Things I Like/Dislike to see in Board Games

So, to be perfectly honest, I've stayed up past midnight for the past maybe about a week or so. Both for twenty one pilots reasons and staying up playing board games a lot. I've been wanting to continue posting on my blog since I've been doing so well with the one post a day thing, but I've been exhausted and I got a kind of job that takes up time (It's a 'kind of job' because I'm not officially employed, but I get payed). I may or may not post a couple posts a day in the following days to make up for it, but that's greatly dependent on my energy levels and how much time I have. We'll see what happens.

Anyway, I didn't really know what the topic of this post was going to be (I had several in mind, I just hadn't picked one yet) when I started typing, but now I know that I want to talk about my favorite board game mechanics/things I like to see in board games. Also things I dislike to see. Similar to my brother Andrew's post.

I'm just going to type about the different things and see what comes out. There is no particular order, although I am numbering them for easiness's sake.

1. I really really like resource management, as it turns out. Fiddling with my resources and calculating how much I need to do certain things. Terra Mystica is a prime example of this. I love Terra Mystica because it revolves around resource management. You have to be very careful with what you do with your resources. You never have extra, and so you have to be extremely precise about your plan of action. Caverna also has resource management, although it is not nearly as tight as Terra Mystica. Which sometimes I like and other times I'd rather have it be tighter. That's one reason why sometimes I prefer Agricola over Caverna; because Agricola is a lot tighter (perhaps too tight at times (especially when dealing with food)). Viticulture even uses this, in a way, with money. Money is really tight in that game. That example doesn't fully count, but it is there.

My next 3 actually match up with 3 of Andrew's. But they all tie into a bigger idea that I'll get to later.

2. Variable Player Powers
I love being able to do something other people can't. It makes me feel powerful and cool. It also adds a lot of variety and replayability to the game too. This also deals with Asymmetrical Player Powers, which I also really like. Andrew had a good summary, so I'll just quote him, "I love it when games have variable player powers, or something that you can do that the other players can't. It feels as if you are better at something or more powerful at something." (I do disagree with you on the co-op thing, though. When I have a variable power in that it doesn't really feel like I'm special since the whole group is using it collectively. I guess that's just a weird thing that I feel with co-op games. I don't really feel like I have control over a specific character. I feel like everyone has control over all the characters; there's just a designated person to move the piece and make the final say. That may or may not make sense)
Variable Player Powers is one thing Agricola has over Caverna.

3. Worker Placement
I just seem to love every worker placement game we own. Idk. There's just something about them that I love. It's one reason why I'm excited to get Charterstone (if we ever do end up doing so).

4. Multiple Paths to Victory
But more than that. They have to be balanced and interesting. This is one thing that I've found Caverna does extremely well (and one thing Caverna has over Agricola. Agricola does have, so to speak, multiple paths to victory, but Caverna has sooo many paths to victory; all of which are interesting and fun to use). There are so many directions to go and I don't feel like one is overpowered.

This all ties into one thing that I hate to see in any game.
5. When the Meta Grows Stale/There is little replayability
('Meta' is referring to the basic overall strategy of each game. I can explain more in detail if you want to know, so feel free to ask)
Kingsburg is a main main example of this, to me. I felt like I was doing the same thing every game. Everything was the same. There was no new interesting paths to take.
Powergrid also suffers from this problem. It seemed as though there were multiple paths to victory, but they all felt exactly the same.
Dominion, in certain set-ups. These are the set-ups when the kingdom cards aren't all that great or fun to play with. This makes Big Money a very powerful way to go. It makes the meta instantly become stale. This also happens when there are very powerful card combos out. That is the only effective way to go. It makes the meta become instantly stale. All you have to do is have interesting set-ups to avoid this problem, however, so it's not that hard to dodge.

I am not saying that I will not play Kingsburg or Powergrid. I would be more than willing to sit down a play a game of them right now. I just don't want to play a lot of it over a period of time. A couple games here and there are fun. Any more than that and I will probably find the gameplay tedious. (Random note: I'm not currently feeling like my words are flowing exactly how I want them to and that things are coming out differently than intended in some cases. So sorry for that)


One of Andrew's favorite mechanics is "Little to No Downtime (such as Simultaneous Action Selection)". I'm going to explain my thoughts on it because why the heck not.
I do want to be engaged for a large portion of the game. If I can step away from the table for 5 or more minutes at a time and then come back with little to no consequences, I don't like that. I do not necessarily care about having it get back to my turn quickly or having simultaneous actions. I just want to be involve in the game a lot of the time. This can come through various different ways. One major way is having turns to think through. Aka, being able to plan. Another way is through attacks of some form. Another way is through trading or interacting with players in some other way.
Example of being able to plan that therefore eliminates downtime: Terra Mystica. A large majority of the game I'm not just sitting bored. This is because I'm planning and thinking, even when it's not my turn.
Dominion does not have this. In Dominion you can't plan your turn (later in the game when you have card draw and such, at least). You can only play your turn on your turn.
Example of attacks of some form: Dominion, War games. You're interacting with another player even when it's not their turn. This keeps players engaged.
Examples of trading or interacting in some other way: Settlers of Catan. Terra Mystica. Coup. (Probably tons of others). In settlers you trade with people and ask for trades keeping people engaged. In Terra Mystica, you can interact with people by building next to them. They then have to choose if they want the magic or not. In Coup you can almost always challenge anyone's actions, which keeps you constantly involved and paying attention to what the people are doing around you. (Plus you can always think about how/if you'll bluff)


That was a random side thing.
Another thing that I don't like in games.

6. Lots of luck.
Especially when it acts as though it doesn't have a lot of luck. When it feels like it shouldn't have lots of luck, but you simply find you don't really get to decide if you end up winning or not. I'm specifically referencing Betrayal at House on the Hill. I don't like that game because I feel like I have no control on what happens. I'm just sitting there letting things happen to me until the game is over. Sarah, Ben, and Michael love the game, which is fine; the story-telling aspect can be cool sometimes. But it turns out I'm not alone in disliking it. I listened to a Shut up and Sit down podcast today and they don't like it either. So, yay, I'm not alone. They didn't really mention the luck as the reason they didn't like it, but whatever.
Cover Your Assests. There's enough decision making in the game that you feel like you're doing something, but it mostly just comes down to the cards.
Pinochle is definitely my favorite luck-based game. And Yahtzee. I'll play both of them when I'm in the mood to play risky and hopefully get lucky.

They can be enjoyable (except Betrayal. Sorry.) (especially Pinochle and Yahtzee), but when I lose or win, most of the time I don't feel like it was necessarily because of me.
I guess I like Pinochle and Yahtzee because each and hand and each roll have to potential to be really cool. It's exciting. It's fun to debate how high you should bid etc.



This ties into the fact that, man, I want Scythe. It has variable player powers. It deals with resource management. It's very methodical. The turns don't take forever and it's complex enough where I'll spend my 'downtime' planning my next move. Combat cuts away more 'downtime'. There are multiple paths to victory. And the art work is stunning. It hits so many things that I'm looking for in a game. I'm highly considering buying it, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
But it's also annoying because I have to consider the other people in my game group. I'm sure my mom would play it, and she seems to like a lot of the games we play, so hopefully that'll apply to this one too. Maybe the theme would throw her off? Or the combat? Idk, I think she'll like it.
I doubt Ben would like it since he doesn't really like methodical euro games at all. But maybe the artwork would draw him in? But I still don't he would end up liking it. Thomas wouldn't like it because the turns would probably take too long, plus he pretty much just dislikes a majority of board games.
Would Becky like it? It is euro-based, so maybe? Maybe even probably? Would Sarah like it? I could see Sarah going either way, Idk.
I know Eric would like it. I know Andrew would like it (although, sadly, he isn't part of my available game group and I would only be able to play with him during holidays). I'm pretty dang sure Joseph would like it (although he still has a little bit until he comes home).
Is that enough potential players? It has a single player variant, which is nice. But being afraid of not having the group to play it with has always kept me at bay.


I'm not bothering to read over it and instead am just posting it, but, like I said earlier, in a few of the spots, my words didn't flow quite like I wanted to, but I think overall it's good.