I enjoyed this article describing a game of the Infection at Outpost 31 game by The A.V. Club so I figured I’d share. I passed up on the chance to kickstart since my wife is getting pretty suspicious about my growing boardgame collection, but now I’m thinking I may need a copy of this.
I’m still a novice in the world of tabletop games, but I got the impression the A.V. Club team have even less exposure to them. They were excitedly describing game mechanics that could mostly be ascribed to Dead of Winter, or no doubt a host of other games. So I like their enthusiasm, but it’s hard to get a feel for how The Thing stacks up against other hidden traitor games.
Certainly it’s not a deep dive into the mechanics or a comparison with other similar games. I think I like the article because their approach to board games is similar to my own, i.e. relatively casual.
I like watching YouTube reviews of board games and I appreciate the thought and care that often goes into them, but honestly I often find my attention drifting as they dig deep into the nuts and bolts and I find myself wondering “yeah, but did you have a good time?” I guess I occupy a weird space, on the hardcore end of the casual game spectrum, or maybe the casual end of the hardcore spectrum.
I think of myself in that same weird space, Gloomhaven sounds like work, none of my local friends will play anything more complicated than Sheriff of Nottingham (an exaggeration in both directions, but still).
I guess I really just was thinking specifically “Okay, but have you guys played Dead of Winter?” and I kept hoping someone else would mention it. This quote for example:
Because each round involves not only trying to figure out who is infected but also taking the steps required to getting off the arctic station, there’s a whole other level of game stacked on top of the “who is it?” baseline. Of course, whoever is it can disrupt the rest of the group putting out a fire or fighting an infected creature. It’s a brilliant way to give purpose to each round, each turn, each little action, all the while feeding into the paranoia at the heart of Carpenter’s movie.
Right, that’s Dead of Winter too. Each round involves not only trying to figure out who is the betrayer, but also taking steps required to survive the current crisis and work toward the primary mission, so there’s a whole other level of game stacked on top of the “who is it?” baseline. Of course, whoever it is can disrupt the rest of the group dealing with the crisis or defending from zombies. It’s a brilliant way to blah blah blah. I read their description and I think “So would I love this because I love Dead of Winter, or would I be unimpressed by this because I already love Dead of Winter?”
They mentioned the group wasn’t all experienced gamers, but I was hoping someone was at least in the same casual hardcore/hardcore casual space as us so they could compare it to something a little more relevant than Werewolf.
But that’s fairly common of the whole “traitor in our midst” thing, right? Battlestar Galactica, King of Camelot, etc where the traitor has to play a careful balancing act of seeming to advance the group’s goals while actually undermining them? I haven’t played Dead of Winter though, so I ask.
Infection at Outpost 31 has been on my radar, partly because of theme, I’m much more interested in the hidden alien than the hidden cylon or traitorous knight. Hopefully it’s got more to distinguish it, but I haven’t seen a lot of attention thrown it’s way yet. Actually now that I think about it, there was a more detailed step-through of the rules in the Geek and Sundry video on YouTube. I’d link but I’m on my phone and it always goofs up.
Yeah, my personal experience is with Dead of Winter, but that’s what I’m saying. What they’re describing is fairly common for a traitor game, but their enthusiasm suggests it’s the only one they’ve played, so there’s no discernment there about whether it’s well done here.
Received my copy of Pendragon this weekend.
http://www.gmtgames.com/p-572-pendragon-the-fall-of-roman-britain.aspx
Opened it up to two pleasant surprises.
-
I playtested the game at GMT West in Oct. 2015. Didn’t expect a playtesting credit for a single game but they were nice enough to give me one!
-
I was worried about one of the faction powers in the game when I playtested it. I felt the resolution mechanic wasn’t working but when I shared my concern post-session I could tell Volko was not at all convinced. At times since the play test I have thought back to see if there was a way I could have stated that point more clearly in the rather chaotic post-game feedback session. But I checked the faction power sheets right away and was happy to see it was changed!
sounds bloody awesome!
Mine arrived yesterday. I am hoping this is gonna be boss.
We’ve seen COIN games where there are two counterinsurgency players before. I like the strained relationship they tend to have. I haven’t played Pendragon yet but I’m fascinated to see how that relationship in this game changes with the military/civilian dominance and fragmentation mechanics.
Tom Mc
And it shows that there really is nothing COIN about COIN.
Posit, the COIN system is a great system for asymmetric conflict. So, it tends to model counterinsurgency well.
Tom Mc
Last minute gift shopping, as always. Anyone play this?
WizKids Dungeons & Dragons Tomb of Annihilation
Just wondering how it is, or any of the other games in this series? It’s co-opt, but how would it be with two players, for example?
One of my sons is in a regular D&D group now and he might like this. Any other recommendations for D&D boardgames or something along those lines?
I don’t like the D&D board games very much because Descent and Imperial Assault are out there, but they are entertaining enough.
I haven’t played ToA, but I’d recommend skipping the earlier D&D board games. Expensive, poor quality pieces and gameplay is a very light and quickly repetitive simple dungeon crawl. It’s basically move from tile to tile and have a single encounter on each. We found them pretty tedious.
What grinds my gears about the COIN games, and I’m sure everyone’s heard this before but I’ll say it anyway, is how almost all of 'em have four sides.
It feels like somewhere somebody said “Yeah, there are four roughly equal sides to every conflict, so it’ll work perfectly!” and nobody argued with them.
Yeah, I agree completely. They’re very expensive.
Both of these look good. I will stop by the local boardgame shop and see what they have in stock. Thanks.
They use the same system, it just comes down to your preference of theme. Imperial Assault has a “tournament” scene, but I think most people enjoy the campaign mode.
You say most of them so I think you’re aware of Colonial Twilight, the two player COIN. I believe the one that was just announced is a three player design.
Why four? For some conflicts, Andean Abyss, it works perfectly. True, in Fire in the Lake it seems a little forced but in most COIN games I am not fighting too much cognititive dissonence with the player count. Who said the sides are equal? These are very asymmetric games.
Tom Mc