more than 5 players

how fun is playign with a table of 10? im wanting to play 8 player UDHR18/19/27

Not fun! You spend half of the game waiting, not able to interact with rest of the table while your grand grand prey and predator do stuff. Also effects that rely on number of players (e.g. parity shift) become insanely powerful.

> im wanting to play 8 player > play two 4 people tables instead. From my experiences 6 people is maximum that is playable and you should limit power of cards like parity shift, conservative agitation, etc. I've played few times for 7 people and it was absolutely terrible.

> alek wrote: > From my experiences 6 people is maximum that is playable and you should limit power of cards like parity shift, conservative agitation, etc. I've played few times for 7 people and it was absolutely terrible. > I'll second that, having been involved in a couple of 7 players games in my time. The more players involved, the more sensitive the game is to the pace people play at. If everyone knows the game and their decks well, and is focussed on keeping the game moving, it's barely managable, but a single slow player, or someone playing a borrowed deck and thus needing to spend more time considering options seriously impacts the flow of the game and just makes everything drag out. And any sort of wall deck on a large table (which gets more likely with more players) ends up being a horrible idea. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> Whisker wrote: > Not fun! You spend half of the game waiting, not able to interact with rest of the table while your grand grand prey and predator do stuff. Also effects that rely on number of players (e.g. parity shift) become insanely powerful. > There are also insanely annoying logistical concerns, such as not being able to see your cards, not being able to tell whether it's Arika or Queen Anne who has three blood on her etc. When many cards are often played underneath another card (e.g. it's relatively common to place a Blood Doll under the vampire it's 'on', similarly Conviction or discipline cards), that can be hard to spot from the other end of an 8 player table. And that makes contesting popular cards massively more annoying because you can't necessarily see what's been played with a quick glance around the table.

Cons of having a 10-player table: - You can't see what's going on on the other side of the table - Every single KRC is debated for ages (and by that I mean at least 10 mins each) - You'll reach the turn 5 as the game times out - Some cards have an effect based on the number of players (Parity Shift, Conservative Agitation) that will need to be handled before the game begins (set maximum pool lost to 5) - If your predator is playing weenie DEM, you get to play 1 hour and watch 3 hours of game EDIT: Let's say an average player's turn lasts 3 mins (yes, some are shorter, some are longer, but it's an OK value). In a 5-player game, that means you get 12 minutes between two turns. I've seen people lose focus during these 12 minutes. Imagine what happens if you turn that 12 minutes of non-acting (which is usually 9 minutes of "not interacting because you're not my predator bleeding me") into 27 minutes (24 minutes of not watching the game).

> mirddes wrote: > how fun is playign with a table of 10? > > im wanting to play 8 player > Try having 2 players going at the same time. For example, Turn 1, player 1 and player 5 take their turn. Turn 2, player 2 and 6 take their turn. And so forth. Have never tried this so I have no idea how not fun or insane this idea is. Prince of Dallas Toreador Grand Ball: Dallas August 13, 2022

As long as there is no interaction, having two players play simultaneously could be doable. Just avoid decks with - votes - titles - deflections - eagle sights - sudden reversals / di / ... And make sure a player doesn't start their turn if the other player's turn isn't over.

We once played a 7-player game, a long time ago at Blacktown. It started at about 10pm and finished with one player standing at around 3:30am. I can't recommend a game with more than 6... Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

I had a variant idea once for 6 players: During player A turn, -player D ceased to exist. That cross-table player was not in the game. Then during player b turn, player E disappeared. Once someone was ousted, you played a normal 5 player game. Just a thought. David Tatu V:EKN Scribe

It resolves some issues but not the main issue being the time beetween each turn. I guess it is reduced due to not having the possibility to beg yet another player to burn the vote in favor/against but between each of your turn, this player will still have to play his own turn. It reminds me of a variant proposed on the french forum for a game for 13 players (yeah I know ...). Each player played one antediluvian and one rule what that during your urn, you have to play in silence of death.

> david.tatu wrote: > I had a variant idea once for 6 players: During player A turn, -player D ceased to exist. That cross-table player was not in the game. Then during player b turn, player E disappeared. Once someone was ousted, you played a normal 5 player game. > Just a thought. > Not sure how that helps things. There is one less player to intervene during A's turn, but player D still needs to be aware of player A and what that player can do - because player D and player A can 'see' each other during everyone else's turns except their own. And then there are a whole bunch of wrinkles that appear to be relatively unpleasant. For example: - players A and D play Dreams of the Sphinx, which moves in and out of being contested as you move round the table, for bonus annoyance. - player A bleeds B. B bounces to C. C wants to bounce to D, but apparently can't, and bouncing to E would help D. V:TES has always suffered from random table seating making games a bit of a luckfest at times, this seems to exacerbate that. - if a card talks about 'prey' or 'predator' (example: Reins of Power) and I am player E, who is my predator? C isn't my predator. And why does C not get to hurt D?

I've played a lot of sixes, at least two eights, and a 17. Don't play a 17, though it was funny. The eights weren't bad, but one of them was silly V:TES and the environment at the time was much, much more forward looking. This particular game was overly forward looking, back when you could Computer Hack people other than your prey, one of the players got annoyed by the grandprey and repeatedly Hacked the player to zero pool, the player in between the two, yes, the predator of the player being ousted, Life Booned his prey. Games are games. They don't have to be played one way. But, realize that playing them in some unintended fashion may make for an awful experience. I'm not really sure what's so bad about two tables of four or five, that should mean faster games and means you can mix up who is playing whom. Traveller Card Game

six people is generally readily doable. Seven is just about the practical limit for me. anything more bogs down pretty fiercely, especially when it comes to politics.

We have played quite a few times two tables of four when we've had seven player. One player simply plays two decks. It is a good idea to have pretty simple decks, though - no Eagle's Sight extravaganza!

> ICL wrote: > I'm not really sure what's so bad about two tables of four or five, that should mean faster games and means you can mix up who is playing whom. > I don't think TC is saying tables of 4 are bad, just asking for some ideas to make 8+ fun. Prince of Dallas Toreador Grand Ball: Dallas August 13, 2022

> ruiza97 wrote: > > > ICL wrote: > > I'm not really sure what's so bad about two tables of four or five, that should mean faster games and means you can mix up who is playing whom. > > > I don't think TC is saying tables of 4 are bad, just asking for some ideas to make 8+ fun. > playing is fun, whatever works UDHR18/19/27