Fantasy Heart Breakers - mechanics that break the heart

[Willie the Duck]

didn't Frank Mentzer try to run a kickstarter recently?

Yes, but nothing came about. Without discussing politics, it'd be hard to say much except that some people might blame the MeToo movement, but honestly the KS started losing steam well before the accusations came out (for unrelated reasons), so it really wouldn't have mattered.

[Cluedrew]

I don't remember 2e very well, but in 3e has full fledged rules for almost everything. Not only are there fairly complete rules for things like social combat, crafting, and large-scale engineering (mundane and magical), every skill has a giant list of Charms, ranging from "useful" to "omgwtf." [...] just, like, so many things. These charts have pretty good summaries.

Oh my, my my my.

I kind of want of to track down an Exalted rule-book now. But I also want to pick up a system idea I had a while back for a system that had a similar "you are just that good at it" idea to it as well. I should probably direct at working on the skill system for my current project. I wonder if I can use the flow chart or similar unlocks idea for better... feats in D&D terms. And I just learned there are some lessons to be learned there as well. Anyways, thanks for getting me excited about role-playing games again.

[Tanarii]

But all of that was possible only because my ST agreed to play fast and loose with Humanity rules, and so I managed to retain 5 dots in Humanity instead of degenerating into a crazed monster like the default system would have him become.

Clearly I need to pay more attention to the affect of Exalted 2e's Virtues (and associated limit breaks) on a character, given its the same publisher and seems like it'd potentially have the same underlying purpose, to control and direct player decision making.

Although from what I've read so far, it's a bit of two-edged sword, as is Anima Banner. In that it has positive aspects as well as negative aspects. But if it's possibly designed to be an overall check on character's decision making, it's worth digging into the effects more.

[eternalshades]

Throwing another on the list.

Underground.

one of my favorite environments for a superheroes game and I'm not sure we ever figured out how to play it.

[Quertus]

I lost a much longer reply (my own fault), but I came back for this bit:

I still don't understand how monopoly got so popular. Every time I play it I just get to the conclusion that it isn't fun.

I also remember it as one of those things I did enjoy ages 8-12 and only retroactively decided I ought to have hated.

Think about that age range, and the joy of holding that much money. How could you not see how it would be popular?

It also has lots of cool color-coding (the money, the properties), cool icons to move instead of genetic pieces like most other games, cool house icons, etc.

Heck, compare it with most other child's board games, like hi ho cherry-o, Candy Land, or chutes and ladders, ... or Chess, checkers, and connect 4, and you should see several fundamental differences that are very appropriate to discuss on an RPG board. The game allows for player skill, agency in decision-making, while still being heavily reliant on random rolls. You need skill to win, but can blame bad luck if you lose.

Also, it has a social element of trading properties. So the player is engaged at multiple levels.

Really, how many other board games deliver all this? And, of those, how many are anywhere near monopoly's price point?

[Anonymouswizard]

Think about that age range, and the joy of holding that much money. How could you not see how it would be popular?

It also has lots of cool color-coding (the money, the properties), cool icons to move instead of genetic pieces like most other games, cool house icons, etc.

Heck, compare it with most other child's board games, like hi ho cherry-o, Candy Land, or chutes and ladders, ... or Chess, checkers, and connect 4, and you should see several fundamental differences that are very appropriate to discuss on an RPG board. The game allows for player skill, agency in decision-making, while still being heavily reliant on random rolls. You need skill to win, but can blame bad luck if you lose.

Also, it has a social element of trading properties. So the player is engaged at multiple levels.

Monopoly also has what I'll call the D&D advantage. It's the name in the medium that everybody knows, and even better than with D&D Monopoly has a horde of new variants released every year. There's like eight different versions of Star Wars Monopoly alone. So Monopolhy is successful partially because everybody knows it, and so when they could buy either Monopoly or, say, Exploding Kittens they tend to get Monopoly. Sure, it's more complicated than Snakes and Ladders, but I remember playing that backwards just so it would be more exiting.

Honestly thinking back to the board games I played as a kid, and Monopoly was always in that weird place of never actually getting played. Oh sure, we owned a copy, about three at one point, but by the time my siblings and I hit 10 we'd started playing games like Cluedo more, and eventually moved onto games such as Dominion, Pandemic, and Zombicide. Actually I need to talk to my friends and arrange our next board game and stand up comedy day.

Really, how many other board games deliver all this? And, of those, how many are anywhere near monopoly's price point?

These days? A lot. I'm not going to list, because honestly many board games I play have removed random rolling (even if they keep a form of randomness via shuffled cards). I've even seen games intentionally limit randomness, such as how Pandemic has the five epidemic cards that make it certain that the same cities will keep getting hit.

The price point is a good point though. A normal copy of Monopoly will set you back about £15, a bit more for a licenced version. Pandemic costs £35 for the standard game, £65 for the Legacy version (which I own, one of my friends likes me a lot). King of Tokyo, probably a better board game for children who have grown out of Snakes and Ladders than Monopoly is, will set you back £30. Exploding Kittens and other 'small games' tend to only be around £20, but also tend to look less impressive.

Honestly, I'm not confused as to why kids like it as to why I keep seeing adults playing it when they'd be much happier with something like Power Grid, Ticket to Ride (grrr, I hate that game), Tiny Epic Kingdoms, or Dixit (or any of the large range of board games that have been made). I think this is mainly the fault of stores, anything other than a specialist games store is unlikely to carry anything really serious in the way of board games, although Waterstones now tends to have larger and more quirky ranges than I'd expect from a chain book shop (I think it's been years since I saw a copy of Monopoly in one).

[Knaight]

The price point is a good point though. A normal copy of Monopoly will set you back about £15, a bit more for a licenced version. Pandemic costs £35 for the standard game, £65 for the Legacy version (which I own, one of my friends likes me a lot). King of Tokyo, probably a better board game for children who have grown out of Snakes and Ladders than Monopoly is, will set you back £30. Exploding Kittens and other 'small games' tend to only be around £20, but also tend to look less impressive.

There's plenty of board games that come in at or under Monopoly's price range; it's on the low end but not exceptionally so. Restricting this to games involving money with aspects of luck that look as impressive as monopoly restricts it a bit, but there's still plenty of examples. Take Coup, which will come in around $10, has you dealing with megacredits, and has gorgeous artwork, while also being much more robust as a social game than Monopoly ever will be.

[Willie the Duck]

Honestly thinking back to the board games I played as a kid, and Monopoly was always in that weird place of never actually getting played. Oh sure, we owned a copy, about three at one point, but by the time my siblings and I hit 10 we'd started playing games like Cluedo more, and eventually moved onto games such as Dominion, Pandemic, and Zombicide. Actually I need to talk to my friends and arrange our next board game and stand up comedy day.

I don't know your age, but when I was growing up, the only one of those that existed was Clue/Cluedo. And that's really the era that Monopoly gained prominence in-- the era between when the WWII vets were buying for their boomer kids, and those kids buying/pushing those games on their own kids to get them to do something other than watch Cable TV and play Atari/Nintendo. It is a very 50s-mid-90s game, which still exists as a legacy item (plus branding, as it is so easy to have 'Simpsons Monopoly' or 'Star Wars Monopoly' or the like).

I know we're now in something of a board game renaissance, but there was another sea-change in the mid 90s, when people started fearing that board games (/magazines/modeling/hobby crafts in general/etc.) were going to die because of computers and 300 TV channels, etc. Monopoly definitely comes from the other side of that line.

There's plenty of board games that come in at or under Monopoly's price range; it's on the low end but not exceptionally so. Restricting this to games involving money with aspects of luck that look as impressive as monopoly restricts it a bit, but there's still plenty of examples. Take Coup, which will come in around $10, has you dealing with megacredits, and has gorgeous artwork, while also being much more robust as a social game than Monopoly ever will be.

Yet this is the first I've heard of it. That's how powerful the "D&D effect," as it was put here, is.

[Quertus]

There's plenty of board games that come in at or under Monopoly's price range; it's on the low end but not exceptionally so. Restricting this to games involving money with aspects of luck that look as impressive as monopoly restricts it a bit, but there's still plenty of examples. Take Coup, which will come in around $10, has you dealing with megacredits, and has gorgeous artwork, while also being much more robust as a social game than Monopoly ever will be.

Yeah, no. I looked up images of "coup", and I saw pretty pictures of faces (see the issues of preconstructed characters) and some dull grey circles (that I'm guessing are the game's fake fake money, as opposed to monopoly's bright colorful fake real money).

There was nothing to immerse the child in "*I* have this much money"; it was just "this character has this much fake money". There were no cool house/hotel icons to own, no cool rainbow properties to own. So, rather than the sense of personal wealth and ownership of coolness, you've got "this other person is cool for having the grey".

It's no wonder I've never heard of this game, while Monopoly has, well, a monopoly.

[Knaight]

Yeah, no. I looked up images of "coup", and I saw pretty pictures of faces (see the issues of preconstructed characters) and some dull grey circles (that I'm guessing are the game's fake fake money, as opposed to monopoly's bright colorful fake real money).

There was nothing to immerse the child in "*I* have this much money"; it was just "this character has this much fake money". There were no cool house/hotel icons to own, no cool rainbow properties to own. So, rather than the sense of personal wealth and ownership of coolness, you've got "this other person is cool for having the grey".

It's no wonder I've never heard of this game, while Monopoly has, well, a monopoly.

You haven't heard of it because it had to compete with other boardgames during an era where they were actually good, and Monopoly got in early enough that it was a novelty. Also it's not "this other person is cool for having the money" it's "I have these enormous funds, I have some of these people working for me (you're not playing as them), and I'm going to take over the government."

[Quertus]

You haven't heard of it because it had to compete with other boardgames during an era where they were actually good, and Monopoly got in early enough that it was a novelty. Also it's not "this other person is cool for having the money" it's "I have these enormous funds, I have some of these people working for me (you're not playing as them), and I'm going to take over the government."

OK, the game is better than the impression that it gave. Still, a) it gives that impression, b) lacks the "cool swag" of Monopoly (including, you know, fake real money), and c) now it's the NPCs that are super cool, rather than the cool stuff that the PCs can own.

Just the effort that the GM put into the NPCs vs the dull grey of the loot (to put it in RPG terms) is off-putting. Monopoly has the right kind of GM, catering their effort to what matters to the players.

[Anonymouswizard]

You haven't heard of it because it had to compete with other boardgames during an era where they were actually good, and Monopoly got in early enough that it was a novelty. Also it's not "this other person is cool for having the money" it's "I have these enormous funds, I have some of these people working for me (you're not playing as them), and I'm going to take over the government."

While I haven't played Coup (I have played Resistance, which is I believe a spin off with similar artwork), yeah it's actually a more visually appealing game than Monopoly, as well as a better game.

But as you say, Coup has to compete in a way Monopoly never did. I was very lucky to not only grow up around the time of the board game boom (I think I was a teenager for a decent chunk of it) and to have parents who knew their stuff when it came to board games. I still have my dad's copy of Pirateer, an actually fun 70s board game (it's a race to get the treasure! And stack the ship counters as high as you can, of course) that, while simple, still has more satisfying strategy than Monopoly. But we had a variety of board games in the house, and more kept coming in, so I got to play everything from Bombay Bazaar to Command and Colours at some point in my childhood. It was actually weird which ones kept surviving the clearing out of the games chest, nearly twenty years after it was bought my dad still has and plays Bombay Bazaar (because it's a great game, even if you're four blokes in their late forties or more with pints of beer). Quidler also was absolutely adored as a more fun version of Scrabble, and I was playing Apples to Apples a good decade before I'd heard of Cards Against Humanity.

I think Pitch Car eventually won out as the perfect 'board game' for kids, as long as you made sure it was played somewhere without anything too fragile. Everybody who came round loved flicking their race car around the track, much more than getting a bunch of fake money to play fake landlord, and there was enough skill involved to be fun well into your teens.

Wow, that was a tangent. But yeah, Monopoly didn't have much competition when it first came out, and now everybody knows it, while a lot of better games came out during a period with much fiercer competition. Add that to how a lot of places can have very poor variety in board games, and Monopoly remains not really sure to being good or attractive to kids, but because people know it. While few Gabe's have the variety in tokens meant to represent 'you' there are many out there with great variety in pieces (even if a lot of games use Meeples). I'm currently hoping that the little rocketship pieces from Tiny Epic Galaxies are available for purchase separately, I have plans.

[Florian]

Monopoly? What the eff is Monopoly?

Ok, more seriously. The "Spiel des Jahres" award is basically the Oscars of board games and it has a massive influence around here (meaning D/A/CH countries). Chances are good that any person or family even remotely interested in board games will have at least one of the winning games at home, making games like Carcassone, Settlers of Catan or El Grande widely played and popular. And no, this hasn't got anything to do with BS like having "huge amount of fat cash", but rather good and fun gaming experience.

[2D8HP]

Monopoly? What the eff is Monopoly?....

My grandparents had a 1930's board game called "Big Business" that was a lot like "Monopoly", except the goal was to control industries instead of real estate.

[Anonymouswizard]

Monopoly? What the eff is Monopoly?

Ok, more seriously. The "Spiel des Jahres" award is basically the Oscars of board games and it has a massive influence around here (meaning D/A/CH countries). Chances are good that any person or family even remotely interested in board games will have at least one of the winning games at home, making games like Carcassone, Settlers of Catan or El Grande widely played and popular. And no, this hasn't got anything to do with BS like having "huge amount of fat cash", but rather good and fun gaming experience.

Having extensively played Carcassone (although almost none of the expansions, we use Inns and Cathedrals as simply extra tiles) and a fair amount of Settlers of Catan, I can say any award given to those two at the very least considers a good gameplay experience.

On that note, I'll point out that the main problem to Monopoly is that it drags. Especially as nobody in my family likes anybody else getting monopolies, and used to play with the 'no houses or hotels until you have a monopoly on that colour' rule. The way we play means that we tend to prefer games like Carcassone which have a set turn limit, even if we can identify everybody's playstyle by now. Actually a really appreciate set turn limits right now, even if it's not phrased as such (of course Pandemic has a turn limit, it's just defined by not being able to draw more cards. That there are a very specific number of).

[Friv]

Worth keeping in mind that one of the other reasons that a lot of people play Monopoly is that they already own it. A lot of those "family board games" are literally passed down; my parents had games that their parents had, which hadn't quite worn out yet.

[Tanarii]

A lot of those "family board games" are literally passed down; my parents had games that their parents had, which hadn't quite worn out yet.

I ended up learning to play Diplomacy and Careers for that reason.

Now I try to get younger folks interested in games of Axis and Allies or Civilization, since that's what I still have lying around from my childhood.

[Willie the Duck]

Having extensively played Carcassone (although almost none of the expansions, we use Inns and Cathedrals as simply extra tiles) and a fair amount of Settlers of Catan, I can say any award given to those two at the very least considers a good gameplay experience.

On that note, I'll point out that the main problem to Monopoly is that it drags. Especially as nobody in my family likes anybody else getting monopolies, and used to play with the 'no houses or hotels until you have a monopoly on that colour' rule. The way we play means that we tend to prefer games like Carcassone which have a set turn limit, even if we can identify everybody's playstyle by now. Actually a really appreciate set turn limits right now, even if it's not phrased as such (of course Pandemic has a turn limit, it's just defined by not being able to draw more cards. That there are a very specific number of).

Well, some of the mid-90s board game revival games like Settlers of Catan are interesting in that they too seem to have genuine issues that even-more-modern games are lacking. By all accounts, Settlers of Catan should have much of the same issues as Monopoly -- since early success instigates greater infrastructure for later success, there is a long lag time between the point where those who have taken an early lead have cemented a nearly-insurmountable advantage (except by amazing fall of the dice), and when an actual winner is crowned. Just like Monopoly, you are still playing 20 minutes later even though you know who is going to win (or it's between one of two, if you have two people with a lead). By all accounts, the two games both have this serious 'flaw,' yet they are two of the top selling games in most years they've existed.

[hotflungwok]

Throwing another on the list.

Underground.

one of my favorite environments for a superheroes game and I'm not sure we ever figured out how to play it.

Me and some friends played a lot of Underground in college, and I don't remember ever having a problem figuring out how to play it.

You want a good idea hobbled by a bad rule system try Justifiers.

[Pelle]

Well, some of the mid-90s board game revival games like Settlers of Catan are interesting in that they too seem to have genuine issues that even-more-modern games are lacking. By all accounts, Settlers of Catan should have much of the same issues as Monopoly -- since early success instigates greater infrastructure for later success, there is a long lag time between the point where those who have taken an early lead have cemented a nearly-insurmountable advantage (except by amazing fall of the dice), and when an actual winner is crowned. Just like Monopoly, you are still playing 20 minutes later even though you know who is going to win (or it's between one of two, if you have two people with a lead). By all accounts, the two games both have this serious 'flaw,' yet they are two of the top selling games in most years they've existed.

Yeah. If everyone understands Settlers is a cutthroat diplomacy game where everyone needs to band together to stop the leader, it could be more fun. But since it's usually a gateway game, new players don't get that and are afraid to be confrontational.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, some of the mid-90s board game revival games like Settlers of Catan are interesting in that they too seem to have genuine issues that even-more-modern games are lacking. By all accounts, Settlers of Catan should have much of the same issues as Monopoly -- since early success instigates greater infrastructure for later success, there is a long lag time between the point where those who have taken an early lead have cemented a nearly-insurmountable advantage (except by amazing fall of the dice), and when an actual winner is crowned. Just like Monopoly, you are still playing 20 minutes later even though you know who is going to win (or it's between one of two, if you have two people with a lead). By all accounts, the two games both have this serious 'flaw,' yet they are two of the top selling games in most years they've existed.

Yeah, I think I was lucky with Settlers as 1) it wasn't my entry to the medium and 2) I played it with family. We were all willing to gang up on the leader, so the early game was spent not getting too obvious a lead whole making sure you had access to Clay, Stone, or a Port (as a 2:1 port with two or more settlements bordering that resource covers a multitude of sins).

Then again, with Settlers it takes experience to notice when somebody is pulling ahead. Even I have trouble trelling when the difference between a sight lead and a definitive one early game.

[Particle_Man]

Anyone else remember the mad magazine game where the object was to lose all your money and one of the cards said that it could only be played on Friday?

[Willie the Duck]

Anyone else remember the mad magazine game where the object was to lose all your money and one of the cards said that it could only be played on Friday?

I do. But that is a spoof, at least sort of. It is there to pass the time laughing at the insanity of the game. That I feel is its own bizarre category of endeavors that you don't really judge on the same merits. For example, if the goal of the game is to be unplayable to make some kind of point, how do you rate it? Does it really score a zero (or minus-infinity or the like), or is it more of an orthogonal score (maybe a sqrt(-1), or the like)?

[Malifice]

When it comes to board games, the original Talisman rates highly.

Still remains one of the best board games I've played, and also one of the most grindingly long and borderline broken (Monk, anyone with the Runesword) as well.

[Particle_Man]

I always thought Prophetess is the dangerous "Tier 1" character in Talisman, but maybe they nerfed her in later editions.

It was a favourite of my childhood, but yes it was long (especially if you had a large number of players!).

But somehow, it also felt like an rpg to me. Maybe because you could be turned into a toad.

I even had a friend that wanted us to LARP Talisman for her husband's birthday, so we did!

[Malifice]

I always thought Prophetess is the dangerous "Tier 1" character in Talisman, but maybe they nerfed her in later editions.

It was a favourite of my childhood, but yes it was long (especially if you had a large number of players!).

But somehow, it also felt like an rpg to me. Maybe because you could be turned into a toad.

I even had a friend that wanted us to LARP Talisman for her husband's birthday, so we did!

The Monk (+Craft to Strength), preferably with the Book of Sorcery (Spell recovery as a Wizard) and the Runesword (steal life on a kill) was King. Your only weakness was Psychic combat, so you maxed out Craft as often as you could.

[Florian]

Anyone else remember the mad magazine game where the object was to lose all your money and one of the cards said that it could only be played on Friday?

Jepp, that was a great game. We played the hell out of it at family meeting, until the box fell apart.

@Settlers of Catan:

The nice thing about that game is that it actually rewards skill over luck in the long run. Both, cutthroat diplomacy and the art of bluffing/laying a trap are greatly rewarded. I think that's part of why the game has such lasting power.

@Near RPGs:

As much as I love Talisman, Arkham Horror and such, as a working adult, they're simply taking too long and it´s hard to take a "break" and continue another time.

[Satinavian]

Well, some of the mid-90s board game revival games like Settlers of Catan are interesting in that they too seem to have genuine issues that even-more-modern games are lacking. By all accounts, Settlers of Catan should have much of the same issues as Monopoly -- since early success instigates greater infrastructure for later success, there is a long lag time between the point where those who have taken an early lead have cemented a nearly-insurmountable advantage (except by amazing fall of the dice), and when an actual winner is crowned. Just like Monopoly, you are still playing 20 minutes later even though you know who is going to win (or it's between one of two, if you have two people with a lead). By all accounts, the two games both have this serious 'flaw,' yet they are two of the top selling games in most years they've existed.

Settlers have powerful abilities to attack a leader. You can sick the bandit in him, you can block him from spots he is building to. Settlers also has means to hide how far ahead you actually are. You have all the hidden point cards. And you have cards that let you build a lot of stuff at once, hiding your ambition until you have all resources in place. That is why Catan has an interesting endgame, even when played competitively. Sure, there might be early losers but even those can still play kingmaker.
Monopoly however is utterly boring if played even somewhat competitively. The only way it can ever be fun is if players don't realise the value of properties and you actually have auctions and trade. But that is not what usually happens. You usually never get auctions, people losing sooner accept several hypothecs instead of selling a single street. And after most of the streets are bought the very first time, the board is basically stuck until someone goes bankrupt. Which will take forever if you have a higher number of players, thus no monopolies and no one being able to build houses.

So one game is fun, the other one is utterly horrible.

The last time i had fun with monopoly was when it was forbidden as capitalist propaganda and playing it at all was a subversive activity. The thrill of breaking the rules hid how utterly bad the game actually was.


One of my favorite board games at the moment is Descent. But it is hard to make the time for it to actually play a full campaign. Even if they actually do allow for easy breaks.

[Florian]

One of my favorite board games at the moment is Descent. But it is hard to make the time for it to actually play a full campaign. Even if they actually do allow for easy breaks.

Yeah, the Road to Legend scenarios are quicker to play than the original scenarios, still takes a lot of time.

On a related note, I've got quite a lot of minis from the old Confrontation skirmish game (sooooo gorgeous), the Hybrid board game and the Cadwallon rules. Back in 2015, we had a long-running campaign based on Road to Legend but using those rules, minis and RPG parts to create and advance characters. That was fun.

[Particle_Man]

The Monk (+Craft to Strength), preferably with the Book of Sorcery (Spell recovery as a Wizard) and the Runesword (steal life on a kill) was King. Your only weakness was Psychic combat, so you maxed out Craft as often as you could.

That requires luck to get those particular items though. I mean prophetess can get warhorse and with an alignment change the runesword too.

The prophetess actually got the good stuff and avoided the bad stuff because of her class ability, and already was a living book of spells from turn one. Unless people actively focused on killing her immediately she almost always won.