Flashback Friday - Lords of Waterdeep - Love it or Hate It? Do you Still Play It?

Ken B. wrote: Still like it, still have it, but I think I'd rather play Champions of Midgard these days. That may just be a phase, we'll see.

This.

I'd rather play something like King of Tokyo in that case then. Or Monopoly.

I think there's just this weird spot for me where a game has low luck AND low skill, where I just don't enjoy it. It just makes me wonder why we're playing a game at all.

Die, Waterdeep, die!!!

I think we're alone on this one. Best we can get on our side is, "meh, not my mug of dwarven ale."

I enjoyed it well enough. It’s a genre I enjoy with a few, very notable exceptions, and it’s a great entry point to worker placement. The expansion, while it doesn’t improve the game to the point where you might love it if you didn’t before, is still very good and is a must have if you do enjoy the game.

However, it will never be the worker placement game I go for if I feel like playing one. Especially if you want that fantasy dressing and a better feel for fighting monsters, Champions of Midgard with both expansions is _THE_ best worker placement game, period. The base game isn’t any heavier than LoW and the expansions truly set the game into the stratosphere.

Jexik wrote: I think we're alone on this one. Best we can get on our side is, "meh, not my mug of dwarven ale."

I'm with you. I find LoW super-bland and exists at the "why play?" level of game where it feels like a boring activity. As you said earlier, not random enough to just have fun at the wacky hijinks and not skillful enough that you need to pay any attention to it.

boothwah wrote: I'd never drag it to the table, but I wouldn't pitch a fit it was what we were playing.

Hyperbole aside, I don't pitch a fit either. I just tell people, "I'm just going to watch." Then after they have been playing for a few minutes, I silently drift away to play a game at another table or read up on current events on my phone.

I have it and still play it. I don't bother with the expansion. It's easy to teach to newbies.

Would play Argent instead every time.

I'm kinda with uba on this one. I'm not particularly excited about Lords, but it's usually my first line of defense when playing with a Euro-desiring audience (this sounds like an anti-Brexit argument...) They understand worker placement mechanics, so the theme doesn't disrupt them too much. I always emphasize the actual labels of the cubes ("Yes, those are WARRIORS. And MAGES.") when I'm distributing or accepting (I'm always the bank.) Then, once we've gotten through a game of the base set, I try to introduce the expansion and see how they feel about some rules grit. If they survive that, then we can move on to a real "worker placement" game like Blood Rage...

I still love the classic Forgotten Realms setting from the mid-80s. It's why I also like Assault of the Giants, even though the mechanics in that one are a little less elegant overall. So, that's why I still like playing Lords. I never thought the "mandatory quest" was as much a direct interaction tool as it was intended, because by the time most players are comfortable taking time to play one of them, the target usually has enough resources stockpiled to dismiss it pretty easily. I still like the game and will play it, but there are many more in that vein that I would gladly play before it. I think it works really well as something to play on Steam, though. Too bad the Android client seems to suck.

Boring and mildly lame without being particularly offensive. We all remember the highlight of D&D games from our youth, when the thrilling climax of an epic quest involved six orange cubes and eight purple ones.

Needs a provost.

It's not a stupendous design by any means. The theme is semi-pasted on. The player interaction is optional. Those are all reasons you could hate it, but they can also be selling points.

My wife and her parents like to play games on occasion, but they're very not gamers. Before I showed up, Rummikub was about as far as they went. They've been willing to try games I bring, but with mixed results. Frequently, "deeper" games just confuse her father and he gives up. Her mom is more willing to learn, but usually has to be coached on rules a LOT. None of them give a rat's ass about theme, especially fantasy shit.

Waterdeep is this great middle ground that they totally got into. The rules are pretty simple, because most stuff is basically "spend X, get Y." The player interaction is there, but you can do just fine ignoring it (usually they all do and give me dirty looks when I hit them with intrigue cards, then hit me back with them). The theme being pasted on is a benefit. I don't have to explain that orange is fighters because it doesn't matter, and they don't care. Meanwhile, I can be pleasantly surprised when the cube requirements for different quests actually makes sense.

So yeah, is this an all-time great game? Nah, probably not. But it falls into the same camp as Betrayal at House on the Hill, where I don't keep it for me to play, I keep it around because it's a decent game that certain crowds will really like.

I might be alone in that I just played this for the first time a few weeks ago. It just wasn't exciting. It wasn't bad, but I don't think it's a game I'd ever choose to play. I think I'd almost appreciate it more if it was honest in its Euroness in that the white cubes represented milk, the purple were grapes, etc. Mmm, Milch und Trauben!