Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ipofanes]

To my mind it assumes party-game-like traits above a player number of 6. Hilarious nonwithstanding, but tactic plays less of a role.

[Holger]

Another good one with simultaneous decisions is RoboRally. Newer editions added a timer and rules to make it a chaotic party game. But with the original rules, and a timer only if needed (just when some players are taking too long), it's a surprisingly tactical game where I have seen the good players consistently win. Of course you have to build a course that isn't too short, so that the luck will even out, so it could take a while to play.

I'd like to love this game, but my experience is that Robo Rally with many players has a serious runaway-leader problem - a player who has a significant lead doesn't have to worry at all about what the other robots do, while the middle of the pack keeps sabotaging each other's plans, making it harder to catch up to the leader even with better play. The "robots have lasers" rule (which is only a variant in the German version 😡) weakens the leader advantage because they tend to be hit more often, but not quite enough.

[crj]

Tailwind for the leader is a serious problem in Robo Rally at any player count, and makes the game way too luck-dependent.

I could rant at considerable length about Richard bloody Garfield and his bloody game designs with superficially nifty features but stupid, stupid problems that make them almost unplayable...

[Jeebus]

Definitely you need to play with Robots have lasers, I never heard about anything else.

It's important to lay out a good course, so that the leader has to criss-cross into the others. Then it's about playing your cards well, not just about having nobody pushing you. Also, among good players there tends to not be one player who gets a significant lead (although it certainly can happen).

[Asper]

As somebody who ordered the newer english version of Robo Rally quite recently, is that laser variant playable with it?

[Holger]

As somebody who ordered the newer english version of Robo Rally quite recently, is that laser variant playable with it?

I don't know that version, but I expect it's playable with any version since it doesn't require any extra material. Robots just shoot a laser and deal a damage token to the next robot in their "line of view" just like the lasers printed on the board do.

[Asper]

As somebody who ordered the newer english version of Robo Rally quite recently, is that laser variant playable with it?

I don't know that version, but I expect it's playable with any version since it doesn't require any extra material. Robots just shoot a laser and deal a damage token to the next robot in their "line of view" just like the lasers printed on the board do.

Ah, sounds nice! Cool, thank you.

[ElisabetK]

Responding to the original question - the first two or three times I played it was with a group of eight. We doubled up so there were four teams of two players each.

Obviously, this wouldn't work well for serious games, but for our group, it worked out great. We had some players who were totally unfamiliar with the cards, so pairing them with more experienced players kept the game from coming to a screeching halt every time someone had to read all the cards to figure out what they could do. Also, we had small kids in another room, so if a parent needed to get up to take care of one of them we could still keep playing.

Those games didn't take long and there was plenty of socialization going on. We played the first round putting hand cards face up so everyone could learn from each other how things worked. It took longer of course because there was sometimes discussion of what to do from the whole table before the team decided. It was a learning game, so no problem. After that one, we played "normally", but with teams, and the games were fast enough. We've played with partners since then when there were several people who wanted to play.

Playing with teams means there's going to be enough discussion between partners about what to play that it's not super top secret. But if you're playing with that many people, you're doing it because you all want to do something together, and socialize, anyway, instead of breaking into two separate groups.

tldr; partnering can be fun and the games don't get super long. Also it's tolerant of small interruptions that take players away from the table.

[RTT]

I always thought the real reason no boardgames work well at 8+ players is that noone with such a hobby has that many friends. Or that big of a table. Or that many chairs.

[faust]

I always thought the real reason no boardgames work well at 8+ players is that noone with such a hobby has that many friends. Or that big of a table. Or that many chairs.

I don't know about the table/chairs situation, I think board game fans tend to be relatively wealthy. I know people that have rooms in their house exclusively dedicated to gaming.

[ipofanes]

No lack of tables and friends (at least at the beginning) here:



I love the haggle phase.

[crj]

I always thought the real reason no boardgames work well at 8+ players is that noone with such a hobby has that many friends. Or that big of a table. Or that many chairs.

Huh? Three of my five most regular gaming groups are larger than that. Two of them regularly play the social deduction games that work best with 7-10 players. One of them does Two Rooms and a Boom with thirty players from time to time. The typical extending dining table will seat eight, as will tables in pubs, or two tables shoved together in a shop. (-8

[ElisabetK]

OMG I haven't played Civ since 1982 or so. One of my all-time favorites. Of course it was a much smaller board. Usually we'd play with whatever the max number of players was, i'm sure, seems like it was seven or eight.

Circus Maximus must have had eight players too. Our group got so loud playing it one time that a neighbor called the cops on us. 

[ipofanes]

That's right kids, we had fun gaming before Settlers came out.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

That's right kids, we had fun gaming before Settlers came out.

Don't get me started on that game. I have considered on multiple occasions going as far as saying it is worse than Monopoly.

[crj]

Looking at my collection on BoardGameGeek, the only games published before 1990 that I go out of my way to play for reasons other than nostalgia are:

Go, Chess, Perudo, Hearts, Bridge, Acquire, Jenga, Scotland Yard, Set.

Once we reach the nineties, Wolfgang Kramer and Reiner Knizia start producing games we'd regard as modern and that stand the test of time.

[GendoIkari]

Woah, I had no idea SET was that old.

[greybirdofprey]

Another good one with simultaneous decisions is RoboRally. Newer editions added a timer and rules to make it a chaotic party game. But with the original rules, and a timer only if needed (just when some players are taking too long), it's a surprisingly tactical game where I have seen the good players consistently win. Of course you have to build a course that isn't too short, so that the luck will even out, so it could take a while to play.

Me and the people I play with almost always finish before the timer runs out (remember it only starts after one person has finished), and think fast enough to strategically play. The new priority system plus the player-specific decks make it much more predictable and much less random, so you can plan better and do deck-tracking. Although the time saved by the simultaneous decisions is then all taken up by the resolution phase.

I'd just use 'anything that supports 8 players and has no, simultaneous, or very fast turns'.

Sidereal Confluence would be a good example of a strategic game that supports high player counts.