When I think of negotiation games I think of seriously long ones like Diplomacy or more accessible ones like Intrigue or Quo Vadis. It’s all about turning someone to your way of thinking. So what is the point of difference, why do you prefer one over the other?

Lifeboats is simple to play. There are a number of boats each requiring three movements to get to an island. Any meeples in the boat when it lands scores points. One boat is moved each turn and one boat springs a leak each turn. Each boat has seven spaces and a leak will replace a meeple if there is no space for a leak to spring. Each turn every player must also move one meeple into a different boat if they can. It is a voting game and so you vote for which boat leaks, you vote for which boat goes forward and all players in a boat with a leak votes for which player loses a meeple if there is not enough space. It’s mostly about the vote and therefore all about negotiation.

I played Lifeboats for the first time last night and it was a very different experience from the other games I have mentioned above. Upon reflection the difference was in the type of negotiation possible and it is affected significantly by the player numbers. The dynamics of negotiation games swing dramatically based on the number of players and almost exclusively an odd number is better than an even number. Normally four is the number of death for many negotiation games, where five breathes new life into otherwise tired stalemates. We played with five, but it didn’t seem to add as much as I would have thought. We constantly face three on two scenarios making restricting the value of the dual alliance.

Lifeboats, in my opinion, is more limited in the ability to negotiate than other games. In the other games mentioned I have found the primary mechanism is doing deals. Imagine Quo Vadis for example, “I support you to the next level if you’ll then support me”. The deal happens largely in isolation of the other players and each player gets an opportunity to do a deal. Trust and the ability to deal become the key factors.

Well Lifeboats is different, very different because although there is the similar element of trust, I found little opportunity to do deals with five players. The issue is the ability to transfer benefits from one vote to another. There are so many other players and factors that when a person votes they are voting largely in isolation for a single outcome. There was very little “I’ll do this if you do that” because the support just doesn’t translate well beyond the current vote.

This gives lifeboats a unique feel when it comes to negotiation. The primary skills appear to managing your people so that others are incentives to support you. It’s not about doing deals because the quick and dirty mechanism is always in play. Catch the leader will always dominate and half the skill is in convincing others that your meeples won’t come in so that the boat you are most interested in isn’t sunk or so that your meeple isn’t drowned. The quick and dirty algorithm dominates.

For this reason I say it is more a game of strategy and manipulation like diplomacy that it is a game of charisma and dealing like Quo Vadis. There are many factors beyond your control and you must plan very deeply and very precisely. Even then you will probably suffer from the whims and fancies of other players and the player that will win is the player who most effectively convinces the majority that they are not a threat for the game. Even then it appears that Kingmakers can rule.

So if you are looking for a game of trading and dealing then go back to Settlers or even Quo Vadis, but if this sounds like you then lifeboats is a deep and subtle game that could keep your group going for years. This is not my cup of tea, but then I just don’t like tea!