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.
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.
This week in class we got to play Blood on the Clocktower. I had been waiting for this one! Clocktower is one of my favorite games and I always love getting to experience playing it with new people. As far as social deduction games go, I prefer the experience Clocktower provides way more than any other game in the genre. I never enjoyed the player elimination aspect of other social deduction games. It felt bad on both sides of the spectrum. If you were good and got out early, you didn’t get to play the game. If you’re evil, you have to pick who you don’t want to play the game anymore. Clocktower’s ruleset, while higher on the scale of complexity, allows everyone to be included at all phases of the game. It also makes being evil easier for some as there is less guilt over eliminating other players.
A special quirk about Clocktower is the hightened importance of the Storyteller (the person running the game). I’ve been the Storyteller many times for my own play group, and I can say that the decision making aspect of the job can be really tricky at times! You are tasked with being the ultimate mediator, balancing both sides of the game to create the most interesting matches. This requires a very specific mindset. You have to learn to be impartial (for the most part) and create the best play environment for everyone.
Very rarely do I get to be the player and I thought that I was making the most of this opportunity… only to inadvertaintly lose the game for my team in both games we played. To anyone that didn’t believe, I apologize! Incorrect social reads got the better of me. A fun part of the puzzle of Clocktower is balancing out the ‘trustworthiness” you’re reading off of the other players and the actual info your character is getting. For example, in my second game, we had a Spy get very comfortable on the Good team because they both appeared to be Good when checked by three other people and read Good socially. When that happens, there’s not much else a player can do to work out that they’re getting duped, especially if they’ve been the Drunk the whole time (which I was)!
Overall, I suggest that everyone give Clocktower a try at least once, especially if you didn’t like other social deduction games for their player elimination aspects. I’d HIGHLY recommend it for people who have already played a fair number of tabletop games and want something that they can keep coming back to over and over.
This week we played Blood on the Clocktower. This detailed role playing game involved deception, planning, and organization. Having never played this game before, I struggled to keep track of each possible role. Not all roles in the game were present in our round due to the number of players, but most roles had the potential to be present. I was selected to be the demon’s minion. I was a poisoner who once per night could interfere with another player’s ability. There were two teams in the game, the good and the evil. Of course, we did not know who was on each team. The goal is to discover each person’s role and for the good, find the demon and for the demon, kill the townsfolk. The game is divided into night and day. During the night action occurs from poisoning, murders, and divine intervention. During the day the town could interact, find information, and vote for someone to be executed. There were additional complexities such as the role of the drunk who would believe they were a townsfolk and claim such, but in reality were not. When the demon is killed, the minion assumes their role. This happened to me in our game. It may be obvious from my scattered explanation that the most difficult part of this game was keeping track of all the details and changing information.Despite mixing up details I managed to feign innocence for long enough to win the game. An example of leadership I experienced personally was when I completely gave away my status as an evil character in the second round. Rather than expose my allegiances, a fellow player let the mistake slip because he had made similar errors when he first played this game. He could have won the game early but instead he chose to help me learn without embarrassment or judgement. I believe this would be a fun game for parties, however it would be helpful if at least one person playing was able to help with the rules. Maybe it would be beneficial to play a practice round to ensure that everyone understands the many roles. I personally had trouble with this, but I imagine this would get easier the more you play the game. Overall, this was an enjoyable experience and I would love to play again.
I thoroughly enjoyed playing Decorum. I have not played many board games that had similar premises to this one. In this game the players are decorating a house together. Each player has specific design objectives they must reach and together the team must create a space that satisfies the needs of everyone. Rather than stating what you need, you must make sly comments and use compliments or passive aggressive comments to communicate your contentment with the current design. So while this game centers around communication, everything is indirect and thus you must try to keep track of each person’s specific reactions, comments, facial expressions, and body language. This game is deceptively simplistic and I remember one of my group members commented early on that we were going to complete the game within minutes of starting. In the end, we did not even finish the game despite having the entire class period dedicated to its gameplay. There was not necessarily a designated leader in this game, but rather we seemed to divide into pairs who would work together. Throughout the game there were several heart-to-heart discussions in which we could share information with one other player. I am unsure what the best way to share information would have been, but we mostly shared with a partner who would then work to try to meet both of our needs when completing their turn. In some ways this was extremely advantageous as we could cooperate to progress further in each of our individual turns. At the same time, not having any information concerning the other pairs’ needs led to a lot of undoing of each pair’s progress. The frustration and miscommunication that resulted from this unequal information was the most challenging part, however it also seemed to drive our motivation to succeed. Overall, I enjoyed this game because it was intellectually interesting because you had to keep track of many details and think about different possibilities in order to complete a “simple” task. There was unequal information however the goal is to work together rather than to sabotage one another. I think this game would be a useful exercise for people who do not know each other well but must work together in a group or on a project of some sort. It forces you to be aware of each other’s communication styles and be patient and thoughtful with each action rather than simply trying to do what will help you individually succeed.
The freeplay game my group chose was Ticket to Ride. My favorite part of this game was actually the setup because our group was able to discuss the different rules that each of us grew up with. One group member had actually learned to play by the book rules, however the rest of us had learned family variations of the game. For this reason, Izzy (who actually knew the original rules) was selected to be the “leader” of the group. To be completely honest, we did not finish this game. We were often distracted and caught up in conversations about our memories of family board game nights and catching up with each other in general. So Ticket to Ride was not necessarily the main priority of our gaming session, but coming together for board game night was the motivating factor that led us to connect with each other after it had been quite a while. So while I do not have an epic Ticket to Ride story to recount in the future, the game brought us together which I believe is equally valuable as an epic gameplay experience. Most of our actual gameplay came through via setup, understanding the directions, and playing practice rounds. We did work together to help each other learn the “correct” directions as well as the ones we remembered from playing the game growing up. If we were to attempt this game again in the future, I believe we would be able to actually play a more substantial game of Ticket to Ride. I learned that this game is more enjoyable than I had previously experienced. When I had plaed this game, it was in ginormous groups and the game took a very long time. Apparently, when played with only a few people this game is much less challenging. This makes sense but I had honestly been avoiding the game due to only playing it a certain way growing up. I believe this game is good for smaller groups and since it is such a classic game, it can be interesting to try out different “house rules.” I think that the less competitive version of the rules that my friend Jackie grew up with would be great for younger players or for casual nights where you want to encourage more communication over competition.
This week we finished our game of Fiasco! Once again the hardest part was getting the act started, but once we began the scenes flew by. Our scene pace was much faster in the second act, as we began to resolve the conflicts. This act was far more action packed and full of twists and turns. In the second act there are two twists selected ahead of gameplay. Our twists involved plans going wrong and someone going on an uncontrollable rampage. I think that we struggled a bit more with communication and pacing this week. Part of this was simply due to having less setup needed before getting into the game. As far as communication, I am not sure why we seemed less in sync this week but I’m sure it was just a natural variation in how we interacted. As the story approached its conclusion, it seemed there were less options for how to manipulate the plot, however there were several surprise events. I loved the improvisation aspect of this game because it encouraged creativity and discouraged obvious endings. For example, there were many surprise double-agents in the second act of the game. It was fun to see how each teammate would respond to each other and the plot developments. In our specific case, it seemed everyone but my character was secretly involved in the illegal fur trade mystery that defined our narrative. As we discussed at the conclusion of class, it can be difficult to navigate situations in which each person has a different opinion on how to proceed. This was not a huge issue for us, but there were some moments where our miscommunication was leading to a bit of frustration when we probably should have taken a step back to get back on the same page. We did manage to keep the game going, but in hindsight it may have been better to simply fully pause the game to have a conversation instead of trying to push through gameplay while explaining ideas. Overall, I enjoyed this game experience and how every player had the opportunity to lead scenes. It allowed for every individual player to experience being an actor, director, script writer, producer, etc. This game encourages you to go out of your comfort zone and try new things. Teamwork is necessary and yet everyone gets to have a stake in the plot and major decisions being made. Fiasco highlights the importance of leading as well as being active listeners and followers. This game would be good as an acting exercise or a way to teach communication and the different roles in a team. While cooperation may not have meant agreeing on the same plot, it was important to be able to interact with one another to progress the story. I had a great time playing this game and getting to know my classmates!
We played Sushi Go!, a card drafting game in which you collect various sushi dishes in order to gain points. Each person starts with a hand of cards from which they strategically select a meal in hopes of accruing points. These cards sometimes have set point values but many have value only when combined with other cards or when certain stipulations are fulfilled. After selecting your card you pass your deck face-down to the person on your left. When cards run out, the points are counted and the round is over. The winner is determined after three rounds. The most difficult part of this playthrough actually had little to do with the game itself. We had to restart multiple times for various reasons which meant it was hard to get through a full game. Once we got the hang of it, the game was very fun and fast-paced. I would probably recommend having a practice round in which you can see the cards and directions to get used to each of the card’s meanings. My group got into it and ended up having some close scores. There was not necessarily a leader in this game, but we did work together to get used to the game. It was more about creating a space where we could all ask questions and have fun. This game would be fun for a party or group of friends. I liked that there was an element of strategy and sabotage while still being a lighthearted game. For example, if you knew someone to your left had a wasabi card, you could hoard the nigiri cards so that they could not gain extra points. It was fun to be able to figure out the game as a group and see what strategies each member gravitated towards. For example, some tried to have the most puddings or maki rolls while others tried to stack dumpling cards. There are so many options to choose from when crafting your ideal hand. So if you’re wanting a fun party game, Sushi Go! is a great choice!
We played the role playing game: Fiasco. My group chose to play the Ice edition, however there are different “playsets” or settings to choose from. This game relies heavily on character building and player decision making. As is the case with many role playing games, the hardest part was actually getting started. When reading through the directions and setting up the game, it seems a bit overwhelming. Many decisions are made before gameplay occurs and these initial choices will impact the plot, characters, and relationships of the entire game. All this to say that game setup was a daunting task and I felt a bit unsure how to initiate the improvisation scenes. Once we actually dove into the gameplay the experience was much less intimidating and seemed to flow naturally. I enjoyed the player interaction and the way that we bounced ideas off of each other to create a scene. It reminded me of the improv game “yes and” in which players do not reject each other’s ideas but rather add to and twist their interpretations. Some of my classmates expressed their preferences for games in which there is more randomness and less player decision. Personally, I felt like this game had randomness because you never knew how your teammates would react or interpret a scene. Fiasco requires communication and cooperation between characters, while leaving room for individuals to create unexpected plot twists. One thing that makes this game unique, is the need for different players to take a leadership role depending on the scenario. This ensured that all players were able to take charge of certain parts of the overarching storyline. I believe that our gameplay went pretty well as we were able to trust each other and have fun with our situations. I believe this game would help with confidence in acting classes while making sure that all players got to design, participate, and lead certain scenes.
This week, we were given an overview of various types of board game mechanics and then given free reign to choose one of the many different games scattered about the room to play. Initially I gravitated towards Vagrant Song for its very unique art, but a glance at the rules revealed that it would take quite a while to learn. Instead, I ended up playing The Crew with 2 other students.
The Crew is a co-operative trick-taking game which has some campaign elements to it. I was very interested to see how it was possible to make a co-op trick taking game as the concept initially did not seem feasible! I mean, how is it possible to have a game mechanic built on beating all of your opponents mesh nicely into a co-op experience? Well, after playing The Crew, I have to say that they did a pretty phenomenal job.
The Crew solves the issue by giving the players various goals that they either must complete or avoid completing, such as winning a trick using a specific card or not winning any cards of a specific suit. From here, it is up to the players to work together to play their cards in such a specific sequence as to complete all of the goals assigned to them. Winning each individual trick has little purpose; it’s all about those GOALS!
One player is assigned the role of Captain and gets to choose the first goal as well as play the first hand of the game. The Captain typically ends up setting the pace for the round by nature of choosing that first goal, as every other player must then work around that choice. The game prevents most forms of communication so a lot of the time you are working off gut feelings and card counting. In my opinion, a smart captain will choose a goal that will be difficult for the other members of the team to complete rather than a goal that is easiest for them to complete.
Overall I would say that the game isn’t for many people. While I enjoyed the mechanics presented, it felt like a novelty after a few rounds. The limited communication aspects really soured the experience for me, as I wanted to coordinate more with my team than I actually could. Without being able to talk, sometimes it felt like some goals were completely unachievable.
