Recommendation for boardgame for x4000? :)

[Nalgas]

If you're looking for something interesting that you can play with two players, you might check out Carcassonne or Elfenland.  There can be interesting strategy in both, and it keeps moving well with two players better than with more.  Clue: The Museum Caper also works well with 2 players if one plays the thief and the other plays 3-4 investigators.

Yeah, I've been meaning to pick up my own copy of Carcassonne for a while.  It's getting to be kind of unacceptable that I don't have it at this point.  Strangely enough, I do own Clue: The Great Museum Caper, but it hadn't occurred to me to try playing it that way.  That's just crazy enough that it might work.  You also may be the first person I've run into who's ever even heard of it.  Unless they started making it again at some point, it only existed very briefly in the early 90s, as far as I know.

Apparently there's been a Settlers of Catan card game since practically the dawn of time that's for two players only which we didn't discover until last year despite playing the board game plenty with other people, and it's pretty decent.  That and Rummikub are probably our current go-to games if all else fails and there's nothing else to do with just the two of us.  We both started playing Rummikub as kids with our families and play it like it's Serious Business, sitting there in intense silence plotting out ridiculous turns that rearrange the entire playing field half a dozen times in convoluted cycles just to get rid of a single tile.  Casual players learn to fear us before the end of the first game.  Heh.

[Hearteater]

Not sure if it is quite the style you want, and it might take a little googling to get the proper rules for a 6-player version, but I recommend Cosmic Encounter.  There are a lot of versions, variants, rules, and other things to make the play experience just about whatever you want.  Really the only downside is figuring out what you actually want to include and exclude from your games especially the first few.  And again, although it is listed for up to five players, past versions have supported up to eight and it isn't really all that hard to tweak it to support six if the version you get doesn't.

[vordrax]

My question is this: to what degree are things really secret between the two sides?  Exactly one player becomes the bad guy, right?  And everyone knows who it is when the haunt begins?  Then once the haunt is underway, what does that player know that the others don't and vice versa?  For instance, in Descent the overlord knows the layout of the dungeon when the others might not (if it's your first time on that quest), and the overlord has a small hand of cards that is known only to them.  But beyond that the board, and everything about the heroes in Descent, is known to all.

The reason I ask is because of your comments about "make sure anyone can be the bad guy."  I think anyone in the group could do that credibly, but we have the most fun when we're all working together to figure out the best moves.  In other words, as overlord in Descent I tend to help out with player strategizing, though they take what I say with a grain of salt since I could be tricking them (and very occasionally do, just to keep it interesting).  The others don't tend to help out much with overlord strategy since they can't see enough to say much, and since I tend to have my turns precomputed by the time they come around anyhow, keeping them super short.

Is there really much chance for that sort of dynamic with Betrayal at House on the Hill?  That's not a dealbreaker, but if so it sounds like a definite win to me.

First, let me explain a little about the Haunt. Everytime someone gets an Omen card, there is a "Haunt" roll, and if you roll equal to or less than the number of Omens currently in play, the Haunt begins (this adds a bit of growing tension to the Exploration phase.) Once the Traitor is determined (and there isn't always a traitor, but in my experience the Haunts without a traitor aren't as fun), he grabs the "Traitor" book and the others grab the "Survivor" book, and they go their separate ways until both parties understand what they're doing. The books limit the knowledge that either side has (each one has the "Win" condition, and tells you what you know about the enemy side.)

Giving away what the other side isn't supposed to know (for example, if the Survivors know that the Traitor is weak to a particular weapon, but he doesn't know that) can be somewhat detrimental. I've helped less experienced players before when I play the Traitor and they're the Survivors, but the game is at its best when both sides are trying to win as hard as they can. The relationship you're describing is more akin to a Game Master and his players, where his goal isn't necessary to defeat the players but to challenge them. The Traitor's role is to win, though there is room for giving the Survivors a leg up if they're severely disadvantaged.


I can second 4e D&D, to some extent. 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons is fun, the combat is more like a really advanced MMORPG, which helps keep it interesting. But if the players aren't sure what to do each turn, the turns can drag heavily (each player has 3 phases per turn: Standard Action, Movement Action, Minor Action), and you will definitely have some arguing over the rules. But the combat isn't as tedious as GURPS, and much more interesting than 3.5e D&D. For your situation, I'd recommend buying premade adventures and/or campaigns, rather than the books themselves. They generally contain all the information you need and premade characters, which takes a GREAT deal of the creative burden off of your shoulders. It also seems like it fits your style more, the GM-who-helps-his-party-to-not-die. The abilities are colorful and come in a card form for easy access, which can be printed off if you're running your own game, and the premade adventure my friends and I played together had them in the box.

One caveat- 4e D&D is balanced around a four-player party and, by extension, so are the premade adventures (at least the ones I've seen.) Now this may be a plus, if your group isn't as experienced, since it would make combat much easier for them. But in my experience, having more than four players in a 4e D&D group can make the turns drag on severely, even painfully for those playing. But if you can work around it, the low level premade campaigns/adventures can be a blast. But I haven't played any that are a one-night affair, so it would take probably all of your sessions for the year to get through one... so yeah.

I can give more information about D&D if you wish, but this post is already way too long.

EDIT: I know I promised to shut up, but I just saw this, and it looks incredibly awesome:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/castle-ravenloft-the-fourth-edition-horror-dd-board-game-of-doom.ars/

I've never played or heard about this product (other than the eponymous Castle itself), but this looks like a blast and might be more what you're looking for. Check out the review and see what you think, I'm actually considering it myself.

[Mánagarmr]

Talisman?

[arcee]

I'd suggest Titan, but it drastically fails the 1-2 hour rule.  So does Twilight Imperium.
Cosmic Encounter seems like a good choice - I've only played it once, and that version had 5 players, but if you can expand to 6 it should work well in your timeframe.

[Echo35]

I'd suggest Titan, but it drastically fails the 1-2 hour rule.  So does Twilight Imperium.

I own both of those games, and love them, but sweet christ, talk about an afternoon killer.

[x4000]

Wow, there's been so much good stuff posted here, thanks all.

I spent a while at the doctor's office yesterday reading through it and through rulebooks and descriptions on boardgamegeek and otherwise, and I'm still not through nearly all of it.   I'll have another go at it later tonight.  My thoughts since my last post:

Nalgas:
Yeah, Carcasonne is really good, and the expansions are very much worth it.  Not so much the count one, and the princess and dragon one is a little weak unless you really like being combative, but the others are just essential in my opinion. 

Same with you about Clue: The Museum Caper, I've never run into anyone else who played it.  I got a copy off eBay a couple of years ago, but when I was growing up we had one that we used to play all the time.  I find it much more fun than actual Cllue; I'm not sure why it didn't catch on more.  If you like that sort of mechanic with everyone chasing one character, you might try Scotland Yard -- that's a really fun one, too.

And good god on Rummikub -- that sounds like how my wife and my sister's boyfriend play Set.  When we play a 6 player game of Set, it's pretty much the other 4 of us just watching those two run the board.  It's a fun game, but I didn't encounter it until after college and so I'm at a huge disadvantage of not having this lifelong history of that particular kind of spatial reasoning.   But if you play with other folks that have a similar skill level to you, it's really fun.

Hearteater (and arcee):
Thanks so much for the link to Cosmic Encounter!  That's looking really, really likely actually.  I started reading the rulebook on the FFG site (love how they do that) last night, but will have to read more tonight.  So far I really like what I hear, though I'll have to read up on six player variants as well.  But it looks like one that, as you say, would adapt easily.  I've played 7-hero games of Descent, and even 6-person Turn the Tide (a great cardgame), so I'm no stranger to bending the player counts.   Watch out for 6-person Phase 10, though -- my god that turns into an epic game.  Our last one lasted something like 5 hours, which is just ridiculous for a cardgame.

vordrax:
Thanks again for all the detailed thoughts!  That is super, super helpful.  Unfortunately, as you seem to also conclude it's not probably going to be the best for my group because of how separate the traitor and the survivors are.  I can't imagine how table talk would work between the survivors if they have a lot of secret knowledge from the traitor that they keep having to leave to discuss.  That wouldn't work with my group, because we're going to be playing late at night after the baby is asleep, and thus people are too tired to want to get up from the table.  I still think it sounds like a killer game, but I think it's yet another for me to file away for my mental list for when the kids are older.

That's also a really good tip about the premade campaigns and scenarios -- that would be just what I'm looking for.  The time constraint kind of makes that a problem right now, but in the future that could work really well.

And yeah, I remember reading something about Castle Ravenloft last year (maybe on Penny Arcade?), but I didn't read anything so detailed.  Thanks for the link!  That sounds really promising as well, although also like it would have to be adapted up for more players.  And it seems a little less likely to work in that fashion (at least easily) compared to Cosmic Encounter.  The other downside with that one is that it's so combat-focused.  I'm fine with that, but some in my group really prefer something that's more varied; even just being able to search for traps or treasure or secret doors, like in Hero Quest, really makes things feel more robust.

Moonshine Fox:
Ooh, thanks for the link to Talisman!  I'd heard of that one a few times, but never had much of a recommendation for it.  It looks like that one is pretty long, and also really combat-focused, which are my main drawbacks.  But it seems like it could be a sort of Castle-Ravenloft-like game that actually supports 6 players out of the box (and yes, I know Talisman way precedes it, but I read about it second). It's tempting, but I think it might be another for later.

On the other hand, I read some of the Talisman rulebook on the FFG site as well, and they noted several variants for making things move faster.  The way that this game has the focus on buffing your character through choices you make in the early game is really appealing, which is another thing that I like better than Castle Ravenloft.  And it sounds like there is a good system for getting another character for players that get killed, which I also like, although I'd have to see the specifics.  The fact that this isn't co-op is kind of neutral for me, as this sounds like a really interesting sort of competitive game that my group would enjoy.

arcee (and Echo35):
Never heard of Titan, but I've heard good things about Twilight Imperium.  So many good games!  But yeah, those sort of afternoon killers I'll have to come back to.



Right now my main plan is to read more about Cosmic Encounter tonight, and I think that might be the winner.  If not that, then I might read more on Talisman, unless somebody has a better suggestion.  Thanks again to everyone for their thoughts, I would never have found either of these two I don't think if it hadn't been for the group here.

[Nalgas]

Watch out for 6-person Phase 10, though -- my god that turns into an epic game.

That's almost an understatement.  The game seems like it scales up almost exponentially the more players you add.  It goes really quickly with just two people, but with a big group it can grind to a halt at times, especially when you start getting to the later stages that have difficult-to-meet conditions to pass.

[x4000]

Watch out for 6-person Phase 10, though -- my god that turns into an epic game.

That's almost an understatement.  The game seems like it scales up almost exponentially the more players you add.  It goes really quickly with just two people, but with a big group it can grind to a halt at times, especially when you start getting to the later stages that have difficult-to-meet conditions to pass.

Okay, I'm glad that's not just us, then. 

[Nalgas]

Watch out for 6-person Phase 10, though -- my god that turns into an epic game.

That's almost an understatement.  The game seems like it scales up almost exponentially the more players you add.  It goes really quickly with just two people, but with a big group it can grind to a halt at times, especially when you start getting to the later stages that have difficult-to-meet conditions to pass.

Okay, I'm glad that's not just us, then. 

Well, there are only so many cards in the deck, and each player is holding a bunch at any given time that they probably don't want to give up that other people need to complete their hands, and the closer you get to the end of the game the larger the sets/runs/whatever you need to complete are, so with each additional player removing another hand's worth of cards from circulation and creating more competition for the same fixed pool of cards...yeah, it's bound to bog down a bit no matter who's playing.  Heh.

[x4000]

Yeah, that does make sense.  I just didn't expect the effect to be quite so sharp from each added player, I guess.  There's a lot of cards in there!

[Nalgas]

Yeah, that does make sense.  I just didn't expect the effect to be quite so sharp from each added player, I guess.  There's a lot of cards in there!

There are a lot of them, but once you're up to six players, more than half of them are in people's hands at any given time, compared to under 20% with two players.

[Ozymandiaz]

I realy like (vanilla) Risk, and it has 6 players. It might last a tad longer then 1-2 hours, depending on how and who you play with though.

[x4000]

Yeah, I like vanilla risk as well as the 2210 and LOTR variants.  The others in my play group... not as much.

I didn't wind up with time to read more about the games last night, but hopefully tonight I'll have a chance.

[Ozymandiaz]

I do not remember the player count from the top of my head, but the game of thrones board game was fun. Mind, it is 4 years since I tried it, but still.

Another one my group liked was Mag Blast. Not strictly a board game as such, rather with cards, but still fun in a big group.