Second week in a row that we brought Cat in the Box to the table, but this time with the full capacity of 5-players!
We’ve now had a few plays of this game, and I think it’s been cemented as one that we actually need to add to the collection. It’s had us howling and shouting at each other like no other game has for a while, but it’s light and snappy enough that you don’t feel like never speaking to these people again!
Last night, we played Greed with my partner’s family. This dice rolling game has you banking dice to try and race to 5000 points. Each roll must score points, or else you’ll bust for the round and accumulate nothing. Not a complicated game, and very little decision making space (to keep rolling, or to keep scoring?), but it was fun! I’m probably saying that because I won at my very first play of it.
This morning, I brought River Wild to the table. This is a solo game in which you’re trying to create “protected lands” to score points. Additional objectives are printed on cards which score bonus points if met! As with all Button Shy games, there’s fewer than 20 cards, which means the game is tight and doesn’t take too long.
@lolzy_mcroflmao I’ve played the original Cat in the Box a decent amount and we noticed that there is a seat binding that becomes more prevalent in impact at 4 players than at 3. Not having access to the re-issue, I’ve never tried it at 5. Do you think it becomes more so at 5 than at 4?
I’ll do my best to answer in my limited experience, but before I do, can I just get some clarification on what you mean by ‘Seat Binding’? A quick Google suggests you’re referring to advantage based upon where a player is seated in the turn order - is that it?
@lolzy_mcroflmao Yeah, generally. I’ve also seen the term used where “the influence of a player to your left/right is outsized compared to the effect of players which are separated by at least one other player” (so in Pax Porfiriana or The King is Dead, you are responsible for stopping your left-handed opponent from winning).
In Cat the Box, our observation is the further you are from the trick leader that started that round, the more likely you are to get stuck in a bad situation. So we really want to either lead the trick, or be second. In a 3p game, we found it was just a quirk, but in 4p, the pressure on the 4th player to disrupt the tendency of “complete my run and get out” that you find in many (but not all) trick takers caused the game to be less stable and more often then not, the 4th player in that round fared worse.
I’m willing to accept it as a group dynamic issue in terms of conservative/aggressive play styles, but since you said you’d played at 5 (and none of my group) I thought I’d ask if you had seen a similar effect.
I’m afraid that this is probably still prevalent here (wasn’t looking for it, but I do recall a few feelings)! Depending on your prediction, you may only be looking to win one or two tricks, and if you’re positioned in seat 3 or 4 from the trick leader, you often find yourself having to play high beat the first few players only to be trumped by seat 5.
I also wonder if the prediction mechanic aims to keep the leader rotating so as to mitigate seating bias. You’re unlikely to get stuck with 1 leader that keeps trumping the hands as most people are aiming to win 1-3 tricks.
Interestingly, our games have always been won by players that just had 1 extremely good round. In other words, I suspect there’s an element to try and optimise the round in which you lead.
@lolzy_mcroflmao Yeah, we’ve seen the “blow out one really good round, and then don’t paradox” in 4p. 3p less so but it’s still a decent approach. This may just be a quirk of the design is all (and that’s fine. I have lots of games where there are annoyances and I still love them). I appreciate the replies, thanks.
Second week in a row that we brought Cat in the Box to the table, but this time with the full capacity of 5-players!
We’ve now had a few plays of this game, and I think it’s been cemented as one that we actually need to add to the collection. It’s had us howling and shouting at each other like no other game has for a while, but it’s light and snappy enough that you don’t feel like never speaking to these people again!
Last night, we played Greed with my partner’s family. This dice rolling game has you banking dice to try and race to 5000 points. Each roll must score points, or else you’ll bust for the round and accumulate nothing. Not a complicated game, and very little decision making space (to keep rolling, or to keep scoring?), but it was fun! I’m probably saying that because I won at my very first play of it.
This morning, I brought River Wild to the table. This is a solo game in which you’re trying to create “protected lands” to score points. Additional objectives are printed on cards which score bonus points if met! As with all Button Shy games, there’s fewer than 20 cards, which means the game is tight and doesn’t take too long.
@lolzy_mcroflmao I’ve played the original Cat in the Box a decent amount and we noticed that there is a seat binding that becomes more prevalent in impact at 4 players than at 3. Not having access to the re-issue, I’ve never tried it at 5. Do you think it becomes more so at 5 than at 4?
I’ll do my best to answer in my limited experience, but before I do, can I just get some clarification on what you mean by ‘Seat Binding’? A quick Google suggests you’re referring to advantage based upon where a player is seated in the turn order - is that it?
@lolzy_mcroflmao Yeah, generally. I’ve also seen the term used where “the influence of a player to your left/right is outsized compared to the effect of players which are separated by at least one other player” (so in Pax Porfiriana or The King is Dead, you are responsible for stopping your left-handed opponent from winning).
In Cat the Box, our observation is the further you are from the trick leader that started that round, the more likely you are to get stuck in a bad situation. So we really want to either lead the trick, or be second. In a 3p game, we found it was just a quirk, but in 4p, the pressure on the 4th player to disrupt the tendency of “complete my run and get out” that you find in many (but not all) trick takers caused the game to be less stable and more often then not, the 4th player in that round fared worse.
I’m willing to accept it as a group dynamic issue in terms of conservative/aggressive play styles, but since you said you’d played at 5 (and none of my group) I thought I’d ask if you had seen a similar effect.
Great, thanks for clarifying!
I’m afraid that this is probably still prevalent here (wasn’t looking for it, but I do recall a few feelings)! Depending on your prediction, you may only be looking to win one or two tricks, and if you’re positioned in seat 3 or 4 from the trick leader, you often find yourself having to play high beat the first few players only to be trumped by seat 5.
I also wonder if the prediction mechanic aims to keep the leader rotating so as to mitigate seating bias. You’re unlikely to get stuck with 1 leader that keeps trumping the hands as most people are aiming to win 1-3 tricks.
Interestingly, our games have always been won by players that just had 1 extremely good round. In other words, I suspect there’s an element to try and optimise the round in which you lead.
@lolzy_mcroflmao Yeah, we’ve seen the “blow out one really good round, and then don’t paradox” in 4p. 3p less so but it’s still a decent approach. This may just be a quirk of the design is all (and that’s fine. I have lots of games where there are annoyances and I still love them). I appreciate the replies, thanks.
Agreed!
Thanks for the discussion (and lesson) to get me thinking more about the game!