Timeline for What makes a cooperative game require multiple players?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2017 at 9:01 | answer | added | Shyam P | timeline score: -2 | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 11:07 | answer | added | Tom Wilkinson | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 13, 2014 at 10:08 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackBoardGames/status/521603472937197568 | ||
| Oct 8, 2014 at 17:14 | comment | added | Joe | @xorsyst 1) That's still a two-player game, even though one of the players has a special title/role. 2) RPGs are out of scope for this site. | |
| Oct 8, 2014 at 17:07 | comment | added | xorsyst | Does anything prevent an RPG from being played single-player (plus GM)? Would you want to play it that way? | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 21:41 | comment | added | Cascabel | Strong vote to stay open. Yes, there's more than one way to design a game like this, but it's actually a fairly specific game design/mechanic question, not at all overly broad. There are only so many ways you can require interaction between players. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 19:54 | vote | accept | Joe | ||
| Oct 6, 2014 at 16:26 | answer | added | Kate Gregory | timeline score: -1 | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 16:17 | comment | added | Rainbolt | @Joe Had you asked about Hanabi specifically, I probably wouldn't have voted to close your question, because it is indeed unreasonable to expect a homemade AI to be able to play well. But you chose to ask about every game ever and failed to restrict resources, which led me to my Too Broad and Unclear combination of close votes. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 15:54 | comment | added | Joe | @Rainbolt, I'm assuming that the player does not have a robot capable of playing boardgames, but rather that they have just the game itself and other items you might reasonably have at home, such as a pen and paper. With that assumption, one person cannot play Hanabi. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 15:51 | comment | added | Rainbolt | @Joe On a more serious note, you're wrong. Anything a human can do can be simulated by an AI. If you meant to ask, "What task does not require multiple players given a reasonable amount of money and resources?" then I still would have closed the question as Too Broad, because there are effectively an unlimited number of such tasks. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 15:41 | comment | added | Rainbolt | @Joe Obviously I voted to close without bothering to read the question or its answers. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 15:38 | comment | added | Joe | @Rainbolt, did you read the answers given so far? Hanabi, for one, can't be played by one player, no matter how complex of rules they're using to simulate the other players. It requires a group of people who each don't know certain information. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 14:10 | comment | added | Rainbolt | As long as we have AI - yes, physical games can have AI with rules that govern their moves, like the dealer in Blackjack - hardly anything requires multiple players. Excluding AI, an unlimited number of tasks could require multiple players. Given that, I think that this question begs for a long but non-comprehensive list of tasks that could (maybe not easily) be handled by AI. Therefore, I closed as "unclear what you are asking", because I don't think this was your intent. | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 2:49 | answer | added | Martin Epsz | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 2:08 | answer | added | Nojh Livic | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 21:49 | comment | added | Cascabel | @GendoIkari Yes, I know, and most people end up with full information, but the point is that the room for error (you misremember what's in someone's hand or neglect to ask about something important) is not there if you reduce it to a single player. It's a very small distinction, but it's the beginnings of hidden information as you mention in your answer. | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 21:47 | history | edited | Joe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 91 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2014 at 21:44 | answer | added | GendoIkari | timeline score: 32 | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 21:43 | comment | added | Joe W | Again what might work for one style of cooperative game might not work for another | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 21:34 | comment | added | GendoIkari | @Jefromi It says you cannot show each other your hands, but it also say that you can openly ask and tell what cards are in each other's hands; so the lack of showing doesn't actually prevent any open knowledge; it just forces more communication. | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 21:13 | comment | added | Cascabel | Well, Pandemic does say in the rules that you're not supposed to show each other your hands, which ostensibly does make it impossible for one person to play it. | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 21:00 | history | edited | Joe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 121 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2014 at 21:00 | comment | added | Joe | @JoeW, I'm not asking what can be done to stop one player from controlling the game. I'm asking what makes it impossible for one player to play all by themselves. | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 20:54 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 8, 2014 at 10:41 | |||||
| Oct 4, 2014 at 20:35 | history | edited | Joe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 407 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2014 at 20:34 | comment | added | Joe W | That can very a lot based on the type of game. Just because one player can take charge of a game doesn't mean that it has turned into a one player game. There is very little that can be done about one player controlling other players moves. | |
| Oct 4, 2014 at 19:52 | history | asked | Joe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |