Den sosiale analogspilltråden (Snapchat-nicks ITT)
- Trådstarter demake
- Startdato
Det ble da litt spilling i mars også. Yedo spilt for første gang, det samme gjelder Motherload. Sistnevnte er nok det av de to jeg oftest vil ha på bordet. En strålende måned, og i april er det tid for tabletop day 
Camel Up 2
Russian Railroads 2
Trajan 2
Castles of Mad King Ludwig 1
Concordia 1
Dead of Winter: A Crossroads Game 1
Fields of Arle 1
Glass Road 1
Goa 1
Kemet 1
Lords of Waterdeep 1
Race for the Galaxy1
Spyrium1
Super Motherload1
Tales & Games: The Three Little Pigs1
Trains1
Yedo1
Camel Up 2
Russian Railroads 2
Trajan 2
Castles of Mad King Ludwig 1
Concordia 1
Dead of Winter: A Crossroads Game 1
Fields of Arle 1
Glass Road 1
Goa 1
Kemet 1
Lords of Waterdeep 1
Race for the Galaxy1
Spyrium1
Super Motherload1
Tales & Games: The Three Little Pigs1
Trains1
Yedo1
Jeg har funnet ut hvilket spill jeg skal skaffe neste gang, nemlig Dogs of War.
"It’s the kind of game where you understand the rules immediately, but this is constantly ticking over in your head - “Oh, now I get it,” “Oh, NOW I get it,” - like a clock that’s endlessly striking You’re Fucked’o’clock."
"Dogs of War is a good game because it’s a fantastic idea, executed simply and cleanly. It’s a great game because every decision is vitally important and absolutely impossible to make. But it’s a great board game because of how it makes use of your friends. Every round you’re unlikely allies with someone, at someone else’s throat and spoiling a third friend’s plans. Next round you’ll be friends with your nemesis, ruining your old friend and getting betrayed by the person you were previously slapping around.
In other words, you’re playing with your friends. It’s exactly the same as Settlers of Catan or Ticket to Ride. They both took a simple, rich game, then removed all of the space on the board until you’re squeezed up to your friends like chicks in a nest. Competitive, ugly and noisy, but ultimately enjoying one another’s warmth."
Det høres ut som det perfekte spillet for Analog-Ludologisk Institutt avd. Bergen.
"It’s the kind of game where you understand the rules immediately, but this is constantly ticking over in your head - “Oh, now I get it,” “Oh, NOW I get it,” - like a clock that’s endlessly striking You’re Fucked’o’clock."
"Dogs of War is a good game because it’s a fantastic idea, executed simply and cleanly. It’s a great game because every decision is vitally important and absolutely impossible to make. But it’s a great board game because of how it makes use of your friends. Every round you’re unlikely allies with someone, at someone else’s throat and spoiling a third friend’s plans. Next round you’ll be friends with your nemesis, ruining your old friend and getting betrayed by the person you were previously slapping around.
In other words, you’re playing with your friends. It’s exactly the same as Settlers of Catan or Ticket to Ride. They both took a simple, rich game, then removed all of the space on the board until you’re squeezed up to your friends like chicks in a nest. Competitive, ugly and noisy, but ultimately enjoying one another’s warmth."
Det høres ut som det perfekte spillet for Analog-Ludologisk Institutt avd. Bergen.
De fine folka i Shut Up & Sit Down har en lengre artikkel om hvorfor Cards Against Humanity er et skikkelig drittspill. Hele greien kan leses her: http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/review-cards-against-humanity/
Her har jeg klippet og limt noen utdrag som oppsummerer mine tanker om dette "spillet".
Paul:Our hobby isn't new, yet it's now growing in a way it never was before. It's reaching more people in more places and, please God, I don't want Cards Against Humanity to be its ambassador. I don't want more people's first experience of modern board, card and table gaming to be a game that says "Oops! Isn't all this stuff just so rude? Goodness, who knows what we'll come up with next."
So, if you were thinking about buying Cards Against Humanity, perhaps you should think again, because your money is an encouragement, your purchase is a statement and your playing is a representation. Personally, I am not remotely okay with Cards Against Humanity representing us. I hope a lot of other people aren't, either. I hope they say so, too.
Matt:There are plenty of naughty things you can do that don't rely on grinning vacantly while dicking on minorities, but perhaps these aren't socially acceptable at dinner parties. The vast popularity of Cards Against Humanity allows for any residual guilt to be spread so much further, diluting any sense of responsibility to the point where it's almost negligible.
I can't help but feel that the success of the game has been virally powered by this desire to reduce those pangs of guilt: the more people who you know who've also bought this game, the better. You're never expected to take responsibility for any of the things that the game makes you say, but that doesn't solve the problem of why you own it in the first place.
Quinns:I'm afraid I can't come at this with any of Paul's level-headedness or Matt's social elegance. But maybe I don't have to. What a world it would be if the creators of Cards Against Humanity could have fun laughing at AIDS, date rape and anorexia, but would deny me my own mean remarks!
I hate Cards Against Humanity because it's shit.
If it's part of the "face" of modern board gaming, it's also the pervert's moustache and smug grin. Fittingly for a game so in love with stereotypes, Cards Against Humanity is every horrible stereotype of a nerd snickering in the corner. It is every person ready to lecture you on how humour must sometimes offend, boldly dragging their Auschwitz joke up to the moral high ground. It is the manifestation of an internet asshole.
But that's not why I hate it. I hate it because it's shit.
Her har jeg klippet og limt noen utdrag som oppsummerer mine tanker om dette "spillet".
Paul:Our hobby isn't new, yet it's now growing in a way it never was before. It's reaching more people in more places and, please God, I don't want Cards Against Humanity to be its ambassador. I don't want more people's first experience of modern board, card and table gaming to be a game that says "Oops! Isn't all this stuff just so rude? Goodness, who knows what we'll come up with next."
So, if you were thinking about buying Cards Against Humanity, perhaps you should think again, because your money is an encouragement, your purchase is a statement and your playing is a representation. Personally, I am not remotely okay with Cards Against Humanity representing us. I hope a lot of other people aren't, either. I hope they say so, too.
Matt:There are plenty of naughty things you can do that don't rely on grinning vacantly while dicking on minorities, but perhaps these aren't socially acceptable at dinner parties. The vast popularity of Cards Against Humanity allows for any residual guilt to be spread so much further, diluting any sense of responsibility to the point where it's almost negligible.
I can't help but feel that the success of the game has been virally powered by this desire to reduce those pangs of guilt: the more people who you know who've also bought this game, the better. You're never expected to take responsibility for any of the things that the game makes you say, but that doesn't solve the problem of why you own it in the first place.
Quinns:I'm afraid I can't come at this with any of Paul's level-headedness or Matt's social elegance. But maybe I don't have to. What a world it would be if the creators of Cards Against Humanity could have fun laughing at AIDS, date rape and anorexia, but would deny me my own mean remarks!
I hate Cards Against Humanity because it's shit.
If it's part of the "face" of modern board gaming, it's also the pervert's moustache and smug grin. Fittingly for a game so in love with stereotypes, Cards Against Humanity is every horrible stereotype of a nerd snickering in the corner. It is every person ready to lecture you on how humour must sometimes offend, boldly dragging their Auschwitz joke up to the moral high ground. It is the manifestation of an internet asshole.
But that's not why I hate it. I hate it because it's shit.
og (Snapchat-nicks ITT)CAH er egentlig ikke morsomt etter første gangen man har spilt det, if at all. Jeg spilte det med bl.a. @Nabbe, @Erketor og @ganon over en del øl og vi holdt på å flire oss ihjel. En seanse på et utdrikningslag var også stor suksess helt frem til vi var kommet gjennom kortene og ting døde litt ut. Etter det har spillet hatt null effekt. Jeg brukte en print&play og er sjeleglad for at jeg ikke betalte noe for det, for makan til kort levetid har jeg aldri opplevd.
Gruppa har mye å si, og reviewen til SU&SD har mange gode poenger. Det finnes så mange bedre partyspill, som f.eks. One Night Ultimate Werewolf som bare alltid leverer.
Gruppa har mye å si, og reviewen til SU&SD har mange gode poenger. Det finnes så mange bedre partyspill, som f.eks. One Night Ultimate Werewolf som bare alltid leverer.
Yessss. Hvis noen vil bruke en kveld på å fortelle negervitser så er jeg helt med på den, jeg bare trenger ikke en bønsj med pappkort for å gjøre det. Når det er sagt så er jeg mye heller med på en runde Werewolf. Eller, for å ta tråden litt ånntåppikk igjen, kanskje dette:
...Etter at jobbings har roa seg og jeg har fått tid til å lese reglene, da.
...Etter at jobbings har roa seg og jeg har fått tid til å lese reglene, da.
@Yetipants : Neida. Er enig i det, men de første to gangene så er det faktisk til tider helt fullstendig hysterisk. For da kan man få ting som man ikke hadde tenkt på før ikke sant. Og de kortsammensettingene som oftest er morsomme er jo de når ting faktisk passer inn på en sånn ironisk snertete måte.
men har man spilt det mer en to-tre ganger så blir det fort litt... dødt.
men har man spilt det mer en to-tre ganger så blir det fort litt... dødt.