Tyler Bishop
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My play group is starting to burn out on M:tG Commander games, so I'm looking to bring in another multiplayer-friendly constructed card game that can grow with our interest if they like it. I haven't actually played this or D:R, so I'm looking for folk with more experience to provide facts and opinions on both. Here are my thoughts so far:

Doomtown has much more content out now, and looks cheaper to get into. The Western theme isn't my favorite, though the GoT setting has no other fans in my play group so that's basically a wash. Doomtown looks to be more mechanically complicated/have more of a learning curve, though I could be wrong about that. That extra layer does interest me, but I tend to like heavier games than the rest of the group.

Both seem to be designed with multiplayer in mind, but does one scale better than the other? I don't expect 5- and 6-player games to be common compared to 3- or 4-, but they could happen, does D:R support that? How does the actual gameplay feel around a table with people, are games swingy, is there much downtime, piling on the leader, or kingmaking? How does game length compare at similar player counts? And so on. Any thoughts you have are appreciated!

:edit: Of course, I recognize there's not a lot to go on with AGOTTCG 2E, but figure most of the 1E experience should be transferrable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cory Bullock
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've not played that much Doomtown, for the simple and frank reason that Doomtown is very, very different. Depending on what you're looking for, that could be a very good or very bad thing. Without someone to teach our group how to play, we were often really baffled as to what we were even trying to do.

The game has been out longer now, so I'm sure there are better resources available to us than right when the game launched, but back then translating the mechanics of the rules to intent on a turn was a challenge.

A Game of Thrones will be much more familiar to you, if you're like me and you've played a lot of expandable sorts of card games. There are characters, location, etc. and the nuance of the game comes from the shared challenge phase and the plots and its particular take on the idea of "I play guys and so do you and then we battle" concept. The multiplayer is very nice, with title cards that create a dynamic board relationship (you can't attack me, I can't attack you, etc., depending on the chosen cards) and it leads to a lot of chaos and scheming.

Doomtown involves a lot more moving characters around, almost like a board game, with the management of the poker mechanics a very unique, bluffing component to the game that is hard to explain without having tried it. So, if you want a very different experience, almost more of a board game with a CCG component, try Doomtown. If you want an update on a more classic multiplayer card game format, Thrones would be my recommendation.

I personally love Thrones, though, so I'm biased and think you should choose it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Dortch
United States
Sparta
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think Doomtown Reloaded is a little harder to wrap your head around at first. Movement (yes movement!) is a big part of Doomtown. As an ex MTG player myself, I think AGOT would be easier for your group to pick up. Highly recommended.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
* This game has an okay mulligan rule which doesnt hurt you to use, rather than a bad mulligan rule which forces you to weaken your setup to have the option of using it, and then penalizes you to actually use as well.

* Instead of every single game ending on turn 1 based on who wins a shootout in the middle, only a few Game of Thrones games end on turn 1 when you lose all your characters to their Stark deck with Sneak Attack + Ice + Winter is Coming.

* Game of Thrones theme is awesomer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carlton
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played a reasonable amount of Doomtown: Reloaded and have only recently got AGoT 2.0.

My experience with Doomtown is that it pretty heavily leans towards the 2 player game. 4 player was fun... but didn't seem particularly well balanced or fair. Doomtown does suffer from an 'all in' problem (especially with new players) where the entire game is decided early by one enormous shootout. This leads to the "Only way to win is to not play" scenario in games with more than 2 people where it's in your interest to keep your head down and just let everyone else kill each other. I wouldn't even try to play with more than 4 people.

I also agree it's quite a difficult game to explain to people used to more standard CCG's. It has a tricky area control/movement mechanic, a very volatile win condition and there's a LOT more hidden information beyond just "What does my opponent have in their hand?". It's entirely possible in Doomtown to completely outnumber an opponent, with a hand full of combat cards and then get a bad draw that gets your entire posse blown away by sheer luck. (unlikely but possible)

I've only played a couple of games of AGoT, and then only 2 player but it does look like they've thought multiplayer through a bit more with some specific mechanics for the 'Melee' variant. It's also a LOT simpler to explain than Doomtown with a standard choose attackers/defenders and compare stats mechanic.

Does it compare with the greatest multiplayer CCG of all time, Jyhad/VTES? I don't think so... but even with my limited experience I think it's probably better than either Doomtown or MTG with more than two players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gamer 257
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmb
Alexfrog wrote:
"awesomer"


Love it!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Przemysław Rodzoń
Poland
flag msg tools
mb
I've only played Doomtown twice, amd it's a fine game. As previously said - it's an area control card game. Your goal (more-less) is to have more influence (on buildings mostly) than some other stat (mostly on dudes) of any of your opponents. So you keep ppl out of your properties, and invade other ppl properties. So you move your dudes a lot and it often matters more than what you have in hand.

I like that you start with some cards in play from start (and you can choose them), so starting hand problem is less of a problem.

Shootouts can have really... random outcome and it's true, that if 1st round ends in slaughter, last man standing will probably win. Though you an avoid shootouts and play around it. As I said - moving your dudes makes most of this game.

Shootouts mechanics are sopercool and building your deck is soooo deep. Too deep for me, I would even said

I never played DTR 1vs1, but I think I would liked it more than multiplayer, though it wasn't terrible and I had fun playing it.

I've also played only a couple games of AGOT 2.0 melee. They were fine, but I prefer joust format (1vs1). Also, overall mechanics are more intresting for me. 3 types of challanges (hand, board, points), do I attack, or do I leave it to defend, etc. Just a sweet spot of thinking for me.

Honestly, for multiplayer games I prefer typical boardgames (including Game of Thrones board game). I play cards mostly for 1vs1 experience.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Schutte
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Game of Thrones uses titles that you draft and change every turn. These titles decide who you can't attack (1 player usually). Otherwise if you're playing just to maximize your score you will be picking on the weakest player. Characters have to tap to block in this game. Any attack that doesn't get blocked nets you 1 power (victory points). Most of the time you will attack someone who has tapped out for the automatic vp. The game is more popular as a joust, since the melee can be pile on the loser. If you want a great multiplayer game check out Vampire the eternal struggle. I really hoping it gets the LCG treatment in the near future, it was designed for multiplayer not a 2 player game with multiplayer added on later.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Przemysław Rodzoń
Poland
flag msg tools
mb
Crikrunner wrote:
Most of the time you will attack someone who has tapped out for the automatic vp. The game is more popular as a joust, since the melee can be pile on the loser.
This is exactly why I'm not fond of any multiplayer game with direct negative interactions everyone vs everyone type. It's usually:
"Let's beat up this fellow."
"Yeah!"
"Ok."
"I guess, better him, than me."
Then:
"Check this out, he almost won!"
"Let's get him!"
Then there are 2 last guys standing, and one of them is probably in better position than the other, so he wins. Bleh. No fun for me.

Title cards (and fact that you can't be really excluded from game, but you can be stripped of your chances to win) can help a little bit, so usually you can't be attacked by 1 of other players, and you can't attack 1 other player. I'm just not convinced it helps that much...

I think in Doomtown it's "easier" to win - it can happen 1st round, so game is almost always in state "he almost won, we must do something about it". Someone is always close to winning. But there again, if all of other players attack all of your other dudes and slaughter your team, you'll also become just a "farmland" for them and you won't have real winning chances.
 
 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.