Game: Down With The King

Image

MCLizard — 2008-08-27T19:12:16+00:00

The contents of the german game

Image

MCLizard — 2008-08-27T19:11:02+00:00

Box cover of the german version

Thread: Re: Anything similar out there?

Trump — 2008-08-19T12:32:57+00:00

Thanks! It never occured to me that there'd be other recommendations in the review threads. I'm a bit intimidated by the print and play, but I will certainly read the rules at the very least. With The Tudors currently running on cable, Henry VIII might be an easier sell to my game group.

Thread: Re: Anything similar out there?

rmanning — 2008-08-19T04:21:25+00:00

Darrell Pavitt (nyhotep) suggests Bloody Mary: Further Intrigue in the Tudor Court and Henry VIII: Intrigue in the Tudor Court in this thread.

Thread: Anything similar out there?

Trump — 2008-08-18T21:42:52+00:00

I remember this game fondly, but I'd never get it played nowadays. It's ugly. The rules are a bit byzantine. The record-keeping is nuts. And there are too many charts. I had considered streamlining the game... Euro-izing it, if you will, but maybe I'd be better off just playing something else. Can anyone suggest other existing games that they feel are similar to Down with the King?

Thread: Re: Foreign War Counseling under Errata Rules

Great Dane — 2008-07-16T14:19:54+00:00

Ah, yes. Now I see it - at the bottom of page 5.
In that case I think I would keep the original advice #1 and change #2 to remove the Minister of the Army.

Or even better - rewrite the entire set of rules

Thread: Re: Foreign War Counseling under Errata Rules

rmanning — 2008-07-16T03:12:08+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
First of all, General No. 19 was published long before this game was created. But maybe you mean issue 91 - also known as Vol 19, No. 1?

Hi Mik, thanks for catching that. You are correct of course. The file I have just indicates No.19, but I see now that it combines articles from several issues. The file has a section headed "A Spreading Pool of Treachery" which I presume is from Vol 22, No. 1. This section reads (in part):

7.10.4. Should read "The Ambassador to a country at war with Fandonia is expelled and returns to Fandonia. He loses his office and the office ceases to exist until war with the country in question ends."

So yes, Ambassadors are recalled at the start of a war.

Thread: Re: Foreign War Counseling under Errata Rules

Great Dane — 2008-07-15T16:04:52+00:00

First of all, General No. 19 was published long before this game was created. But maybe you mean issue 91 - also known as Vol 19, No. 1?

But the change to the War Counselling Table was listed in Vol 22, No. 1.

Does the errata really state that all related Ambassadors should be recalled at the outbreak of war? I don't see that.

AFAIK the War Counselling table is correct with the above change of counsel No. 1.
And I believe that the only way for Ambassadors to be recalled in the case of war is when counsel No. 2 is accepted.

Thread: Foreign War Counseling under Errata Rules

rmanning — 2008-07-15T15:25:48+00:00

In the Errata (General No. 19) the Foreign War Counseling Table is modified to replace Counsel #1 "Discharge the Minister of State" with "Discharge the Minister of the Army". Despite the Errata calling for all related Ambassadors to be recalled immediately at the outbreak of a war, Counsel #2 "Discharge the Ambassador" was not changed.

Does anyone know if any follow-up FAQ or Errata have addressed this?

Otherwise:

[poll=11105]

Thread: Re: Need rules and component list!

pimlottc — 2008-04-14T01:30:23+00:00

I retrieved a copy of the previous mentioned rules via the Internet Archive. Most PDF files were missing but the HTML rules are complete. I have uploaded them here, they should appear shortly.

UPDATE: The upload was rejected for not having the author's permission to post the rules. You can still view them at the Internet Archive, though.

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

karlhiesterman — 2008-04-01T23:46:09+00:00

OMG Keep this up! Down with the King is a fantastic game that was completely let down by incomprehensible rules and useless components (Except the character cards, they are one of things that makes this game great)

I had a small group who had played it enough to be able to really appreciate the depth of the game.

Good job! Keep going!

Image

rmanning — 2008-03-20T02:42:19+00:00

Customized Character Cards per Revised Rules & Errata

Image

rmanning — 2008-03-17T21:38:11+00:00

Customized Event Cards with Details per Original Rules (Sample Set 1)

Image

rmanning — 2008-03-17T21:36:16+00:00

Customized Event Cards with Details per Original Rules (Sample Set 2)

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

rmanning — 2008-03-04T07:33:09+00:00

Here's a sample of the rest of the cards (leaving out six Royal Alignments):

]]>

Added:

Quantity of this card in the Deck.

A card# (not sure how useful that will be, but if someone reports an error on the card I can fix it a little more quickly).

An asterisk for those cards replaced in the errata deck (I don't think it stands out too well, I may replace with something a bit more obvious). The errata cards will also have a special marking.

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

rmanning — 2008-03-01T06:29:05+00:00

Wow! Thank you for the thumb and the gg!

Here's a different version of the same cards:

]]>

Added:

Bold Title

Bold Activity Name

Color coding:
Red = DWTK
Yellow = Support
Blue = play on a FAC
Gold = play on a RC
Green = other/one time use/discard when played
I considered making all the illegal cards red but that would make the Foreign Support in the errata deck two colored.

Reference to appropriate rules section for both the Activity (§13.4.x) and the Event Card (§14.5.x) for those cards that didn't already have it.

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

Subhuman — 2008-02-29T22:05:03+00:00

Great job. Thanks for making those. Most people seem to prefer pdfs because of scaling issues with other formats.

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

rmanning — 2008-02-29T05:56:17+00:00

I have nearly finished putting together a modified event deck using the original rules and card size (2" x 2.5"), but with the details added. A sample is shown here:
]]>

I am planning on doing the same using the errata and revisions provided by the various General articles and uploading them to the files section for others to use. But I thought I would first ask if anyone had any suggestions or preferences for format (.pdf, .xls, business card template, font, etc).

Thread: Re: Need rules and component list!

rmanning — 2008-02-25T16:01:46+00:00

A components list has been added to the files section.

Image

rmanning — 2008-02-19T21:05:28+00:00

Back Cover of Rules Book (Record Sheet)

Image

rmanning — 2008-02-19T21:01:35+00:00

Front Cover of Rules Book

Thread: Re: Full Marks For Effort But You Left A Lot To Be Desired!

robf — 2008-02-19T16:25:41+00:00

Agreed. I have Henry VIII--it's more streamlined than Down With the King. The downside is, it's a minimum of (I think) 5 players...DWTK can go with 3-4 just fine. Haven't tried Bloody Mary, though.

Thread: Re: Full Marks For Effort But You Left A Lot To Be Desired!

nyhotep — 2008-02-19T12:04:20+00:00

I penciled the modifiers onto the event cards, but I doubt may people would want to do that.

You might want to have a look at Garry Stevens' two DTP games based on DWTK:

Bloody Mary: Further Intrigue in the Tudor Court

and

Henry VIII: Intrigue in the Tudor Court

They're both free, too.

Thread: Re: Full Marks For Effort But You Left A Lot To Be Desired!

robf — 2008-02-19T00:38:02+00:00

I agree with you on all the downsides you pointed out...but I really like this game anyway! You're very right that you need to find the right people to play this with--it has a lot of randomness, especially for a game of this length, and one bad roll can kill you (well, your faction leader anyway)--which sets you back for quite a while. This would be very frustrating to strategy and tactics type gamers.

But if you've got a crew that enjoys a roller-coaster ride, doesn't mind fudging ambiguous rules from time to time, and can appreciate the up-and-down story, chant "Gout! Gout!" during event counter draws, and laugh at you when you laugh at the deceased at a funeral...this is a fun game.

Thread: Full Marks For Effort But You Left A Lot To Be Desired!

da pyrate — 2008-02-18T23:06:41+00:00

Down With The King
Designers – Glenn & Kenneth Rahman
Developer – Alan R. Moon
Publisher – Avalon Hill (1981)

]]>
Down With The King is an amazing game for several reasons. It describes itself as a “Fantasy Political Game". It’s not a board-game as there is no board. It really is a cross between a card-game and a Role Playing Game.

The game is set in the hypothetical country of Fadonia and the art-work leads me to believe that it is set in the Baroque Period (i.e. the Seventeenth Century). The premise which underlies the game is that there is a royal court and each player leads a political faction. The object of the game is to garner sufficient support as to be able to lead a successful coup which will overthrow the monarch and allow you to put your own puppet-monarch onto the thone.

The game can work but really requires the right-type of people to be involved and you can’t expect to play the game just once and get a lot of enjoyment from it. You really need to play it several times in quick succession so as to be able to get away from having to check the rule-book constantly.

Components

11 Royalty Cards – one for each of the eleven royal characters who can sit on the throne of Fadonia.

36 Nobles Cards – one for each of the members of the royal court (one will be your personal character and you will try to entice the other neutral characters into your faction).

13 Office Cards – these are offices which can be given to male characters (offices such as Minister of Justice, Minister of the Army, High Minister, etc.). The more offices given to members of your faction the more power you will have and the higher your chance of staging a successful coup.

120 Event Cards – these cards allow you to conduct many of the actions in the game.

260 Counters – to keep up-to-date in an ever-changing Fadonia.

10 Double Sided Table & Chart Cards.

1 ‘32’ page rule-book.

]]>

Sequence of Play

First Player Designation Phase – roll dice and who-so-ever rolls highest goes first.

Office Phase – empty offices are filled.

Political Problems Phase – Office-bearers may attempt to solve political problems. The longer a problem exists the more it will destabilize the monarch’s government and make it easier for a coup to succeed. Office-bearers may deliberately sabotage the government for the benefit of their faction. However, if a Minister fails thrice in succession to solve a problem he will be replaced by another noble.

Crown Events Phase – basically random events.

Player Turns Phase – each player in turn will draw a loyalty counter (which gives the chance to recruit someone to your faction), an opportunity counter and an event card. Next the player may perform up to two activities. Thirdly, they may counsel the monarch.

This Game Is Hellishly Complicated

The game really is difficult to play the first time, and the second time, and perhaps even the third time and this is for several reasons.

Event Cards – there are no details on the event cards to tell you how to go about using it. Every single event needs to be read about in the rule-book before the players know how to resolve it. This is a real problem because it means if you have a handful of cards and are unfamiliar with the game you really don’t have a great deal of knowledge about what your options really are and what the chances of success are for each one.

Tables – there are a massive number of options available to each player each turn regarding the activities that they may undertake. The game is incredibly slow the first few times you play the game as each person ponders potential actions.

Playing the Game

The essence of the game is building up your faction. At the start of the game each player randomly selects one of the 36 nobles. Each male character has a set of unique ratings for Status, Ability and Duelling. Each female character has ratings for Status and Seduction. The key to the game is to look at each character and work out how to best make use of them. If your character is an unattractive woman you want to marry a powerful husband and use his status to help you. If you are, on the other hand, highly sort after for your feminine qualities you might decide that marriage will not help and that you are better off to seduce other characters to join your faction. If you have a male character in your faction who has a high ability rating you would try to give him an important office. If he had a low ability rating but a high duelling rating you might decide that he would fit into your faction as a henchman who can be a ‘fall-guy’ if something goes wrong.

]]>
You really are creating a fantasy world as you play the game.

Summary

I have played the game three times and I am surprised that I haven’t sold it off yet. I feel that somewhere, deep down, lies a decent game but I haven’t really seen that side of it yet. The learning curve is just too great.

]]>
It is hard to find enough people who are the right-type to try it. The game is longish, especially when you are in the throes of learning it. The first few times you play it takes many hours to weaken the monarch’s support to such a level where it is even worth contemplating staging a coup. The components, especially when compared to today’s games, are quite low quality.

My final word if you are considering buying or playing this game is “Beware!”

“Dead Men Tell No Tales!”

Image

rmanning — 2008-02-15T02:02:11+00:00

The Royal Relatives

Image

rmanning — 2008-02-15T02:00:37+00:00

The Royal Family (with Monarch Office)

Image

rmanning — 2008-02-15T01:57:16+00:00

The Offices (Monarch is face down)

Thread: Re: General Comment

JJFlash — 2008-01-19T00:06:25+00:00

I agree...my group also played it a lot in the late 80's, and we all enjoyed it immensely...and no problem with the rules. We used to take great joy indeed in seeing each other fall on our faces during the tabe consultings, and one particular session stands clear in my memory...one player character had died, and the rest of us decided to go to his funeral...one attended the wrong funeral, one made improper advances on the widow, and the other three fell into the grave...GOD they don't make funerals like that anymore...

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

Colonelgordy — 2007-11-14T05:28:36+00:00

I have created a modified event deck, which details what each of the event cards do so you don't have to continuously cross-reference them. They are somewhat larger than the originals, I print them on standard card stock and that works okay. There are 19 pages of them (9 cards to a page)and one page for the reverse sides. I also have larger Office cards, so that the character card can be placed over the office card and the modifiers will be visible. reply if interested, or e-mail me directly at Gordof21@hotmail.com.

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

Subhuman — 2007-09-25T02:09:03+00:00

Nathan from the above post sent was good enough to send me the html instructions and they are now available here:
http://www.bookshelfgames.com/DWTK/dwtkframe.html

Thread: Re: General Comment

Brave Sir Robin — 2007-09-01T22:00:14+00:00

I bought this when it came out, and our group attempted to play it. Now, we're a group that had no trouble w/ Third Reich, and usually would make simple games more complex by adding new rules, counters, even maps. So this wasn't a very complex game for us, and we nearly got through it. I say 'nearly,' because we got so bored playing it. There is very little interaction between the players, and lots of interaction with the dice.

The great thing about games set in a fantasy land is that you're not restricted by historical accuracy. Unfortunately, there is a BIG downside to this, which is that the world created needs a large & effective backstory to make it interesting. What usually happens is that the fantasy world comes off as very generic & lifeless, of which DWTK is a classic example. The royal family tree is ludicrous: one uncle, one aunt, one nephew, etc. The characters that form your faction have some interesting attributes which delineate them from each other, especially their portraits, but with the game mechanics (and I do mean 'mechanics' as in "mechanical") set up the way they are, it's hard to make them differentiate from the other players. Everyone starts off the same, everyone has roughly the same opportunities, the only difference is in the die rolls. My brother summed it up best when he said (as we were putting it away) "Man! I feel like all I've done for the past four hours is roll dice & consult tables!"

I don't feel I can give this game a "proper" review, as I don't have it anymore & can't give adequate detail to the rules & components. I don't know what happened to it, nor do I care. It's a big waste of money & an even bigger waste of time.

YES, the game, in concept, is wonderful: intrigue and bloodshed in a royal court. But that's where it ends. Everything else about it is worthless, afaic. What would be a better game is something much more akin to "The Lion in Winter," where the characters are much fewer, each member of the court has their own personalized victory conditions with their own personalized strengths, like a Queen Mother who can't ascend to the throne herself, but has a vested interest in one particular person doing so, or a Minister character with the goal of weakening the power of the monarch, no matter who becomes king. Cut back on the tables & random events, and concentrate on individual actions of the players & their consequences. It might be more a RPG or a CDG, and I'd love to see it realized.

But I say, Down With This Game. There are much better ways to spend your gaming hours.

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

Subhuman — 2007-08-08T23:07:52+00:00

Does anyone still have a copy of that HTML. I may be picking up a copy of this and would really like to see it. I could host it if the offer is still available.

Thread: Re: Need rules and component list!

rporrini — 2007-06-29T11:25:15+00:00

May I have them, please? I am proposing good ol' games in a weekly event here in Rome, and would like to mention also this one.

Thread: Re: Need rules and component list!

Kelly Hrdina — 2007-06-03T23:30:56+00:00

Harv wrote:
Thanks Michael... or Kelly!... but I took the game back to charity! I moved house and it didn't seem worth keeping. Was it?
Well, I really enjoy it, although I haven't been able to play it much over the past few years. We got my 10-year-old to play a game recently, and he also liked it.

Thread: Re: Need rules and component list!

Harv — 2007-05-29T07:40:17+00:00

Thanks Michael... or Kelly!... but I took the game back to charity! I moved house and it didn't seem worth keeping. Was it?

Thread: Re: Need rules and component list!

Kelly Hrdina — 2007-05-28T18:10:22+00:00

Harv wrote:
Hi king-topplers!

I bought this game from a charity/thrift shop and it looks fairly complete and in good condition.

However, I am missing the rules! There is a link to a site with them on the BGG page, but at this time (March 2007) it doesn't seem to work.

I also need a list of all the game components so that I can check my copy is complete.

Don't desert me boffins!
Hi Matt,

Did you ever get a response to this posting?

I have a bunch of PDF files of the rules, etc, that I think I downloaded from the site you mentioned. I can send you a copy if you still need them.

Cheers!

Thread: Need rules and component list!

Harv — 2007-03-21T12:33:50+00:00

Hi king-topplers!

I bought this game from a charity/thrift shop and it looks fairly complete and in good condition.

However, I am missing the rules! There is a link to a site with them on the BGG page, but at this time (March 2007) it doesn't seem to work.

I also need a list of all the game components so that I can check my copy is complete.

Don't desert me boffins!

Thread: Re: The Short Game

Tom Jensen — 2007-02-08T20:49:28+00:00

Well, it's been a few months but, if I remember correctly, there were no other factions that could contest the new Monarch, King Alan. IF another faction had a contender for the throne, they didn't have the muscle to pull a usurpation off. And IF they had a potential alliance with a royal character, they didn't have the Prestige to recruit him. So, for one reason or another, NO other faction was in a position to overthrow Lord Duncan's new Monarch. So the Three-turn opportunity to usurp the throne wasn't an issue.

The "dumb luck element" of this truncated endgame really spoiled DWTK for me and I didn't think this variant worked well... even though I had fun. The Prince Alan card was drawn from the deck and the game was over ---just like that. But beginning from the original set-up and setting a two-hour time limit starts everyone off even, shortens the game, and reduces the chance of this Deus Ex Machina ending from occurring. There are a LOT of luck elements to the game... but the longer you play, the more these lucky occurrances even out so that, ultimately, in the long moster game, the best player will put his man on the throne. So much game, so little time!

IIRC the original set-up allows Support cards to be dealt to each player. Since these are so powerful, perhaps a fairer start would be to allow NO player to begin with Support cards in his hand.

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

coriakin — 2007-01-17T22:07:32+00:00

Hey all --

I'm the guy who did the afore-linked html-ized version of the rules. I haven't done anything with it in ages and if it's hard to read now it's probably thanks to changes in stylesheets that didn't get reflected on those pages or something like that. Apologies.

Playing with the htmlized rules is much nicer than thumbing through the book, for sure. But it's no substitute for rules that are well-organized in the first place and a game board that could elegantly organize the relevant information. Too bad the game wasn't made 20 years later.

In any case, I'm going to be giving up my web hosting in the next week or so, so those files are going to be unavailable. If anyone has any interest in hosting them elsewhere, just let me know.

Nathan

Thread: Re: The Short Game

Kelly Hrdina — 2007-01-02T04:05:41+00:00

Tom Jensen wrote:
TURN TEN:
Lord Duncan is accused of Radicalism, Blashphemy, and Sacrilege. He is cleared at a Hearing. King George announces an Amnesty and Duchess Victoria comes out of Hiding. At this point, Earl Jeffery pulls an alliance with Prince Alan from the Event deck. He uses the Prince to usurp King George! After the smoke has cleared, Earl Jeffery puts Prince Alan on the throne, 137 UPs to a measly 53 UPs for King George. GAME OVER.
Thanks, this was an interesting read.

Was part of your variant to remove the rule which requires the new monarch to hold the throne for 3 full turns? Part of the fun is to depose another player's usurper in favor of your own FARC, the rightful heir (of course)!

Thread: Re: The Short Game

Tom Jensen — 2006-11-08T21:43:39+00:00

The Prestige Tables do indeed lose their appeal after awhile. When I start to build a faction from the bottom up, one of the first things I attempt is to spend 2 IPs for a modifier on the Business Speculation table in an attempt to set myself up financially for the rest of the game. Then I only have to roll occassionally to get the "money" I need. The one element of DWTK that seems a real time-waster to me are the Counseling Tables; keeping track of the counsels made, rolling the dice, and then gaining or losing a Prestige Point or two. Much ado about nothing. I'm all for streamlining the game, perhaps making it a pure card game... but then it would lose all the color that make it unique. My real problem is that I don't know anyone tolerant enough to play for hours at a time.

For beginners, probably just setting a two-hour time limit is the best way to learn. That way their inevitable mistakes wouldn't dog them forever, just the two hours. Later, after they understand the rules, you can try the truncated game with a tottering King George so everyone can explore the End Game of DWTK. And finally, if they're still with you, you can play the full "campaign" game.

One thing I forgot to mention: since the Support cards are key, they should probably be left out of the original Event card deal to start the game. Suppose one player begins the game with Clergy, Army, and Navy Support in their hand, and another begins with NO Support... who would win? The players should start "even" with NO Support cards in hand.

Thread: Re: The Short Game

Carlo M. — 2006-11-08T09:50:41+00:00

Thanks for your report, the game is an old favorite of mine.

The puzzle of rendering DWTK "playable" is a tough one indeed but I feel that your solution risk to undermine one of the premises of play: if you start with a trembling government you have no reason to create a large faction (as you noted, it's became more of a nuisance) but with a strong govern, as any neutral character count for the King, you have to proselytize in order to erode the strengh of the monarch and this is, in my opinion, the main "narrative" of the game.

The game is long, it's true (but our last try ended in three session, Lady Victoria killed her own husband to marry a more powerful one and then won the revolution, great)but I think the main problem is that a lot of time goes in dice rolls on the prestige tables (not more funny after repeated plays) instead of the good old intrigue; next time I will try giving your suggested 30 prestige and 10 gold to each player and we'll see.

Thank you again for working with the rules.

Carlo

Thread: The Short Game

Tom Jensen — 2006-11-07T23:25:07+00:00

Lately I've been considering how this intriguing game could be shortened into something that could be played in a single evening. Initially, I thought that a time limit should be set. For example, the game could be played for two hours, a timer would go off, the current round would be completed, and then everyone would tally up their Usurpation Points and a winner declared. This would work but it left out the climax of the game; the actual overthrow of King George. Then I remembered how the game of Monopoly could be shortened by simply dealing out all the properties before the game started. Could something like this work for DWTK?

I decided to play a solitaire "test game" with four factions. These were: Knight Simon, Earl Duncan, Lady Victoria, and Sir Jeffery. The best way to shorten the game without unbalancing it is to set the Monarch's Support dice roll to the minimum possible: snake-eyes, a random element that one could control easily. Without strong support and without the non-aligned characters to side with him, King George would begin the game teetering on his throne. So I gave each faction 30 Prestige Points and 10 Influence Points and let them choose their factions right from the start! And it was an interesting way to begin the game: should your faction choose a weak character who holds a powerful Office or a charcter with strong Ability who could hold his Office once in power? With 30 Prestige, nearly all non-aligned characters joined a faction. Let the game begin...

TURN ONE:
At the Court Ball, Earl Simon insults the Minister of the Navy, Sir Malcolm. A duel was fought and no one was killed.

TURN TWO:
Earl Simon has the gout. Duchess Victoria proposes to Sir Charles, the High Minister, and they are married.

TURN THREE:
Lord Duncan must fight a duel. He sends his henchman, Sir James, to fight the Ambassador to Sardarkan, Sir Michael. Both are killed.

TURN FOUR:
Peasant Unrest is unresolved. Knight Jeffery has the gout. Duchess Victoria accuses Lord Duncan of libel. He loses half his Prestige and is accused of Wrongdoing. The charges are soon dismissed. Lord Duncan accuses Lady Victoria of Assassination and Wrongdoing. Lady Victoria goes into hiding within Fandonia.

TURN FIVE:
Peasant Unrest continues. A Foreign War with Epalin is concluded. Duchess Victoria is pardoned and returns from hiding. Lord Duncan seeks Patronage and is obnoxious! [-1 on the Patronage Table. I soon found that picking the high-risk Prestige Tables (Patronage and Business Speculation) was disasterous to large factions. IF your faction is large, take only the safe bets, like Fashion and Crafts.]

TURN SIX:
Time for a check of the Usurpation Points for each faction. In each case, I considered the die to roll a conservative "3" for a faction's Suppport Card points. Results:
King George .......92
Earl Simon ........73
Lord Duncan .......12 (Lost most of his support by being obnoxious!)
Duchess Victoria ..62
Sir Jeffery .......55

No one can usurp the King yet. Earl Simon MIGHT have a chance if he rolled high but right now it's too risky. Also, I began to notice just how little a role the aligned characters played. Not only are they a liability because they make you LOOK powerful, but they can easily blow away in the fickle winds of Prestige. It's MUCH better strategy to pay 1 Influence to take another Event card per turn. In this way, you can quietly gain the support of the Army, the Navy, the Clergy, the Townsmen, etc. and your opponents won't even know it! And it doesn't count against your Prestige total.

Peasant Unrest is still unresolved and Sir Charles is discharged as the High Minister. A War with Cronos is resolved. Treason and Conspiracy Trials occur and remain unresolved. Lord Duncan, in an attempt to redeem himself with Patronage, is AGAIN found obnoxious!

TURN SEVEN:
Peasant Unrest is finally solved. Treason and Conspiracy Trials continue. There is a Court Ball. Earl Jeffery intrigues against Duchess Victoria and she is again accused of Assassination and goes into hiding. Lord Simon marries Lady Ruth.

TURN EIGHT:
Usurpation Points:
Lord Simon 92
Lord Duncan 19
Duchess Victoria 61
Earl Jeffery 85.
Treason and Conspiracy is resolved. Another war with Cronos is resolved. Lord Simon rolls "snake-eyes" on Patronage and is found to have "No Class" -20 PPs. His faction loses Lady Melanie, Lady Deborah, Lord Mortimer, and the First Judge!

TURN NINE:
Yet another Court Ball.

TURN TEN:
Lord Duncan is accused of Radicalism, Blashphemy, and Sacrilege. He is cleared at a Hearing. King George announces an Amnesty and Duchess Victoria comes out of Hiding. At this point, Earl Jeffery pulls an alliance with Prince Alan from the Event deck. He uses the Prince to usurp King George! After the smoke has cleared, Earl Jeffery puts Prince Alan on the throne, 137 UPs to a measly 53 UPs for King George. GAME OVER.

So, although I had fun, the game ended suddenly and shortly by the draw of a single card. The other "players" may have had potential alliances with Royal Characters but couldn't react because of Prestige problems. The game left me with the feeling of how brittle DWTK is. There are wild swings of fortune and LUCK determines who wins or loses. So I'm thinking this game should be considered more of a roleplaying game rather than a match of decision making. Ten turns could possibly fit into a long evening IF everyone was familiar with the rules. (I think most games come to ruin on the reef of "one person explaining options -endlessly- to the neophytes".)

Again, I think the best way to win the game is to simply pay 1 Influence to draw from the Event deck each turn. Ultimately, perhaps just setting a time limit (two or three hours) might be the best way to sample the wonders and intrigue that rock the Court of Fandonia. Have fun!

Thread: Re: General Comment

tdewey — 2006-08-15T15:28:36+00:00

That about sums it up. There is a great game somewhere in here but it's overwhelmed by the fiddlyness.

Thread: Re: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

shivan2418 — 2006-01-21T20:12:14+00:00

Thanks for the link. But I really dont understand why the you have made the background all white?? its impossible to read unreass you select it!!

Thread: Re:Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

Eddy Bee — 2004-03-29T21:29:29+00:00

Amuro_ray_nt (#30481),

That's a great link - thanks for posting it!

Unfortunately, I can't make any promises about working on a logically linked electronic version of the rules right now. It's something I'd like to explore, but if anyone else has the time or inspiration, I heartily encourage you to forge ahead.

In the meantime, I'll definitely let you know if I am able to come up with anything.

-Eddy Bee

Thread: Re:Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

Amuro_ray_nt — 2004-03-14T19:05:51+00:00

Eddy Bee (#30382),

I agree that the biggest problem with this game are the way the rules are organized and presented. The main failing is that it's not immediately clear WHY a player should perform a particular action. All of the game elements are so wonderfully intertwined and there are so many options available, but there's nothing to help a player figure out what course of action to take to achieve a particular goal.

I totally agree with your point. Actually, it is the exact same feeling I have when I first played it, as a high school kid, some 21+ years ago. My feeling in the first several games is, "What should I be doing". The most confusing fact is there are 19+ action you can do (with some restriction etc.) each one has a profound effect on the game. Plus, some actions like the prestige table, open up to more options (choose the right table to roll). We end up on most of our first several games doing nothing beside rolling on the prestige tables, which is quite boring until something comes up...

The game is a gem because, even if bored, I can feel that the details have a merit to the overall effects to the game (not just pure chromo). It is just how to play it, which is the problem.

I was also thinking of making a table/chart that listed out all the actions possible, what is needed (event cards, opportunity chits etc) and the effects etc. That will make it easlier and clear for new players to make good decisions.

Another big help is to provide a chart to calculate "usurpation" events. It is the single most important event, but the game provides no aid in how to do it, and too much info to memorize out of the blue to discourage new players to usurp the King, which is bad.

My Apple II is long gone and so is that program. But I'm thinking it could easily be recreated in HTML. It's just a matter of sitting down with the rules, organizing them in a logical way, and then presenting them in HTML with a player's viewpoint in mind.

It is prefectly true, the current HTML technology, will make it much easily. There is a web page which I found searching the web, that has an html rules set for DWTK. It has all the updated rules errata from the 2 generals incorporated into it. Maybe you can download the html page and start from there, better than starting from scratch, save much time and error typing the rules in.

Here is the webpage link: http://www.polytropos.org/web/dwtk.html

BTW, please continue with the project, I am interested in it. Do you need any help?

--- Kenneth ---

Thread: Re:Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

RandallPeek — 2004-03-13T09:30:31+00:00

Please, please, PLEASE move forward with this project. The Internet would be an ideal place for a Down With The King game. Players could log in, take their turns, leave messages for one another, spread court gossip, etc. The only hard thing would be taking into consideration all the modifiers that other players could play on a particular player's turn, affecting its outcome. Still, there should be a way around that...
Wow, this could be exciting.

Thread: Re:Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

Eddy Bee — 2004-03-13T01:08:00+00:00

Amuro_ray_nt (#30273),

I agree that the biggest problem with this game are the way the rules are organized and presented. The main failing is that it's not immediately clear WHY a player should perform a particular action. All of the game elements are so wonderfully intertwined and there are so many options available, but there's nothing to help a player figure out what course of action to take to achieve a particular goal.

To address this, many many many years ago, I created a little program on my Apple II computer(!) that was basically an electronic, dynamically linked, version of the rules.

In addition to presenting a better organized version of the rules, players could navigate the program based on their desired goals in the game, and the program would display the necessary actions and related rules to achieve that goal. It made the game much easier to comprehend.

My Apple II is long gone and so is that program. But I'm thinking it could easily be recreated in HTML. It's just a matter of sitting down with the rules, organizing them in a logical way, and then presenting them in HTML with a player's viewpoint in mind.

My copy of Down With The King is buried in a box in a deep dark storage closet. It sounds like it might be worthwhile to resurrect it and explore the HTML angle... hmmmmm...

-Eddy Bee

"Once a gamer, always a gamer!"

Thread: Improved Game components will reduce complexity?

Amuro_ray_nt — 2004-03-11T23:56:10+00:00

I was going through this little gem and thinking about what makes people think it is too complicated.

Well, first, the rules need some reorganization and rewriting, AH's rules style 20+ years ago is not that readable compared to games now-a-days. Also there are too much exceptions and rules on the wrong place that make it sometimes confusing.

Second, too much info are contained in the rules and not on the game components. The event cards are too brand and not enough information, most event cards only have the name of the card on it!! and need the rules to explain what it does. That is too much information that need to be memorized. If the critical information is written on the card it may help people to play and new players to learn the game.

Third, the use of a log will increase play time. Providing a set of Political Problems cards that detail the offices needed to solve it and the accepted modifiers can replace the big table provided. This can also marked which problem is still unsolved. There are a lot of things that can be improved and can reduce play time...

Has anybody done some inproved components for the game?

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

I can't rank this, because I've never actually gotten through a game of it. I've actually had a hard time even getting through the rules -- it's one of those games where, whenever you hear about someone playing it, they're likely to say several times during their description "and then we realized that we were something wrong." It's my personal winner for the "most frustrating rules that don't add anything to the game besides complexity."

I get it out of the box every few years and start trying to figure it out, because I'm convinced that somewhere, under all the stifling picky rules and the vast quantity of tables, cards and counters, there is a fabulous game that could be designed with the components. But I've never quite figured out how to do it.

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

I used to play this game quite a bit back in the early '80's, and I liked it a lot. I never felt the rules were picky, and it is nowhere near as complex as something like, say, Third Reich or Magic Realm. One thing I didn't like about the game is that there seemed to be too much reliance on random event tables, but then I don't have any alternate solutions to offer and it wasn't enough to kill my enjoyment of the game. The key activity in Down With The King, the overriding goal, is to get your faction into position to usurp the throne, while thwarting the other players in their attempts to do the same, and that is a blast, and more than interesting enough to make me recommend this game.

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

My friends and I used to play this quite often during our college days (early 80's). Since then, I have yet to find any friends who enjoy playing a complex game that can take a few hours, so I haven't had the opportunity to play. Despite the complexity of the rules, this is one of the most enjoyable games I have played.