|
As someone who played and enjoyed Betrayal once, but can see the huge potential it has for being swingy and causing all kinds of random unenjoyable nonsense, what are some good games that deliver the same kind of experience without as many of those issues?
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Xaris posted:cards are intuitive (arrows point the directions, color coded, etc) Okay, I personally have enjoyed 7 Wonders every time I've played it, but this is definitely not true, at least not for me. I mean, it's true for the simpler cards, like the ones that give you resources or military points, but as soon as you get to third age (and before that with expansions) you're suddenly drowning in a sea of different symbols that you simply can't parse the first few times playing without constantly checking the reference sheet. I mean, I get why they're doing it, but I still think many cards in 7 Wonders actually lose intuitiveness because of their heavy use of icons rather than text. Hyper Crab Tank fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Carcassone, for me, was boring as hell and I have only played the physical version.. I don't get the hype with the game at all. I suspect it's because it came out almost 15 years ago, when people were beginning to realize more and more that board games didn't just mean Monopoly. It really hasn't aged well, though. I got tired of it after a half dozen plays, and luckily it doesn't really come out much anymore. There are better things to play. Hyper Crab Tank fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
It's just going to be a card that says "NERD" on it. No, but in all seriousness, Mysterium sounds like a neat idea, but aside from the replayability issue (which sounds from your description at least potentially alleviated), I'm wondering how much fun the Spirit will end up having. It sounds like the co-op aspect adds a lot of passivity to the gameplay on that player's side, as opposed to other asymmetric deduction-type games where the solo player is usually an antagonist of some sort and can at least spend his time devising a plan for how to thwart the players next turn. But in this, since you get a fresh hand of Dream cards, it sounds like you can't really do that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Oh yeah, all the figuring out what cards to give to people and enjoying the confusion and all that sounds like a great experience. I guess I'm tainted by playing with people who like to overanalyze things and would probably take 20 minutes analyzing the cards while the Spirit sits in silence growing increasingly more frustrated that he's not doing anything. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
echoMateria posted:Just watch Richard misinterpreting all the clues his wife's giving him: http://youtu.be/vxh4oB0ATrI Oh god, I got to agree though, those associations were pretty bad (fisher of men? what?), and I know the red/white card made me think of how the colors are arranged on the nun card... but then she turned it upside-down and nope, that wasn't what she had in mind. ... but it did make me want to play the game, so there's that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
There is an unofficial English-language rulebook available on BGG. You could probably sum the rules up in a few sentences, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
My #1 tip is: Resist the temptation to go for the easy wins on early loops. It's very tempting to just go "Incident A triggers, you lose" on like day 2, but that just means your easiest path to victory has already been spent as the players will now be extremely wary of letting the same conditions happen again. The first loop is when the mastermind has the most space in which to setup a complicated scenario where it's not clear what's important and what isn't. Use that space. Sow confusion. Do irrelevant things. Win as late as possible. Pull that easy win out on the last loop and you might blindside the players entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:Please don't do this for a teaching game. This is FANTASTIC once everyone knows what they're doing, but do not do this against newbies. You will never play this game with them again. Yeah, that's probably true. If you're playing with people new to deduction games or just want a friendler introduction, don't go balls to the wall like that. But, if the people you're with are more experienced...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
There is one thing I just remembered that I'm pretty sure we did wrong the first time: Don't forget that if an incident triggers (i.e. the culprit has enough paranoia) but the effect can't happen for some reason (e.g. there is no one in the right location to murder), you still have to announce that an incident "almost happened" or the like. It's easy to just clump "nothing happened because the culprit didn't have the paranoia" in with "nothing happened because there is no available victim" in the same category and just skip over the incident, but you do need to keep them apart because, well, that's extra information for the protagonists.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 00:46
|
|