8 ms·

One thing that I've learned over the years playing modern board games is that the vast majority of the population is too intellectually lazy to bother learning

One thing that I've learned over the years playing modern board games is that the vast majority of the population is too intellectually lazy to bother learning new games. They'd rather keep playing their (outdated) classics that they know than learn new and better-designed games.

b0rsuk 7y ago
Monopoly! Woo!!
- smoyer 7y ago
  Monotony? ... for some reason I never had a problem playing Risk in college even though it would last all night (or more). Playing a six-hour game of Monopoly was only fun for the first couple of hours.
  - Psyladine 7y ago
    Monopoly should rarely, if ever, last more than 45 minutes. Assuming Of Course you are playing by the rules. All properties landed on must sell - even if by auction, no free parking payout, chance cards are not optional, no banker loans, and there are a finite number of houses which caps development for the late-comers. It's as ruthless and unpleasant as a game of Sorry but that's the point, capitalism is only great when you're winning.
    - b0rsuk 7y ago
      You are exactly right, because Monopoly was literally invented as a propaganda device to show how awful capitalism is. The game was literally meant to be unpleasant and soul-draining. But... something went wrong. People took it at face value, and claim to be enjoying the experience. Stockholm Syndrome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game#Descript...
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Well, I enjoy playing it, and appreciate the message. The best bit for me is the auctioning of the properties, however.
- contingencies 7y ago
  Met the US chamption of Monopoly in LA at a boardgame meetup in 2010. I asked him how he found enough interest in the game to continue playing to such a level, since it was so shallow/predictable. He replied immediately that Monopoly was really just about convincing people to give you what you want. Turns out he was a lawyer.
bovermyer 7y ago
This is largely because they're looking for a social activity first and foremost, and don't much care about the particular rules. A lot of these people that "don't want to learn something new" will learn that new thing if enough of their friends/family are interested.
throwaway2048 7y ago
As somebody who has played a lot of different board games with a lot of different random people, its a huge time investment to learn a game, especially a complex one, that you might only end up playing one time.
- marcofiset 7y ago
  I'm not only talking about complex games. Even something like Azul, which takes 5-8 minutes to teach and 45 minutes to play is met with reluctance from non-initiated people. I don't expect any non-gamer to sit through a 40-minute explanation, obviously. However, I wouldn't call an hour-long game (including teach) a "huge time investment".
  - watwut 7y ago
    45 minutes of board game I likely won't like is a lot. In any case, games popular among causual players (including me) tend to be much shorter. Plus, no game that claims 45 in box or even take that long with experienced players ever take 45 min first time. It is usually double the claimed time.
b0rsuk 7y ago
...and they also often delegate boardgames to "child's play". Having done that, they pre-emptively dismiss new board games because they're - by definition - for kids.
- marcofiset 7y ago
  By whose definition? There are more board games labelled 14+ releasing every year than there ever was
contingencies 7y ago
Many people are deeply afraid of or do not enjoy losing competitive games. Further, they may also fairly associate the effort of learning a new game with an experienced player a prelude to losing. So their behavior could be fairly seen as 'pain avoidance' or 'enjoyment optimization'. Few people are motivated by intellectual stimulation or curiosity beyond childhood years.
- mrob 7y ago
  The blame lies largely with the experienced players for failing to give sufficient handicap. If you're teaching somebody how to play Go, start with a 9x9 board and give them 5 stones. If you're teaching Arimaa, give them something like four rabbits, one horse, the camel, and the elephant. Dial back the handicap whenever they win a game, which at those starting handicaps should be from the very beginning.
  - inimino 7y ago
    A player who is just starting go won't even win with 5 stones on 9x9 for a while, but this is still good advice.
Benjammer 7y ago
I'm always fascinated by people who not only stick to the same basic, boring classics, but they've adopted "house rules" of some sort over the years that they INSIST on playing by, because "that's what they're used to." And then they know how to cheat using the house rules they've come up with, and all their creative efforts become focused entirely on cheating the dumb, inconsistent rules, rather than any actual sense of tactical strategy. It's like, come on! If you used the same creativity for coming up with real game strategy that you use to trick the other humans in the room and skirt the rules, you'd be really, honestly, good at this game. But people are unwilling to put that kind of direct accountability on themselves, for fear of failure I suppose.
- xaedes 7y ago
  They win and rule by dictacting the world their own rules. Clever they are. Why risk a loss to anothers rules when you can win by enforcing your own rules on them?

b0rsuk 7y ago

Monopoly! Woo!!

smoyer 7y ago
Monotony? ... for some reason I never had a problem playing Risk in college even though it would last all night (or more). Playing a six-hour game of Monopoly was only fun for the first couple of hours.
- Psyladine 7y ago
  Monopoly should rarely, if ever, last more than 45 minutes. Assuming Of Course you are playing by the rules. All properties landed on must sell - even if by auction, no free parking payout, chance cards are not optional, no banker loans, and there are a finite number of houses which caps development for the late-comers. It's as ruthless and unpleasant as a game of Sorry but that's the point, capitalism is only great when you're winning.
  - b0rsuk 7y ago
    You are exactly right, because Monopoly was literally invented as a propaganda device to show how awful capitalism is. The game was literally meant to be unpleasant and soul-draining. But... something went wrong. People took it at face value, and claim to be enjoying the experience. Stockholm Syndrome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game#Descript...
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Well, I enjoy playing it, and appreciate the message. The best bit for me is the auctioning of the properties, however.
contingencies 7y ago
Met the US chamption of Monopoly in LA at a boardgame meetup in 2010. I asked him how he found enough interest in the game to continue playing to such a level, since it was so shallow/predictable. He replied immediately that Monopoly was really just about convincing people to give you what you want. Turns out he was a lawyer.

bovermyer 7y ago

This is largely because they're looking for a social activity first and foremost, and don't much care about the particular rules. A lot of these people that "don't want to learn something new" will learn that new thing if enough of their friends/family are interested.

throwaway2048 7y ago

As somebody who has played a lot of different board games with a lot of different random people, its a huge time investment to learn a game, especially a complex one, that you might only end up playing one time.

marcofiset 7y ago
I'm not only talking about complex games. Even something like Azul, which takes 5-8 minutes to teach and 45 minutes to play is met with reluctance from non-initiated people. I don't expect any non-gamer to sit through a 40-minute explanation, obviously. However, I wouldn't call an hour-long game (including teach) a "huge time investment".
- watwut 7y ago
  45 minutes of board game I likely won't like is a lot. In any case, games popular among causual players (including me) tend to be much shorter. Plus, no game that claims 45 in box or even take that long with experienced players ever take 45 min first time. It is usually double the claimed time.

b0rsuk 7y ago

...and they also often delegate boardgames to "child's play". Having done that, they pre-emptively dismiss new board games because they're - by definition - for kids.

marcofiset 7y ago
By whose definition? There are more board games labelled 14+ releasing every year than there ever was

contingencies 7y ago

Many people are deeply afraid of or do not enjoy losing competitive games. Further, they may also fairly associate the effort of learning a new game with an experienced player a prelude to losing. So their behavior could be fairly seen as 'pain avoidance' or 'enjoyment optimization'. Few people are motivated by intellectual stimulation or curiosity beyond childhood years.

mrob 7y ago
The blame lies largely with the experienced players for failing to give sufficient handicap. If you're teaching somebody how to play Go, start with a 9x9 board and give them 5 stones. If you're teaching Arimaa, give them something like four rabbits, one horse, the camel, and the elephant. Dial back the handicap whenever they win a game, which at those starting handicaps should be from the very beginning.
- inimino 7y ago
  A player who is just starting go won't even win with 5 stones on 9x9 for a while, but this is still good advice.

Benjammer 7y ago

I'm always fascinated by people who not only stick to the same basic, boring classics, but they've adopted "house rules" of some sort over the years that they INSIST on playing by, because "that's what they're used to." And then they know how to cheat using the house rules they've come up with, and all their creative efforts become focused entirely on cheating the dumb, inconsistent rules, rather than any actual sense of tactical strategy. It's like, come on! If you used the same creativity for coming up with real game strategy that you use to trick the other humans in the room and skirt the rules, you'd be really, honestly, good at this game. But people are unwilling to put that kind of direct accountability on themselves, for fear of failure I suppose.

xaedes 7y ago
They win and rule by dictacting the world their own rules. Clever they are. Why risk a loss to anothers rules when you can win by enforcing your own rules on them?