I assume we’re talking about the variant where each player is guaranteed a different ‘devout’ allegiance. It reduces the risk in 3-4 player games of two players starting with very similar allegiances, which would leave the remaining player(s) at a distinct disadvantage (the odds of it happening in a 4-player game is unfortunately quite high). Similarly, the bonus-point-for-each-unrevealed-loyalty variant reduces the risk of everyone switching to the same allegiances in the final round.
Unfortunately, neither of them (or any other variant I’ve found) solve the issue of the mechanics not really delivering on the theme, which I think is a far bigger problem. It’s a real shame, because I really want to like it so much more than I do.
Following the discussion on A War of Whispers… is the same true of Sheriff of Nottingham? Is it a game with a promise (which is fantastic) and then a reality (which is less than)?
I’ve played my copy twice. Both times were… fun. A bit. But also a little sour and people did not want to play again. In the first half, there’s really zero information to go on other than body language. In later stages, once people are discarding more, gunning toward majorities, etc, there’s a little bit to go on but the board state is still opaque. It never took off and we never found mindgames in it, just guessing games.
Additionally, I"m considering a 1:1 swap with Soda Smugglers. Knizia. Same premise. Much shorter and narrower in scope, but also the added structure may give the game more hooks and levers that form a starting point for “what you should do” which is a good backdrop for “are you playing straight or lying.”
I’ve played it once, maybe twice? Looks like before I was logging plays, anyway. I think what it’s trying to do is essentially multiple mini social deduction games in a row, and each player (except that round’s Sheriff) can pick their own role each time.
But you can’t win without bluffing at least sometimes, which to me reduced the game to picking which Sheriff(s) would be most easily bluffed. (As someone who is often thought to look a bit dodgy, one of my preferred tactics in this style of game is to tell the absolute truth and wait for people to suspect me.) There isn’t that element of conspiracy you get in Werewolf or The Resistance. Honestly I’d rather play Coup again.
It’s a fairly pure bluffing game - essentially a remake of Contraband. Like a lot of pure bluffing games, it can get old quickly. Despite what some people think, you can’t really tell when someone is lying about what card they put in a bag unless they’re really bad at it. And people who are bad at lying, generally don’t play bluffing games.
If I was to choose a pure bluffing game, I’d pick something quicker like Cockroach Poker, Skull, or Coup.
Someone I know swore that he won constantly by only telling the truth. I guess people expect a lie and it trips them up or the guy just seemed deceitful.
Actually, most complaints I see are that it is too easy to win by just being honest, and I think this is due to the King and Queen rewards for the legal goods, while contraband has no such extra reward. I think the expansion tries to remedy this by adding the black market deliveries, which give you bonuses if you deliver certain combinations of goods.
I enjoy Sheriff now and then, but I don’t think it’s something to play in rapid succession. I find it fun to get into character, talking about my lively bag of chickens while I shake the bag around like there’s something alive in it, or waving the bag under my nose and expounding upon the lovely scent of the freshly baked bread inside. The sillier the better. Plus, it makes the sheriff suspicious when you try to sell it too hard
Sheriff of Nottingham is a game of iterative groupthink.
The common argument is that “playing straight wins”. Okay, then do that. Everybody around the table just plays 100% straight; no lies, no contraband. The winner will be randomly assigned by the random card draw from the deck.
Eventually, a player will look over at another player and think, “Hmm, I don’t think I can beat them with chickens” (a totally normal thing to say and think, by the way) and may think to themselves, “Well, I’ll just sneak a bit of contraband into my shipment of apples…” and, at the end of the game, that little bit of contraband might tip the scales; at this point, the Sheriff will just be waving everybody through and not daring to inspect pouches, because everyone has been playing 100% straight.
A third player will look at what the other player did and think, “Hmm, okay, I can edge out a win against that player if I get some good contraband through while staying competitive in the majorities races…”.
Eventually, the groupthink will swing all the way over and you’ll be playing mind games with the sheriff trying to get as much contraband through as you can with minimal bribes. And, at that point, someone will realize that they can simply win by playing it all 100% straight; and then the cycle repeats.
Most people who complain about Sheriff either: A) don’t realize this or B) don’t like moving-groupthink. I honestly think it’s more of the latter, but subconsiously – these may also be the people who like to play Hanabi because they’ve developed a code language for how to communicate clearly in a game where you’re not supposed to communicate clearly.
It has always seemed to me that the true game of Hanabi is to develop the language (in your group), and once you’ve done that actually playing the game again becomes pointless.
(I’ve seen groupthink ruin The Resistance for groups that pllay it too often: if “everybody must always vote against M1.1” is orthodoxy, then you’re just wasting a turn.)
I don’t know how to go about it, but I would much prefer Hanabi if the required code/language/groupthink needed to constantly evolve. I love developing heuristics (it’s one of my favorite things in general, and definitely in games), and I agree that once the game is “solved” it’s no longer fun (or, at least, as fun)… so a game where the dynamics constantly shift would feel… uh… dynamic.
I would argue all bluffing games are about iterative groupthink. We bluff, then we double bluff to compensate, then we triple bluff to compensate further, and so and so forth. Eventually you realise that you might as well just guess, because your odds are just as good as if you tied your brain up in knots wondering if it’s a septuple bluff.
I have it. Beautiful production value, but like 98% of KS, the manual is a disaster.
Fine, bad manual, but the game?
Also bad.
Look, there are elements that are stupid (the bucket of D6 that represent specific heroes are all unique, so you have to find the one specific red D6 that has a blank, two gears, two laser blasts, and one cross… no, that one has a blank, a single face with two gears that’s a totally different guy…), there are elements that are neat (I really can’t stress enough what a beautiful game it is, and honestly some of the quests are rather engaging), but the token mechanic coupled to the deck of cards is almost unforgiveable on its own.
And the way combat works isn’t super engaging, and since that’s the same way quests work… it’s a lot of squeeze for very little juice.
Maybe I just had three really miserable games of it, but gosh I tried. You want a copy and are willing to pay post, I’ll send you mine.
Magna Roma - I’m usually a sucker for Roman themed games and I know there is a pimped up deluxe edition but I’ve seen a copy of the normal version for circa £20
Looking at BGG, yashima and whistle_pig liked it and lalunaverde didn’t. It’s a new app now, which is the main reason I’m looking at it, the other being that it seems to be crazily popular over on a tabletop simulator discord.
Thoughts, impressions? Is the current lack of expansions for the app significant?
