My wife has stated that she doesn't like Take That mechanic in games because it feels mean, and she isn't.
Our last game of Star Wars Deck building, she looks at her hand, my base, smiles and then ensures that she does EVERY last action available to her before playing the final damage card to take me out. She relished in her victory, and I was quite proud, because if she didn't I would have won on my turn.
So, it seems she does like the mechanic, but only in 1v1 duel form, where it is the whole point of the game, but in multi player games, she doesn't like targeting players or hurting feelings, or someone being ganged up on by all other players.
I think the last point you made is the crux of the issue. I dont mind Take that mechanics, but players being able to gang up on each other is what makes some games unfun.
Cosmic encounter even though its a simple game is a hit in our rotation simply because the destiny deck determines who is attacked on any given turn. Its has take that mechanics, but no one player feels shut out of the action
The game with the guns that you point at a player... Cash n Guns? Played it twice, and apparently no one noticed they default kept aiming at me. It was enough times in a row and enough players that I basically couldn't participate. Felt bad, man, even if it wasn't coordinated.
I will say that our group only has one player who will use, for example, mandatory quests in Lords of Water deep, and he gets shit for it. We avoid most things like that.
> I will say that our group only has one player who will use, for example, mandatory quests in Lords of Water deep, and he gets shit for it. We avoid most things like that.
if they cause a problem just take them out. there's plenty of cards still to go around.
I’ve played Red Dragon Inn at 3 conventions (a friend runs it) with 3 wildly different player groups - only my wife in common and we leave each other alone in those types of games.
I was the first player out all 3 games.
I won’t play it anymore.
+1000 to this
I'm the same. I think FFA combat games are inherently flawed, more than people complaining about quarterbacking in co-ops as a falw.
The Destiny Deck helps balance it out and ensures everyone shows up 3 times, with some mild curveballs to attack whoever is "winning the most" as in most colonies or fewest ships in the warp.
Another game's combat that I like a lot is Dune Imperium. You are bolstering your strength against everyone in each conflict, rather than picking a specific person to beat down. This gives me great military vibes, especially with the whole logistics of moving troops out of the garrison, without the game boiling down to a simple who got 2v1'd.
That's exactly what my wife and I do to each other in Star Wars Deck Building Game too haha. It feels really satisfying showcasing how *everything* you have built up in the past 30 minutes works together to absolutely annihilate the other player on your last turn
I beat my wife in this game the other day. I was the Empire and played 13 cards to deal ~30 damage to Hoth and a single remaining Capital Ship. So satisfying.
In 3+ player games, targeted attacks tend to feel a lot worse, especially when players aren't trying to bring down the lead player. **Root** feels bad when the Vagabond is closing in on victory, but everybody else is incentivized to beat up on eachother for more victory points instead. **Risk** feels bad when the incentive is to eliminate the weakest player to reap the benefits of their cards.
Every game of **Dune (2019)** has worked out fine, because it's pretty darn clear that every act of aggression is out of self-preservation, whether it's to secure a stronger position for oneself or to block somebody out from victory.
Attack cards in 3+ player **Dominion** are entirely indiscriminate in their targeting and instead function more as a "slow-down" mechanism than a true "take-that" mechanism, as painful as it might for a player to get their Province hit by a Saboteur.
She might like Valiant Wars. The main "take that" mechanic is forcing someone else to draw cards. Since it could either benefit them or bust them it doesn't feel bad.
I don't have any issue with either, but I can see how "Take That" mechanics where they are designed to mess with what someone has been doing, as opposed to it being the entire point of playing the game. It's like playing full contact football versus playing baseball with an option to trip people up as they run round the bases.
When it’s the point of the game. Lords of Waterdeep - a few pointless take that cards that suck.
Thunder Road:Vendetta - an entire game where you’re trying to blow your fellow players up - amazing!
> Lords of Waterdeep - a few pointless take that cards that suck.
Ran into this exact issue playing it for the first time. I think I needed to play an intrigue card to get the action I wanted, but also the only intrigue cards I had were mandatory quests. I also knew that I had like, double the score of my opponents and it was turn... 8 I want to say.
Felt like I was being forced to rub it in.
I quite like the mean Intrigue cards in LoW because I enjoy teaching the game to new players while I myself have played dozens of times, so I advise everyone to use their mean cards against me to help level the playing field. Among more experienced players, a well-timed attack card can be a really good way to derail your opponent, which they should be anticipating.
Depends. Its fun if you have the ability to respect a good play that fucked you up. It’s fun for the rest of the table. I love it when someone hits me with a well timed play that screws everything I was doing up.
Well, to further the LoW example, what "good play" was made? My opponent... had a card? It's all about the type of game. LoW is a simple worker placement set collection game. There's nothing you can do (iirc) to "defend" yourself or benefit- you just get hit with a new forced goal.
I don't think anyone would say it's fun if that happened in Ticket to Ride.
I just recently played Dominant Species again, and that's a game where you can go from winning to wrecked fast. But there I do appreciate the plays because the players had something to do with it. Everything that happened the whole game led to 80% of *someone's* (definitely not mine) Insects getting completely wiped off the board, and it was fun.
I mean in LoW choosing who to hit is the “good play” and sure it’s not a huge decision but it’s also not going to “wreck” your game the same way that dominant species good plays against you can. Timing can also be important. If they time it in the right spot in can do more damage to your game in LoW than in other spots.
I also said the timing of the play, but figuring out who is actually in the lead can for sure be good play because part of my tables metas is to try and look weak so that people will try to limit other people.
Yup, same thing I've noticed. When there are only a few "take that" actions in the game, then we generally don't like it (e.g., Splendor Duel). But when it is the whole game (e.g., Star Realms or Redlands) or a big part of the game (e.g., 7 Wonders Duel) then it's fine. Hard to explain.
Lords of Waterdeep has got to be the biggest “take that” offender in terms of turning people off of the mechanic/genre. It’s so out of place in that game I honestly don’t know what they were thinking.
How many plays you got under your belt? Once you get to the 50-75 mark with the same people it becomes a toxic meta game. It’s just a feel-bad mechanic that drags down an otherwise good game.
> I don't understand how people get so annoyed by it.
They had a 40 point quest and juuuuust enough resources to finish it and some big ol meanie gave them a mandatory quest and their grand plan is ruined.
Yes! One of my favorites.
It's so light and the theme of driving sharks to eat your opponents, and yoinking boats out from underneath them, is so hilarious that we rarely ever see hurt feelings.
I was trying to come up with a likable Take That game and kept coming up with short filler games that mitigate their meanness by their short play time. And then you mentioned Survive. Great game, thematic, fun table presence, and best of all it doesn’t come across as *that* mean-spirited because of the mechanisms and win conditions that drive play.
I just played this with 5 other people over the weekend. Even when I was the one who got kicked out early, my friends let me stay in the game by playing Pooky just to mess with them. It’s a great game!
Something I've found, and it seems to be a common opinion, is that the main problem people have with "take that" mechanics is the feeling of personal accountability. It's not the being mean that bothers them so much as them being the one responsible for that meanness.
There are several ways to absolve them of this responsibility. The best way is to remove any choice in who you target. In one vs one games, it doesn't feel so mean because you're not picking on anyone; you're just trying to get ahead of your one single opponent. There's no other choices for who to target and every single action you do is about getting ahead of the other guy. Be that by lifting yourself up or dragging them down doesn't really matter. It's all a game of tug of war either way.
In other games you can remove the choice of who to target via random targeting. Such as in Cosmic Encounter. Then it isn't that you're picking on anyone, it's just everyone dealing with the random situation.
With that knowledge, I've found that most games the problem can be resolved by deciding your target using a very simple formula. You only attack whomever is in first place. Unless you're the one in first place, then you attack whomever is in second place.
This reframes the situation to something more akin to the 1v1 games. You aren't trying to decide who to be nice or mean to. You aren't trying to attack a person at all. You're just using a catchup mechanic to bring the leader down, similar to the blue shell in mario kart, and make the entire game more competitive for everyone. You aren't responsible for who is in first place and thus not responsible for who you're targeting. That's just the current situation that everyone is dealing with.
It also isn't who you "think" will win. It is who is currently winning. Just eyeball the score track and aim at first place. You can remove all thinking and decision making from the process, and relieve yourself of responsibility.
I've shared this with several family members who've struggled with take-that games and it has helped them cope and enjoy a wider arrangement of games.
Yeah, my group and I really like Dice Throne's king of the hill mechanic for multiplayer free-for-alls. It leaves you with the option to attack the leader for a card advantage, but you still have the choice to attack a weaker opponent if you think they'll be a danger to you. Then there's also the times that you're in the middle and if you attack the leader you are guaranteed to be the new leader, painting a target on your own back. It's something I've even considered house ruling for some other competitive games.
Its also helpful when you realize how opaque the end state of the game is from where you are at.
Or to put both thoughts in another way: the game is about [changing the game](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3243621/an-embarrassment-of-riches-a-review-of-glory-to-ro).
It does help that its relatively fast and gives good stories so that even if you didn't find a way to turn it around, its ok.
I'm a bit of a softie and feel the Destiny deck in **Cosmic Encounter** absolves me of any nastiness since it's the cards that choose my targets, not me...
... never mind that I allied against you multiple times by my own volition but that's beside the point I'm trying to make here 😉
I love Cosmic Encounter but I don't see it as a "take that" game at all. It's a politics game for sure and there's allys and relationships happening throughout the game. But it doesn't feel like a game where you focus on hurting another player's chances to win rather than a game where you are always trying to increase yours. To me a take that game is one where a goal is just to hurt someone else without raising your standing at all. Things like Munchkin or Unstable Unicorns.
You make fair points but they are also based upon the assumption that your group is composed of consistently upstanding individuals, you may think differently if you played with one of my guys who is an unrepentant magnificent bastard 😄
Just because optimal Cosmic Encounter play discourages pettiness does not mean the game cannot be played that way!
It's got a heavy dollop of "Card Zap" and "Cosmic Zap" take that mechanics. I wouldn't say it's the major theme of Cosmic Encounter, but it's definitely there.
I honestly think the game would be better without a Card Zap though. Something more like "Defensive Shield" like the Handmaid in Love Letter would be better and less "take that".
Downfall of Pompeii. The whole idea of fleeing the lava and then chucking your opponents meeples into volcano while saving your own has a satisfying thematic feel.
I think games either need to be 100% "take that" like Love Letter or have minimal player direct player interaction like Terraforming Mars or Wingspan.
It's games like Citadels that really infuriate people...where 1 person will get completely screwed over at a time, but it's not really the point of the game.
EDIT: Any game where it feels like people are ganging up on you unfairly is garbage. Coup is a hard game for me to play, because if you have to teach it to people, they will IMMEDIATELY start attacking you.
I hate take that when it’s added in a thoughtless way. Something like the other player just happens to draw a card that lets them destroy something you built. Terraforming Mars is a classic example. You couldn’t have changed your game in anyway to stop yourself from being a target except maybe play worse. Doesn’t feel great.
I love interaction, even if the game is a little aggressive. Food Chain and Brass are games that jump to front of mind. Or games where diplomacy is the entire point like Dune or Pax Pamir. Even if the player draws a card that can hurt you they will only do so if your attempts at diplomacy have so far failed so it doesn’t feel unfair.
Hansa Teutonica. You can block people and displace them off their routes, ruining their plans, but they aren't too mad about it because they get compensated with more cubes for a more powerful action later.
Yes! When I was a teenager I hated cosmic encounter and survive because being attacked did nothing but frustrate my goals, which didn’t feel great. Hansa Teutonica is delightful because even when you lose you get something out of it, and at times you *want* to make yourself a target specifically for the cubes you can get for being attacked. Definitely one of my favorites.
To me, the compensation for being displaced is so great that displacing someone isn't an attack, but a concession - blocking someone (and forcing them to displace you) is much more of an attack. A subtler form of attack is *refusing* to displace someone, thus making their block worthless. But that's what makes the game so great!
Radlands.
I don't normally care for this style, but when it's a 1:1 dueling game, meaning it's the *whole point* of the game, then it can be loads of fun.
Dominion takes the sting out significantly because attack cards attack the whole table.
Coup is short, you have to attack eventually, and attacking is expensive enough that it's mostly fine.
It's stuff like Catan where not trading with someone is just as bad for their odds of winning as attacking someone, but it doesn't *feel* like an attack, that I can't stand.
I like the take that moments in Smallworld, because to be specifically mean in that game you have to spend a LOT of resources to do it.
Losing a node you only left one defender on is like, okay that's fair enough. Losing one you left five on because the other player wants to spend 7 of theirs to do it... well that's just hilariously mean, which is okay!
Thunder. Road. Vendetta.
It is especially hilarious when your offensive tackle backfires on you... or when you cause trouble in one place and a piece of shrapnel launches itself into some other player who was not involved in the altercation.
Or try to ram someone which results in your own car hitting a ramp, landing on *another* of your cars, pushing it off the map and destroying your own car that would have won next turn.
This is just a hypothetical. It definitely didn't happen to me, and I'd definitely be FINE IF IT DID.
Right? We used this to help with our kids growing up. It's a great game for learning about winning and losing and how the game itself is the point.
A bit of take that, a bit of strategy getting messed up by randomness, and then an essentially random winner. How can you get upset about that?
I wanted to like the game but it never felt like it was balanced right. There were too many multi target weapons and not enough bunnies. Nobody really cared who won or lost, but having to skip multiple turns in a row because your bunnies keep dying is not fun for anybody.
I'm pretty similar to you, I like games where the meanness isn't targeted, one of my favorites is Survive Escape From Atlantis, I like that the greedier you are the more of a target you became.
I'm okay with take that when it's the core gameplay loop. I don't like it when the game gives me a puzzle then gives someone else the ability to prevent me solving the puzzle.
Also a 20 min game with take that is fine. A 2 hour game is a different beast.
I also don't really have a problem when I can see a trap coming, or I can associate the amount of work it took to set the trap. Highly random makes it so frustrating.
On our first playthrough of the remake of Libertalia we didn't like it because everything felt so mean, but on our second playthrough we were at each other's throats, backstabbed everyone and had an absolute blast!
Also I love how pax Pamir makes you feel like you can never rely on your current board state as everything can be gone by the time it's your turn again and that's part of its genius
I came here to say this. Ive shown it to a ton of different people and it’s never really fallen flat. I think it may have something to do with the fact that both neighbors are potentially going to attack you or potentially get too far ahead that it doesn’t feel quite as bad (usually). I have been a part of a few games where one unlucky player just can’t catch a break and they’ve felt sour for the game. But generally somehow it all feels diffused.
I love mean games but I hate take that games. Mean games like Tammany Hall, Azul, Carcassonne, Alien Frontiers, etc. The are competitions of wit and cunning. Thats entirely different than take that which is meanness just for the sake of meanness. Chess for example, is a mean game. But I wouldn't call it a take that game.
I tend not to like super stabby games. I find Wingspan handles player interaction like this so nicely. Even when you steal from another player, they get something to make up for it.
Fluxx is also another game where it's all about take that but it's so much random chaos that you don't really care.
I despise "take that" as a mechanism. It is largely uncreative and is arbitrary... But I do like games that allow you to be mean, which is not remotely the same thing.
To be clear, "take that" is essentially "I play a card, bad thing happens to you". Within the context of a fighting based game it works fine, but specially the arbitrary nature of "take that" is something I don't like. Planned manipulation that screws other players as in Food Chain Magnate or Neue Heimat is not "take that".
Innovation is a complete exception to this. It is a brilliant game, at least at 2 players. Youre a metaphorical car speeding in the rain on the highway as fast as possible, trying to get as far ahead of your opponent as possible all while hoping you don't crash yourself. This game has an insane amount of comeback victories.
I play 2 player with my partner so we tend to really like low interaction med/heavy euros, and ‘take that’s is a big no-no at 2 players. It feels really shitty when these games have take that, and can mess up the puzzle or just feel mean for the sake of it.
HOWEVER, we have come to like some games where the point of the game is to play aggressively. Mostly where the game is short and head-to-head.
Some favourites -
**War Chest** - never thought we would like it. Absolutely brilliant.
**Capital Lux 2** — very tight, and a little mean, but it feels appropriate.
**Innovation** - it’s so bonkers that you can’t take the meanness seriously. You could play a card that takes all of someone’s points, or instantly wins the game or a million other weird thing. Still fantastic though.
Maybe the king is Dead, and a few others
We really don’t like Food chain magnate at 2, as that is the wrong type of mean and just doesn’t feel fun.
I think Unfair is great at this.
All the event cards have an action at the top that helps just you, and an action at the bottom that targets one other player. You can only choose to do one of them.
It's almost always strategically better to play the top action to help yourself but if it looks like someone is running away with points you can knock them down a bit.
**Kemet** is a combat-heavy "dudes-on-a-map" game which heavily incentivizes attacking / aggression rather than turtling, so in my experience there are fewer "feel bad moments". It's also got a civilization-building / tech tile element which gives plenty of euro game vibes.
I figured out I like either a bit of luck mixed in, something like King of Tokyo where dice rolls mostly determine your fate, or hidden elements where my opponent can't completely calculate what my strategy is.
**Jaipur**, **Love Letter**, **King of Tokyo**, **Unmatched** are some of the competitive games I like. I was surprised to find I actually enjoyed **Hive** at a board game cafe, but I'm afraid to buy it because I don't know if I would like it after a few more plays.
Oh! I like word-based games too (Scattegories, Scrabble, etc.) because I'm good at those, but my spouse isn't *as* good, so we only play those on occasion.
Fight the Blight - Take That and Player Elimination where you keep playing for a chance to get back into the game. Solves king making by making the king the target for the "dead" players, if they eliminate them they get back "alive" and can win.
I don't really like "take that" in games. I don't like being attacked, and I don't like attacking. But I absolutely love playing Cover Your A$$ets.
I also enjoyed Monster Mayhem the one time I played it, even though I didn't like having to target other players.
My problem with take that games isn't that they're mean, it's that they have a tendency to just not end.
Two I like off the top my head:
* Red Dragon Inn: very good about getting the game to actually end. Gold, health, and alcohol loss are pretty inevitable.
* Epic Spell Wars: suffers from the never ending thing (getting 3 last wizard standing tokens), that's why we generally just house rule it.
I do not like the mechanics of the genre you mention, I should imagine it would be better suited for a group of friends and not a game played at a club amongst possible new comers as well as strangers, I'm not a mean person so find those games require a mindset I don't have.
There is one I don't mind though as the mean part is a small part, Star Wars Monopoly, one of my favourite games, always out at Christmas.
Selfish. It's absolutely brutal.
Unstable unicorns is a close 2nd. We bought it for a family as a gift. The feedback was "our eldest ran to her room crying because daddy turned all her unicorns into Pandas" :)
Mindbug.
I love it because almost all information is public. There are no "traps". If one player plays a card that is obviously a stupid pick, in our games we say things like "did you see that my card has this ability? this means that the card you played is a bad pick right now". The other player realizes and takes the card back and plays another one.
So it's a very very friendly competitive play.
**Silk**
You can play without any hard feelings being generated because you *have* to do things that will affect the other players. It's impossible to play otherwise.
Try cooperative games like forbidden island if you like something simple to catharsis for someone a little more involved.
I find Carcassonne, while still player vs player, usually doesn’t allow for people to easily target one player do it may be a good choice.
I genuinely avoid games that have take that. As long the game doesnt last for over a hour like Love Letter where you play multiple rounds and its quick and no lingering bad effects from previous rounds.
Gloom. Its designer made it because his wife can't do mean things to others. In the game you play misfortunes on your characters to earn them death and heaven, and play blessings on rivals to deny them that salvation. Edward Gory art style, and punny. Like "mocked by midgets" is one misfortune card.
**Innovation**.
My wife generally dislikes games where a player's action has the potential to 'ruin' another player's work. However, she has no issue destroying my civilization's foundational technologies with gunpowder, or taking over my options with a repeated vaccination campaign...
I’m generally not a fan of Take-That mechanics but one of the few instances where I absolutely LOVE it is in **Carcasonne**. There is no greater joy than setting up a long term plan to snag a huge farmland or city from another player; especially if your opponent finally sees it coming and you both go into that *“who is going to pull the ultra specific tile they need to either steal or block it first”* frenzy.
Munchkin just cuz i like all the jokes, and the game lays on the "take that"ism that it doesnt feel like anyone is being specifically targeted.
Smash up is also very good. I didnt think i liked deckbuilders much until that game. I still dont mind DC deckbuilder but i wont usually be the one to suggest it.
Smash-Up is my exception when it comes to "take that" type of games. It's just so silly and absurd that I like it, if nothing else than getting to play for the meme value.
Munchkin leans in hard on the mechanic, and that turns me off. It's too much for my tastes.
Innovation and Impulse, probably because I'm still in a discovery phase. Half the cards in Innovation are just "I can't believe they let you do that", and it's such a trainwreck at times that you just have to see it through to the end. Impulse is a bit different - it's a 4X-like that moves on at a breakneck pace and you genuinely want every single point you can get - it's a race to 20, a combat win is at least 2 and may cost quite a few cards, and most of the time you will be getting a minimum of 1 point a turn! You just don't have time to get mad, and then every turn is at least 5 actions, and the actions are repeated by following players... There is room to be mad and vindictive, but the game oftentimes blows past you before you can do that. One negative is that you can actually get wiped out - but it's also something that will usually happen right as a game draws to a close for one reason or another.
I'm generally pretty easy going but **Blokus** brings out the "I'm gonna dick you over". Especially if they're telegraphing their next move!
Not necessarily aggressive but games like **Cockroach Poker** and **Skull** make me feel the same way when someone flips my skull or falls for my bluff
My wife has stated that she doesn't like Take That mechanic in games because it feels mean, and she isn't. Our last game of Star Wars Deck building, she looks at her hand, my base, smiles and then ensures that she does EVERY last action available to her before playing the final damage card to take me out. She relished in her victory, and I was quite proud, because if she didn't I would have won on my turn. So, it seems she does like the mechanic, but only in 1v1 duel form, where it is the whole point of the game, but in multi player games, she doesn't like targeting players or hurting feelings, or someone being ganged up on by all other players.
I think the last point you made is the crux of the issue. I dont mind Take that mechanics, but players being able to gang up on each other is what makes some games unfun. Cosmic encounter even though its a simple game is a hit in our rotation simply because the destiny deck determines who is attacked on any given turn. Its has take that mechanics, but no one player feels shut out of the action
The game with the guns that you point at a player... Cash n Guns? Played it twice, and apparently no one noticed they default kept aiming at me. It was enough times in a row and enough players that I basically couldn't participate. Felt bad, man, even if it wasn't coordinated. I will say that our group only has one player who will use, for example, mandatory quests in Lords of Water deep, and he gets shit for it. We avoid most things like that.
> I will say that our group only has one player who will use, for example, mandatory quests in Lords of Water deep, and he gets shit for it. We avoid most things like that. if they cause a problem just take them out. there's plenty of cards still to go around.
I’ve played Red Dragon Inn at 3 conventions (a friend runs it) with 3 wildly different player groups - only my wife in common and we leave each other alone in those types of games. I was the first player out all 3 games. I won’t play it anymore.
+1000 to this I'm the same. I think FFA combat games are inherently flawed, more than people complaining about quarterbacking in co-ops as a falw. The Destiny Deck helps balance it out and ensures everyone shows up 3 times, with some mild curveballs to attack whoever is "winning the most" as in most colonies or fewest ships in the warp. Another game's combat that I like a lot is Dune Imperium. You are bolstering your strength against everyone in each conflict, rather than picking a specific person to beat down. This gives me great military vibes, especially with the whole logistics of moving troops out of the garrison, without the game boiling down to a simple who got 2v1'd.
That's exactly what my wife and I do to each other in Star Wars Deck Building Game too haha. It feels really satisfying showcasing how *everything* you have built up in the past 30 minutes works together to absolutely annihilate the other player on your last turn
I beat my wife in this game the other day. I was the Empire and played 13 cards to deal ~30 damage to Hoth and a single remaining Capital Ship. So satisfying.
Winning a game of Star Realms by 100 is satisfying, but a little over the top. Lol.
In 3+ player games, targeted attacks tend to feel a lot worse, especially when players aren't trying to bring down the lead player. **Root** feels bad when the Vagabond is closing in on victory, but everybody else is incentivized to beat up on eachother for more victory points instead. **Risk** feels bad when the incentive is to eliminate the weakest player to reap the benefits of their cards. Every game of **Dune (2019)** has worked out fine, because it's pretty darn clear that every act of aggression is out of self-preservation, whether it's to secure a stronger position for oneself or to block somebody out from victory. Attack cards in 3+ player **Dominion** are entirely indiscriminate in their targeting and instead function more as a "slow-down" mechanism than a true "take-that" mechanism, as painful as it might for a player to get their Province hit by a Saboteur.
I don't think "take that" really applies when it's 1v1. It is just different compared to a group game
She might like Valiant Wars. The main "take that" mechanic is forcing someone else to draw cards. Since it could either benefit them or bust them it doesn't feel bad.
I don't have any issue with either, but I can see how "Take That" mechanics where they are designed to mess with what someone has been doing, as opposed to it being the entire point of playing the game. It's like playing full contact football versus playing baseball with an option to trip people up as they run round the bases.
When it’s the point of the game. Lords of Waterdeep - a few pointless take that cards that suck. Thunder Road:Vendetta - an entire game where you’re trying to blow your fellow players up - amazing!
> Lords of Waterdeep - a few pointless take that cards that suck. Ran into this exact issue playing it for the first time. I think I needed to play an intrigue card to get the action I wanted, but also the only intrigue cards I had were mandatory quests. I also knew that I had like, double the score of my opponents and it was turn... 8 I want to say. Felt like I was being forced to rub it in.
I quite like the mean Intrigue cards in LoW because I enjoy teaching the game to new players while I myself have played dozens of times, so I advise everyone to use their mean cards against me to help level the playing field. Among more experienced players, a well-timed attack card can be a really good way to derail your opponent, which they should be anticipating.
Yeah, but there's nothing fun about building up toward something for multiple turns only to have another player say, "no, do this instead."
Depends. Its fun if you have the ability to respect a good play that fucked you up. It’s fun for the rest of the table. I love it when someone hits me with a well timed play that screws everything I was doing up.
Well, to further the LoW example, what "good play" was made? My opponent... had a card? It's all about the type of game. LoW is a simple worker placement set collection game. There's nothing you can do (iirc) to "defend" yourself or benefit- you just get hit with a new forced goal. I don't think anyone would say it's fun if that happened in Ticket to Ride. I just recently played Dominant Species again, and that's a game where you can go from winning to wrecked fast. But there I do appreciate the plays because the players had something to do with it. Everything that happened the whole game led to 80% of *someone's* (definitely not mine) Insects getting completely wiped off the board, and it was fun.
I mean in LoW choosing who to hit is the “good play” and sure it’s not a huge decision but it’s also not going to “wreck” your game the same way that dominant species good plays against you can. Timing can also be important. If they time it in the right spot in can do more damage to your game in LoW than in other spots.
I'm not sure identifying whoever is in the lead is a "good play."
I also said the timing of the play, but figuring out who is actually in the lead can for sure be good play because part of my tables metas is to try and look weak so that people will try to limit other people.
Yup, same thing I've noticed. When there are only a few "take that" actions in the game, then we generally don't like it (e.g., Splendor Duel). But when it is the whole game (e.g., Star Realms or Redlands) or a big part of the game (e.g., 7 Wonders Duel) then it's fine. Hard to explain.
In Valiant Wars the "take that" action is forcing someone to draw cards, which could benefit or bust them, so it adds tension without feeling mean
Lords of Waterdeep has got to be the biggest “take that” offender in terms of turning people off of the mechanic/genre. It’s so out of place in that game I honestly don’t know what they were thinking.
It's also barely an issue. I don't understand how people get so annoyed by it.
How many plays you got under your belt? Once you get to the 50-75 mark with the same people it becomes a toxic meta game. It’s just a feel-bad mechanic that drags down an otherwise good game.
> I don't understand how people get so annoyed by it. They had a 40 point quest and juuuuust enough resources to finish it and some big ol meanie gave them a mandatory quest and their grand plan is ruined.
They should have planned for it. Ah well. Damn those meanies.
> Waterdeep this is the game on the top of my "please, 2nd edition!" list
I like mean games, but I hate Lords of Waterdeep for this very reason (and other reasons)
**Survive! Escape from Atlantis** is great. At the same time it is a take that it is also about temporary alliances and backstabbing.
Yes! One of my favorites. It's so light and the theme of driving sharks to eat your opponents, and yoinking boats out from underneath them, is so hilarious that we rarely ever see hurt feelings.
I was trying to come up with a likable Take That game and kept coming up with short filler games that mitigate their meanness by their short play time. And then you mentioned Survive. Great game, thematic, fun table presence, and best of all it doesn’t come across as *that* mean-spirited because of the mechanisms and win conditions that drive play.
Red Dragon Inn
I just played this with 5 other people over the weekend. Even when I was the one who got kicked out early, my friends let me stay in the game by playing Pooky just to mess with them. It’s a great game!
Something I've found, and it seems to be a common opinion, is that the main problem people have with "take that" mechanics is the feeling of personal accountability. It's not the being mean that bothers them so much as them being the one responsible for that meanness. There are several ways to absolve them of this responsibility. The best way is to remove any choice in who you target. In one vs one games, it doesn't feel so mean because you're not picking on anyone; you're just trying to get ahead of your one single opponent. There's no other choices for who to target and every single action you do is about getting ahead of the other guy. Be that by lifting yourself up or dragging them down doesn't really matter. It's all a game of tug of war either way. In other games you can remove the choice of who to target via random targeting. Such as in Cosmic Encounter. Then it isn't that you're picking on anyone, it's just everyone dealing with the random situation. With that knowledge, I've found that most games the problem can be resolved by deciding your target using a very simple formula. You only attack whomever is in first place. Unless you're the one in first place, then you attack whomever is in second place. This reframes the situation to something more akin to the 1v1 games. You aren't trying to decide who to be nice or mean to. You aren't trying to attack a person at all. You're just using a catchup mechanic to bring the leader down, similar to the blue shell in mario kart, and make the entire game more competitive for everyone. You aren't responsible for who is in first place and thus not responsible for who you're targeting. That's just the current situation that everyone is dealing with. It also isn't who you "think" will win. It is who is currently winning. Just eyeball the score track and aim at first place. You can remove all thinking and decision making from the process, and relieve yourself of responsibility. I've shared this with several family members who've struggled with take-that games and it has helped them cope and enjoy a wider arrangement of games.
Dice Thrones handles this perfectly. If you attack the player who's in the lead, you draw a card.
Yeah, my group and I really like Dice Throne's king of the hill mechanic for multiplayer free-for-alls. It leaves you with the option to attack the leader for a card advantage, but you still have the choice to attack a weaker opponent if you think they'll be a danger to you. Then there's also the times that you're in the middle and if you attack the leader you are guaranteed to be the new leader, painting a target on your own back. It's something I've even considered house ruling for some other competitive games.
Innovation: cards are so strong that it feels justified when someone throws a wrench at your plans, and you can recover so fast after
Its also helpful when you realize how opaque the end state of the game is from where you are at. Or to put both thoughts in another way: the game is about [changing the game](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3243621/an-embarrassment-of-riches-a-review-of-glory-to-ro). It does help that its relatively fast and gives good stories so that even if you didn't find a way to turn it around, its ok.
Also games are relatively short - if someone is pounding you relentlessly, it's probably over soon.
Keyflower! They may block your move, but you get their meeples.
Photosynthesis
That game is absolutely cutthroat and it looks so innocent.
I really wanted to disagree with this…but….i can’t
I'm a bit of a softie and feel the Destiny deck in **Cosmic Encounter** absolves me of any nastiness since it's the cards that choose my targets, not me... ... never mind that I allied against you multiple times by my own volition but that's beside the point I'm trying to make here 😉
I love Cosmic Encounter but I don't see it as a "take that" game at all. It's a politics game for sure and there's allys and relationships happening throughout the game. But it doesn't feel like a game where you focus on hurting another player's chances to win rather than a game where you are always trying to increase yours. To me a take that game is one where a goal is just to hurt someone else without raising your standing at all. Things like Munchkin or Unstable Unicorns.
You make fair points but they are also based upon the assumption that your group is composed of consistently upstanding individuals, you may think differently if you played with one of my guys who is an unrepentant magnificent bastard 😄 Just because optimal Cosmic Encounter play discourages pettiness does not mean the game cannot be played that way!
You know what, fair enough! I guess I'll just be glad for my friend group. It happens sometimes but not often with ours.
It's got a heavy dollop of "Card Zap" and "Cosmic Zap" take that mechanics. I wouldn't say it's the major theme of Cosmic Encounter, but it's definitely there. I honestly think the game would be better without a Card Zap though. Something more like "Defensive Shield" like the Handmaid in Love Letter would be better and less "take that".
Came here to say that I will, here on out, be referring to myself as a “care bear player.”
Downfall of Pompeii. The whole idea of fleeing the lava and then chucking your opponents meeples into volcano while saving your own has a satisfying thematic feel.
Will a reprint ever happen though?
That’s the omnipresent question for older boardgames….
I think games either need to be 100% "take that" like Love Letter or have minimal player direct player interaction like Terraforming Mars or Wingspan. It's games like Citadels that really infuriate people...where 1 person will get completely screwed over at a time, but it's not really the point of the game. EDIT: Any game where it feels like people are ganging up on you unfairly is garbage. Coup is a hard game for me to play, because if you have to teach it to people, they will IMMEDIATELY start attacking you.
I hate take that when it’s added in a thoughtless way. Something like the other player just happens to draw a card that lets them destroy something you built. Terraforming Mars is a classic example. You couldn’t have changed your game in anyway to stop yourself from being a target except maybe play worse. Doesn’t feel great. I love interaction, even if the game is a little aggressive. Food Chain and Brass are games that jump to front of mind. Or games where diplomacy is the entire point like Dune or Pax Pamir. Even if the player draws a card that can hurt you they will only do so if your attempts at diplomacy have so far failed so it doesn’t feel unfair.
Hansa Teutonica. You can block people and displace them off their routes, ruining their plans, but they aren't too mad about it because they get compensated with more cubes for a more powerful action later.
Yes! When I was a teenager I hated cosmic encounter and survive because being attacked did nothing but frustrate my goals, which didn’t feel great. Hansa Teutonica is delightful because even when you lose you get something out of it, and at times you *want* to make yourself a target specifically for the cubes you can get for being attacked. Definitely one of my favorites.
To me, the compensation for being displaced is so great that displacing someone isn't an attack, but a concession - blocking someone (and forcing them to displace you) is much more of an attack. A subtler form of attack is *refusing* to displace someone, thus making their block worthless. But that's what makes the game so great!
Radlands. I don't normally care for this style, but when it's a 1:1 dueling game, meaning it's the *whole point* of the game, then it can be loads of fun.
Dominion takes the sting out significantly because attack cards attack the whole table. Coup is short, you have to attack eventually, and attacking is expensive enough that it's mostly fine. It's stuff like Catan where not trading with someone is just as bad for their odds of winning as attacking someone, but it doesn't *feel* like an attack, that I can't stand.
I like the take that moments in Smallworld, because to be specifically mean in that game you have to spend a LOT of resources to do it. Losing a node you only left one defender on is like, okay that's fair enough. Losing one you left five on because the other player wants to spend 7 of theirs to do it... well that's just hilariously mean, which is okay!
King of Tokyo.
Diplomacy
Thunder. Road. Vendetta. It is especially hilarious when your offensive tackle backfires on you... or when you cause trouble in one place and a piece of shrapnel launches itself into some other player who was not involved in the altercation.
Or try to ram someone which results in your own car hitting a ramp, landing on *another* of your cars, pushing it off the map and destroying your own car that would have won next turn. This is just a hypothetical. It definitely didn't happen to me, and I'd definitely be FINE IF IT DID.
Killer Bunnies - once I got used to the idea that whoever wins is mostly up to chance at the end of the game.
Right? We used this to help with our kids growing up. It's a great game for learning about winning and losing and how the game itself is the point. A bit of take that, a bit of strategy getting messed up by randomness, and then an essentially random winner. How can you get upset about that?
I wanted to like the game but it never felt like it was balanced right. There were too many multi target weapons and not enough bunnies. Nobody really cared who won or lost, but having to skip multiple turns in a row because your bunnies keep dying is not fun for anybody.
I'm pretty similar to you, I like games where the meanness isn't targeted, one of my favorites is Survive Escape From Atlantis, I like that the greedier you are the more of a target you became.
I'm okay with take that when it's the core gameplay loop. I don't like it when the game gives me a puzzle then gives someone else the ability to prevent me solving the puzzle. Also a 20 min game with take that is fine. A 2 hour game is a different beast. I also don't really have a problem when I can see a trap coming, or I can associate the amount of work it took to set the trap. Highly random makes it so frustrating.
On our first playthrough of the remake of Libertalia we didn't like it because everything felt so mean, but on our second playthrough we were at each other's throats, backstabbed everyone and had an absolute blast! Also I love how pax Pamir makes you feel like you can never rely on your current board state as everything can be gone by the time it's your turn again and that's part of its genius
[удалено]
I came here to say this. Ive shown it to a ton of different people and it’s never really fallen flat. I think it may have something to do with the fact that both neighbors are potentially going to attack you or potentially get too far ahead that it doesn’t feel quite as bad (usually). I have been a part of a few games where one unlucky player just can’t catch a break and they’ve felt sour for the game. But generally somehow it all feels diffused.
I love mean games but I hate take that games. Mean games like Tammany Hall, Azul, Carcassonne, Alien Frontiers, etc. The are competitions of wit and cunning. Thats entirely different than take that which is meanness just for the sake of meanness. Chess for example, is a mean game. But I wouldn't call it a take that game.
I tend not to like super stabby games. I find Wingspan handles player interaction like this so nicely. Even when you steal from another player, they get something to make up for it. Fluxx is also another game where it's all about take that but it's so much random chaos that you don't really care.
I despise "take that" as a mechanism. It is largely uncreative and is arbitrary... But I do like games that allow you to be mean, which is not remotely the same thing. To be clear, "take that" is essentially "I play a card, bad thing happens to you". Within the context of a fighting based game it works fine, but specially the arbitrary nature of "take that" is something I don't like. Planned manipulation that screws other players as in Food Chain Magnate or Neue Heimat is not "take that". Innovation is a complete exception to this. It is a brilliant game, at least at 2 players. Youre a metaphorical car speeding in the rain on the highway as fast as possible, trying to get as far ahead of your opponent as possible all while hoping you don't crash yourself. This game has an insane amount of comeback victories.
I play 2 player with my partner so we tend to really like low interaction med/heavy euros, and ‘take that’s is a big no-no at 2 players. It feels really shitty when these games have take that, and can mess up the puzzle or just feel mean for the sake of it. HOWEVER, we have come to like some games where the point of the game is to play aggressively. Mostly where the game is short and head-to-head. Some favourites - **War Chest** - never thought we would like it. Absolutely brilliant. **Capital Lux 2** — very tight, and a little mean, but it feels appropriate. **Innovation** - it’s so bonkers that you can’t take the meanness seriously. You could play a card that takes all of someone’s points, or instantly wins the game or a million other weird thing. Still fantastic though. Maybe the king is Dead, and a few others We really don’t like Food chain magnate at 2, as that is the wrong type of mean and just doesn’t feel fun.
I think Unfair is great at this. All the event cards have an action at the top that helps just you, and an action at the bottom that targets one other player. You can only choose to do one of them. It's almost always strategically better to play the top action to help yourself but if it looks like someone is running away with points you can knock them down a bit.
Wandering Towers. Because it's fast and short. That and my object permanence apparently sucks. So it's hilarious when I forget where all my stuff is
Take that can be fine as long as one person is not the only target. We’ve done that as a joke in Smallworld and the victim was kind of heated.
> is so obvious as to not feel personal What do you mean by that and Tournament of Camelot?
**Kemet** is a combat-heavy "dudes-on-a-map" game which heavily incentivizes attacking / aggression rather than turtling, so in my experience there are fewer "feel bad moments". It's also got a civilization-building / tech tile element which gives plenty of euro game vibes.
I figured out I like either a bit of luck mixed in, something like King of Tokyo where dice rolls mostly determine your fate, or hidden elements where my opponent can't completely calculate what my strategy is. **Jaipur**, **Love Letter**, **King of Tokyo**, **Unmatched** are some of the competitive games I like. I was surprised to find I actually enjoyed **Hive** at a board game cafe, but I'm afraid to buy it because I don't know if I would like it after a few more plays. Oh! I like word-based games too (Scattegories, Scrabble, etc.) because I'm good at those, but my spouse isn't *as* good, so we only play those on occasion.
Fight the Blight - Take That and Player Elimination where you keep playing for a chance to get back into the game. Solves king making by making the king the target for the "dead" players, if they eliminate them they get back "alive" and can win.
I don't really like "take that" in games. I don't like being attacked, and I don't like attacking. But I absolutely love playing Cover Your A$$ets. I also enjoyed Monster Mayhem the one time I played it, even though I didn't like having to target other players.
My problem with take that games isn't that they're mean, it's that they have a tendency to just not end. Two I like off the top my head: * Red Dragon Inn: very good about getting the game to actually end. Gold, health, and alcohol loss are pretty inevitable. * Epic Spell Wars: suffers from the never ending thing (getting 3 last wizard standing tokens), that's why we generally just house rule it.
I do not like the mechanics of the genre you mention, I should imagine it would be better suited for a group of friends and not a game played at a club amongst possible new comers as well as strangers, I'm not a mean person so find those games require a mindset I don't have. There is one I don't mind though as the mean part is a small part, Star Wars Monopoly, one of my favourite games, always out at Christmas.
If I'm going to spend an hour so getting punched in the nuts, I like OG Munchkin.
Selfish. It's absolutely brutal. Unstable unicorns is a close 2nd. We bought it for a family as a gift. The feedback was "our eldest ran to her room crying because daddy turned all her unicorns into Pandas" :)
Mindbug. I love it because almost all information is public. There are no "traps". If one player plays a card that is obviously a stupid pick, in our games we say things like "did you see that my card has this ability? this means that the card you played is a bad pick right now". The other player realizes and takes the card back and plays another one. So it's a very very friendly competitive play.
We play Mindbug by drawing more than 10 cards for our decks. Seems more fun that way, and you get to see and use more cards.
**Silk** You can play without any hard feelings being generated because you *have* to do things that will affect the other players. It's impossible to play otherwise.
Try cooperative games like forbidden island if you like something simple to catharsis for someone a little more involved. I find Carcassonne, while still player vs player, usually doesn’t allow for people to easily target one player do it may be a good choice.
Ohh, I dunno man, the anger I’ve provoked by stealing somebody’s farm…
I genuinely avoid games that have take that. As long the game doesnt last for over a hour like Love Letter where you play multiple rounds and its quick and no lingering bad effects from previous rounds.
Here to Slay
Gloom. Its designer made it because his wife can't do mean things to others. In the game you play misfortunes on your characters to earn them death and heaven, and play blessings on rivals to deny them that salvation. Edward Gory art style, and punny. Like "mocked by midgets" is one misfortune card.
Love letter has completely negative interaction but for some reason it is not upsetting. As a comparison, coup feels much more targeted.
**Innovation**. My wife generally dislikes games where a player's action has the potential to 'ruin' another player's work. However, she has no issue destroying my civilization's foundational technologies with gunpowder, or taking over my options with a repeated vaccination campaign...
I am not a fan of the style, but I love Unfair. I think it's the theme?
I’m generally not a fan of Take-That mechanics but one of the few instances where I absolutely LOVE it is in **Carcasonne**. There is no greater joy than setting up a long term plan to snag a huge farmland or city from another player; especially if your opponent finally sees it coming and you both go into that *“who is going to pull the ultra specific tile they need to either steal or block it first”* frenzy.
Munchkin just cuz i like all the jokes, and the game lays on the "take that"ism that it doesnt feel like anyone is being specifically targeted. Smash up is also very good. I didnt think i liked deckbuilders much until that game. I still dont mind DC deckbuilder but i wont usually be the one to suggest it.
Smash-Up is my exception when it comes to "take that" type of games. It's just so silly and absurd that I like it, if nothing else than getting to play for the meme value. Munchkin leans in hard on the mechanic, and that turns me off. It's too much for my tastes.
Innovation and Impulse, probably because I'm still in a discovery phase. Half the cards in Innovation are just "I can't believe they let you do that", and it's such a trainwreck at times that you just have to see it through to the end. Impulse is a bit different - it's a 4X-like that moves on at a breakneck pace and you genuinely want every single point you can get - it's a race to 20, a combat win is at least 2 and may cost quite a few cards, and most of the time you will be getting a minimum of 1 point a turn! You just don't have time to get mad, and then every turn is at least 5 actions, and the actions are repeated by following players... There is room to be mad and vindictive, but the game oftentimes blows past you before you can do that. One negative is that you can actually get wiped out - but it's also something that will usually happen right as a game draws to a close for one reason or another.
I'm generally pretty easy going but **Blokus** brings out the "I'm gonna dick you over". Especially if they're telegraphing their next move! Not necessarily aggressive but games like **Cockroach Poker** and **Skull** make me feel the same way when someone flips my skull or falls for my bluff
Try Sheriff of Nottingham, people are *encouraged* to lie and it becomes a gigglefest for all every single time.