$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 80.59

5,403 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
34% of Goal | 27 Days Left

Support:

Laos the Lurking
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Somewhere here in the forums I found an interesting variant.

During game setup, you take n*2-1 personal objectives (n = number of players) + 1 betrayer objective shuffled in between. Then you deal out two cards to every player, so one of them has a normal objective card AND the betrayer card. This player may then choose which role he or she likes to play (the other players just choose their preferred objective I suppose).

This seems to be a very nice opportunity for players who might feel uncomfortable with playing the betrayer role (either new players or those how just don't like being the "evil" part)
On the other hand, I fear that this also strongly effects the way, people search for a possible betrayer, since they would only take those players into consideration who like playing the "bad guy" role in general.

What do you think of this variant? Can it work or will it steal something of the paranoia, as there are typical players who might always accept/deny the betrayer role anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brett Lamb

Washington
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, one player will know with certainty there is no betrayer if they make that choice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexandre Santos
Belgium
Brussels
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Another problem is that by choosing to be a betrayer, there might be more opportunity of "bad blood" during a game, whereas if you just got a card betrayer you are not "responsible" for it, and are just "playing the game" while viciously backstabbing your friends arrrh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laos the Lurking
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Harbinjer wrote:
Also, one player will know with certainty there is no betrayer if they make that choice.


Good point! I did not see that. This is truely difficult. So if the player chooses to be NOT the betrayer, he still would have to play a shady game so that the others have the tension and uncertainty if there is a betrayer in game or not.

AlexFS wrote:
Another problem is that by choosing to be a betrayer, there might be more opportunity of "bad blood" during a game, whereas if you just got a card betrayer you are not "responsible" for it, and are just "playing the game" while viciously backstabbing your friends arrrh


That is a good point, too, but won't be a problem for my playing group.

Nevertheless, the thing with the knowledge of a betrayer-free game seems to be a real drawback for this variant
Maybe someone finds a solution to handle this. But I don't see how this could work ...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lear
United Kingdom
Lewes
Sussex
flag msg tools
With skill his story will unfold
mbmbmb
Harbinjer wrote:
Also, one player will know with certainty there is no betrayer if they make that choice.


And all players will have the opportunity to claim that certainty... I think it could be interesting. With the people I play with, there would be very little chance of a non-betrayer game arising.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davy Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's an evil solution -- include two Betrayer cards. That way, if someone gets one and decides to not be the betrayer, they still don't know if someone else chose the other one.

If anyone is dealt both of the Betrayer cards, they have to announce it and do a re-deal.

Now, of course, this means that it's possible to have two Betrayers in the game. I did say "evil"...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
Merlin
mbmbmbmbmb
If I played this variant, I'd simply #hardclaim the fact that I was dealt the normal objective and the betrayer objective, because this would help me win. And that wouldn't be fun for anyone.

See also https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/hardclaim
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davy Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
clydeiii wrote:
If I played this variant, I'd simply #hardclaim the fact that I was dealt the normal objective and the betrayer objective, because this would help me win. And that wouldn't be fun for anyone.

See also https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/hardclaim


Do you mean that whether or not you were actually dealt one of each, you would say that you were, and you wouldn't say which one you chose?

I want to start a band called Hardclaim.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
Merlin
mbmbmbmbmb
randomlife wrote:
clydeiii wrote:
If I played this variant, I'd simply #hardclaim the fact that I was dealt the normal objective and the betrayer objective, because this would help me win. And that wouldn't be fun for anyone.

See also https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/hardclaim


Do you mean that whether or not you were actually dealt one of each, you would say that you were, and you wouldn't say which one you chose?

I want to start a band called Hardclaim.
I would always choose to be loyal, because the game is much easier when everyone can trust everyone else and work together.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lear
United Kingdom
Lewes
Sussex
flag msg tools
With skill his story will unfold
mbmbmb
clydeiii wrote:
randomlife wrote:
clydeiii wrote:
If I played this variant, I'd simply #hardclaim the fact that I was dealt the normal objective and the betrayer objective, because this would help me win. And that wouldn't be fun for anyone.

See also https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/hardclaim


Do you mean that whether or not you were actually dealt one of each, you would say that you were, and you wouldn't say which one you chose?

I want to start a band called Hardclaim.
I would always choose to be loyal, because the game is much easier when everyone can trust everyone else and work together.


I would always choose to be a betrayer, because it's fun, and a rarity. And then I would hardclaim (good word) that I was loyal and had only loyal choices... then wait while everyone else hardclaims the same thing... and then we could actually start the game.

This is a game where losing is sometimes more fun than winning.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davy Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
clydeiii wrote:
randomlife wrote:
clydeiii wrote:
If I played this variant, I'd simply #hardclaim the fact that I was dealt the normal objective and the betrayer objective, because this would help me win. And that wouldn't be fun for anyone.

See also https://boardgamegeek.com/tag/hardclaim


Do you mean that whether or not you were actually dealt one of each, you would say that you were, and you wouldn't say which one you chose?

I want to start a band called Hardclaim.
I would always choose to be loyal, because the game is much easier when everyone can trust everyone else and work together.


My suggestion for this variant would be to not allow anyone to claim anything about the objectives they drew. As you say, the game would get a lot easier if someone piped up every time they got one of each. For one thing, there's no incentive for someone that drew two loyal objectives to claim that one of their cards is a betrayer card. So this means that the one person that does claim it could certainly be trusted to be telling the truth about it.

There's still a doubt as to which card that person will take, but at that point, all of the other players know that at least they can trust each other, which is pretty huge in this game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laos the Lurking
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Harbinjer wrote:
Also, one player will know with certainty there is no betrayer if they make that choice.

randomlife wrote:
Here's an evil solution -- include two Betrayer cards. That way, if someone gets one and decides to not be the betrayer, they still don't know if someone else chose the other one.

If anyone is dealt both of the Betrayer cards, they have to announce it and do a re-deal.

Now, of course, this means that it's possible to have two Betrayers in the game. I did say "evil"...


This would indeed solve the problem which Harbinjer adresses, put therfore it brings another problem, which is a game with 2 betrayers. Somewhere I read a session report where they had 4 betrayers by accident. The game ended quickly but one of the betrayers really fulfilled his or her objective, wheras the others lost the game. Though I'm not sure about how DoW would play if you have 2 betrayers more frequently. It could be just to frustrating for the loyal players. Preventing moral loss in the original game is already hard enough. I don't even dare to imagine what might happen if not one but two players work against the colony surprise
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.