Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » Re: Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop
Re: Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #251959] Mi, 12 April 2006 00:04
Eelco Giele  
PolloDiablo <pollo_diablo [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Many thanks to Leo who tried to explain me. Still, I feel that I must have a
go at it as well. The thing is, I get the impression that PolloDiablo got
the impression that I don't like computer games. Which is totally wong. I
really like computer games. I just don't think they mix well with a meet.

>> > I fail to see the logic in that. Why would computer games not
>> > be mentally challenging? Why would people playing them not be
>> > able to be engaged in a conversation simultaneously?
>
>> I can't speak for Eelco nor read your mind, but I suspect you're
>> reading a dismissal of computer games (and players thereof) into
>> his words that was not intended.
>
> No, I just don't see the logic in the conclusion he draws. He wants the
> games played to be mentally challenging, therefore no computer games.
> Huh?

Well, in my experience (which spans 20+ years of computer gaming), most
computer games which are mentally challenging are derivatives of board
games. Maybe with the exception of adventure games which don't really fit in
a gamesmeet setting either.

> He wants players to be able to engage in simultaneous
> conversation, therefore no computer games. Again, huh?

Again in my experience, what a computer mainly adds to games is a time
aspect (except for the board game derivatives where the computer adds an
opponent). Games which have a strong time component in it don't go well with
conversation. At least: I am not able to have a decent conversation while
concentrating on something which needs my reaction _now_.

>> *Of course* people can play computer games and still be sociable,
>> just as there are undoubtedly Monopoly sessions that become so
>> intense and competitive that nobody speaks at all and everyone
>> just glares at each other for hours as the dice-throwing gets
>> increasingly more tightlipped. Eelco knows this.
>
>> But on the other hand, there is also a reason why board and card
>> games are called "gezelschapsspellen" in Dutch: *in general* the
>> playing of these games tends to emphasise social aspects over the
>> competitive aspects; and *in general* the gameplay involved is
>> more based on strategy (hence the "mentally challenging"), verbal
>> skills, or plain luck, than on being able to physically
>> manipulate buttons or joysticks or avatars. For the gamesmeets he
>> organises Eelco just chooses to focus on the (still really broad)
>> non-computer category of games, and I think that's a quite
>> reasonable decision.
>
> Yes. But I wasn't going to suggest a marathon session of Quake
> 12/Unreal 2007/Call of Duty 3 or whatever number is the most recent.

Battlefield 2 with reality mod. And I wouldn't mind someone organising a lan
party specially for that :-) Not at the gamesmeet though.

> There's "party-games" on consoles too, that require strategy and luck
> to win instead of physical skills.

I don't like games which depend on luck :-) Which makes me unsuited for a
whole lot of board games as well. But there are also loads of games which
depend on strategy, or even other capabilities.

> These, in my opinion, would fit the
> bill perfectly. I fail to see the difference between groups of people
> playing Katan or Carcasonne on a table and a group of people playing
> games like Mario Kart, Bomberman or Polarium on the DS.

Sorry, and no offense meant, but really, you can hardly call Mario Kart or
Bomberman mentally challenging games. If you think boardgames are still
stuck at that level, you definitely need to come to the gamesmeet and be
enlightened :-) Yes, I really dislike what passed for boardgames 20 years
ago. Current games however offer so much more in terms of strategy and are
far less depending on luck. There are even simple games which are very low
on luck (Cartagena with Tortuga rules) but don't take ages to play or learn
the rules of.

>> > If this it the general opinion of the meet-goers, then I guess
>> > I wouldn't fit in anyway.
>
>> Please don't be like that. Eelco *said* he didn't mind you asking
>> the question about introducing computer games to the gamesmeet,
>> but surely if he doesn't mind the question, it is equally fair
>> that he should also then be allowed to give a negative answer if
>> that is how he really feels about it? He has taken the initiative
>> for the meet, and it is therefore squarely his call.
>
> Ofcourse it's his call, but the point is that I don't understand his
> reason for dismissing them because from my point of view there isn't
> that much difference and I think they (computer games) fit the rules he
> set. The way he stated "the rules are these - therefore no computer
> games" implies he does not agree that computer games could be mentally
> challenging and fun to play together while talking and eating etc.

I think we will have to agree that we disagree here.

> That's why I think our opinions would differ so much that I wouldn't
> fit in.

But this is a weird conclusion. Why wouldn't you fit in, just because our
opinions differ? If you really dislike boardgames then sure, the gamesmeet
probably isn't the place for you. But not fitting in just because we might
have a differing opinion on what games are suited is bit of a big leap.

>> Only if you really, truly, completely don't care at all for any
>> game that doesn't involve a computer would I advice you to stay
>> away. But that's because it wouldn't be your thing. The general
>> opinion of the meet-goers with respect to people who like other
>> types of games really does not need to enter into this at all.
>
> As it would be my first meet ever, and indeed I do not like boardgames
> all that much (at least, I haven't played one I really liked in at
> least 20 years - I'm not saying there aren't games I wouldn't enjoy, I
> just don't know them and prefer computer games)

You just know that this is the point where I am going to say: This is your
great chance to encounter new games which you might like. No guarantees of
course, but there just might be something you actually would like.

>, I think I'll skip and wait for another meet.

Your call to make. In that case I hope to see you at another meet.

Regards, Eelco
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #252120 ] Mi, 12 April 2006 16:35
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Eelco Giele wrote:

> enlightened :-) Yes, I really dislike what passed for boardgames 20 years
> ago. Current games however offer so much more in terms of strategy and are
> far less depending on luck.

I want to challenge this statement and suggest that twenty years ago
there were bad boardgames and good boardgames, boardgames based on
skill and others based on luck, whereas now, there are bad boardgames
and good boardgames, boardgames based on skill and others based on
luck.

In other words, I doubt that the nature of boardgames has really
changed. Maybe the pieces have become more expensive.

Adrian.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #252202 ] Mi, 12 April 2006 23:18
Eelco Giele  
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Eelco Giele wrote:
>
>> enlightened :-) Yes, I really dislike what passed for boardgames 20 years
>> ago. Current games however offer so much more in terms of strategy and are
>> far less depending on luck.
>
> I want to challenge this statement and suggest that twenty years ago
> there were bad boardgames and good boardgames, boardgames based on
> skill and others based on luck, whereas now, there are bad boardgames
> and good boardgames, boardgames based on skill and others based on
> luck.
>

I accept your challenge. You are of course right if you say that there have
always been games which were based on strategy. Some of the oldest board
games immediatly come to mind; "Chess" and "Go" for example. And bad games
are also still being made, so we agree there as well.

However, about 10 years ago a few new game designers [1] started creating new
games and at the same time social game play picked up again. This caused
both effects to reinforce each other: Interest picked up, there were new
(and interesting) games to play, which caused more people to become
interested in games again which in turn meant game companies started
spending more money on development of new games, etc.

This spiral has slowed again but the increased interest is still there [2]
and new games are still being developed.

Ok, so I claim there are more games, but are they also better?
Yes and no. No, because there have been interesting for far longer those 15
years back. Yes because:
a: Those games were often obscure and hard to come by. You needed someone
who knew about them, and hope you could actually get it somewhere.[3]
b: Because of the change in target group and the increased number of games,
it became important to make a clear distinction between the games: How many
players? Tactics, strategy or luck? Short game or something to occupy the
entire evening? The whole range has been increased and been filled out.

> In other words, I doubt that the nature of boardgames has really
> changed. Maybe the pieces have become more expensive.

And I really have to disagree with that last statement. Yes, some games are
fairly expensive, but prices are often lower then the games which started
appearing 15 years ago, when game companies switched to "no original ideas
but we will just use more plastic".

So, although good games did exist, the absolute numbers have dramatically
increased, as has the range which they occupy. Therefore, more good games
exist then there did before, over a wider range and with a lot of genuine
new ideas thrown in.

Regards, Eelco

[1] Reiner Knizia and Klaus Teuber immediatly coe to mind.
[2] Which is also easily visible in the interest game fairs attract again
nowadays.
[3] Funny detail: The game "Nuclear annihilation" was fairly old, wasn't
made any more, but is now back in production because of the increased
interest in games in general.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #252611 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 12:01
David Chapman  
From the Collected Witterings of Eelco Giele, volume 23:

> Ok, so I claim there are more games, but are they also better?

It's at this point that I direct all interested parties to
www.boardgamegeek.com, and command Eelco to try Caylus.

--
If life gives you lemmings, jump off a cliff.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #252723 ] Sa, 15 April 2006 00:09
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Eelco Giele wrote:

> I accept your challenge. You are of course right if you say that there have
> always been games which were based on strategy. Some of the oldest board
> games immediatly come to mind; "Chess" and "Go" for example. And bad games
> are also still being made, so we agree there as well.
>
> However, about 10 years ago a few new game designers [1] started creating new
> games and at the same time social game play picked up again. This caused
> both effects to reinforce each other: Interest picked up, there were new
> (and interesting) games to play, which caused more people to become
> interested in games again which in turn meant game companies started
> spending more money on development of new games, etc.

One of the most popular games in my family is the sequel to Cluedo,
don't know if you know it, The Great Museum Caper, where one player is
a thief stealing paintings from an art museum and the other players
are trying to catch the thief. Depending on the roll of the dice, the
non-thief players can ask certain questions about cameras and motion
detectors and so on which can help to narrow down the current location
of the thief. The thief either loses by being landed on, or wins by
escaping out a window that isn't locked. The position of the paintings,
cameras, and locked vs unlocked windows is determined by the players
while the thief is out of the room.

Personally, I love Balderdash (played for laughs, with really bad
puns), which isn't really a boardgame, more of a game that comes in a
box with a totally superfluous board.

Adrian.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258084 ] Mo, 17 April 2006 23:34
Eelco Giele  
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
<snip>

> One of the most popular games in my family is the sequel to Cluedo,
> don't know if you know it, The Great Museum Caper, where one player is
> a thief stealing paintings from an art museum and the other players
> are trying to catch the thief. Depending on the roll of the dice, the
> non-thief players can ask certain questions about cameras and motion
> detectors and so on which can help to narrow down the current location
> of the thief. The thief either loses by being landed on, or wins by
> escaping out a window that isn't locked. The position of the paintings,
> cameras, and locked vs unlocked windows is determined by the players
> while the thief is out of the room.

It sounds a bit like Scotland Yard, where one person is racing through londen
via the various methods of transport while the other players try to catch
him. No idea about the exact resemblance.

> Personally, I love Balderdash (played for laughs, with really bad
> puns), which isn't really a boardgame, more of a game that comes in a
> box with a totally superfluous board.

I don't think I have ever heard of Balderdash.

Regards, Eelco
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258097 ] Mo, 17 April 2006 23:53
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
Also Sprach 8'FED:

> One of the most popular games in my family is the sequel to
> Cluedo, don't know if you know it, The Great Museum Caper,
> where one player is a thief stealing paintings from an art
> museum and the other players are trying to catch the thief.
> Depending on the roll of the dice, the non-thief players
> can ask certain questions about cameras and motion
> detectors and so on which can help to narrow down the
> current location of the thief. The thief either loses by
> being landed on, or wins by escaping out a window that
> isn't locked. The position of the paintings, cameras, and
> locked vs unlocked windows is determined by the players
> while the thief is out of the room.

Sounds fun. A popular game with Edinburgh Uni Skiffeysoc, at
least when I was there, was Kill Dr Lucky, an unofficial
"prequel" to Cluedo. Dr Lucky is a sort of non-player
character, who wanders around his mansion totally unaware that
all the players are trying to kill him. Weapons can only be
used in certain rooms, other players can counteract with
failure cards, and you can't kill him if another player's
counter is in line-of-sight (or they'll grass you to the
rozzers). Great fun.

(Apparently there was later a prequel to the prequel; "Save Dr
Lucky" in which the objective is to rescue Dr L from the
Titanic, making sure someone sees you do it. I've not tried
that one.)

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"[Wolverine]'s in every book. I think he just joined
the JLA, and for some reason he's in the revised
Penguin edition of Little Dorrit." -Joss Whedon
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258341 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 05:14
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Eelco Giele wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:

>> One of the most popular games in my family is the sequel to Cluedo,
>> don't know if you know it, The Great Museum Caper, where one player is
>> a thief stealing paintings from an art museum and the other players
>> are trying to catch the thief. Depending on the roll of the dice, the
>> non-thief players can ask certain questions about cameras and motion
>> detectors and so on which can help to narrow down the current location
>> of the thief. The thief either loses by being landed on, or wins by
>> escaping out a window that isn't locked. The position of the paintings,
>> cameras, and locked vs unlocked windows is determined by the players
>> while the thief is out of the room.
>
> It sounds a bit like Scotland Yard, where one person is racing through londen
> via the various methods of transport while the other players try to catch
> him. No idea about the exact resemblance.

Well, there are not many modes of transport available inside an art
museum, so there are likely to be some differences. :-)

>> Personally, I love Balderdash (played for laughs, with really bad
>> puns), which isn't really a boardgame, more of a game that comes in a
>> box with a totally superfluous board.
>
> I don't think I have ever heard of Balderdash.

You may know it by some other name. It's the game where everyone has
to invent a meaning for a selected word (except the person who
selected it, who copies down the correct meaning instead) and then the
meanings are shuffled and read aloud, and players vote on which one is
correct. Or, if they're _my_ sort of players, they're more likely to
vote on which meaning is the most amusing.

Adrian.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258346 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 06:12
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> Also Sprach 8'FED:
>
>> One of the most popular games in my family is the sequel to
>> Cluedo, don't know if you know it, The Great Museum Caper,
>> where one player is a thief stealing paintings from an art
>> museum and the other players are trying to catch the thief.
>> Depending on the roll of the dice, the non-thief players
>> can ask certain questions about cameras and motion
>> detectors and so on which can help to narrow down the
>> current location of the thief. The thief either loses by
>> being landed on, or wins by escaping out a window that
>> isn't locked. The position of the paintings, cameras, and
>> locked vs unlocked windows is determined by the players
>> while the thief is out of the room.
>
> Sounds fun. A popular game with Edinburgh Uni Skiffeysoc, at
> least when I was there, was Kill Dr Lucky, an unofficial
> "prequel" to Cluedo. Dr Lucky is a sort of non-player
> character, who wanders around his mansion totally unaware that
> all the players are trying to kill him. Weapons can only be
> used in certain rooms, other players can counteract with
> failure cards, and you can't kill him if another player's
> counter is in line-of-sight (or they'll grass you to the
> rozzers). Great fun.
>
> (Apparently there was later a prequel to the prequel; "Save Dr
> Lucky" in which the objective is to rescue Dr L from the
> Titanic, making sure someone sees you do it. I've not tried
> that one.)

The contrast between Cluedo and the sequel is quite astonishing - you
usually expect sequels to have something in common stylistically with
the original, but it doesn't. The plot is linked (the same characters
appear and they're both about crime) but the gameplay could hardly be
more different. There are no cards - your actions (if you're not the
thief) depend upon the roll of the dice. You roll two dice per turn,
one of which tells you how many spaces you can move inside the museum,
and the other what questions you can ask the thief. One of the six
sides of this second dice gives you permission to ask what room the
thief is in (specified by the colour of the floor), another gives you
permission to ask which (if any) of the security cameras have been
disabled and which (if any) have line of sight to the thief, and the
other four give you permission to select a specific camera and ask if
it has line of sight to the thief, or, if you prefer, to ask whether
*you* have line of sight to the thief. Once a player establishes line
of sight to the thief, the thief becomes visible for the rest of the
game.

There are various subtleties, such as a power room from which all the
electric security measures can be turned off or on in one go.

Adrian.
Re: Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258348 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 07:00
Mindi  
8'FED wrote:
> Eelco Giele wrote:
>
> > I accept your challenge. You are of course right if you say that there have
> > always been games which were based on strategy. Some of the oldest board
> > games immediatly come to mind; "Chess" and "Go" for example. And bad games
> > are also still being made, so we agree there as well.
> >
> > However, about 10 years ago a few new game designers [1] started creating new
> > games and at the same time social game play picked up again. This caused
> > both effects to reinforce each other: Interest picked up, there were new
> > (and interesting) games to play, which caused more people to become
> > interested in games again which in turn meant game companies started
> > spending more money on development of new games, etc.
>
> One of the most popular games in my family is the sequel to Cluedo,
> don't know if you know it, The Great Museum Caper, where one player is
> a thief stealing paintings from an art museum and the other players
> are trying to catch the thief. Depending on the roll of the dice, the
> non-thief players can ask certain questions about cameras and motion
> detectors and so on which can help to narrow down the current location
> of the thief. The thief either loses by being landed on, or wins by
> escaping out a window that isn't locked. The position of the paintings,
> cameras, and locked vs unlocked windows is determined by the players
> while the thief is out of the room.
>
> Personally, I love Balderdash (played for laughs, with really bad
> puns), which isn't really a boardgame, more of a game that comes in a
> box with a totally superfluous board.
>
> Adrian.

I LOVE Balderdash! It's the best game in the world for people who love
to tell tall stories because just this once some one might believe you.
My favorite strategy is when your the first person to pick the
"correct" story you pick your own and back it up with a dodgy bit of
evidence and see how many people will then follow your lead. Won me
hepps of games until my 14 year old brother inlaw figured out what i
was doing. Damn sneaky teenagers!

Also good is when someone tries to write brazillian (refering to
waxing) and then the story reader reads it as barbarian due to very
poor hand writing. That round took half an hour because no one could
talk from all the laughter.

Remember when we were trying to figure out what LANCRE, KLATCH and
SWALK could stand for from GP, it was like we had an online round of
Balderdash happening.

Mindi

Mindi

Mindi
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258371 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 13:24
Arthur Hagen  
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>
> The contrast between Cluedo and the sequel is quite astonishing - you
> usually expect sequels to have something in common stylistically with
> the original, but it doesn't. The plot is linked (the same characters
> appear and they're both about crime) but the gameplay could hardly be
> more different. There are no cards - your actions (if you're not the
> thief) depend upon the roll of the dice.

Thief? When was there ever a thief in the game?

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258372 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 13:37
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
Also Sprach Arthur Hagen:

> 8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> The contrast between Cluedo and the sequel is quite
>> astonishing - you usually expect sequels to have something
>> in common stylistically with the original, but it doesn't.
>> The plot is linked (the same characters appear and they're
>> both about crime) but the gameplay could hardly be more
>> different. There are no cards - your actions (if you're
>> not the thief) depend upon the roll of the dice.
>
> Thief? When was there ever a thief in the game?

That would be the bit where he specifically describes the game
as completely different from Cluedo...

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"[Wolverine]'s in every book. I think he just joined
the JLA, and for some reason he's in the revised
Penguin edition of Little Dorrit." -Joss Whedon
Re: Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258373 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 14:44
DM Unseen  
It is known under a lot of names, I know it under the dutch names of
"Encyclopedie-" of "Woordenboekspel".
The only thing you actually need is some paper and pencils and a
dictionary.

DM Unseen

PS are BIG boardgames (big in length *and* volume) allowed/appreciated?
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258378 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 16:29
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Mindi wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:

>> Personally, I love Balderdash (played for laughs, with really bad
>> puns), which isn't really a boardgame, more of a game that comes in a
>> box with a totally superfluous board.
>
> I LOVE Balderdash! It's the best game in the world for people who love
> to tell tall stories because just this once some one might believe you.
> My favorite strategy is when your the first person to pick the
> "correct" story you pick your own and back it up with a dodgy bit of
> evidence and see how many people will then follow your lead. Won me
> hepps of games until my 14 year old brother inlaw figured out what i
> was doing. Damn sneaky teenagers!

My strategy is to invent a meaning that is obviously wrong, but such a
terrible pun that people can't resist voting for it anyway. I find
people like to vote for definitions that make them laugh. The one I
remember best was a word "flitterbick" or something like that (I can't
remember the genuine meaning). My definition was, "A biscuit that is
unaccountably absent from the jar" and it got a lot of votes.

Over Easter, we didn't play Balderdash or any board games, because we
played card games instead - which is also good. Played a few rounds of
Warlords and Scumbags on Saturday night, and on Monday evening we
tried out a game that I'd read about on the Internet and was curious
about how it would play.

> Mindi
>
> Mindi
>
> Mindi

We get three of you? Excellent!

Adrian.
Re: Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258384 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 17:24
Mindi  
8'FED wrote:
> Mindi wrote:
> > 8'FED wrote:
>
> >> Personally, I love Balderdash (played for laughs, with really bad
> >> puns), which isn't really a boardgame, more of a game that comes in a
> >> box with a totally superfluous board.
> >
> > I LOVE Balderdash! It's the best game in the world for people who love
> > to tell tall stories because just this once some one might believe you.
> > My favorite strategy is when your the first person to pick the
> > "correct" story you pick your own and back it up with a dodgy bit of
> > evidence and see how many people will then follow your lead. Won me
> > hepps of games until my 14 year old brother inlaw figured out what i
> > was doing. Damn sneaky teenagers!
>
> My strategy is to invent a meaning that is obviously wrong, but such a
> terrible pun that people can't resist voting for it anyway. I find
> people like to vote for definitions that make them laugh. The one I
> remember best was a word "flitterbick" or something like that (I can't
> remember the genuine meaning). My definition was, "A biscuit that is
> unaccountably absent from the jar" and it got a lot of votes.

Sounds like my son was in your biscuit jar.
>
> Over Easter, we didn't play Balderdash or any board games, because we
> played card games instead - which is also good. Played a few rounds of
> Warlords and Scumbags on Saturday night, and on Monday evening we
> tried out a game that I'd read about on the Internet and was curious
> about how it would play.
>

Warlords and Scumbags is our fav card game too. We have other names
for special situations. If you go from Warlord to scumbag in one round
your called a Suddam and if you go from scumbag to Warlord in one game
your a Bush. The engineers at our local Ergon office play it at
lunchtime and acording to my friend they make up rules like three
consectutive pairs can beat a two or they play with runs as well as
suits. Gets very technical, but we are talking about engineers here.
> > Mindi
> >
> > Mindi
> >
> > Mindi
>
> We get three of you? Excellent!
>
Had to get up and separate three year old from kissing one month old
who was trying to sleep, three times. Got distracted and wrote my name
three times then posted without checking, silly me :-)
> Adrian.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258392 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 18:06
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Mindi wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:

>> Over Easter, we didn't play Balderdash or any board games, because we
>> played card games instead - which is also good. Played a few rounds of
>> Warlords and Scumbags on Saturday night, and on Monday evening we
>> tried out a game that I'd read about on the Internet and was curious
>> about how it would play.
>
> Warlords and Scumbags is our fav card game too.

It's the best game for when you've got lots of people. Most card games
work best with about four to six people, whereas you really need at
least eight players for a good game of Warlords and Scumbags. It's more
of a party game than a family game.

Apparently, the game is called President in the USA and Arsehole in
Britain. Australians can thank Paul Keating that we know it by a
better and more imaginative title.

The other game we played on the weekend was Japanese Napoleon
http://www.pagat.com/picture/napoleon.html because I was curious to
give it a go. The consensus was that it was interesting and weird, but
I didn't feel there were any "We might play this again another day"
vibes.

Half of the information on http://www.pagat.com/national/australia.html
is there because I contributed it (and there are small bits and pieces
I contributed to other pages). I've also contributed other stuff which
I'm told will be added in a future major update.

> We have other names
> for special situations. If you go from Warlord to scumbag in one round
> your called a Suddam and if you go from scumbag to Warlord in one game
> your a Bush.

That would be "Scumbags and More Scumbags", surely.

Our ranks are as follows. If there's an odd number of players, the
person in the middle (who doesn't swap any cards) is called the Eunuch.

! Chief Warlord -- gives any two cards to lowest scumbag
! Second Warlord -- gives any card to second-lowest scumbag
! Third Warlord -- gives any card to third-lowest scumbag
! Fourth Warlord -- gives any card to fourth-lowest scumbag
! [...]
! Eunuch -- not involved in any card swapping
! [...]
! Fourth-lowest Scumbag -- gives best card to fourth warlord
! Third-lowest Scumbag -- gives best card to third warlord
! Second-lowest Scumbag -- gives best card to second warlord
! Lowest Scumbag -- gives two best cards to chief warlord

>> We get three of you? Excellent!
>
> Had to get up and separate three year old from kissing one month old
> who was trying to sleep, three times. Got distracted and wrote my name
> three times then posted without checking, silly me :-)

So we don't get three of you. Pity.

Adrian.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258474 ] Do, 20 April 2006 00:37
Eelco Giele  
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Mindi wrote:

>> Warlords and Scumbags is our fav card game too.
>
> It's the best game for when you've got lots of people. Most card games
> work best with about four to six people, whereas you really need at
> least eight players for a good game of Warlords and Scumbags. It's more
> of a party game than a family game.
>
> Apparently, the game is called President in the USA and Arsehole in
> Britain.

Color-colour, center-centre, gray-grey.

Regards, Eelco
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258945 ] Sa, 22 April 2006 17:36
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Eelco Giele wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:

[the card game which in Australia is called "Warlords and Scumbags"]

>> Apparently, the game is called President in the USA and Arsehole in
>> Britain.
>
> Color-colour, center-centre, gray-grey.

I note that the Dutch version is called Sluitspieren or Klootzakken.

One meaning of "kloot" appears to be the earth itself, and "zakken"
appears to mean fail, go bad, break down, etc. So it could perhaps be
argued that Klootzakken = "bugger up the world". Which is obviously
yet another synonym for "President". [1]

http://lookwayup.com/free/DutchEnglishDictionary.htm doesn't help me
for "Sluitspieren".

Adrian.

[1] I don't suspect it really _could_ mean that, though.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258948 ] Sa, 22 April 2006 17:52
Peter Ellis  
8'FED wrote:
> Eelco Giele wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>
> [the card game which in Australia is called "Warlords and Scumbags"]
>
>>> Apparently, the game is called President in the USA and Arsehole in
>>> Britain.
>>
>> Color-colour, center-centre, gray-grey.
>
> I note that the Dutch version is called Sluitspieren or Klootzakken.
>
> One meaning of "kloot" appears to be the earth itself, and "zakken"
> appears to mean fail, go bad, break down, etc.

Ball - sack. = scrotum.

Peter
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #258953 ] Sa, 22 April 2006 18:06
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Peter Ellis wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:

>> I note that the Dutch version is called Sluitspieren or Klootzakken.
>>
>> One meaning of "kloot" appears to be the earth itself, and "zakken"
>> appears to mean fail, go bad, break down, etc.
>
> Ball - sack. = scrotum.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I was using humour.

Adrian.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #259122 ] So, 23 April 2006 20:52
raltbos  
"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:

> Eelco Giele wrote:
> > 8'FED wrote:
>
> [the card game which in Australia is called "Warlords and Scumbags"]
>
> >> Apparently, the game is called President in the USA and Arsehole in
> >> Britain.
> >
> > Color-colour, center-centre, gray-grey.
>
> I note that the Dutch version is called Sluitspieren or Klootzakken.

Never even heard of it.

> One meaning of "kloot" appears to be the earth itself, and "zakken"
> appears to mean fail, go bad, break down, etc. So it could perhaps be
> argued that Klootzakken = "bugger up the world".

About as much as "Scumbags" could be argued to mean "claims a place on
top of the sea".

> Which is obviously yet another synonym for "President". [1]

Well, "klootzak" certainly is.

> http://lookwayup.com/free/DutchEnglishDictionary.htm doesn't help me
> for "Sluitspieren".

Lit. "closing muscles", i.e., sphincters; with all the connotations
thereof, in particularly anal ones.

Richard
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #259235 ] Mo, 24 April 2006 03:27
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Richard Bos wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:

>> [the card game which in Australia is called "Warlords and Scumbags"]
[...]
>> I note that the Dutch version is called Sluitspieren or Klootzakken.
>
> Never even heard of it.

http://www.pagat.com/national/netherlands.html - that's all I know.

>> One meaning of "kloot" appears to be the earth itself, and "zakken"
>> appears to mean fail, go bad, break down, etc. So it could perhaps be
>> argued that Klootzakken = "bugger up the world".
>
> About as much as "Scumbags" could be argued to mean "claims a place on
> top of the sea".

In other words, exactly as I suspected. I like your parse of Scumbags,
it's my sort of humour.

>> Which is obviously yet another synonym for "President". [1]
>
> Well, "klootzak" certainly is.
>
>> http://lookwayup.com/free/DutchEnglishDictionary.htm doesn't help me
>> for "Sluitspieren".
>
> Lit. "closing muscles", i.e., sphincters; with all the connotations
> thereof, in particularly anal ones.

Ah...

Adrian.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #259376 ] Mo, 24 April 2006 17:35
Graycat  
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:36:18 +0930, "8'FED"
<dragon [at] netyp.com.au> jotted down:

>Mindi wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>
>>> Over Easter, we didn't play Balderdash or any board games, because we
>>> played card games instead - which is also good. Played a few rounds of
>>> Warlords and Scumbags on Saturday night, and on Monday evening we
>>> tried out a game that I'd read about on the Internet and was curious
>>> about how it would play.
>>
>> Warlords and Scumbags is our fav card game too.
>
>It's the best game for when you've got lots of people. Most card games
>work best with about four to six people, whereas you really need at
>least eight players for a good game of Warlords and Scumbags. It's more
>of a party game than a family game.
>
>Apparently, the game is called President in the USA and Arsehole in
>Britain. Australians can thank Paul Keating that we know it by a
>better and more imaginative title.
>

I think from the description I snipped that this is what in
sweden has the utterly PC name of Neger (negro/nigger) &
President...

--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #259564 ] Di, 25 April 2006 11:43
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Graycat wrote:
> 8'FED jotted down:

>>It's the best game for when you've got lots of people. Most card games
>>work best with about four to six people, whereas you really need at
>>least eight players for a good game of Warlords and Scumbags. It's more
>>of a party game than a family game.
>>
>>Apparently, the game is called President in the USA and Arsehole in
>>Britain. Australians can thank Paul Keating that we know it by a
>>better and more imaginative title.
>
> I think from the description I snipped that this is what in
> sweden has the utterly PC name of Neger (negro/nigger) &
> President...

That's not mentioned on http://www.pagat.com/climbing/asshole.html
nor on http://www.pagat.com/national/sweden.html ...

.... but to be honest, I can well understand why you might not be
inclined to submit it - it may not be the image of your country that
you want to advertise abroad. :-)

Adrian.
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #259693 ] Di, 25 April 2006 17:43
Graycat  
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:13:17 +0930, "8'FED"
<dragon [at] netyp.com.au> jotted down:



>nor on http://www.pagat.com/national/sweden.html ...
>
>... but to be honest, I can well understand why you might not be
>inclined to submit it - it may not be the image of your country that
>you want to advertise abroad. :-)

Out of the card games mentioned on that page above as
traditional swedish games I recognise two, and have played
one. The others are completely unknown to me. Out of the
ones listed as now most popular I recognise the highlighted
ones, and I'd add Texas hold 'em.

I have played quite a few card games in my life though, that
aren't mentioned at all.

--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Re: [I] Board games // was Gamesmeet VI, 27th-28th of May, Eindhoven/Geldrop [message #259703 ] Di, 25 April 2006 18:33
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Graycat wrote:

[www.pagat.com]

> I have played quite a few card games in my life though, that
> aren't mentioned at all.

Some time in 2004 (July at the latest, and it may have been
considerably earlier) I noticed that two or three games I know are
not mentioned on the page ...

.... and in February 2006, I got around to writing down the rules and
submitting them [1]. It only took me two years. :-)

It'll take a few months more before my contributions appear on the
site, but in the meantime, they are mentioned (without links) at
<http://www.pagat.com/national/australia.html>.

Adrian.

[1] I submitted _Ups and Downs_ and _Donkey_ (number three was _Jo_,
but IMO it doesn't count as much as the others IMO because
variations of Contract Rummy are ten-a-penny in any case), and I
also contributed other small bits of information, including the
scumbag -> Paul Keating connection and the alternative name for
_Hearts_, as now mentioned on the Australia page. Plus some other
miscellaneous stuff. Games on the Australia page that I have never
played are Five Hundred, Euchre, and Solo Whist.
Re: [I] Totally frivolous post about cards // was Board games [message #260232 ] Do, 27 April 2006 07:34
Flesh-eating Dragon  
This is an idea I was playing with the other night.

Various card games come with a ranking of suits. For example, in
Bridge, it's clubs, diamonds, hearts and spades (from lowest to
highest). You can call that CDHS if you like (or SHDC if you prefer to
go from highest to lowest). Other games have different rankings -
there is no traditional ranking of suits that applies as a default
over many games.

But the thing is that CDHS or DSHC or whatever is a really boring way
to describe the ranking of suits for any given game. So I started
pondering whether there might be a better code.

Consider this. There are two red suits, and two black suits. Of the
two red suits, diamonds are a simpler shape, geometrically, than
hearts. Of the two black suits, spades are geometrically simpler than
clubs. Shapes that are not simple, let us describe as ornamental. We
therefore have:

Diamonds - Colour: red. Complexity: simple.
Hearts - Colour: red. Complexity: ornamental.
Spades - Colour: black. Complexity: simple.
Clubs - Colour: black. Complexity: ornamental.

Now, regardless of what ranking of suits our favourite game uses, the
distribution of black and red is either:

- Alternating: "black red black red" or "red black red black"
- Grouped together: "black black red red" or "red red black black"
- Matching ends: "black red red black" or "red black black red".

And likewise, the distribution of the two suits we've called "simple"
versus the two we've called "ornamental" is either alternating,
grouped together, or of matching ends.

To describe the ranking of suits, we need to indicate (1) the highest
ranking suit, (2) whether the red/black suits are alternating, grouped
together or of matching ends, and (3) whether the simple/ornamental
suits are simple, grouped together, or of matching ends. Our code will
therefore consist of a letter to indicate (1), followed by a slash to
make it easier to read, and then a letter to indicate (2) and a letter
to indicate (3).

To indicate (1) we will use simply the initial of the suit name. To
indicate (2) and (3) we need to decide on what letters to use.

For "alternating", let us use "X", because things that alternate sort
of cross over themselves. For "grouped together", let us use "S" for
"sequential". And for "matching ends", let us use "E" for "Endian".
Since the letters we use are S, E and X, we can call them SEX-codes.

In the case of Bridge, the SEX-code begins with S, because the highest
ranking suit is Spades. The colours are endian (highest and lowest
suits are the same colour), therefore the next letter is E. And on the
simple/ornamental dimension, the suits alternate, therefore the final
letter is X. The ranking of suits in Bridge, therefore, can be
described by the code "S/EX".

So, given a choice between SHDC or S/EX, which would you prefer?

I told you this post was going to be totally frivolous.

Adrian.
Vorheriges Thema:[I] NNTP woes
Nächstes Thema:Re: [I] Tale not cancelled, nor sold
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 02:47:13 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09927 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered