$30.00
Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Lords of Waterdeep» Forums » Variants

Subject: Negotiation and Trade Between Rounds rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Master Charlemax
msg tools
Has anyone ever tried adding a negotiation and trade round between the standard rounds? As in, between rounds, every player can negotiate and trade resources (or promise favours for favours) with every other player at the table. Seems to fit the theme of intrigue and politicking quite well.

Anyone ever tried this?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gianluca Casu
Belgium
Ixelles
Bruxelles
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Not me, but I confess i never thought of it in first place.

Wonder why, it could add a level of bluffing to the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Spike Sprague
Canada
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I never thought of doing that. But it does sound interesting. I might try that out the next time I pull it out. Sounds...intriguing laugh
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Master Charlemax
msg tools
I'm thinking of trying it next time too. Should be interesting. If you guys try it as well, let me know how it goes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Schaub
Switzerland
Thun
Bern
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You can do this with many games.

However, as I dislike politics in games very much, this would not be up my alley at all, but if you like politics in games, go for it.

I would advise to add these things step by step. So straight up trading first before you try negotiations and favors. Because those things have a potential for some real conflict and causes for table flipping.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gláucio Reis
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro
RJ
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I think trading resources would just defeat the purpose of the worker placement mechanic.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Master Charlemax
msg tools
emptyset wrote:
...as I dislike politics in games very much, this would not be up my alley at all, but if you like politics in games, go for it.

However, I would advise to add these things step by step. So straight up trading first before you try negotiations and favors. Because those things have a potential for some real conflict and causes for table flipping.


Yeah, see my gaming group really enjoys that aspect of tabletop gaming, and if we can make deals that cause one player to get so mad that he flips the table, then we consider it the greatest success of all. We haven't managed to actually cause a genuine physical altercation yet, but we are definitely working on it. We came very close during a game of Monopoly once, but unfortunately it didn't quite escalate to that level.

The thing is, thematically, this is an extremely political game. I mean, it's pretty much the whole point of the theme. It's a bunch of aristocrats manipulating resources and citizens to advance their own ends and undermine those of their rivals. The more politicking involved the more thematic, and the more thematic the better. That's how we see it anyway. Obviously that style is not for everyone.

GSReis wrote:
I think trading resources would just defeat the purpose of the worker placement mechanic.


Wouldn't it just add another dimension to it? Instead of only going after resources that you can use directly, now you can accumulate any resources that anyone at the table might want. Now placing your workers isn't just about getting them to produce what you need for your own purposes, but about getting them to produce what others need as well so that you can buy what you need from them by selling them what they need.

Isn't that really what worker placement is about in real life? I mean, it's not like people who own farms employ workers to only produce what they will personally consume. Instead, they produce products that they can sell in order to buy what others produce.

I think it makes more sense (thematically if not mechanically) if your agents can acquire resources and recruits that you may not need yourself, but which you can use to buy resources, recruits, and favours that you do need from others.

I feel that the trade/negotiation mechanic would serve to improve the thematic element of the game by making it even more political than it already is.

Also, it would add a completely new style in which to play the game. Instead of the standard method of getting your own resources and completing quests, you could attempt to win by setting yourself up as holding the balance of power by accumulating resources exclusively for the other players at the table.

I understand if you see a game more as a mechanical thing that this idea might not appeal to you (though I personally see it as having mechanical appeal as well). However, if (like my gaming group) theme is the most important thing to you, and you believe that the mechanics should always be at the service of the theme rather than the other way around, I think this variant would be an improvement.

Totally understand if that's not your thing though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gláucio Reis
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro
RJ
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Charlemax wrote:
Wouldn't it just add another dimension to it?

It would dilute the importance of the worker placement, of going after the resources you need and blocking other players in the process.

Quote:
Isn't that really what worker placement is about in real life?

I see no relation between the mechanic and "real-life worker placement", except that you are using the same words. And even if there were any, I wouldn't care, because it's a game, not real life.

Quote:
I think it makes more sense (thematically if not mechanically)

Exactly, no sense mechanically.

Quote:
Also, it would add a completely new style in which to play the game.

Yes, to the point that you'd be actually playing a different game. I'd suggest just playing some other game that fits your preferences better, but it's your game and your group. If that's how you roll, go for it.

Quote:
However, if (like my gaming group) theme is the most important thing to you, and you believe that the mechanics should always be at the service of the theme rather than the other way around, I think this variant would be an improvement.

I'm on "the other way around" camp. I'm primarily a Eurogamer and Lords of Waterdeep is firmly in Eurogame territory. I think the D&D theme made you get the game thinking it would be something else, and you still want it to be something it's not. But as I said, your game, your group, whatever makes it more fun for you. Personally, I generally prefer to play a game as intended by the designer, but I confess I remove the mandatory quests. So, I'm not judging (and apologies if anything I said sounded harsh), just giving my two cents from a game design point of view.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Emperors Grace
United States
Rexford
New York
flag msg tools
Hello!
badge
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost;The old that is strong does not wither,Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
mbmbmbmbmb
GSReis wrote:
Charlemax wrote:
Wouldn't it just add another dimension to it?

It would dilute the importance of the worker placement, of going after the resources you need and blocking other players in the process.


I could also see this encouraging much more "blocking for gain" style tactics.

It's also going to wreak havoc on the balance if people trade at different rates with different players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryn Ballard
United Kingdom
Reading
Berkshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought about this but decided against trying it since I like the game length as it is. Negotiating through 7 phases could easily add another hour to a 5 player game, not worth the extra time.
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.