‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The Board Game of the Alpha Nerds (2014)

124 points · 65 comments · neonate

  1. pavel_lishin · · focus · HN ↗
    I bet my experience would have been better if I were playing with people I knew, but the one time I played it, I didn't have a great time. (Yes, of course I was betrayed and stabbed in the back by another player; but that was expected! And as the one newbie who didn't know anyone, I knew my time was numbered.)

    I think I mostly hated the map; it was difficult to read, and I made at least two mistakes because the regions in the center were tiny and hard to parse out for me.

    But... also, this sort of thing just doesn't appeal to me. I really like Secret Hitler, but otherwise, the social-deduction style of game doesn't appeal to me. But I'm very glad that this game exists, and that people are way into it.

    1. spencerflem · · focus · HN ↗
      I can’t play it with people I know, after genuinely upsetting some friends in a backstab. With strangers meeting only for the game it feels a lot more expected and less personal
      1. 2muchcoffeeman · · focus · HN ↗
        Finding a good group is hard. Too many board gamers don’t realise that these are _games_.
        1. vintermann · · focus · HN ↗
          Political games - meaning, games with more than two players where you have wide discretion to help or hinder specific opponents - naturally bleed into real life. To have a loyal friend in these games who lets you win at their own expense, is a good strategy - you'll simply win a lot more games that way. Grudges carrying over from one game to the next becomes a natural part of play too - what else could dictate who you let win, if you end up in a kingmaker situation?

          Politics has a habit of infecting everything. If you are determined enough to win, even games like Monopoly or Catan with relativelt modest political elements degenerate towards Diplomacy (or Nash's "So long sucker"). That's why in modern game design, designers try to limit the scope for politics to the absolute minimum, so that any game can be enjoyed in isolation without a metagame of grudges and off-table alliances.

          1. torginus · · focus · HN ↗
            This hasn't really been my experience. We constantly used to gang up on a guy who was super good at this. Also he was an expert at tricking people into doing his bidding.

            He really wasn't like that IRL.

            Couples/brothers murdering each other is a common theme though.

            Also, I remember I used to care way too much about nerd stuff like this. Nowadays I can't find the headspace, real life just kept creeping in.

          2. pavel_lishin · · focus · HN ↗
            > To have a loyal friend in these games who lets you win at their own expense, is a good strategy - you'll simply win a lot more games that way.

            I think that's only true if your goal is to win. I play board games to have fun with friends and family, and winning every time - especially because someone else hands you a win - is no fun at all.

            1. vintermann · · focus · HN ↗
              I agree! But that's also why I agree with modern game designers and prefer games where politics is minimized.
          3. 2muchcoffeeman · · focus · HN ↗
            This is a reflection of those people.

            My core group will backstab each other gleefully and when the game is over, that’s it. We’re done. Because none of this is real. We wouldn’t even help each other if we played with other people. We’re all trying to win.

            Although I suppose you’re right. If I played with two people, and the role of one of them is simply to help the others game, I’d never play with them.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.