Flashback Friday - Citadels
Love it or hate it? Do you still play it?
Citadels, by Bruno Faidutti , is one of the earliest role selection games. Although we don't have a single review or discussion of it here on the site other than Ken. B's mini review on the game's directory page , I know it is one that many of you have played. Back in the day, it was recommend to new gamers almost as frequently as Lost Cities.
So what ever happened to it? It is still in print, so people must still be buying it and playing it. How about you? Do you love it or hate it? Do you still play it?
It's in my locker at work: some people expressed an interest in a lunchtime game club and it seemed a good candidate. But we're always too busy. Not managed a single lunchtime game.
Good game. Should pull it out again.
ChristopherMD wrote: Went from hating it to just disliking it. In fact I can't say I've ever really liked any of Bruno Faidutti's games.
Valley of the Mammoths is his best game -- in fact, I don't even think it's close
For me personally, what hurt my playing of Citadels is that my wife did the art for Dread Curse by Smirk and Dagger, which, bias aside, is a really great role selection game with lots of fun take that and dicking each other over. Plus, I’m in it. So is my brother, my wife, and my father in law. If we’re going to play a role selection game at our house, it has to be Dread Curse by default.
Last time I played with my daughter she meta'd me a few times and I was very proud.
I agree with those who say it's just that bit too long.
But I love the meta stuff. I'm sure there are better ones out there but it does its job in our house.
It’s a good one, but like others here, it’s not something that really gets played any more. I feel like a lot of what it does has been surpassed...even though I don’t like all the social deduction stuff like Coup and all that, I believe most folks would pick up one of those over Citadels these days.
The game seems really punitive and random to new players, but experience made the game better for me. Tired of being assassinated and robbed? Then take the assassin and the thief more often. Don't take the architect or the merchant too often. Playing "efficiently" is rarely the right move. Once the table realizes that it makes a big difference, though some groups never figure it out.
Like Bohnanza, it does run a shade too long. Faidutti never equalled this one until Mascarade, which is probably my new favorite game of his now.
It is a fun game that can sometimes go a bit long, some days you play to win and other days you play to have fun being a nuisance (prick) picking the Assassin or Thief.
It being long sometimes is often a player problem, I think. It's common for a new player at the table or someone who hasn't played in a while to gaze at the cards and "not know what to play", which is the worst kind of analisis paralisis that you can have in a hidden role game.
This is true. As the game developes the should be obviously riskier (more money) and less risky (less money) choices and it's up to you to balance that. I see too many groups just picking up either what is great for them or the obvious "second" choice. They also tend to overpick Assassin because they pick it up not knowing who or what they want to target.san il defanso wrote: The game seems really punitive and random to new players, but experience made the game better for me. Tired of being assassinated and robbed? Then take the assassin and the thief more often. Don't take the architect or the merchant too often. Playing "efficiently" is rarely the right move. Once the table realizes that it makes a big difference, though some groups never figure it out.
It can run long with players that don't immediately "get it". It's more about keeping the other players in check than having the perfect tableau, and it's the tableau part that makes most people take too long to choose a role.