Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
80 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

Root» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Incentive for attacking the Vagabond? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Geoff C
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Trey, are you unused to multiplayer conflict games? Negotiation and experience is key here.

Experience tells you the vagabond will win if you leave him alone, yes? Now communicate that to all players and negotiate a deal that whoever starts their turn with the vagabond in their territory takes a swipe at him. If players were rewarded for attacking him he would never have a moments peace and his w/l ratio would sink.

Yes, fighting amongst yourselves benefits others if they are not also fighting without gain. The classic 'lets you and him fight' quandry.

You need to get past this. It is a feature of the game that one needs to master.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Talonz wrote:
Trey, are you unused to multiplayer conflict games? Negotiation and experience is key here.


I play them all the time and design them. I have one successful published game Argent: The Consortium and another one in the pipeline. (I have other published games but they are not multiplayer conflict games)

Cole is a good designer and clearly understood it is a problem in multiplayer conflict games and addressed it. Just weirdly not for the Vagabond.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff C
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the Vagabond is clearly the exception to the rule here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lex Zypher
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
krede60 wrote:
PolterGhost wrote:
I guess this is the thing: The Vagabond will win, if nobody really does anything to them, 3 turns ahead of the Marquise, 2 turns ahead of the Eyrie, and 1 turn ahead of everyone else. They'll win even faster if they luck out on early swords and hammers, or if players craft for them.


I'm curious where these numbers come from. What assumptions are being made to produce them? I can guess that the assumption no one attacks them is being applied, but are these numbers assuming no one crafts anything for the Vagabond? What about quests? If the Vagabond is lucky in quest draw/initial choice, they're going to be able to accumulate points much quicker than otherwise. Number of players could be a factor too. In a 6 player game, the Vagabond has 5 opportunities to exhaust any item and give a card for 1 VP, in a 3 player game, they only get 2 such opportunities, so how does the metric account for player counts, or does it assume a standard 4 player (non-expansion) setup?




This is a graph I created from gameplay trends and expected point gains per turn. It takes a few assumptions to create these data points:
- Players are opportunistic, aiming for tokens and buildings when it's feasible to, and otherwise focusing on their own faction's engine and scoring methods. The Vagabond only aids when it's inexpensive to do so.
- Cats have a mixed strategy of building recruiters and maintaining workshops.
- Birds do not make extensive use of the Despot's ability, nor do they turmoil.
- Woodland Alliance are moderately contained (mostly through opportunity.)
- Players do not craft swords or hammers for the Vagabond.
- The Vagabond is not a Scoundrel, e.g. they possess at least one hammer or sword.
- The Riverfolk only take 2 to 3 warriors out of their Payments box each turn.
- There are expected times for a Favor card to hit the board, based on how feasible it is to craft it for each faction and how much destruction is expected. This is turn 7 for Lizard Cult, turn 8 for Riverfolk and Woodland Alliance. The Vagabond has a large burst of points around turn 9 based on using triple swords or triple hammers to wipe clearings, or using Allied Aid to score multiple +2 points.

I won't go into full details on the methods to my madness, but I do offer actual scoring reports for comparison:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yf1kZLdlWCSBdiROvzjI...

I've converted a handful of games into graphed data, which I offer following this:



The dashed points are my estimated scores; solid lines are actual scores. I've noticed that with these games, and others I have compared with, the estimations are followed almost exactly, among most players, among most games. The winning players tend to be one turn ahead of the estimation in points, the last place player tends to fall off and have not enough points to matter in many cases.

Some of these games have written reports in our discord. The following tends to be true:
- The cats stay on the estimated trend regardless of how optimized they are or how often they are attacked, resulting in a fairly linear point progression that stays behind the rest of the pack. This almost follows true with the birds, except that the Despot and Turmoil can result in unexpected scores.
- The vagabond either wins or comes in the closest possible second in games where they aren't forced to slip into a forest on the first four turns. They almost invariably win if items are crafted for them, especially hammers and swords.
- The fewer the number of players, the better the cats and birds do.

To address the post that I have quoted, the Vagabond, by accounts, tend to do just as well and score just as well with four players as well as they do with six. What seems like more opportunities for scoring are, in actuality, not. The Vagabond only has so many cards and so many actions they can spend for Aid, and every Vagabond tends to specialize in a specific manner of scoring that ends up with a huge burst of points every turn: Combat for those with two or three swords, crafting for those with two or three hammers, aid for those with coins and a willing second player, quests for those who have a huge amount of items and not enough ways to spend them. They have no need to stray from the estimations because they always have a way to get big points, and it's better to spend actions on getting those points than to not.

Now, you can either choose to take all of this information as ramblings, or maybe you can compare your own games to all of this. It's what I've been doing, and it's been going fine. Maybe ask your group to try things a little differently next time and see if the Vagabond runs away with things. See how close the scores can end up with the cats and birds in an alliance for the first five or six turns. I'm just not going to accept that the argument of "there's no incentive to do this or that" is valid when the incentive is clearly whether you want to win or lose.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derek Bowen
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Very cool research. I haven't examined the games I've played remotely in this detailed a way. If anything within my group the WA has been the biggest threat so far. Thanks for sharing the details.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PolterGhost wrote:

See how close the scores can end up with the cats and birds in an alliance for the first five or six turns. I'm just not going to accept that the argument of "there's no incentive to do this or that" is valid when the incentive is clearly whether you want to win or lose.


I'd rather houserule the Vagabond to parity before I'd tell my group "hey, the Vagabond is OP so we have to spend the first few rounds handicapping him every game he's in. And also, the cats and birds need to ally for the first five or six turns."

That doesn't sound like an interesting game to me. I don't like scripted openings. Nor do I like doing the designer and developer's balancing job for them.

Have you played with the new Vagabond nerf, and Cat and Lizard buffs? Maybe this is less of an issue now.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
Have you played with the new Vagabond nerf, and Cat and Lizard buffs? Maybe this is less of an issue now.


The Vagabond nerf is signficant -- he can't repair and item with the hammer and bring it back refreshed, so his "machine" is limited by the teapot more than it was.

But you still need to break his stuff to hold him back, and you still don't get points for it. The Cats and the Birds are best situated to do that, because they have a large multi-action turn.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Johnson
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Race Bannon wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Have you played with the new Vagabond nerf, and Cat and Lizard buffs? Maybe this is less of an issue now.


The Vagabond nerf is signficant -- he can't repair and item with the hammer and bring it back refreshed, so his "machine" is limited by the teapot more than it was.

But you still need to break his stuff to hold him back, and you still don't get points for it. The Cats and the Birds are best situated to do that, because they have a large multi-action turn.

For what it's worth, my group hasn't done a lot of Vagabond repairing with Hammers, and when we did, I don't think we realized the repaired items came back refreshed. (We've still only played a handful of times.) So this repair-exploit was never a factor in our Vagabond wins, and we still felt it was "too easy" to score points as the Vagabond. So I don't have much faith that this nerf changes all that much. (Then again, I guess if you were exploiting the hell out of that rule, then this nerf would probably take Vagabond down from Superhero to Merely Powerful.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tempus42 wrote:
(Then again, I guess if you were exploiting the hell out of that rule, then this nerf would probably take Vagabond down from Superhero to Merely Powerful.)


You ought to see it -- it's a thing to behold when the Vagabond has two swords and one or more hammers.

He attacks, and intentionally applies one of the the return hits to one sword. Remember, his hit potential is capped by the number of swords, whether refreshed or not refreshed. So he attacks again, with the same hit potential. He applies a single hit to another sword. Then he repairs one sword with a hammer -- it comes back refreshed. His hit potential is still the same (unrefreshed doesn't limit it). Attacks again.

If he were to have two hammers, it's potentially four attacks on one turn with only two swords.

Throw in some boots, and he can move around to multiple gatherings of warriors. A ten point turn is commonplace if it lines up right.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tempus42 wrote:
For what it's worth, my group hasn't done a lot of Vagabond repairing with Hammers, and when we did, I don't think we realized the repaired items came back refreshed. (We've still only played a handful of times.) So this repair-exploit was never a factor in our Vagabond wins, and we still felt it was "too easy" to score points as the Vagabond. So I don't have much faith that this nerf changes all that much. (Then again, I guess if you were exploiting the hell out of that rule, then this nerf would probably take Vagabond down from Superhero to Merely Powerful.)


I think the Vagabond nerfs particularly hit the Ranger and Tinker going down an early aggression path, which were pretty clearly the two most powerful Vagabonds.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Invisible Hand
Canada
flag msg tools
Thanks for posting all this data, PolterGhost! A question: were these games conducted under the post-third printing rule changes (eg. with the Vagabond nerf), or the original ones?

Quote:
The Riverfolk only take 2 to 3 warriors out of their Payments box each turn.

I assume you mean the Funds box? Everything in the Payments (and Commitments/Trade Posts) boxes are always moved to Funds at the end of birdsong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Invisible Hand
Canada
flag msg tools
Shampoo4you wrote:
The funny thing is is that Cole was a good enough designer to realize conflicts in multiplayer conflict games have the exact problem you seem to think is a feature that adds "tension": conflict in wargames usually hurts one side badly, one side somewhat, and benefits the opponents not involved in the actual conflict. This is why turtling is so attractive in many of these games or why getting points for dying is often a great idea in Blood Rage and Rising Sun, for instance.

Cole saw this problem and thought, "Well, how about we give the person actual points for beating down their opponents? That way they have a better reason than a prisoner's dilemma to go on the offensive." Which is great. It's beautiful. It's principles of modern design applied to a multiplayer conflict game. Awesome. Except when it came to the Vagabond, for some reason he was like "Nah."


I think this is the heart of the matter, and what makes attacking the Vagabond a worse "prisoner's dilemma" than attacking the other factions. Even if those actions don't score you points, they set you up to score points or otherwise win in future actions. With one possible exception, attacking the Vagabond doesn't set you up for anything.

When I attack another faction and kill cardboard, I get victory points. If I only kill warriors, I still set myself up to 1) kill their cardboard and get VPs next time, 2) more easily spread sympathy and get VPs, 3) establish Rule so I can place a building for VPs/move where I want/set myself up for a Domination victory, or 4) prevent them from attacking my warriors/cardboard on their future turns.

Attacking the Vagabond provides none of those benefits, with the exception of #4. And many Vagabonds get their points primarily from non-violent means, so the number of cases where this will apply is relatively low.

In other words, attacking any other faction helps stop them from winning AND gives you direct or indirect benefits for yourself. Attacking the Vagabond only helps with the first one, and that's why people are objecting.

However, I'm not sure how exactly to fix this issue without tipping the scales too far in the other direction. Maybe something like the following:

When you score hits on the Vagabond during your turn, you score one VP for every two hits (Rounded up? Down?)
OR
When you score hits on the Vagabond during your turn, you steal one card for every two hits (Rounded up? Down?)

Those could also be combined, so the attacker has a choice of either taking VPs or cards, similar to the Riverfolk's crafting.

Of course, it's possible that the 3rd printing changes have nerfed the Vagabond enough that "he's all but guaranteed to win if left alone" doesn't apply anymore, thus negating the prisoner's dilemma situation altogether.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Vogel
United States
Tacoma
Washington
flag msg tools
Check out this variant rule GamingAccolades came up with (link below). I think it addresses this issue by allowing players to earn points whenever the vagabond goes into the forest to repair items. This gives other players an additional incentive to attack the vagabond besides understanding the meta-game of "vagabond usually wins if we don't hit him hard in the beginning"

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2171348/vagabond-changebala...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Watson
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Invisible Hand wrote:

I think this is the heart of the matter, and what makes attacking the Vagabond a worse "prisoner's dilemma" than attacking the other factions. Even if those actions don't score you points, they set you up to score points or otherwise win in future actions. With one possible exception, attacking the Vagabond doesn't set you up for anything.

Attacking the Vagabond also doesn't set him up for anything. The problem with Trey's comparison is that in most wargames, losing troops is usually exclusively bad for the victim. This isn't the case in Root - most factions actually gain from losing troops and cardboard. Gaining a single point for burning down a recruiter isn't a good trade if it's setting Marquise up to score two points next turn from rebuilding that same recruiter. The Vagabond is the only player where you can be certain they won't benefit more from being attacked than you will by attacking them; which is particularly important for those factions (Eyrie, Marquise and Riverfolk) who will often find themselves in situations where they need to launch attacks with the intention of losing.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Archonsod wrote:
Invisible Hand wrote:

I think this is the heart of the matter, and what makes attacking the Vagabond a worse "prisoner's dilemma" than attacking the other factions. Even if those actions don't score you points, they set you up to score points or otherwise win in future actions. With one possible exception, attacking the Vagabond doesn't set you up for anything.

Attacking the Vagabond also doesn't set him up for anything. The problem with Trey's comparison is that in most wargames, losing troops is usually exclusively bad for the victim. This isn't the case in Root - most factions actually gain from losing troops and cardboard. Gaining a single point for burning down a recruiter isn't a good trade if it's setting Marquise up to score two points next turn from rebuilding that same recruiter. The Vagabond is the only player where you can be certain they won't benefit more from being attacked than you will by attacking them; which is particularly important for those factions (Eyrie, Marquise and Riverfolk) who will often find themselves in situations where they need to launch attacks with the intention of losing.


That has nothing to do with my point. I never said attacking the Vagabond doesn't hurt the Vagabond. The point is that attacking the Vagabond (1) doesn't gain you points like attacking the other players does (2) helps keep the Vagabond in check but at the cost of your precious actions, which therefore benefits your other opponents who didn't have to spend resources keeping the Vagabond down.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Watson
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:

That has nothing to do with my point. I never said attacking the Vagabond doesn't hurt the Vagabond. The point is that attacking the Vagabond (1) doesn't gain you points like attacking the other players does (2) helps keep the Vagabond in check but at the cost of your precious actions, which therefore benefits your other opponents who didn't have to spend resources keeping the Vagabond down.


It's point 2 which doesn't follow. Every faction but the Vagabond can turn an attack against them to a benefit, and in most cases those who can convert it to points do so at a far better ratio than if they were to attack themselves. Vagabond is the exception because he has no way to benefit at all from being attacked. If you need to pull warriors off the board, the Vagabond at a net result of zero points to any player is usually a safer option than hitting the Marquise and letting her double dip on a building.
In terms of point 1, as above, attacking for most players is their least efficient means of scoring to begin with thus is usually done for reasons other than points (at least directly). I generally find if you're in the situation where you're attacking a player to score and it's not because they've let you wander into their undefended three building clearing you've either got the game in the bag or you're hoping for a consolation point.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Archonsod wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:

That has nothing to do with my point. I never said attacking the Vagabond doesn't hurt the Vagabond. The point is that attacking the Vagabond (1) doesn't gain you points like attacking the other players does (2) helps keep the Vagabond in check but at the cost of your precious actions, which therefore benefits your other opponents who didn't have to spend resources keeping the Vagabond down.


It's point 2 which doesn't follow. Every faction but the Vagabond can turn an attack against them to a benefit, and in most cases those who can convert it to points do so at a far better ratio than if they were to attack themselves. Vagabond is the exception because he has no way to benefit at all from being attacked. If you need to pull warriors off the board, the Vagabond at a net result of zero points to any player is usually a safer option than hitting the Marquise and letting her double dip on a building.
In terms of point 1, as above, attacking for most players is their least efficient means of scoring to begin with thus is usually done for reasons other than points (at least directly). I generally find if you're in the situation where you're attacking a player to score and it's not because they've let you wander into their undefended three building clearing you've either got the game in the bag or you're hoping for a consolation point.


You're talking about fixing the solution, but we need the solution first. I wouldn't mind giving Vagabond some way to benefit from attacks if we incentivize players to attack him.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Invisible Hand
Canada
flag msg tools
I was recently reading through Cole's old Designer Diary entries, and this section of the Vagabond entry stood out to me:
Quote:
This scoring structure gives the Vagabond a huge dynamic range in terms of its interaction with the other factions. Basically, they get to be a balancer. In practice, they need a longer game to secure victory, so they need to help the underdog in order to buy time for themselves.

This is interesting, because as we now know the Vagabond tends to ramp up and hit 30 VP the fastest, if not restrained.

The lack of incentive to attack the Vagabond wouldn't really be an issue if he was normally among the slowest, not the fastest, to reach the point goal. If that were the case, the Vagabond would win by Striking the faster factions to slow them down, Aiding the slower ones to ensure they remain a threat, and look for an opportunity to Slip up the middle and reach 30.

This means that instead of giving other factions a direct incentive to attack him -- such as VPs for damage, which speeds up their march to victory -- an alternate (and perhaps more thematically appropriate) way would be to slow the Vagabond down, by nerfing his VP gain.

The current Vagabond has many ways of scoring points:
1) Crafting (like everyone else)
2) Destroying buildings & tokens (like everyone else)
3) Going hostile (which combines with the previous for a total of +2 for each cardboard and +1 for each warrior)
4) Aiding other factions (1-3 VP for leveling up, and then +2 for each aid thereafter)
5) Exploring ruins (1 VP each)
6) Completing quests (escalating VPs)

I'm loathe to suggest eliminating any of these categories entirely, as that would reduce the flexibility of the character. It seems like slightly reducing the benefit of at least some of these categories would be the best way, but I have no idea what the right amount would be, and in which categories.

Does anyone have a handle on how the above categories rank in terms of supplying the biggest/smallest share of a typical winning Vagabond's points? Has anyone collected any game data on that kind of thing?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max
Spain
Cantabria
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would start removing the bonus for exploring ruins, as they are gaining useful items from there anyway. I like forcing the second fastest faction to deal with the vagabond (usually WA) if they want to win and think this variant is not really needed, but it’s an easy, low impact change which could merit playtesting.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew B
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
mazmaz wrote:
I would start removing the bonus for exploring ruins, as they are gaining useful items from there anyway.


If you feel like the vagabond needs to be weakened, this sounds good to me. Why the heck does the vagabond need points for exploring!?!?

If you want to give an incentive to attacking the vagabond, I would start with the idea of granting points for damaging items. Certainly 1 point per damaged item would be way too much, but that seems to imply that there is an amount in between 1 and 0 which should be ideal. Perhaps 1 point for damaging any number of items, or 1 point for every two items. Something like that should work.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tucker Taylor
Canada
Fort St James
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Is your score positive? You win! (Some players win more than others.)
badge
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a saxophone.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Invisible Hand wrote:
This means that instead of giving other factions a direct incentive to attack him -- such as VPs for damage, which speeds up their march to victory -- an alternate (and perhaps more thematically appropriate) way would be to slow the Vagabond down, by nerfing his VP gain.

Sounds reasonable.

Quote:
The current Vagabond has many ways of scoring points:
1) Crafting (like everyone else)
2) Destroying buildings & tokens (like everyone else)
3) Going hostile (which combines with the previous for a total of +2 for each cardboard and +1 for each warrior)
4) Aiding other factions (1-3 VP for leveling up, and then +2 for each aid thereafter)
5) Exploring ruins (1 VP each)
6) Completing quests (escalating VPs)


1 and 5 I'd be happy to see gone. The Vagabond gets a useful item out of those actions already; I don't see any particular need to give them more points for it.

I'm loath to muck with #2 and 6. 3 & 4 I could see being tweaked; I've got no particular ideas on how to do so.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J B
msg tools
So maybe similar to birds just 1 VP for crafting an item and no VP for exploring?

Personally I haven't experienced the dominance of a Vagabond yet, because most of my playgroup seems to play that guy very thematically and not go to war a lot ...

So which of these 6 options contributes the most amount of VP out of the total 30? My first guess would be abusing military, I'm not sure if quests really escalate that quickly (or do they)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Wilson
msg tools
Shampoo4you wrote:

You're talking about fixing the solution, but we need the solution first. I wouldn't mind giving Vagabond some way to benefit from attacks if we incentivize players to attack him.

But then the solution is "make him like everyone else"

The point of the game is to have very different paths to victory, and very different paths to preventing victory.

I think its a feature to have a faction that you don't benefit from attacking.... now you need to make a decision, or negotiate, or something different than dealing with the other factions.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
coredump00 wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:

You're talking about fixing the solution, but we need the solution first. I wouldn't mind giving Vagabond some way to benefit from attacks if we incentivize players to attack him.

But then the solution is "make him like everyone else"


Lol that's silly. That's like saying all the other factions are the same, and the only thing currently making the Vagabond different is that there's no incentive to attack it.

Which, as we all know, is not true. All the other factions are very asymmetrical despite all having incentive to attack each other. The Vagabond would continue being highly asymmetrical if the other factions had reasons to attack it just as they have to attack each other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max
Spain
Cantabria
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
But they have a very good incentive to attack the vagabond already: stop him from winning.

If this is about who needs to attack him *first*, it should be the second fastest faction. For me, that means this order: Alliance, Eyrie, Marquise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.