Friday Night Gaming: Evo, Betrayal at House on the Hill
January 2, 2009
Robert came over early and he and Merwin cranked out some two-player games while the rest of us arrived. I won't report on those games.
Evo
While I waited for those two to finish their game of Mr. Jack, I read through the rules of Evo, a used copy of which Merwin had just received in the mail. I had played this once before at a ConQuest several years ago. I had sought to purchase a cheap copy for myself, but since it is out of print, that never happened. As it turns out, Robert had also played it before, so it should have been a smooth game.
But it took four turns for Merwin to get it. At one point, I wanted to strangle him. Hopefully we'll be able to bring this back to the table before he forgets again. But I'm not sure it will since the first experience was pretty painful. Brian made became the runaway winner and the game was effectively over several turns before it was officially over. Evo is an auction game and we simply let Brian get too many "egg" genes too soon and too cheaply, resulting in a consistent vp advantage for him every turn. It was painful and Robert and I should have known better. I'll get you next time, Gadget. Next time!
Betrayal at House on the Hill
We played this cooperative, horror-themed game three times. In the first two, Brian ended up the traitor, but was frustrated by his inability to win or to even kill one of us. In the last game, Ian took the reins and the outcome came down to the last turn, with two good guys left standing. They were barely able to defeat the blob monster. But the night was marred by a heated rules argument caused by rules that are too vague. Fortunately, the official FAQ cleared it up once someone* bothered to look it up.
Because the game designer and rules author (who might not be the same person, especially with translated rules) are not there to guide you, the rules have to be very explicit. And yet, they also need to be approachable and not read like legal text. There can be a conflict between what the rules say and what they mean. This happens all the time in everyday life. How many of us have failed to properly convey or read meaning in an email that lacks the appropriate vocal tones and body language? If you interpret a rule one way, it's a stupid rule; but if you interpret it another way, other players think you're being stupid. I've certainly found myself arguing one side or another at different times with different games, trying to glean the meaning out of what the text says. And when two (or more) people disagree, it can get very frustrating very quickly.
* That would be me.
Robert came over early and he and Merwin cranked out some two-player games while the rest of us arrived. I won't report on those games.
Evo
While I waited for those two to finish their game of Mr. Jack, I read through the rules of Evo, a used copy of which Merwin had just received in the mail. I had played this once before at a ConQuest several years ago. I had sought to purchase a cheap copy for myself, but since it is out of print, that never happened. As it turns out, Robert had also played it before, so it should have been a smooth game.
But it took four turns for Merwin to get it. At one point, I wanted to strangle him. Hopefully we'll be able to bring this back to the table before he forgets again. But I'm not sure it will since the first experience was pretty painful. Brian made became the runaway winner and the game was effectively over several turns before it was officially over. Evo is an auction game and we simply let Brian get too many "egg" genes too soon and too cheaply, resulting in a consistent vp advantage for him every turn. It was painful and Robert and I should have known better. I'll get you next time, Gadget. Next time!
Betrayal at House on the Hill
We played this cooperative, horror-themed game three times. In the first two, Brian ended up the traitor, but was frustrated by his inability to win or to even kill one of us. In the last game, Ian took the reins and the outcome came down to the last turn, with two good guys left standing. They were barely able to defeat the blob monster. But the night was marred by a heated rules argument caused by rules that are too vague. Fortunately, the official FAQ cleared it up once someone* bothered to look it up.
Because the game designer and rules author (who might not be the same person, especially with translated rules) are not there to guide you, the rules have to be very explicit. And yet, they also need to be approachable and not read like legal text. There can be a conflict between what the rules say and what they mean. This happens all the time in everyday life. How many of us have failed to properly convey or read meaning in an email that lacks the appropriate vocal tones and body language? If you interpret a rule one way, it's a stupid rule; but if you interpret it another way, other players think you're being stupid. I've certainly found myself arguing one side or another at different times with different games, trying to glean the meaning out of what the text says. And when two (or more) people disagree, it can get very frustrating very quickly.
* That would be me.
Labels: Other Games
posted by Patrick at 7:45 PM
<< Home