Posts
Comments
Gloomhaven seems, and describes itself as being a cooperative game. What competitive elements are you referring to?
When characters pick up gold and items, they can't be shared, so there's sometimes a race to get them, and players might not work for the benefit of the whole party at that point.
Every session/scenario/map, each character gets a secret goal with a small character progression bonus for achieving it, and pursuing those often requires making one to a few selfish choices.
Also for the lifetime of a character there's one secret goal, which again inspires some selfish choices on a longer timeline.
fully cooperative: Hanabi, The Crew, The Captain Is Dead, Pandemic
partially cooperative: Red November, Betrayal at House on the Hill (original and Legacy), Dead of Winter, Gloomhaven
competitive [...] strongly mutually beneficial deals: Catan, Diplomacy, 18XX (and almost any other game where players own stock in each other's positions)
competitive [...] placement in each round matters: Power Grid, 18XX,
competitive [...] not usually permanent alliances are critical to victory: Diplomacy, Twilight Imperium (all of them), Cosmic Encounter
These are just the ones I've played in recent memory. I'd wager I can name 20 games in each category, with some overlap like above, with more time to think and research.
Thanks. I only recently discovered the "follow a bunch of strangers" interaction paradigm on Twitter. I don't know that I'll use your list, but I'm at least going to peruse it a bit.
Most importantly, it doesn't have an outgroup
It seems like there would be a large outgroup defined by little to no following (or other interaction) from this group, and a smaller but more well defined outgroup of those blocked by many or most people from this group. The same and similar ways to how we would define the [huge] outgroup of any clique today or pre-internet.
There are many fully cooperative board games, where all the players work together to win or lose as a group. There are many partially cooperative board games, which can only be won through cooperation and negotiation. There are many competitive games for 3+ players where it is common for two players to make strongly mutually beneficial deals, especially when the third player is currently winning. There are many competitive games that run multiple rounds, where placement in each round matters, not just who gets first place, so negotiating to end up in second instead of third has value in the long run. There are many competitive games where short to long term, but not usually permanent, alliances are critical to victory, and many mutually beneficial decisions are negotiated in those alliances.
As a rationalist, I don't put much stock in the conclusions reached from what seem to be extremely faulty premises.
As a gamer, I don't expect to find a well designed game when you seem to have missed or ignored so much prior art that could better inform your design.
You can describe metrics that you think align with success, which can be measured and compared in isolation. If many / most / all such metrics agree, then you've probably made progress on discourse as a whole.
When you say "straightforwardly false", do you intend to refer to any particular theory of truth? While I have long known of different philosophical concepts and theories of "truth", I've only recently been introduced to the idea that some significant fraction of people don't understand the words "true" and "false" to refer at-least-primarily to correspondent truth (that is, the type of truth measured by accurate reflection of the state of the world). I am not sure if that idea is itself accurate, nor whether you believe that thing about some/many/most others, or what your individual understanding of truth is, so I find it hard to interpret your use of the word "false".
Start date/time seems to be in error?