See All

Popular Political Board Games (Category)

These are the board games with the Political category.
See All

Forum Posts

Go Gree(d)n - Kyoto - Tabletop Family Review image
Go Gree(d)n - Kyoto - Tabletop Family Review [Kyoto]Like| 2 comments | [+]
Starting to play again...a little Like| 2 comments | [+]
ReviewShort Review [Eclipse: Second Dawn for the Galaxy]Like| 4 comments | [+]
See All

User Activity Feed

"One I've toyed around with in my head is playing a group of politically who are dealing with a disaster/crisis of some kind but also trying to get one over on their rivals."

Sounds a little too close to home in some ways right now, but I agree that it does sound like an intriguing game premise.

I think #Betrayal at House on the Hill could make for a good horror romp, maybe not a long running show but a mini-series could be cool. I guess you could try something like how they did the legacy version with each season being a different generation to show off different hauntings (I never played the legacy version but the concept sounded interesting, although I heard in practice it didn't quite work). I think if you went non-scripted it would make for a great game show, each with a different twist and one player becoming the 'traitor' part way through, maybe with more of the hauntings having hidden traitors.

If they were scripted I reckon #Diplomacy could make for a good satirical political drama. With dispassionate politicians carving up the world and betraying each other.

Obviously #Magic: The Gathering has a pretty rich collection of source material and some wonderful concepts for a fantasy adventure series, with characters moving through all manner of bizarre and beautiful terrains and meeting strange of terrifying creatures. 

Honestly, most games. But especially games that can be mean, games with political aspects to them, or games with any kind of extreme facet to them. In my collection, the one game is #Dune. It's not easy, and it can be harsh. But it's so much fun if everyone is invested.

Also, party games. These are games that are simply meant to make you laugh. If you don't have the right group, the games themselves are often not enough to stand on their own if people are not in the "party game" mindset.

Expansion #2

Oath: Chronicles of Asendancy Crisis

  • This one introduces a new setting where the Chancellor dies/or is assassinated at the end of a play

  • This leaves the Empire in turmoil because the Chancellor has no clear successor

  • So the next game no one is in charge which leads to more chaos in the Empire...

  • Essentially you have two choices, you can either try to garner support to show you fall in the family line to rightfully claim the throne

  • Or you can join the fledgling church whose political power had been held at bay due to a seamless transition in power, but with a battle for the throne it seeks to create a Theocracy

    • I could also see this being just a generic Rebellion for anyone who might take offense or not like the Church theme.
  • My thinking is there would be two sites that were played in this scenario, a site that was specific for the crown/kingdom and a site that is dedicated to a bishopric

  • You might be working to keep the Church at bay with someone while also waiting to stab them in the back so you can take the throne when the Church falls and vice versa

Is this something that you would be interested in playing?




#Terraforming Mars, but co-op, and with a leftist political laundry list substituted for TM's random sciencey buzzwords... i.e. TM, but worse. :) And I'd already rather play #Wingspan than TM. I'm sure there's an interesting game to be made about climate change, but I think it would have to go further in the direction of asymmetry and "co-opetition" than this one does.


On another note, did you coin the term 'WHAMRAT'? It is outstanding. :D

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days because this is a thoughtful post that deserves a thoughtful answer.  I'm not going to make any claims to "organized" however but I will do my best haha. First, a couple of my background thoughts on my answer:

I too have been sort of interacting with this question in the realm of books albeit in a less educated way than .  I remember it coming to the forefront of the discussion in the scifi community a few years back when Orson Scott Card said something that a lot of people didn't like.  Honestly, I've forgotten what it was, but I remember a lot of people were questioning whether they could still continue to enjoy his stuff in light of his personal views.  Similarly, I follow the blogs/websites of several authors who I enjoy immensely, but over the past few years have come to realize that our political views are pretty far apart.  This is a bit different than the examples in the original post, as they aren't doing anything that I feel is morally repugnant, but it has made me less inclined to read every post they make or watch every interview.  I still enjoy their books just as much, in both examples. 

On the other hand, I also feel like this whole "court of public opinion" thing has been used too much and too harshly in recent years.  I don't think it is right for heads of companies to be forced to resign or fired because they donated to the "wrong" political group or cause.  And yesterday I found out that a baby sleep consultant whose blog my sister and I follow is getting all kinds of negative PR because people found out she donated to the Trump campaign.  I read one comment where someone basically said something like "I called her and she helped me, she seemed like such a nice person, but now I know I was wrong about her."  All this because the lady donated to a political campaign she disagreed with.  This makes me angry and I think this is wrong. 

Then I started thinking about moral standards.  The problem with humanity trying to enforce moral standards is that everyone's can differ.  What some people believe might be right, others might believe is wrong.  As a Christian, I believe that the moral standard comes from God.  He has told us what is right and wrong, and it isn't my responsibility to decide.  Indeed, I cannot, because I don't make the rules of the universe.  The Bible also tells us that humanity is sinful as a whole (i.e. not going to follow God's standards) and that the only way we can follow these standards is though the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  The Bible also tells me that I'm to encourage my fellow Christians to follow God's laws and, if necessary and I have a relationship with them, to call them out if they're not (Mat. 18:15-16).  I'm not responsible for pointing out when non-believers aren't following God's laws.  Of course, there is also civil law, which is something we're all supposed to follow, enforced by the police, etc.  The solution then, isn't to lead some public outcry or crusade, but instead seek to convert them, then their standards should become self-enforcing haha.  I jest, but that really is the only ultimate solution for trying to repair another human's behavior. 

In summary, because the world is a fallen world, I'm not surprised when non-Christians don't follow God's law.  This isn't to say I'm not saddened or angered by it, but why should I be expecting them to hold to a standard they don't believe in?  (Also, I'm not trying to say that Christians don't mess up, of course we do, the path of improvement is sometimes slow.  And then their fellow believers have the responsibility to try to correct them when that happens.)  I should instead be telling them about how Jesus died for the things that they do wrong and would like to restore them to righteousness if they would only trust in his way. 

So all that to say:

1.1 - I think maybe, depends on the situation.  Certainly if criminal things are happening then yes.  If someone is hurting someone else then yes.  But if some things that are just bad behavior then probably not.  But if I ever were the first person to find out about such behavior, then I would confront them in person and not blast it to the internet.  If I were to find out via the internet, I would not feel that it was my responsibility to inform any of the rest of the world who might not know about such behavior. 

1.2 and 1.3 - No, it is not our responsibility.  If you feel that it is the right thing for you to do then that's fine.  Certainly Christians have boycotted businesses that they feel are not promoting positive ideals.  But I wouldn't say that we have a moral obligation to do so. 

2 - For me I think yes.  If I were to limit myself to only those things that come from moral people (and again, who gets to define who is a moral person or not) then I would have very few options in terms of entertainment.

3. This one I think is a no because of Phil. 4:8 which reads: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."  However, I would say that this is different from reading widely to learn about other worldviews as you stated in your example.  I think there is a difference between trying to educate oneself on different perspectives and enjoying "morally repugnant ideology" in game form.  I also agree with that there can be games that deal with tough subjects in a respectful way, but if its pushing the bad ideology then its not something I want to spend my time in. 

Way to go.

Also, a possible reason for the downtick in traffic has to do with people getting back to work after the holidays, and, in the US, preocupation with political climate.

 (I may have to change my avatar now, it’s like showing up to a party with the same clothes) I can understand where you are coming from. BGG is a public company and they have the right to police their forums the way that they want. I do think they should be more transparent with their guidelines as well as they are a bit nebulous (that is coming from the human resources representative in me). As this site grows (and it will) there will come a time where the guidelines will have to be fleshed out as well.

Despite saying that they are an inclusive site for all gamers, BGG seems to alienate and remove users with traditional viewpoints. I rarely post on BGG (I have the same username on that site btw), but I have found it kind of disturbing how often the BGG moderators shut down any comments that are from opposing viewpoints even when they are done intelligently/respectfully (often marking them as dismissive or disruptive) rather than shutting down the thread entirely. The site used to be better at keeping the forums focused on gaming, I know because I’ve known about the site since 2010 and been a supporter since 2013. In this day and age however, it is difficult to do much without some sort of conflict (simply look up controversy about use of meeple colors in #Vinhos Deluxe (Kickstarter Version) or more recently the husband/wife cards in #Everdell and you’ll get the idea). The bottom line is that keeping everyone happy is a herculean task.

BGA is great at is keeping the conversation focused on gaming. The users are friendly, helpful, and really want to help the community (the site and gamers) grow. I think what we can do is support this site to be a better place where everyone can focus on gaming and keep everything else secondary. In that way, it will be inclusive and fair for everyone. Hopefully that didn’t offend anyone and if it did, I apologize.

I can only speak for myself, but I don’t care what your religious/political/ideological views are nor what your sexual preference is. What I do worry about is if I have a table large enough to accommodate everyone, how you treat others, and if you’ll like my cooking. That was my two cents.

My first hobby game was #1960: The Making of the President. My wife and I are both political nerds. I can't remember how we found out about it, but it was the theme that sucked us in. We still love it! Some of my other early acquisitions were also politically-themed: #Founding Fathers, #Campaign Manager 2008, and #Tammany Hall.

And then there were lots of kids' games, often from HABA. Our oldest was 5-6 as we were getting into boardgames. #Animal Upon Animal was a particular favorite! Our youngest is 9 now, so we don't play those much any more. But they later saw play at my afterschool club, and I plan on playing them with our grandkids one day!

After that, we picked up many of the hobby staples - #Ticket To Ride, #Agricola, #Pandemic, etc. Those are still games that we play and enjoy. The first game I can remember owning and then deciding wasn't for me was #Richard III: The War of the Roses. I was into the theme, but I just never played it enough to get comfortable with the rules and it felt like I was starting over and making mistakes every time it hit the table.

So overall, a pretty good foundation!

I have heard so many good things about 1960, but, I don't think I would have an easy time getting another player for a political game like that. So, colour me slightly envious.