(no subject)

[prog]

While I've been in the board games hobby for a while, Shadows over Camelot is the first title whose impending release I find myself eagerly anticipating. I love the idea of a collaborative game with a hidden traitor. I really like the idea that players have incentive to fling accusations of betrayal amongst themselves even with the possibility that nobody is a traitor.

This really sounds deliciously psychological blend of Knizia's "Lord of the Rings" with "Werewolf".

Comments

[ex-colorwhe.livejournal.com]

oh, go play castle of magic with tahnan. thppt

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Hush, dear. :-) I forget where JMac falls on the CoM spectrum.

But this sounds cool. I mean, really, really cool; reading the review, "Lord of the Rings" and "Werewolf" were exactly what I was thinking. Maybe someone will have it at the NPL convention...

[ruthling.livejournal.com]

Other people have *heard* of Castle of Magic??? Cool!

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I forget who in the social circle introduced us to it. Cotton, I think? At any rate--the debate alluded to above is whether players are allowed to lie during CoM (in general at the table, or during private conversations after a chat token is played). Some people think the game is complicated enough without having to wonder whether things you've been told are true; some people think the heart of a game of alliances and secrets is lying to get people on your side.

It gets played occasionally among us, but only after first specifying whether lying is allowed. (Some people won't play it one way; some people won't play it the other.)

[prog.livejournal.com]

A key difference between tahnanese CoM and this game is that the offending player doesn't choose to be a lying bastard; rather, it's a role the game sets upon them by luck of the draw. I think this would significantly reduce and maybe even nullify the inherent hard feelings that come from completely willful deception in a game.

Side note: I'm not sure I've played a full, no-holds-barred game of CoM. It seems to me that the "correct" way to play it would involve the assumption that everyone is lying, and insist on either evidence to the contrary or displays of good faith from one's would-be allies, rather than just taking what they say at face-value.

I think I'm really into the idea of backstabby games beacuse of this extended bitter mood I've been in. Grr grr grr.