Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)» Forums » General

Subject: Has anyone tried playing 2 player? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Lance Seme
United States
broadview hts
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I just ordered the game online but now I noticed its 3-6 players, I normally play with my girlfriend. Will we be able to play this game with just the 2 of us without losing to much of the strategy in the game? Has anyone tried playing two player and how did it work out?

Thanks,
Lance
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lane H
msg tools
mbmbmb
You will have to heavily modify the rules to work with 2 players, and you'll lose the entire 'alliance/backstabbing' portion of the game.

Also, the map will be so wide open that either player can win just by ignoring the other player and taking the open spots.

It might be worth trying once or twice, but there are much better 2 player games out there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Radosław Michalak
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Gaming is for having fun. Fun requires clear rules.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it's not worthy to bother, because there are many good games that are designed to be played by 2 and you will loose most important element - diplomacy.

Better try to add some mustering and event mechanism to chess

EDIT: Too late
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Laine
United States
Whittier
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are just interested in the Westeros theme, 2-player alternatives are the Game of Thrones Living Card Game and Battles of Westeros. If you guys are more interested in the strategic troop management and diplomacy aspects, establish or find a bigger gaming group. If you want a simple area control game that's appropriate for 2 players to tide you over in the mean-time, try something like Small World.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Seme
United States
broadview hts
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have other strategy based wargames to fit the bill, we just wanted a game based on game of thrones. Looks like ill be stuck with this game hopefully I can get some others to play. I will look into the card game more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Shaffstall
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, we've tested a two-player variant. The essential feeling of the game was still there, and it was a lot of fun. It needed a bit of work, though.

We played Lannister and Martell, and cut out everything north of Riverrun. One of the things we found was that we needed to cut out Riverrun, too (this was with the first edition expansion board, so won't match the second edition board exactly).

I forget how many castles we needed to win, but you can work that out with a playtest.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Radosław Michalak
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Gaming is for having fun. Fun requires clear rules.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jshaffstall wrote:
...The essential feeling of the game was still there, ...

It depends on what you mean by "essential feeling". For me it's strategy, diplomacy and backstabbing in Westeros theme.
You can keep theme and part of strategy.
But you cannot keep the rest.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Haz Dhim
Belgium
flag msg tools
mb
There are some ways to make it work with 2 players, but you'll always lose something.

A simple variant is that you always control 2 or 3 houses, which will then be considered to have an everlasting alliance (with no backstabbing and uncertainty).

However, to recreate that uncertainty, we usually divide houses in major and minor houses. Each controls one major house for the entire game. After placing your orders with your major house, you divide at random who controls which minor house for the next turn (orders and bidding). This way, at planning fase, you will get that same feeling of desperatly hoping your neighbour won't attack you, but not being entirely sure wether you can count on him.

You'll still lose real diplomacy, and you'll have to set some rules about no suicide attacks with minor houses, or simply letting a minor house walk out of its castles so you can take them the same turn, but it works. It's not perfect, but it'll still be fun enough.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derrick Billings
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The LCG is better for 2 players. Trying to play the board game with only 2 would be almost impossible as it's designed to be asymmetrical, so there's no way to check the board advantages of 1 group via diplomacy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris H.
Germany
flag msg tools
Quote:
A simple variant is that you always control 2 or 3 houses, which will then be considered to have an everlasting alliance (with no backstabbing and uncertainty).



I tried that Variant yesterday (Lannister+Greyjoy against Baratheon+Stark), but I admit that i simply had the game new and wanted to play as much as possible. I think you must make some rules that you can't take castles from your alliance partner, otherways it could be a very short game. I guess some rule like "one house 7 castles, the other house at least ... (4? 5?)" would do.

Of course you lack every kind of diplomacy / backstab. It was an okay feeling to do it once in a while.
 
 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.