Hacker News Reader

> Monopoly is a great example

No it isn't, because board game people hate it. I don't know who is defending Monopoly, but it's not board game fans.

> If you play any of the computer/console versions the auctions are automatic and easy for everyone to participate.

Sure. It still doesn't make for a fun game though.

> Computers exist to automate tedious tasks, if your game has tedious mechanics that require a lot of text to explain it'd probably be better as a computer game where those parts can be automated and the player just has to make their choices within that framework.

Sure. But good games avoid tedious tasks to start with. If anything I'd say the converse is true: most computer games would be improved by trying to make a board game version and cutting the mechanics that make that difficult.

> My partner would argue that the physical interaction with the pieces/cards/board/whatever is what matters and computers don't have that, but I believe if I'm judging a game as a game then the gameplay not making me hate it is the most important part.

If "gameplay" was the only thing that mattered then all games would be abstract games. And even abstract games often have a tactile part of the experience that creates its own feel. Every computer game is kind of the same - you sit in front of a screen and push keys - and that limits how much you can get out of it; there are no great novels about computer gaming.

> No it isn't, because board game people hate it. I don't know who is defending Monopoly, but it's not board game fans.

It's a great example because almost everyone discussing this topic understands the game and its flaws in physical game form, and most of us have probably played at least one digital version over the years.

Also board game people are the same people quoted in the article as saying that bad rulebooks were in fact great, so their judgement may not exactly be the best. Enthusiasts of any category tend to be able to ignore a lot of flaws in their favorite thing as long as the thing they like about it works. I'm a car enthusiast, and there are a lot of us who absolutely love objectively bad vehicles just because of one unique quirk that happens to make us smile.

> Sure. It still doesn't make for a fun game though.

Right, but it takes a lot of the parts that actually ruin most physical plays and solves their problems.

> Sure. But good games avoid tedious tasks to start with.

Remembering a book full of rules and what applies when is a tedious task. If the game requires players have a grasp on a substantial rulebook for basic play it is not avoiding tedious tasks.

That's what's great about computer versions of board games, the computer handles that part and players are only able to do things that are allowed. You never have to remember what you can do when, and more importantly never have to decide between unwinding multiple turns worth of gameplay, just rolling with it, or throwing away the entire session when inevitably someone gets it wrong.

There is exactly one game I've played with my partner's board game crew where I didn't discover some way they were doing it wrong, and that's Everdell which has a very well done computer version that they regularly play as well as physical, so they've been forced to learn how the game actually works instead of how they think it works.

> If anything I'd say the converse is true: most computer games would be improved by trying to make a board game version and cutting the mechanics that make that difficult.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but the fact remains that computers allow more complicated mechanics to be implemented without increasing the cognitive load on the players or increasing the odds of a game-breaking misunderstanding.

> There is exactly one game I've played with my partner's board game crew where I didn't discover some way they were doing it wrong, and that's Everdell which has a very well done computer version that they regularly play as well as physical, so they've been forced to learn how the game actually works instead of how they think it works.

Did correcting the others make them more fun?

> Did correcting the others make them more fun?

I don't generally find correcting others fun, unless they don't take it well and make a scene about it in which case that can certainly be some delicious schadenfreude. That doesn't happen with the game group, they're generally receptive.

I think the games probably got more fun though. Presumably those rules are there for a reason, and it's not like I'm staring at the rulebook the whole time. I either had a question come up as a part of gameplay the group couldn't answer confidently or something didn't feel right about how the game was playing so I checked and found what I found. On more than one occasion this has led to someone else in the group pointing out some other related element they had found weird until then.

Rules are generally made deliberately, but I've known more than one game that was made more fun by an accidental misreading of the rules. When a rule mistake is important enough to spoil a game, or breaks the consistency, one generally notices. I guess it's possible for a game to just be silently slightly less fun than it should be because of a rule mistake, but I haven't seen it happen much. Which possibly says something about the value of complex rules with lots of special cases.

Lot of sympathy for this view, too. Risk is long, drawn-out and often awful on board, but can be very pleasant on computer.

OTOH, creating a computer game is not a trivial task, and I don't see a good way to do it for 6 people Face-to-Face with some hidden information like a card hand. Would it be good if a complicated diplomatic game with hidden info like Republic of Rome https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1513/the-republic-of-rom... were available on computer, and everyone had their own device making it easy to see their hand / interact? Absolutely! But that's not a realistic option.

I would agree with "If your game is complicated enough that effectively no one is going to play it correctly as a board game, either simplify it so that's not the case or don't make it a board game." but think you may be underestimating serious gamers' ability to play complicated games correctly and still have fun. Agree that you really want to try to minimize tedious bookkeeping, though.

I may well be an outlier, though - I actually read the rules of Monopoly as a kid and we did auctions and mortgaging...

> OTOH, creating a computer game is not a trivial task, and I don't see a good way to do it for 6 people Face-to-Face with some hidden information like a card hand.

I've long thought the "Jackbox Games" model would be absolutely perfect for board games. The board goes on a TV, a tablet, or for the really dedicated a screen built in to their gaming table and each player's hand/deck/whatever displays on their phone through a browser-based client.

If I were a frontend programmer I'd have taken a whack at it.

> but think you may be underestimating serious gamers' ability to play complicated games correctly and still have fun.

My experience fits with something mentioned in the article, a lot of serious gamers are not in fact playing their games correctly but they just don't know it. I said this in another one of my replies but I'll repeat it here, I have rarely played a complicated (read: more than a page of rules to be understood for proper play) game with my partner's board game crew without discovering some way that they were playing it wrong half way through the game. These are people who meet every week at a board game bar to play board games, go to board game conventions, and a few of them even make and sell their own games.

A few decades ago we did as you suggest. We automated TTRPGs and called them CRPGs, and ARPGs, and MMORPGs. And yet - TTRPGs are as popular as ever, despite apparently being subordinate.