Carcassonne Central
Off Topic => Other Games => Topic started by: dirk2112 on November 01, 2016, 06:16:39 AM
-
There are a number of games that we have where conceding happens more often than the game reaching it's conclusion. I was always taught to finish a game I have started no matter the score. Some games seem to be built with concession in mind. I was wondering what other people think of games that lend themselves to this.
War games:
Games like Axis and Allies, Chess, and Risk tend to never end as intended. In most games the writing is on the wall and both winner and loser are happy to end the game.
Card games:
In Magic the Gathering or Pokémon, a bad opening hand or a great opponent opening hand spells a quick defeat by concession. Both winner and loser of these types of games seem to be 100% ok with concessions as it allows more games to be played.
In most of the above games, it is 1v1 or team vs team. I don't believe it is ever* ok to concede a game if there are multiple opponents unless all but 1 are also willing to concede.
*Monopoly - if no player can get a monopoly, the game will go on forever . Just end it!
-
I never played the original Monopoly, just an Austrian clone of it called Das kaufmännische Talent (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/9079/das-kaufmannische-talent) (literally: The Gifted Merchant) as a kid, and hated it. However, many people claim, that if you play Monopoly by it's intended rules, it won't drag forever, but people tend to attach house rules, which brake the game. Nevertheless, I would not seek out to give it a try, there are so many better games nowadays available then anything with the dated "role and move" mechanism.