Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Magic Maze» Forums » Variants

Subject: Tiles for 5 players rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James P
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The 4 player count is awesome. I love how the level of responsibility for each player feels pretty even.
player 1: Up
player 2: Down, Explore
player 3: Left, Vortex
player 4: Right, Escalator

Sure, player 1 has less to do, but at least he/she is the only one that can move someone up.

But when I look at 5 players, it seems like one player may get... bored?
player 1: Up
player 2: Down, Explore
player 3: Left, Vortex
player 4: Right, Escalator
player 5: Up

Am I reading the tiles right? Where player 1 and 5 have the same exact responsibility? Would it make sense as a variant to even out the level of responsibility?

e.g.
player 1: Up
player 2: Down
player 3: Left
player 4: Right
player 5: Vortex, Escalator, Explore

I know tiles are rotated when the sand timer is flipped, but until then it feels someone may be left out. I plan to try it out next time we have 5, but in my head it seems to make sense. Thoughts?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Nottelling
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
We have played this with 5 players and, although there was some reduced involvement for people with duplicate actions, it wasn't so much of an issue --especially as the responsibilities shift throughout the game--.

However, I love your variant. The great thing about this is that if you have 5 sheets of paper, you could distribute the responsibilities as you see fit. I think it would be better to keep the duplicate direction action but distribute the special actions between them. This would mean that both people with, say, the 'Up' action keep having to take their eye off the ball.

E.g.
player 1: Up, Explore
player 2: Down
player 3: Left
player 4: Right, Escalator
player 5: Up, Vortex
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laetitia DS
Belgium
Andenne
flag msg tools
publisher
With 5, 6 and 7 players, one of the 2 tiles with the same movement also have a special action. Usually, the player who has Vortex + arrow focuses on the Vortex until the theft occurs, and so on.

If the player with the second same arrow isn't involved or interested in the game, it happens that she just stops playing. But that is really rare from what we see when demonstrating the game at conventions.
Usually, when 2 players have the same movement, they don't look at the same heroes at the same time, so if one doesn't react, usually the other player does.
We always give the 2 same actions to players sitting at the opposite, so they both reach easily a different "area" of the board.

Giving all of the special actions to the same player wouldn't work, as it is a lot of responsibilities, the Vortex would be forgotten, and Vortex + Explore are not that useful in the second half of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James P
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After a few more plays, I think I do prefer Kevin's suggestion.

E.g.
player 1: Up, Explore
player 2: Down
player 3: Left
player 4: Right, Escalator
player 5: Up, Vortex

... with the important note about the two "Up" action players taking their eye off the ball.

My original suggestion does not work, for the same reason Laetitia pointed out - Vortex+Explore not useful when escaping. But I'm finding Kevin's suggestion to work pretty well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivo van Kreveld
Netherlands
Delft
flag msg tools
mb
burgundy90 wrote:
But when I look at 5 players, it seems like one player may get... bored?
player 1: Up
player 2: Down, Explore
player 3: Left, Vortex
player 4: Right, Escalator
player 5: Up

Am I reading the tiles right? Where player 1 and 5 have the same exact responsibility? Would it make sense as a variant to even out the level of responsibility?


Really? My tiles are like:
player 1: Up
player 2: Down, Explore
player 3: Left, Vortex
player 4: Right, Escalator
player 5: Left

I think this would also work a little better, since one of the double arrows is with a special action.

However, I like Kevin's suggestion as well. Maybe I will try that one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Michael Hickey
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would change the behaviour of both UP actions to be move Up one space only.

Neither player is therefore allowed to move any pawn more than one space Up at a time.

That way both players must work in tandem and perform alternate Up actions to move a pawn multiple spaces Up the board.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivo van Kreveld
Netherlands
Delft
flag msg tools
mb
Steve99 wrote:
I would change the behaviour of both UP actions to be move Up one space only.

Neither player is therefore allowed to move any pawn more than one space Up at a time.

That way both players must work in tandem and perform alternate Up actions to move a pawn multiple spaces Up the board.

This is actually a clever way to solve the problem that multiple players have the same action, and are thus unnecessary for completing the game. I can imagine this makes it much harder though. Also, it may raise the problem if people can't remember if they last moved a certain pawn. Still a nice solution.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John D
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
burgundy90 wrote:
The 4 player count is awesome. I love how the level of responsibility for each player feels pretty even.
player 1: Up
player 2: Down, Explore
player 3: Left, Vortex
player 4: Right, Escalator

Sure, player 1 has less to do, but at least he/she is the only one that can move someone up.

But when I look at 5 players, it seems like one player may get... bored?
player 1: Up
player 2: Down, Explore
player 3: Left, Vortex
player 4: Right, Escalator
player 5: Up

Am I reading the tiles right? Where player 1 and 5 have the same exact responsibility? Would it make sense as a variant to even out the level of responsibility?

e.g.
player 1: Up
player 2: Down
player 3: Left
player 4: Right
player 5: Vortex, Escalator, Explore

I know tiles are rotated when the sand timer is flipped, but until then it feels someone may be left out. I plan to try it out next time we have 5, but in my head it seems to make sense. Thoughts?



I must have a different printing, though I still find the 5 player game is flawed, not sure why this is so difficult for the publisher to figure out. Mine is as follows:

Player 1: Up
Player 2: Down & Explore
Player 3: Left & vortex
Player 4: Left
Player 5: Right & Escalator

In my 5 player game, which was still in a learning scenario (1-7), so we weren't passing the tiles around yet, and I was stuck being player 4, so most of the game I was doing nothing at all. Everyone in the game thought it was a very odd design choice or a misprint. The duplicated action tiles need to both have two options on them, and the one that seems most obvious to me would be the escalator and the explore actions (because the vortex goes away halfway through the game).

I think your option of having the three non-directional actions on one isn't a bad option either (because vortex goes away, and explore basically does at some point also).

I get that when you're passing the tiles around or moving around the table it's not as big of a deal, but you're still potentially stuck with a non-action for a big chunk of the game. This just seems like an oversight or lack of play testing to me. Hopefully it gets fixed in future printings. I may just have to resort to printing off my own overlays for them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laetitia DS
Belgium
Andenne
flag msg tools
publisher
I think this is the result of game components limitation rather than a flaw of design: the goal was to make all the actions available in any number of player count, taking into account that the Vortex needed to be double-sided, and that the actions should be recognisable by all of the other players around a potentially big table. Reducing the tiles' size wasn't a good option, and adding more would have considerably increased the price of the game (as it doesn't mean a few tiles, but the next standard size of cardboard). So I guess the result was the best choice, considering that it's always possible to use and combine 1-player tiles to make a new set.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John D
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ds_laetitia wrote:
I think this is the result of game components limitation rather than a flaw of design: the goal was to make all the actions available in any number of player count, taking into account that the Vortex needed to be double-sided, and that the actions should be recognisable by all of the other players around a potentially big table. Reducing the tiles' size wasn't a good option, and adding more would have considerably increased the price of the game (as it doesn't mean a few tiles, but the next standard size of cardboard). So I guess the result was the best choice, considering that it's always possible to use and combine 1-player tiles to make a new set.



This doesn't make any sense. Moving one icon from one tile to another wouldn't have impacted the cost, this was a design/production decision. No size change would have been needed, they already have 4 icons on some sides for the 2 player game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivo van Kreveld
Netherlands
Delft
flag msg tools
mb
noduh wrote:
ds_laetitia wrote:
I think this is the result of game components limitation rather than a flaw of design: the goal was to make all the actions available in any number of player count, taking into account that the Vortex needed to be double-sided, and that the actions should be recognisable by all of the other players around a potentially big table. Reducing the tiles' size wasn't a good option, and adding more would have considerably increased the price of the game (as it doesn't mean a few tiles, but the next standard size of cardboard). So I guess the result was the best choice, considering that it's always possible to use and combine 1-player tiles to make a new set.


This doesn't make any sense. Moving one icon from one tile to another wouldn't have impacted the cost, this was a design/production decision. No size change would have been needed, they already have 4 icons on some sides for the 2 player game.


What Noduh means is the following. The tiles for 8 players are:
1: Left & Vortex
2: Right & Escalator
3: Down & Explore
4: Up
5: Left
6: Right
7: Down
8: Up

This is the best distribution. If you want to use the same tiles (which is good for limiting components) for 5 players, the lowest 3 tiles are removed. This leaves tile 5 as a second Left without a second action.

I think the best distribution for 5 players is:
1: Down & Vortex
2: Right & Escalator
3: Down & Explore
4: Up
5: Left

In this case, two tiles have Down, but they both have a second action to do. However, this would require a new tile to be made (the first one).

What I do with 5 players is turn the Left & Vortex tile so it is a Down & Vortex tile, and that works fine.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John D
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I did forget that they all have multiple numbers on them for the different player counts, so it could mean one of the blank backed tiles would have had to be printed as well. I hadn't thought of just rotating one so it is a different direction, which is brilliantly simple. I'll give that a go for any future 5 player games.
 
 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.