Question: Examples of #boardgames that don't herd players towards optimal play?
Most games have a basic idea baked into the design, whether through victory conditions or something akin to "most points wins, here is probably the best way to get points, fight over who does it best." Once in a while, I run across a game that doesn't have that nudge (or it's so subtle that you don't notice it for a bunch of iterations). These often fall out as "sandbox" games.
(Click through for thread)
A friend & I have been playing The Colonists about once a month. We've gotten to where we can bang out an era 3/4 game in about 3hrs. I think we're maybe 10-15 games deep and have gotten past the "ok, what's my intra-turn optimization" to where we try and plan out 6-9 moves as goals.
Well, we've hit a ceiling though of ~290vp over 6ish games now (today was 280 vs 282). At this point, it's a fundamental rejiggering of how we approach the game vs just tightening up existing play.
It's a wide open sandbox though as best I can see. Ora & Labora is another that sort of feels like that, but there differentiation is determined by an opponent's building acquisition rather than conscious player planning choice as it is in The Colonists. Point stands though, I think both can fit the definition.
What examples of unguided games that don't guide players to optimal pathways?
(Note, this doesn't mean it's commercially successful, or a good design in general, just unguided)
@MplsMatt interesting. I remember in the OG that firms became a game of priority deal and how it saddled you with fewer options to evade overloading attacks from people further down the chain.
How many games have you played so far in general of 2e?
Grayson Page
MplsMatt