The King of Boardgaming Speaks---Part II

I continue my "King of Boardgaming Speaks" series in an attempt to preserve the Barnsonian wisdom which is the foundation of Ameritrash.

Let's look at The Kings views on dice:

The whole anti-dice bias is just another iteration of the snobbery that accompanies the arrogant, we-don't-like-what-everybody-else-likes-because-what-we-like-is-better attitude hardcore devotees of any hobby tend to exhibit. A lot Eurogamers tend to eschew dice because they believe that winning a zero- or low- luck game demonstrates their obvious intellectual superiority better than one that might have any number of random elements or outcomes. These are usually the same people who will call a game "broken" if they lose or if the have poor die rolls.

Eurogamers tend to want things to go exactly their way, according to plan, and without any interference of surprise, drama, or suspense. They don't want to play games with reflexive, mutable strategies where you have to adapt to situations based on fickle chance.

It has something to do with potty training, I'm sure of it.

Barnes refers to how Eurogamers want things to go their way without surprise and of course he proves his point with the below description of our friend ClearClaw

I think out of all this silly arguing the one thing I've figured out is that Clearclaw is the absolute ANTITHESIS of anything approaching, resembling, or approximating anything described as "Ameritrash". Pretentious, holier-than-thou, obviously smarter than all of us put together, and yes- snooty. I mean come on, the guy plays El Grande without the freakin' castillo so he can see the cubes! What does this guy do at christmas? Frown on the "luck element" associated with opening presents? Demand that all presents under the tree be unwrapped so there's no surprise? Or is one of these "I don't believe in presents" guys?

I'm still trying to figure out why he's apparently incapable of ignoring a forum thread that is decidedly (based on his interests and top-ranked games) of absolutely no interest whatsoever to him beyond trolling- it's rather like me posting repeated invectives on a Ticket To Ride thread. I guess he just feels that he needs to give us all what-for with that big ol' brain of us since we all so stupid...

Playing El Grande without the Castillo is hilarious and takes all of the zing out of the game!

Some interesting concepts in these quotes by Barnes. It seems to me that dice are the great equalizer in a great game. The one force that can allow a new player to defeat an inexperienced player. The intellectuals who master a niche strategy game must be lonely souls for how will they ever find a worthy opponent?

You know Steve, you post these and I realize that I pretty much said everything that ever needed to be said a long time ago...

Last night I was at Target...I was looking at their signage and over the toys and games section was a gigantic photo of a die. Thinking about it, there's a couple of things that culturally signify "game". Cards are one, generic pawns are one, and dice are one. The anti-dice thing strikes me, therefore, as being very anti-game. You can almost see the Eurogamer talking to the newbie "Oh no, this isn't one of those games with dice" with a smug, self-satisfied grin.

Not every game needs dice, not every game should have dice, but a chance element is one of the key things that have attract people to games forever. Apart from abstract placement/movement games, randomness is a key element. Chance is fun, exciting, dramatic. It's why gambling games have been popular ever since mankind figured out how to do it.

I'd like to round up everybody who's ever said that dice are somehow "disingenuous" or have tried to counter-argue the dice thing by saying that there's nothing clever, sophisticated, interesting, or novel about die roll-based resolution and kick them in the balls (since they'd probably all be men). You've seen these guys online "Harumph, I'd like to see a wargame use a more novel means to resolve combat than (shudder) dice". Fuck those people. They hate games. They like the self-aggrandizement that comes from seeing their poo-poo flushed down the toilet when the corn strategy pays off once again and throwing up the "I'm so sophisticated" peacock feathers by attempting to slough off what the "sheeples" identify as a game object.

They like the self-aggrandizement that comes from seeing their poo-poo flushed down the toilet when the corn strategy pays off once again and throwing up the "I'm so sophisticated" peacock feathers by attempting to slough off what the "sheeples" identify as a game object.

A classic!!! LMAO!!!!!!

All it'll take to bring dice into fashion with the Eurosnoots is for someone to invent a dice-sleeve.

Dice are kind of in fashion with the Eurosnoots...KINGSBURG, TO COURT THE KING, YSPAHAN...they like these shitty little games where you roll a handful of dice and then spend five minutes figuring out how to best use the roll. So one round with four players is 20 minutes of staring at dice and analyzing the maximum benefit.

I was actually in Target to pick up YAHTZEE FREE-FOR-ALL, ironically enough.

Speaking of dice, I picked up Monopoly Express on clearance for $5 and some change at Target, apparently they just got these Express games and they're already putting them on clearance (works for me.)

I can't get my two boys to stop playing it. It's addictive. Push your luck all the way, trying to collect sets of "property". Last night we played a full game to $15,000 and it was great. Just tossing a fistful of dice into the little bucket, plucking out the big money matches, and groaning when you finally hit three cops who took all your money away, filthy bastards.


When people think of games--normal, average people--they think of tossing dice. That's just how it is. But because it's 'common', it MUST BE FROWNED UPON. Look at Ticket to Ride--that thing was hoisted on the shoulders of the entire BGG populace. Then it sold a butt-billion copies and now you can't see the game mentioned without a Euro-fan slagging on it (Random! Rummy! Not a Train Game(tm)!)

Played Kingsburg a couple of times: it's okay. (Although, six months on, and I'm still undecided if it's worth buying.)
The other two didn't appeal.

There's nothing like the feeling of surging ahead after being behind because you took a big gamble to get a big reward. Its exciting.

A frequent contributor to F:AT recently wrote an article for another site and the following comments from a member of that other site really stood out in my mind.

"I KNOW there's randomness in real life combat, but these aren't simulations I'm talking about, so utilize the things that make the game play better and maybe give the players a little more control."

"Kingmaking isn't necessarily the kiss of death when it appears, but I'd still say it's always a bug and never a feature. If I win, I want it to be because I played better than the other folks, not because Fred over there flipped a mental coin and decided to let me prevail over the second place player."

This opened my eyes a bit. Some people play games to be in "control" and set up a kind of pecking order of who's best. For me i like some randomness in a game not just to simulate "real life" conditions of war, but to add excitement and that element of uncertainty and also to give the underdog a chance to win. I hate those games where a mistake or two in the beginning mean you're going to lose and there's nothing you can do about it the rest of the game. A little randomness might at least give you a chance to win. And kingmaking gives you something to focus on during the game and at the end enjoy a little of the limelight of victory. Perhaps these aren't the best ways to enjoy a game, but being behind and having no chance of winning because the outcome is determined by initial conditions isn't thrilling either.