{"items": [{"author": "Jan-Willem", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/100580955183019057735", "anchor": "gp-1431433722388", "service": "gp", "text": "Hanabi really does beg for bridge-like conventions, doesn't it? \u00a0Some potential improvements:\n
\n* Note that players can also remember the actual identities of cards in their hand once they've been told. \u00a0There's no need to supplement; once I know that a card is playable, it should be played.\n
\n* As noted, ones are common and fives are not. \u00a0Consider some sort of convention that 1 is \"most recently drawn\", but also that once ones have been played identifying ones pushes them to the least recent end of the hand (ditto for other cards as they become unplayable). \u00a0This avoids the problem where fives, being unplayable, bubble down to least recent position. \u00a0Though I suppose saying \"these cards are fives\" asserts \nnon\n playability of the end position of the hand, locking it down.", "timestamp": 1431433722}, {"author": "Luke", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115294324243294509069", "anchor": "gp-1431480455214", "service": "gp", "text": "The conventions that came to my mind were based on how you displayed your cards, i.e.:\n
\nabsent extra information, I'm liable to discard a card in this position\n
\nabsent extra information, I'm liable to play a card in this position\n
\n
\nbut for me, Hanabi had the rare distinction of a game I thought would be better as a smart phone ap. The ending, of counting up points, didn't sell it for me. I can do puzzles, but they pay-off on this one felt weak. That's a personal bias. The group issue I have with it as a card game is that it's ridiculously easy to accidentally cheat. I've yet to see games where folks didn't accidentally give information improperly. Granted, I've never played games that didn't have some people in their first half-dozen of tries. But I think delocalizing the players and controlling the communication protocol would actually help game play.", "timestamp": 1431480455}, {"author": "Jan-Willem", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/100580955183019057735", "anchor": "gp-1431521506889", "service": "gp", "text": "I know people who will refuse to play coop games in certain groups because they know the dominant personality will play solitaire with everyone else looking on helplessly. \u00a0Hidden information definitely helps a bit with that.", "timestamp": 1431521506}, {"author": "Jan-Willem", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/100580955183019057735", "anchor": "gp-1431526775049", "service": "gp", "text": "Note that the dominant personality is \nnot\n necessarily the most skilled player. :-/", "timestamp": 1431526775}, {"author": "Luke", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115294324243294509069", "anchor": "gp-1431529840934", "service": "gp", "text": "To it's credit, Pandemic originally specified playing closed hand, but free to talk about cards in hand; I think deliberately to try and cut back on the potential domination. But everyone I've played with just defaults to open hand.\n
\n
\nThere are also several cooperative/competitive games now; like Legendary and Nazgul. You're working together for a common cause, and everyone can lose together. But if you win, one person can win the most.", "timestamp": 1431529840}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1431616239227", "service": "gp", "text": "@Luke\n\u00a0I've usually played Pandemic with closed hands, but people do enough talking about what they have that the most experienced players still have all the information they need on their own.", "timestamp": 1431616239}]}