As much fun as playing and designing board and card games is, we all need a break sometimes. Which is of course when we argue about board and card games.
And why have an argument in private when you can have it publicly and messily on the internet for all to see – and let others join in with it themselves?
We’ve got an oddly large group of board game design enthusiasts in Cambridge and it’s fair to say we come from very different schools of thought. Six of us (from four different countries, no less) have gotten together to spout off about a different board game topic each week – under the guise of The Disagreeable Gamers. Why not come say hello (or tell us how WRONG we are)?
The first post went live this week. It’s not a very argumentative topic, as it happens: asking us which game do we wish we’d designed, and why? I think it was a question more designed to give readers an idea of what we’re like rather than to fuel a big debate in itself, but answers still managed to range from snakes and Ladders to Arctic Scavengers…
The regulars will be Andrew Sheerin (War on Terror, Crunch, The Hen Commandments), Brett J Gilbert (Divinare, Elysium, Karnickel), me, David Thompson, Matthew Dunstan (Elysium, Relic Runners, Empire Engine) and Trevor Benjamin. While currently unpublished, both David and Trevor have games signed with publishers which we all hope to see on the shelves in the next year or so.
While we can always find something to argue about, we are of course open to ideas for topics – please post any ideas in the ‘comments’ section of the début post. Along with why we’re so wrong, of course (especially David). Or if you want to call me a terrible, money-grabbing capitalist for choosing Magic: The Gathering, you can do that right here instead!