I consider picking up Mao with some friends. I volunteer as the

Playing Mao is awesome fun, but personally I feel like that fun comes from two places.
>watching new players as they try and figure out the base rules and are getting punished/feel awesome for them once they figure it out
>playing with all experienced players and watch the ever evolving meta happen, and see how crazy that the rules can get
The thing about making the game perpetual, you're kind of fucking yourself out of the two things that I think makes Mao fun. New players not knowing the base rules is all ready tough and frustrating enough, let alone if you include everybody's rules overtime.

Then if you're playing with experienced people/the same group, continuous rules can make other new and interesting rules hard to accomplish or way overly complex.

Playing Mao I feel is best with the base rules every time, after about 8 or so rules being added to the game people usually start getting fatigued with rules they were either never able to figure out, or just losing track of everything in their head and it degenerates from there.

Also for reference, the only base rules my group plays with:
>"Begin Mao"
>No talking
>No touching your own hand before dealer
>P of O
>No touching your cards during PoO
>5, Reverse
>7, "Have a nice day"
>Multiple 7's, "Have a very(x# of additional 7's played) nice day"
>"Last Card"
>"Mao"

>>48695838
Another thing that I've considered adding to playing Mao, is that every winner needs to write down their rules in a journal. Then when whoever wins next and gets to add a rule, they get to see what the other rules are that were created for the game.

This serves multiple purposes
>Prevents people from making minor changes to their rules as time goes on
>Makes it so if someone is able to win through whatever rules without figuring them out completely, it is a bonus reward
>Allows the winner the make a rule that specifically interacts with rules which are already made.
Example:
1st Rule: Whenever you play a face card, the active suit changes to the other suit of the same color.
2nd Rule: All 2's are considered King's for in game purposes.
Result: Now 2's will change the active suit of the pile. But if someone made the second rule, without explicitly knowing the 1st rule, it's possible that when someone plays a 2, the 2nd rule creator wouldn't know that the 1st rule is supposed to apply to the two, which can mean once the 2nd rule creator figures that out there could be inconsistent punishment calls.
>If you have a consistent Mao journal it acts as an archive of all previous games, which you could jump back into for the perpetual kind of game you're talking about, or just use as a reference sheet for the crazy shit people have come up with.

File: 1411671972478.jpg (106KB, 468x624px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 468x624px

>>48695838
>>48696026
yeah I see your point, it would create too much historical clutter overtime. I actually intended to introduce a journal, originally 1 for each player, but I like that idea of one global journal a lot. One could just keep numerating and start off the game with 1 or 2 rules enabled. You know, like "we're playing Mao with house rules #3 and #45". People will remember particularly popular or ridiculous additions also adding some in-joke value to them. Have you ever tried the 9/Joker rule? did anyone ever connect the dots?

>>48696176
*diamond 9

>>48696176
The rules we play with are the rules that I was introduced with. And Mao is one of those things that you don't really mess with the base rules that everyone knows, because you're basically playing with self beneficial "unknown" rules from the very start, and for people that have played Mao with you before, it's kind of a shitty thing to do.

If I was going to start playing Mao from scratch, I would play with a card which skips (probably jack, or ace), as well as "have a nice day" making the next person draw a card, or consecutive 7's being very nice day and making the next person draw however many 7's there are instead.

Also not sure the 9/joker rule you're referring to.

>>48696283
makes perfect sense. Changing the base rules is out of question once it has been established. Of course I'm in kind of a lucky position since I am the one introducing everyone else and I know of absolutely noone playing it around here. the diamond 9 rule is that one must say "that's the badger" or some similar nonsensical phrase when it's played. And the Joker is considered a diamond 9 for all intents and purposes of the game.

>>48696371
Ahh, never played or even really heard of that rule, also we don't play with jokers, so there is that.

Also, be prepared for people to be very frustrated at the start. (Unless you're going to tell them all the rules beforehand, but where is the fun in that) People will think that you're being mean/targeting them and that there aren't really any rules to the game. If they also don't know PofO, I've had someone just throw cards at me and storm off (since they weren't supposed to talk, and didn't know of PofO)

I'd highly suggest telling at least 1 person the rules so that you aren't the only one calling out penalties, it can offset the feeling that you're there to make their time miserable.

For rules to tell people
"You can't talk once the game starts."
"It plays like Uno or Crazy 8's, suits on suits, or numbers on numbers, the point it to get rid of all of the cards in your hand."
"The rest of the rules you have to learn through penalties in the game."

>>48696599
I usually say "it's like Uno" unless they go a super long time without getting it, where we PoO to explain to them what that means. Of course, the games of Mao I've played are usually with a pretty intense group. Outsiders have cried from them.

>>48696669
As someone who plays a ton of boardgames, the idea of not at least explaining what you're even supposed to do is preposterous. Explain it's like Uno before you start playing, otherwise you're really just being a dick.

>>48696599
>>48696669
>>48696702
yeah you gotta give some information, I agree
I think it may also help to use the "no talking" rule more loosely. At least in my circles there is a lot of verbal shitposting which is part of the fun, trying to enforce quietness would kill the mood. I was thinking that one mustn't talk when playing a card unless required, at least that sounds like a reasonable compromise.

>>48696804
No talking is seriously a must. My group is the same way with the shit talking. And people getting animated about rules they're not getting and having outbursts leading to more punishments leads to chuckles all around. Talking is an no-no, laughs, grunts, etc. are all fine. Also, with cards you play some people will come up with rules where you have to say something specific, if other people are talking in general it can become garbled/not easily heard in the chatter.

If something seriously dumb happens it usually results in said person shouting PofO, and telling off the rule maker which is even more hilarious.

>>48696885
that does sound hilarious. Well if it worked for you I should at least try it, because it would be pretty damn hilarious if it played out.

Anyway, thanks for all the great input guys, you helped a ton! Damn shame but I gotta go and I dunno if that thread is still up when I'm back.

>>48697000
Cheers mate.

>>48696702
We say it's like Uno.