Craig Duncan
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
This is our favorite game to play at family gatherings, and so we end up playing this game a lot with fairly large groups.
The game box says that Frank's Zoo plays up to seven people. While this is technically true, a special issue arises when playing with seven people (one that does not arise when playing with four to six people), namely, the deal is not even. With seven people, when all the cards are dealt out, three people have 8 cards and four people have 9 cards.
This in itself is not game-breaking. After all, sometimes having an extra card can be a boost -- say, if it converts a singleton card into a more powerful pair.
Still, I think that other things equal, an even deal is desirable. So what is the best way to create as even a deal as possible with seven players?
I worked this out on paper today, and here is the result:
To even the deal out as much as possible, when it is time to deal a new round, pass the deal to the THIRD person away from the previous dealer (i. e. skip two players).
This creates the most even deal possible. I recommend playing five rounds per game. That way everyone has two rounds with 8 cards, except for one player, who has three rounds with 8 cards (this person = the person two to the right of the first dealer). This is the best you can do apart from playing seven rounds and passing the deal one to the left each round. (But seven rounds with seven players is too many, in my opinion! Even five rounds is pushing it.)
With three rounds, five players get 8 cards once and two players get 8 cards twice.
With four rounds, five players get 8 cards twice and two players get 8 cards once.
(FWIW, exactly the same results arise if you pass the deal to every fourth player instead of every third player. Alternatively, passing to the next player, or to the second, fifth, or sixth player creates less even deals than passing to the third or fourth player.)
All that said, I have to say I think that the game suffers significantly with seven players, as opposed to four to six players. I know it is a card game and so there will inevitably be randomness no matter what number of players. Still, I think the scope for strategic play drops off quickly above six players. So I can't really recommend playing with seven.
-
Torsten S
United Kingdom
Milton Keynes
Bucks
-
Hi Craig
I love playing Zoff im Zoo (Frank's Zoo).
Thanks to pointing out the imbalances in the seven player game. I have never thought about them before.
I have always felt that being close to the person coming up leaves you with earlier opportunities to actually play your cards. Especially in 7 player games were everybody starts with a much smaller hand anyway. So I guess I have hoped that this would offset the disadvantage of having more cards.
There are other disadvantages to the seven player game, too. E.g. is it fair that you get 4 points when playing on your own and not having the opportunity and exchange cards with a partner?. This is worse in 7 player games than other odd number player games because of the low number of cards you get effectively reducing the chance of getting pairs, triplets etc.
At the end of the day I can't agree that the game suffers significantly when played with seven. I see that it is no longer as strategic as maybe a six player game can be but as IMHO the the fun of actually playing the game with more players is so rewarding that I have never realised the imbalances involved.
Will see if that makes any difference to our game play.
Torsten
-
Craig Duncan
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
Mjoellnir wrote: Hi Craig
I have always felt that being close to the person coming up leaves you with earlier opportunities to actually play your cards. Especially in 7 player games were everybody starts with a much smaller hand anyway. So I guess I have hoped that this would offset the disadvantage of having more cards.
Hi Torsten,
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "being close to the person coming up." Do you mean being close to the person starting a new trick? Or do you mean being close to the dealer? I can't see that you'd mean the latter. After the first hand it is no longer the case that the player to the dealer's left starts the hand; instead, after the first hand it is the player in last place that starts the hand. So after the first hand, being close to the dealer is no advantage. (But of course, being close to the player who starts the hand is an advantage.)
Mjoellnir wrote:
There are other disadvantages to the seven player game, too. E.g. is it fair that you get 4 points when playing on your own and not having the opportunity and exchange cards with a partner?. This is worse in 7 player games than other odd number player games because of the low number of cards you get effectively reducing the chance of getting pairs, triplets etc.
Good point. In a seven player game, scoring an extra four points is equivalent to having a partner that comes in fourth out of seven places. That's not so great. On the other hand, starting the hand with two fewer cards (because you discarded two) could mean you start with just six cards (namely, in a case where you were just dealt eight cards), whereas some other players have nine cards -- 50% more! All things considered, then, my sense is that solo play with seven players is not SO imbalanced to warrant a fix (e.g. not so imbalanced to warrant upping the extra points from four to five). But it is a close call.
Mjoellnir wrote:
At the end of the day I can't agree that the game suffers significantly when played with seven. I see that it is no longer as strategic as maybe a six player game can be but as IMHO the the fun of actually playing the game with more players is so rewarding that I have never realised the imbalances involved.
I do enjoy playing with seven players -- it's a much better way to pass an hour than passively watching TV, for example! There's a lot of hilarity as people groan or cheer when they learn their new partner assignments! And I have to admit, I don't know another game that is better than Frank's Zoo for a large mixed-age groups (we play with children, parents, and grandparents). I tried Incan Gold and Slide 5 and these fell kind of flat. Saboteur was enjoyed by the group, but not as much as Frank's Zoo by any stretch. (I'd like to try Bohnanza with my group, but I worry the game would be a bit confusing for the grandparents...) So Frank's Zoo is the most fun game I know for a mixed-age group of seven players.
Still, I find I enjoy Frank's Zoo less than when we play with 6 players. That's my favorite configuration.
-
Craig Duncan
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
One further idea about Frank's Zoo with large groups:
A group of eight could play with two decks shuffled together. This would result in an even deal of 15 cards a player. Could be fun...
Anyone out there tried this already?
-
Torsten S
United Kingdom
Milton Keynes
Bucks
-
Hi Craig
cdunc123 wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "being close to the person coming up." Do you mean being close to the person starting a new trick? Or do you mean being close to the dealer?
I meant being close to the dealer in the first trick and I agree that this is only an advantage during the first part of the first trick.
Quote:
All things considered, then, my sense is that solo play with seven players is not SO imbalanced to warrant a fix (e.g. not so imbalanced to warrant upping the extra points from four to five). But it is a close call.
Not sure here. But I don't want to overcomplicate a complex enough partner picking system anyway (It is always me trying to figure out who is partnering with who - tricky with people that have same scores...). I have always thought the solo player rule to be more of an afterthought to enable odd number players at all.
Quote:
I do enjoy playing with seven players -- it's a much better way to pass an hour than passively watching TV, for example! There's a lot of hilarity as people groan or cheer when they learn their new partner assignments! And I have to admit, I don't know another game that is better than Frank's Zoo for a large mixed-age groups (we play with children, parents, and grandparents). I tried Incan Gold and Slide 5 and these fell kind of flat. Saboteur was enjoyed by the group, but not as much as Frank's Zoo by any stretch. (I'd like to try Bohnanza with my group, but I worry the game would be a bit confusing for the grandparents...) So Frank's Zoo is the most fun game I know for a mixed-age group of seven players.
Fully agreed. Frank's Zoo works with children and non-gamers because of the theme and also with hardcore gamers because of its tactics and win-strategies.
We used to play Frank's Zoo a lot with one of my playgroups back in Germany. It was our end of games-day filler and got very competitive at times.
Whereas here in the UK I tend to use it as a starter game for new gamers. So I guess tactics don't really bother me any more.
Quote:
Still, I find I enjoy Frank's Zoo less than when we play with 6 players. That's my favorite configuration.
I don't disagree here, either (Not that I wanted to disagree with you at all  ). This also reflects the User Suggested # of Players here on bgg.
Maybe we should come up with a fan version that consists of 420 cards. So we can divide by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.  - Just kidding
Torsten
PS: Have you tried The Great Dalmuti or Category 5? Both are hilarious games that play up to 10 players with very easy rules and (at least for Category 5) more depth than at first visible.
-
Craig Duncan
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
Mjoellnir wrote: PS: Have you tried The Great Dalmuti or Category 5? Both are hilarious games that play up to 10 players with very easy rules and (at least for Category 5) more depth than at first visible.
Category 5 is the same game as Slide 5 -- the latter is just a retheme of the former. We have tried it. My wife and I like it but my kids and my mother-in-law found it a bit dry, so it does not get played too often.
As for The Great Dalmuti: I have thought about picking this up for a while now. I'll have to finally buy it and try it soon!
Thanks.
-
Justus Pang
United States
Houston
Texas
-
If you like climbing games, you should check out http://www.pagat.com/climbing/ for a list of games of this type.
My personal favorite is Tien Len while Big Two is big among chinese folks. Around here is Tichu but of course none of these games go anywhere past 4 players. I'd definitely check out the great dalmuti for plenty of players.
Nice analysis of Frank's Zoo, its one that I want to get my hands on soon....Cheers!
-
Matt Crawford
United States
San Francisco
California
-
I have not played with seven, but another option would be to leave the "extra" cards in the middle, to be taken by the first person to win a trick or whatever you call it. Other games of this type use that rule.
Interesting discussion about the solo player. I have played Frank's Zoo more often with five people than with any other number, for whatever reason. The solo player always seems too strong in our five player games, because he gets the automatic 4 points, plus he can stash some cards right off the bat, usually a hedgehog or a couple of lions. It's just too much.
-
Craig Duncan
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
gatchaman wrote: I have not played with seven, but another option would be to leave the "extra" cards in the middle, to be taken by the first person to win a trick or whatever you call it. Other games of this type use that rule.
Interesting discussion about the solo player. I have played Frank's Zoo more often with five people than with any other number, for whatever reason. The solo player always seems too strong in our five player games, because he gets the automatic 4 points, plus he can stash some cards right off the bat, usually a hedgehog or a couple of lions. It's just too much.
Yes, I understand this issue with the solo scoring method. I should probably mention that my family refuses to play with the lion/hedgehog scoring penalties / bonuses. In over 100 games I have never once been able to talk them into even trying it.  . Instead, we just use the group scoring method (add together the team members' scores from the round, i.e. the score that comes from where each places in the order of going out). I guess the one advantage of ignoring the lion/hedgehog scoring is that it prevents the solo player from gaining points simply with his or her two discards.
As for your suggestion: Without the lion/hedgehog scoring, there's little incentive to leave the leftover cards in the middle as a prize for the first trick winner; they wouldn't do much to help the winner (apart from give him/her knowledge of what cards are out of play). It is more suitable for others who do use the lion/hedgehog scoring. I'm not sure, though, that the potential inequalities inherent in dealing all the cards out to seven player are so bad as to be worth removing four cards from play (it would be four cards in the middle as a prize). Still, worth a try!
-
Craig Duncan
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
cdunc123 wrote: One further idea about Frank's Zoo with large groups:
A group of eight could play with two decks shuffled together. This would result in an even deal of 15 cards a player. Could be fun...
Anyone out there tried this already?
Just now tried this. Lots of fun. I strongly preferred it to the seven player game. Yes, there is one more player and so more chaos in that respect. But with 15 cards (instead of 8-9 in the seven player game) you have a lot more control all things considered. Plus there's no messy solo player business. I recommend giving it a try.
-
|
|
