Blood on the Clock Tower was a very fun game in class. The hardest part of the game for me was understanding my role. Unlike werewolf, the roles were more complex, and it was hard to understand not only your role but also other people’s roles. You have to be a leader in this game because you have to speak out against people you disagree with. I think my family would love this game because they like complex games and love to compete with one another.
In class, our session of the game was very fun. My thoughts on the game were positive, but I still liked Werewolf better. What I really liked about this game was that when someone got eliminated, they could still participate in the game. This made it fun for everyone and kept the game active. In my session, the bad team ended up winning.
Overall, Blood on the Clocktower is a fun game I would definitely recommend to people. You gain experience from playing the game. I feel like if I played this game more, I would have a lot more fun. I got the role of a mayor, which I didn’t really know how to use. I recommend everyone to at least try playing the game once; you won’t regret it.
The game “werewolf” was my favorite game of the year. The hardest part of the game was trying to gain trust in people. Another hard part was trying to figure out who you could trust. This game teaches leadership by forcing you to speak up to the group about what you know. You want to do this because you want to try to figure out who is the werewolf.
I think my close friend group of 5 people would love this game. We are all so close and competitive so it would make the game a lot of fun. The game session I played in was very fun. I got the role of cupid which was very interesting. I loved being on the good team because I didn’t have to bluff. I didn’t get out, but the only thing I didn’t like was once you were out you were out for good.
Overall, the session went very well. One example of risk I saw in the game was when someone was exposing the werewolves, the next night they would get killed. This kind of made you scared to speak out because you didn’t want to be eliminated next. I was less likely to take risks because it was my first time playing. I wouldn’t say it was similar to how I approach things in leadership because I usually take risks.
T.I.M.E Stories was introduced to me in EDL 290T at Miami university, and it was the first time I genuinely felt like I was playing a video game in the form of a board game! It felt intricate, explorative, and unpredictable, all in the ways a video game does. It had an explorative map, and my group made the most of that aspect.
I played with a few other classmates, Two of which had played before. However, we were all new to the scenario we were put in for this class period. This game took place in a 1900s insane asylum, and took us almost three hours (and two attempts) to get close to beating. Spoiler alert, we got to the very last step in the attempt, and chose wrong, and lost it all.
Tying this to the class’s goal of applying leadership, I found that all our group members put forth their in game characters best foot forward when needed. Ex) Our most physical player took charge of almost every fight (besides a few that I foolishly took on by myself), I was very resilient to damage, so I often traveled with our weaker characters to ensure no one died. This game was just like college, in that the hardest part for our group was time management! It was incredibly difficult to manage our time while making sure we covered everything in each room of the game that we needed, because backtracking would almost certainly mean our demise.
Overall, T.I.M.E Stories was a great game for my first time, and I would highly recommend this to a first time board game hobbyist!
Blood on the clocktower and Werewolf are social deduction games that require deception and critical thinking. In the games we must analyze each others behavior and watch what secrets we let out. In both games the players take on secret roles which are supposed to stay hidden from everyone around you. There are two teams the good and evil team and the goal is to try and vote the bad team out. Communication is key when it comes to both these games since the goal is to deceive other players or prove your innocence so you don’t get voted out. In both games improvisation and manipulation are key to get things to go in the way that you want them to.
These two games are very similar but they have some major differences that completely change the flow of the game. In Werewolf once a player has been eliminated they are forced to sit and watch the rest of the game play out without any input on how the game should play out. Blood on the clocktower allows the player to continue to engage with players as well as have one vote that they can use at any point. There is also a storyteller in BOTC which doesn’t appear at all in Werewolf. To me I think this makes it far more fun and harder for players to be able to trust all the information given. Lastly werewolf has a wide range of abilities but many people are just villagers that don’t have any special activities they can use. In blood on the clocktower though everyone has a role that they can use and this makes it more fun to trade and share information with each other,
I personally enjoyed Blood on the Clocktower more than Werewolf since it offered far more complexity. It also made it easier for people to trade info since you do by choosing someone to talk to. I also enjoyed how many roles there are that offer players more options to find out information and feel like they have an important role. I personally would also love to be the story teller at some point for it because it sounds fun to put a game together that tricks and confuses people.
Our group completed the puzzles and won the game! We worked together to solve the riddles and combined our different skills and ideas. In this experience it was important to realize when it was best to stick together versus split up. You have a limited amount of time units to complete the game. If you do not you have to restart or possibly lose the entire game. While we made mistakes and followed the wrong leads at times, we were the only group able to “win” in the time allotted. T.I.M.E. stories require players to assume many different team roles. Sometimes certain characters are better fitted to tasks than others, sometimes you must pair up in order to complete challenges. There are moments when the entire team must be present to even begin a round, fight, objective. While there are certain situations in which one person became the natural leader, all players must use leadership, communication, and compromise to succeed. For example, to move to a different location the entire team must agree. My team generally did a good job talking out concerns or motivations with choosing locations. Even when there was discourse my group stayed respectful and calm enough to correct any mistakes made. I believe this would be a great game for my friends or any friend group to play. It is dissimilar to most games I have played but I found it very enjoyable. It is complex and frustrating at times, but it is full of interesting twists and requires you to problem solve. I was lucky to play with such a great and cohesive team, but I believe this game would be fun to play with anyone who is willing to cooperate and make mistakes.
Our session of T.I.M.E Stories was an intriguing and layered experience, one that felt more like participating in an board game style escape room than playing a traditional board game. We played The Asylum, the base scenario that drops players into a 1920s mental institution where our team of temporal agents had to investigate a mysterious anomaly. Each of us “inhabited” the body of a patient in the asylum, navigating a branching narrative filled with cryptic puzzles, tense encounters, and decisions with long-term consequences. The session was intense and cerebral—we had to balance managing our limited temporal units (time) with uncovering the right clues to solve the scenario. Our group was immersed for several hours, with a mix of trial and error, frantic note-taking, and heated debates over which path to pursue next.
The hardest part of the game was unquestionably managing the scarcity of time and information. T.I.M.E Stories is unforgiving when it comes to decision-making—every choice eats up valuable resources, and we often found ourselves second-guessing whether we should revisit certain rooms or press on blindly. The feeling of knowing you don’t have enough time to explore every corner or correct past mistakes created a constant tension. Communication and delegation of tasks among our group were critical, but even with good teamwork, we occasionally stumbled into dead ends or wasted turns chasing red herrings.
From a leadership perspective, T.I.M.E Stories offers a fascinating sandbox. The game naturally calls for someone to synthesize disparate information, set priorities, and guide group consensus—all fundamental leadership skills. Our group rotated leadership informally, with different players stepping up depending on whose character had relevant knowledge or insight at the time. This dynamic mirrors real-world leadership scenarios where adaptive leadership and listening are more effective than rigid hierarchy. The game also reinforces the importance of shared vision—without collective buy-in, we risked splintering our focus and wasting precious time.
I firmly believe my college friend Dylan would enjoy this game immensely. Knowing his love for deep narratives, puzzle-solving, and collaborative strategizing, T.I.M.E Stories hits all the right notes. The game rewards analytical thinkers who enjoy connecting dots and theorizing about unfolding storylines. Plus, Dylan’s natural curiosity and ability to read between the lines would make him an asset to any T.I.M.E Stories team. He would likely appreciate the immersive world-building and the sense of accomplishment that comes from piecing together the larger mystery.
Personally, I wasn’t the biggest fan of the game in the short time I got to play it. But I really liked the rich atmosphere and narrative immersion—the artwork, the unfolding story, and the feeling of being inside a time-traveling mystery gave it a distinct flavor I haven’t found in many other games. What I didn’t enjoy as much was the sometimes punitive nature of the trial-and-error mechanic; failing and having to restart parts of the game can feel discouraging and repetitive. Overall though, our session went as well as we could make it.
the end of class if you wish to submit one. This week we played T.I.M.E. Stories. This roleplaying, dice-rolling, mystery game is an exciting group experience. You and your fellow players are undercover agents travelling through time. You inhabit the bodies of asylum patients in the 1920s where you are finding clues towards a time-altering event you were instructed to prevent. The hardest part of this game was decision making. As a group you must reach a consensus about where to travel and in smaller pairs or even individually you must make choices that alter events. Some information could be bought with your precious time units and sometimes you had to trust the roll of a die to determine your fate. Our group did a good job making unified decisions and learning from any mistakes we made along the way. I think this contributed to the comfortable atmosphere of collaboration and learning throughout our gameplay. In this game there was an official leader however most decisions relied on communication and cooperation from the entire team. Different characters possessed different skill sets and it was important to make sure the best suited person completed a task. My one critique of this game was its theme. While I enjoyed the game immensely, it does perpetuate the ableist “crazy asylum” trope that can be harmful to the disabled and mentally ill communities. To some degree it is the reality of the time period in which you are playing, however it still pokes fun at stereotypes. That being said, this game is great for a group of people and I could see my friends and I really enjoying this game. I know there is another story/setting which I would be interested in playing. The escape-room vibes made me think of a particular friend group and I would like to see which characters they gravitate towards and what decisions they make.
Both Blood on the Clocktower and Werewolf are social deduction games that involve players trying to identify hidden roles within a group, using bluffing, deduction, and strategic interaction. However, they each have unique characteristics and mechanisms that distinguish them.
Blood on the Clocktower
Positives: Complex Roles & Abilities: Blood on the Clocktower offers a variety of roles, each with special abilities. Some roles can actively influence the game in interesting ways, such as protecting players, gathering information, or misleading others. This adds layers of complexity and strategy.
Multiple Game Phases: The game’s structure includes multiple phases, including a “night” phase where players secretly choose actions, and a “day” phase for discussion and voting. This allows for more dynamic play, as there’s more opportunity for players to influence the outcome, even if they are not directly involved in eliminations.
Story-Driven: The game is more narrative-driven, with a strong emphasis on the characters’ backstories and motivations. This makes the game more immersive, and players often become invested in the roles they play.
Flexibility for Larger Groups: Blood on the Clocktower can accommodate a large number of players (up to 20+), which makes it ideal for larger groups, ensuring everyone has a meaningful role.
Negatives: More Complicated Setup: The game has a steeper learning curve, especially for new players. The roles, abilities, and the game structure can be hard to explain and grasp without a bit of practice.
Time-Consuming: The game can take longer to play compared to Werewolf, particularly if you have a large group. This might be a drawback for groups that prefer quicker, more fast-paced games.
Requires a Moderator: The game often requires a dedicated moderator to help facilitate the game, which can be a downside if you don’t have someone experienced enough to manage the roles and pace.
Favorite Parts: The Complexity of Roles: I love the wide variety of roles and abilities, which allows for a lot of creative play and strategy. It also makes it harder to predict what will happen next, keeping the game fresh and exciting.
Storytelling: I enjoy how the game builds a narrative, and the role-playing aspect adds a lot of flavor to the experience.
Least Favorite Parts: The Setup: The learning curve can be a bit steep, and explaining all the different roles and their abilities can take up valuable playtime.
Werewolf Positives: Simple Rules: Werewolf has relatively simple rules that are easy to explain, making it accessible to a wide range of players, including those who are new to social deduction games.
Faster Gameplay: Werewolf is typically faster-paced than Blood on the Clocktower, making it ideal for shorter gaming sessions. The games are more fluid and can easily be played in a shorter amount of time.
Great for Larger Groups: Like Blood on the Clocktower, Werewolf can also accommodate large groups (up to 20+ players), but because of its simpler mechanics, it’s often easier to manage with more players.
Tension and Misdirection: The core concept of Werewolf—villagers trying to figure out who the werewolves are while the werewolves deceive everyone—is simple yet full of tension. This makes the game thrilling, particularly when you have a mix of new and experienced players.
Negatives: Limited Role Variety: While there are some variations with special roles (like Seer or Doctor), Werewolf typically doesn’t have as many complex roles as Blood on the Clocktower. This can make the game feel repetitive after a few rounds.
Less Strategic Depth: The lack of complex roles means that the game focuses more on social interaction and less on strategy. This might be a downside for players who enjoy more tactical decision-making.
More Dependent on Player Behavior: In Werewolf, much of the game’s success depends on the players’ ability to bluff and read social cues, which can sometimes lead to frustration if players are not as engaged or invested.
Favorite Parts: Simplicity: I enjoy how easy it is to jump into a game of Werewolf. There’s no long setup, and it’s quick to get started.
High Tension: The social interaction and the excitement of trying to figure out who the werewolves are always make for an exciting experience.
Least Favorite Parts: Repetitiveness: After a few rounds, the game can feel predictable, especially with the limited number of roles. The lack of diversity in roles can make the game less engaging over time.
Which Do I Like More? While both games have their merits, I personally enjoy Blood on the Clocktower more. The variety of roles and the ability to shape the game through the use of different powers and abilities adds a level of depth that Werewolf lacks. The narrative and storytelling aspect also make Blood on the Clocktower feel more immersive. However, I do appreciate Werewolf for its simplicity and fast-paced nature, especially when I want a quicker, more casual game.
In summary:
Blood on the Clocktower wins in terms of complexity, role variety, and the depth of the game.
Werewolf wins for being fast, easy to learn, and fun for larger groups, though it can feel repetitive over time.
It really depends on the mood—Blood on the Clocktower is ideal for more strategic and immersive gameplay, while Werewolf is great for quick, tension-filled rounds with a larger group.
My recent play session of Ticket to Ride was a dynamic and engaging experience that brought strategy and competition. We each started with destination tickets, aiming to build the most efficient train routes across the board while blocking opponents whenever possible. The game quickly became a balancing act between completing our own routes and anticipating the moves of others. Some players focused on long connections for big points, while others built short but strategic paths to maximize efficiency. The tension rose as the board filled with trains, limiting available routes and forcing last-minute decisions that could make or break a strategy.
The hardest part of Ticket to Ride was managing risk whether to take more destination tickets for potential extra points or play it safe with the ones in hand. Deciding when to claim routes was also tricky, as waiting too long meant risking being blocked by an opponent. This made forward-thinking crucial, as a single blocked path could derail an entire plan. Additionally, the randomness of the drawn destination tickets added an element of unpredictability, requiring players to adjust their strategies on the fly.
From a leadership perspective, the game emphasizes strategic planning, resource management, and adaptability. These are all key traits of an effective leader. Players must balance short-term actions with long-term goals while responding to unexpected challenges, much like leaders navigating real-world obstacles. Furthermore, the ability to observe opponents’ moves and predict their strategies is similar to how leaders must analyze competitors and market trends to stay ahead. Ticket to Ride also highlights the importance of making calculated risks—whether in business or gameplay, taking chances at the right time can lead to great rewards.
I believe Ticket to Ride would appeal to a wide range of players, especially those who enjoy strategy-based games like Catan or Risk. People who appreciate planning, problem-solving, and a bit of friendly competition would find the game rewarding. Additionally, casual board game players who prefer accessible yet deep gameplay would enjoy it, as the rules are easy to learn but the strategy can be complex. Overall, I found the session both challenging and entertaining, and I would definitely play again, perhaps trying different strategies to refine my approach.
