Hey, all, I have a question that I may have asked before but I am not sure. Have any of you played WotR with 3 or 4 players? I have never done this but from time to time consider trying it. When I read over the rules I get the impression that the players who are on the same team would get in each others way almost as much as your opponents - maybe even more so. So as a result I have never ventured to attempt the multi-player version of this game.
Any thoughts or experience with this matter?
BTW, while I am on this do you know if they are still selling the card sleeves for the collectors edition?
posted by Carlos @ 6:22 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Try BGG, I seem to recall there being some 3-4 person session reports and possibly some house rule variants posted there.
I tried it with 3 players once way back when I first learned the game and it seemed clumsy-like they just tacked the 3-4 player rules on for marketing purposes.
That is the exact thing that I felt. As is the multi-player rules were tacked on to the finished product because it would look better if it could accomidate up to 4 players.
Mark beat me to the punch. War of the Ring is a "fixed fun" game, i.e. the amount of fun generated is constant regardless of the number of players. The more players, the less fun each individual gets to experience. Worse, as stated here, I suspect the fun actually diminishes with more than one per side due to bickering.
I don't know if the sleeves are still for sale, but it was Mayday Games that sold them. I have my sealed envelope from them, but I haven't yet busted them out to do the sleeving yet.
I also still need to go buy a plastic travel tub for the game in order to make it a bit more transportable than it is in the giant wooden coffin. Still, it is my precious...
Oh... one more thing. If you're interested in something of the War of the Ring flavor, and have 3-4 players to play with, you might try Age of Conan. There are mixed reviews all around, but I enjoyed it enough to keep it on the shelf.
I've actually only played War of the Ring with 3 or 4 players (mostly because more than 2 people were interested in it every time I've played), and I've been very happy with it that way. I don't doubt that it's better with just 2, but it's not a bad game at all with more.
The biggest thing that makes it cool for me is that it's actually more appropriate for the theme to have the somewhat uneasy alliances on each side. Gondor and Rohan certainly weren't BFF or anything, and Saruman definitely had his own thing going on rather than just being reinforcements for Mordor.
There's definitely a little clumsiness with the rules, but I'd still consider it well worth playing with 3 or 4.
Chris, that's good information. I may just need to try it as a multi-player sometime. But Ben's suggestion to substitute Age of Conan sits well with me. Thanks!
And, Ben, I do own Age of Conan and I am quite fond of it. I must admit that it was not as "involved" as I would have liked, but I enjoyed it enough to have about 4 or 5 games under my belt. It is a fun game that moves quickly, is easy to learn, and usually takes less than 2 hours. I like the option of a player trying to crown Conan as king. In fact I see this as one of the games strengths. A player who knows he is behind need not lose all hope of winning. But this strategy has never worked for me as I have been unsuccessful at crowning Conan at least twice.
Post a Comment
<< Home