5 Pitfalls That Ruin Board Games (and How to Remedy Them)

[@chillionaire7114]

100% agree on the "take that" approach; going to be checking out Castles by the sea now. Debating if this is really "take that", but another approach my group likes that seems to work is when the player getting targeted actually gets a reward. Specifically talking about Hansa Teutonica. In HT you can target a player by knocking their cube off a path, but to do so you need to pay a penalty, and then the targeted player gets to move that bumped piece, plus add another to the board. Not only does it make for a more interesting decision process, but just adds to the overall positive table vibes. Not a Eurogame, but we also got Thunderroad Vendetta out recently. You know going into the game that you can't take anything personally, but even with that when you slam into an opponent's car it's a 50/50 chance that your car actually gets bumped and not the player you targeted.

[@theperfectboardgame]

Hansa is such a great game. Yes, you could classify it as a “take that” mechanic with the caveat you described, but here’s a huge difference: there is no luck in Hansa. Players understand the value of certain spaces and if you play a certain route, you shouldn’t be surprised if it gets blocked. It is baked into the calculation. I could say the same thing about Barrage, which is more cutthroat and not as rewarding. What BOTHERS me in take-that is when the mechanic is dependent on drawing a card: one player has the ability to impact another player not through skill but luck. And that’s really what I find so brilliant about Castles by the Sea (which is a medium-light game, to be clear) you are still drawing cards to trigger hazards, but you need to play strategically if you want the hazard to hurt your opponent and not you.

[@davidgarza9731]

I have the opposite problem you have with games that have shorter early rounds and big late game rounds. I like watching the pay off at the end but it does bug me when it seems to take FOREVER to get there (Terraforming Mars with no expansions being a prime example) one game that in my opinion gives that pay off while keeping turns snappy is Century (Spice Road or Golem Edition same game different skin) you do one of 4 things and you end up with a hand of cards that chain off each other if you play your cards right (bad word play there lol)

[@theperfectboardgame]

When I read your description of what you don’t like about it, I’m not thinking it’s the “opposite problem,” I’m thinking: “He’s right; that’s even WORSE!” Thanks for sharing your recommendation!

[@davidgarza9731]

@@theperfectboardgame I must clarify that I like games (like Lost Ruins of Arnak) where the first few rounds feel short but set you up to do big stuff later (it’s what I meant by opposite problem) but if the pay off for a good set up isn’t there then the game will start to feel like it’s draaaaaging

[@theperfectboardgame]

Absolutely. This is why I don’t play Terra Mystica anymore. I used to love the game for its awesome building and income mechanics, but in the last round, it always feels like the points that are left to be decided were decided long ago. For example, you can build something to attempt to take largest contiguous network, but then the player who held that position just builds something else to take it back. On and on it goes with everyone on a teeter totter until they have literally nothing else they can possibly do.

[@davidgarza9731]

@@theperfectboardgame is this a game where everyone takes multiple turns in a round until everyone passes? And do the asymmetric factions contribute to this pain point? (All I remember of this game is that this is area control and it had asymmetric factions with different building costs)

[@theperfectboardgame]

It is a game where people have to wait until everyone passes, but I would argue the asymmetrical factions make the game more enjoyable. I mention it only because it is fairly well established game (later rethemed with Gaia Project) but it’s really the game model that is often a pain point.

[@nihlify]

I rarely get annoyed at things in board games, but one of my few pet peeves are abilities in games to completely negate whatever another player is doing. Some area control games with combat where there's a card that basically says "you can't attack player X during this turn". Maybe not the best game but Risk 2210 AD is pretty much like this where you play 5 years, but almost every game I've played of this game, people save their negating cards for the last year so basically the ending round is the most boring round in the entire game where people are locked in place or barely can do anything. Another one is limited communication games where the rules for what you can or cannot say is very fuzzy. Completely ruins the fun for me. ;)

[@theperfectboardgame]

Those are great examples. And you are right, you don’t see it very often. I saw it in the game Bus. In Bus, there was a constant back and forth among three players. The third player was ahead, the two other players would use their turn to take back lost ground, and the third player would use their turn to regain it. The player was already winning and their edge was such that they could keep using their advantage to take back what they lost. Back and forth we went, none of use accomplishing anything new. It wasn’t fun at all!

[@ReservedDeveloper]

1:55 Gotta call out the first game I played with multi-use cards, even if it's crazy hard/$$$ to find now: Glory to Rome! So many ways to mitigate on a bad hand/lead. Even though it's near impossible to find now, my understanding is that Chudyk continued that multi-use theme in a lot of his subsequent works, like Innovation. Worth keeping an eye on him if you enjoy that mechanic.

[@theperfectboardgame]

Thank you! And for anyone else reading this, a simplified reimplementation of this game is Mottainai. You can find it on Amazon for about $15.

[@JJ_TheGreat]

9:04 Now what do you think about Wingspan - which has the exact opposite effect?! You have more actions in the earlier rounds and lose actions - so you have less in the latest rounds (in fact, you lose 1 action each round)!

[@theperfectboardgame]

What an excellent point! As an element of game design, I think it’s wonderful! I wish I had thought of that. Tell me, can you think of another game that does this?

[@nihlify]

It's good in theory, and I'm not sure I'd like Wingspan more without it, but it generally makes the last round of Wingspan almost play itself since there's clearly a correct path, and as a result, being quite boring.

[@hiho8084]

Thanks for this insight. I appreciate it.

[@theperfectboardgame]

I’m glad you liked the video!

[@darbyl3872]

Too much randomness bothers me, but no randomness gets stale quickly, after a game or two, if better players keep winning. Chess is only fun if players are evenly matched, IMO. Certain games are frustrating until you learn how to play them, which is fine. What I don't enjoy is a game like Great Western Trail, that punishes you until you've played enough games. Literally, you can spend a dozen turns building up to make a big profit, and "Oh, sorry, you get pennies this time." What the flock! I would rather let the cows run off a cliff than sell them for peanuts. Lastly, Railroad Ink. Ugggh! Try not to scream after you mistakenly draw the wrong symbol, and the whole map is worthless at the end.

[@theperfectboardgame]

I hear you and I wonder what your take is on a game with no randomness that has more than two players? In some ways, it’s like those extra players throw in a degree of unpredictability. Santorini, Hansa Teutonica, Russian Railroads, to name a few. I really like it. I also like games that randomize the setup for each round but the rest is without any more luck: Troyes, Myrmes, for example.

[@darbyl3872]

@@theperfectboardgame I haven't played those, but more players, with no randomness, is better than two players, IMO (although I can't think of any games like that, that I have played.) I really like learning games like Chess and Homeworlds, and adding variable setup makes 2-p games better. (Stratego comes to mind.) But, my best-of-the-best all have something random, usually card draws. Variety is at the top of my list of factors that make a game fun for me, and that can be in the form of gameplay by other players, as in Blood On The Clocktower. In it, each person multiplies the variety through their words and actions. Complexity is also at the top of my list, so after Clocktower, Mottainai is my second favorite game. In that, you are trying to manage chaos, but between two or three players. The cards provide the challenge. I still highly enjoy simpler games, but without some randomness, the game is more about winning than enjoying the struggle.

[@theperfectboardgame]

I had to check out Mottainai. What an excellent recommendation, with its multi-use cards! I’m very intrigued!

[@darbyl3872]

@@theperfectboardgame It sort of contradicts what I said. It has a lot of randomness in abilities and outcomes, and it takes several games to even get comfortable with the flow, much less learn how everything interacts. I guess it is random and difficult with a "purpose". The chaos can be managed, but never really predicted, and the complexity can be simplified with experience, while not feeling too punishing. I highly recommend reading the "Plain And Simple" rules on BGG.

[@jamvng]

@@theperfectboardgameplayer interaction can definitely supplement or replace luck/random. Asymmetry is the other big one. Terra Mystica is a great example of this. I don’t mind randomness either way as long as there are enough player options to give people means to plan around or mitigate bad luck. A well designed game will balance randomness and luck well. And the good thing with well implemented randomness is it makes every game feel different.

[@edwardrhoads7283]

I get really annoyed by games who have an instant game over condition that can be done by the first player and the games ends with the first player. It guarantees that everyone else gets one less turn in the game.

[@theperfectboardgame]

Not sure which games you have in mind, but I think it is generally the case that in those games, going after the first player is compensated with resources. In fact, Cryo, the game I mentioned in this video, has such an ending. (And I’m not saying that it’s necessarily a good thing just because I like the game. But I am saying Cryo is brilliant in so many other ways that I can forgive what may arguably be a less-than-ideal game end trigger.)

[@edwardrhoads7283]

@@theperfectboardgame I have played a few games like that actually. Ticket to Ride is a game like that but there are a lot. Some thankfully make you finish the round so everyone gets the same number of turns but on occasion there is one that does not.

[@Warchoon]

Such games usually have either compensation for players going after the first at the beginning of the game, or the mechanic that allows for transfer of the first player marker every round. Also, it's only an issue in eurogames, for more 'close up and personal' games it's usually a non-issue.

[@edwardrhoads7283]

@@Warchoon Some do and those are good solutions but there are some that don't do that either.

[@matejgaba5135]

Scythe is a big offender in this regard.

[@SAUPAYANMAZUMDAR]

disagree with variable ending/player triggered ending. Love TFM and that has variable number of generations. That's what makes the game so replayable. Based on your cards you either want to extend the game, or end it quickly before opponents have had a chance to get their big engines roaring.

[@theperfectboardgame]

But what about when you try to end it quickly and you still lose? I will grant you this: whenever you do elect to end the game and WIN, that is extremely satisfying!

[@SAUPAYANMAZUMDAR]

@@theperfectboardgame then I miscalculated. It’s on me. If fun is all about winning, the game isn’t good

[@jeffreymorris9776]

Please can you tell me the name of the game @ 2:34?

[@IAGUIT021]

Praga Caput Regni, I guess

[@jeffreymorris9776]

@@IAGUIT021Great, thank you!

[@theperfectboardgame]

Correct, Praga Caput Regni. The game displayed after that is Trolls & Princesses.

[@lucasmano8187]

Great video!

[@theperfectboardgame]

Thank you!

[@KidJV]

@6:39 i play games to have fun and not find an efficient strat to win, thats why i stay away from euro games.. i like my games interactive and have a little of luck

[@theperfectboardgame]

Yeah, man! I hear you. I mostly review Euro boardgames but I hope I made it clear that I was only identifying characteristics that affect my own opinion. I am not claiming these characteristics make a game objectively bad. Thanks for sharing what you enjoy! If you haven’t already, check out the board game profile quiz on my website (no login or email address required, just something for fun.)

[@KidJV]

@@theperfectboardgame sure will do