Lords of Waterdeep

[K]

A DnD game for the iPad with no DnD rules in it.

Seems like the future of DnD licensing.

[Zinegata]

A DnD game for the iPad with no DnD rules in it.

Seems like the future of DnD licensing.

The trend has been there for a while. There was already an Axis & Allies retheme of D&D, followed by Lords of Waterdeep the boardgame (which was adapted to iPad) which was essentially Agricola or Stone Age.

Lords of Waterdeep is a fairly good game though, but it's undone by imbalanced secret objectives. If one player manages to snag an "unopposed" preferred quest type, he/she will likely run away with the game.

[Ice9]

Yeah, after playing a few times, we banned the Builder (objective: do what you'd want to do anyway). The rest seem relatively even though. But it does rely on the players being proactive with noticing and foiling quest streaks.

[Doom]

Hey, that's the most playable of the boardgames WotC has put out. The builder is flawed, I certainly admit.

[Zinegata]

Yeah, after playing a few times, we banned the Builder (objective: do what you'd want to do anyway). The rest seem relatively even though. But it does rely on the players being proactive with noticing and foiling quest streaks.

The rest are balanced, but the problem arises when someone has an "uncontested" objective.

Say the secret objective flop is as follows:

Player 1: Religious & Magic
Player 2: Magic & Commerce
Player 3: Commerce & Fighter

In this case Player 2 will tend to have a much more difficult game, because he's competing with both Player 1 and 2 over Magic & Commerce quests.

My house rule for the game is to "seed" the secret objectives a bit, wherein there is always an equal "overlap" between the different quest types.

[Doom]

There's some advantage there, but there's some disadvantage, too.

Suppose the quest flop is all Religious & Fighter...if player 2 wants a quest, he's going to muck the whole pile and get 5 new cards, screwing both other players out of (probably) desired quests. Neither other player will ever be in a position to do the same to him without denying themselves a sure quest card--and with no way to know "for sure" what quests the player 2 is going for, this just isn't going to happen.

I've grabbed/done a quest or two that wasn't a goal for my Lord and still won; there are a few cheaper quests with long term benefits that are totally worth it (especially if you consider there's also a denial factor).

Toss in many quests that are bad or bad if they come later in the game, and there's more of a general "luck is a factor" vibe to the game than a "player can be totally screwed from turn 1" factor.

Also, building buildings isn't good strategy in many situations, and it's quite possible to win without having a single one. This is the true problem with the builder, and she can easily be unopposed every turn. I bet they tossed her in because they wanted to encourage more building.

[Zinegata]

Suppose the quest flop is all Religious & Fighter...if player 2 wants a quest, he's going to muck the whole pile and get 5 new cards, screwing both other players out of (probably) desired quests. Neither other player will ever be in a position to do the same to him without denying themselves a sure quest card--and with no way to know "for sure" what quests the player 2 is going for, this just isn't going to happen.

Sure, but the problem is that the deck is still composed of an equal number of quests of each type. So by mucking the Religious & Fighter quests he's going to make competition for the remaining Magic and Commerce quests even tighter for himself.

I've grabbed/done a quest or two that wasn't a goal for my Lord and still won; there are a few cheaper quests with long term benefits that are totally worth it (especially if you consider there's also a denial factor).

One or two quests outside of your sphere is usually doable for the win, but the game more often than not is very, very tight. Except for games when someone was able to pull off a strong combo (e.g. an early quest that grants VP for doing certain actions) the secret objective scoring usually matters quite significantly.