Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Fury of Dracula (second edition)» Forums » General

Subject: Anything wrong with using less than 4 hunters? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Enon Sci
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm well aware the rules seem fixated on having 4 hunters in play, but would 3 really break the games dynamic? How about 2? Anybody tried out a game like this?

Just curious.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex

Québec
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good luck!!! devil
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
marc lecours
Canada
ottawa
ontario
flag msg tools
mbmb
you absolutely need 4 hunters in play otherwise the hunters don't stand a chance.

On the other hand a player can easily handle 2 hunters. In fact one player could handle all the hunters.

We often play with only 3 or 4 players. In a 4 player game, the fastest (least patient player) controls 2 hunters, the others 1 each.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enon Sci
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rubberchicken wrote:
you absolutely need 4 hunters in play otherwise the hunters don't stand a chance.


Yeah, I've heard this. I'm just curious why this is so.

Sure a 1 on 1 game would be murder, but a 3 on 1 opposed to 4 on 1 seems to carry the same dynamic. Would 3 hunters really disadvantage the situation to such a great degree? Seems like the change would be minor, unless cards specifically require certain hunter to be in play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex

Québec
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Have you played the game? It's not especially friendly on the hunters as it is. You've only got 4 little guys to roam the entire Europe; Dracula could be anywhere. Even with only 3 characters, it would not be surprising if Dracula managed to avoid capture the entire game.

Playing 2 characters at a time is easy and fun anyway. Probably more so than just one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enon Sci
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jellospike wrote:
Have you played the game? It's not especially friendly on the hunters as it is. You've only got 4 little guys to roam the entire Europe; Dracula could be anywhere. Even with only 3 characters, it would not be surprising if Dracula managed to avoid capture the entire game.

Playing 2 characters at a time is easy and fun anyway. Probably more so than just one.


No, actually I haven't played the game. I own it, but it hasn't found the right moment to hit the table.

Last night was almost that moment, but with only 3 hunter players I opted to retire the idea till later. This is a fairly casual crowd when it comes to gaming (Settler's is hard for them to grasp).

Never-the-less, it seemed that 3 vs. 4 wouldn't make that big of a change to the gameplay dynamic, especially when newspaper reports, resolve and other event cards came into play. However, evey source I've read seems adamant on the issue of using all four hunters, so I figured this would be the best place to inquire as to why this would be. Again, I can see the logic underlining using 4 hunter opposed to a singular, or even two, but three seems to offer nearly the same flexibility as four..
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Anarchosyn wrote:
Last night was almost that moment, but with only 3 hunter players I opted to retire the idea till later.

Hang on, you do realise that the number of hunter players doesn't have to be 4, right? If you don't have enough players to give one hunter per player, you give somebody multiple hunters.

Granted, I don't like playing FoD with three, because that either gives you a communally-controlled hunter or one player playing twice as many hunters as they other two, but in principle the number of players is not tied to the number of hunters. I find that FoD works quite well with 2 hunter players with 2 hunters each, or one hunter player playing all the hunters. There are those who consider three players (one playing Dracula, two playing hunters) to be ideal.

And, the game is finely balanced with 4 hunters. Drop one hunter, and you've cut the power of the hunters by a quarter. That's a quarter less cities that can be searched, a quarter less event cards that can be drawn to help find Dracula, a quarter less items that can be drawn to obtain the means to kill Dracula, a quarter less hunters who can fight, a quarter less special abilities. According to common chess theory, playing without your queen against a full opposition would be considerably less of a handicap. Do you think playing chess down a queen from the start isn't going to make a difference to the game?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Figgins
United States
Woodland
California
flag msg tools
badge
http://lyrislaser.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Playing Fury of Dracula with only 2 Hunters would be like playing a game of Chess where your opponent can do 2 moves to every one of yours.

Now, as said above, 2 Hunter players, each one playing 2 Hunters, would be fine. As long as you have 4 Hunters total.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enon Sci
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wraith wrote:
Anarchosyn wrote:
Last night was almost that moment, but with only 3 hunter players I opted to retire the idea till later.

Hang on, you do realise that the number of hunter players doesn't have to be 4, right? If you don't have enough players to give one hunter per player, you give somebody multiple hunters.


Yep, it's not like we're doing a dissertation on Marcel Proust here.

My hesitation stemmed from two factors:

1) I've never actually played the game, though I feel fairly confident with the rules. This confidence, however, could never impart to me a real sense of how the game flows over time. Complexity might pop up in an uncomfortable manner, so I watch my boundaries.

2) With the fact my group exhibits certain.. umm.. (how does one say it nicely?) "hard to teach" specimens of the human persuasion, I thought it wise to not muddle the water by forcing multiple characters on them.

Part of what makes FFG-esque thematic games so appealing to casuals is the ability to identify with a singular entity and "live another life" in their shoes. Playing multiple characters dilutes this sensation, and I fear might lessen interest initial.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex

Québec
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, if you really want to play with 3 hunters, just try it! But I strongly recommend handicapping the Dracula player. There are numerous suggestions in the rulebook to do so. Just apply them all!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Anarchosyn wrote:
2) With the fact my group exhibits certain.. umm.. (how does one say it nicely?) "hard to teach" specimens of the human persuasion, I thought it wise to not muddle the water by forcing multiple characters on them.

In this case, making them play one hunter down is going to lead to a severe asskicking for them. FoD already eats clueless hunter players alive. It usually takes a little bit before hunters can play well enough to keep Dracula under threat.

And with players such as you describe, a severe asskicking is unlikely to endear the game to them. I'd either bite the bullet and give somebody two characters (possibly you have one player who can handle the extra challenge? It's not like everyone need do it), or wait until there are five players (including Dracula).
 
 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.