[awjr]

One of the more interesting games that, in the UK, had pretty much gone no where, was "Settlers of Catan". Then, around 1998 IIRC, it got a 10/10 in a gaming magazine and I think this, very much, spawned the revival of German board games on the UK games scene.

Before then it really was mainly war games (warhammer et al), RPGs, and card games (Magic TG from about 1993 onwards).

There are some absolutely fantastic games out there, but just don't buy from the top X games. Know the size of your play group and buy to suit them.

For example Agricola is a great game, but works best with 3-4 players. My group has 5 players so it's "ok" https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31260/agricola

Recent games that have surprised us. If you like poker, Sheriff of Nottingham and 5 players is exceptionally good fun in a group prepared to be able to put on silly voices and get into character. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/157969/sheriff-nottingha...

Also Camel Up is great for parties (up to 10 people with the expansion) and kids love it as well but is a lot of fun in groups of 5 https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/153938/camel

Group dynamic is important in buying the 'right' game but you cannot go wrong with Settlers of Catan if you can get 4 players. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13/catan

If you have a local game shop, or even better, a local games cafe, you can usually get a chance to try out a game. Just remember to buy from them. They are your gateway to a whole new dynamic computer games has pretty much tried to destroy.

Board games are so so so good these days, just avoid Monopoly. ;)

[wolfgke]

> Board games are so so so good these days, just avoid Monopoly. ;)

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monopoly_(game)&o... Monopoly was intended as a way to demonstrate that an economy which rewards wealth creation is better than one in which monopolists work under few constraints.

In other words and put much more harshly: Monopoly is played the right way if after a short time one player is happily winning and all the other ones are really angry.

[TeMPOraL]

This really should have been written on the box explicitly.

I didn't see the connection until someone pointed it out to me when I was already an adult. All I have from this game is memories of boredom playing it with family as a kid.

[hypersoar]

It did say that explicitly. The original version of the game was "The Landlord's Game"[1], and it came with two sets of rules: monopolist, as you know the game and anti-monopolist, with a land-value tax. You were meant to play the game with the former rules, and then again with the latter to see how much nicer it was. It turns out that being a monopolist is more fun, so, over time, the game was shortened to just that part and gained popularity through a bunch of rethemes. Parker Bros. bought one of those rethemes, though not from Elizabeth Magie, the creator, but from some other guy who claimed to have made it.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game

[the_af]

> It turns out that being a monopolist is more fun

...for the monopolist. Everybody else is bored to tears. This makes it a terrible game in its more well-known form.

[hypersoar]

I'm not saying I'm a fan of the game. But, in its defense, I've never played the nice version. There are probably few living people who have. Perhaps it's even more boring?

[jjnoakes]

If you were bored playing Monopoly, you were probably not playing with the real rules (i.e. you had no auctions, you used free parking, etc).

Played correctly, Monopoly isn't a terribly long game, and (usually) once someone gets ahead, it is a fairly quick steamroll.

[pessimizer]

> the real rules

The Parker Brothers rules, rather. The game was a folk game before its acquisition by Parker Brothers, and their rules are a slightly simplified version of the Quaker variant learned by the man responsible for the graphic design of the published version of the game. House rules trace their lineages to versions of the game before Parker Brothers published it, and are equally valid. Although money on Free Parking introduces a ton of randomness, lengthens the game significantly, and is bad, it is no less real.

[svachalek]

This. I played as a kid with all the traditional house rules, which really drag it out. As an adult I've tried it straight up with box rules and wow -- it's quick and brutal. Still not very fun but it does make a point.

[PhineasRex]

This comes up every time somebody complains about Monopoly but even with auctions the game is still far too long and ends well after the winner is apparent.

[wolfgke]

Then the players are probably much too nice.

[SilasX]

Okay, but to really make that point, you need:

a) mechanisms to make the game proceed faster, and

b) to play the "follow-up" second ruleset, where (AIUI) you use something like Georgist rules (the land value tax) where players are supposed to realize, hey, you can't monopolize under the LVT because monopoly rents just get taxed away.

[Agustus]

As a heads up, speed is increased significantly by following the official auction rule: When you land on a property, you have the option to purchase it outright; or if you do not purchase, the bank will then conduct an auction of the property.

[SilasX]

That's what I've heard, but it only solves the "getting all property bought up" problem. The other bottleneck is "getting some player to trade away the last of a color", which seems to be unchanged, right?

[Splines]

Monopoly really shines in electronic versions, where book-keeping and rule enforcement is easy to do. There's no "free parking money pot" nonsense that just makes the game unnecessarily long.

[fiatjaf]

It really shines in hell.

[vanderZwan]

> One of the more interesting games that, in the UK, had pretty much gone no where, was "Settlers of Catan".

In the Netherlands, Settlers of Catan was one of those boardgames that you pretty much could not avoid in mid to late nineties, and from what I understand it was even bigger in Germany. It really seems to hit a sweet spot in terms of accessibility and depth.

One of my personal favourites is Citadels[0] (called Machiavelli in the Netherlands), because when your group gets really good at it, the character-draft mechanic turns into in making strategic choices where everyone is basically trying to trick the other players into thinking they've chosen a different character than they have, either by bluffing or making them think they're bluffing. So it actually feels like everyone is trying to pull off Machiavellian schemes.

For a more lighthearted party game version of that, Mascarade[1] (both of these games are by Bruno Faidutti, which explains why their mechanics are somewhat similar). I've played this with ten people and it turns into a wonderfully chaotic game.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadels_(card_game)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mascarade

[mikepurvis]

Big Agricola fan here, also Tzolk'in, Fresco, Puerto Rico, and Power Grid for similar depth/strategy level.

However, I've been recently trying to build out my mid-range collection, to have more stuff with appeal to a broader audience, including my 6 year old daughter. To that end, we've really enjoyed Patchwork, Broom Service, Set, and Carcassonne.

For goofy games that play quickly over the lunch hour at work, see Deep Sea Adventure and Witch Trial, as well as various other card games.

[acomjean]

>For goofy games that play quickly over the lunch hour at work

I started playing those 1 hour games at work and really like a game that can be played quickly that have some depth, but not "break out the spreadsheet" depth..

Colleretto is my choice for a light quick playing games with some strategy but not too deep. I like Big Points too.

Tzolk'in is really kinda fun (Spinning gears), then some people figured out a "Dominant strategy" for winning consistantly. Making me realize these games are a delicate balance and no matter how much you test..

[mikepurvis]

If someone in your group has figured out a dominant strategy for a particular game, it can be worth evaluating if there are strategies which can specifically counter it. In the matter of Tzolk'in in particular, there are at least four major strategies available, and well documented:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1038126/guide-main-strategi...

Tzolk'in is also helped in that you can play it online, to practice— basically, execute the dominant strategy and see if it does as well online as it does in your particular group. See: http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!gamepanel?game=tzolkin

[gknoy]

A group I was in had a bunch of fun with Boss Monster. It worked well with three or four people, and might have with more.

[scentoni]

Red 7 is good for playing a few games over lunch. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/161417/red7

[cableshaft]

Sheriff of Nottingham is getting an expansion later this year which will make the game playable with six players. I've been waiting for so long for that because it would easily get to the table more often at 6 players for me, and in front of more casual players.

[skciva]

Agreed on Sheriff! Such a fun game.

I think whats important is having one or two people "hosting" the events to realize what you've said above and plan accordingly.

Having a plethora of games to choose from and selecting the right one for certain people and group sizes has made a lot of my friends realize just how much fun they can be.

[barbs]

> There are some absolutely fantastic games out there, but just don't buy from the top X games. Know the size of your play group and buy to suit them.

I agree to some extent - group size is just one factor. There's also mechanics and play-style to consider. Casual vs. Heavy, party vs. strategic, themed vs. abstract etc.

I wholly agree that monopoly should be avoided though :). Sure, maybe if you play with certain rules it's okay, but even then there are so many better games!

[awjr]

Agreed, one of the most impressive games I have played is Terra Mystica, but only within our group when we are looking for something heavy. Phenomenal game mechanics.