Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dumblydorr | Hacker News Reader

In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.

View on HN

I've found I actually enjoy Risk when played on the computer. Just speeding up army placements and automating the dice rolls, so you can say "attack until N remain", saves an unbelievable amount of time.

oh believe me, i can believe it

oh believe me, I believe you

Believe it or not, I believe you too

Speaking of games that are much quicker in electronic format, the Star Realms app works great for me, and it's my GF's favorite game. She plays it every day.

yeah that was is great

Risk takes forever because setting up and rolling dice takes forever. Same with Axis and Allies.

The moment you put it on a computer it becomes fairly fast and ... actually most of the gravitas goes away.

One person’s opinion.

Similarly with digital Monopoly. It also defaults to having no "house rules" that do nothing but make the game take longer. You can finish a game of electronic monopoly in 20 min. Since the games are shorter the stakes aren't as high and it doesn't feel bad to lose.

Smallworld is a great Risk alternative. It polishes all the best points while avoiding the pitfalls.

DnD 5E is like the Risk of tabletop RPGs. Just sort of long and meandering without much going on.

Shadow of the Demon Lord, Torchbearer, and Mythras Classic Fantasy are better alternatives depending on what level of crunch you enjoy.

> DnD 5E is like the Risk of tabletop RPGs. Just sort of long and meandering without much going on.

That's...highly table dependent, even assuming the same set of rules options are in place. And I’m not just saying that whether it feels that way is a matter of subjective taste (which is also true), but that the objective qualities of play depend very much on the particular group at the table. That's true of TRPGs in general, but its true of some TRPGs more tha others, and D&D5E is relatively unopinionated (though not so much as, say, GURPS) while some more focussed games zero-in on a more-specific playstyle.

Dungeon World scratches the itch for me, if I'm going to play anything that looks at all like D&D. There's been a huge renaissance in TTRPGs for over a decade now though, powered by cheap DTP and PDF publishing.

The creator of Dungeon World is a big fan of Burning Wheel. He has a video where he explains why it is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E79DDGdX62I

His point is that game mechanics reveal what a game is really about. Using this classification: DnD is about fighting monsters. Dungeon World is about worldbuilding. Burning Wheel is about character development.

Since people are different, this might help to find the right one.

Luke Crane helped make The Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, and Mouse Guard, in descending order of complexity. The latter uses David Petersen’s (Peterson’s?) comix-IP as setting and focuses on “what do you fight for?” Despite that phrasing it doesn’t hinge on bloodshed, since challenges are weather, nature, other mice, and ? (it’s been awhile), and can be a game for young kids as well as teens and adults.

To people who like area control games like Risk, I highly recommend checking out Inis or Kemet. Tammany Hall, and El Grande are other favorites as well, but are less about dudes on a map than the first two.

Shut Up & Sit Down do a very good job selling Inis: https://youtu.be/ElcG-_-gfxo

Tammany hall is great for the first three elections, and then falls apart in the final round when it’s just about counting votes on the board.

> It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now.

And to just put this into numbers, BGG ranks Risk on position 19,955. By this ranking there are just shy of twenty thousand games better than Risk. And I agree, I will never play Risk again as it's not worth the time with the competition today.

Risk Legacy (2011) is ranked in position 368. So if that list is of any use, then this variation of the classic Risk must be immensely better!

To be honest I'm curious. The description of the game seems to imply that the game itself changes every time you play it, because some of the cards used should then be destroyed and thrown away from the game box, never to be used again. That, and the game concept covers complete campaigns, not only discrete games that you play once and then forget about it: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/105134/risk-legacy

Do people actual follow those Legacy game rules that try to trick you into destroying the game?

You're not destroying the game, your changing future playthroughs. Sure you tear up cards but those get replaced with new ones. You change the gameboard, rules, factions every time you play meaning every subsequent game is different.

If you play with the same people it makes those (hopefully friendly) rivalries across play sessions have weight and maybe even consequences.

Sure you might only get 2 dozen games out of it before you've "completed" it and need a new copy but this isn't the 80s where people have a choice of Risk, Monopoly, and Cludeo. 2 dozen games can last years, if not decades.

I normally am very much against the "Legacy" thing, but definitely make an exception for Risk. If you want a copy of Risk that you can play forever and never changes, spend the $2 with your local thrift store or Craigslist seller.

I've played Pandemic Legacy through with a group of friends, and yes we did everything by the book. It's one of my most memorable board game experiences, full recommendation. Got more value for money than with any other of my board games.

We started season 2 too, but ironically that was disrupted by the pandemic.

Basically the game has packets with instructions like "open on game 3" or "open the first time an army is defeated". These packets then have things like extra cards, new rules, new marks for the board.

Speaking of which there are marks you put in the board for different victory conditions, like you can "own" a continent whicheans in future games if you own that continent you and only you get a bonus. Same with naming a country or buffing a country so it has a permanent +1 army.

If you have enjoyed Risk previously and have a group of friends that you can continually play with I'd highly recommend it. It can still work with mixing in new people but half the fun is the shared history and friendly rivalries between game sessions.

Also there is a certain feeling when you tear up game pieces (or burn them as the winner in our case).

We similarly ditched Risk, or actually, its Italian variant RisiKo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RisiKo!). This variant gives differentiated goals for each player (e.g., "conquer 3 continents", or "defeat the Blue army"), which in principle should make the game shorter. But it also allows the defender to throw 3 dice (if they have at least 3 armies), making battles much harder for the attacker. In our group we theorized that using d10s or d20s instead of d6s should speed up the game, but honestly we never tried.

Edit: sadly you will have to copy and paste the Wikipedia URL, as HN wrongly believes that the trailing "!" is not part of it.

Up to 3 dice for defence is the standard rule. I think the standard game has several different types of victory, but the one you describe is in there in the British version.

> Up to 3 dice for defence is the standard rule.

The standard rule is up to 3 for attack, up to 2 for defence.

https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/risk.pdf

Doh! Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RisiKo%21

the url works if you % encode the !

If Risk isn't a great game, then why do people playing it get so angry when they start to lose? There is something about Risk that makes players get emotionally invested in a way I just haven't seen in other board games.

In most other games I don't care if I win or lose. This is doubly true in the sort of board games my board game 'aficionado' friends play. In those, there are often multiple different ways to win and everybody might have their own unique win condition, that may not be known to other players. I guess this sort of design is meant to minimize conflict. But the way these games minimize conflict seems to be by making people care less about winning.

Not a good board game, but actually very decent on mobile. Me and my friends have played many rounds in the train or car.

Well Gloomhaven is new, but also clunky. Friends aren't too enthused about playing it because the setup is intricate, and the game takes time if you aren't used to it. It's ideal if you can commit to a weekly game (much like DnD I guess).

It’s also highly dependent on Luck and gambling is dumb.

Check out Diplomacy. It has no RNG and each player writes their moves for the turn, which all get evaluated at the same time.

It’s a very long game due to the discussion turns and having to evaluate everyone’s moves… but it allows for exciting politics.

Thanks for the tip, i'll give it a look!

Are wargames (simulation of real battles) still a thing ?

Definitely, although the quality of life goes way up with a computer doing admin.

There was a weekly column at Rock Paper Shotgun that covered them (and adjacent stuff like simulation), and lately the writer has taken up residence at a new URL.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/topics/the-flare-path

https://tallyhocorner.com/

Absolutely! Command and Colors for example is a popular contemporary system (for some definition of popular that includes wargaming).

The old school Avalon hill style hex and counter wargames have mostly been replaced by computer games, though. For obvious reasons.

Tabletop miniature wargames are also still going strong, probably more so than board wargaming. Although the historical side of the hobby is definitely aging compared to fantasy/sci-fi themed gaming.

Gloomhaven scenarios take way longer than one game of Risk IME. Actually one of its weak points...

Game length and fun are not directly correlated.

I can spend 4-5 hours playing a good board game, and enjoy it immensely and go back to it anytime.

Risk is not a great game regardless of length of play. Sure it’s enjoyable playing on PC, but there are still many more enjoyable games tabletop or PC.

This is true, for me at least, due to the fact that it’s fairly shallow plus it involves too much luck. I enjoy deeper games that are less reliant on luck (though I still enjoy games with some luck/randomization).

> Game length and fun are not directly correlated.

Not everyone has time for 5 hours of "fun". Let alone when games like Gloomhaven are best played on a consistent basis until it's completed.

Chess is an awesome game too. Nearly no end to getting good at it, either.

Yes there are better games than Risk. That holds for practically all old games. For example, I don’t consider chess a good game. With good players, it usually ends in a draw which is unsatisfying.

The draw rate for the vast majority of players is less than 10%. Only at the highest level do you see most games ending in a draw. If anything the draws make it a less exciting spectator sport, especially for the average person.

With grand masters games are more likely to end in a draw. Partially because they need to maintain their sponsorships, partially because of how most tournaments are setup.

Chess no longer allows draws, and the rules have been updated earlier this year.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/breaking-official-rules-of-c...

That was an April Fools joke.

To be fair, we're in a golden age of table top games. I really love Dominion and Inn Fighting. If you can find a copy of Inn Fighting, you'll learn to love its shortcomings because of its rapid pace, dynamic battles, and comic theme.

OK someone explain the downvotes?

What does "old" matter to whether a game is good or not? And regardless, are you sure you're not expressing ubiquitous consumerism or ageism?

~50 BP - Othello

~50 BP - DnD

~60 BP - Risk

~60 BP - Diplomacy

~70 BP - Stratego

~100 BP - Contract bridge

~200 BP - Mahjong

~200 BP - Double twelve dominoes

~600 BP - Playing cards

~1300 BP - Chess

~2500 BP - 围棋 (Go)

~5000 BP - Checkers / draughts

~5000 BP - Backgammon

There's a lot of obsession with 'new games are better' amongst modern board gamers that they overlook what's good about the classics and why they are still here today.

I admit I was kind of the same way at first, plowing through hundreds of modern games and mostly ignoring older games, but if you take another look at the classics there's some real gems there. A few other excellent games you don't mention are Shogi (500 BP), Cribbage (420 BP), Fanorona (340 BP), Crokinole (150 BP), and Acquire (60 BP).

Although IMO, Double 6 dominoes is where it's at, not double 12. "All Fives" Dominoes and Partnership Dominoes are highly underrated amongst modern gamers, imo.

One of my favorite games of social deduction is Skull. I got the $10 version but it's based on a very old Skull & Roses game. The simplicity is deceiving, which you quickly realize as you have to make meaningful, difficult choices about your bluffs and bets.

Skull has more going on for it than it seems like it should for its super simple components, but at the same time I only ever seem to play it with 6 players, and the game feels to me like it outstays its welcome after about 20-30 minutes and those 6 player games always seem to take 45 minutes to an hour to play out, at least with the various groups I've played it with. I'm usually pretty bored by the end of it.

Coup, while more complicated, is a similar game that never seems to last that long, even with 6 players (usually closer to 10-15 minutes for that).

Skull, unlike modern European-influenced games, doesn't keep everyone in it until the end. But I think I prefer 4-5 players.

I love domino games. I used to play a lot of two-hand sniff (or muggins -- lots of variants). For me there's something aesthetically pleasing about games that use generic gaming equipment -- dominoes, cards, pawns, etc.

What is "BP"? I tried searching the Inernet but couldn't find it.

Before Present? (Just guessing)

My guess is "before present", not sure why you wouldn't use BCE/CE though.

BP (when properly explained) emphasizes that the important aspect of the timeline is its relativity to the current time.

So it saves 2 characters compared to ###y ago but requires an explanation.

    2500 BP
    2500y ago

Agreed, I was explaining a contrast to using BC/BCE.

"ya" is an equally short abbreviation for "years ago".

I've never see that before so I'd have to look it up just like BP.

I can see why it makes sense in archaeology, but using it here without any explanation just led to confusion. Everybody knows BC/AD (or BCE/CE if you're wanting to be cross cultural) so using it is just poor communication in this case.

It's trivial to Google and then we are part of today's 10,000.

Yes we can easily Google "BP".

BP conventionally being relative to an epoch date of 1 Jan 1950, which is at an ever increasing distance from the actual present, is something of an issue (and while “before actual present” is useful, using BP for it, given the conventional use, is problematic.)

"ya" (years ago) as a suffix is better, in that it doesn't have a conventional use with a particular epoch date.

It normally refers to a timescale called "Before Present" where Present is defined as = Jan 1, 1950. You see it a lot in radio- dating. GP has invented their own dating system with the same name based around ~2021.

Fun fact, there's no corresponding After Present system for dates after 1950. Instead you subtract negative years. E.g. 1957 AD = -7 BP.

That's interesting. The creation date for Dungeons and Dragons (1974) would be -24 BP then.

Talking about abbreviations:

https://blog.mitchjlee.com/2020/your-writing-style-is-costly

What does BP mean in this context?

Newer games are made with the knowledge of older games, so theoretically they should be better. I'd argue they are on average, but there's also the survivorship bias in play with very old games that only the good ones are still commonly known and played.

> theoretically they should be better

Lol anything newer is theoretically better?

Yea I did a double take at that one. The software industry laughs uncontrollably at that statement.

New things are made with the knowledge of old things, and old things aren't. Unless more knowledge about what you're making could lead to a worse product, then newer things will on average be better than older things.

Does this theory hold in practice when you look around you in the real world?

Was the best work of all fields - cinema, art, music, architecture, literature, all from the last year?

I find the production of bad movies to be such an interesting issue. Lot of money, lots of highly skilled people, long time, it still some how you get really bad results fairly often. It is a lesson in humility for any ambitious endeavor I think.

Yes it does, but not from "last year" because art has to age. The best art from 11700 is leagues better than the best art from 10700, or 5000 (we're in 12021 BTW). Obvious caveat that dark and golden ages interrupt this trend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com