Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

512Re: Team Games

Expand Messages
  • macleodandrew
    Jun 17, 2008
      Its interesting you make this suggestion. I have recently gone
      through the rules of a game I picked up a while ago called Blood Feud
      in New York which is a mafia domination game for six players who are
      all bosses of a family. The snag with it as individuals is its a
      player elimination game so someone will end up watching for half the
      game unless you invent a house rule. Playing as two teams of three
      would hopefully get round this and should fit with the game I think
      as there is an aspect of negotiation and cooperation in the game, as
      well as alot of fighting.

      Andrew

      --- In lbgc@..., "Founder." <bobroscow@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi folks,
      >
      > My current curiosity is about TEAM board games. I think they add a
      > fun dimension, but there seem to be very few of them, apart from
      our
      > own RR variant, Team RoboRally?!
      >
      > I don't mean games where you are ALL a team versus the board, e.g,
      > Shadows Over Camelot, Pandemic or Lord Of The Rings; Nor one versus
      a
      > team (Fury of Dracula). I mean where you are 3 vs 3 etc.
      Teamwork
      > and high fives, team versus team.
      >
      > Know any? Maybe one of you habitues of BGG can find an old thread
      > that was done on this in the past?
      >
      > I've thought of a twist on team-play that could add fun:
      > Imagine you start game X as 6 players. You are 3 vs 3, but the
      twist
      > is that you don't know which 3 at the outset ...
      > On Turn 4, you (Player A) learn that Player B is on the opposing
      team
      > (and he learns that of you). On Turn 6 you learn that Player C is
      on
      > your team (and he learns that of you). On Turn 8 you learn that
      > Player D is on the oppsing team (and he learns that of you). That
      > still leaves Players E and F that you don't know whether they are
      on
      > your team or the opposing team... maybe you've worked that out, or
      > maybe you get told one (and thus deduce the other) on Turn 10.
      Could
      > be fun either way. Either way, you go for a team win, not an
      > individual win. E.g. as soon as 3 are eliminated, one side has
      won,
      > either 3:0 or 2:1; or else, it's a points/victory-track game and
      you
      > add your points together.
      >
      > It's a mechanic that's looking for a game!! I think it would add
      fun
      > and high fives as well as a strategic dimension. But added into
      what
      > game?!
      >
      > Not Struggle of Empires, 'cos that already has a clever alliances
      > phase. Not Perilkles, where alliances come from what you have to
      > lose or protect re statues. Not Imperial, since the essence is
      > investing in one country after another. Not my Alliance, since it
      > already has bidding for alliances as its main mechanic.
      >
      > Maybe my Conquest. Maybe Apocalypse if we are 6, or an ancient
      > version of Risk. Maybe Game of Thrones!! (expanded version for
      6) -
      > like many conquest games, it suffers from the arbitrariness of whom
      > to attack, and team-play could give shape to that? Here's a
      thought:
      > Look, I know Railroad Tycoon is already a brilliant game ... but
      > imagine playing it one time on this team basis!! ... You would
      > gradually discover who you need to HELP rather than HINDER, because
      > you win by total team score, not individually ... Which has that
      > dimension of high fives at the end that I like in team-play? 3
      > people happy instead of 1?! The other 3 blaming each other ...!
      >
      > Bob
      >
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic