1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide

Multiplayer historical games update

I see that my last post about wargames states that I like Cuba Libre and I have to deny it In this post I'll quickly write some words about my wargames/multiplayer historical games experiences in last 2 years. I don't want to argue, so I won't even link those games; it's mostly a response to my previous post.

I strongly dislike COIN games. Cuba Libre I like the most of the bunch as it does all the stuff those game do, has this great card/action selection system and is the shortest. But I've realised that I hate tag-of-war kind of mechanics in board games. It feels so futile... Andean Abyss was awful. Falling Sky: The Gallic Revolt Against Caesar bad (and the expansion very bad; why would you want to interact with a bot in such a game?). All Bridges Burning: Red Revolt and White Guard in Finland, 1917-1918 was okayish. (I played all of them twice I think). We had one game of The Coin Tribes' Revolt: Boudica's Rebellion Against Rome and it was horrible, but to be fair we didn't really care.

Another game I wanted to try for years was Here I Stand. We played it once and it delivered to some extent. The theme was there, as well as that grand scope. Some of the mechanics (mainly religious struggles, aka throwing buckets of dice that negates each other) were however tedious. I'd play it again, but the rest wouldn't, so I got rid of it. We plan to give a try to a recent Polish take on the system, Time of Wars: Eastern Europe 1590 - 1660.

Overall, when I play those asymmetric multiplayer wargames, I feel that Root does it much better...

Initial impressions after single plays of Struggle of Empires and Westphalia are positive.

I have a soft spot for Road to Enlightenment as the idea of having historical figures with stats is hilarious to me. The second edition ruleset (which can be found on BGG) improves the game, but my last play was disappointing.

Napoleon's Triumph is my favourite wargame, so I preordered Triomphe à Marengo. The third game of the series, The Guns of Gettysburg, was a miss for me.

I really liked John Company. John Company: Second Edition, after one play, felt unnecessarily bloated in comparison. For now I don't regret not buying it and keeping the first edition.
Twitter Facebook
0 Comments
Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:04 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide

1830 dilemma

(This is an older post, but I realised that I hadn't posted it here and I'd rather keep everything in one place)

I’m playing a 4-player online game of 1830: Railways & Robber Barons and I faced quite a dilemma. The solution I’ve chosen probably wasn’t the good one

It’s OR3.1 and I’m operating for the first time in the game. My freshly floated B&M has $820 in its treasury. I own P2 and P5, bought for $45 and $250, respectively. There is one 4T left in the bank. I have to buy it* and the next company to act will certainly buy a 5T.

From gallery of Galatolol


Here’s the problem: I can either buy a cheap permanent train (5T) or both my privates for $400. This is a difficult problem since two unwritten rules of 1830 (and similar games) can’t be both observed:

— the purpose of privates is to get sold for twice the face value
— if you can grab a cheap permanent train, you do it

So I’m either left with no money for my privates and with a healthy company or I have additional $400 and a broken company.

After a long hesitation I decided to bough the 5T (before that I extracted $29 for P2…). Almost immediately I started regretting it. In the next SR I would act second, so with that money for privates I would start a nice company. Maybe it could even be possible to engineer a purchase of 2 cheap permanent trains (the new company floats with $1000, buys a 5T for $450, then buys 4T from B&M for ~$500. B&M is then forced to buy a train—hopefully a 6T—and I gladly contribute)… Now I don’t have enough money to start a new company unless I sell a share of B&M that then could be taken over, along with that damned 5T.

That’s the first time I’ve faced that dilemma, so my reaction was far from optimal.

By the way, the P4 got exchanged for a NYC share so the owner could have some value from it ?

*maybe actually I should have bought a 3T from the market, thus blocking the access to 5T to the other company?
EDIT: apparently there shouldn't be 3T in the market on the screenshot (I undid the BM's operations to have an illustration, but forgot about the train in the market).

(previously posted on https://railsonboards.com)
Twitter Facebook
2 Comments
Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:51 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide

1830 private auction

Just some thoughts on a 4–player 1830: Railways & Robber Barons private auction, using my last playthrough on Board18 as an example.

Assumptions:
— privates' powers don't matter
— you'd rather not get P6 (the only unsellable private, so you can't transfer money from a company's treasury to you)
— P5 + priority deal + at least $335 is a very strong (if not game winning) combo (it allows to float PRR in the first SR and consequently sell P5 as soon as possible)

I don't have any particular thoughts on first bids; I'll only say that bidding $200 on P5 is viable since it won't go for cheaper anyway and it may ever make someone not join the contest.

So in that playthrough, after 6 moves, the situation is as follows:

From gallery of Galatolol


Now it's up to PlayerC. They bid 50 on P2, which obviously prompts PlayerD to buy P1 since they get P4 for "free". Then there is an auction for P2 between PlayerA and PlayerC, PlayerA lets it go. Then it's P3 between me and PlayerC. I bid as much as it seems reasonable, then pass since my objective is P5 + cash to float a company. The next thing is an auction for P5 between me and PlayerA which I win at $245 (theoretically I could go up to $265 and still have $335, but I'm not sure if it would be worth it). PlayerA buys P6 because they don't have any revenue so if everyone passes, they would find themselves behind the rest in terms of cash.

From gallery of Galatolol


I'm in position to open PRR, which normally is great, but in this case I think PlayerD is in a better situation since they've gotten something comparable (the same revenue—$25—and not much smaller value—$130 vs. $160) for a significantly lower price ($245 vs. $135).

I think that PlayerC made a mistake. I'd say they should have used the following rule of thumb (and actually that's what I did on my second move):
— if someone "pulling the plug" (buying the cheapest private) doesn't grant me any "free" private, I bid on a private that has only one bid on it. If there are more than one, I choose the one where the sole bidder is relatively first to act after me in the player order*.

That's what I did and this made pulling the plug not attractive to PlayerC. If they did the same (i.e. bid on P4), then PlayerD probably would bid on P2 and we would have an auction on every private which should result in ~fair prices. And even if PlayerD wouldn't do that, then PlayerA would get "only" P1 and P2 for "free"—a combination much weaker than P1 and P4.

When we were auctioning P5, PlayerA and I didn't have any other private. And here comes another observation: since I act immediately after him, I am in a much better position. It's almost certain that the looser of the auction gets P6. Should I be the looser, the priority deal would go to PlayerC (so no P5 + priority deal for PlayerA). In other case, it's me who gets the priority deal. And that's what happened.


*My previous rule of thumb was to bid on the most expensive private among those with only one bid. I think it's justifiable, but I found my new approach more reliable: the player that got overbid now isn't that prone to pulling the plug and probably will do the same to the next sole bidder and so on.

(posted on https://railsonboards.com as well)
Twitter Facebook
2 Comments
Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:43 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide

Games I've sold and purchased again

The list of games that I used to own, sold, and bought again.

Struggle of Empires – I sold it right after reading the rules. Fortunately, a few years later I thought like giving it another chance and after few more year I finally played the game and really like it. Old Wallace's input just tends to be worthwile.

The New Era + Winter – it used to be one of my favourite games. When a big box was announced, I sold it while it was worth something and believed I would buy the new thing. However, 51st State: Master Set wasn't just a reprint, as it was firstly presented, but a new game that doesn't seem that interesting. After several years I rebought the original thing and keep liking it, but I don't love it anymore. I also don't think anymore that the Winter expansion is that great as I once thought.

Terra Mystica – I've always liked it, but at the time thought that the plays with my group weren't satisfying. Again, after few years I felt like giving it another chance and it was the right decision; the game is a top tier euro for me.

Blood Bowl: Team Manager – The Card Game – I sold it after I decided it was too random. It's not the best game our there, but it's solid and has a very appealing theme, so eventually I got it back.



Less than 2 months ago I sold Cosmic Encounter since it's never clicked with my main group. However I know (from playing with another group) how hilarious this game can be and I already regret the decision. Probably I'll buy it again...

Then there is also Zombicide that by no means isn't an outstanding game, but I think it does well what it wants to do and I currently don't have any similar game in the collection anymore. Maybe I'll purchase one day one of a hundred new editions...

Update: I bought Cosmic Encounter again. On the other hand, the urge to buy Zombicide luckily faded away.
Twitter Facebook
1 Comment
Sun May 23, 2021 6:44 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide

1848 private auction

1848 used to be my favourite 18xx game. It isn't anymore—which I was expecting since I knew from the start that it wouldn't be as deep as 1830 or 1817—but it is still among my most appreciated 18xx games.

The thing I used to really dislike was how the privates are distributed. It's a Dutch auction—meaning that the price goes down rather than up—with set minimum price. On your turn, you can grab any private at its current price or lower one of the prices. Arguably most of those privates aren't worth their minimum price, which in my plays was resulting in auctions being a tedious exercise of moving markers down. I believed that it could be a fun part of the game, a sort of a game of chicken, if only the minimum prices weren't there.

However, here's the thing: P5 is awful. It's possibly the worst private company I know, being expensive, unsellable and coming with a poor share. I, and my fellow players, found out that we'd rather take P4 at full price than risk being forced to take P5. And, if P5 is already taken, we'd take another sellable private. (So it is a game of chicken after all, isn't it?) Maybe it'll change again, but for now that's our meta and I'm happy that it still evolves after 20+ plays.

(By the way, I also start to think that sacrificing your first company in order to make the second strong is a more efficient and realistic approach than the other way around.)

From gallery of Galatolol

How the auction looked in my last playthrough


(posted on https://railsonboards.com as well)
Twitter Facebook
0 Comments
Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:38 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
19 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide

Company logos

A short rant today. Many 18xx games fail to deliver when it comes to easily distinguish companies. Because of that, I even consider some of the unplayable (in their official form that is). As a preliminary, I must emphasize that I tend (and want) to call companies by their colours.



Firstly, the obvious thing: when certificates don't harmonize with logos and their presumed colours. A classic example is Mayfair's 1830:

From gallery of Galatolol


Is CPR red, black or yellow? Last time I played that version of the game I honestly had troubles with whether "black" wasn't Erie, despite me knowing the game. Since then, I've only played on P'n'P copies of 1830. Lookout's edition is slightly better in this regard, but still not good enough.



1828's graphic design is thoroughly thought through, but one thing boggles my mind: why on Earth NKP, whose logo is two different blues (so it's even more blue than just plain blue), is associated with pink? When I call a company in 1828 by colour, I go with the strip's colour, but in this case it just doesn't work. Bizarrely, I don't have the same problem with MC and MP, maybe because their logos don't incorporate two shades of the same colour (that is different than the strip)?

From gallery of Galatolol




The main reason I'm writing this is to vent my frustration from playing an official version of 1817. This game has like only red and yellow companies! That's just insane. (Okay, now as I look at photos it's more like green and yellow.) So calling companies by their colours often won't work and the same holds true for using their names or abbreviations since the historical heralds are difficult to read. I genuinely think that this additional, unnecessary cognitive load of determining which company is which in this game adds several dozens of minutes to the playtime.

From gallery of Galatolol



Joshua Starr of Grand Trunk Games writes some interesting posts about the graphic design in 1861: Railways of the Russian Empire & 1867: Railways of Canada, so he clearly cares. However, I think that new logos in 1861 are significantly worse. They used to be fine:

Board Game Accessory: 1861: The Railways of the Russian Empire – Dividend Token


And now many are pretty much the same (yellow with blueish/reddish spots). A crazy decision, if you ask me. To be clear, I'm not sure if this is the final version though:

Board Game: 1861: Railways of the Russian Empire & 1867: Railways of Canada



If a game has a single digit number of companies, I'm fine with historical logos as long as each company has its individual, distinct colour (that's why I prefer brown BM to light green in 1830). If there is more companies, you can't help with overlapping colours, so make sure that at least their are spread evenly. And that the abbreviations can be easily read, like in 1828, which has many fancy heralds but they are all legible. Contrarily to 1817.

From gallery of Galatolol

Good

From gallery of Galatolol

Bad



Also, if you use generic heralds that are just filled differently (like in old 1861), think about improving the readability between those who are similar, like brown and dark purple. For example add a thin, vertical white stripe to one of them.

(posted on https://railsonboards.com as well)
Twitter Facebook
3 Comments
Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:55 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide

Cuba Libre and Civilization

So two years ago I stated that multiplayer historical games aren't for me. Since then I bought Cuba Libre, Andean Abyss, Here I Stand, Revolution: The Dutch Revolt 1568-1648, Civilization, The Republic of Rome, Struggle of Empires (again BTW, as I used to own it), and Westphalia.

Cuba Libre

Board Game: Cuba Libre

My first COIN (unless we count Root as one ). I played it twice, it took us 3h and 2.5h. I like the game: the map feels animated, there is plenty of interaction, the action selection system is brilliant. I also find that this system helps with downtime and AP since usually 1-2 players are inactive, so they can fully concentrate on the next event whilst the rest thinks about the current turn.

However, I have some misgivings. I feel that you're basically doing the same few actions over and over. "You removed my troops? I'll place them again". "You removed my base here? I'll place it there". The very beginning is different, but once the board is filled, I find the quality of decision making stagnant. The government faction starts strong and grows weak (logical) which may be frustrating; the Syndicate is rather boring to play (but the idea behind them is interesting).

I enjoyed Cuba Libre but paradoxically it didn't make me want to try those longest COINs.

I look forward to trying Andean Abyss though. And The Coin Tribes' Revolt: Boudica's Rebellion Against Rome, a micro COIN-like game that I PnPed. Probably I'll end up liking some of the COINs, but won't be a die-hard fan.

Civilization

Board Game: Civilization

I got an Avalon Hill copy of original Civilization and finally was able to play it. I was slightly familiar with the game, having played Advanced Civilization online several years ago.
We were 4 and played a short variant. Following a suggestion found here, I removed one copy of each advancement card that normally is 4 of. The rules say that you can choose any triangle on the AST track as the endpoint. We decided to choose the first one and then see if we continue.

Board Game: Civilization

We reached the first triangle after 30 minutes, the second after 90 minutes, then decided to do 2 more turns, which took us under 3 hours in total. It was too short, since we traded "for real", with tradeable calamities, only in the last couple of rounds; I think that third triangle would be ideal. Nevertheless, we had great fun, loved easy yet impactful mechanics and proved that you don't have to reserve the whole day in order to play the game. I'll always treat it more as en experience game, so won't mind not playing it "properly". You can have a really solid session in about 4 hours.

Now I'm playing Advanced Civilization online again and I don't really think this is a significant improvement of the original, at least not to the extent of me wanting to have a copy. The game basically got bloated. The change I like the most is that, upon trading, you have to tell truth about two cards instead of one.

However, changes introduced in Western Empires (formerly Mega Civilization) do look promising to me, probably I'll end up buying it... The only thing I potentially won't fully appreciate are big individual decks of advancement cards that may result in more... explicit, gamey? feeling of developing your civilization (fortunately not "Napoleon attacking Great Wall with tanks" level). Does that feeling make any sense? I don't know. Anyway, the somehow abstracted yet highly thematic way Civilization presents the development of ancient empires is just awesome.
Twitter Facebook
3 Comments
Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:00 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
23 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide

Some thoughts on 1817NA

1817NA is an 1817 variant, currently being playtested, designed by Marc Voyer (known for 1882). Its objective is to make the game shorter and more suitable for lower player counts. I've played 1817 6 times, 18USA once and 1817NA 5 times, so I'm not very experienced, but I think that a little comparison between the original and the variant may be interesting.

I don't play 1817 online anymore (using rr18xx was too bothersome and I don't feel like using B18 when there is a fully automated version (rr18xx) out there ), so I'm thankful that there is an alternative. 1817NA is my way to go to play online, to introduce new players and to play with 3 players. With 5 and more I'd choose 1817. With 4? Not sure.

1817 uses a completely new map of North America. There are fewer trains of each type, 15 companies instead of 20, 4 loans per line instead of 5. 3 private companies are removed (one bridge, one mail contract and one coal mine). Starting cash and certificate limit is lowered by 1 row, so if you play at 4, it's as if it was at 3.

The game is shorter than the original, but is still longer than an average 18xx. My asynchronous plays of 1817 usually lasted for up to 3 weeks, here it's up to 2. When we played it live, it took 7 hours.

Map

From gallery of thethrax


- Klondike is an interesting revenue center whose value goes down and up. Currently it's 50-20-40 (used to be 70-10-40, but it didn't work)
- no mountain range that cuts off New York, so coal markers don't feel as significant. +10 is still nice and the one between Asia and Klondike shapes the game in that area, but that's about it. The rest rarely has such an impact
- no preprinted double city. I like Cleveland in 1817, I think it makes SR1 more interesting. I guess that, with fewer companies being started, having 2 in one city could be harmful to he game
- Denver (equivalent of Pittsburgh) seems weaker. It's in the center of B-B-B route, which is great in mid and end game, but its start isn't impressing. Running 3 2T by OR1.2 is much less likely

SR1 at 4 players

So you have $252, after the auction your IPO funds will be larger, but probably still not enough to start 3 companies. Its consequences:

- reduction of shenanigans throughout the game (but also reduction of its length)
- you can't enter SR2 with one 2-share company and one 5-share company (that's a strategy I was testing in my last plays of 1817)
- if all opponents have more privates than you, you can't try to punish them by taking loans in SR1 in order to make interest $10 by OR1.1—there are 4 loans per line, so you're short of one loan

That's why I'm not sure if I'd choose 1817NA over 1817 at this player count. If everyone knows the rules, I would be opting for 1817 (it's still not a weeknight game, so if you have enough time for 1817NA, probably you've reserved most of the day anyway). But if the rest prefers 1817NA, I would be okay with that since it's also a very good game.

From gallery of Galatolol

There's a lake!

More information: https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/50723/item/6567268#item65...

(posted on www.railsonboards.com as well)
Twitter Facebook
7 Comments
Mon Jun 1, 2020 12:13 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
23 
 Thumb up
7.25
 tip
 Hide

Belgian 18xx Convention – winter 2019

Another edition of my favourite boardgaming event: Belgian 18xx Convention. Winter ones take three days, starting on Friday evening and ending on Sunday afternoon. In terms of number of participants, the event was twice as big as the one last winter. At this rate, the next edition may have to be limited since we are approaching the capacity of the venue. This only makes the work of organisers, Luk and David, even more admirable. An impressive thing is that they made a games schedule for everyone and were actively updating it according to people's wishes.

Big thanks to David who, found us a place to kick off the convention earlier, like the last time (why play only one game on Friday if you can play two—or three—instead? ).

This time I've only played 5 games, but 3 of them are long and I wanted to try them, so the result is still satisfying. I also had an opportunity to chat with folks I know from previous editions and to finally meet in person some guys I've been playing online (on Board18). The event was great, everybody loved it and I'm already waiting for the next one will take place May 29 – June 1.

What I've played


Friday

1849


Once again I started with a 4-player game of 1849. I enjoyed it like always. We ended up with only 4 companies in play (3 were killed during the play), since opening the next one available wouldn't be beneficial at that point of game.

Number of players: 4
Game length: 2h 30min

From gallery of Galatolol


1830

1830 with Lemmi, a computer moderator that takes care of everything except the map, tracks and station (I wrote a guide on how to use it: https://www.railsonboards.com/?s=lemmi).
I think I had an edge, having a ton of money at the crucial point of the game, but I overthought things, starting new company lower than I could have (I wanted to act after the others) and finally that $100 less was hurting me until the end.

Number of players: 5
Game length: 3h 30min

From gallery of Galatolol


Saturday

18USA


My first play of this 1817 variant. I did extremely poorly, but liked the proposed changes. The map feels more open and the stock market is much bigger (with more active stock value markers), so you can focus more on the market. I had an impression that the game was a little bit less elegant though, probably due to the fiddly setup.

From gallery of Galatolol


Number of players: 6
Game length: 8h

18MM

Since I heard that in this one you have 6 types of 2-trains, I really wanted to give it a try, I always appreciate crazy ideas. The game is a mix of 1817 and 1862 with a random map. Unfortunately, the game isn't exactly suited for my taste since I prefer cash-poor ones and this is the opposite: you can produce a ton of money without any risk. That's right, there are no liabilities (like trains or loans), if you don't feel like owning the company anymore, you just sell all its shares. This results in quite a push forward race.
Even if overall this isn't something I'm looking for in 18xx games, I want to play 18MM again, mainly thanks to the random map, uneven company starting positions (that are bid on) and because I feel that it may actually be a good exercise of how to maximising your score when you don't have to worry about anything.

Board Game: 18MM


Number of players: 4
Game length: 4h

1841: Railways in Northern Italy

Finally I had a change to play this famous game where companies can buy shares of other companies (or even start them). Our game was surely full of errors and suboptimal play, but I loved it. 1841 offers a whole new system of financial shenanigans, I mean you can have a suitcase company that has a suitcase company that has a suitcase company I got a company (and its subsidiary) stolen from me by a company (which was a result of my inattention but was hilarious).
We were in the last phase, but couldn't finish in time, so we skipped the last set of ORs.

From gallery of Galatolol


From gallery of Galatolol


Number of players: 5
Game length: 6h (called one set of ORs early)

Games that were played during the convention: 1817, 1822, 1822CA, 1822MX, 1830, 1836jr, 1841, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1867, 1868, 1883, 1889, 1893 Cologne, 18Africa, 18Ardennes, 18BL, 18CZ, 18Ireland, 18MM, 18OE, 18Scan, 18USA, 18VA, 2038, Rolling Stock
18DO, 18OL, 1993 (prototypes)

From gallery of Galatolol


From gallery of Galatolol

Marflow's table with upcoming 18DO

From gallery of Galatolol

Three tables of 1883 during simultaneous teaching

From gallery of Galatolol

Like always, there was a (monster) game of 18OE

From gallery of Galatolol

2038

From gallery of Galatolol

18OL (prototype)

From gallery of Galatolol

1993 (prototype)

From gallery of Galatolol

1857
From gallery of Galatolol

1822

From gallery of Galatolol

1822CA

From gallery of Galatolol

1822MX

From gallery of Galatolol

1817

Board Game: 18VA

18VA

(posted on www.railsonboards.com as well)
Twitter Facebook
6 Comments
Wed Dec 4, 2019 4:35 pm
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide

Some gabbing about RPGs

I wanted to write this post in August, but I couldn't get myself to do it...

In the first decade of 21st century role-playing games were still a huge deal in Poland, much more popular than board games. Two most popular systems were Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Neuroshima. Ignacy Trzewiczek was the Polish guru of the former and his for years completely unprofitable publishing house, Portal Games, was the publisher of the latter. Neuroshima was the first true success of the firm, allowed it to survive and to slowly abandon RPGs in favour of, as it turned out, much more profitable board games.

So I used to be into RPGs, since it was the default activity of guys being into fantasy. It never was a true passion, I wasn't playing a lot (a couple of dozens of sessions over 10 years or so). However, I loved reading source books, scenarios, creating NPCs etc.

From gallery of Galatolol

My RPG shelf. On right Warhammer 2nd edition, then Neuroshima, and some random books

After I had fully discovered modern board games, I still happened to play a session of Neuroshima, but at every time I felt I'd rather play a board game. The logical conclusion was to abandon RPGs all along.

(One exception being brilliant InSpectres, a game that doesn't need much preparation and can be played in any setting)

When I established a (board) gaming group with friends, one of them wanted to try some RPGs and I refused. That was 7 years ago.

Now back to May of 2019. I talked with the same friend, and he raised the subject again, because he read some Cyberpunk source books and saw a bunch of kids playing (apparently the hobby is slightly less dead than I thought). Funnily enough, one day earlier I bought a Dog Eat Dog PDF, just to read out of curiosity how the theme is implemented. This time I agreed to play something the upcoming Summer.

I knew we had to choose a one-shot game that doesn't require to learn about lore. I made a research, again was buying many books (but this time in PDF), and Fiasco looked the most promising.

I heard about the game before, but wasn't interested since I'm not into movies and rarely watch them. This time, seeing that Fiasco was recommended by virtually everyone, I decided to look into it. This video bought me and I knew I had to try it.

Over the summer I manged to play Fiasco 3 times, with different friends, most of whom hadn't played an RPG before, and we had a blast.

This is truly a role-playing game. It is set in the real world (at least most of the playsets), so getting into character is easy. The game is just hilarious. It is GM-less, so the players have to collectively assure the coherence of the story, which isn't an easy task without revealing too much of what we want to do next... Once we know how to do it better, there should be some plot twists and more of unclear intentions.

I doubt that this experience made me or others want to try a classic, campaign-oriented system, but we're certainly will often get back to Fiasco.
Twitter Facebook
2 Comments
Sun Nov 3, 2019 12:52 am
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  

Subscribe

Contributors