Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Lords of Xidit» Forums » General

Subject: Playing with 2 and Scoring: Couldn't you simply do majority wins? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Justin Gortner
United States
Egg Harbor Township
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Howdy,

I love the idea of this game but generally don't buy unless something supports 2 players. For the end game scoring there are 3 categories. Could you not just simply see which player did better in 2 out of 3 of the categories and call it a day? No dummy players or other nonsense?

Or am I missing something here?

I have read the rules and I guess I am just failing to see why you need a dummy player in a 3 player game or the lack of support for 2 players.

You are basically walking around, defeating monsters, placing castles and gaining influence. In a two player game you need "more" of 2 out of the 3 categories than the other player. Sure more players makes it more interesting and interactive but mechanically I am not seeing how you need more than 2.

I would love your input!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Shanowitz
United States
Bristol
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A big part of the game is programming your moves based on the knowledge that another player might beat you to the thing that you want to do. With just two players the game would lose that entire element because you could stay so far from each other.

There are also parts of the game where you compare different items from behind your screen so you have an idea of who might be able to kill certain monsters before you get the chance. That would be lost with two players.

And you already touched on the scoring. The scoring really makes the game and with less than four players you lose out on a lot. This isn't a game about having a majority in any of the key areas, it's about not having the lowest amount in any of them.

Unfortunately this game is just not meant for two players, and even the three-player game is a variant that uses a dummy player. It's really a 4-5 player game only.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Rubinstein

Long Beach
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would check out the Gray Elephant Games review. I believe they played with a 2 player variant where both players controlled two characters each, and they said that worked well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Gortner
United States
Egg Harbor Township
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
theaaron wrote:
A big part of the game is programming your moves based on the knowledge that another player might beat you to the thing that you want to do. With just two players the game would lose that entire element because you could stay so far from each other.

There are also parts of the game where you compare different items from behind your screen so you have an idea of who might be able to kill certain monsters before you get the chance. That would be lost with two players.

And you already touched on the scoring. The scoring really makes the game and with less than four players you lose out on a lot. This isn't a game about having a majority in any of the key areas, it's about not having the lowest amount in any of them.

Unfortunately this game is just not meant for two players, and even the three-player game is a variant that uses a dummy player. It's really a 4-5 player game only.


This all makes perfect sense. And I agree with all of it.

I was simply considering the game a "different" game with 2 players where it becomes a race to who is going to become more efficient. And it changes from "not the least" to "majority". And sure it's possible we might keep separate but what if one part of the map is better?

So I guess the debate I was wanting to have was, what do people think of this as a 2 player game, despite it's transformation from a "not the least" and player-conflict type ideas to a race for efficiency?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kerstin
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I simply think that it takes away a lot from the game, when scoring is simplified that way.
I have not thought this completly through, but I would almost asume that you would end up with each person ignoring just one of the categories, where the other person seems to have a headstart, so in the end it would come down to 1 category of "overlap" and it would be really about who wins that one category.

The gameplay itself of course would still work, to me it just feels like it would simplify strategy and choices which monsters to fight and which rewards to take, a little too much.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Andrew
Indonesia
Bandung
Jawa Barat
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
epilepticemu wrote:
I would check out the Gray Elephant Games review. I believe they played with a 2 player variant where both players controlled two characters each, and they said that worked well.


my first game also, it works well indeed. i'd say this game is best with 4, 5 is a little too cramped for my taste

if u want to make it 2P game, there are several things you should consider:
first is, of course, rework the scoring system. there are many ways you can do about it
then, reduce the map. it would be dumb if both players never meet even once during the game
also, lower the number of units per recruitment tiles. otherwise some threats will stay on the game for too long

it should be playable with 2, but you need to work hard to make it balanced
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's really just nothing exceptional about this game with less than 4 characters on the board. If there were only two characters, it would become an almost pure efficiency race, with very few non-obvious decisions. If both players had only even a little familiarity with the game, the winner would probably come down to luck.

Even with a reduced map, with just two players, it would mostly come down to efficiency with a small but relatively uninteresting mix of bluff & double-bluff thrown in. I suspect it would quickly get fairly repetitive.

For me, this really is a 4p only game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donny Behne
United States
Fate
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
www.punchboardmedia.com/geaux-gaming/
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jasonwocky wrote:
For me, this really is a 4p only game.


Same. Five was shoehorned in, three uses a dummy player. It's a 4 player game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk Rieberghs
Belgium
Turnhout
-- Maak uw keuze --
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
epilepticemu wrote:
I would check out the Gray Elephant Games review. I believe they played with a 2 player variant where both players controlled two characters each, and they said that worked well.

This looks like a nice variant. Something that I must try one of the days
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kerstin
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We played it this way a couple of times and I think it's quiet fun.
I just think the players kind of have to agree on trying to play both characters they control as optimal as possible for that character and not use one of them in a way that it simply supports the other character, e.g. by keeping one of them lower in the first scoring category on purpose, so that the other one is "safe" and does not need to take care of that category anymore.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Chelsea
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm in the same boat as the OP in that this would be an immediate buy for me if it could play 2. It's interesting to hear players say that key mechanics in the game would be undermined in a two player game. For example, the game has a huge element of guessing what your opponents are going to do and programming in advance to put yourself in a position to recruit an ally or kill a monster at just the right time.

Personally, I feel this hilights a glaring abscense from the game: a 2 or 3 player only board. Games such as Small World or Roborally have done this before in the past. Simply shrink the board to an appropriate size, tweak a few minor rules, and the game is good to go! So why doesn't Lords of Xidit have a 2 or 3 player board? Seems like such an easy addition to the game, and even though it would drive up the cost of the game, it would also increase the amount of sales.

I'd love to see a small expansion include a 2 player game board with official 2 player rules!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kerstin
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
imtylerdurden wrote:

Personally, I feel this hilights a glaring abscense from the game: a 2 or 3 player only board.


Actually is does not feel like the size of the board is even a problem (as you need to go where the recuritment and threat tiles are you run into each other anyway, so it's more about how many tiles there are out and where they are) and actually in a three player game the board is already adjusted.

It's really the way scoring works that is the problem and that's not as easily fixable as this elimination scoring just does not work with just 2 people scoring, because then who has the most and who has not the least is simply the same.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Gortner
United States
Egg Harbor Township
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I bought the game and will be working on a smaller board and minimal tweaks to make it enjoyable with two!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Andrew
Indonesia
Bandung
Jawa Barat
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Enjoy your game. I will be waiting for your variant
1 
 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.