4mo ago

Have you ever made a strategic play in a game so good it made you feel kindof bad?

A friend/coworker of mine and his wife hosted a weekly boardgame night that I attended. Most of the other guests were kinda flaky, and this one particular day, I was the only one who showed up. So it was just me, my friend, and his wife.

Someone suggested Dixit, which I had never played before, but it sounded fun and I was down to play. So we broke it out, shuffled, and started the game.

Now, if you don't know how Dixit works, it's basically a deck of cards with pictures on them. One of a toy abacus. Another of a child pointing a toy sword at a dragon. Another of a winding staircase with a snail at the bottom. Etc.

In one version of the game similar to Apples to Apples or Scategories, everyone gets a hand of cards which they keep hidden. The dealer announces a clue and everyone (including the dealer) contributes a card from their hands face-down to the center of the table and the dealer shuffles them together and reveals them all at once without revealing whose card is whose. Then players vote which one they think matches the clue. You get points as a player if others vote for your card or if you vote for the one the dealer picked. As a dealer, you get points if close to 50% of the players vote for yours.

I was the dealer this round. One of the cards in my hand was of a ship's anchor. That's when it came to me.

See, the friend/coworker and I both worked in web software development. His wife didn't. And I came up with the perfect play. I gave the clue "hyperlink." Hyperlinks on web pages are created using the HTML <a> tag. The "a" stands for "anchor." And any web developer would know that.

When the vote came in, I got one vote for my card from my friend and his wife failed to select the correct card and so didn't get any points. It was a slam dunk move. But I felt a little bad for excluding my friend's wife from an inside-knowledge thing.

The next round, my friend was the dealer and he picked a rule/card that was an inside-knowledge thing between the two of them. (A line from a poem they both knew well, the next line of which related to the picture of the card.) So I was glad of that.

88 comments

That is literally how you are supposed to play Dixit.

Back when I was in middle school, I had made an unbeatable Magic deck. The whole thing was built around just not letting the other player do jack shit. Everything I had other than the land cards would eliminate your creatures, your spells, or both while doing very little actual damage themselves. It would slowly kill you while you could do nothing but stand by and watch as everything you laid down, would be removed on my next turn.
I felt bad about it only after nobody would play against me anymore.
- I play an ongoing ladder/tournament for a Scrabble clone (Wordfeud). I'm kinda stuck at a middling level because of certain holes in my game that I refuse to fix because it would be boring (e.g. I could know what your last 7 tiles are but I do not intend to figure it out), but I'm decent. One of the ways I power through the lower tiers was by realizing that you can play defensively, specifically by shoving 'C' and 'V' in places that fuck up your opponent's access to high-scoring tiles (because they have no two-letter words to jump off from), or just leaving points on the rack because maximizing each turn would open things up on the board.
  New players simply cannot handle this. I'm sure they don't have much fun, but I win and go back up to the levels where the strategy helps some but you can't rely on it. Higher level players can bust through by sheer force of pattern recognition and vocabulary, or they can build words that open up so many avenues that they can withstand my getting some points too, or them fuckers DO keep track of which tiles are left (the gall!). I'm trying to remember that I'm good enough that an open board can help me too, but my tendencies are still pretty defensive.
  
  Back when Words With Friends was big, I developed a reputation among my friend groups for being very good. I wasn't terribly good, but I noticed there was no penalty for misspelling a word. So each turn, I'd try a bunch of high-scoring combinations that seemed like they might be words, and eventually one would work.
- When I played with my much older brother when I was a lot younger I never let them him play with his black deck that was built around his ivory tower card because it was so annoying. I still almost always lost but at least I had fun.
- Ewwww a blue player!!!
  I did similar with slivers. I never once lost a FNM, made my whole family rage quit except one of my brothers who's dad made him quit because of his anger issues. People at the shop always talked big like they could sideboard something that totally invalidates slivers but they never did. Nobody had a deck that was an all around winner. We all had some kind of gimmick and my gimmick was just better than everyone else's.
  
  I went the opposite, I went elf deck against casual players. My combo would go off turn 2-3 and it would use Priest of Titania and Archdruids to create 20 to infinite mana and win with Staff of Domination or Emrikul. I loved it but every win felt bad.
  Edit: the start combo was heritage Druid, Nettle sentinel, then Quirion Ranger and Wirewood Symbiote to just pound out mana with Priests and Archdruids.
- Blue black?
  
  Probably. It was mostly black but I can't remember anything more concrete except one of my cards I called the "race card" because it eliminated all white cards, including your own, from play.
  I'd still have the deck itself, along with a ton of other things I had before graduating high school, if my parents hadn't just thrown practically everything I owned away when I left for 5 months to work on a cruiseship.
  Not that it could be used in tourneys these days... A good chunk of them are probably banned by now because they were NOT balanced lol
- Toxic Magic fuckery could fill this entire thread. Hell, just toxic blue deck fuckery could fill this entire thread.

I worked out the Monopoly strategy of buying houses aggressively and refusing to upgrade to hotels
In Civ VI, I let my friend conquer a city from me because that put her civ over into having a majority of its cities following my religion, which won me the game
- The Monopoly house thing is a bit of a dick move, but I wouldn't feel bad about the Civ one--that seems legit.
  
  It was definitely legit in the sense of it being something completely counterable by my friend had she been looking out for it, and it certanly wasn't an exploit. It did still feel dirty to make use of information that she hadn't noticed to get her to defeat herself, particularly since it only worked by me carefully not saying anything about it for as long as it took to do
  
  The house thing is like Monopoly 101. Never buy hotels, stop at 4 houses. If you need more houses, you can buy a hotel and have four houses to buy.
  
  Monopoly is badly designed so that's a given.

My family plays heavyweight games, and enjoy strategy (whether it's a "strategic" game or not). We mostly get along well (though we've had to ban a couple games that got too heated too often), but we're quite competitive and we put a lot of thought into games when we play.
My wife's family is the polar opposite. They seem to enjoy passing cards or pieces around without much reason or goal (they often play pure-luck games). The first time I sat down to a game of Rummykub with them, I won the first three games in a row, and it wasn't close. Fortunately I had the sense to pull back a bit, but then it was super boring. Finally I gave myself a new goal--each game, I mentally chose another player at the table and would subtly play to see if I could get them to win. I had about a 3/4 success rate on that, and the whole experience was more enjoyable for everyone.
- Which games did you guys ban? Diplomacy? :>
  
  Monopoly and Settlers. Both very cutthroat at family gatherings.
  
  Playing Diplomacy I'm pretty sure violates the Geneva convention.

Sooo my room mate invited me to play Total War Warhammer 2 with him (RTS game based on fantasy warhammer). It was his all time favorite game, and I had played it a bit. Think 2k hours for him, 100ish for me. But I had mostly been playing the Vampire Counts, and he jumped around a lot, mostly playing the Empire as he loved their lore and how they played. Him picking the empire was kind of a dick move because they spawned very close to vampire counts, so odds were he was going to crush me mid game.
But the thing is, he had mostly played against AI, and he had never played AS the vampire counts. If you ever play as the vampire counts in that game, you quickly realize there is only one good strategy, one that the AI never uses. You can get completely free skeleton soldiers. The game normally hard caps you with negatives around 2k soldiers (2-3 full armies). They aren't great soldiers, but you can do upgrades for them to make them acceptable, and they mostly will function as meat sponges to bog down enemies while your generals do most of the killing. It's not something I looked up, it's just super obvious when you play as them that there is no purpose to any other units.
On turn 25 he thought something was wrong when he saw 5 armies attack a neighbor of his. He knew something was terribly wrong when 10 entered his territory at a point in the game when he had 2 1/2. There was shouting, there were accusations, there was mad giggling. As my room mate was thrusted full force into the zombie apocalypse. His soldiers killed thousands of skeletons, early game heavy infantry backed by mortars and arbalesters. The K/D was terrible for me. He had been focusing on building the bones of an unstoppable late gate death ball of heavy infantry and artillery, so his units were strong. But it still needed 30 turns to be invincible. But I kept winning, because his units ran out of bullets and mortar shells before I ran out of skeletons.
Then the fun thing about Vampire counts is, if you win a MASSIVE battle with tens of thousands of deaths... you can instantly recruit skeletons from that grave site! With each battle my army replenished, my generals grew more powerful, and he grew more annoyed.
After another bloody defeat of his final army, killing like 7k skeletons just to see mine raise from the dead, and his capital under siege, he resigned.
Despite his thousands of hours he said it was equally the most fun and most tilting game ever. But I just felt like I was playing lore accurate necromancers :D But when he was like "You must be cheating the game must stop this some how" and I'm just like... nah fam, game busted. I did feel a little bad. Then went back to giggling when he insisted he could win and then all his units ran out of ammo again.
- When your own soldiers come back to attack you: "Stop hitting yourself"

I think I'm about to take liberties with the term "strategic play." But I'll tell this regardless.
I have a friend who is only hyper competitive when playing games, especially board games. In the moment, he wants to win so badly that he will do anything to win. He manipulates, gaslights, he's dangerously intelligent and he's good at making it seem like he's just playing casually. And then once the game is over? He doesn't care at all whether he won or lost. It's infuriating sometimes.
Thanks to also being an extremely competitive person, I saw through it pretty quickly the first few games I ever played with him. But nobody else does. It seemed like nobody ever tried to win by comparison. So when he and I are in the same game, I know I'm going to lose. And he'll use the other people at the table even if I can see it happening. Even if I made comments about it mid-game, nobody would believe me.
So I got petty. I couldn't beat him at the manipulation game. Instead, I turned him into a meme. When he ever looked like he was behind, and someone noticed, I'd say in a light-hearted conspiratorial way, "[his name] is always ahead." Repeated it whenever he would take the lead and eventually when he won the game. "You see? [His name] is always ahead."
It caught like wildfire. Our other friends started using the catchphrase, even in games where I wasn't there. People started using attack cards on him more often. They'd be less friendly with him about trading. People would snub him even when he was so far behind there was no catching up. The day I realized how much it got to him, was one day he told me how much that phrase impacted his ability to play games with friends. It ruined a lot of his fun. Sometimes new friends who didn't even play with us that often would use it. I didn't realize how much damage it caused. All I wanted was for people to be more wary of his manipulation tactics. But instead I took something fun from a good friend and made it miserable.
So I haven't said it for years since. But our other friends still remember and will say the phrase from time to time. He's always ahead.
- So I got petty. I couldn't beat him at the manipulation game.
  Well this clearly isn't true, you just work more slowly
- This is an excellent example to pull if you ever want to talk about memetic warfare as a concept.
- This reminds me of a game of Bang where I was the manipulative player. It's a hidden role game, except that the sheriff role is not hidden. The deputy, renegades, outlaws, etc were all hidden roles. The sheriff and deputy win if the outlaws all lose (get shot enough times to be out of the game). The outlaws win if the deputy and sheriff both lose. (I don't remember specifically the rules of the renegades.) Depending how may players you have, you'll have different numbers of outlaws and renegades, but there's always one sheriff and one deputy. But everybody knows how many of each there are even if they don't know who is what role.
  I was an outlaw this game. And I basically just kept telling the sheriff that I was the deputy. One by one, all the other players fell, each at my insistence they'd said something suspicious and had to be an outlaw. (Basically, convincing the sheriff to start shooting a particular player is a death sentence for that player.) When only three players (the sheriff, me (an outlaw), and the deputy) remained I just kept telling the sheriff I was the deputy and trading shots with the real deputy. Eventually, the sheriff sided with me and started shooting the deputy, thinking (at my insistence) he was an outlaw.
  When someone dies, they're allowed to show their role card, so the jig was up when he died. Then it was just a grueling game of the sheriff and I trading shots until one of us was unlucky enough times to take the hit that our health went to zero. I eventually won, but it took forever.
  After the deputy died, he admitted that he had suspected something had gone wrong in the shuffling/dealing of role cards and somehow we'd ended up with two deputies. I was apparently that convincing.
  That was the day I learned of my talent for manipulation.

One time I played exploding kittens and fucked everyone else over so hard that I felt bad and never played again because I was too good at guessing what kinds of cards people had, how and when they'd use them, and remembering who had already used their defuses. The result was that I was really good at setting people up to explode. On top of that, I was told afterward that I had a terrifyingly good poker face; that the moment the game began I turned into an expressionless robot kinda poker face.