The other night I was in a 5-player game of Tower of Babel and not once was the pass action used by anybody. Now, is this because it was 5-player, and so the hands were filling up quickly or were we playing wrong? My guess is the former but I can always imagine the possibility of the latter.

On a side note, the game fell flat for me. I did a lot of reading beforehand and it looked like a game my group would enjoy but it turned out pretty meh. Sort of an exercise in redundancy, if you will.

Thanks,

Daniel

This game is much better with fewer players because your turn comes around too fast for you to attempt to build on every turn. I recommend trying again with 3 and it will be a different game.

I agree with Eric Brosius. ToB plays best with fewer players (preferably 3).

You guessed correctly. Indeed, passing is rarely seen in a 5-player game.

About the game falling flat, my advice is to give it another chance with fewer players or even with another group. With five players, there is very little control and the outcome is nearly unpredictable. I prefer it with three.

Also, it is very dependent on the group. I have once introduced it to two newbies who had trouble in grasping the concept of helping opponents. They insisted on building always by themselves, never offering or accepting any help, despite my advice on the contrary. I obviously ran away with the game (by accumulating cards to build my stuff alone, too, and always offering the maximum number of cards I could, to get the VPs for refusal), but it was an awfully boring experience for everyone. It's really required that players get into the spirit of the game to make it work.

I'll just chime in with everyone else and say, yes, it's because you were playing with five, and yes, the game is not very good with that number. It's great with three or four; personally I like four best, but if you want a very tense game with a lot of control, go with three.

Hmm... I just played this game twice tonight, and I frankly have to disagree. The first game was with 4 and I thought it was horribly unbalanced. The second game with 5 was much more even. One of the players even passed because he had just 2 cards in-hand.

It's unbalanced due to the blue cards imo, btw. Playing without those may be more enjoyable.

Everyone might think that this is too obvious, but since noone else has mentioned it, I'd like to point out why the pass action is unpopular in the 5 player game. In a 5 player game 5 cards are drawn by the players each turn. Since on the average, each disc requires an average of 4.5 cards to build, and in the games I've played, the easier '3' or '4' discs generally get built first, excess cards will tend to accumulate in the players' hands even if everyone builds on their turn. Since the most apparent benefit of the pass action is the additional card, if the players are able to build without running short of cards, there is less incentive to take the pass action.

That said, I will generally take a pass action at least once in most of my 5 player games under the right circumstances. I notice that in most 4-5 player games i've played, each player will tend to focus on one particular type of disc e.g. camels. Generally it will not be particularly difficult to pick up the first two discs of a particular type, however, attempting to pick up the 3rd and 4th discs may present a significant challenge as the other players may resist by not putting up cards or by bidding for the disc. This means that you may need to build the 3rd and 4th discs with the cards in your hand (minimum 9 cards assuming no assistance). If on my turn, I am unable to (1) hold enough cards to build a disc of the type I am collecting without assistance (2) complete a wonder by building the 3rd disc, I will favour or at least seriously consider passing to increase my chances of drawing the right cards to allow me to build the 3rd and 4th discs without assistance.

Obviously the above is subject to some groupthink in my group, and occasionally a newbie will 'blunder' by assisting another player by offering useful cards when someone else is building their 3rd or 4th or attempting to build a disc of a type being collected by another player and accepting a relatively cheap bid for the disc from the 'collector', but i have found the above situation to be the case in some of the games I've played.

Does that make any sense?

I've never played with 5 players - but I think this is a great game with 3 or 4 on one condition:

Play without the bonus cards

It radically improves the game. Bonus cards can be so beneficial that they decide the game by the luck of the draw. They are completely unecessary. My understanding is that Knizia's design didn't have them and that they were added by the developers at the boardgame company.

Is it unbalanced because the number of players or the blue cards? So, having played it twice, you happened to have closer scores in the five-player game and concluded the game is definitely "more balanced" with five. OK.


Not wanting to go into the "trackable hidden info" discussion, but you realize that discs are kept face-down after you get them, right?


I have heard (read) that a number of times, but it always feels like a rumor. Does anyone have a reliable source?

Yes, the discs are face down. But since there aren't that many discs, its pretty easy to keep track of. Like playing Poison- to do well, you have to keep track of who is accumulating what.

In the case of TOB, it is even easier since a glance at the board will tell you how many discs of each type have been taken- and since most players try to 'specialize', you only have to remember who is collecting which type.