A pirate's life, maybe not for me

We've had Tortuga 1667 for nearly a year, and we've only played it twice. That's not entirely uncommon given how many games we have, but I find myself wondering why we haven't gotten it to the table more often.

A big part of it is that Tortuga 1667 wants to be a social deduction game, a genre of game that generally requires a large number of players to be interesting, and most of our non-RPG gaming tends to be done in groups of 2-4 players. Plus I don't really like social deduction games. I find them to be too abstract and lacking in interesting game mechanics or compelling adventure, the two things I tend to look for in a game.

So how did we end up with this game in the first place? Well, it is absolutely beautiful too look at, and it was offered as an add-on in Facade Games' Kickstarter campaign for Deadwood 1876. Plus the player official player count is 2-9, so we figured we might be able to make it work for smaller groups.

At the start of the game, each player is given a secret affiliation, either French or English. The game then involves jockeying for the positions on the board that allow you to either move the other players around, or allocate treasure chests to one side or the other. The trick is that you don't know which players are on your side, and every part of the game relies on anticipating whether or not you think the other players will help or hinder you.

For example, a player in the Captain position can call for an attack, which adds more treasure to his ship. But the attack is resolved by each whose pawn is currently on that ship secretly playing a card that will either help or hinder the attack, so an attack will only be successful if the majority of players on the ship think the Captain is on their side.

In our games we found that, due to this voting mechanic, it was very difficult for a player to actually accomplish anything on their turn. Attacks would get voted down, treasure would get moved back and forth, and the social deduction part of the game wasn't very interesting, and more aggravating than fun.

It's possible that this game just needs more players than we normally have on hand (we played one game with 3 and one with 5), but honestly, if we ever have a table of 6 or more players we're more likely to play a meatier game like Battlestar Galactica, which makes more interesting use of the "secret betrayer" idea, or Dune, which allows players to decide how much "shifting alliances" they want in the game.

Rating: 2 (out of 5) This game just isn't compelling enough at low player counts, and not worth the effort of getting a large group together.

• Tortuga 1667 official website
• Tortuga 1667 on BoardGameGeek

Small things come in good packages

I was drawn to the Kickstarter campaign for Deadwood 1876 by its terrific artwork and simple, elegant graphic design, so let's talk about that first.

It is a great looking game. It comes packaged (like all of the games in the "dark city" series from Facade Games) in a box designed to look like an old leather bound book with a magnetic lid. All the game components other than the cards are made of wood (no plastic) and beautifully designed, especially the three engraved discs that represent the locations in the game. The artwork on the cards is very well-rendered, in a style that is just cartoony enough to be expressive but without looking silly.

The game's design is also very minimal, which appeals to me as a respite from the current trend towards overproduced Kickstarter games with hundreds of plastic miniatures and overdone, hard to read boards and rulebooks. Finally something simple and (hopefully) easy to play.

Or is it?

The rules and mechanics of the game are simple enough. The game consists of Safe cards, Deadwood cards, and three locations at the center of the table. Each player starts with two face down safe cards in front of them, and there is a stack of three more in the center; Safe cards consist mainly of gold in various denominations, with a few guns and other items sprinkled in.

Players also start with a hand of Deadwood cards that represent items used to perform actions: guns for fighting, horses for movement, and various bits of leatherwork such as hats and holsters for manipulating the cards in various ways. Player pawns are randomly distributed among the three locations (more on this in a moment).

The goal of the game is to be in the location whose occupants collectively have the most gold (depicted on their face down Safe cards) at the end of the game. Once the winning location has been determined, the occupants of that location use their remaining weapon cards to fight it out to see who the final winner is.

Play consists of each player playing one Deadwood card from their hand. A card can be played as a weapon to attack another player, in order to either take one of their safes, or to switch places with another player's pawn or force them to leave your location. Weapons have variable strengths but use dice to determine the outcome of combat, so a lower card isn't necessarily a lost cause. Or, it can be played for another effect such as moving between locations (if there's room, each location is limited to a certain number of player pawns), peeking at face down Safe cards, or drawing extra Deadwood cards from the deck.

After each player has had a turn to play a card, there is a heist round, where players use weapon cards to fight it out for one of the safes in the middle of the table. Then another round of play begins, and so on, until all the safes in the center have been claimed. At that point there is one final round, and then the winning location is determined and the final showdown happens.

It sounds like there's a lot going on, and there is, but there is one critical problem. A key strategy to the game is figuring out who has the high value safes, so you can either steal them or make sure you're at the location with the most gold at the end. It's supposed to be a "game of shifting alliances" where you side with the others in your location to make sure you collectively have the most gold, and then backstab them in the final showdown. The problem is that with only four turns per player before the final showdown, you just don't have enough time for the amount of social deduction or level of strategy that the game calls for.

Because of the amount of bluffing and secret information involved, the game relies on all the players having a roughly equal understanding of the rules and especially the strategy, which makes it very difficult to teach. This is a major problem for a game that, like any "shifting alliances" game, needs a large number of players to be interesting.

On the other hand, I think there is a fun game here somewhere, and the gorgeous design and components make me want to keep trying to make it work.

Rating: 3 (out of 5) Too much social deduction for a board game, or perhaps too much structure for a social deduction game, but the game is beautiful to look at.

• Deadwood 1876 official website
• Deadwood 1876 on Board Game Geek

Going your own route

“Leave me alone and let me go to hell by my own route.” 

– "Calamity" Jane Cannary, shortly before her death in Deadwood, South Dakota, in 1903. 

I love open world adventure games like Runebound, Fortune and Glory, and the mother of them all, Talisman. I also love the historical western genre, and have often found myself wishing, "if only there were a wild west version of Talisman..."

Well, now there is. Western Legends took Kickstarter by storm last year, billing itself as a wild west sandbox board game, and for the most part it delivers on that promise.

Players take on the roles of legendary historical figures such as Doc Holliday, Calamity Jane, Billy the Kid, or even lesser known characters like Bass Reeves or Y. B. Rowdy (this game does a better job than most at equal representation, with nearly half of the playable characters being women or people of color). The object of the game is to roam the countryside earning "Legendary Points" towards a goal determined by the length of game the players decide on at the start.

Players can earn points by prospecting for gold or herding cattle, but the real meat of the game is in the decision to either follow a path of law and order as a Marshal, or become a Wanted outlaw. Marshals spend the game tracking down non-player bandits as well as players who have gone renegade, facing off in combat via a clever poker-based game mechanic. Outlaws can choose to rob the bank, steal cattle, but have to watch out for player Marshals as well as a non-player Sheriff, because getting caught will force them to pay a hefty fine and set them back to the start of the outlaw track. Players can even switch careers midway through the game -- you aren't locked into a single course of action and can switch gears as needed.

The problem with a lot of open world games is that it's often difficult for players to figure out what they should be doing. Western Legends deals with this through several goal-oriented game mechanics. First of all, each player character comes with a set of goal cards outlining fairly simple tasks to perform such as winning fights or rustling cattle. There is also a story deck, which rewards players who achieve certain goals with bonus points or equipment as well as a bit of back story.

If I have any problem with Western Legends it's that it doesn't really shine at lower player counts. Playing the game with two requires the use of a third character, the Man in Black, whose actions are determined by a random set of cards. It works, but the game is a lot more fun with a full table of 4-5 players so Marshals have plenty of outlaws to chase, and outlaws have plenty of other outlaws to distract the Marshal...

Rating: 5 (out of 5) a terrific game that does exactly what it set out to do, which is to provide open-ended board game adventures in the wild west.

• Western Legends official website
• Western Legends on Board Game Geek