Comparative gaming styles

[breakinglight11]

There will be BSCF at my house tonight. That is cool, although I'm not sure I'm feeling up to that much social interaction. Depending on my ability to pretend to be a human being tonight, I may have to go hide in my room. If I can manage to behave like a real person, however, perhaps I shall try to get a game of Small World going.

I heard that at WPI, when Small World is played it is considered standard practice to make diplomatic agreements with other players. At Brandeis, we tend to be geared much more toward pure strategy when we play. If the right move is not immediately obvious, everyone around the table with discuss what the most advantageous move given the situation is, regardless of what other player it may hurt, and countless times I have heard someone advise their opponent to attack they themselves because it is objectively the best move.

I find this hilarious given WPI versus Brandeis larping style. At Brandeis we are the diplomats, the ones who sit around in a circle holding hands trying to find some way to work things out, while I have found WPI larpers to be more ruthless, oriented more towards the win-condition than finding some compromise. The reversal of that situation I find very funny.

Comments

[pezzonovante.livejournal.com]

FWIW, an awful lot of the games I play at WPI go the way you describe Brandeis games going. It's far more common if there's a strong experience or skill differential, but it does happen a lot. For example, If I'm introducing someone to Dominion, I'd give them strategic advice to help them understand how the game tends to work. But I'd never give londo advice on what to do in Dominion, even if he were stumped. I doubt I'd be able to say anything he couldn't come up with himself.

Also, what witticaster said. Picking a good ally is just as strategic as your moves on the board.