I've played lots and lots of card games. And dog knows I've played lots of computer solitaire. My family played lots of card games, and the kids were always included once they were old enough to play.

Generally cards are a passing diversion for me, with a couple of exceptions -- I *love* Euchre, and will happily play it at the drop of a hat (Great Lakes area represent!). Seriously. Love Euchre.

I also like playing Blackjack, for the mathy angle. No, I'd have no hopes of doing well at a real casino, but it's fun to play casually. Along that same line, I also enjoy most forms of poker, for the people angle. There's math and odds in poker, but it's as much about understanding everyone else at the table as it is the cards.

As far as D&D 4th goes, I think it's going to be a fun and solid system. I actually got some friends together a few weeks ago to run through fan-written adventure that had been cobbled together from the information that's be released so far and it went pretty well. You definitely have a lot more to do at 1st level than in previous games, and your character feels less fragile.

4th edition D&D. Well. I'll definitely try it, probably with somebody else running the game. And as more comes out, I think I understand what they're doing with the new system. I think it remains to be seen if their stated design goals and what they actually achieve are the same thing.

But...

I can already tell by stuff they've debuted that this is not the game I want to run. There were lots of changes I would have liked to see in the mechanics of the game, but none of these were it.

I also have a philosophical issue with their blatant move away from Open Source Gaming, but the beauty of Open Source Gaming is that it still exists.

---

I can already tell by stuff they've debuted that this is not the game I want to run. There were lots of changes I would have liked to see in the mechanics of the game, but none of these were it.

Fair enough. I played AD&D when I was in high school, and then drifted away from it until 3E; I missed out on 2E completely. When I came back to it, I was amazed at both how much more elegant the mechanics had become (only three saves? Unpossible!), and how many more customisation options existed (skills, feats, clerical domains, all that sort of thing). 4E to me looks to be even more elegant, which I like, but I don't know yet whether it allows the same scope for character creation. (Conversely, especially as a new GM, I do like the idea of making character creation easier.)

At the moment, I think I'm keenest to find out more of what they've done with social encounters. If they've made it easier for me to give PCs real challenges outside of combat, then that's a great advance for me. (I like designing combats, but I'd really rather have more time left over to plan the talky meat.)

I also have a philosophical issue with their blatant move away from Open Source Gaming, but the beauty of Open Source Gaming is that it still exists.

Yep, that's a move that's unlikely to be popular. The OGL did probably give away too much (was it Mongoose that published a travel PHB? When a competitor can reproduce almost all of your flagship product, there's a problem), but there's a lot of synergy available in having 3rd parties provide support products (like adventures) that you're less interested in.

I know the GSL isn't released yet, and I hope it's not as restrictive as is currently being suggested. (In particular, I like a lot of Paizo's products, and I'd like them to be able to do some 4E work too.)

---

I haven't played backgammon for ages, but I'll give it a shot omnis. Maybe Sunday?

We can start whenever. Like the scrabble, its move as you can. I'm registered with the same e-mail addy in Facebook as I am in here, feel free to ping me.

---

At the moment, I think I'm keenest to find out more of what they've done with social encounters. If they've made it easier for me to give PCs real challenges outside of combat, then that's a great advance for me.

I think you'll be disappointed. It looks to me like they've made it more combat-centric (and I wasn't sure that was possible).

---

There is a facebook app for backgammon! Anyone game?

OMGOMGOMG! I must now go install it!

---

It looks to me like they've made it more combat-centric

well... dang. I haven't played D&D in umpty years, so I don't have much of a stake in it, but all the talk about big gameplay changes had me hoping for some more varied play. Which I think is what it would take to get me in again.

---

I think you'll be disappointed. It looks to me like they've made it more combat-centric (and I wasn't sure that was possible).

What gives you that impression? From what I've seen combat's received the most overhauling (of course, as combat has the greatest need for rules), but this is about the first time they've really paid attention to the notion of mechanics for social encounters.

---

well... dang. I haven't played D&D in umpty years, so I don't have much of a stake in it, but all the talk about big gameplay changes had me hoping for some more varied play. Which I think is what it would take to get me in again.

Ultimately that's really up to your GM, though it looks like GMs might now have a little more support for designing out-of-combat encounters. If they find it easier to set up a challenging goal-oriented social encounter, they might be more willing to do so. (I know for the campaign I'm running, I'm rather keen on raiding the 4E social encounter ideas to help out with this sort of design, whether or not we convert to 4E wholesale. I've already added the new death and dying rules.)

---

I think you'll be disappointed. It looks to me like they've made it more combat-centric (and I wasn't sure that was possible).

That's not the impression I'm getting. Granted, we won't know until we see the books, but they've been talking about their new skill challenge system and how social encounters can be run with just as much detail and with a similar mechanical approach as combat, with an over-arching idea of everyone in the party has a chance to contribute in both. If they can pull it off, it will be great to be able to run social encounters where everyone is involved, rather than everyone else updating their characters sheets or checking their dice for "bad rollers" while the bard does his thing.

I think it only seems more combat-focused at the moment because the only things we've seen concrete rules for so far have been combat related. (Which makes sense, seeing as the official Dungeon Delve events at cons have traditional been hack-and-slash, kick-in-the-door adventures, and they didn't change that formula up when they used them to run exhibitions of 4th Ed back in February.)

I am disappointed that core 3.x classes like the Bard, Druid, Barbarian, Monk and Sorcerer aren't in the first PHB and will be pushed back a year. That it makes it really hard on folks with existing campaigns that may want to switch.

---

I like the multi-player games. Pit's a longstanding favourite. (I once played with a group that actually stopped to think between bids. How perverse is that?)

OMG, the whole fun of Pit is the crazy bidding and everybody screaming out their trades. I can't even imagine pausing. I'm sad I don't have my old cards anymore with flax, etc., but I do love the bell that came with my new version.

Right now, though, the multi-player game I always reach for is Bohnanza. It's a trading game set in the competitive world of bean farming and has an excellent balance of fun and competitiveness.

I've found that Bohnanza is a great introduction to games for people who think they don't like them. And it's really good for any number of players because of the trading.

Wallybee is just so much fun to play against, she really takes to trading games. I wound up buying a board game, Traders of Genoa, on the strength of her enjoyment of Bohnanza.

Hmmm, how do they compare?

I gave Lost Cities to my nephew this past Christmas. I liked it, but it seems that it might get old quickly.

---