Poll: In a board game...

[TheUber]

Would you prefer an abstract point/victory system (Eg. Settlers of Catan - Victory Points) or a tangible point/victory system (Eg. The Game of Life - Whoever has the most money, wins).

 

[Keoul]

Tangible points are easier to keep a track of.
Also, having piles of money in front of you makes you feel awesome. I live using my huge wads of cash as a fan.

 

[Mnixos]

I'd say both, like in Risk.

The amount of regiments you have on board works like a tangible system of point (and has the same effect as the pile of money) but in the end, only your victory condition/mission matters

 

[Pink Gregory]

I remember early attempts to play Warhammer 40k never really being that fun because it always amounted to 'line up and shoot until dead', because the people I was playing with, nor myself, paid attention to the scenarios and stuff in the rulebook, and I regret that thoroughly.

I think that sort of relied on both Victory Points (who was left etc) and objective-based victory conditions, for different scenarios at least; so I guess both can be done in one game.

Less complicated games let me play as a silver top hat, though.

 

[King of Asgaard]

Tangible, but mostly for convenience's sake, as trying to keep track of points without some kind of counter or token or card is a pain in the ass, since it is easy to mistakenly give or take points.

 

[The Salty Vulcan]

I would have to say tangible if only because I haven't really played an abstract game before. At least I don't think I have.

 

[Launcelot111]

Intangible, as victory point win conditions allow for much more variety in how you actually win when you don't have to take money or tokens or whatever off the board, although a good game will show that you're dominating even if you don't have a stack of Monopoly money in front of you.