Sylvester Deluxe
United States
Aurora
Colorado
-
I haven't actually played a game of this, so if I've missed something, let me know and thumb the appropriate placeholder as a vote.
Anyway, I find the refund vs. no refund camps, interesting.
-
-
It's like playing in a lottery.
You can't go back to the store and ask for a refund if your numbers didn't win.
-
Sylvester Deluxe
United States
Aurora
Colorado
-
I don't have a "it makes less sense, in keeping with the theme" option.
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
"It's more fun that way" is totally vague, and can only be determined by comparison with the next answer. Someone probably chose it without knowing what it means.
My answer is, "I would rather play a game that doesn't make people so miserable they won't ever play the game again." I am happy to play the game either way, but many people are not.
-
-
Refunds turn an elegant game into an inelegant one.
While fun and tension are negatively impacted it's the reduction of elegance that stops this variant dead with our group.
-
Rick Carnagey
United States
Wake Forest
North Carolina
-
Refunds make this a very different game.
I'm not opposed to playing it this way but I don't really feel I am playing it the way it was designed when I do.
I think The Palace expansion fixes what some people think is broken about this game. I don't personally feel anything is broken, but I do feel new players are at a disadvantage until they get a few plays in and understand the importance of winning certain spots in the base game.
This is my favorite Steve Jackson game. I enjoy playing it a great deal as the base or with The Palace expansion.
I kind of like the idea of being able to use the refund variation if I want to as well, I think that makes the game a different game and that adds more playability to it. In other words I would not object to playing the base with or w/o refunds or with the expansion with or w/o refunds, I think I would enjoy it any way I played it.
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
netizen wrote: Refunds make this a very different game.
I'm not opposed to playing it this way but I don't really feel I am playing it the way it was designed when I do.
But that is the way it was designed.
-
Sylvester Deluxe
United States
Aurora
Colorado
-
Barticus88 wrote: "It's more fun that way" is totally vague, and can only be determined by comparison with the next answer. Someone probably chose it without knowing what it means.
Damnit, one of these days I'll do a poll I don't flub a response on.
Today is not that day.
FWIW: I meant "it's more fun having refunds" in line with the poll title, but even in line with the poll section title, but it's still sort of vague.
-
David Hoffman
United States
Briarcliff Manor
New York
-
Everyone we've played Revolution! with has certainly wished, at least once, that we played with refunds.
However, wishing for it in the moment isn't the same as accepting how fundamentally that would remove the great tension a game of Revolution! offers. It would literally be a different game. We don't play that way (but, certainly, if others enjoy it, I would not begrudge them the right to do so).
-
Rick Carnagey
United States
Wake Forest
North Carolina
-
Barticus88 wrote: netizen wrote: Refunds make this a very different game.
I'm not opposed to playing it this way but I don't really feel I am playing it the way it was designed when I do. But that is the way it was designed.
I always thought it was an added option for refunds... but I am obviously wrong in that assumption.
I'm very happy with the game either way... I think I like no refunds better, cuz it makes it a bit more cut-throat, which is fun, but I would play it either way without hesitation. I just like the game...
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
Philip duBarry designed and self published this game. AIUI, someone at Steve Jackson Games misunderstood the rule. Everyone at SJG loved the game the way they were playing it. They went to duBarry to discuss republishing the game and then found out they were playing it wrong. SJG published the game their way, with duBarry's rule as a variant.
This shows the distinction between game designer and game developer. A designer creates a game, but the developer tweaks it (sometimes fundamentally). In this case it appears the development occurred by accident.
-
Philip duBarry
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
-
Right on, Randall. I've had this poll going on inside my own head for the last 2 years or so. The game is certainly different depending on which rule you use. My variant does indeed remove some of the sting (err . . . tension) from the game. This is awesome for people who hate the inherent pain in blind bidding.
Other people (like SJG and most of their fan base--and a lot of the cutthroat gamers on this site) want their games served "extra spicy". I have come to enjoy the "official" version as well as my "variant". I always teach people according to the official rules. I have come to believe that the extra edginess of losing your bids has contributed to the game's success. In the end, it was a good call by SJG.
FWIW, here is my thematic/logical justification for refunds. I don't view it as playing the lottery but, rather, offering bids for a job. "So, listen here, Mr. Aristocrat. I'll pay you 2 sacks of gold if you help me out, and I'll publish those embarrassing pictures if you don't." But that other player is going to crack Mr. Aristocrat's head, so he's going to help them instead. In this case, I'll not be delivering those bags of gold--and maybe my pictures aren't as bad as I'd thought after all . . .
I admit, it gets a little sticky with blackmail and force. I might just publish those pictures anyway, poor guy. But it's easy enough to follow the logic with gold. It's like an eBay auction: just because some other guy bid $1.50 more doesn't mean I get charged $27.99 for an item I will never receive. Only the winner pays on eBay.
-
Nic Chilton
United Kingdom
Leeds
-
I've always played it no refunds. The game does have the compensatory element of getting gold to take your income to five bits.
Thematically blackmail would always get spent. If you tried to blackmail someone who then gave in to force, if you didn't publish those pictures your reputation to blackmail again would be damaged "hey they didn't publish them before so I'll risk it and take the bribe".
Refunding the money may work but doubt it would change the game unless the minimum of five bits still applied and it might make someone have more cash to get something. However one aspect of the game is working out where no one wants to go to get stuff cheap with your coins when you won nothing. Winning a force on a completed area does mean the following round you can go for something you want
-
Philip Reed
United States
Kyle
Texas
-
Barticus88 wrote: In this case it appears the development occurred by accident.
For this one bit, yes there was some accidental development at work. But when it comes to all of the other changes between editions . . . well, those were intentional and after a lot of playtesting.
I prefer the "lose your bids" rule because, in my opinion, it makes the game more tense and brutal. I tried the "get your bid back" and absolutely hated how it changed the feel of the game; I went from wanting to punch someone to no longer caring.
-
Philip Reed
United States
Kyle
Texas
-
pdubarry wrote: I don't view it as playing the lottery but, rather, offering bids for a job. "So, listen here, Mr. Aristocrat. I'll pay you 2 sacks of gold if you help me out, and I'll publish those embarrassing pictures if you don't." But that other player is going to crack Mr. Aristocrat's head, so he's going to help them instead. In this case, I'll not be delivering those bags of gold--and maybe my pictures aren't as bad as I'd thought after all . . .
I see it as dealing with people so corrupt that they take everything they've been offered.
-
Sylvester Deluxe
United States
Aurora
Colorado
-
nicch wrote: I've always played it no refunds. The game does have the compensatory element of getting gold to take your income to five bits.
Thematically blackmail would always get spent. If you tried to blackmail someone who then gave in to force, if you didn't publish those pictures your reputation to blackmail again would be damaged "hey they didn't publish them before so I'll risk it and take the bribe".
Refunding the money may work but doubt it would change the game unless the minimum of five bits still applied and it might make someone have more cash to get something. However one aspect of the game is working out where no one wants to go to get stuff cheap with your coins when you won nothing. Winning a force on a completed area does mean the following round you can go for something you want
I wonder if it was like this:
Money = refunded
Force = lost (because, hey, it's force)
Blackmail = lose half rounded up/down (because you raise a point, it's hard to un-blackmail someone)
-
Randall Bart
United States
Granada Hills
California
Red October
Earth is one of my favorite planets
-
PhilReed wrote: For this one bit, yes there was some accidental development at work. But when it comes to all of the other changes between editions . . . well, those were intentional and after a lot of playtesting.
I have nothing against random changes reinforced by experience. That's how Homo sapiens was designed developed, too.
-
Philip duBarry
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
-
PhilReed wrote:
I see it as dealing with people so corrupt that they take everything they've been offered.
Yep, that's certainly also reasonable.
-
-
No, i do not. Refunds takes tension away and renders bidding part with less weight and distorts it. Tied bids make it look weird. As a variant it isn't bad, but it should just stay that way.
PhilReed wrote:
I see it as dealing with people so corrupt that they take everything they've been offered.
..well said.
By the way. How about this variant?
Gold (wealth) > Force (force) > Blackmail (influence) > Gold (wealth) .. and so on?
With wealth, you have power over force. They don't ask where money comes from and for extra digits in a paycheck, they'll bash someones skull in.
Force can make all the differences. Don't like some activist spreading 'crazy' ideas? A friendly 'talk' might change his/her mind about 'what is right or wrong?'. At gunpoint only few will resist.
Influential people - religious leaders, politicians. They don't rely on force, but on intellect and influence. They plot, scheme, have a crowd of followers and have connections. It doesn't matter how many people you know. It matters who you know.
I really like Revolution!. Also, I am a big fan of Republic: The Revolution (2003) PC.
-
|
|
