insert that carried the prices.)
The only proper game for college drinkers is euchre. Can definitely play it drunk, it’s short, rules are simple, loser drinks (or buys the next round).
Joyce is aware that booze will be there. She was there when the booze was acquired and has agreed to the party with the expectation of getting drunk at it.
Settlers of Catan might be a step too far though I guess? Not sure why.
. . . .. wait a second. They’re students, temporarily living in a dorm. And she brought. All those board games. With her.
And it’s not a Joyce situation where Joyce’s mom basically dropped all of Joyce’ stuff at the dorm
I don’t know if it’s a millennial thing, but tons of people in my age group definitely love board games. Not sure if Gen Z or Alpha are into them as much.
Personally, they’re not my idea of fun. But then, neither are parties. so I’m not really the target audience. Sarah has my sympathy.
Not sure if it counts, but with my friend groups i love playing Jack Party Box games, especially if im drunk/stoned, it’s a joy when i manage to make others lose their shit XD
Tbf it is sarah, it would be weirder if she DID like board games (although i’m sure there are solo board games but other than being really into physical ones i imagine ppl would just play solo games on a phone/pc lol)
Loading ...
*plays Mad Tea Party Area Theme on hacked muzak*
Sarah don’t know what she’s missing!
*eyes copy of Pandemic Legacy played incorrectly through December part 1 with no chance of completing December part 2*
…maybe she does
(Monopoly is a shit game, tho, better to play Power Grid)
Nah, The Campaign for North Africa, accept no substitutes.
So, how many plays of that have you logged? 😉
Whenever I suggest it people always get sheepish and intimidated by the prospect of a ludicrously complex game that takes literal months to complete for some unknowable reason
Monopoly was originally The Landlord’s Game, which was not meant to be entertaining but political activism.
Which got bastardized into the game we all know
and lovetoday thanks to the telephone game and some good old fashioned revisionist history.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUOKKszskTQ
(Actually, Monopoly isn’t that bad if you follow the rules in the box and auction properties people land on but don’t buy.)
The primary issue with Monopoly, from a game design standpoint, is two-fold, first, there is never a reason not to buy a property when you can afford to, meaning there are effectively no real decisions to make (auctioning alleviates this a bit as deciding how much to bid can be an interesting decision point, but overall it’s not a big enough part of the game to really help, especially when you encounter issue 2), second, there is a distinct lack of catch up mechanics, the vast majority of the time it becomes fairly obvious who is going to win fairly early on due to getting a significant lead fairly early on, meaning you can know the winner within the first half hour and be able to do anything to effect that outcome for the next three and a half hours of gameplay before you reach that conclusion. A game either needs to be quick or have catch up mechanics to keep it interesting throughout the game, otherwise it’s just unfun to watch your friend win over the course of several hours, and even winning can be boring unless you’re particularly sadistic since nobody else is having any fun at that point.
The lack of catchup mechanics is intentional, and played properly, is *why* Monopoly games don’t actually go for four hours.
Long Monopoly games exist almost entirely because people house-rule in catchup mechanics / money sources / removing money sinks.
I’ve never played with houserules, and while it’s been around 20 years since I last played so I’m not entirely certain how long the games actually were, I never played a game of monopoly that didn’t feel like it took absolutely forever to play and it pretty much always ate up an entire afternoon. There definitely wasn’t a game that lasted less than an hour. My family were always big on reading the rules and referencing the rulebook when we couldn’t remember a specific rule in the moment. Since movement is random and the game doesn’t end until everyone except one player is bankrupt, it can legitimately take an incredibly long time to finish the game playing as normal, even when one player gets an early enough lead that there’s no way to catch up.
Also, it’s worth noting that my description of the problem with monopoly is taken directly from a lecture by a game design professor I took a class with in college. Four hours might be an exaggeration, but the fact of the matter is most games take way too long to play and are actively unfun for the majority of the playtime since there are no real decisions/choices to make and the outcome is determined *very* early on in the vast majority of playthroughs. That is bad game design. Good games are not an exercise in frustration due to being unable to affect the outcome for most players most of the time.
No. Monopoly IS that bad even when played “correctly”. It is truly, absolutely THAT bad. 😛
(Huge boardgame fan here. My username is a boardgame reference even)
Agreed. At a family reunion some years ago, I played a game of Monopoly-with-the-actual-rules with some of my cousins who are also serious boardgamers (we just finished this year’s family reunion, which was a week long and involved three or four board games each day with those same cousins), just to see what it would be like, and it *still* lasted way too long, and it was *still* obvious who was going to win far in advance of the actual end of the game, and it *still* wasn’t very fun.
I’ll stand in exception, as an avid board gamer who grew up playing Monopoly and enjoyed it. Sure, it’s a gambling game- there’s little strategy whatsoever- however, the purchase or not purchase metric is not as simple as is being suggested; for instance, purchasing the light blues (and developing them) can be rather useless, since they are relatively low impact. Whereas getting the reds, orange, or yellow sets can win the game.
FWIW, I have always played Monopoly with trades available, and half the fun was in making trades with opponents.
To add to that, as a gambling game, the tide can reverse pretty effectively if/when the lead player gets one of the taxes cards from chance community chest; especially the more expensive of the two can bankrupt an aggressively expensive player. Monopoly is not such an obvious win- even if you can see who is likely to win early on.
I played Power Grid once. It made me more furious in a very short time than all the times I ever played monopoly put together.
I’m saying Power Grid is a superior version of Monopoly, not that it’s enjoyable to people who hate counting
I recommend Illuminopoly instead
i’m sure a handful of the current group would get a kick outta D&D tho sarah might find LARPing more fulfilling b/c she’d actually get to hit someting XD
Yeah you wouldn’t want the Risk of them Monopolizing the party!
They’ll socialize or they’ll be Sorry!
Y’all gettin’ a little Parcheesi with these puns…
My alien senses indicate an upcoming drama Twister
Y’all gotta Scrabble for these puns
Drunken Board Games > Most Social Gatherings
If you make friends with people who share your interests then Drunken Board Games = Most Social Gatherings.
This, especially since the pandemic. Now my social circle is pretty much just my RPG group
I’d add that Sober Board Games > Drunken Board Games > Most Social Gatherings.
there’s so many good games but for real fuck monopoly all my homies hate monopoly
The story I remember hearing is that Monopoly was originally designed as “here’s why capitalism sucks” and some asshole decided to steal it to make it a mass market product, which instantly made the entire game make sense to me.
Yeah, the mechanic where one player grabs an early lead through sheer dumb luck and then spends the next four hours grinding everyone else slowly into the dirt is entirely deliberate.
Monopoly isn’t meant to last four hours. If it does, it’s probably because you’re using house rules.
It depends on the initial property distribution. If no one actually has a developable set when the properties are all claimed — which I find is pretty common if you’ve got more than two players — it can drag on for-fucking-ever, with rental money just basically being passed around the board, and Go income pretty much covering other expenses, until someone hits a run of bad luck and the wheels come off.
Yeah, Monopoly was designed to suck. I’d actually love to know how it became so popular, tbh, such that everyone’s played it.
… Extra Creditz literally put out a Youtube video this past week explaining the history of Monopoly, so if you’re interested, just search for that creator doing that topic on that platform and you should find it. It’s a pretty good video – watched it myself. Obvioulsy.
Was literally about to point to EC’s recent video when I scrolled down a slight bit more.
https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=Extra+Creditz+monopoly
Are we going to pretend that strip monopoly isn’t a thing?
If Monopoly is supposed to represent unfun capitalist domination, how does that get reflected in the strip version, in practice?
My theory is that getting to choose one of the cute, I mean enticing player markers is the most fun I’ll ever have with Mon0poly. The point of the game is right there in the title! Have fun mortgaging your little boot or whatever.
Or to expand on that, the players get to choose (acquire) a relatively low stakes item, which is the last real choice some make in the rest of the game. Kinda like how it’s fun to choose a new set of Summer plates or something at Target, yet never acquire enough capital to buy a house or a real table to put them on.
Possibly interesting: our family had a Monopoly set, but to this day I’ve never played it with the cute tokens — ours were all pawns.
All pawns. Think about that.
Could you tell whose was whose?
Well, yes, they were different colors.
It took me a minute to parse that sentence correctly and figure out that you weren’t talking about a game called “Real Fuck Monopoly”. Which at least sounds more entertaining than regular Monopoly.
maybe people invented punctuation for a reason
Maybe People were actually innovators of capitalization
Capitalist.
The Maybe People were a one-hit wonder. I don’t know why we still talk about them.
Not to be confused with the Ink Spots song that plays during the intro to Fallout (1), “Maybe”.
Even more intriguing than knife monopoly.
There are no losers in that version of the game. Depending on who you invited to the party…
digital Monopoly on Switch is way more fun… mostly because you can put in an AI player to bully.
Just remember – the difficulty is actually how bullshit their rolls will be. Hard literally cheats. However, luck aside, the AI is always stupid and doesn’t understand that mortgaged property is worth less than normal.
AI Monopoly, you say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkvFcYBznPI
I find that a lot of games depend on who you play them with. Some games like monopoly or risk can just be really painful in general though. I have found that I don’t like playing games like Catan if some (or all) of the other players are really competitive. If people are going to be very competitive (especially getting rub it in your face mean), I prefer games that take the competition out of the equation for the most part (possibly cards against humanity, mild meld or a cooperative game). I want to play a game to relax, have fun and socialize. Being competitive with aomeone else isn’t fun to me, and can end up with hard feels imo. Thr only time I have found that competitive games go well is when I am playing with laid back friends or family that are also just playing for fun. I have been in 2 casual groups, a small pinochle group and a monthly group that plays bunco. The bunco group sometimes gets teenagers/pre-teens that are very antsy about winning. It tends to make the whole experience less enjoyable for everyone, as otherwise we just joke around about how the dice are rolling and don’t care too much. I do find that having money involved in any game significantly increases the competitiveness, and decreases thr enjoyment for me. Due to this, I don’t tend to use money when playing games, even ones with betting like pinochle, as you can play those games without money.
On a my personal experience side note, the card game Pit can get even the quiestest person yelling. A mildly competitive game with a bit of a twist is the card game Wizard. Everyone looks at their own cards and knows what trump is, and then makes a bet about how many tricks they will win. You want to get exactly what you bet, not over or under. Since you don’t know what is in everyone else’s hand, the result can be quite random, losing with what you thought was a good card and winning with what you thought was a horrible card. It can sometimes result in a form of slight cooperation, as you try to play your cards right to help someone get a trick they want and you don’t want. Much of what happens is luck, though the more players there are or the further in the game you are (more cards dealt out) the better the guess you can have on what is out there.
See, I don’t consider myself particularly competitive, as I can have a good time winning or losing, but I’m always kind of confused and kind of bothered by the people who play games like you do. That’s not a dig at you, as you’d probably be bothered by playing with me too, neither way is wrong, per se, just incompatible.
I’m of the opinion that anything worth doing at all is worth doing well, so I take everything pretty much equally seriously, this means I can joke around and have fun doing just about anything, but it also means that even when doing things purely for fun, like games, I operate at the best of my ability. In games this means I do my best to win, and many can see that as being competitive, but honestly, I have have had more fun losing some games than winning, as it means I’m playing against someone competent who can provide me with a real challenge, if I’m always winning I just feel like I’m bullying the other player(s), and it gets boring since I already know the outcome before I start. I consider caring about the outcome, at least insofar as putting forth effort goes, to be part of the basic premise of the game, so when a player genuinely doesn’t seem to care about the game and doesn’t seem to even try to win, it feels kind of disrespectful to me since they’re not even trying to engage with the game as intended. Like, if playing the game is superfluous to the situation, why even play in the first place? There’s plenty of other ways to spend time with friends and family and enjoy each others’ company, including just hanging out and chatting, so why play a game if the game doesn’t matter? I just can’t wrap my head around the idea of not engaging with something seriously just because it’s fun, since to me fun is a reason to take something *more* seriously, not less.
Good point. One of my siblings is aggressively noncompetetive (but only in games) to the point that they will feel uncomfortable with power imbalances and suggest changing rules so that everybody wins to some degree. Bo-ring! I didn’t want a community project… I want to use strategy and be entertained!
I think some of it is in the goal in playing a game… like, the overall goal is to have fun, and if sometimes people find that better created by something focused on a shared experience, and some people want to be competitive about it. And I think either is fine, though I don’t consider “as the game intends” to be a reason to be serious about it.
Sometimes I play games with my friends who get real competitive, and I’m just over here having a fun time doing whatever, convincing people to trade an ore for an ore as a show of goodwill between our people. And sometimes I play with that attitude and still win, which is extra funny with the friend who has been trashtalking the whole time.
I wouldn’t say that I don’t put in any effort. I would try my best (which may or may not be good depending on the game). I am just not the type of person to play a multiplayer game if it ends up frustrating or people start yelling or mocking others for it. There is a difference between trying your best and being overtly competitive about something. If someone says that they are going to crush me just as we start playing a game (especially a game that I have never played before), I am going to be a bit leery about playing with them vs someone who is cheery even if they lose. There is enough stuff in my life (work, etc) that I have to be competitve and stress over that I don’t want to do it during my fun time. I understand that is how some people have fun, but it isn’t my cup of tea. I also understand that it can be really frustrating to play with someone that doesn’t understand the game and doesn’t care to try. I have had a few pinochle partners that are not only oblivious about not strategising over the table, but also really don’t know how to bid, pass or play a hand no matter how many games you play with them. I just shrug it off and enjoy the conversation, but I know that it could drive other people crazy. When I play scrabble with my mom’s family, we tend to help each other out if they can’t think of a word with the letters that they had. Part of it might have been due to me being young at first, and then at the end my grandma having memory issues. I know that some people would find it cheating, but it can be fun spotting a good spot that they didn’t notice and helping them out. Even with her gone, I still play with older relatives or acquaintances who might not be able to play without a little help keeping track or keeping score. I just know that with games, there is a lot of personal preference involved, and I would have for someone to be scared away from playing board or card games just because they were exposed to only one form. There is a lot of variety out there and different playing styles. Just because you don’t fit with one game or group doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t fit in with another.
Yeah, I agree that people shouldn’t get so competitive that they get mad or mean about it, I only got into a shouting match over a game once and that was because another player was blatantly cheating but was somehow convinced she was in the right (it was Uno, and she introduced a houserule I had never heard of before in the middle of the game, at first she insisted it was a real, official rule, so I pulled up the official Uno rulebook online and asked her to show me where the rulebook said she could do what she did, and after reading it and failing to find the rule she was citing she just pointed to the rule encouraging houserules, the other two players genuinely didn’t care and were acting like *I* was the bad guy for insisting on fair play, so I didn’t even get the chance to point out that the rule encouraging houserules specifically says the players need to agree on houserules *before* the game starts, and as nobody had ever mentioned that houserule to me, obviously I hadn’t agreed to it, since every time I tried to argue my point I’d get cut off by one of the other three, I have sworn off Uno entirely because of this, a game so reliant on houserules to be fun at all that they don’t even bother to include the rulebook in the box most of the time is a terrible game and only exists as argument bait since almost nobody actually knows the rules of the game).
I also enjoy cooperative games, and when I’m playing with people who I know either won’t be a challenge to play against or don’t have fun with competitive play, I try to bring out co-op games. Unfortunately co-op games tend to be the most complex in my experience, so it can be tricky to convince people to play if they aren’t already heavily into board games. A lot of people find more complex games to be daunting and don’t want to bother learning to play, no matter how shallow the learning curve actually is.
I guess maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about with regard to competitive players. Most people I’ve met that complain about people being competitive complain about people playing to win and getting good at the game, but it sounds like your issue is more with poor sportsmanship which I agree is a problem. I find games are boring if you always win with little to no challenge, and they are frustrating if you always lose with little to no chance of winning, so I want to be good at the game, but also play against challenging opponents. Trash talking can be fun with the right group, but if people are doing that when they don’t even know your temperament then they are just being rude, and the desire to win should never take precedence over the players having fun.
I also agree that different playstyles can all be valid but also potentially incompatible. There have been times when watching actual play shows I’ll comment that I don’t think I’d have fun playing with one player or another because the way they play the game frustrates me, and people think I’m being a hater saying they’re way of playing is wrong somehow, when that isn’t my point at all, I just think the way they play games and the way I play games are incompatible with one another.
Yeah. My wife and I sometimes play Scrabble or Clue but we don’t keep score. It’s just a fun way to entertain each other with a shared intellectual challenge.
Chess I see as mainly about getting inside your opponent’s head. The players learn interesting things about each others’ planning and perception. Perhaps that’s a weird way to socialize, but then I’m weird.
I’m reminded of the card game Golf, which has some completive chance/strategy elements, but can benefit from some cooperative elements. That’s a fun game with the right group.
I learned Wizard recently. I won by predicting that I would do badly, and then doing badly on purpose. Highly entertaining.
Settlers of Catan is fine with 3 players, but with 4 players, at least one person will get screwed. Unless you’re playing with the fish expansion which makes the edge spaces valuable, then 4 players is fine.
I would second several of your points- many modern games (Katan, Carcassonne, Ticket to Ride, Smallworld, & more) are extremely unfun when you’re playing with highly competitive folks; and emotions can and do run high. Otoh, I personally cannot stand Apples to Apples (and let’s be honest, Cards against Humanity is just dirty Apples to Apples) because it winds up just feeling like a popularity contest; you can usually tell who playedd what card.
Also, shout-out for mentioning Pit, one of the most fun games I have ever played… When playing with a rambunctious group. I have played games of Pit with people that were calmer, and it’s literally excruciating in those circumstances.
I have me a lot of fun board games, but my collection is largely “Weird game I got on Kickstarter for the miniatures”.
Joyce started here party time with catan
She lives in a different building how did she get there so fast
The thing about comic strips is that the amount of time between panels, and especially between strips, isn’t strictly defined.
Also possibly Lucy has a teleport-to-board-games-opportunity power, like Joyce can teleport to Dorothy or Dina can teleport to incorrect dinosaur trivia.
Maybe Sarah prefers Diplomacy? Of course, you can’t go wrong with Settlers of Catan!
I feel like while Sarah would appreciate the friendship destroying spirit of diplomacy, her social issues would prevent her from actually being good at and enjoying the game.
I could quite heavily debate that. You can’t go wrong with SoC in a mixed group, but in a heavily board game focused group….
Blood Bowl or nothing.
I played SoC like twice and the people I played it with the wrong people. That game is dead to me. Do sre the people. I sincerely hope to never see them again.
I’ve actually seen a lot of pushback to Settlers in board game circles. Some folks don’t much care for the colonialism aspect (seeing the “robber” as an indigenous person) though I’ve always assumed Catan was uninhabited. But more it’s about the randomness of the dice rolls leading to folks not being able to take game actions.
I’ve also seen comments about how the initial placement of settlements has too large an impact to the point where some thing the game’s basically over from opening moves.
Actually, when I heard there was hate on Catan, I assumed it would be about the “colonialism” aspect, but most of what I found was about game mechanics.
This has been my experience with Catan — if you get stuck with bad starting locations, you’ve already lost, and the game has barely started.
no one said anything about helping Manage it tho ?
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2024/comic/book-14/04-for-me-it-was-tuesday/unlikely/
Man, I love Ticket to Ride, even if it’s kind of baffling that what is CLEARLY a game about being a railroad tycoon pretends to be an Around the World in Eighty Days knockoff.
It’s SUCH A GOOD FUCKING GAME.
YES!
It’s a graph theory game that pretends to be a train game even though it has nothing to do with trains. Fortunately, it’s an *excellent* graph theory game, and placing tiny plastic trains on a map is fun.
A large stack of board games and a massive handle of liquor would describe many of the parties I’ve been at.
I think the entertainments going to be the fallout of Walky Dorothy and Lucy
Are Walky and Dorothy even invited? People keep assuming it, but we haven’t seen any actual indication of it, and given that this is Becky and Dina’s party, and Becky is trying to even up the getting-drunk-with-Joyce stakes, and even at the best of times tries to exclude Dorothy out of jealousy, I’m not sure that’s a good assumption.
(Also coming to the party would (probably) require them to stop fucking.)
Considering that it’s in Joyce’s room, I think that there’s a pretty good chance Dorothy will get invited by Joyce, or at least informed.
(And if it was in Becky’s room, well, Dorothy’s her roommate.)
Isn’t it in Dina and Amber’s room?
Nice catch. Right by that big-ass dinosaur that smells like sex XD
Board games can be tricky depending on the party vibe– like, some games you can join for a quick round, hop out as needed, like Apples to Apples, but that doesn’t work so well for Catan. That said, most of the parties I go to are the type that heavily feature board games, so I support this endeavor.
I love board games but they’re not really what I’m looking for in a party with alcohol.
Ah yes, Monopoly. A game specifically designed to be so agonizingly un-fun that its players would realize the need for meaningful anti-trust regulation, but that was then appropriated by the capitalist overlords to the point that some people find it genuinely fun. Kinda like how hot peppers specifically evolved capsaicins for the purpose of not being eaten, and now we cultivate and eat them for precisely that purpose.
The difference is that eating hot peppers can be genuinely enjoyable, while Monopoly is just a miserable reminder of our capitalist hellscape even when you win.
I was forced once to play Monopoly. My ex betrayed my by striking a deal and anyways, I literally flipped the table and sent pieces flying everywhere. It was a low for my anger issues, but honestly a high for one of the most satisfying feelings in the world. If you haven’t literally flipped a folding table with a board game on it, I recommend it. 10/10
(That was also over 10 years ago)
I think that one of Human’s evolutionary strategies, if you would, is having the ability to eat a bunch of poisonous things for fun. Food that other animals can’t eat is pretty great for the ones that can.
“Mithridates, he died old.” — Housman
Yes! That’s a great poem.
The only, and I mean it, the ONLY time I’ve ever had fun at Monopoly, was years ago wherein one of my friends was grinding us peasants into nothing, and before it was too late we decided we should join forces. From each according to their abilities, we pooled our resources into a single pot, and re-nationalized everything.
That night, Socialism won.
(No, I’m not kidding.)
Peppers are an interesting example of how evolution works. Individual pepper plants get eaten, but the result of humans liking peppers’ attempts at chemical warfare is that there are probably significantly more pepper plants than if we didn’t.
Didn’t Sal lose her virginity because of board games? This party might have some potential.
Board games are great, but only if people find them fun. Then they become bored games.
Boo! Hiss! I mean, ha! I’ll use that one on my family.
I love the Ticket to Ride shout-out, and hope this comic facilitates it being bought.
But fuck the Rails to Sails expansion. That’s not even a Fun Hard Expack.
But turning to socialism is the whole point of Monopoly
The point of Monopoly is to take turns turning the crank of a moderately complex set of arbitrary rules and tangible counters, to keep the players focused on a shared set of skills for long enough, but not too long, as a structured form of socialization. It just happens to look like cut-throat real estate trading.
The original point was to drive home that capitalism sucks
It’s not a college party without Cards Against Humanity, but I doubt Lucy brought that. That and any truth or dare based game is basically a recipe for a party which will forever be remembered in awe and infamy in the minds of its attendees.
You mean that knock off of Apples To Apples, the card game co-created by cartoonist John Kovacs of Dork Tower, which is Sal’s favorite game?
I mostly know Apples to Apples as the church game where nobody explained the rules to me and thus I tried to answer every prompt as correctly as possible. Idk why I did not make that mistake with CAH
You mean John Kovalic right? Also I didn’t know that about Apples to Apples, learn something new every day I guess
Not gonna pile on with the Default Board Game Hate, that’s already covered. What I will say is, there are hundreds of board games out there, and at least one of them is Bloody Palace Mode from Devil May Cry. I’m intensely curious about that one.
I’m intensely curious how you’d turn DMC into a board game without completely axing the Stylish Action part.
That’s why I wanna play it, to find out. Reading some rules is one thing, but sometimes experience is the best way to feel it.
Ooo! Mini game! Mini game!
Top one is Catan
Next one is purple, making me think either Taboo or Balderdash
I think Monopoly is third but it could be a special version of it
Then Scrabble, fairly confident on that one
Those four color squares have to be The Game of Life
Those pawns look like Sorry! but could also be regular Parcheesi. I’m going Sorry! though
Ticket to Ride
That fancy looking box could be a lot of things, maybe one of those Chess/Checkers/Backgammon/etc. collections?
Second from the bottom looks so distinct, I hate that I can’t place it
And bottom is easily Apples to Apples
Third from the bottom (fancy box) looks like Trivial Pursuit to me for some reason.
Second from the bottom is pinging something in my head too but I can’t remember what it is.
I looked up “board game” and refined the results to just light blue boxes, and I still didn’t get anything.
These games are so mainstream I’m taking it as a win that we can’t figure one of them out. Obscure games is where it’s at! Although Apples to Apples is absolutely a good choice here.
I ran it past my board gaming discord and got nothing, which makes me wonder if it’s either not a real game (unlikely in a pile of obviously real games) or if it’s a special edition box that isn’t common.
I considered a jigsaw puzzle, but there’s like 6,000,000,000,000 of those.
I hope she has Trogdor: The Board Game.
I’m pretty sure third from the bottom is Red Dragon Inn, which would be really fun to see if the players drink every time their characters do.
Hopefully no one gets Jumanji’d.
“No, no, I’m not afraid of board games; I’m afraid of getting Jumanji’d.”
https://youtu.be/8cdBcfLhJVY?si=0IKWiNTVxCbQaPEl
I bet there’s a Dexter and Monkey Master-themed Munchkin.
Sarah Clinton, in the Conservatory, with the little train piece.
Not the bedroom?
That sounds painful.
Snerk! 😀
It’d be nice to get through the evening without Sarah stabbing anyone. Those little pointy pieces hurt.
I’d say they should try to borrow someone’s Nintendo for Mario Party but that might actually ruin relationships
I think I’d rather play Monopoly than Mario Party. At least the most “RNG” you suffer in Monopoly is dice rolls.
It’s funny, ’cause I sometimes play board games with people who like them more than I do, and those people still hate Monopoly.
I have never seen such potent hate for Monopoly as I did when I stumbled into an internet forum for board game enthusiasts.
The more people like board games, the more they hate Monopoly.
Can confirm.
I used to be obsessed with Monopoly as a kid. It’s a lot less fun as an adult because no one wants to trade or sell anything, so you just have to hope they get chance cards and go bankrupt or waste all their turns in jail while you build houses and hotels for them to land on when they get out.
I just noticed Swerve and Rodimus are not displayed on Amber’s cabinet. I’m shocked.
I’d pass on Apples to Apples, but at least it’s not Cards Against Humanity.
I am so over that “game”.
I haven’t played it very much. Why is it not a game?
It’s an opportunity for people to pretend to be their worst selves, for fun. Some people have to pretend less than others.
I don’t get the hate for it. It’s exactly the same as Apples to Apples but with swearing. People can say some atrocious stuff in it I guess, but generally if you want to actually win a round you have to be funny, not just shocking.
When I played I usually just tried to make people laugh. It always felt good when I was successful.
There’s a lot of fucked up stuff in it, which is part of the point, but it definitely helps if you know that you’re playing with people with the same/similar values as you. One of my friends really likes it, so my friend group plays sometimes, but house rules are you can toss out any card that makes you uncomfortable, and my friend has pruned their deck of some of the worst cards.
This is what we did too, drop the cards that either make people uncomfy on sight or prune them as you go if something particularly heinous pops up, don’t be afraid of the expansion decks (to fill out what you’ve removed) and you’ll end up with a deck of pretty funny stuff that can create cute inside jokes.
Ehh, there’s a tonne of potentially-bigoted things in it, so while I’ve had fun with people I trust to be mocking the *bigotry* rather than the targets of it, I have noticed even in those groups there are usually blind spots. I would hate to play it with anyone I didn’t trust a lot.
I have a dark and surreal sense of humour, but a lot of people people carry a lot of unconscious bias and can’t tell the difference from just being a nasty edgelord, and I don’t want to encourage that.
The humor aside… just not very interesting. I’ve had just as much success from that game randomly grabbing cards (only briefly looking to see what my answer was if picked), and I’ve even “won” by doing that.
There’s no strategy, really. It’s just repetitive and boring.
As a friend of mine noted, “Games of CAH are never “won”… they’re abandoned.”
I like Board Games. Not Monopoly. But other board games. Board games make it easier for me to socialize, it gives me something to focus on other than the fear of doing something wrong, or being in the way. Or annoying somebody by existing. It gives me a save topic to talk about too.
In my usual role as Designated Outlier I’ll proudly declare that I like Monopoly. Most other board games seem pointless. Give me a game with either a compelling story, or no story at all (e.g. mancala), but not a weak story.
I was in the wargaming society at the University of British Columbia around the year 2000, just when Eurogames started to get big. We and the Science Fiction Society had a copy of Settlers of Catan that people played every day for two years straight – exams, christmas and new years, no joke. We wore out the cards and had to buy a new game.
Given that this is set in the year 20XX (and that Joyce has already played Apples to Apples), it’s likely that Lucy has a stack of Eurogames there. One that definitely does NOT include monopoly, risk or axis and allies.
(A&A has seen better days, Risk is only good for destroying friendships and Monopoly is just shit!)
Here is a link explaining why board games are better now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhaylQfzCmo
Gosh the opinion that board games are just monopolly and other snakes and ladders and only involve stupid dice throwing is more durable than satanic TRPGs
But
alcohol and board games that people know the rules are a good idea.
alcohol plus a board game that people don’t know the rules plus different approaches to the game bad idea
Can anyone recognize what games Lucy’s got there? Or do those sides appear to be random art?
That’s definitely Apples to Apples on the bottom of the stack.
None of those are the long, “square board folded in half” Parker Brothers boxes I grew up with though, so I’m mostly clueless about the rest.
This might be the worst thing Sarah’s ever said. Shame!
(/Sarcasm because it is the internet)
I thought Sarah would be happy with no one coming to the party.
Sarah ought to be happy with not going to the party. It’s Dina’s and Amber’s party. It’s not being held in her room. She can just not go to it.
Certainly no-one asked her to organise the activities.
Can I steal the fourth panel in it’s entirety? That would be such a great reaction image.
I miss playing games with people. Those murder mystery games are a fun time.
Same. I moved away from my board/card game friends years ago and I miss game nights terribly. Just hours of snacks, chatting and friendly competition.
So I’m literally the only one on the planet who likes Monopoly, huh?
Pretty much. I mean, I don’t hate it, but there are much better games.
Welcome to being Lucy’s best friend! Population you! And Lucy.
What is there to enjoy about it?
It was literally designed not to be enjoyed! It’s meant to be a harsh lesson in how life isn’t fair and everything sucks!
(Having said that, I sometimes enjoyed playing it with the family when my nephew was younger. Not the actual game, but the metagame of “Make sure this terrible cheat isn’t taking money from the bank when nobody’s looking”. I never won that one either, but it was more fun.)
(Ah, others have said this upthread. Shouldn’t read the comments from the bottom up.)
It’s an excellent Let’s Play format imo, especially if the people playing are competitive. Lots of entertainment potential there
I feel like there’s a lack of choice. Even in other chance base games such as Catan there is at least decisions you can make to negate the luck aspects.
Monopoly’s fun but only if you’re winning.
As an avid player of board games and the owner of several shelves of them to an unhealthy degree… i completely agree with Sarah. Board games are horrible and no one enjoys playing them.
I feel like Joyce would be genuinely excited for these board games.
Nobody else though, so good strategy.
I hope Lucy brought Wingspan and Zombicide.
As someone who plays Carcassonne with all the expansions, I may have yeeted Wingspan for having too many complicated little pieces.
I once killed a man with a candlestick in the conservatory, just to watch him die.
Ooh, Apples to Apples
After that, one graduates to Cards Against Humanity. 😀
The best Uni party I went to, I brought the rules to the Discworld card game Cripple Mr Onion, and the required deck of mixed British and Italian playing cards (because the Discworld deck has eight suits). Mind you, that was a SF&F Society party.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080912134340/http://cripplemronion.info/
I remain annoyed that no one produces an eight suited deck with staves, swords, cups, coins, octagrams, elephants, turtles and crowns.
I’m sure you can find a place that will print up a custom deck for you.
I like boardgames but really Sarah, what did you expect from Lucy?
I’d play Ticket to Ride, but Monopoly belongs in the garbage no matter what skin it’s wearing when you’re tricked into buying it.
Board games have always been something I considered annoying until I started playing, and then I had fun with the people I enjoy having fun with.
Then the next time board games come out, I’m looking side-eyed at them again like I expect to be annoyed, and I forgot that last time was fun, like the other times before that… It’s a weird cycle.
Funny fact: No character in this series plays or has played Dungeons and Dragons.
Sounds like we need a crossover with QC.
Or Something Positive, Roll to Save, Leftover Soup, Between Failures…
How dare Sarah slander Ticket to Ride like that
Monopoly was originally intended to teach people about the damage from unchecked capitalism. But then capitalism got ahold of it and corrupted it for its own purposes. Which is why we hate it today.
Ah, so the hatred is political, nothing to do with the game per se.
People hate Monopoly, because they never play an actual game of Monopoly. If you go by the true rules, a game goes by relatively quick, as all the properties are snatched up, in a couple of go arounds; what drags the game out is people elect not to purchase the property they land on, but by the actual rules, if the person who lands on the property doesn’t want to buy it, it goes to auction, starting at the foreclosure price on the back. All property is sold back to the back, at the price marked on the back. What people think is Monopoly, are house rules, that have been passed around.
Try Boom & Bust Monopoly. During Boom times, all prices, rents, etc. are doubled. During Bust times they are halved. We go from Normal to Boom to Bust to Normal, changing whenever someone lands on GO by exact count. Mortgage a property during Boom, lift the mortgage during Bust. Weep when you are forced to do the opposite. (inspired by a Monopoly knock-off that did this with a board insert that carried the prices.)
“Sarah, people who like board games like board games, and people who don’t like board games…I don’t know what they like. So: board games!”
The only proper game for college drinkers is euchre. Can definitely play it drunk, it’s short, rules are simple, loser drinks (or buys the next round).
I have never resonated so much with a comic character as I am with Sarah right now.
I like Ticket to Ride.
i wonder if joyce is gonna see booze and settlers of catan, then nope the fuck outta there
Joyce is aware that booze will be there. She was there when the booze was acquired and has agreed to the party with the expectation of getting drunk at it.
Settlers of Catan might be a step too far though I guess? Not sure why.
The party where she got drugged had a room where a bunch of drunk people were playing that game. It might remind her, I think is the idea here.
Ahhhh, that makes sense, thanks for explaining.
Sarah, playing a game of, “Red Dragon Inn”, when you have to actually drink, will be the best time ever.
do you think anyone here would have the target exclusive space marine boardgame
mad that I can’t get it tbh
Is it based on the video game or just a general Space Marine game?
it’s kind of based on the second game.
titus is dealing with Too Many Bugs
OFF: Just figured now the tags cloud in the home page.
. . . .. wait a second. They’re students, temporarily living in a dorm. And she brought. All those board games. With her.
And it’s not a Joyce situation where Joyce’s mom basically dropped all of Joyce’ stuff at the dorm
I don’t know if it’s a millennial thing, but tons of people in my age group definitely love board games. Not sure if Gen Z or Alpha are into them as much.
Personally, they’re not my idea of fun. But then, neither are parties. so I’m not really the target audience. Sarah has my sympathy.
Not sure if it counts, but with my friend groups i love playing Jack Party Box games, especially if im drunk/stoned, it’s a joy when i manage to make others lose their shit XD
dang, that’s a lot, unless it’s also a ‘sleepover’ idk if they’d even get through halfway of all those games versus splitting up into groups and such
It’s a shame Mike’s not here, really. I bet he would’ve loved Monopoly for the sheer, unadulterated misery of it all.
this is gonna fall apart the second dorothy walks into that room holding hands with walky
Those are all real games she’s carrying. Anybody know which ones?
My guess, from top:
Catan
Balderdash?
???
???
Game of Life
Sorry
Ticket to Ride: Europe?
???
???
Apples to Apples
But… but I like board games…
Tbf it is sarah, it would be weirder if she DID like board games (although i’m sure there are solo board games but other than being really into physical ones i imagine ppl would just play solo games on a phone/pc lol)