The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Among the Stars
Mage Knight: Board Game
Dominion: Dark Ages
Targi
Mice and Mystics
Eclipse
Ace of Spies
The Big Bang Theory: The Party Game
Thunder Road
Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)
Virgin Queen
Lords of Waterdeep
Omen: A Reign of War
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)
1984: Animal Farm
Android: Netrunner
Dominion
Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game
Village
Fantastiqa
Pirate Dice: Voyage on the Rolling Seas
Twilight Struggle
Eselsbrücke
The New Science
Hawaii
Nefarious
Kingdom Builder
1989: Dawn of Freedom
Vegas
Dungeon Command: Sting of Lolth
Agricola
7 Wonders
Arkham Horror
Ora et Labora
Quarriors! Quarmageddon
War of the Ring
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Glory to Rome
Hemloch
K2
Trajan
Zombicide
Gladiatori
The Castles of Burgundy
Tammany Hall
Dominant Species
Terrain Game
Race for the Galaxy
Skyline

A Gnome's Ponderings

I'm a gamer. I love me some games and I like to ramble about games and gaming. So, more than anything else, this blog is a place for me to keep track of my ramblings. If anyone finds this helpful or even (good heavens) insightful, so much the better.
Recommend
27 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up

How Battlestar Galactica taught me to appreciate Shadows over Camelot

Lowell Kempf
United States
Chicago
Illinois
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I should explain, before I go any further, that I am really not much of a cooperative gamer. I have tried very hard to like them. After all, isn’t the social model of a cooperative one that we should all strive for, the power of friendship and working together? But, no, I prefer straight up competition for my fun.

That said, I’ll play anything at least once and I am a social gamer whose enjoyment in games comes at least partially from the people I’m playing with.

Up until Shadows over Camelot, the only cooperative I had played was Knizia’s Lord of the Rings. While it was pretty scripted, it was also a brutal game that was tough for us to beat. It might have felt more like a puzzle than a game to me but it was a tough nut to crack and challenged us.

Shadows was flashy and had the Werewolf-like traitor mechanism. However, I felt that, as a puzzle, it was a lot easier to solve than Lord of the Rings. Beating Lord of the Rings felt like an accomplishment. Beating Shadows felt more like living up to expectations, even with the traitor fighting against you. On the off-chance no one drew the traitor card, beating the game often felt trivially easy.

That being said, while I never got my own copy of Shadows over Camelot, I still got a lot of plays in. And for all the disdain my snobbish self had for Shadows over Camelot, I have to admit that I regularly had fun with it, as did everyone else.

When Battlestar Galactica game out, I played it and I felt like it was the game that I thought I had wanted Shadows over Camelot to be. It was a much more difficult game to beat with a lot more intrinsic tension built in. It was much harder to call someone out as the traitor so the social interaction was filled a lot more tension and uncertainty.

And, in its defense, I have to say that the board game captures the feel of the first two seasons of the television show very well with an almost overwhelming sense of paranoia and desperation. Players have to choose their fights carefully since they can’t win every challenge. Battlestar Galactica is a game of trying to control your losses since it is often very hard to measure how much ground you may have gained.

I admired the design but, after a few plays, I noticed something.

I wasn’t having much fun.

Part of the problem was that every turn had a similar feeling of rinse and repeat. The game started to feel repetitive, particularly because your sense of accomplishment was limited. Only the admiral got to draw cards to see how far you went with every jump and even that gave me a muted sense of getting anything done.

In comparison, each quest in Shadows has its own feel, even if they all come down to ‘play a card’. As cards get laid down and as swords, both black and white, get placed on the table and catapults go out, Shadows over Camelot has a strong, dynamic sense of going forward, even if that movement is towards total defeat.

However, I think the real problem was how the traitor/cylon mechanism works in Battlestar Galactica. First of all, proving someone is a cylon is very difficult. This created an environment where people made constant accusations and no one wanted to work together. In a game like Diplomacy, not trusting each other is the name of the game. In a game where being divided pretty much spells the end of humanity, it just wasn’t much fun.

Yes, it fits the theme of the game like a glove. It makes sense and it works for what it is supposed to do. However, virtually every game of Battlestar Galactica I’ve been in has ended with people cranky and upset.

On top of that, when the cylons did get revealed and were able to revel in their options, they tended to crush the humans. For better or worse, we found that the best strategy to win the game was to draw the cylon card. In our plays, it took very strong human play to overcome even mediocre cylon play.

You could argue that me and my friends are just the wrong people for the game. And that’s a fair argument. After all, there are clearly folks who do enjoy the game. We just weren’t those people.

In the end, as much as I wanted to like Battlestar Galactica at least as much as I liked Shadows over Camelot, the simple truth of the matter is that every time we played Shadows, everyone had fun. On the other hand, every time we played Battlestar Galactica, at least half the table did not have fun. In the end, that has to be the deciding factor for me.
Twitter Facebook
8 Comments
Subscribe sub options Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:45 pm
Post Comment
Jason Miceli


msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Interesting. I post many blog articles on how much my group revels in BSG. I have only recently learned of Shadows, and I am very interested in trying it out. One concern I have, based only on what I've heard and read, is that in Shadows the game can be very unbalanced - sometimes there may be none, 1, or 2 hidden traitors. Is this completely true, and if so does the game attempt to balance that out in any way? Also, what happens when someone is "outed" - do they now have other game options once they become revealed?

I would very much like to try Shadows - just not sure I want to invest in it before I know for certain it will stick with my group.

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:27 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Darren Nakamura
United States
Tempe
Arizona
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jasonmiceli wrote:
Interesting. I post many blog articles on how much my group revels in BSG. I have only recently learned of Shadows, and I am very interested in trying it out. One concern I have, based only on what I've heard and read, is that in Shadows the game can be very unbalanced - sometimes there may be none, 1, or 2 hidden traitors. Is this completely true, and if so does the game attempt to balance that out in any way? Also, what happens when someone is "outed" - do they now have other game options once they become revealed?

I would very much like to try Shadows - just not sure I want to invest in it before I know for certain it will stick with my group.

Thanks!


With the base game, there is either zero or one traitor. I believe the expansion adds the possibility of a second traitor. However, you can't necessarily compare it to Battlestar, in that the two games have a much different balance. I have had traitor-free games of Shadows Over Camelot that have come close to defeat for the loyals, but I doubt that a fully cooperative game of Battlestar would be even close to as dire.

In Shadows Over Camelot, the traitor has a lot more incentive to remain hidden throughout the game, as he can effect a four point swing in favor of the game.

All that said, I really enjoy Shadows Over Camelot, but ever since I purchased Battlestar Galactica, I've played Shadows only once. Even though we see Cylons triumph over Humans about 80% of the time, it's never the case in my group that people are upset over the games when they're over. And then, it makes the Human victories that much sweeter when they do come around.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:32 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeff Dunford
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jasonmiceli wrote:
Interesting. I post many blog articles on how much my group revels in BSG. I have only recently learned of Shadows, and I am very interested in trying it out. One concern I have, based only on what I've heard and read, is that in Shadows the game can be very unbalanced - sometimes there may be none, 1, or 2 hidden traitors. Is this completely true, and if so does the game attempt to balance that out in any way? Also, what happens when someone is "outed" - do they now have other game options once they become revealed?

I would very much like to try Shadows - just not sure I want to invest in it before I know for certain it will stick with my group.

Thanks!


According to the rules as written, in an N player game, you should shuffle N "loyal" cards plus 1 "traitor" card, then hand these out. This way, the probability of no traitor is 1/(N+1), and the probability that there is a traitor is 1-[1/(N+1)].

However, if you want to force it, you can simply use N-1 "loyal" cards and 1 "traitor". But then, everyone knows there must be a traitor.

When playing the Merlin's Company expansion, there are 2 "traitor" cards. The rules suggest only using 2 "traitor" cards (and N-1 "loyal") with 8 players. This way, there is at least 1 traitor, and an 89% chance of 2 traitors. But again, if you want, you can simply force there to be 2 traitors.

My group played Shadows + Merlin's Company twice this past weekend with 7 players. We had 1 traitor in both plays. In the first play, we were destroyed in the shortest game I've played. We drew 4 "special" black cards in the first 5 draws, resulting in 4 black swords (and 0 white) by the time we'd all had 2 turns. At that point, several players hadn't been able to move from Camelot yet!

The second game wasn't so lop-sided, and with a minor re-do on the second-to-last turn, the heroes managed to pull off the win - with only 3 loyal knights still alive with 1 hit point each, 10 (of an allowed 12) siege engines around Camelot, and several quests requiring only 1 more black card to lose and give us the game-losing black sword. So the game isn't always easy... at least, not for us.

You can read this in the rules on Days of Wonder's site, but a traitor has limited options once outed. He/she steals a white card at random from a loyal knight, then either adds a seige engine or plays a black card. In our second game, the traitor had won "Lancelot's armour" while still impersonating a loyal knight, and thus was allowed to draw 2 black cards and choose which one to play - being particularly powerful for an exposed traitor. Also, prior to being outed, the traitor was able to add 2 black swords (due to a special card in play) by accusing a loyal knight...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:39 pm
  • Posted Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:39 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jon W
United States
Aurora
Colorado
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I enjoy both games. I like BSG more, but I have a much harder time getting it to the table, as it's longer, more complex, and thematically divisive (anyone enjoys the Arthur theme, however lightly applied, while BSG has only a niche appeal).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:48 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Darren Nakamura
United States
Tempe
Arizona
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iNano78 wrote:
According to the rules as written, in an N player game, you should shuffle N "loyal" cards plus 1 "traitor" card, then hand these out. This way, the probability of no traitor is 1/(N+1), and the probability that there is a traitor is 1-[1/(N+1)].


I believe the rules as written have you shuffling all eight loyalty cards regardless of the number of players, meaning there is a lower chance that there is a traitor with fewer players. In the variant section of the rule book, it talks about creating the loyalty deck how you describe it in order to increase the chance of a traitor.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:06 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
ackmondual
United States

Virginia
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
IIRC, if you add Merlin's Company exp, it's not just 8p where you'll have 1 to 2 traitors, but 7p as well.

As for a sense of accomplishment, I'd say taking 30 minutes to reach the end of the jump prep track when you have 2 basestars and 10+ raiders going after 5 civvies could count. Just like with the quests in SOC, sometimes it's really engrossing, othertimes, the obstacles aren't too bad.

I will give you that once the mistrust enters the equation (especially at sleeper phase, but even before then when 3 or more negative sjkill cards show up in a skill check), the game becomes more difficult, but that's really the point of it. In SOC, if you don't trust someone, the most you can do is accues them and see where their loyalties lie. Then other knights may suspect the accuser was the traitor and accuse him as well. Similar vicious circle. Otherwise, there's not much else to do about traitors.

From my observations, people get more upset in BSG than in SOC b/c BSG generall take an hour to 2 longer than SOC. That turns many people "antsy". Hell, I've heard stories where at the end of Diplomacy games, people REALLY WANTED TO punch other players!

Long story short, I'd rather play BSG than SOC, but if time's a factor, or poeple don't wanna play BSG without having the ideal 5, then I'd also gladly play SOC too. Preferably with MC exp, as I am burnt out on the base game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:17 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeff Dunford
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oops, I stand corrected. Sounds like my group has been playing Shadows Over Camelot on "hard mode" for N < 7, and Merlin's Company on "easy mode" (for 7 players, at least). Good to know.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:03 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ted Groth
United Kingdom
Whitefield
Lancs
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ackmondual wrote:
In SOC, if you don't trust someone, the most you can do is accues them and see where their loyalties lie. Then other knights may suspect the accuser was the traitor and accuse him as well. Similar vicious circle. Otherwise, there's not much else to do about traitors.
True, there is little else you can do to a suspected traitor directly, but the suspicion can influence how cards are split up when quests are completed, or traded among players such as through the use of Arthur's special power.
Often it is better not to accuse a suspected traitor until the game is nearly at an end, and instead try to force them into situations where they must behave as though loyal or risk revealing themselves, confirming your suspicions and taking away the risk of the later accusation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:50 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Subscribe

Categories

Contributors

Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.