|
10th August 2023 It's a Thursday evening and we're round Simon's for some gaming fun. First game of the night was cooperative, tile-laying game Dorfromantik which is a board game adaptation of a computer game and translates from German as 'village romance' or possibly 'romance of the village'? What's in a game? Tiles: Well, this is a tile-laying game, so you're going to get a lot of tiles, in this case hexagonal ones that come in 2 types.
Mystery boxes: What are mystery boxes? Well, you'll just have to find out but basically, Dorfromantik has a very light sort of persistent/campaign mode where boxes become 'unlocked' and provide more content to play through in what is a gameplay loop. Suffice to say that 5 boxes numbered 1-5 come with the game. Score & campaign pads: Usually I don't bother mentioning this kind of component as it's not directly related to the game play. But in this case, how the scoring plays out is important here as it relates to the campaign. On the left is a column of objectives and targets that can be achieved by completing games, on the right are achievements which can be unlocked in certain ways while in the centre, is an advancement track which can be checked off to unlock more content. What is this extra content? That's a secret! The components in Dorfromantik as what we would consider to be average, that is nothing to write home about but the tiles, cards and tokens fell perfectly acceptable: Nothing bad here. The tiles use bright colours as well as illustrations to display differing landscapes and there's also as surprisingly detailed artwork, especially the village areas which show homes, shops, market stalls and so on. Charming little flourishes of artwork are found throughout the game. It's crisp art that's clear and easy to comprehend. Dorfromantik employs a handful of icons to represent different landscape types which are easily recognisable and that's about it. I can't imagine players having any problem here. How's it play? Setup Tiles: Sort the tiles into their 2 types, then shuffle them into face-down stacks and discard 3 landscape tiles out of play. Task markers: Sort the tokens into their types and shuffle them into face-down stacks. First player: Determine a starting player. On to play Dorfromantik is a cooperative game were players are collectively creating a landscape with an eye towards typically maximising the victory points (VPs) they earn. Although they may have other objectives/achievements they might be working towards. The game follows a typical turn order with the active player taking their action which essentially involves drawing and placing a tile before play progresses to the player on their left. Draw tile: On their turn, the active player will draw a single tile and place it into the central playing area according to the following rules.
E.g., if a forest task marker has a value of 5 and the players create a forest across exactly 5 tiles, then the task has been completed. When a task is completed, the marker should be immediately removed and added to a scoring area. It is possible to immediately complete a task marker on a task tile if that task tile is played in the into a location which matches is requirements. It's theoretically possible to complete more then one task in turn.
Endgame The game immediately ends if any player has to play a landscape tile and there are none available. The game then goes to scoring and VPs can come from 3 sources.
The end is the beginning! Now that players have achieved a final score, it's time to look at the campaign pad. On the left side is the column of objectives which can be completed at the game end and these go from score up to 99 VPs all the way score 400 VPs! Every objective that is completed can be crossed off and earns the players a 'X'. X's can be used to cross off spaces on the advancement track. As more spaces are crossed off, players will gain access to the boxes of extra content that come with the game. This content provides new tiles and new ways to score VPs as well as more achievements to work towards. Furthermore, on the right are achievements that can be ticked off which contributes to the overall completion of the game. Overall
Dorfromantik is a game about creating a beautiful village and the tile-laying mechanic does match up with the theme, albeit a little abstractly. It's also quite a light game rules-wise, the challenge comes from optimising VPs earned from tile placement and this comes from planning ahead. There seems to be a basic tactic of creating bunches of 3 of each landscape type so that if a 4 point task marker is drawn, it can potentially be used to immediately close and score a landscape - provided the right type and value of task marker is drawn. Although it can backfire if players calculate size 3 landscape types incorrectly. As with pretty much all cooperative games, luck can play a big part here and players may be forced to make tricky decisions when things don't go their way. There's also some tricky, meaningful decisions to be made regarding the rails and streams because players will be faced with conflicting scoring objectives: As well as trying to complete tasks related to those landscape types, players will also be looking to score points for the longest rail/stream. Dorfromantik includes what loosely is described as a campaign mode. As the game is completed multiple times, players will acquire the means to score higher and higher VPs through unlocks but also will need to score higher to unlock more content in order to score even more VPs. It's a classic gameplay loop. This brings me to another thing, one of the players bounced hard off Dorfromantik. They just did not like how there was no overt way to 'fail' a game. While this is 'technically' true, a game can still be kind of failed by not achieving any objectives and getting no crosses, but for them it wasn't enough of a 'failure' for them. Consequently, we didn't really get to give the campaign mode a good try. I feel this could be a bit of divisive issue that could put people off what is otherwise a fairly solid tile-placement game. Another curious aspect is that while Dorfromantik can play with a large player count it feels a bit like a solo game. - That is; a solo game where everybody can potentially contribute to the placement every turn! The choices and options players face do not change with player count or different players. Players do not have hidden hands of tiles or anything like that which could alter their priorities and the dilemma of where to place a tile never alters from player to player. The same information is open and available to all players at all times which essentially means players are free to confer during a individual's turn or not. I guess that many minds working on optimal moves can make for some strong decisions - or probably more likely, lead to more bickering! It's also not a game for single occasional plays and I think it would also definitely benefit from repeated plays as unlockable content changes the game. Dorfromantik is at the lightweight end of games and could appeal to casual or less dedicated gamers and be used as a crossover game. If a undemanding, cooperative game is what your looking for, then this could be one for you provided you can find some players to dedicate time to it. Alternatively, you could just play it solo as the game experience is identical but quieter.
0 Comments
18th August 2022 Broadsword! It's a Thursday and we're in Aldershot for some gaming fun! According to Wikipedia, HeroQuest was originally published in 1989, which makes me feel very old. The version that we are playing though, is the 21st iteration. So grab your staff and pull on your loincloth as we set into vaguely generic fantasy world of HeroQuest in search of treasure. Alternatively, take on the role of Zargon and oppose the heroes. What's in a game?
HeroQuest's components are all generally good. The board, tiles and cards are of an acceptable quality. The dice are also fine and in a move that pays homage to the original HeroQuest, there still aren't enough of them to split conveniently between the hero players and Zargon player! The game really could do with a few more combat dice! Probably the biggest components are the miniatures. All the heroes and monsters miniatures come in single colour plastic according to type, heroes are red, goblinoids are green, undead are beige and so on. I'm pretty certain the sculpts are all new as well, the games has undergone cosmetic changes due to licensing issues regarding the original. Speaking of sculpts, I found their quality to be... OK. If I were assessing the miniatures exclusive of the game, they wouldn't be good but since they are meant to be part of a game; and in that context they're pretty cool. Especially since I feel that they're designed to hark back to the original style and design, which I think they do a good job of doing. The scenery and dressing is also a bit of a mixed bag. The scenery in this version is all made of plastic and is much more durable than the original scenery which in part was made of cardboard. However, that cardboard scenery with its printed artwork was a lot more colourful. The modern scenery in comparison is a just drab, monochrome, grey plastic. HeroQuest's art is good wherever it appears, mostly on cards and has a brash, chunky cartoony aesthetic that suitably fits the style of the game. There are a few icons in the game that are easily learned, the Zargon player has to learn a bit more due to having to comprehend the scenarios in the quest book but again, it's not an obstacle. How's it play? Setup Before any play can begin, one player must decide to take the role of Zargon who is essentially the 'Games Master' in RPG parlance and controls all the enemy forces that oppose the players. Whoever plays Zargon will probably be doing so for all 14 quests presented in the quest book. Up to 4 other players will assume the role of heroes adventuring through the campaign. Generally, once players have chosen a hero, they will stick with that hero until the end of the campaign. Having said that, there's nothing to stop players swapping or switching around heroes if they so desire.
On to play In HeroQuest, all the hero players will each take their individual turns and then the Zargon player will finally take their turn. Generally this is done with the player to the left of the Zargon player going first with turns progressing to the left until eventually the Zargon player goes last. The general flow of play will involve the heroes exploring the dungeon game board (Which is unpopulated at the game start.) and in response, Zargon revealing what the heroes encounter, be it doors, dead ends, traps or monsters and so on. Once the heroes have had their turns, Zargon can act. This means they can move any visible monsters to attack the heroes. Thus if no monsters are visible on the board, Zargon basically does nothing.
Endgame Play continues until the hero players complete quest objective, in which case, they collectively win! Otherwise, if all the heroes are instead killed, then the Zargon player wins. Additionally, if the hero players retreat (By returning to the stairs tile.) for whatever reason then they also lose. That's not the end! Once a quest has ended, players can spend their hard won loot and cash to buy equipment. Weapons can increase a hero's attack score and armour can increases defence scores, while daggers and crossbows offer ranged attacks and so on. When buying equipment, the player who will use it takes possession of the card. Furthermore, once all copies of a certain item are bought from the equipment deck , then that item can no longer be bought. Conversely, consumable items such as potions and daggers are returned to the equipment deck when used. End Endgame! If the hero players manage to succeed at all 14 quests, they have won the campaign. Overall
There's quite a lot to write about here and my thoughts will probably wander, so please indulge me - and let's get started! HeroQuest was a pretty ground-breaking game in 1989. Published by a mainstream games producer, it offered people who had never played an RPG an accessible slice of the RPG experience and introduced some game concepts to people who had never encountered them before. It's also a window into how games played 35 years ago and what player expectations were like back then. For example, a modern game with similar themes to HeroQuest probably wouldn't employ a roll-and-move mechanic. Another example are rewards and the game's equivalent of levelling up: As explained below, HeroQuest rarely rewards to players - which come in the form of equipment upgrades. These upgrades occur quite infrequently but are quite significant statistically, i.e., going from 2 combat dice to 3 is a big jump. A modern game would try and find a way to do the opposite and drip-feed players constant but low-impact rewards in what would be called a gameplay loop or moment-to-moment engagement. HeroQuest occasionally also trolls player, forcing them to deal with multiple traps and putting no reward on the other side. Mechanically, HeroQuest is actually a fairly straightforward game. While heroes have 6 actions they can perform, 3 of those are almost identical actions and 1 is very situational. Players will find themselves moving and searching, opening doors and defeating monsters behind them, searching, then moving on. Rinse and repeat. While there are definitely some tactics that players can adopt and repeatedly employ, the random placement of challenges - particularly monsters who form the majority of heroes' encounters - means that players will need to adapt to situations and respond effectively. There's also some randomness to player actions - the roll-and-move mechanic means that heroes may not reach their opponent when they need to and also may not be able to escape enemies when they need to. The combat system is also straightforward and runs smoothly enough, it does feel quite swingy and unpredictable though but that might just be me grumbling about dice rolls! We found that the tougher monsters are very hard to wound. Once their defence is high enough, they're generally guaranteed being able to absorb 1 wound from an attack. This means the heroes will need to rely on luck to get 2 wounds in an attack or use at least 4 dice to attack and have a passable chance of getting 2 wounds. How do the heroes get higher attack scores? This brings me to equipment. Generally, we ended up equipping the 2 front line fighters (Primarily the barbarian but to a lesser extent also the dwarf.) with weapons above anyone else as well as providing the elf with a crossbow. Getting an attack stat up to 4 and gaining ranged attacks were real game changers. Getting the right equipment or getting equipment and using it the right way can enhance or change tactics, improve the odds of surviving, winning fights and so on. What's also interesting is that at the end of a quest, the hero players have the opportunity to buy equipment. However, because the cost is so high, in practice it means they will only get to buy something once after every 2 or 3 quests. It means that the heroes will get maybe 6 or 7 pieces of equipment throughout the entire campaign and will need to choose wisely. Some equipment such as consumables seem very expensive for what they provide. During our playthroughs, we never seriously considered buying things like throwing daggers or holy water. Thematically, HeroQuest is a bit of a strange beast. It has obvious elements derived from tabletop RPGs such as having a games master, combat screen, dungeons to explore, character classes and stats, scenarios, campaigns and narratives, rolling dice for combat etc but there are also some key differences. There's no experience points or levelling, instead character improvements happen via buying better equipment. Also, a key difference for me is the role the Zargon player has, they are part games master but also part antagonist and opponent to the heroes which is different to the majority of RPGs. Why is this significant? Let me explain. The HeroQuest campaign has 14 quests, it took us a total of 15 attempts to complete all of them, in other words we only failed 1 of the quests, the other 13 were completed successfully at the first try. I think that in part this is due to the fact that we're all experienced gamers and it feels the game is targeted at the early teenage market so we mostly breezed through it. (A little more about this below.) I also think this because the game utilises a 'one vs many' system and I've always felt that it's very hard to balance this type of game fairly, 3 or 4 human brains will always have the advantage over 1 human brain. This is compounded by the fact that HeroQuest has a campaign. It means that if the heroes fail a quest, they will invariably have to repeat it again, why is this significant? The purpose of a campaign is to advance through the multitude of quests until the final one can be completed and it can be tedious repeating failed quests, especially if more than once. When the surprise of knowing what is behind a door is gone, the game can become an exercise in rolling dice over strategy. Returning to difficulty: I read that it was originally envisioned that the hero players would behave competitively and cooperation between them would make the game too easy. This of course contradicts the RPG nature of the game and it contradicts the rule book too, which states the players should cooperate and they will collectively win or lose. Finally, it also contradicts player sensibilities; without cooperation, the wizard in particular for example, has a fairly low chance of surviving a dungeon. All of this leads me to suspect that either deliberately or accidentally, the game is skewed in favour of the players. It sort of makes sense because it gives the campaign momentum and keeps events moving forward. The problem though, is that it can become a frustrating experience for the Zargon player, who in essence has to lose over and over. It may have been better to do away with having a antagonistic games master role and have a more traditional games master. I get the feeling though that it was done that way to make HeroQuest seem a little more like a 'traditional' board game. It would have been even better if the game master role could have been automated entirely. I imagine though, that it would've increased the game's difficulty significantly. Ultimately, I found HeroQuest just about engaging enough to keep my attention, you could never afford to become complacent. Not paying attention was a sure-fire way to get your hero into trouble. The campaign does have a narrative, however it's fairly generic and also fairly forgettable. For me, the pleasure I think, came from the opportunity to play a game cooperatively along with friends. If you want a light and accessible RPG adjacent experience that's easy to manage without much prep time, you could do a lot worse than HeroQuest. If you're a parent or adult looking for a way to introduce youngsters to some more elaborate game mechanics and concepts or introduce them to a beginner RPG, then HeroQuest is definitely worth a look in. 3rd June 2022 We're round Simon's for some Friday night fun. Apparently, delving into dangerous dungeons in adventuring parties is a hazardous vocation, but in Arcadia Quest, there's loads of them wandering the dungeons! What's in a game?
It's hard to fault the component quality in Arcadia Quest and nothing feels cheap. It comes with a generous amount of minis The game utilises a chibi art style throughout, this extends to the hero and monster cards as well as the miniatures. The illustrations on the cards and boards is colourful and has a lot of character. Arcadia is a fairly miniatures heavy game and they're the components that I would say are the the most eye-catching. They're all good quality sculpts and while it's all part of the game's art direction and charm; I have to say I'm a bit ambivalent towards the chibi styling personally. As an aside; figures are supplied unpainted but haven a paint job. The game also contains a a fair amount of iconography but it never felt unintuitive. How's it play? Setup Arcadia Quest can be played as a traditional board game but is clearly meant to be played as a series of linked scenarios, thus the Campaign book will determine the specific setup required, although it will generally involve the following:
Arcadia Quest follows the typical turn structure with the active player taking their turn, then the player to the their left acting next. During their turn, the active player has 2 basic options they can choose from.
Endgame Depending on player count, the first player to complete 2/3 quests wins the game, provided at least 1 of those completed quests is a PvE quest. It's not possible to win by just fighting other players. Campaign Hang on, there's some more rules-talk after the endgame! When a scenario is completed, players earn rewards as per the scenario, quest cards and other successes in the scenario. These can be used to purchase more cards for the heroes, providing them a route to upgrade or 'level-up'. If a hero accumulated 1 or more death tokens during the scenario, then that hero will randomly acquire a death curse card, which inflicts some sort of penalty on the hero in the next scenario. Once that next scenario is completed, the death curse card is discarded. If the hero was unfortunate to die again, they would acquire a new randomly drawn death curse card. Campaign endgame If players are going through the campaign, then at the end of each scenario, each player's results are recorded on the campaign sheet and they will earn points for events that occurred in the scenario. The player who has the best overall results at the end of the campaign, wins the campaign! Overall
It's tricky to describe Arcadia Quest. Mechanically it's a pretty straightforward, player's use the fairly obvious actions on their cards, looking for ways to sync or combo effectively until they need to be refreshed. Different scenarios will present players with different options, opportunities and objectives. Objectives are always a mixture of PvE and PvP goals and players will need to be aware of retaliation from monsters as well as attacks from other players. This brings me to something I consider a bit of a bugbear. I'm not a fan of games that mix PvE and PvP elements together, particularly in a game that aspires to be 'RPG-adjacent'. As someone who's played a lot of traditional RPGs, I find it grates a little because it's not something I want from a RPG. Having said that, the other players who don't have any RPG experience found it all enjoyable, so maybe I'm the outlier, Otherwise, I found Arcadia Quest sort of average, it plays well enough but I found nothing really engaging about it. It never felt like there was a clever strategy I could employ and there was a kind of inevitability to the gameplay. You spend your action to fight a monster or fight a player and doing one often meant the other could happen to you. I mean if one of you're heroes has been wounded by battling a monster, what better time for another play to target? I think this is why completing a PvE quest is mandatory to winning, otherwise the game would descend into total PvP combat. When thinking about it, Arcadia Quest ultimately seems like a mini-heavy, light-strategy skirmish wargame on a board with the veneer of RPG-adjacent gameplay. And truth be told; if I'm after a skirmish game, I feel there's plenty of better alternatives out there. There's nothing really wrong with Arcadia Quest and if you want a light strategy game (Which let me emphasise is no bad thing.) with accessible rules then it's worth a look. But it's not for me. 24th October 2021 We've logged into Board Game Arena for some Sunday night gaming. The first game of the night was The Crew: Mission Deep Sea. Clearly the lost continent of Mu has fascinated gamers since times immemorial, so what better than a game about discovering the sunken land: Or at least the plot for a very good trick taking game. What's in a game?
Quality-wise, they're all pretty average quality and what you'd expect. Artwork is repeated across the game's 4 main suits which are colour themed and tend to feature monochrome illustrations decorated in the suit's colour. The trump cards all feature submarines of progressively larger size. The task deck utilises a fair amount of iconography for objectives, mostly it's fairly clear, sometimes some smaller writing appears on a card to clarify, occasionally the rulebook had to be referred to, nothing game breaking. How's it play? Setup
On to play The Crew: Mission Deep Sea is a trick-taking game where one player starts a round by playing a card and the others must follow suit.
Endgame Players collectively win or lose at The Crew: Mission Deep Sea. Ultimately they win when all the missions have been completed. Overall
A friend described The Crew: Mission Deep Sea as whist with a twist and that's sort of accurate but barely describes how much of a good game this is. The task cards are what makes so good, there are 96 of them, providing a vast combination of objectives that can appear. Even if you complete the 30-odd missions in the logbook (Which could take a while!), there's nothing to stop players from just choosing a difficulty and playing! Players must always pay attention during missions, simple mistakes can very quickly end them and each one will provide a distinct randomly generated challenge to face - and pitfalls to avoid! Players will have to silently co-ordinate their efforts, task cards will force them to learn to exploit all the game's rules to be successful, they'll have to learn that winning a trick is not always the way they should go and at times not having the right suit is the right choice! I could spend ages going on about how we've played the game but instead i'll say: The Crew: Mission Deep Sea packs a lot of gameplay into a little package of what is essentially a couple of decks of cards and a handful of tokens. It's a game everyone should definitely try. 18th May 2021 Lockdown restrictions are easing and we're meeting at Simon's on a Tuesday IN PERSON for the first time THIS YEAR! Today's game was Arkham Horror: The Card Game, you too can have fun watching your character's inevitable spiral into madness as they get caught up in unsettling investigations and tangle with unspeakable Lovecraftian horrors through the medium of flipping over cards! What's in a game? The first thing to say about Arkham Horror: The Card Game is that it's actually a Living Card Game, what does this mean? It means it's a game that has lots of expansions, extra character decks, add-ons and so on. This is Simon's game and I have no idea what packs were used, but it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this blog post. Unsurprisingly, most of the game's components consist of various types of cards.
All of the tokens and cards are made to the typical quality that are expected from games nowadays. From the cards that I did get to see, they contain a lot of high quality artwork. Iconography is generally easy to read. How's it play? In Arkham Horror: The Card Game player's take the role of characters investigating into the Cthulhu Mythos through the form of scenarios and campaigns in a RPG-esque experience that shares the same setting as the seminal Call of Cthulhu RPG. Setup
On to play Broadly speaking, the objective for the investigators is to accumulate clue tokens by moving from location to location and also advancing the act deck. How is this done? Read on. In Arkham Horror: The Card Game, a round is divided into 4 phases.
Endgame Ending conditions will vary from scenario to scenario, generally play continues until the characters are defeated or certain conditions dictated by either the act or agenda deck are met. There are also various levels or winning or losing, depending on the scenario and what players accomplish during the game, this is especially true during campaign play, where different win or loss conditions will lead to different, branching scenarios as a result. Overall
Arkham Horror: The Card Game has some interesting gameplay dynamics, the exploration and investigation elements blend quite well the unpredictable changes brought about by the changing of the agenda and act decks. Players can't take anything for granted as twists and unexpected events occur. Challenges and enemies provided by the encounter deck are varied and interesting. Finally, I like how the chaos bag works, I like how it's stacked against the characters and playing skill and event cards is how tests are overcome, it's suitably pessimistic. I also like how the bag's effect on gameplay can be tailored and can evolve over a campaign. It's a nice mechanic. This brings me to the campaign play, campaign scenarios seem to feature at least 3-4 outcomes that influence the next scenario with interesting changes, which is pretty good. Characters also earn experience points from scenarios, these points can be used to buy better cards to swap into the player deck, progressively making characters better. Being a living card game, there are a lot of accessories, expansions and extra campaigns available to purchase, these can extend the game Rules-wise, there are a lot of rules in Arkham Horror: The Card Game about specific situations and events. Despite this, as a game it's actually in some ways fairly straightforward, player's have three actions to perform per round, that never quite feels like enough, which makes you have to prioritise and try to come up with optimal strategies, which is a good thing. However, like other games I've played that try to provide GM-less RPG-like gameplay, the game gets fiddly and complex when managing 'GM' elements and this seems to be where the bulk of the rules are applied, especially to enemy behaviour. It seems like a lot of effort for what somehow ultimately feels a little bit like average gameplay. The rules and glossary run to over 30 pages, in contrast, there're Cthulhu Mythos inspired pen and paper RPGS that have lower page counts. That's not to say I didn't enjoy playing Arkham Horror: The Card Game because I did, I'm just glad that I played with someone familiar with the game. |
AuthorI play, I paint. Categories
All
Archives
February 2026
|