To a certain extent, all new games owe a debt to previous ones... whether it's an elaboration of an old game mechanic, a variation on a theme, or a refinement of a game system. However, recently we've played games which seem to wear their inspirations so prominently that they feel more like combinations of other games, rather than wholly original works. Three such games are Mission: Red Planet, Beowulf and Vegas Showdown. I've started calling these "fusion" games, for whatever reason. I have nothing against this sort of game! As long as the result is fun, and different enough from it's sources to be worth pulling off the shelf, I'm happy to play them.
I thought it would be fun to combine them into a gaming session. JayWowzer was in attendence this evening (though Bharmer was not), and he brought along Space Dealer. Space dealer is definitely NOT what I would classify as a "Fusion" game... I haven't really played anything like it! Still, themes are meant to be broken, right?
Mission: Red Planet (Citadels + El Grande)
We started off with Mission: Red Planet. I drew the mission card with a bonus for having the most astronauts on Mars, so I decided to make that my guiding principle for the game. I figured I would pick the roles offering the most astronauts, and then use the prospector a few times to maximize their use. That didn't happen.
Maybe I'm missing something, but an earlier irritation of mine came back: there is something odd (and unsatisfying) about the number and types of roles! The penalty for playing the prospector (only placing one astronaut, no other ability), is simply to strong to allow a player to use him twice. If the powers of the other characters were of wildly different strengths, then I could see swallowing the penalty in order to get the powerful ones back, but as it is all the roles are normally usefull at all times. If I have the soldier left, I'll remove another player's astronaut, if I have the temptress, I'll convert another player's astronaut. Changing the destination and blowing up a ship are both usefull and disruptive. The scientist has it's place. etc, etc. All are useful, but none so much that I would pick the prospector twice to see it three times (for example). So, the game becomes: which one or two roles will I use twice, and when will I make the switch (which follows that every game will see each player play each role once over the course of the game)? That's too bad, because it seems like it would be interesting to build an alternate strategy out of recycling the same characters to achieve a specific goal.
Anyway, I played the scientist early, and it netted me a second mission card (have an astronaut in each of the eastern regions). I focussed on fulfilling those missions, but watched as my spaceships routinely got redirected to other regions (seriously, it happened several times). I actually quite enjoy this aspect of the game. This is area control done with a healthy dose of chaos, but it is fun as long as it's played fast. I found myself mostly in competition with Jaywowzer in the East, and since my ships kept getting redirected I was constantly in competition with Luch in the north-west (a region I had no interest in, yet which had nearly half my astronauts!!!). Shane had free reign of the south-west and Luch was sitting quietly in the center all on his own (two ice regions). Kozure had his eyes on the north and south poles.
When the dust settled, Shemp was the winner by a nose. He had 37, Kozure and I had 35. Things might have been different if Jaywowzer and I hadn't placed astronauts in Luch's center regions on the last turn... he had a major bonus for any regions he solely occupied (not a card either of us were familiar with. We'll be more careful in the future).
Space Dealer
We followed with Space Dealer. I'm not going to get into detail, but this is an odd one. Players each have a ship and a home base. They each develop their home base in order to be able to produce resources. They then take their resources and deliver them to another player's home base in order to sell them. Victoy points are aquired by 1) being the player to have sold the goods another player's base needed, and 2) having a section of your base receive what it wants by another player.
Therefore, you win by building a base others want to deliver to, and by beating other players to satisfying the needs of other bases. Nothing terribly special yet.
The game stands out because of the way it deals with time. A game will always last 30 minutes, because it comes with a CD which must be played along with the game. When it ends, the game ends. Secondly, each player gets two sand timers. When they want to take an action, they place a sand timer on the item they want to build/ move or use to produce a good. When the timer ends, the effect happens and the timer can be moved to another location. In other words, there are no turns. There is no downtime. No time to analyse, so no analysis-paralysis.
Does it work? I have no idea. In our first (and only) game, I committed so many mistakes that it was embarrassing. I would place my timer on resource production, only to realize that since my ship was gone all the resources would go to waste. I would put my timer on a new section for my base, only to realize I couldn't fit it anywhere. I'm pretty sure others were doing the same. It was fun, in a wacky sort of way. There was tension in trying to orchestrate things to produce the right goods and then send your ship to the other player's base before the guy across from you could do the same. A few times I would be waiting with my hand next to the timer, staring at Kozure's across from me, watching the sand go down to see who would make it first to Luch's base and satisfy the request (since you have to focus so much on what you are doing, it's not uncommon to go through the trouble of producing something and start delivering it, only to discover it's no longer available or someone else is trying to do the same thing at the same time). Anyway, it was fun and definitely a change of pace.
Beowulf (Lord of the Rings + Taj Mahal)
We finished up with our second playing of Beowulf. We corrected a rule we played incorrectly last time: players can risk once EVERY TIME an auction comes around to them (we were playing that each player could only risk once per auction). Still not that familiar with the board, but certainly it helped to know roughly what was ahead. With the risking system properly implemented, the tone of the game really changed. The first circular auction (Grendel's attack) was a brutal, long battle which saw players risking turn after turn. I've read that the odds of failing a risk is roughly 30%. I think that it must be less than that (15-20%, perhaps?). That, or we all were quite lucky throughout the game! Either way, risking featured so prominently this game that it seemed our hand was roughly 50% of what was necessary to win any hotly contested auction. It was dramatic and exciting, and certainly fun, but also very luck heavy. Knowing Knizia, there is a way to win at Beowulf without risking too much, but it probably takes a much sharper player to win that way. Right now, I'm seeing this as a game where you stack the odds in your favour and hope things pan out (this is an aspect of RA which I really like... that you play the odds and do your best, but things can play out in unexpected ways despite your best layed plans. Despite this, the better player will win most of the games)
I actually had a lot of fun. Certainly, Kozure seems to know something we don't, because he won this second game as handily as the first! I limped into the end and managed a second last place (as opposed to my last place showing last time). He seemed to always work it out so that he'd have the right resources at the right time. He had his share of lucky draws, but so did the rest of us. I hope the risks stay fun, and don't become an annoyance (I know, I know, that those who play this game a lot say that this can all be controlled to a certain extent. I'm even willing to beleive it. Like Ra, percieved chaos is a frequent complaint levelled at the game). It only mention it because there was SO MUCH successful risking this game that I can't imagine the next would see less. I feel that risking should hurt a little more often, to make the decision to risk a little harder, but we'll see.
It was too late to play Vegas Showdown, but I'm sure we'll see it again soon. Thanks to JayWowzer for coming, and for being our connection hot new games!
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Beowulf and Ideology
Two games tonight: Beowulf and Ideology
Beowulf is a game I've been curious about for some time, but couldn't justify the cost... opinions were simply to varied. Still, many people on the internet who's opinion I respect said it was great, so when I saw it on clearance I decided to take a chance.
Beowulf
The idea: The players are all accompanying Beowulf on his adventure, vying to impress him in order to be named his successor.
The components: The presentation of the game is very reminiscent of the Lord of the Rings. The layout of the cards is almost identical to that game (illustrations + a 1-4 symbols in the corner). The board, which is a very odd "L" shape, has a meandering path reminiscent of the scenario boards in LOTR. Of course, all the art on the board and the cards is by John Howe and this further increases the resemblance. A plastic figure representing Beowulf and various good quality cardboard components (treasures, fame points, wounds, etc) round out the package. One complaint: the graphic design could have been better. The text on the board is far too small, and the symbols for auction results should have been 10% bigger to accomodate the place markers. Definitely a case of form over function.
The mechanics: The game is structured around a linear path containing approx. 30 major and minor "episodes" from the book. Players will have to manage their hand of cards and compete in auctions along the way. Ultimately, the goal is to acquire the most laurels, but there are many paths available to obtain them. A second preoccupation is that players can get wounded or cursed along the way, and these can potentially reduce a player's score.
Major episodes are the main focus of the game. Each is an auction of some type, and a number of results equal to the number of players are on offer. The winner of the auction gets first pick, 2nd place picks next (and so on). It's worth noting that while certain items are definitely going to be worth more to one player than another (according to the strategy they are pursuing, for example), some of the results are simply better than others. This means that there is definitely incentive to to do well (and often definite incentive NOT to do poorly), but the value of the options will often be different for each player.
Minor episodes are typically opportunities between the major episodes to acquire or convert resources in order to better face the challenges ahead.
Risking: A central concept in the game is "taking a Risk". In many circumstances, a player can flip two cards in the hopes of turning up one or two particular symbols. If they succeed, there is a beneficial result (such as adding the cards to the player's hand, or contributing the cards to the current auction). If they fail, they get a "scratch".
Scratches and Wounds: Scratches are most often acquired as a result of a failed "Risk", but are also quite common the result of placing last (or second last) in an auction. 3 scratches equal a wound. 1 or 2 wounds do not affect your score, but 3 wounds or more come with an enormous penalty.
Thoughts on the Game
First of all, comparisons to LOTRs are superficial at best. Other than appearances, and some of the hand management mechanics, this is a totally different game. It's also been compared to RA, but ultimately I think it reminds me most of Taj Mahal. Both games revolve around a linear path of auctions (though the initial setup in Taj is random). Both have, as principal challenges, to manage a hand of cards in such a way as to have what you need, when you need it. Both require advanced planning in order to look down the road, choose the fights you want to win, and those you are willing to lose. Both offer various paths to victory, and the relative worth of the items up for auction changes according to the paths you are taking.
Also, like Taj, the game can initially seem uncontrollable (or, more accurately, that card draws are controlling you). However, there are enough hand management opportunities that I don't really feel this is the case. If you want to conserve cards for an auction which matters to you, don't get drawn into spending them on those that don't !
Obviously, the specifics differ quite a lot (there is no board play in Beowulf, and nothing equivalent to "Risking" in Taj. Auctions are handled completely differently), but it would be interesting to see if a player inclined to do well at one would do well in the other.
The linear,static layout of the board makes me wonder if the game will eventually get repetitive, but ironically it's cited as a strength by those who like it. I imagine the idea is that players can begin to know what is important, what to anticipate, etc. I wonder if this means that eventually the game would boil down to playing against groupthink? (i.e. everyone has decided that auction A is not worth fighting over, but auction C is crucial. Do you go for A because it will be easy, and let others waste resources fighting over C?). Hard to say. Would Taj Mahal be better if the layout was the same every time? Another bone of contention is the "Risk" system. Does it introduce too much luck? Again, I didn't think so. The system adds a level of excitement to the game, and yet punishment for over-risking is real. I'd be curious to know if a player who chose to never risk had as much chance to win as someone who risked at every opportunity, or whether the optimum strategy lies somewhere in between. Knowing Knizia, all three are viable in some way!
Because of all the dissenting opinion at BGG, I really expected this to be a "Love it or Hate it" experience. It really wasn't. I found the game to be good, but not great (a little like Tower of babel before it... the game works, it's enjoyable, but not overly compelling). Still, it seemed to be generally well received by the rest of the group (Shemp declared it to be "roughly a million times better than Lord of the Rings"). Since repeated playing are said to be necessary to really appreciate the game, I'll definitely be picking it again next week to see if it gets better.
Session
I played horribly my first time out. I acquired 2 cursed (-2 score markers) early on, and did not manage to get many laurels along the way. I think I was focusing so much on a few auctions near the end that I ignored the rest (being happy to just avoid scratches and wounds). I did have a spectacular "Risk" where I played a special card which allowed me to turn 5 cards instead of 3, netting me a starting bid of 5! Surprisingly, Kozure and Luch still made me work for 1st place in that auction, but it cost them far more cards than it did me. I had plans to accumulate enough treasure to get the All iron shield, and then hoard cards to win the dragon battle and the highest number of symbols at the end. Somehow, I lost track of all that and limped into the end of the game in last place. Along the way, Luch distinguished himself as the largest Risk taker (getting hurt early and often, but managing to heal himself enough to avoid serious detriment). Kozure did very well and came in a distant first.
Ideology
This was our 3rd or 4th playing of Ideology, but our 1st with 5 players. As the communist, I had the much feared "Iron Curtain" ability. It's a powerful advantage, and with it the red army has won every game we've had save one (our last game, when everyone wised up to the danger and made sure Russia didn't have a chance). Lucky for me, time has assuaged these fears, and I was allowed to play as freely as the others.
As far as Ideology games go, this one was rather straightforward. Most people concentrated on their own goals, and conflict over countries was mostly left to the end of the game. I brought Russia to 6, took over Central Europe and Scandinavia... bringing me to 10. Shemp's capitalists stole Central Europe away, but luckily Vietnam became available and I grabbed it. With the capitalists and bharmer's Islamics all reaching the goal of twelve on the same turn as me, I purchased a weapon of mass destruction giving me the win with 13 points.
Ideology continues to be a fun world conquest game. It's obviously a great opportunity to ham it up and role play the stereotypes, making for a lot of laughter... but the game system is compelling as well. I keep feeling that there is potential for a never ending cycle of "bash the leader" at the end of the game, but only one of our sessions have had this problem so it's probably just in my head.
Beowulf is a game I've been curious about for some time, but couldn't justify the cost... opinions were simply to varied. Still, many people on the internet who's opinion I respect said it was great, so when I saw it on clearance I decided to take a chance.
Beowulf
The idea: The players are all accompanying Beowulf on his adventure, vying to impress him in order to be named his successor.
The components: The presentation of the game is very reminiscent of the Lord of the Rings. The layout of the cards is almost identical to that game (illustrations + a 1-4 symbols in the corner). The board, which is a very odd "L" shape, has a meandering path reminiscent of the scenario boards in LOTR. Of course, all the art on the board and the cards is by John Howe and this further increases the resemblance. A plastic figure representing Beowulf and various good quality cardboard components (treasures, fame points, wounds, etc) round out the package. One complaint: the graphic design could have been better. The text on the board is far too small, and the symbols for auction results should have been 10% bigger to accomodate the place markers. Definitely a case of form over function.
The mechanics: The game is structured around a linear path containing approx. 30 major and minor "episodes" from the book. Players will have to manage their hand of cards and compete in auctions along the way. Ultimately, the goal is to acquire the most laurels, but there are many paths available to obtain them. A second preoccupation is that players can get wounded or cursed along the way, and these can potentially reduce a player's score.
Major episodes are the main focus of the game. Each is an auction of some type, and a number of results equal to the number of players are on offer. The winner of the auction gets first pick, 2nd place picks next (and so on). It's worth noting that while certain items are definitely going to be worth more to one player than another (according to the strategy they are pursuing, for example), some of the results are simply better than others. This means that there is definitely incentive to to do well (and often definite incentive NOT to do poorly), but the value of the options will often be different for each player.
Minor episodes are typically opportunities between the major episodes to acquire or convert resources in order to better face the challenges ahead.
Risking: A central concept in the game is "taking a Risk". In many circumstances, a player can flip two cards in the hopes of turning up one or two particular symbols. If they succeed, there is a beneficial result (such as adding the cards to the player's hand, or contributing the cards to the current auction). If they fail, they get a "scratch".
Scratches and Wounds: Scratches are most often acquired as a result of a failed "Risk", but are also quite common the result of placing last (or second last) in an auction. 3 scratches equal a wound. 1 or 2 wounds do not affect your score, but 3 wounds or more come with an enormous penalty.
Thoughts on the Game
First of all, comparisons to LOTRs are superficial at best. Other than appearances, and some of the hand management mechanics, this is a totally different game. It's also been compared to RA, but ultimately I think it reminds me most of Taj Mahal. Both games revolve around a linear path of auctions (though the initial setup in Taj is random). Both have, as principal challenges, to manage a hand of cards in such a way as to have what you need, when you need it. Both require advanced planning in order to look down the road, choose the fights you want to win, and those you are willing to lose. Both offer various paths to victory, and the relative worth of the items up for auction changes according to the paths you are taking.
Also, like Taj, the game can initially seem uncontrollable (or, more accurately, that card draws are controlling you). However, there are enough hand management opportunities that I don't really feel this is the case. If you want to conserve cards for an auction which matters to you, don't get drawn into spending them on those that don't !
Obviously, the specifics differ quite a lot (there is no board play in Beowulf, and nothing equivalent to "Risking" in Taj. Auctions are handled completely differently), but it would be interesting to see if a player inclined to do well at one would do well in the other.
The linear,static layout of the board makes me wonder if the game will eventually get repetitive, but ironically it's cited as a strength by those who like it. I imagine the idea is that players can begin to know what is important, what to anticipate, etc. I wonder if this means that eventually the game would boil down to playing against groupthink? (i.e. everyone has decided that auction A is not worth fighting over, but auction C is crucial. Do you go for A because it will be easy, and let others waste resources fighting over C?). Hard to say. Would Taj Mahal be better if the layout was the same every time? Another bone of contention is the "Risk" system. Does it introduce too much luck? Again, I didn't think so. The system adds a level of excitement to the game, and yet punishment for over-risking is real. I'd be curious to know if a player who chose to never risk had as much chance to win as someone who risked at every opportunity, or whether the optimum strategy lies somewhere in between. Knowing Knizia, all three are viable in some way!
Because of all the dissenting opinion at BGG, I really expected this to be a "Love it or Hate it" experience. It really wasn't. I found the game to be good, but not great (a little like Tower of babel before it... the game works, it's enjoyable, but not overly compelling). Still, it seemed to be generally well received by the rest of the group (Shemp declared it to be "roughly a million times better than Lord of the Rings"). Since repeated playing are said to be necessary to really appreciate the game, I'll definitely be picking it again next week to see if it gets better.
Session
I played horribly my first time out. I acquired 2 cursed (-2 score markers) early on, and did not manage to get many laurels along the way. I think I was focusing so much on a few auctions near the end that I ignored the rest (being happy to just avoid scratches and wounds). I did have a spectacular "Risk" where I played a special card which allowed me to turn 5 cards instead of 3, netting me a starting bid of 5! Surprisingly, Kozure and Luch still made me work for 1st place in that auction, but it cost them far more cards than it did me. I had plans to accumulate enough treasure to get the All iron shield, and then hoard cards to win the dragon battle and the highest number of symbols at the end. Somehow, I lost track of all that and limped into the end of the game in last place. Along the way, Luch distinguished himself as the largest Risk taker (getting hurt early and often, but managing to heal himself enough to avoid serious detriment). Kozure did very well and came in a distant first.
Ideology
This was our 3rd or 4th playing of Ideology, but our 1st with 5 players. As the communist, I had the much feared "Iron Curtain" ability. It's a powerful advantage, and with it the red army has won every game we've had save one (our last game, when everyone wised up to the danger and made sure Russia didn't have a chance). Lucky for me, time has assuaged these fears, and I was allowed to play as freely as the others.
As far as Ideology games go, this one was rather straightforward. Most people concentrated on their own goals, and conflict over countries was mostly left to the end of the game. I brought Russia to 6, took over Central Europe and Scandinavia... bringing me to 10. Shemp's capitalists stole Central Europe away, but luckily Vietnam became available and I grabbed it. With the capitalists and bharmer's Islamics all reaching the goal of twelve on the same turn as me, I purchased a weapon of mass destruction giving me the win with 13 points.
Ideology continues to be a fun world conquest game. It's obviously a great opportunity to ham it up and role play the stereotypes, making for a lot of laughter... but the game system is compelling as well. I keep feeling that there is potential for a never ending cycle of "bash the leader" at the end of the game, but only one of our sessions have had this problem so it's probably just in my head.
Labels:
Beowulf,
Ideology: The War of Ideas,
Knizia,
Session
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Behold the Dice Tower, or "I knocked the #@!!?@ tower again" (Shogun)
Woah, big box.
Surprisingly, in the big box, you'll find a regular sized game (small, even). You see, the box also contains a board game component so big and ridiculous it makes the El Grande tower seem entirely reasonable: Behold the Dice Tower.
Welcome to Shogun, the newly re-themed Wallenstein (#15 on BGG). I haven't played the original, but from what I understand, the differences between editions are minor.
Shogun - The Idea
In Shogun, players assume the role of a military leader in feudal Japan trying to become emperor. Power is primarily gained by controlling provinces and constructing public buildings, but care must be taken not to overtax the population or forget to stockpile enough food for the winter season, as that can lead to revolt.
A Brief Overview of the Mechanics
In the basic setup, each player starts with a number of predetermined provinces, as well as a particular number of armies in each (in the advanced setup, players have more control over the initial distribution). Players receive a card for each province they own and 5 bidding cards (numbered 0-4)
Each player also has an action board, which shows 10 actions + an auction space. The action board shows 10 different, specific actions, such as "attack", "place 5 armies for 3 gold" or "build a temple".
Along the bottom of the board, cards representing each of those 10 actions are layed out randomly. This will determine the order in which the actions will occur, but in an interesting twist the last 5 are placed face down so that there is some mystery
to the order of actions.
The game is played over 8 seasons, starting in spring and working through to the end of 2 winters. Each season, players must choose a province card to place on each of the 10 possible actions, and then choose a bid for turn order (it is also possible to bluff and not take a particular action, if desired).
Actions are then played out. The first action is resolved by all players from starting with the start player. Then the second, etc. Once all 10 actions have occurred, the next season begins.
Every 4th season is winter. In winter, no actions take place other than verifying that each leader stockpiled enough rice. If not, the population might revolt. Once this has been dealt with, victory points are counted. Each region controlled gives points, each built building (theatre, temple and palace) gives points and finally each player with the majority of any one type of building in an entire region gets points.
At the end of the 2nd winter, the game ends.
My Thoughts
There is a civ light/ multiplayer wargame lurking under here... but it's quite different from what you'd expect. It's wrapped by a very "German" game system (which means it's abstracted, gamey but clever). In our first playing, I found myself thinking that there are a LOT of moving parts here compared to most euros (in fact, I made the observation that this was the "Arkham Horror" of German games, though in reality I bet that comment just reveals to everyone that I've never played Caylus, Die Macher or a Splotter game). The way the system forces you to simultaneously plan up to 10 actions and forces those actions to be in 10 different provinces feels a little intimidating at first. Over the course of the game, it becomes easier, but there is definitely potential for serious analysis paralysis! Luckily, our group managed to keep a pretty good clip most of the time. The result is a game system which effectively conveys a sense of the challenges inherent in managing a large and disparate set of regions. It certainly feels different than the majority of civ building/ multiplayer wargame hybrids which normally allow much more focused decision making. Interesting indeed, but does that make a good GAME?
I'll start off by saying this: I quite enjoyed the game, but I have no idea if it works as a strategy game.
On a single turn, you have to decide a single action for up to 10 different provinces. Therefore, if at the start of the game you decides you wanted to build up your resources in a province, build a castle there and then attack a neighboring province to achieve a majority of castles in that region, it would take 3 seasons... in other words half the game. In the meantime, you've programmed up to 3 actions for 9 other provinces. Obviously, some synergy can be worked out: You could build the castle elsewhere in the region, you could move armies from a different province instead of taking a turn to build armies, etc, but you get the idea. It can take some time to get things done.
Then, you have to consider the fact that since your province cards essentially program your actions, if you lose a province to an attacking player you also lose the action (if it hasn't already occured). This can really throw major chaos into your plans.
Speaking of chaos, I haven't yet described what is certainly the calling card of the game: the dice tower. Imagine a very large square tower with various platforms inside. Whenever a conflict arises (either between players or between a player and his revolting farmers), cubes are thrown in to represent the units in combat. As cubes are thrown in, some fall out into the large plastic tray, and others stay trapped. The winner of the battle is the side who has the most cubes which fall out. Of course, the next time cubes are thrown in, some that were trapped will likely come out! (though cubes of other players never count, they are simply thrown back into the dice tower for the next conflict). This has the unsettling effect of allowing a battle to begin 2 vs 3 and end 4 vs 1, for example. The result is very interesting, and even quite fun if you can deal with the weirdness. But again, does this type of mechanism belong in a game which is otherwise asking for so much pre-planning, so much strategy, and a 3 hour time commitment?
I'm withholding judgement. Like I said, I had actually had a great time playing the game, and I'm really looking forward to playing again (it was pretty fascinating to see the dice tower in action, and how the actions all played out turn after turn). In the long term, however, I'd like to think that the game system would allow a seasoned player to actually do well and bring the chaos under control... otherwise it's hard to justify such a heavy system. The dice tower is a randomizer unlike any other, and it IS possible to keep track of what goes in there and plan accordingly. Similarly, there is probably a way to balance a conservative strategy by choosing short term, easy goals vs long term riskier ones (similar to the trade-offs you are asked to make in most simultaneous action selection games, even though they are typically lighter games such as Citadels or Mission:Red Planet).
Or, maybe it's just an adult version of Mousetrap, and we're all just watching all the pieces work together to see what happens. That can be fun, too.
For the record, Bharmer won the game. I came in a distant last, I think.
Surprisingly, in the big box, you'll find a regular sized game (small, even). You see, the box also contains a board game component so big and ridiculous it makes the El Grande tower seem entirely reasonable: Behold the Dice Tower.
Welcome to Shogun, the newly re-themed Wallenstein (#15 on BGG). I haven't played the original, but from what I understand, the differences between editions are minor.
Shogun - The Idea
In Shogun, players assume the role of a military leader in feudal Japan trying to become emperor. Power is primarily gained by controlling provinces and constructing public buildings, but care must be taken not to overtax the population or forget to stockpile enough food for the winter season, as that can lead to revolt.
A Brief Overview of the Mechanics
In the basic setup, each player starts with a number of predetermined provinces, as well as a particular number of armies in each (in the advanced setup, players have more control over the initial distribution). Players receive a card for each province they own and 5 bidding cards (numbered 0-4)
Each player also has an action board, which shows 10 actions + an auction space. The action board shows 10 different, specific actions, such as "attack", "place 5 armies for 3 gold" or "build a temple".
Along the bottom of the board, cards representing each of those 10 actions are layed out randomly. This will determine the order in which the actions will occur, but in an interesting twist the last 5 are placed face down so that there is some mystery
to the order of actions.
The game is played over 8 seasons, starting in spring and working through to the end of 2 winters. Each season, players must choose a province card to place on each of the 10 possible actions, and then choose a bid for turn order (it is also possible to bluff and not take a particular action, if desired).
Actions are then played out. The first action is resolved by all players from starting with the start player. Then the second, etc. Once all 10 actions have occurred, the next season begins.
Every 4th season is winter. In winter, no actions take place other than verifying that each leader stockpiled enough rice. If not, the population might revolt. Once this has been dealt with, victory points are counted. Each region controlled gives points, each built building (theatre, temple and palace) gives points and finally each player with the majority of any one type of building in an entire region gets points.
At the end of the 2nd winter, the game ends.
My Thoughts
There is a civ light/ multiplayer wargame lurking under here... but it's quite different from what you'd expect. It's wrapped by a very "German" game system (which means it's abstracted, gamey but clever). In our first playing, I found myself thinking that there are a LOT of moving parts here compared to most euros (in fact, I made the observation that this was the "Arkham Horror" of German games, though in reality I bet that comment just reveals to everyone that I've never played Caylus, Die Macher or a Splotter game). The way the system forces you to simultaneously plan up to 10 actions and forces those actions to be in 10 different provinces feels a little intimidating at first. Over the course of the game, it becomes easier, but there is definitely potential for serious analysis paralysis! Luckily, our group managed to keep a pretty good clip most of the time. The result is a game system which effectively conveys a sense of the challenges inherent in managing a large and disparate set of regions. It certainly feels different than the majority of civ building/ multiplayer wargame hybrids which normally allow much more focused decision making. Interesting indeed, but does that make a good GAME?
I'll start off by saying this: I quite enjoyed the game, but I have no idea if it works as a strategy game.
On a single turn, you have to decide a single action for up to 10 different provinces. Therefore, if at the start of the game you decides you wanted to build up your resources in a province, build a castle there and then attack a neighboring province to achieve a majority of castles in that region, it would take 3 seasons... in other words half the game. In the meantime, you've programmed up to 3 actions for 9 other provinces. Obviously, some synergy can be worked out: You could build the castle elsewhere in the region, you could move armies from a different province instead of taking a turn to build armies, etc, but you get the idea. It can take some time to get things done.
Then, you have to consider the fact that since your province cards essentially program your actions, if you lose a province to an attacking player you also lose the action (if it hasn't already occured). This can really throw major chaos into your plans.
Speaking of chaos, I haven't yet described what is certainly the calling card of the game: the dice tower. Imagine a very large square tower with various platforms inside. Whenever a conflict arises (either between players or between a player and his revolting farmers), cubes are thrown in to represent the units in combat. As cubes are thrown in, some fall out into the large plastic tray, and others stay trapped. The winner of the battle is the side who has the most cubes which fall out. Of course, the next time cubes are thrown in, some that were trapped will likely come out! (though cubes of other players never count, they are simply thrown back into the dice tower for the next conflict). This has the unsettling effect of allowing a battle to begin 2 vs 3 and end 4 vs 1, for example. The result is very interesting, and even quite fun if you can deal with the weirdness. But again, does this type of mechanism belong in a game which is otherwise asking for so much pre-planning, so much strategy, and a 3 hour time commitment?
I'm withholding judgement. Like I said, I had actually had a great time playing the game, and I'm really looking forward to playing again (it was pretty fascinating to see the dice tower in action, and how the actions all played out turn after turn). In the long term, however, I'd like to think that the game system would allow a seasoned player to actually do well and bring the chaos under control... otherwise it's hard to justify such a heavy system. The dice tower is a randomizer unlike any other, and it IS possible to keep track of what goes in there and plan accordingly. Similarly, there is probably a way to balance a conservative strategy by choosing short term, easy goals vs long term riskier ones (similar to the trade-offs you are asked to make in most simultaneous action selection games, even though they are typically lighter games such as Citadels or Mission:Red Planet).
Or, maybe it's just an adult version of Mousetrap, and we're all just watching all the pieces work together to see what happens. That can be fun, too.
For the record, Bharmer won the game. I came in a distant last, I think.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
WAGS Games played 2006
The following is a list of games played this year. Clearly, we are of the 'play many games not too often' variety, since our five and dime list would only include 2 games!
Railroad Tycoon x5
China x5
Maharaja x4
Quo Vadis? x4
Power Grid x4 (incl. 1x PG: Italy)
Ra x4
Through the Desert x4
Conquest of the Empire x3
Formula: Motor Racing x3 (three races each)
Santiago x3
Diamant x3
Antike x3
Fury of Dracula x3
Aladdin’s Dragons x3
Fantasy Business x3
Tikal x3
Transamerica x3
High Society x3
Jungle Speed x3
Carcassonne: The City x3
Carcasonne x2
Traders of Genoa x2
Robo-Rally x2
Vegas Showdown x2
Taj Mahal x2
Bohnanza x2
Pueblo x2
Arkham Horror x2
Pitchcar Mini x2
El Grande x2
Saboteur x2
Formula De x2
Royal Turf x2
Cash N Guns x2
Louis XIV x2
Mission: Red Planet
Battlestar Galatica CCG
Puerto rico
El Grande
Zombies 4
Mall of Horror
Betrayal at House on the Hill
Funny Friends
Der Untergang von Pompeji
Monsters Menace America
Domaine
Tower of Babel
Princes of Florence
Way Out West
RPG
Illuminati CCG
Napoleon
Baker Street
Tally ho!
Memoir ’44
Pirate’s Cove
Colossal Arena
Jyhad CCG
Guillotine
Vampire: Prince of the City
Theophrastus
Poison
Modern Art
Settlers of Catan
Vinci
Many of these I`ve personally played several times outside of the group (Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, Ticket to Ride and Diamant in particular) or online (RA, RA, RA) or solo (Lord of the Rings). I`m sure the others have similar experiences.
Railroad Tycoon x5
China x5
Maharaja x4
Quo Vadis? x4
Power Grid x4 (incl. 1x PG: Italy)
Ra x4
Through the Desert x4
Conquest of the Empire x3
Formula: Motor Racing x3 (three races each)
Santiago x3
Diamant x3
Antike x3
Fury of Dracula x3
Aladdin’s Dragons x3
Fantasy Business x3
Tikal x3
Transamerica x3
High Society x3
Jungle Speed x3
Carcassonne: The City x3
Carcasonne x2
Traders of Genoa x2
Robo-Rally x2
Vegas Showdown x2
Taj Mahal x2
Bohnanza x2
Pueblo x2
Arkham Horror x2
Pitchcar Mini x2
El Grande x2
Saboteur x2
Formula De x2
Royal Turf x2
Cash N Guns x2
Louis XIV x2
Mission: Red Planet
Battlestar Galatica CCG
Puerto rico
El Grande
Zombies 4
Mall of Horror
Betrayal at House on the Hill
Funny Friends
Der Untergang von Pompeji
Monsters Menace America
Domaine
Tower of Babel
Princes of Florence
Way Out West
RPG
Illuminati CCG
Napoleon
Baker Street
Tally ho!
Memoir ’44
Pirate’s Cove
Colossal Arena
Jyhad CCG
Guillotine
Vampire: Prince of the City
Theophrastus
Poison
Modern Art
Settlers of Catan
Vinci
Many of these I`ve personally played several times outside of the group (Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, Ticket to Ride and Diamant in particular) or online (RA, RA, RA) or solo (Lord of the Rings). I`m sure the others have similar experiences.
Monday, January 08, 2007
WAGS Game of the Year
Well, it's been a great year for WAGS - we've added a number of new games (nowhere near the explosive expansion of 2005, of course) and one new regular member, the inestimable Bharmer.
To help fend off the post-holidays malaise, I propose we select individually and then as a group our favourite game of 2006.
Technically, many of the games we played as "new" in 2006 were probably published in 2005, so I'll include them here as well. Should we include games that were played for the first time in WAGS in 2006 as well, or would that be too broad and confusing?
Antike
Arkham Horror
Ca$h & Gun$
Caylus
China
Conquest of the Empire
Diamant
Funny Friends
Fury of Dracula
Louis XIV
Mall of Horror
Mission Red Planet
Monsters Menace America
Paranoia Mandatory Card Game
Poison
Railroad Tycoon
Shadows over Camelot
Ticket to Ride Europe
Vampire: Prince of the City
Vegas Showdown
Wits and Wagers
I've culled this list from the games I've rated at BGG, so feel free to add any that I've missed. I've only included games that a majority of players in WAGS have played; although I haven't played Caylus, I know that at least three WAGSters have. I haven't included a number of wargames that I was introduced to outside the WAGS group either. Taj Mahal and Maharaja, although introduced to the group this year, fall outside the 2005-2006 range.
Of these games, "Railroad Tycoon" jumps out at me as the one I most enjoyed playing this year, so that would be my nomination for all-around Game of the Year. Despite its flaws in production and design, it appeals to me most of all of the games in the list. "Antike" probably comes second in this category for me.
In terms of "european"/"designer"/"german" style games, I would nominate "Louis XIV" as the winner in that category. A close runner-up would be "Vegas Showdown", but it's not strong enough to win it, nor is "Mall of Horror", though both are good in their own way.
In the "american" style games (a fairly narrow category, with Arkham Horror, Conquest of the Empire, Fury of Dracula, Monsters Menace America and Vampire: Prince of the City comprising the field), I'd probably select "Vampire: Prince of the City", but "Conquest of the Empire" would probably also be deserving as well. Hard call.
Any other categories or special mentions? What are your picks, fellow WAGSters?
To help fend off the post-holidays malaise, I propose we select individually and then as a group our favourite game of 2006.
Technically, many of the games we played as "new" in 2006 were probably published in 2005, so I'll include them here as well. Should we include games that were played for the first time in WAGS in 2006 as well, or would that be too broad and confusing?
Antike
Arkham Horror
Ca$h & Gun$
Caylus
China
Conquest of the Empire
Diamant
Funny Friends
Fury of Dracula
Louis XIV
Mall of Horror
Mission Red Planet
Monsters Menace America
Paranoia Mandatory Card Game
Poison
Railroad Tycoon
Shadows over Camelot
Ticket to Ride Europe
Vampire: Prince of the City
Vegas Showdown
Wits and Wagers
I've culled this list from the games I've rated at BGG, so feel free to add any that I've missed. I've only included games that a majority of players in WAGS have played; although I haven't played Caylus, I know that at least three WAGSters have. I haven't included a number of wargames that I was introduced to outside the WAGS group either. Taj Mahal and Maharaja, although introduced to the group this year, fall outside the 2005-2006 range.
Of these games, "Railroad Tycoon" jumps out at me as the one I most enjoyed playing this year, so that would be my nomination for all-around Game of the Year. Despite its flaws in production and design, it appeals to me most of all of the games in the list. "Antike" probably comes second in this category for me.
In terms of "european"/"designer"/"german" style games, I would nominate "Louis XIV" as the winner in that category. A close runner-up would be "Vegas Showdown", but it's not strong enough to win it, nor is "Mall of Horror", though both are good in their own way.
In the "american" style games (a fairly narrow category, with Arkham Horror, Conquest of the Empire, Fury of Dracula, Monsters Menace America and Vampire: Prince of the City comprising the field), I'd probably select "Vampire: Prince of the City", but "Conquest of the Empire" would probably also be deserving as well. Hard call.
Any other categories or special mentions? What are your picks, fellow WAGSters?
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Twice as nice (Santiago, Mission: Red Planet)
Two games played this week, each of which I had played once before (though the rest of the group hadn't yet played Mission: Red Planet).
Tili, Shemp, Bharmer, Luch and I played Mission: Red Planet first. The rules were easily explained, and the game began. When I played this on new year's eve, I enjoyed it but predicted it would get better on subsequent playing and I'm happy to say that this is the case.
In my first playing, my concerns about the game were that I felt that there was too many roles, that it was annoying to relate the destinations of the ships to the regions of Mars and, ultimately, the chaos was a little over the top. Surprisingly, in my second playing most of these resolved themselves.
Despite the fact that I still feel 9 roles is an awkward number, I was surprised at how quickly I internalized them all this game. I normally knew which role I wanted ahead of time, so the multitude of options didn't really slow me down. I suppose that it still would have been better, from a game design standpoint, to include the full 11 roles (to allow a player to try to go the distance without resorting to the prospector) or drop the number to 5-6 (to simplify the choices)... but it doesn't bother me much already.
The destinations on the ships were very frustrating in my first game. Getting a handle on what I was trying to do involved too many steps for what was supposed to be a fun, fast game (correlate the destinations of the ships available to the regions of mars they are going to/ see how many astronauts are already in those regions, and how many are on their way/ decide on the destinations you are interested in/ see if those ships are full or if they risk filling up before you get to to play / figure out which role to play based on how quickly you need to get them on the ships and which power you want to use). Again, despite the fact that the process doesn't really get any simpler on subsequent play I was surprised at how much easier it all was this game. I think the key is that the regions names started becoming familiar, so I didn't have to do as much cross referencing for every step. Combined with my newfound familiarity with the roles, things were becoming far more manageable!
Finally, with my increased comfort level with the mechanics the chaos seemed to drop dramatically. On one hand, no one is going to confuse this with Princes of Florence... there is definitely a healthy dose of randomness and chaos in the game. On the other, I honestly felt like I was in control of my destiny for most of the game. In other words, I had a plan and I was able to pursue it, though other players were also able to do their best to mess with it.
My initial mission card was to have the most total astronauts in the central regions of the planet. With that goal in mind, I was disappointed that none of the initial crop of ships led to any of them! I played the travel agent in the hopes of getting my numbers up on the planet (I could always move them around later with the explorer). Alas! 3 players chose the secret agent and launched ships prematurely, leaving me with no options to place astronauts. Only one round in, and I had already been outplayed. On my second round, there still were no ships to the center so I went with the scientists in the hopes of getting a second bonus card. Instead, I picked a discovery card, but it was a good one: at the end game, the region with the card produces 5 goods instead of 3. I placed the card in Sirtis Major, a region I could get to that round and loaded the ship.
Over the course of the game, I fought over majorities in just 3 regions (two in the center and Sirtis Major). Every round, even if I couldn't do EXACTLY what I wanted (no ships going where I needed them, etc) I felt there was always something useful to do and some way to reach my long term objectives... a sharp contrast to my first game. In the end, I succesfully met the criteria in my bonus card by beating Tili in the center, kept control of Sirtis Major from Luch and managed a win by a large margin (not surprising considering how much of an advantage I was drawing from having experience with the system). I enjoyed it quite a bit, and I am impressed at how much the game system seemed improved for me over the first play. I'll have to choose this one again soon in order to allow others the same advantage. I am also looking forward to further plays because a few possible future strategies crossed my mind that I'd like to try!
Our second and last game was Santiago (Kozure joined us and Tili bowed out). This game of crop speculating was well received last time and it held up well. Things were looking up for me in the beginning, as I had successfully planted and dominated a large red pepper crop. Unfortunately, I took a gamble at one point and placed my 1 free irrigation marker at the edge of the field hoping to encourage anyone who would choose red pepper in next round to place there. NO red peppers were turned up, and so all the players closed off my field with different crop types. Meanwhile, Bharmer established an even larger green bean field, Luch had a potato thing going, Shemp was banana master and Kozure had interests spread out everywhere. Bharmer's combination of giant bean field and smaller crops elswhere gave him the game.
Although could be boiled down to a rather dry, mathematical game, I quite like it. I enjoy the simplicity of the system, I like how the auction relates to the tile placement and the overseer role going to the lowest bidder adds a nice twist to keep things interesting. It has many of the hallmarks of a good german game (short playing time, simple rules, clever mechanics, abstract, auction+tile laying, small board+wooden bits). For this reason, I would think this is a good choice as a follow up to Carcassonne or Settlers of Catan for anyone wanting to introduce themselves or others to German gaming.
My only complaints about the game are that a player can get paralysed considering tile choice and placement since everything is open information, and it can slow things a little (I'm guilty of this). I do like the fundamentals of the mathematics, though. If I add a tile to a crop, I'm giving other players a point for every token they have in the field, while I gain 1 or 2 times the size of the field. It's a good thing that the order of future crops is unknown and that the overseer is ultimately in control of the flow of water, as this forces players to speculate on the future and take chances. I suppose it's probably possible to accurately analyse the worth of every move in the last few rounds, which could also make the game drag, but thankfully our group didn't really play that way.
Ultimately, this is a very fun game. Thanks to Shemp for buying it!
Tili, Shemp, Bharmer, Luch and I played Mission: Red Planet first. The rules were easily explained, and the game began. When I played this on new year's eve, I enjoyed it but predicted it would get better on subsequent playing and I'm happy to say that this is the case.
In my first playing, my concerns about the game were that I felt that there was too many roles, that it was annoying to relate the destinations of the ships to the regions of Mars and, ultimately, the chaos was a little over the top. Surprisingly, in my second playing most of these resolved themselves.
Despite the fact that I still feel 9 roles is an awkward number, I was surprised at how quickly I internalized them all this game. I normally knew which role I wanted ahead of time, so the multitude of options didn't really slow me down. I suppose that it still would have been better, from a game design standpoint, to include the full 11 roles (to allow a player to try to go the distance without resorting to the prospector) or drop the number to 5-6 (to simplify the choices)... but it doesn't bother me much already.
The destinations on the ships were very frustrating in my first game. Getting a handle on what I was trying to do involved too many steps for what was supposed to be a fun, fast game (correlate the destinations of the ships available to the regions of mars they are going to/ see how many astronauts are already in those regions, and how many are on their way/ decide on the destinations you are interested in/ see if those ships are full or if they risk filling up before you get to to play / figure out which role to play based on how quickly you need to get them on the ships and which power you want to use). Again, despite the fact that the process doesn't really get any simpler on subsequent play I was surprised at how much easier it all was this game. I think the key is that the regions names started becoming familiar, so I didn't have to do as much cross referencing for every step. Combined with my newfound familiarity with the roles, things were becoming far more manageable!
Finally, with my increased comfort level with the mechanics the chaos seemed to drop dramatically. On one hand, no one is going to confuse this with Princes of Florence... there is definitely a healthy dose of randomness and chaos in the game. On the other, I honestly felt like I was in control of my destiny for most of the game. In other words, I had a plan and I was able to pursue it, though other players were also able to do their best to mess with it.
My initial mission card was to have the most total astronauts in the central regions of the planet. With that goal in mind, I was disappointed that none of the initial crop of ships led to any of them! I played the travel agent in the hopes of getting my numbers up on the planet (I could always move them around later with the explorer). Alas! 3 players chose the secret agent and launched ships prematurely, leaving me with no options to place astronauts. Only one round in, and I had already been outplayed. On my second round, there still were no ships to the center so I went with the scientists in the hopes of getting a second bonus card. Instead, I picked a discovery card, but it was a good one: at the end game, the region with the card produces 5 goods instead of 3. I placed the card in Sirtis Major, a region I could get to that round and loaded the ship.
Over the course of the game, I fought over majorities in just 3 regions (two in the center and Sirtis Major). Every round, even if I couldn't do EXACTLY what I wanted (no ships going where I needed them, etc) I felt there was always something useful to do and some way to reach my long term objectives... a sharp contrast to my first game. In the end, I succesfully met the criteria in my bonus card by beating Tili in the center, kept control of Sirtis Major from Luch and managed a win by a large margin (not surprising considering how much of an advantage I was drawing from having experience with the system). I enjoyed it quite a bit, and I am impressed at how much the game system seemed improved for me over the first play. I'll have to choose this one again soon in order to allow others the same advantage. I am also looking forward to further plays because a few possible future strategies crossed my mind that I'd like to try!
Our second and last game was Santiago (Kozure joined us and Tili bowed out). This game of crop speculating was well received last time and it held up well. Things were looking up for me in the beginning, as I had successfully planted and dominated a large red pepper crop. Unfortunately, I took a gamble at one point and placed my 1 free irrigation marker at the edge of the field hoping to encourage anyone who would choose red pepper in next round to place there. NO red peppers were turned up, and so all the players closed off my field with different crop types. Meanwhile, Bharmer established an even larger green bean field, Luch had a potato thing going, Shemp was banana master and Kozure had interests spread out everywhere. Bharmer's combination of giant bean field and smaller crops elswhere gave him the game.
Although could be boiled down to a rather dry, mathematical game, I quite like it. I enjoy the simplicity of the system, I like how the auction relates to the tile placement and the overseer role going to the lowest bidder adds a nice twist to keep things interesting. It has many of the hallmarks of a good german game (short playing time, simple rules, clever mechanics, abstract, auction+tile laying, small board+wooden bits). For this reason, I would think this is a good choice as a follow up to Carcassonne or Settlers of Catan for anyone wanting to introduce themselves or others to German gaming.
My only complaints about the game are that a player can get paralysed considering tile choice and placement since everything is open information, and it can slow things a little (I'm guilty of this). I do like the fundamentals of the mathematics, though. If I add a tile to a crop, I'm giving other players a point for every token they have in the field, while I gain 1 or 2 times the size of the field. It's a good thing that the order of future crops is unknown and that the overseer is ultimately in control of the flow of water, as this forces players to speculate on the future and take chances. I suppose it's probably possible to accurately analyse the worth of every move in the last few rounds, which could also make the game drag, but thankfully our group didn't really play that way.
Ultimately, this is a very fun game. Thanks to Shemp for buying it!
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Wits and Wagers - A Much Delayed Review
Quite some time ago, the designer of "Wits and Wagers" contacted me after having read this blog and asked if we would like to try an evaluation copy of Wits and Wagers, on the condition that I review it here and at BGG. I responded that I would, so long as he understood that I would afford no special treatment for having sent us a copy of the game for the price of the shipping. After much unintended delay, here is that review. My apologies to Mr. Crapuchettes for failing to get a review in before the Christmas holidays.
Concept & Overview
Wits and Wagers is a party game designed for between three and twenty-one players. It combines elements of a standard trivia game with competitive betting, the gestalt resembling the price estimation element of the TV show "The Price is Right" combined with gambling. The game is played on a soft, pliable playing mat approximately 90cm (3') long by 30cm (1') wide printed on a material commonly found in mouse pads. Players answer questions asked from a wide range of categories, write down their answers with dry erase markers on small answer cards, and place their bets with plastic poker chips and wooden ownership marking cubes.
The game includes the rubber playing mat, a sand timer, seven dry erase pens, seven laminated answer cards, 14 wooden betting cubes, 120 plastic poker chips in red and blue, a rules booklet and a box of trivia questions.
Dominic Crapuchettes offers up this fun little game after his intitial (as far as I can tell from BGG) debut game of Cluzzle. The two games share very little in common, so no comparisons will be made.
As a disclaimer, I was sent this game as an evaluation copy by North Star Games. I will comment as an aside that Mr. Crapuchettes is helpful, open to suggestion and just all-around nice in the few e-mails I've exchanged with him. To be perfectly honest, it was not a game I might have purchased on my own, but after agreeing to evaluate it and playing several times with experienced boardgamers, family and casual-playing friends, this is definitely a game I would buy or recommend.
Game Mechanics
The game is very simple - and very appropriately so for a party game intended to appeal to a wide market.
Players choose a colour. In the event that there are more than seven players, players are grouped into teams so that each of the seven colours provided represents a team. Each player or team is given ten red chips representing five points, and three blue chips representing ten points for a total of 80 points.
One player is designated the "Question Reader", another is designated the "Banker" and assume the roles for the rest of the game. Some players have suggested that the "Question Reader" role rotate, but I feel that neither role gains any particular advantage.
There are seven question rounds in the game. For each question, the Question Reader reads the question (question 1 on the card for the first round, question 2 on the card for the second round, etc.), waits for any requests for clarification, then flips the 30-second sand timer. Players/teams then have until the timer runs out to write down their answer to the question. All questions have been written so that they can are answered with a number. The best answer is the one which comes closest without going over (the "Price is Right" element). This is a critical distinction and should be emphasized when explaining the game.
After all of the players have written their answers, they are revealed and then arranged on the playing mat from smallest to highest, in boxes which correspond to 5:1, 4:1, 3:1, 2:1, 1:1 (and then upwards again) payouts. Duplicate answers are stacked in the same box. If there are an odd number of different answers after stacking duplicates, they are arranged with the middle answer on the 1:1 odds box and the higher and lower answers above and below them. Even numbers of answers are arranged so that the centre 1:1 box is empty.
Players then have thirty seconds to place bets. Bets can be between 0 and 10 points. Bet chips are marked with a wooden marker cube of the player's colour. If 10 points are bet, the points can be split between two answers by placing two 5 point chips and placing marker cubes on both chips, or all ten can be bet on the same answer. It should be clarified to first time players that betting is always optional.
After the timer runs out, the correct answer is read from the back of the question card. The winning answer is the one which comes closest without going over. If all answers are higher than the actual answer, the special "The Correct Answer is smaller than all given answers" box pays out. Otherwise, the box containing the winning answer pays out at the odds for that box. The banker also gives a ten point bonus in chips to the player/team whose answer cards were in the winning payout box.
This continues for six rounds. On the seventh round, there is no limit on betting (once again, players can still bet zero), but they can only split their bet between two boxes as marked by their coloured cubes.
The player/team with the most points after the seventh round is the winner.
Artwork and Components
The production design of this game is somewhat lacklustre, though entirely functional. With apologies to the artist, the illustrations have a clip-art/cartoon appearance which seems somewhat "cheap". Combined with bright colours and an overly exaggerated "excitement factor" apparent in all the players, there is a distinct game-show feel to the artwork which, although not inappropriate, might have been done better.
The game box features three major illustrations, a character which appears to be in a game show, a group of people apparently orgasmically excited about something or other, and a "cool guy" looking like he's won a bunch of money at poker. This actually communicates quite effectively the three core ideas of the game - "game show/trivia", "party/group fun" and "betting". To be quite honest, I don't know how else I might have done the art differently, but somehow it feels like it should be better.
The playing mat is well laid out and there is plenty of room for what needs to be done in each area. Wager odds are clearly marked and it never impedes gameplay. The rubber mat idea is quite suitable for the game, and the green colour immediately brings to mind casino betting areas, as well as being gentle on the eyes.
The foldable aspect of the mat is quite nice, lending itself to easy placement and no problems with warp causing bets to slide around on the board.
The question cards are not remarkable, being pretty similar to any trivia game you might have played. There is no slipcover box provided for their storage, but this is a minor issue.
The wooden cubes are standard stock - nothing good or bad about them. They are suitably large enough to not be easily lost, while also not too large to make placement or balancing on top of stacks of chips difficult.
The plastic poker chips are pretty standard stock as well, but many players commented on how they feel "cheap". Many people are now used to the more expensive clay gambling chips used at casinos and in poker games, and the old plastic chips, once entirely serviceable, feel chintzy by comparison. While it would probably jack up the price of the set (not to mention shipping weight) to include better quality ceramic chips, thus making the idea impracticable, perhaps if a reprint or a deluxe edition is published, they should seriously consider higher quality chips.
The laminated answer cards are nicely done. It's easy to determine colour, and the dry erase marker wipes off easily. The reverse side is patterned like the back of a playing card, which, with the green rubber mat, contributes to the overall "casino" feel of the game in play.
A minor though not insignificant quibble about the dry erase markers included with the box should be mentioned. All of them worked fine, but the caps do not fit snugly on the reverse end of the pen when removed. This can easily lead to lost caps. Almost every playing group commented on how this was an annoying issue to them, and hopefully would be addressed with any future runs of this game - get markers that when you pull off the caps, you can stick them snugly on the other end. The sand timer is also unremarkable, but seems sturdy enough for repeated use.
Although the game rules indicated there should be a "napkin" available to each player, none is included in the box. A minor issue, and nothing which should detract from the game. Perhaps a deluxe edition could include cheap dry-erase marker erasers, perhaps on the pen caps.
Gameplay
This game plays quickly in about 20 to 30 minutes. In every case where I brought it out, with experienced gamers, family or casual friends alike, everyone wanted to play more than one game. In the case of my extended adult family (father, mother, uncles and aunts) we actually played for eight successive games in one evening because everyone was enjoying it so much. This was surprising because this particular group is not much of a gaming-oriented bunch. My father, who was most sceptical, ended up as one of its more enthusiastic players.
Importance should be placed on relatively firm enforcement of time limits. We have a house rule that bets or answers not placed on the board before the timer runs out are not put into play at all.
The concept sounds somewhat dry to explain it, but everyone gets into it quickly. You have to repeat certain rules with first time players - "closest without going over" and bet limits/methods seem to be the ones which cause the most confusion, but they are not inherently difficult.
Small bits of trivia and information have been included with the answers on the back of question cards, and information sources are quoted on the front. This can help make the game even more interesting if you have a good Question Reader.
The questions themselves represent a nice variety, and as has been demonstrated elsewhere in BGG, there is a method to the distribution. Many of the questions are in the "you can't possibly know that" category, and are best approached from a best estimate or "wild-assed guess" strategy. First time players should be assured that it is not so important to answer correctly as it is to bet correctly.
As a Canadian, I would comment that the questions are largely America-centric, but this is common in many trivia games. If there is an international edition or deluxe edition released, I highly recommend a set of questions with a much broader geographic and cultural basis.
The game isn't quite as successful when played in teams, but still works well. The optimal number of players is actually exactly seven, in my opinion, but 5-14 works fine. (we've played with 12). I can't see three or four players having nearly as much fun.
Most players recognize quickly the strategy of strategic betting, betting on the answer with the largest gulf between it and the next highest while still likely being in the correct range.
The designer has recommended a few variants, which I believe can be found in the game entry forums at BGG.
Summary
This game is fun, fast and easy with broad appeal and a shallow learning curve. Perfect for a party game, but having a bit more meat than the usual roll and move grind of Trivial Pursuit and Scene It. It also has a limited playing time - unless you are not doing things right, games will almost always be over within 30 minutes, and 20 minutes is more common. There's virtually no down-time (as there can be in other trivia games where a player can continue to move with several successfully answered questions) and there is a certain level of excitement (generated by the timers) to the betting and answering.
I highly recommend this game for anyone who likes party games. It is definitely in my top three of manufactured party games. It doesn't have much appeal for euro-only gamers, as the betting strategy can be largely negated by the no-limits "all-in" round at the last round.
I do feel that the international appeal of the game could be increased dramatically by selecting more international questions.
One of the most telling aspects about the game is that every time I've introduced it to a new group of players, they’ve asked where they can buy a copy. I've enthusiastically recommended local gaming stores in my area where I know the game is carried. If you need a party game that you can pull out and play anytime with almost any group of players, this is one to have.
Concept & Overview
Wits and Wagers is a party game designed for between three and twenty-one players. It combines elements of a standard trivia game with competitive betting, the gestalt resembling the price estimation element of the TV show "The Price is Right" combined with gambling. The game is played on a soft, pliable playing mat approximately 90cm (3') long by 30cm (1') wide printed on a material commonly found in mouse pads. Players answer questions asked from a wide range of categories, write down their answers with dry erase markers on small answer cards, and place their bets with plastic poker chips and wooden ownership marking cubes.
The game includes the rubber playing mat, a sand timer, seven dry erase pens, seven laminated answer cards, 14 wooden betting cubes, 120 plastic poker chips in red and blue, a rules booklet and a box of trivia questions.
Dominic Crapuchettes offers up this fun little game after his intitial (as far as I can tell from BGG) debut game of Cluzzle. The two games share very little in common, so no comparisons will be made.
As a disclaimer, I was sent this game as an evaluation copy by North Star Games. I will comment as an aside that Mr. Crapuchettes is helpful, open to suggestion and just all-around nice in the few e-mails I've exchanged with him. To be perfectly honest, it was not a game I might have purchased on my own, but after agreeing to evaluate it and playing several times with experienced boardgamers, family and casual-playing friends, this is definitely a game I would buy or recommend.
Game Mechanics
The game is very simple - and very appropriately so for a party game intended to appeal to a wide market.
Players choose a colour. In the event that there are more than seven players, players are grouped into teams so that each of the seven colours provided represents a team. Each player or team is given ten red chips representing five points, and three blue chips representing ten points for a total of 80 points.
One player is designated the "Question Reader", another is designated the "Banker" and assume the roles for the rest of the game. Some players have suggested that the "Question Reader" role rotate, but I feel that neither role gains any particular advantage.
There are seven question rounds in the game. For each question, the Question Reader reads the question (question 1 on the card for the first round, question 2 on the card for the second round, etc.), waits for any requests for clarification, then flips the 30-second sand timer. Players/teams then have until the timer runs out to write down their answer to the question. All questions have been written so that they can are answered with a number. The best answer is the one which comes closest without going over (the "Price is Right" element). This is a critical distinction and should be emphasized when explaining the game.
After all of the players have written their answers, they are revealed and then arranged on the playing mat from smallest to highest, in boxes which correspond to 5:1, 4:1, 3:1, 2:1, 1:1 (and then upwards again) payouts. Duplicate answers are stacked in the same box. If there are an odd number of different answers after stacking duplicates, they are arranged with the middle answer on the 1:1 odds box and the higher and lower answers above and below them. Even numbers of answers are arranged so that the centre 1:1 box is empty.
Players then have thirty seconds to place bets. Bets can be between 0 and 10 points. Bet chips are marked with a wooden marker cube of the player's colour. If 10 points are bet, the points can be split between two answers by placing two 5 point chips and placing marker cubes on both chips, or all ten can be bet on the same answer. It should be clarified to first time players that betting is always optional.
After the timer runs out, the correct answer is read from the back of the question card. The winning answer is the one which comes closest without going over. If all answers are higher than the actual answer, the special "The Correct Answer is smaller than all given answers" box pays out. Otherwise, the box containing the winning answer pays out at the odds for that box. The banker also gives a ten point bonus in chips to the player/team whose answer cards were in the winning payout box.
This continues for six rounds. On the seventh round, there is no limit on betting (once again, players can still bet zero), but they can only split their bet between two boxes as marked by their coloured cubes.
The player/team with the most points after the seventh round is the winner.
Artwork and Components
The production design of this game is somewhat lacklustre, though entirely functional. With apologies to the artist, the illustrations have a clip-art/cartoon appearance which seems somewhat "cheap". Combined with bright colours and an overly exaggerated "excitement factor" apparent in all the players, there is a distinct game-show feel to the artwork which, although not inappropriate, might have been done better.
The game box features three major illustrations, a character which appears to be in a game show, a group of people apparently orgasmically excited about something or other, and a "cool guy" looking like he's won a bunch of money at poker. This actually communicates quite effectively the three core ideas of the game - "game show/trivia", "party/group fun" and "betting". To be quite honest, I don't know how else I might have done the art differently, but somehow it feels like it should be better.
The playing mat is well laid out and there is plenty of room for what needs to be done in each area. Wager odds are clearly marked and it never impedes gameplay. The rubber mat idea is quite suitable for the game, and the green colour immediately brings to mind casino betting areas, as well as being gentle on the eyes.
The foldable aspect of the mat is quite nice, lending itself to easy placement and no problems with warp causing bets to slide around on the board.
The question cards are not remarkable, being pretty similar to any trivia game you might have played. There is no slipcover box provided for their storage, but this is a minor issue.
The wooden cubes are standard stock - nothing good or bad about them. They are suitably large enough to not be easily lost, while also not too large to make placement or balancing on top of stacks of chips difficult.
The plastic poker chips are pretty standard stock as well, but many players commented on how they feel "cheap". Many people are now used to the more expensive clay gambling chips used at casinos and in poker games, and the old plastic chips, once entirely serviceable, feel chintzy by comparison. While it would probably jack up the price of the set (not to mention shipping weight) to include better quality ceramic chips, thus making the idea impracticable, perhaps if a reprint or a deluxe edition is published, they should seriously consider higher quality chips.
The laminated answer cards are nicely done. It's easy to determine colour, and the dry erase marker wipes off easily. The reverse side is patterned like the back of a playing card, which, with the green rubber mat, contributes to the overall "casino" feel of the game in play.
A minor though not insignificant quibble about the dry erase markers included with the box should be mentioned. All of them worked fine, but the caps do not fit snugly on the reverse end of the pen when removed. This can easily lead to lost caps. Almost every playing group commented on how this was an annoying issue to them, and hopefully would be addressed with any future runs of this game - get markers that when you pull off the caps, you can stick them snugly on the other end. The sand timer is also unremarkable, but seems sturdy enough for repeated use.
Although the game rules indicated there should be a "napkin" available to each player, none is included in the box. A minor issue, and nothing which should detract from the game. Perhaps a deluxe edition could include cheap dry-erase marker erasers, perhaps on the pen caps.
Gameplay
This game plays quickly in about 20 to 30 minutes. In every case where I brought it out, with experienced gamers, family or casual friends alike, everyone wanted to play more than one game. In the case of my extended adult family (father, mother, uncles and aunts) we actually played for eight successive games in one evening because everyone was enjoying it so much. This was surprising because this particular group is not much of a gaming-oriented bunch. My father, who was most sceptical, ended up as one of its more enthusiastic players.
Importance should be placed on relatively firm enforcement of time limits. We have a house rule that bets or answers not placed on the board before the timer runs out are not put into play at all.
The concept sounds somewhat dry to explain it, but everyone gets into it quickly. You have to repeat certain rules with first time players - "closest without going over" and bet limits/methods seem to be the ones which cause the most confusion, but they are not inherently difficult.
Small bits of trivia and information have been included with the answers on the back of question cards, and information sources are quoted on the front. This can help make the game even more interesting if you have a good Question Reader.
The questions themselves represent a nice variety, and as has been demonstrated elsewhere in BGG, there is a method to the distribution. Many of the questions are in the "you can't possibly know that" category, and are best approached from a best estimate or "wild-assed guess" strategy. First time players should be assured that it is not so important to answer correctly as it is to bet correctly.
As a Canadian, I would comment that the questions are largely America-centric, but this is common in many trivia games. If there is an international edition or deluxe edition released, I highly recommend a set of questions with a much broader geographic and cultural basis.
The game isn't quite as successful when played in teams, but still works well. The optimal number of players is actually exactly seven, in my opinion, but 5-14 works fine. (we've played with 12). I can't see three or four players having nearly as much fun.
Most players recognize quickly the strategy of strategic betting, betting on the answer with the largest gulf between it and the next highest while still likely being in the correct range.
The designer has recommended a few variants, which I believe can be found in the game entry forums at BGG.
Summary
This game is fun, fast and easy with broad appeal and a shallow learning curve. Perfect for a party game, but having a bit more meat than the usual roll and move grind of Trivial Pursuit and Scene It. It also has a limited playing time - unless you are not doing things right, games will almost always be over within 30 minutes, and 20 minutes is more common. There's virtually no down-time (as there can be in other trivia games where a player can continue to move with several successfully answered questions) and there is a certain level of excitement (generated by the timers) to the betting and answering.
I highly recommend this game for anyone who likes party games. It is definitely in my top three of manufactured party games. It doesn't have much appeal for euro-only gamers, as the betting strategy can be largely negated by the no-limits "all-in" round at the last round.
I do feel that the international appeal of the game could be increased dramatically by selecting more international questions.
One of the most telling aspects about the game is that every time I've introduced it to a new group of players, they’ve asked where they can buy a copy. I've enthusiastically recommended local gaming stores in my area where I know the game is carried. If you need a party game that you can pull out and play anytime with almost any group of players, this is one to have.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Ringing in New Year, Geek Style (Things..., Wits and Wagers, Twister, Cluzzle, Mission: Red Planet)
For New Years the Wags group brought together their significant others and a few unwashed (?) friends and relatives for an evening of wine, cheese, food and laughter at Casa Agent Easy.
Obviously, a few games were played!
Things came out first. I'm not sure that we've documented this before on the blog, but we've played a few times before. If you haven't played it, the premise is simple: A "reader" chooses a card at random and reads it to the group. "Things... you shouldn't put on top of your car", for example. Everyone answers on a piece of paper and returns to the "reader". The reader then reads them to the rest of the players and everyone, in turn, tries to guess who wrote what. (To the sample question, I wrote "the bottom of your car")
Bottom line: This game is hilarious. I enjoy many party games, and many of them are quite funny (Time's Up, Taboo, Apples to Apples, etc), but none of them are this funny. Sadly, the part where players guess each other's answers does not live up to the fun of writing/reading them. I'd love to come up with a better system to go with the game (I posted a question on BGG in case someone else could think of one). Next time, I'd like to try simply reading all the answers once, then reading them again one at a time as people write down who they think wrote what. 1 point per correct answer.
At 11 people, it took a long time for all the correct answers to get guessed. Also, the difficulty in remembering all the answers seemed to drag the game a bit. Still, I think everyone had a good time since there was a lot of laughter as the answers came out... Kozure did very well in the beginning, winning the 6 point bonus for being the last player standing on several occasions. My sister in law was surprisingly good at guessing herself, particularly since she didn't know anyone there!
We didn't bother counting up the final scores, but I'm pretty sure Kozure had it in the bag.
Next up we played a quick game of Wits and Wagers. I hadn't played this before, but most of the rest of the group had. This is a trivia game where the trivia doesn't really matter!
The idea is interesting: The game asks a question you are not likely to know the answer to. Everyone takes a guess, and the answers are all layed out on a betting mat in order. At this point, everyone must bet on which answer(s) they feel are the correct ones! The lowest and highest answer will payout more, whereas the median answers pay out less. At the end of a number of rounds (8?), the winner is the player or team with the most money.
The concept is cool because there are points for being the player with the closest answer (without going over) and there are points for correctly betting on the answer (whether it's yours or not). Therefore, a player with little or no knowledge of trivia can participate and have a good time. If you don't do well on the trivia, you still might win on the strength of good betting.
I've only played once, but so far I'm a little ambivalent on the game, despite how much I like the idea. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think it's because there's a few contradictory things going on in the final product:
1) In trivia games, the fun tends to be in testing yourself in trying to answer the most questions correctly. Here, most of the questions are impossible to answer, so that tension is quickly lost. Those that can be answered still suffer from the following problem...
2) Although the premise is that a player with little/ no knowledge of trivia can compete, in effect both phases of the game reward the player who know the correct answer.
3) I personally find betting more interesting when it's tied to some sort of bluffing (poker), or to odds created through hidden and revealed information (blackjack). Betting in Wits and Wagers is more akin to betting in Roulette... kind of a crapshoot.
There's no denying that it was a fast and interesting party game, but it wasn't funny or challenging enough to make me want to choose it over others I prefer (though I'd be more than happy to play again, if someone else suggested it). Kozure will be writing a more thorough review on BGG before long, now that he's had a chance to play it with lots of different groups of people.
We wrapped up the evening's game playing with a variation of twister which is played on a map of the world. Now, I'm not old, but I'm not young either (33). I thought the days were I would even imagine playing this had long gone, but my lovely wife really wanted to play so we gave it a shot. Predictably, it was silly, embarrassing fun. It also hurt a little. We played three rounds, and all had a good laugh (particularly when Luch took the role of spinner and ignored everything he spun... calling out instead the worst/ most difficult maneuvre possible on every round).
On new year's day, we tried a few rounds of Cluzzle. This is a game were players choose a word from a list to model out of clay. Everyone then has to try to guess what the other player sculpted over three rounds of questions/ answers. The trick is that a player gets more points if their sculpture is guessed in the third round than in the first, but they get no points if it's not guessed at all. Therefore, you want to make your sculpture difficult to guess, but not TOO difficult.
I had fun with this one. Like Pictionary, charades, and other such games, it's fun to test yourself against the semi-artistic challenge of representing something across a different medium. The added twist of wanting the sculpture to be hard but not too hard is a little confusing at first, but definitely makes playing the game an interesting challenge. As with Things..., I have a bit of an objection with the scoring, but it's a comparatively minor point (players who guess correctly in the first round of the game score LESS points than those who do it in the 3rd round). There are apparently good reasons for this, but in the end it feels like an entirely different scheme might have been better.
Lastly, we played Mission: Red Planet. Quite a change of pace!
Mission: Red Planet is the latest chaos-fest from Bruno Faidutti (and co-designer Bruno Cathala). Players are trying to get their astronauts onto Mars in order to become rich from the mining of that planet's resources. It's been described as Citadels meets El Grande. While that's fairly accurate, I would add that there is a dash of Puerto Rico in there and that the sum of it's parts left me feeling like I do when I play Robo-Rally.
How's that for a summary?
Ok. Here's a better one.
A map of Mars is the main play board. The map is divided into several regions. Five Space Ships are waiting at a launch pad. Each one has a destination to a particular region of Mars, and a maximum number of astronauts it can take there.
Each player has a reserve of astronauts, and a hand of "role" cards. Every round, players simultaneously choose a role card which determines the turn order and how they get their astronauts onto the ships. Any ship which is filled to capacity launches, preventing any other player from adding to it. Once all players have taken their turn, any ship which has launched lands at it's destination and the astronauts are placed in that region. At the end of the 5th, 8th and 10th (last) round, scoring occurs. Points are only awarded to the player with the mighest number of astronauts in a region.
It all sounds pretty straight-forward, but it's really not. As in Citadels, the role cards each have special abilities which can be rather chaotic (such as the saboteur which can destroy a space ship before it takes off, the pilot which can change the destination of a ship, or the femme fatale which can convert another player's token to your colour). Like Puerto Rico, the simple effect of having ships which fill up and depart can cause the best laid plans to fail if you go late in the turn order. Add to that a set of event cards which give players hidden objectives for bonus points and endgame effects on the various outer regions of the map and things become rather difficult to control. When I say that I felt like I was playing RoboRally, I meant it in the sense that RoboRally is about trying to extract order from chaos, then crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.
I had my hopes up for this one, because the theme is very good, the game is very pretty and the execution seemed like a very interesting twist on many familiar mechanics. The end result is a fun game, which works better than it should. It's not without it's flaws, however. I disliked that in order to make an informed decision, I constantly had to relate the ships in play with the regions on the map. It would have been nice if the ships were layed immediately into their destination region (I don't think there is enough room for that, even if we wanted to). Also, 9 roles is too many. With 10 rounds in the game, 9 is not enough to go the entire game without playing the prospector (who allows players to reclaim their spent roles), but too many to make decision making simple. The game is obviously quite chaotic, but I suspect that the mechanisms to reduce the chaos are there, once we become more familiar with the game (not to mention that I don't mind chaos if it's fun... Robo-Rally IS in my top 10 games).
It was a five player game and I was doing poorly from the beginning. It took me some time to get used to the rhythm created by placing your astronauts and waiting for ships to launch. I was too often counting my chickens before they were hatched! Note to self: If an astronaut doesn't make it to the planet, it doesn't count towards the majority...
I also missed using the explorer on two of the scoring rounds, which most of the other players used to very good effect. Kozure did a very nice job cornering the ice, and snapping up the bonus for that (even though my brother in law gave him a good run for his money). Both my brother in law and my sister in law did well at choosing a few areas of the board to concentrate on and established solid ownership. Kozure was picked as the leader and got hammered on more than a few occasions, but it wasn't enough... he won the game. I think everyone enjoyed it, and I bet future playing will be even better.
Happy New Year everyone. I hope this coming year is even better than the one that just ended.
Obviously, a few games were played!
Things came out first. I'm not sure that we've documented this before on the blog, but we've played a few times before. If you haven't played it, the premise is simple: A "reader" chooses a card at random and reads it to the group. "Things... you shouldn't put on top of your car", for example. Everyone answers on a piece of paper and returns to the "reader". The reader then reads them to the rest of the players and everyone, in turn, tries to guess who wrote what. (To the sample question, I wrote "the bottom of your car")
Bottom line: This game is hilarious. I enjoy many party games, and many of them are quite funny (Time's Up, Taboo, Apples to Apples, etc), but none of them are this funny. Sadly, the part where players guess each other's answers does not live up to the fun of writing/reading them. I'd love to come up with a better system to go with the game (I posted a question on BGG in case someone else could think of one). Next time, I'd like to try simply reading all the answers once, then reading them again one at a time as people write down who they think wrote what. 1 point per correct answer.
At 11 people, it took a long time for all the correct answers to get guessed. Also, the difficulty in remembering all the answers seemed to drag the game a bit. Still, I think everyone had a good time since there was a lot of laughter as the answers came out... Kozure did very well in the beginning, winning the 6 point bonus for being the last player standing on several occasions. My sister in law was surprisingly good at guessing herself, particularly since she didn't know anyone there!
We didn't bother counting up the final scores, but I'm pretty sure Kozure had it in the bag.
Next up we played a quick game of Wits and Wagers. I hadn't played this before, but most of the rest of the group had. This is a trivia game where the trivia doesn't really matter!
The idea is interesting: The game asks a question you are not likely to know the answer to. Everyone takes a guess, and the answers are all layed out on a betting mat in order. At this point, everyone must bet on which answer(s) they feel are the correct ones! The lowest and highest answer will payout more, whereas the median answers pay out less. At the end of a number of rounds (8?), the winner is the player or team with the most money.
The concept is cool because there are points for being the player with the closest answer (without going over) and there are points for correctly betting on the answer (whether it's yours or not). Therefore, a player with little or no knowledge of trivia can participate and have a good time. If you don't do well on the trivia, you still might win on the strength of good betting.
I've only played once, but so far I'm a little ambivalent on the game, despite how much I like the idea. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think it's because there's a few contradictory things going on in the final product:
1) In trivia games, the fun tends to be in testing yourself in trying to answer the most questions correctly. Here, most of the questions are impossible to answer, so that tension is quickly lost. Those that can be answered still suffer from the following problem...
2) Although the premise is that a player with little/ no knowledge of trivia can compete, in effect both phases of the game reward the player who know the correct answer.
3) I personally find betting more interesting when it's tied to some sort of bluffing (poker), or to odds created through hidden and revealed information (blackjack). Betting in Wits and Wagers is more akin to betting in Roulette... kind of a crapshoot.
There's no denying that it was a fast and interesting party game, but it wasn't funny or challenging enough to make me want to choose it over others I prefer (though I'd be more than happy to play again, if someone else suggested it). Kozure will be writing a more thorough review on BGG before long, now that he's had a chance to play it with lots of different groups of people.
We wrapped up the evening's game playing with a variation of twister which is played on a map of the world. Now, I'm not old, but I'm not young either (33). I thought the days were I would even imagine playing this had long gone, but my lovely wife really wanted to play so we gave it a shot. Predictably, it was silly, embarrassing fun. It also hurt a little. We played three rounds, and all had a good laugh (particularly when Luch took the role of spinner and ignored everything he spun... calling out instead the worst/ most difficult maneuvre possible on every round).
On new year's day, we tried a few rounds of Cluzzle. This is a game were players choose a word from a list to model out of clay. Everyone then has to try to guess what the other player sculpted over three rounds of questions/ answers. The trick is that a player gets more points if their sculpture is guessed in the third round than in the first, but they get no points if it's not guessed at all. Therefore, you want to make your sculpture difficult to guess, but not TOO difficult.
I had fun with this one. Like Pictionary, charades, and other such games, it's fun to test yourself against the semi-artistic challenge of representing something across a different medium. The added twist of wanting the sculpture to be hard but not too hard is a little confusing at first, but definitely makes playing the game an interesting challenge. As with Things..., I have a bit of an objection with the scoring, but it's a comparatively minor point (players who guess correctly in the first round of the game score LESS points than those who do it in the 3rd round). There are apparently good reasons for this, but in the end it feels like an entirely different scheme might have been better.
Lastly, we played Mission: Red Planet. Quite a change of pace!
Mission: Red Planet is the latest chaos-fest from Bruno Faidutti (and co-designer Bruno Cathala). Players are trying to get their astronauts onto Mars in order to become rich from the mining of that planet's resources. It's been described as Citadels meets El Grande. While that's fairly accurate, I would add that there is a dash of Puerto Rico in there and that the sum of it's parts left me feeling like I do when I play Robo-Rally.
How's that for a summary?
Ok. Here's a better one.
A map of Mars is the main play board. The map is divided into several regions. Five Space Ships are waiting at a launch pad. Each one has a destination to a particular region of Mars, and a maximum number of astronauts it can take there.
Each player has a reserve of astronauts, and a hand of "role" cards. Every round, players simultaneously choose a role card which determines the turn order and how they get their astronauts onto the ships. Any ship which is filled to capacity launches, preventing any other player from adding to it. Once all players have taken their turn, any ship which has launched lands at it's destination and the astronauts are placed in that region. At the end of the 5th, 8th and 10th (last) round, scoring occurs. Points are only awarded to the player with the mighest number of astronauts in a region.
It all sounds pretty straight-forward, but it's really not. As in Citadels, the role cards each have special abilities which can be rather chaotic (such as the saboteur which can destroy a space ship before it takes off, the pilot which can change the destination of a ship, or the femme fatale which can convert another player's token to your colour). Like Puerto Rico, the simple effect of having ships which fill up and depart can cause the best laid plans to fail if you go late in the turn order. Add to that a set of event cards which give players hidden objectives for bonus points and endgame effects on the various outer regions of the map and things become rather difficult to control. When I say that I felt like I was playing RoboRally, I meant it in the sense that RoboRally is about trying to extract order from chaos, then crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.
I had my hopes up for this one, because the theme is very good, the game is very pretty and the execution seemed like a very interesting twist on many familiar mechanics. The end result is a fun game, which works better than it should. It's not without it's flaws, however. I disliked that in order to make an informed decision, I constantly had to relate the ships in play with the regions on the map. It would have been nice if the ships were layed immediately into their destination region (I don't think there is enough room for that, even if we wanted to). Also, 9 roles is too many. With 10 rounds in the game, 9 is not enough to go the entire game without playing the prospector (who allows players to reclaim their spent roles), but too many to make decision making simple. The game is obviously quite chaotic, but I suspect that the mechanisms to reduce the chaos are there, once we become more familiar with the game (not to mention that I don't mind chaos if it's fun... Robo-Rally IS in my top 10 games).
It was a five player game and I was doing poorly from the beginning. It took me some time to get used to the rhythm created by placing your astronauts and waiting for ships to launch. I was too often counting my chickens before they were hatched! Note to self: If an astronaut doesn't make it to the planet, it doesn't count towards the majority...
I also missed using the explorer on two of the scoring rounds, which most of the other players used to very good effect. Kozure did a very nice job cornering the ice, and snapping up the bonus for that (even though my brother in law gave him a good run for his money). Both my brother in law and my sister in law did well at choosing a few areas of the board to concentrate on and established solid ownership. Kozure was picked as the leader and got hammered on more than a few occasions, but it wasn't enough... he won the game. I think everyone enjoyed it, and I bet future playing will be even better.
Happy New Year everyone. I hope this coming year is even better than the one that just ended.
Labels:
Cathala,
Cluzzle,
Faidutti,
Mission: Red Planet,
Party Games,
Things...,
Twister,
Wits and Wagers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
