myfavouritename

I love Wandersong so much. I've tried to put into words what makes this game different to every other game. It usually goes something like this.

Nearly every game is about winning. Some are about plumbers leaping their way to the flag pole. Some are about gun-wielding heroes shooting everything. Those are pretty obvious examples of games where the primary emotion is Fiero (the feeling of pride after accomplishment). But even games about cozily pushing blocks, or doing skateboard tricks, or running a successful shop are also predominantly about fiero.

Now, I agree that not all games are about this one emotion. Horror games feature fiero, but are mostly about exploring fear. And there are lots of games that explore other emotions as their primary goal. But the vast majority of games are about winning and the emotion of fiero.

Wandersong is about happiness and not fiero. It makes that perfectly clear in its opening moments. The protagonist is made (painfully?) aware that he is not the hero. The Bard goes on to have several conversations with other characters about happiness. The plot largely revolves around increasing happiness. And, in terms of gameplay, in almost all the places a typical game would offer players chances to feel fiero, this game offers the player opportunities to experience happiness instead.

If you're looking for it, it's clear that the game is occasionally working to prevent fiero and present happiness in its place. The game frequently puts the player in situations where there is no opportunity for them or The Bard to "win". Instead, they have the chance to help or to be helped. And sometimes even when things turn out well, it's despite The Bard and the player failing at their goal.

It's a unique game made with tons of love and I treasure it. I would recommend it to anyone with a heart.

Yeah, you're honestly way out of line here.

Being correct is not a virtue. Other people are not impressed by how correct you are, or by how great a job you've done in correcting others.

Knowing more than others is not a virtue. Literally everyone knows less about some things than others; there is no super genius that is right or most knowledgeable about everything. For that reason (and many others), lack of knowledge is not a good reason to treat someone poorly.

You obviously care about the mechanics of clear communication. I believe that you can be better than this, that you can keep in mind why we communicate, not just how. You obviously know a lot about certain topics as well. I believe you can be better at how you demonstrate your knowledge. This time you showed off your knowledge to shame someone else. Maybe next time you could show off what you know by sharing it with someone in a helpful way.

Then people really would be impressed.

I'm honestly having so much fun getting out in my neighborhood and completing quests

It's okay to disagree with people. You're being a dick while disagreeing with people, though.

I appreciate you.

Wow. Yeah, absolutely. I had forgotten about that game until you mentioned it. Thank you for reminding me. It's entirely unique and deserves to be remembered. But yeah, I don't think I have it in me to replay it.

Third vote for Silverbullet here. I'm really enjoying using it.

Yeah, my time on Beehaw is almost always pleasant. I really love seeing people arguing in the comments of a post and inevitably after a few exchanges they go out of their way to de-escalate tensions and recognize each other as people. Real conversations, real differing of opinions, but maintaining respect for people.

Thanks for this. It's been on my list of games to play for a long time.

In Galaxy Trucker, there is a "distance" or "race" track that manages turn order.

Once all players have built a space ship (simultaneously picking and laying tiles), players place markers on a race track. The first player to finish building their ship is in first, the second player behind them, and so on. I believe there is one empty space between them all as well.

The rest of the game is flipping over event cards one by one and resolving them. Some events are resolved by all players simultaneously. Others are resolved in the order on the race track. First player resolves part of the event. If there's anything left to resolve, second player resolves part, and so on.

Part of resolving an event might involve moving a certain number of steps up or down the race track, skipping over any occupied spaces.

So turn order here would be complicated to work out, especially in a FSM. Effect cards may change turn order, but not always. There may be empty space between two players in the turn order that gets reduced or increased instead. I suppose you could model it with N real players and then X place-holder players that don't actually take their turn.