Comments on "Squabbly games" - Faerye Net

Re: On Building

2003-09-30T16:03:11+00:00

I have that tendency as well. This is why I play Zerg—it is easier to get into a “build build build, click on enemy, build build build” when it is FOR THE SWARM!

Re: On Building

2003-09-30T14:35:53+00:00

I can definitely sympathize. It’s why I suck at RTS games. I don’t want to attack. I just want to build an incredibly fortified, ultra-symmetrical base and squat in it feeling superior.

Re: In-game emotion

2003-09-30T09:01:54+00:00

I really like the fact that there’s a turning point. One of the most interesting aspects of Munchkin is the prisoner’s dilemma aspect. You have to choose the points where the strategy of the game changes from making friends and earning good will to backstabbing. It’s very similar to Catan, really.

At the beginning, you’re almost surely far too weak to win a battle on your own, so you need help. Both sides benefit from a joint victory, level 10 is far off, and thus help is easy to find.

As you grow stronger, by winning treasure and levels, you become more self-sufficient. At some point in the mid-game, you can take on most monsters yourself. It’s not unusual for a late mid-game player to be able to take the biggest monster in the game on his own (unmodified, of course).

At some point, you look up, and people are nearing the 10th level. At around level 6 or 7, competition gets a bit more cutthroat. Whoever you’re helping out might cost you your victory by winning first. In addition, by this point, you probably have the means necessary to interfere with other people’s combats, and so serious jockying for position occurs.

By level 8 or 9, no one will help you and in fact, they will probably do everything in their power to keep you from winning.

Re: In-game emotion

2003-09-30T08:34:45+00:00

I really don’t suggest Trivial Pursuit. Felicity is a trivial force unto herself :)

Re: On Building

2003-09-30T08:11:34+00:00

I have seldom played that game, but I remember it being better at being funny than at being playable.

Building things is my vice, in games. Matt figures I’ve been playing Magic long enough that he shouldn’t have to remind me to attack - so I don’t. I just cast things and smile benevolently at them. Ooh, look at all the gorillas I have! Oooh, look at that pretty card! I arrange them in rows - flyers, walls, et cetera. Then Matt kills me with his stinkin’ fungi.

On Building

2003-09-29T21:56:17+00:00

I very much agree with the idea that games which involve building a power structure that can be collapsed are the worst for engendering pissy competitiveness—I think the worst is probably Illuminati (not the collectible one). You laboriously build up giant, complicated structures of groups over hours, only to have them knocked down by a few leaping ninjas backed by $15M and the mafia. I’ve almost come to blows over that game.

Re: In-game emotion

2003-09-29T15:47:43+00:00

Or Hoopla.

And no, I really don’t want you guys to start thinking I’m fragile about competitiveness in games. I myself am very competitive. I just was intrigued by the different ways games encourage or discourage competitiveness.

Re: In-game emotion

2003-09-29T15:10:41+00:00

Maybe we should play Trivial Pursuit next time. Or Pictionary.

Re: In-game emotion

2003-09-29T14:48:30+00:00

No, I don’t think they did—believe me, at school I saw in-game competitiveness spillin’ over (There’s a folk-tale that one game of Diplomacy at Matt’s fraternity once ended three friendships!), and that ain’t it. However, as I noted, I was being extra conflict-sensitive last night (maybe pigtails are antennae for negative feeling?) so I ended up being all tense after the game. Could also have something to do with my MONDO-RELAXING weekend discussing nostril health with my grandpa and seeing how lonely and depressed he is. Feelings are tricksy like that.

Again, I do think that the more cooperative part of Munchkin at the beginning doesn’t set up the “screw people over” portion of the proceedings at the end very well. There’s a transition somewhere in there, and it can be a little jarring. (Note to players in Munchkin game: Matt and I later decided it was a major tactical error for me to have sicced the Humongous Ancient Intelligent Squidzilla on Candice. I should have sicced it on Matt. My bad.)

As a tangent, it is interesting to note that the divide between in-game animosity and out-of-game friendship can be quite interesting in roleplaying games. Once at school my Kender rogue and another party member got into lots of horrible arguments over right, wrong, and shooting pickpockets - they got really heated, and I think there was some foot-stamping. However, at the end of the day, our OOC interactions were along the lines of, “Wow, thanks for making this session really interesting. That’s the most pissed-off I’ve ever been in-character!” - quite cordial, really.

In-game emotion

2003-09-29T14:26:29+00:00

I didn’t think anyone let the in-game competitiveness carry over after the game last night, but maybe you noticed something I didn’t.

I love competitive games, as long as everyone involved understands that the things people say or do to each other in the context of the game aren’t at all representative of their feelings toward each other in real life.

The thing is, everything that everyone did last night was done with a smile (perhaps a mischevious smile, but a smile nonetheless), and there was no name-calling or insult-throwing (aside from the occasional good-natured “Fuck you!”). Hopefully nobody walked away holding a grudge.