Greg Schloesser
United States
Talbott
Tennessee
-
Design by: Reiner Knizia
Published by: Gryphon Games
3 - 5 Players, 30 - 45 minutes
Review by: Greg J. Schloesser
When I first wrote my review of High Society, Reiner Knizia was just beginning his rapid ascent to the top of the heap in terms of prestigious game designers. This review was penned shortly after his release of Euphrat & Tigris. In the intervening years, he has released dozens of new titles and his reputation has continued to soar. He has continued his trait of designing games that present players with a series of agonizing decisions each turn and always leaves you wishing you could have just one more action in order to complete your master stroke.
High Society is one of his designs which was released several years back, and has just been re-released by Gryphon Games, a division of FRED. It's components are simple: 16 commodity cards and five sets of cards representing hard-cold cash. Yet what Knizia can do with these simple components is nothing short of pure magic.
In spite of my normal aversion (probably due to my consistent horrible play in them) of bidding type games, this one hits the mark. Players bid on cards one at a time as they are revealed. Card values range from 1 - 10, with several special cards. There are three 'X2' cards, which, if acquired, double the value of a players cards he has acquired. However, there are a few nasty cards, too. One halves the value of a player's acquired cards, another subtracts 5 from his total, while a third forces the player to discard one of his acquired cards.
As a card is revealed, players bid on the card. Bidding continues until all players have passed. The high bidder takes the card and discards his money. All other players retrieve the money they bid. If a 'bad' card is revealed, then the LOW bidder gets stuck with the card. In this case, the LOW bidder gets to take his money back while all other players lose their money bid.
There are four specially marked cards. When the fourth of these is revealed, the game ends immediately. Thus, no one knows exactly when the game will end and which cards will be revealed during the course of play.
The game has two other unique and neat money-managing features. First, when the game ends, all players total the amount of CASH left in their hands. The player with the LEAST amount of cash in their hands is OUT OF THE GAME, regardless of the value of his acquired cards. Thus, one is forced to manage his money carefully to insure that he has enough money left in his hand at the end of the game to keep himself in contention. Another Knizia design, Quo Vadis, uses a similar feature wherein the player who does not make it to the Senate is out of the game, regardless of the number of laurels he had collected during the game.
The second neat money-managing feature is that change cannot be made during the game. Each player gets a pre-set amount of cash in set denominations (1,2,3,4,6,8, etc. up to a high of 25). As the bidding progresses and a player lays a cash bid on the table, he must increase it from there without retrieving the previously laid bill. For instance, if I had played a 4 and the bidding gets around to me again and is at '12', I cannot pick up the 4 and lay down a 15. I must add to the 4 already on the table. Without being able to make change, this forces one to carefully keep an eye on what he has remaining in his hand. Otherwise, you may be forced to drastically overbid if you find yourself having already used all your low value bills. An intriguing concept.
Players must keep an eye not only on their own money, but on the money which has been spent by their opponents. Remember - the player with the least amount of cash remaining in their hand at game's end is OUT, regardless of the value of his acquired cards. In addition, one must also make tough decisions in regards to how much to bid on the cards, keeping in mind to hold enough cash to be able to bid appropriately so as not to get stuck with the 'nasty' cards as they are revealed.
The game is yet another in the long list of intriguing and agonizing games by the prolific inventor Knizia. He has had a few misses ... but not many. Put High Society on his 'HIT' list.
-
W M Shubert
United States
Portland
Oregon
KGS is the #1 web site for playing go over the internet. Visit now!
Yes, I really am that awesome.
-
I agree, this is a great little game. To me, High Society in is the set of very quick, very fun, simple bidding games. The others I know of are For Sale and Felix: The Cat in the Sack (I've heard that some other games, like Money, fit in there too, but these are the ones I have played). The three are different but almost interchangeable in the amount and type of fun the provide, but it's nice to have all three so when you get a filler you can play a different one depending on your mood or on what the other players want.
-
Greg Cox
Australia
Petersham
NSW
-
I was looking forward to this after playing For Sale but it was a big flop for me for some reason.
-
Steve Krebs
United States
Davis
California
-
This is essentially the same review written in 2004 by Mr. Schloesser. I must admit I don't understand why he is able to repost reviews (see his most recent review of Age of Steam review( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/376693)? Why not edit the old ones?
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
skrebs wrote: This is essentially the same review written in 2004 by Mr. Schloesser. I must admit I don't understand why he is able to repost reviews (see his most recent review of Age of Steam review( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/376693)? Why not edit the old ones?
I went looking for the old review, prompted by this comment, wondering how similar the 2 reviews were. I was expecting that maybe they followed the same basic structure or something... but wow, this one is literally a cut-and-paste of the exact same text, with very minor editing.
What's up with that? It indeed seems pointless and just adds confusing extra clutter to the number of articles in the review forum to have 2 copies of the same review. (Not to mention it creates a bad impression to earn more geekgold for uploading the same text a few years later).
-
Greg Schloesser
United States
Talbott
Tennessee
-
russ wrote: skrebs wrote: This is essentially the same review written in 2004 by Mr. Schloesser. I must admit I don't understand why he is able to repost reviews (see his most recent review of Age of Steam review( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/376693)? Why not edit the old ones? I went looking for the old review, prompted by this comment, wondering how similar the 2 reviews were. I was expecting that maybe they followed the same basic structure or something... but wow, this one is literally a cut-and-paste of the exact same text, with very minor editing. What's up with that? It indeed seems pointless and just adds confusing extra clutter to the number of articles in the review forum to have 2 copies of the same review. (Not to mention it creates a bad impression to earn more geekgold for uploading the same text a few years later).
Let me apologize for this. I checked the "reviews" tab, and my earlier review of High Society does NOT appear under that section on the Geek. Thus, I surmised that I never published it here. The vast majority of my reviews were first published in other places: Counter, Knucklebones, Games International, Moves, etc. After the passing of time, I will then publish them on the Geek and East Tennessee Gamers websites.
Many of these are older reviews that I revise after a new edition is released. Some of these revisions are slight, as the new version is basically a re-print of an earlier edition. In this case, I first checked to see if I had previously posted the review. As mentioned, I checked the "review" tab, and it isn't listed there. Thus, I posted it here.
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
gschloesser wrote: Let me apologize for this. I checked the "reviews" tab, and my earlier review of High Society does NOT appear under that section on the Geek. Thus, I surmised that I never published it here.
OK, but you overlooked it. I definitely see it there, 10th one in the list currently:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/forum/63/boardgame/220
"User Review"
by gschloesser Sun Jul 9,2000 08:09 pm
Is it not showing up for you on that list?
Oh, I bet you clicked "Reviews" in the forum section of the main game article, and didn't notice that there are 2 pages of reviews (see the symbols "Pg.1/2 »"); your old one shows up on the second page there.
-
Greg Schloesser
United States
Talbott
Tennessee
-
russ wrote: gschloesser wrote: Let me apologize for this. I checked the "reviews" tab, and my earlier review of High Society does NOT appear under that section on the Geek. Thus, I surmised that I never published it here. OK, but you overlooked it. I definitely see it there, 10th one in the list currently: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/forum/63/boardgame/220"User Review" by gschloesser Sun Jul 9,2000 08:09 pm Is it not showing up for you on that list? Oh, I bet you clicked "Reviews" in the forum section of the main game article, and didn't notice that there are 2 pages of reviews (see the symbols "Pg.1/2 »"); your old one shows up on the second page there.
ARRGHH! Yep ... I just clicked reviews and didn't see it on the ones that popped-up. Sure enough, it was on the second page. I've deleted the old review to avoid the confusion.
-
|
|
