explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3235: Types of Board Game

2026-04-22T15:52:47Z

82.132.238.188:

I created a starter explanation, but I have no idea how to create tables. [[Special:Contributions/47.146.30.92|47.146.30.92]] 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It is rare that xkcd makes me laugh out loud, but this comic's title text really got me! XD [[Special:Contributions/2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78|2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78]] 04:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if blackhat is the one who committed the murder in the last game, and was expunged from the current round with the social deduction game [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, I "fixed" panel 6: https://www.pasteboard.co/hxBFDL497SLH.png [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Whoever it was didn't necessarily commit the murder ''in the game'' - all we know is that it was ''discovered'' during the game. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The reference to Monopoly seems ultra-specific given the plethora of games that have this structure, including Candyland, Snakes and Ladders, Sorry, and if one allows for multiple tokens, Parchisi and even Backgammon. Despite the amount of hate for Monopoly, it seems more likely that the editor has something against Monopoly than Randal. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 05:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, Monopoly, played by the correct rules, is not that boring. It's just, that too many people skip the bidding rule. With 4 Players, after one turn around the table for all four game pieces (which required 10-12 dice rolls per player), statistically 75% of all properties should be snatched up. [[Special:Contributions/195.65.24.115|195.65.24.115]]

::Probably not worth debating how boring/bad Monopoly is or isn't. Suffice it to say that there are a large number of people who despise it, rightly or wrongly. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 06:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:::No, there are a large number of people who aware of the fact that Monopoly is supposed to be despised, and so espouse that view – like people who say they hate the word "moist" or believe that "We Built This City" is the worst song ever, because they've been told to say that. The number of people who have actually played Monopoly (using the actual rules) and who actually hate it is much, much smaller. People widely advertise hatred for a badly designed game based on a misinterpretation of Monopoly. That's not hating Monopoly – that's just not getting it and blaming someone else. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 11:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Even if you play Monopoly by the proper rules, it means that players get eliminated and leave the game. That's not a good thing for a social activity. It's less fun to finish a game if the majority of players (supposing you started off with 5 or 6 players) have already left the room to watch TV before the game ends. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 13:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's assuming you don't reincorporate the bankrupt/departing players by having them 'employed' by the remaining ones, in some interesting manner (even without being represented by pieces that can move). Evolving into some kind of Cooperative, Party and/or Social Deduction team-game, by the time it's one-on-one by playing pieces alone.
:::::Or allow it to become suitably entertaining to spectate, such as everyone not now in the game being allowed to make entirely separate side-bets using real-world cash (or other deals/promises... "Strip Monopoly" need not bother the ''players'' directly, except for having a reason (or not) to try to keep playing well).
:::::Clearly, none of this is stipulated directly in the boxed rules, but none of it need change the rules that ''are'' provided, which can be adhered to as strictly as you like. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.188|82.132.238.188]] 15:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Monopoli? Is that the Italian version?--[[Special:Contributions/2A00:23CC:D248:8901:8046:B94B:F152:34FA|2A00:23CC:D248:8901:8046:B94B:F152:34FA]] 07:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8071:5C20:40:84FB:9239:8AB8:1729|2A02:8071:5C20:40:84FB:9239:8AB8:1729]] (who made both this edit and the Pachisi edit), coming from Germany, doesn't realize that in America, Parcheesi and Monopoly are the more accepted spellings (Pachesi is probably more appropriate for the historical game Parcheesi is based on, but this is about table games not historical games). [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 08:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I misread the tie-in as being Grogu, which would have made it even weirder. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Me too. Maybe because I'm not a board gamer and have never heard of Goku before. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a clearer example of a "boring" game is Ludo, where the goal is simply to move all the pawns around the board once. [[User:Redmess|Redmess]] ([[User talk:Redmess|talk]]) 09:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Ludo is Pachisi/Pachesi/Parcheesi, apparently (can't say I've ever heard of any of those names - always knew it as Ludo - but Ludo is a later name). There is a minimal amount of strategy involved in Ludo, in that you get to choose which pawn to move on any given go - unlike, say, Snakes & Ladders, which is entirely down to chance. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Where does the 3.75 for Twilight Imperium come from? First and second editions have 3.46, 3rd edition has 4.26 and 4th is even at 4.35. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I miss the board game extention pack to Calvinball. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:1888:3B86:68A0:FA0F|2A02:2455:1960:4000:1888:3B86:68A0:FA0F]] 11:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Remember: If you don't touch the 30-yard base wicket with the flag, you have to hop on one foot! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 13:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Went with a base game rating for Twilight Imperium, maybe one of the expansions is higher, but base game seems like most appropriate to reference. --[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 11:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What did the comment mean about the truth or dare murder reveal being untrue?
:I’m confused about this as well. I looked it up and it looks like he was convicted on some pretty compelling evidence. I’m not seeing anything about him being found not guilty on appeal. [[User:Salsmachev|Salsmachev]] ([[User talk:Salsmachev|talk]]) 14:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:: I assumed it meant that it turned out that the bit about admitting it in a game of Truth or Dare turned out to be embellishment, but I can't find any evidence of that either. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I ''REALLY'' want "Candles of Vienna" to exist. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 14:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe add some real hyperspecipic games? Like "castles of mad king Ludwig" or "Whitechapel". [[Special:Contributions/2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:C1DE:6320:68C1:1C95|2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:C1DE:6320:68C1:1C95]] 16:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure Hive is a good example for an abstract game; as it has a clear theme based on real things (bugs) even if some of the mechanics seem a little arbitrary. The other one given seems to fit; although the example in the comic feels to me like a parody of the Gipf games specifically. And trying to see how many others I could think of made me wish I had friends to play Otto Game Over with. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 17:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Do replace it if you have better examples - I just put in the first couple that came to mind to replace the previously quoted games that didn't seem to fit the theme at all. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Are there actual rules for cones of dunshire available somewhere, or is it purely fantasy? [[User:New editor|New editor]] ([[User talk:New editor|talk]]) 18:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Being Category Theory, it's complete fantasy. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 19:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::I don't think the ([https://parksandrecreation.fandom.com/wiki/The_Cones_of_Dunshire_(game) fictional], then [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/165694/the-cones-of-dunshire defictionalised]) Cones Of Dunshire game is actually based on Category Theory. It's the comic's 'overcomplicated' game (''also'' with Cones Of Dunshire elements, merged with something else) that ultimately has the Category Theory basis. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The newest version of Twilight Imperium has a complexity of 4.35. The 3.46 mentioned in the explanation is for the 1st edition, from the 90s, which nobody plays nowadays. I think the explanation is therefore wrong. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:7B66:7B00:5558:336C|2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:7B66:7B00:5558:336C]] 20:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Factcheck: It's not wrong, but it may be misleading. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And these are ALL of the types of board game? I guess Randall's never played Settlers Of Catan, or Betrayal At The House On The Hill. (Though, I guess you could always just default to calling them "boring," since that has no real criteria.) [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 23:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not particularly familiar with either {{w|Friends}} or {{w|Dragon Ball}}, but…why is the Goku tie-in "ill-advised"? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 01:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: Pretty sure it's because Goku doesn't really have anything to do with the existing characters the board game is based on. A Mario and Sonic cross over makes sense, but a Mario and Doom Guy crossover? Might be cool, but doesn't really make sense, and the mix of target audience is weird. [[Special:Contributions/110.145.224.178|110.145.224.178]] 04:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear, the party game is using the deprecated standard identified in XKCD 3232.--[[Special:Contributions/108.175.232.134|108.175.232.134]] 05:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: "Wait - how do we know which one of us is the Count of Three?" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it stands to reason that Black Hat wouldn't be invited back after admitting to murder. I mean, you wouldn't want to annoy him, would you? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The games that are Abstract and Themed are two sides of the same coin (which could also have further 'sides' from the list, of course). If you have to make a game around a given theme, you have the option of starting off with an established ruleset (e.g. "it's Monopoly, reskinned for Star Wars!") or you have to take canon features and invent some canon-logical gameplay mechanism to how they interact. But, having obtained your theme-game, you can strip the theme away and you still have the playable mechanism. Even if it ''seems'' arbitrary and inexplicable (e.g. "you sit Chandler and Phoebe together on a table at Central Perks" now becomes something about putting triangles and squares on a movable hexagon). Even with a 'pre-Theme' to the Themed game, like Monopoly, that can be reduced to the simplicity of mere tokens and it might seem nonsensical that the big red tokens on a given landing zone on the perimiter of a square board (or around a circular one, or it could be ''any'' kind of twisty, looping path, even) make it so that other players occasionally have to surrender other tokens to you. Or that other tiles may take counting tokens off/give counting tokens to ''anyone'' who lands there (or passes them), another sends you to another tile with further rules for when you can move again. You could play the 'framework monopoly' easy enough, without ever imagining Hotels, Mortgages, Taxes, etc as 'reasons' behind the rules provided.
 Compare and contrast: Something like Uno is very simple and self-describingly abstract (itself is based upon a standard 52-cards (+jokers?) game which seemingly arbitrarily assigns some card-values/faces to non-obvious functions - such as 8="change direction of play"). But Uno (or the standard playing-card game) can be reskinned into a canon-conversion. Say you want (out of thin air, this, no idea if it's been done like this at all!) Babylon 5... Kosh (or Kosh, of course) is shown on the 'change direction' card, maybe, and Mr Morden on the 'skip next player' one, with Zathrus (or Zathrus, or Zathrus... but maybe not Zathrus!) as the wildcard. The 'suits' of the relevent cards could be Human Minbari, Centauri and Narn, any values being the number (or scale) of the fighters/warships concerned. ''Alternatively'', you construct a game around the theme (moving through Brown Sector, Blue Sector, etc, encounter cards featuring the main characters (and more generic appropriate 'monster of the week'-like cameos) buff or penalise your progress on the way to some winning/losing condition in whatever Cooperative/Competitive/hybrid manner the designer wished to implement. But you can pluck the framework of the game away from the theme and the gameplay would work the same in the abstract sense. Or perhaps even shoehorn it into an (apparently) Hyperspecific game, totally unrelated to the Theme it was designed for (essentially a Themed game, but one or other of Themed or Hyperspecific might be considered a case of the Tail Wagging The Dog, if directly compared to the 'logical' other, with the Abstract being just the wagging with no dog and maybe no obvious tail - a kind of Cheshire Cat thing, buf the other way round).
 ...if you see what I mean. For those wanting a '''TL;DR;''': I'm saying that these aren't distinct game-types, but end-(or mid-?)points on a multidimensional spectrum. Being one type of game does not preclude something from possibly being another type. If not simultaneously (want to play a Cooperative Party Social-Deduction game, anyone?) then after merely superficial details are changed. You can de-Theme/re-Theme chess all kinds of ways... a computer chess-player doesn't need to know about how mediæval knights are abstracted to pieces that can leap others, or by mystified as to how fortified buildings are apparently mobile in a certain manner, yet ''can'' in the right circumstances be utterly defeated by a single footsoldier or even an otherwise useless head-of-state, etc. (You can play a game where your 'classical West-style turrets' are playing against the Elephants-with-Howdahs version of the opposing piece. This doesn't change your gameplay. It's not Games Workshop figures with "that figure doesn't have a Power Fist, so he can't ''use'' the Power Fist". You can move your Castle the same whether it's a building or an armoured pachyderm or Laurel And Hardy Stuck In A Chimney Pot.) ...umm, that was supposed to be a TL;DR;, of course, but please excuse the additional philosophising details that got added anyway. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.188|82.132.238.188]] 15:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3235: Types of Board Game

2026-04-22T15:51:25Z

82.132.238.188:

I created a starter explanation, but I have no idea how to create tables. [[Special:Contributions/47.146.30.92|47.146.30.92]] 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It is rare that xkcd makes me laugh out loud, but this comic's title text really got me! XD [[Special:Contributions/2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78|2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78]] 04:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if blackhat is the one who committed the murder in the last game, and was expunged from the current round with the social deduction game [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, I "fixed" panel 6: https://www.pasteboard.co/hxBFDL497SLH.png [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Whoever it was didn't necessarily commit the murder ''in the game'' - all we know is that it was ''discovered'' during the game. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The reference to Monopoly seems ultra-specific given the plethora of games that have this structure, including Candyland, Snakes and Ladders, Sorry, and if one allows for multiple tokens, Parchisi and even Backgammon. Despite the amount of hate for Monopoly, it seems more likely that the editor has something against Monopoly than Randal. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 05:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, Monopoly, played by the correct rules, is not that boring. It's just, that too many people skip the bidding rule. With 4 Players, after one turn around the table for all four game pieces (which required 10-12 dice rolls per player), statistically 75% of all properties should be snatched up. [[Special:Contributions/195.65.24.115|195.65.24.115]]

::Probably not worth debating how boring/bad Monopoly is or isn't. Suffice it to say that there are a large number of people who despise it, rightly or wrongly. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 06:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:::No, there are a large number of people who aware of the fact that Monopoly is supposed to be despised, and so espouse that view – like people who say they hate the word "moist" or believe that "We Built This City" is the worst song ever, because they've been told to say that. The number of people who have actually played Monopoly (using the actual rules) and who actually hate it is much, much smaller. People widely advertise hatred for a badly designed game based on a misinterpretation of Monopoly. That's not hating Monopoly – that's just not getting it and blaming someone else. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 11:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Even if you play Monopoly by the proper rules, it means that players get eliminated and leave the game. That's not a good thing for a social activity. It's less fun to finish a game if the majority of players (supposing you started off with 5 or 6 players) have already left the room to watch TV before the game ends. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 13:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's assuming you don't reincorporate the bankrupt/departing players by having them 'employed' by the remaining ones, in some interesting manner (even without being represented by pieces that can move). Evolving into some kind of Cooperative, Party and/or Social Deduction team-game, by the time it's one-on-one by playing pieces alone.
:::::Or allow it to become suitably entertaining to spectate, such as everyone not now in the game being allowed to make entirely separate side-bets using real-world cash (or other deals/promises... "Strip Monopoly" need not bother the ''players'' directly, except for having a reason (or not) to try to keep playing well).
:::::Clearly, none of this is sti0ulated directly in the boxed rules, but none of it need change the rules that ''are'' provided, which can be adhered to as strictly as you like. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.188|82.132.238.188]] 15:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Monopoli? Is that the Italian version?--[[Special:Contributions/2A00:23CC:D248:8901:8046:B94B:F152:34FA|2A00:23CC:D248:8901:8046:B94B:F152:34FA]] 07:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8071:5C20:40:84FB:9239:8AB8:1729|2A02:8071:5C20:40:84FB:9239:8AB8:1729]] (who made both this edit and the Pachisi edit), coming from Germany, doesn't realize that in America, Parcheesi and Monopoly are the more accepted spellings (Pachesi is probably more appropriate for the historical game Parcheesi is based on, but this is about table games not historical games). [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 08:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I misread the tie-in as being Grogu, which would have made it even weirder. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Me too. Maybe because I'm not a board gamer and have never heard of Goku before. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a clearer example of a "boring" game is Ludo, where the goal is simply to move all the pawns around the board once. [[User:Redmess|Redmess]] ([[User talk:Redmess|talk]]) 09:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Ludo is Pachisi/Pachesi/Parcheesi, apparently (can't say I've ever heard of any of those names - always knew it as Ludo - but Ludo is a later name). There is a minimal amount of strategy involved in Ludo, in that you get to choose which pawn to move on any given go - unlike, say, Snakes & Ladders, which is entirely down to chance. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Where does the 3.75 for Twilight Imperium come from? First and second editions have 3.46, 3rd edition has 4.26 and 4th is even at 4.35. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I miss the board game extention pack to Calvinball. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:1888:3B86:68A0:FA0F|2A02:2455:1960:4000:1888:3B86:68A0:FA0F]] 11:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Remember: If you don't touch the 30-yard base wicket with the flag, you have to hop on one foot! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 13:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Went with a base game rating for Twilight Imperium, maybe one of the expansions is higher, but base game seems like most appropriate to reference. --[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 11:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What did the comment mean about the truth or dare murder reveal being untrue?
:I’m confused about this as well. I looked it up and it looks like he was convicted on some pretty compelling evidence. I’m not seeing anything about him being found not guilty on appeal. [[User:Salsmachev|Salsmachev]] ([[User talk:Salsmachev|talk]]) 14:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:: I assumed it meant that it turned out that the bit about admitting it in a game of Truth or Dare turned out to be embellishment, but I can't find any evidence of that either. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I ''REALLY'' want "Candles of Vienna" to exist. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 14:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe add some real hyperspecipic games? Like "castles of mad king Ludwig" or "Whitechapel". [[Special:Contributions/2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:C1DE:6320:68C1:1C95|2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:C1DE:6320:68C1:1C95]] 16:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure Hive is a good example for an abstract game; as it has a clear theme based on real things (bugs) even if some of the mechanics seem a little arbitrary. The other one given seems to fit; although the example in the comic feels to me like a parody of the Gipf games specifically. And trying to see how many others I could think of made me wish I had friends to play Otto Game Over with. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 17:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Do replace it if you have better examples - I just put in the first couple that came to mind to replace the previously quoted games that didn't seem to fit the theme at all. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Are there actual rules for cones of dunshire available somewhere, or is it purely fantasy? [[User:New editor|New editor]] ([[User talk:New editor|talk]]) 18:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Being Category Theory, it's complete fantasy. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 19:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::I don't think the ([https://parksandrecreation.fandom.com/wiki/The_Cones_of_Dunshire_(game) fictional], then [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/165694/the-cones-of-dunshire defictionalised]) Cones Of Dunshire game is actually based on Category Theory. It's the comic's 'overcomplicated' game (''also'' with Cones Of Dunshire elements, merged with something else) that ultimately has the Category Theory basis. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The newest version of Twilight Imperium has a complexity of 4.35. The 3.46 mentioned in the explanation is for the 1st edition, from the 90s, which nobody plays nowadays. I think the explanation is therefore wrong. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:7B66:7B00:5558:336C|2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:7B66:7B00:5558:336C]] 20:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Factcheck: It's not wrong, but it may be misleading. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And these are ALL of the types of board game? I guess Randall's never played Settlers Of Catan, or Betrayal At The House On The Hill. (Though, I guess you could always just default to calling them "boring," since that has no real criteria.) [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 23:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not particularly familiar with either {{w|Friends}} or {{w|Dragon Ball}}, but…why is the Goku tie-in "ill-advised"? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 01:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: Pretty sure it's because Goku doesn't really have anything to do with the existing characters the board game is based on. A Mario and Sonic cross over makes sense, but a Mario and Doom Guy crossover? Might be cool, but doesn't really make sense, and the mix of target audience is weird. [[Special:Contributions/110.145.224.178|110.145.224.178]] 04:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear, the party game is using the deprecated standard identified in XKCD 3232.--[[Special:Contributions/108.175.232.134|108.175.232.134]] 05:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: "Wait - how do we know which one of us is the Count of Three?" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it stands to reason that Black Hat wouldn't be invited back after admitting to murder. I mean, you wouldn't want to annoy him, would you? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The games that are Abstract and Themed are two sides of the same coin (which could also have further 'sides' from the list, of course). If you have to make a game around a given theme, you have the option of starting off with an established ruleset (e.g. "it's Monopoly, reskinned for Star Wars!") or you have to take canon features and invent some canon-logical gameplay mechanism to how they interact. But, having obtained your theme-game, you can strip the theme away and you still have the playable mechanism. Even if it ''seems'' arbitrary and inexplicable (e.g. "you sit Chandler and Phoebe together on a table at Central Perks" now becomes something about putting triangles and squares on a movable hexagon). Even with a 'pre-Theme' to the Themed game, like Monopoly, that can be reduced to the simplicity of mere tokens and it might seem nonsensical that the big red tokens on a given landing zone on the perimiter of a square board (or around a circular one, or it could be ''any'' kind of twisty, looping path, even) make it so that other players occasionally have to surrender other tokens to you. Or that other tiles may take counting tokens off/give counting tokens to ''anyone'' who lands there (or passes them), another sends you to another tile with further rules for when you can move again. You could play the 'framework monopoly' easy enough, without ever imagining Hotels, Mortgages, Taxes, etc as 'reasons' behind the rules provided.
 Compare and contrast: Something like Uno is very simple and self-describingly abstract (itself is based upon a standard 52-cards (+jokers?) game which seemingly arbitrarily assigns some card-values/faces to non-obvious functions - such as 8="change direction of play"). But Uno (or the standard playing-card game) can be reskinned into a canon-conversion. Say you want (out of thin air, this, no idea if it's been done like this at all!) Babylon 5... Kosh (or Kosh, of course) is shown on the 'change direction' card, maybe, and Mr Morden on the 'skip next player' one, with Zathrus (or Zathrus, or Zathrus... but maybe not Zathrus!) as the wildcard. The 'suits' of the relevent cards could be Human Minbari, Centauri and Narn, any values being the number (or scale) of the fighters/warships concerned. ''Alternatively'', you construct a game around the theme (moving through Brown Sector, Blue Sector, etc, encounter cards featuring the main characters (and more generic appropriate 'monster of the week'-like cameos) buff or penalise your progress on the way to some winning/losing condition in whatever Cooperative/Competitive/hybrid manner the designer wished to implement. But you can pluck the framework of the game away from the theme and the gameplay would work the same in the abstract sense. Or perhaps even shoehorn it into an (apparently) Hyperspecific game, totally unrelated to the Theme it was designed for (essentially a Themed game, but one or other of Themed or Hyperspecific might be considered a case of the Tail Wagging The Dog, if directly compared to the 'logical' other, with the Abstract being just the wagging with no dog and maybe no obvious tail - a kind of Cheshire Cat thing, buf the other way round).
 ...if you see what I mean. For those wanting a '''TL;DR;''': I'm saying that these aren't distinct game-types, but end-(or mid-?)points on a multidimensional spectrum. Being one type of game does not preclude something from possibly being another type. If not simultaneously (want to play a Cooperative Party Social-Deduction game, anyone?) then after merely superficial details are changed. You can de-Theme/re-Theme chess all kinds of ways... a computer chess-player doesn't need to know about how mediæval knights are abstracted to pieces that can leap others, or by mystified as to how fortified buildings are apparently mobile in a certain manner, yet ''can'' in the right circumstances be utterly defeated by a single footsoldier or even an otherwise useless head-of-state, etc. (You can play a game where your 'classical West-style turrets' are playing against the Elephants-with-Howdahs version of the opposing piece. This doesn't change your gameplay. It's not Games Workshop figures with "that figure doesn't have a Power Fist, so he can't ''use'' the Power Fist". You can move your Castle the same whether it's a building or an armoured pachyderm or Laurel And Hardy Stuck In A Chimney Pot.) ...umm, that was supposed to be a TL;DR;, of course, but please excuse the additional philosophising details that got added anyway. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.188|82.132.238.188]] 15:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3235: Types of Board Game

2026-04-22T15:44:11Z

82.132.238.188:

I created a starter explanation, but I have no idea how to create tables. [[Special:Contributions/47.146.30.92|47.146.30.92]] 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It is rare that xkcd makes me laugh out loud, but this comic's title text really got me! XD [[Special:Contributions/2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78|2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78]] 04:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if blackhat is the one who committed the murder in the last game, and was expunged from the current round with the social deduction game [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, I "fixed" panel 6: https://www.pasteboard.co/hxBFDL497SLH.png [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Whoever it was didn't necessarily commit the murder ''in the game'' - all we know is that it was ''discovered'' during the game. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The reference to Monopoly seems ultra-specific given the plethora of games that have this structure, including Candyland, Snakes and Ladders, Sorry, and if one allows for multiple tokens, Parchisi and even Backgammon. Despite the amount of hate for Monopoly, it seems more likely that the editor has something against Monopoly than Randal. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 05:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, Monopoly, played by the correct rules, is not that boring. It's just, that too many people skip the bidding rule. With 4 Players, after one turn around the table for all four game pieces (which required 10-12 dice rolls per player), statistically 75% of all properties should be snatched up. [[Special:Contributions/195.65.24.115|195.65.24.115]]

::Probably not worth debating how boring/bad Monopoly is or isn't. Suffice it to say that there are a large number of people who despise it, rightly or wrongly. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 06:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:::No, there are a large number of people who aware of the fact that Monopoly is supposed to be despised, and so espouse that view – like people who say they hate the word "moist" or believe that "We Built This City" is the worst song ever, because they've been told to say that. The number of people who have actually played Monopoly (using the actual rules) and who actually hate it is much, much smaller. People widely advertise hatred for a badly designed game based on a misinterpretation of Monopoly. That's not hating Monopoly – that's just not getting it and blaming someone else. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 11:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Even if you play Monopoly by the proper rules, it means that players get eliminated and leave the game. That's not a good thing for a social activity. It's less fun to finish a game if the majority of players (supposing you started off with 5 or 6 players) have already left the room to watch TV before the game ends. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 13:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's assuming you don't reincorporate the bankrupt/departing players by having them 'employed' by the remaining ones, in some interesting manner (even without being represented by pieces that can move). Evolving into some kind of Cooperative, Party and/or Social Deduction team-game, by the time it's one-on-one by playing pieces alone. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.188|82.132.238.188]] 15:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Monopoli? Is that the Italian version?--[[Special:Contributions/2A00:23CC:D248:8901:8046:B94B:F152:34FA|2A00:23CC:D248:8901:8046:B94B:F152:34FA]] 07:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8071:5C20:40:84FB:9239:8AB8:1729|2A02:8071:5C20:40:84FB:9239:8AB8:1729]] (who made both this edit and the Pachisi edit), coming from Germany, doesn't realize that in America, Parcheesi and Monopoly are the more accepted spellings (Pachesi is probably more appropriate for the historical game Parcheesi is based on, but this is about table games not historical games). [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 08:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I misread the tie-in as being Grogu, which would have made it even weirder. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Me too. Maybe because I'm not a board gamer and have never heard of Goku before. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a clearer example of a "boring" game is Ludo, where the goal is simply to move all the pawns around the board once. [[User:Redmess|Redmess]] ([[User talk:Redmess|talk]]) 09:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Ludo is Pachisi/Pachesi/Parcheesi, apparently (can't say I've ever heard of any of those names - always knew it as Ludo - but Ludo is a later name). There is a minimal amount of strategy involved in Ludo, in that you get to choose which pawn to move on any given go - unlike, say, Snakes & Ladders, which is entirely down to chance. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Where does the 3.75 for Twilight Imperium come from? First and second editions have 3.46, 3rd edition has 4.26 and 4th is even at 4.35. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I miss the board game extention pack to Calvinball. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:1888:3B86:68A0:FA0F|2A02:2455:1960:4000:1888:3B86:68A0:FA0F]] 11:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Remember: If you don't touch the 30-yard base wicket with the flag, you have to hop on one foot! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 13:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Went with a base game rating for Twilight Imperium, maybe one of the expansions is higher, but base game seems like most appropriate to reference. --[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 11:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What did the comment mean about the truth or dare murder reveal being untrue?
:I’m confused about this as well. I looked it up and it looks like he was convicted on some pretty compelling evidence. I’m not seeing anything about him being found not guilty on appeal. [[User:Salsmachev|Salsmachev]] ([[User talk:Salsmachev|talk]]) 14:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:: I assumed it meant that it turned out that the bit about admitting it in a game of Truth or Dare turned out to be embellishment, but I can't find any evidence of that either. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I ''REALLY'' want "Candles of Vienna" to exist. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 14:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe add some real hyperspecipic games? Like "castles of mad king Ludwig" or "Whitechapel". [[Special:Contributions/2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:C1DE:6320:68C1:1C95|2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:C1DE:6320:68C1:1C95]] 16:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure Hive is a good example for an abstract game; as it has a clear theme based on real things (bugs) even if some of the mechanics seem a little arbitrary. The other one given seems to fit; although the example in the comic feels to me like a parody of the Gipf games specifically. And trying to see how many others I could think of made me wish I had friends to play Otto Game Over with. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 17:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Do replace it if you have better examples - I just put in the first couple that came to mind to replace the previously quoted games that didn't seem to fit the theme at all. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Are there actual rules for cones of dunshire available somewhere, or is it purely fantasy? [[User:New editor|New editor]] ([[User talk:New editor|talk]]) 18:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Being Category Theory, it's complete fantasy. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 19:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::I don't think the ([https://parksandrecreation.fandom.com/wiki/The_Cones_of_Dunshire_(game) fictional], then [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/165694/the-cones-of-dunshire defictionalised]) Cones Of Dunshire game is actually based on Category Theory. It's the comic's 'overcomplicated' game (''also'' with Cones Of Dunshire elements, merged with something else) that ultimately has the Category Theory basis. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The newest version of Twilight Imperium has a complexity of 4.35. The 3.46 mentioned in the explanation is for the 1st edition, from the 90s, which nobody plays nowadays. I think the explanation is therefore wrong. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:7B66:7B00:5558:336C|2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:7B66:7B00:5558:336C]] 20:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Factcheck: It's not wrong, but it may be misleading. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And these are ALL of the types of board game? I guess Randall's never played Settlers Of Catan, or Betrayal At The House On The Hill. (Though, I guess you could always just default to calling them "boring," since that has no real criteria.) [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 23:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not particularly familiar with either {{w|Friends}} or {{w|Dragon Ball}}, but…why is the Goku tie-in "ill-advised"? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 01:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: Pretty sure it's because Goku doesn't really have anything to do with the existing characters the board game is based on. A Mario and Sonic cross over makes sense, but a Mario and Doom Guy crossover? Might be cool, but doesn't really make sense, and the mix of target audience is weird. [[Special:Contributions/110.145.224.178|110.145.224.178]] 04:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear, the party game is using the deprecated standard identified in XKCD 3232.--[[Special:Contributions/108.175.232.134|108.175.232.134]] 05:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: "Wait - how do we know which one of us is the Count of Three?" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it stands to reason that Black Hat wouldn't be invited back after admitting to murder. I mean, you wouldn't want to annoy him, would you? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The games that are Abstract and Themed are two sides of the same coin (which could also have further 'sides' from the list, of course). If you have to make a game around a given theme, you have the option of starting off with an established ruleset (e.g. "it's Monopoly, reskinned for Star Wars!") or you have to take canon features and invent some canon-logical gameplay mechanism to how they interact. But, having obtained your theme-game, you can strip the theme away and you still have the playable mechanism. Even if it ''seems'' arbitrary and inexplicable (e.g. "you sit Chandler and Phoebe together on a table at Central Perks" now becomes something about putting triangles and squares on a movable hexagon). Even with a 'pre-Theme' to the Themed game, like Monopoly, that can be reduced to the simplicity of mere tokens and it might seem nonsensical that the big red tokens on a given landing zone on the perimiter of a square board (or around a circular one, or it could be ''any'' kind of twisty, looping path, even) make it so that other players occasionally have to surrender other tokens to you. Or that other tiles may take counting tokens off/give counting tokens to ''anyone'' who lands there (or passes them), another sends you to another tile with further rules for when you can move again. You could play the 'framework monopoly' easy enough, without ever imagining Hotels, Mortgages, Taxes, etc as 'reasons' behind the rules provided.
 Compare and contrast: Something like Uno is very simple and self-describingly abstract (itself is based upon a standard 52-cards (+jokers?) game which seemingly arbitrarily assigns some card-values/faces to non-obvious functions - such as 8="change direction of play"). But Uno (or the standard playing-card game) can be reskinned into a canon-conversion. Say you want (out of thin air, this, no idea if it's been done like this at all!) Babylon 5... Kosh (or Kosh, of course) is shown on the 'change direction' card, maybe, and Mr Morden on the 'skip next player' one, with Zathrus (or Zathrus, or Zathrus... but maybe not Zathrus!) as the wildcard. The 'suits' of the relevent cards could be Human Minbari, Centauri and Narn, any values being the number (or scale) of the fighters/warships concerned. ''Alternatively'', you construct a game around the theme (moving through Brown Sector, Blue Sector, etc, encounter cards featuring the main characters (and more generic appropriate 'monster of the week'-like cameos) buff or penalise your progress on the way to some winning/losing condition in whatever Cooperative/Competitive/hybrid manner the designer wished to implement. But you can pluck the framework of the game away from the theme and the gameplay would work the same in the abstract sense. Or perhaps even shoehorn it into an (apparently) Hyperspecific game, totally unrelated to the Theme it was designed for (essentially a Themed game, but one or other of Themed or Hyperspecific might be considered a case of the Tail Wagging The Dog, if directly compared to the 'logical' other, with the Abstract being just the wagging with no dog and maybe no obvious tail - a kind of Cheshire Cat thing, buf the other way round).
 ...if you see what I mean. For those wanting a '''TL;DR;''': I'm saying that these aren't distinct game-types, but end-(or mid-?)points on a multidimensional spectrum. Being one type of game does not preclude something from possibly being another type. If not simultaneously (want to play a Cooperative Party Social-Deduction game, anyone?) then after merely superficial details are changed. You can de-Theme/re-Theme chess all kinds of ways... a computer chess-player doesn't need to know about how mediæval knights are abstracted to pieces that can leap others, or by mystified as to how fortified buildings are apparently mobile in a certain manner, yet ''can'' in the right circumstances be utterly defeated by a single footsoldier or even an otherwise useless head-of-state, etc. (You can play a game where your 'classical West-style turrets' are playing against the Elephants-with-Howdahs version of the opposing piece. This doesn't change your gameplay. It's not Games Workshop figures with "that figure doesn't have a Power Fist, so he can't ''use'' the Power Fist". You can move your Castle the same whether it's a building or an armoured pachyderm or Laurel And Hardy Stuck In A Chimney Pot.) ...umm, that was supposed to be a TL;DR;, of course, but please excuse the additional philosophising details that got added anyway. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.188|82.132.238.188]] 15:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)