I think I'm enjoying boardgames more than RPGs these days

[Faylar]

Heroquest was my gateway drug into RPGs.

For me, boardgames fill a niche that RPGs do not and cannot. When I get together with family, we play Boardgames and it is a lot of fun. It opens up conversation and brings out friendly competition. Even the odd clucking of the non players over our antics opens up dialogue and fun. Good memories sitting around the big family dinner table with my grandparents Uno deck, or Yahtzee... hell, even card games. We also tried other games like monopoly and the like. My inlaws family likes things like Labrynth while my old game group likes casual exploding kittens and cards against humanity type games.
I know I mentioned mostly card based games, but we did a lot of boardgames interchangeably.

These same people (With the exception of my old game group), I would never ever dream of trying to play an RPG with.

 

[Faylar]

Are you sure you don't mean female-only sith-like sect?

Yep, they are sith. lol

 

[Skywalker]

I'm waiting my package of the 3e edition to arrive. Is 2e too different? I've read it's more complex.

Not more complex. AH2 is more sprawling experience with more freedom and variety than AH3. This is also why people don’t like it and resulted in Eldritch Horror. AH3 is a more tightly wound game experience.

Just watched a Shut up and Sit Down review of Dune and it has the most outlandish ideas I've seen. The hyper-assymetry of the factions is a fantastic idea. But the reviewer says the game is super complex and slow. How has been your experience with it?

Dune is good but it does really need a full player count. For a game with asymmetric sides but is more forgiving on player count, check out Root. Magpie are also releasing the Root RPG shortly using PbtA.

 

[Lessa]

I don't see a game lasting 4 hours under any normal circumstances. The longest phase (potentially) is bidding on treachery cards, but players are only supposed to get about 10 seconds to bid on them or pass.

The Bene Gesserit are the least played because they are suggested as the fifth or sixth player faction. They have no troops on Arrakis, but deploy for free whenever anyone else does (as "advisors") to neutral territory. Where the Atriedes can see what other players are up to, the witches can command others with the Voice, forcing other players into certain actions or denying them from doing so. "You WILL have Fenrig command the army" or "you WON'T use poison". Needless to say, the Sisterhood and Atriedes alliance is a nightmare to fight!

Also, all the Sisters are equally impressive commanders. They don't have the strongest (that's Stilgar), but they are all the equal of the best military mind every other faction has, and the other factions only get one such capable leader.

Haha very good.

P.S: oh I remember the guy saying that in the review..

 

[Lessa]

What other boardgames evoke this roleplaying feeling for you, guys and gals?

Not more complex. AH2 is more sprawling experience with more freedom and variety than AH3. This is also why people don’t like it and resulted in Eldritch Horror. AH3 is a more tightly wound game experience.

Yep, more streamlined it seems.

Is it possible to chain campaigns across the 3 games? Say, start local with Mansions of Madness, then expand the scope with Arkham Horror, then go full globe throtting with Eldritch Horror? (or some other combinations of that) Most of the investigators are the same across the board, right?

 

[Magister]

Good example, though Once Upon a Time is an obvious outlier. It’s also interesting that many people end up playing Once Upon Time for the story creation and simply ignore the scoring aspect as well. The same concepts we are discussing are at work here.

That was what I tried to convey in my first post to the thread; while many people only like one kind of game, some people get dissatisfied with the primary game type they like because of its weaknesses and move to another that seems to stem some of that. Even within RPGs, you see some of that, with "narrative" games trying to make a good story more likely if not inevitable where a traditional D&D might have a session of mapping a bunch of empty rooms if it works out that way; trying to mitigate perceived flaws in a game whether by importing elements of other game types, or importing the good parts into another game type.

FWIW I am a strong proponent against limiting games with labels as well. However, the thread starting with board games can do everything that RPGs can do, which I think ignores one of the unique aspects of RPGs that I think we should cherish rather than diminish (especially given RPGs are the underdog in this fight). Board games can be narratively satisfying, yes. But they can’t do what an RPG does without effectively becoming an RPG in whole or in part regardless of the label.

The first post doesn't suggest that, at least as I read it; the OP enjoys RPG-ish boardgames because they deliver lots of what he likes in RPGs with less of things he doesn't. And I don't think that RPGs are ever really the underdog on a site call the RPG Pub.

I agree on opposing labeling, I am not sure I agree on what things are distinctively RPG, but I still believe I know RPGs when I see them so I probably agree in principle that such things exist.

 

[Lessa]

Great post, M Magister . And yeah, this..

The first post doesn't suggest that, at least as I read it; the OP enjoys RPG-ish boardgames because they deliver lots of what he likes in RPGs with less of things he doesn't.

...is spot on.

 

[Skywalker]

What other boardgames evoke this roleplaying feeling for you, guys and gals?

TIME Stories is the board game that most evokes roleplaying for me.

Is it possible to chain campaigns across the 3 games? Say, start local with Mansions of Madness, then expand the scope with Arkham Horror, then go full globe throtting with Eldritch Horror? (or some other combinations of that) Most of the investigators are the same across the board, right?

You could chain if you could create your own content, which for those board games is difficult (especially MoM2e with its app driven play).

I had a friend who ran a Star War Campaign using the FFG RPGs, X-Wing, Armada and Imperial Assault: Skirmish Mode (which you could now replace with Legion). That was a little easier as the game types are RPGs and Wargames, both of which are designed to create your own content for, more so than board games.

 

[Skywalker]

The first post doesn't suggest that, at least as I read it; the OP enjoys RPG-ish boardgames because they deliver lots of what he likes in RPGs with less of things he doesn't. And I don't think that RPGs are ever really the underdog on a site call the RPG Pub.

But there is also the context of years of internet arguments of people claiming that Monopoly is an RPG as you can roleplay while playing it

From my early responses, I am totally cool with the OP scratching much of his RP itch with board games and I do so myself. However, there is a pretty clear line between the two forms of gaming and I don't think it does either side service to pretend there isn't.

 

[TristramEvans]

Kingdom Death is obviously the closest to an RPG a boardgame has got for me. Especially compared to the "troupe-style" play of Ars Magica.

It takes a lot of inspiration from WFRP 1st edition, and Warhammer Quest.

And is the only boardgame where the opponents actually feel "alive" and with distinct personalities, due to the Ai mechanisms.

 

[TJS]

"I Charisma check him!"

Well yes. But the point I was making is that if from the players side anything you say to describe what you are doing is just going to end up in a Charisma check then you might as well just say "I Charisma check him".

Otherwise to my mind it feels little different than describing what your monopoly piece is thinking as it goes around the board.

I recognise that all rpgs necessarily have finite means of mechanical resolution so that there's an element of the above in all rpgs, and part of avoiding it comes down to GM skill - but, the moment I feel trapped in the mechanics alone, is the moment I start checking out mentally.

 

[Arminius]

Board games that have a high rpg-likeness quotient:

Voyage of the B.S.M. Pandora

Navigate the galaxy, outfit your crew, & explore strange worlds as YOU abduct aliens.

boardgamegeek.com

Magic Realm

The granddaddy of complex RPG-style board games, with sixteen unique characters.

boardgamegeek.com

The Republic of Rome

Politicians cooperate and compete over personal and Ancient Roman glory.

boardgamegeek.com

(Slightly less as you’re playing a faction, not an individual. But the haggling in the Senate is pretty RPG-like. Problem with this game, though, is it’s very hard to get players in the right mindset.)

 

[Magister]

But there is also the context of years of internet arguments of people claiming that Monopoly is an RPG as you can roleplay while playing it

Well, then a violin is an RPG because you can roleplay while playing it. (Distressingly, many players incorrectly think that a phone is an RPG because they think they can play with it while they're supposedly roleplaying.) I will be happy to mock such arguments if they ever appear here.

From my early responses, I am totally cool with the OP scratching much of his RP itch with board games and I do so myself. However, there is a pretty clear line between the two forms of gaming and I don't think it does either side service to pretend there isn't.

Problem is that, like pornography and erotica, the line is not that clear. Decades ago, I would have said that a real RPG had to have a referee and randomization if not dice, and that a board game had to be a competitive game.

 

[Atelerix]

A lot of things become more mentally soothing when you use fuzzy taxonomy, like geochemists - plenty of mineral formulae are listed as having a range (and indeed continuum) of possible substitution elements at particular locations in the crystalline structure.

So, for example, Forbidden Lands has crafting and base-building worked into the core gameplay "loop"like video games, but is definitely an RPG. You can have falling-out with your stonemason because you decide to have a fling with their significant other...

 

[TJS]

Wittingstein on games.

Also here

 

[Atelerix]

Jung also saw games/play as "practice for life", which is a pretty broad category!

 

[Lessa]

How many times can you go back to Velma's and have it go differently? Can you ask her out on a date? Can you invite her along on your adventure?

Each location has 12 encounter cards in the core box and the first expansion doubles that number. One time you can enter and Velma will offer the day meal, another time she will offer some gossip, another yet someone on the bar can start talking to you, etc. The game seems really good at story-generation.

But nope, you can't invent whatever you want in the fiction. I think this is the difference to a full blown RPG. Though my "freedom" point from before remains - most logical solutions for the relevant problems will be the same whatever the medium IMO, and most of what I see valued as "true role-playing" in RPGs is innocuous filler from a decision-making standpoint.

 

[Antiquation!]

I used to love games like Heroquest when I was younger. However as my gaming friends and I got older and the competitive personalities emerged I quickly found such games grating. Basically, if a board or card game can be played in a brief time period, then even if it's unnecessarily competitive or just generally bad at least it's over quick and easy to laugh off. With long-term, "RPG-ish" board games there is a huge amount of buy-in required (in terms of both time to play and strategy/rules) and if you get knocked out or screwed, then welp I guess your friends will be having fun for the next three hours and you can go watch television or something. I'm reminded of some game I played where some card or ability lets some player act as capital-D 'Death' and chase other players around the board to screw them even though the game was generally cooperative; and of course the player who got it reveled in chasing me down and killing me so I could no longer play, just to have a laugh at my frustration.

I'd rather just get wasted and play Apples to Apples or Truth or Dare. Simple, fast, straightforward and both riots with the right people.

Or beer pong/strip poker. Ideally with lots of pretty ladies. Admittedly those years are probably gone for me now though. Those count as "board games" right...?

In any case, I'm not sure why "real" RPGs are so much easier for me to manage in this respect. Maybe the investment/payoff ratio is simply more rewarding to me.

 

[Arminius]

silva Wow, so much for character-driven narrative. Not that I see anything wrong with game books and similar pursuits.

 

[Skywalker]

In any case, I'm not sure why "real" RPGs are so much easier for me to manage in this respect. Maybe the investment/payoff ratio is simply more rewarding to me.

I suspect that this is because, for the reasons stated above, the play experience of RPGs is generally much more capable of being modified to suit a group and its mood. I would say that this is both a feature and a bug of RPGs.

 

[KrakaJak]

What other boardgames evoke this roleplaying feeling for you, guys and gals?

Cool thread idea. For me, this is interesting as board games have definitely colored the kinds of RPGs I'm into these days.

My gateway into hardcore board gaming was Arkham Horror 2e. I had played munchkin, and Zombies!!! and a few other games like that, but RPGs were heads and tails my favorite tabletop games to play. Arkham Horror scratched a lot of RPG itches for me. I had a cool character, it told an interesting story at the table, I had to strategize and work together with my friends. Good stuff.

Good board games are part of the reason I don't really like D&D 4e. Good board games are part of the reason I don't like Apocalypse (Dungeon etc.) World. The dungeon crawl game is better in Gloomhaven than D&D 5e. If the character actions and GM reactions in the game are limited, I'm better served by games like Detective. For a thematic one vs. many strategy game, I'd rather play Batman: Gotham City Chronicles or Strange Synergy or something.

All of that being said: RPGs are still my favorite tabletop games. Games where players and GMs interacting and creating a story together, limited only by the imagination of the participants is something board games still cannot do. RPG games that scaffolds the story and creativity of the players at the table. D&D helps players create a pretty cool fantasy adventure together, but for a dungeon crawl, I'd rather play Gloomhaven.

 

[Bunch]

Or beer pong/strip poker.

If you organize an RPGPub strip beer pong poker tournament I will DEFINITELY not be there!

 

[TristramEvans]

If you organize an RPGPub strip beer pong poker tournament I will DEFINITELY not be there!

That would be the Pub's equivalent of opening the Ark of the Covenant

 

[Numidius]

For Dungeon crawling I quite enjoyed the Sword&Sorcery boardgame. Nice mechanics, good AI. A bit slow, of course. But did not even scratch that roleplaying itch: it is cool for brain burning, but a dungeon crawl rpg would be much faster and far more involving.

 

[TristramEvans]

 

[CRKrueger]

You are. As has been said before, you can roleplay in any board game, even Monoply. The difference in an RPG is that it needs roleplaying to operate, ie the point of the game is to roleplay, it’s not just a nice to have.

Is the point of the game to roleplay? Based on everything he’s been saying here, as well as in general for many years, I don’t think Silva’s in RPGs for the Roleplaying. He’s in it for the narrative satisfaction, the storytelling and the mechanical interplay.

Boardgames can’t come anywhere near to the RPG experience for me, and maybe you either, but the way Silva plays, I think they’re the perfect fit, to be honest.

 

[Lessa]

Is the point of the game to roleplay? Based on everything he’s been saying here, as well as in general for many years, I don’t think Silva’s in RPGs for the Roleplaying. He’s in it for the narrative satisfaction, the storytelling and the mechanical interplay.

I think I like to roleplay. But for me role-playing = taking decisions as an alter-ego in some fictional space. Now if you understand roleplay as doing funny voices, I'm not a big fan, though I can see myself going with the flow if that's the group thing.

This kind of roleplay I like can be found in some videogames and boardgames too. Even in lets pretend, copper and robbers, etc.

 

[Atelerix]

Battlestations is a boardgame that explicitly tries to replicate a tabletop rpg.

The core game, sure, is basically ship-to-ship combat and boarding actions/ground combat, but the advanced rules provide rules for anything you like - hiding, trading, negotiating, taking over their ship remotely. The aim is to give you much more flexibility than traditional adventure boardgames, with their "perform an action on this square before the end of turn 6".

Character creation is in there, advancement, and your character can be cloned if they die. Ships can be expanded and fitted with new toys, new weapons and gear can be bought. If you like a ship you capture - it's yours! It's meant to be played co-op against the gamemaster.

Did I mention it's amazing?

 

[CRKrueger]

I think I like to roleplay. But for me role-playing = taking decisions as an alter-ego in some fictional space. Now if you understand roleplay as doing funny voices, I'm not a big fan, though I can see myself going with the flow if that's the group thing.

This kind of roleplay I like can be found in some videogames and boardgames too. Even in lets pretend, copper and robbers, etc.

You say “taking decisions an an alter-ego in some fictional space”. Pretty careful and specific terminology. Almost as if you couldn’t bring yourself to say “pretending to be a person in another world”. Even the most basic terms you use to describe Roleplaying demand a level of third party separation. I’m not sure suspension of disbelief is necessarily your thing...and it certainly doesn’t have to be.

You did say “playing pretend”, but playing pretend is more than Roleplaying, it’s collaborative storytelling as well. Seeing as how many of your favorite games force you at times to take decisions not as your alter-ego, Roleplaying isn’t just what you’re looking for. It seems pretty clear you want Roleplaying + Storytelling of one kind or another.

Narrative games give you active, collaborative storytelling, with the mechanics to focus on the story and not present much, if any game time when the story is not ”live”.

Boardgames and Computer Games may not have true narrative control and “active storytelling” where you are in author stance. They can however provide “passive storytelling”, because there is going to be zero gameplay outside the specific premise, thus it seems like the action, and thus unfolding story, are “always on”. Computer Games have the added bonus of little mechanical interfacing with the player, thus the game can play out like interactive media.

 

[Simlasa]

Battlestations is a boardgame that explicitly tries to replicate a tabletop rpg.

I've wanted to try out Battlestations since I first heard about it... but I don't think it plays solo.
I doubt it's something any of my local gamer friends would be into.

 

[Atelerix]

It does work solo - some of the scenarios are programmed, and they don't all have secret information. The advanced rulebook has solo rules.

Probably not as much fun played solo though...

 

[Necrozius]

My family played Hero Quest for ages, but we eventually got bored with it. The expansions just added harder and harder monsters with crazy amounts of Body Points (hp) while the heroes never got any stronger. The only “powerups” you could get was whatever few Artifacts (magic gear) were included in the expansions, or spending every single gold coin on one-shot potions.

We eventually wanted more.

 

[Lessa]

You say “taking decisions an an alter-ego in some fictional space”. Pretty careful and specific terminology. Almost as if you couldn’t bring yourself to say “pretending to be a person in another world”. Even the most basic terms you use to describe Roleplaying demand a level of third party separation. I’m not sure suspension of disbelief is necessarily your thing...and it certainly doesn’t have to be.

You did say “playing pretend”, but playing pretend is more than Roleplaying, it’s collaborative storytelling as well. Seeing as how many of your favorite games force you at times to take decisions not as your alter-ego, Roleplaying isn’t just what you’re looking for. It seems pretty clear you want Roleplaying + Storytelling of one kind or another.

Narrative games give you active, collaborative storytelling, with the mechanics to focus on the story and not present much, if any game time when the story is not ”live”.

Boardgames and Computer Games may not have true narrative control and “active storytelling” where you are in author stance. They can however provide “passive storytelling”, because there is going to be zero gameplay outside the specific premise, thus it seems like the action, and thus unfolding story, are “always on”. Computer Games have the added bonus of little mechanical interfacing with the player, thus the game can play out like interactive media.

I have a shitty english, Krueger. Thats why I dont use the correct terms sometimes. But suspension of disbelief is a good term for what I feel. Or: belief that you're there, in this imaginary world the game evokes. Be it with coppers & robbers or D&D or STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl or Mansions of Madness.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the difference here. I think we all feel this thing in different activities, and also in ways that are subtly different to each person. So you get more immersed playing d&d, while I get more immersed with the visual and sound cues that a videogame provides, etc. And maybe your way to experience this is through some trance-like state and funny voices while I on the other hand just feel this stuff in my head while externalizing very little. But we are all role-playing in the end.

 

[CRKrueger]

I have a shitty english, Krueger. Thats why I dont use the correct terms sometimes. But suspension of disbelief is a good term for what I feel. Or: belief that you're there, in this imaginary world the game evokes. Be it with coppers & robbers or D&D or STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl or Mansions of Madness.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the difference here. I think we all feel this thing in different activities, and also in ways that are subtly different to each person. So you get more immersed playing d&d, while I get more immersed with the visual and sound cues that a videogame provides, etc. And maybe your way to experience this is through some trance-like state and funny voices while I on the other hand just feel this stuff in my head while externalizing very little. But we are all role-playing in the end.

“Trance-like state” and “funny voices”. Well, I guess that’s better than delusions and brain damage.

As to not seeing a difference...that’s kind of hard to believe since the entire point of the thread is that you do see a difference and are making a choice based on that difference. As Tristam said upthread, playing a boardgame or computer game is not the same experience at all as an RPG. You don’t want to play RPGs, you want to play other games that have just enough elements of RPGs to be entertaining and engage the imagination during play.

Analyzing those differences and preferences can help find the right kind of game.

 

[EmperorNorton]

As someone who really loves board games, rpgs, and video games, I think Krueger is right. They are fundamentally different experiences and while each of them can have some overlap, they are all unique mediums and each generally have qualities that the others do not.

I mean, part of the reason I love all three is that they give me different experiences. The variety is what I like about them.

 

[Lessa]

Well, to me, the different media don't give enough difference on the "imagining I'm in another world" aspect. That's my point. I can achieve that experience with all the cited media , only the tabletop RPG being the one where I must invest the most time and the return is the least guaranteed (for me). While the others have better signal to noise ratio, to me.

I don't need to come here and say I prefer videogamed to rpgs because I think most here already knows that. What I'm discovering now is that I'm also preferring boardgames at this point. In other words: to engage with role-playing I prefer videogames and boardgames (with roleplayish elements) over full blown role-playing games. That sounds weird, I know. But it's how I feel.

 

[Lessa]

As someone who really loves board games, rpgs, and video games, I think Krueger is right. They are fundamentally different experiences and while each of them can have some overlap, they are all unique mediums and each generally have qualities that the others do not.

Emphasis mine. I'm in for that overlapping thing. Which is the imaginary stuff.

I can't play a game with no imaginary layer, for eg. Or better, I can play them (I like chess for eg), but they don't satisfy me at all like the others do

 

[Arminius]

Oddly, I find I agree both with Silva’s terminology and his preference, although I still see more possibilities in full-on RPGs than in board games, due to the flexibility and customizability offered by GM and relatively loose rules.

But even though I enjoy silly voices and internalizing a character’s perspective, I’m perfectly happy to just be me-with-powerz as long as the setting is portrayed believably.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm not sure that silly voices have anything to do with immersion, but my experience is that players are far more likely to make silly voices when playing boardgames than RPGs

 

[Lessa]

Interesting blog post from Bankuei:

Arkham Horror vs. Call of Cthulhu

For the last year and a half or so, I’ve watched about 5 or 6 pretty heavy CoC players I know migrate from roleplaying CoC, to playing Arkham Horror. It’s been a pretty fascinating chan…

www.google.com