Musings On... Shadows Over Camelot (#12)

Tom: Shadows over Camelot is one of the biggest games of the year, getting a lot of press, reviews, and more recently - controversy. Designed by Bruno Cathala and Serge Laget, and produced by Days of Wonder, SoC is a large box production, full of beautiful pieces and an evocative theme. It's a cooperative game with a twist - one player may be a traitor and secretly working against the group. In my opinion, this traitor is what makes the game so much fun. I like cooperative games, but the tension that SoC generates as players wonder who is working against them makes for a superb game.

Chad: I'll admit that I, as well, was initially very excited about Shadows over Camelot for all the reasons you mentioned, Tom. I have played and really enjoyed Days of Wonder's last few big box games, including TtR and Memoir '44, so another big hit was to be expected. Shadows over Camelot seemed as if it would continue in this lineage of rich theme, stunning production quality, and engaging gameplay. However, after a few plays I have to say I'm not very impressed. While they nailed the theme and production quality on the head, the gameplay is just plain boring. It seemed as if there were little to no decisions to be made on each of my turns, and that the game was essentially playing itself. I will agree with Tom about the traitor aspect being interesting, but rather than being the icing on the cake, it is Shadow's only saving grace. Even with all of the game's glitz and glamour, in the end, it just seemed like a complicated Werewolf variant.

Shannon: I've heard the complaint that there aren't a lot of decisions to be made on a turn, and I think that's because some people mistake what a turn is in Shadows over Camelot. You make decisions, but they're big things, what are usually termed strategic (as opposed to tactical) decisions. You discuss player's various strengths (within the limits of the game) and then you decide: Kay's going to fight the Black Knight, Arthur will continue the Grail Quest, etc. Afterward you have a few chances to play cards, and then because of your success or someone else's impending failure another big set of decisions comes along.

I think you could use Spades, Hearts, or most other traditional card games as a good analogy. Most of your turns are rote, but every three or four turns, as the overall picture slowly changes, you have to make some new plans. It's these meta-turns and their meta-decisions where the gameplay really occurs-in Shadows over Camelot, in Hearts, in Spades, and in a lot of other games.

Overall, through four games thus far, I've found Shadows to be great. It's got wonderful theming, wonderful production, enjoyable gameplay, good socialization, and great anxiety thanks to the traitor. I'd never call it the most strategic game I play, but it's definitely one of the most colorful with one of the most interesting social aspects.

Chad: Oh great! So I have to argue against two good reviewers, how fun!

Anyways, I see your point about the larger strategic decisions being made every four or five turns, but it still seems to me that I'm not doing a whole lot on my turn. Most of the time, I'm going to flip a black card, and then a play a card according to which quest I'm on. That's the majority of the game, outside of the large decisions that you refer to which only happen once every half hour or so. That means it takes a full half hour of fairly mundane turn-taking before you come to a point where the players need to make any meaningful decisions again. I feel like I'm being forced to watch the fight against the black knight frame-by-frame, rather than seeing any exciting action take place.

Even though I do agree that there are those grand strategic decisions to be made, they are entirely driven by the game, and not the actions of the players. If I draw a hand of grail cards, I'm most likely going to the grail to monotonously spend my next few turns there. It's not like I did anything to get good at grail-finding; the game simply handed me a hand of grail cards. In this way, it feels like the game is essentially playing itself.

Shannon: I suppose the best way that I can explain why I like this game is to outline what excites me during a turn.

To start off with, there's a decision point as to what evil action to take. *This* is the important decision during an individual turn, not the putting down of another card. I constantly measure and second-guess this, based on whether I think there's a traitor in the game or not (as siege engines are a lot more dangerous with a traitor than without). If I decide upon a black card draw, there's a lot of tension here. Am I going to have something bad or something really bad happen?

The heroic part of my turn can be relatively set, but every three turns or so I feel like I have to make a decision as to what to do next.

Then, on other peoples' turns there's constant kibitzing as to what people should or shouldn't do. Compared to tactical games, which often have terrible downtimes, this is another place that the game really shines.

Finally, if I ever have a bit of breathing space where I'm not putting down my next card, not figuring out my next move, and not plotting with other players, my brain will wander as to who might or might not be a traitor in the current game, with a full accounting of their actions running through my head.

With all that said, I can understand your not liking the game, but I think it has to do with what you're looking for. I came in looking for a social experience with great Arthurian color. I got it, and I assure you my speech is full of flowery prose when I play. It sounds like you're coming in wanting a deeper system, with more important decisions that you can personally make each turn, and by that criteria Shadows clearly fails.

Mike: I empathize with all the comments so far. I very much enjoyed my first couple of games, as did most of those playing, but can see that the decisions were pretty obvious and that the appeal almost certainly won't last. The key to the game is indeed the traitor. Without it, the game would drop several points. With it, it is an intriguing, atmospheric romp.

Tom: With every group I've played with, the decisions WERE obvious - to me. But not everyone agreed with me, and that's the fun of the game. Everyone knows exactly what should be done, and arguments ensue because of this. Now, someone's advice may be suspect because they are the traitor, and this is the key to the game.

In fact, this "kibitzing" is the key to the game. The fact that everyone gets extremely involved in the discussions with barely concealed distrust of everyone else, really makes Shadows over Camelot shine where other cooperative games don't. When playing LOTR, Vanished Planet, or Arkham Horror, it's easy for a domineering player to dictate everyone else's moves. This won't happen in Shadows, because that demanding player just might be the traitor. Without the traitor, Shadows is a decent game. With the traitor, Shadows over Camelot is a great game.

Chad: I'll agree that arguing is great fun, but I can get into much better arguments by calling up my mom about coming to pick up all of my crap that I left at her house, or by belching in front of my girlfriend without saying "excuse me". From what I've heard from you guys so far, it seems to me that people enjoy the player interaction in this one much more than the actual gameplay, and the awesome bits and stunning presentation are what are getting people to buy it to start with. If not for the bits, this game would boil down to a game of Werewolf. This might partially explain why I didn't enjoy this game; I hate playing Werewolf!

Anyways, on to another problem I've noticed with this title, which is the introduction of newbies to the game. I can't imagine how frustrating and annoying it would be as a newbie at this game when playing with people that have already played Shadows. In all of the games I've played, the newbie rarely gets to make a decision of his own. All of the experienced players tell the newbie what to do, because they've played the game before and "know how to play the game" because of it. If the newbie listens, all of the fun is sucked out of the game for him since he doesn't get to make any decisions. If he doesn't listen, he is accused of being the traitor, which will probably hurt everybody. Talk about a sucktastic game experience!

Shannon: I will agree with some of the concerns that other folks have had.

Chad is quite right, and the experience of Shadows for a new player can be daunting. I think the whole traitor mechanic doesn't work that well for a new player. My suggestion there is simply to have a new player always be loyal. Then he doesn't have to deal with figuring out how to be a good traitor with no experience (my concern), nor does he have to deal with being accused of the same (Chad's concern). This isn't elegant, nor does it work if you have more than one new player in the game, as that chances throwing the dynamics too far off, but it does solve the problem in most cases.

And, like Mike, I do have some concerns with the game's ultimate replayability. My brain says that this will get played out. However my actual gaming experience says that every game has continued to be great fun, and that's what I have to go with at this point.

I think that calling Shadows the same game as Werewolf is largely hyperbolic. There are actual game systems in Shadows and because of those game systems you have real basis to make decisions about other peoples' actions, something often missing in Werewolf. However I'd agree that if you don't like the style of play of Werewolf, you're at least somewhat less likely to like Shadows because they are kin.

This ain't Tigris & Euphrates, and that isn't a fault; they're just very different styles of games that will probably appeal to very different people.

Mike: Just going to the detail level for a moment, and referring to Chad's comment, in the first game I played I was the traitor. Okay, so I am not inexperienced, but still a newbie to the game. About an hour in, I needed to know what would happen if I was exposed so I could make a judgment on timing and tactics. I read the rules, and they directed me to the reverse of my playmat for more details! So in the middle of the game, when you are trying to remain anonymous, you are expected to check an inaccessible chart! Okay, so one could claim double bluff, but not exactly ideal.

Again though, to restress the point, I found playing the traitor great fun, and considerably more interesting than a normal knight. I suppose this appeals to my long term interest in secret agendas - I have always enjoyed games where you reveal, at the end, that you were seeking to steal x or marry y. This is akin to Cosmic Encounter or Dune, where the interplay of powers rarely fails to fascinate, but with that hidden element that makes it so much more... life-like?

The replayability angle comes down to one thing for me. Not so much whether the decisions are obvious or even discussed, because I can live my life without playing another negotiation game, but because the game conjures a real sense of atmosphere, of Camelot under pressure from all sides, a traitor working cleverly in its midst. I found this much stronger with the full seven players.

Tom: Well, I'm not too far from thinking that 7 is close to the optimal number myself. Possible traitor + high number of players = fun. When I teach the game to people nowadays, I teach the game with the traitor; and we play with only one more loyalty card than the number of people playing. I've found that pretty much anybody can understand the traitor concept; and while not everyone knows how to play it well, everyone has fun. I've played the game a dozen times now and haven't yet been the traitor; but I continually imagine how cool it would be to be the traitor, because anyone who has been has had a blast.

I'm almost ready to classify Shadows over Camelot as a gateway game. I know that a lot of people would disagree with me, but I have yet to see many games that grab people in this manner. No matter what type of group I play the game with, it always seems to work.

Mike: In the game press, you sometimes see a 'likely play value' chart. I suspect SoC will have a curve that starts high and dives away rapidly. There isn't enough variety here, once experienced a few times, to keep it coming off the shelf. To an extent Lord of the Rings has the same issue, though is much closer to 'long life milk'. Why that should be is the subject of another article. The corollary here is that I would happily put SoC in front of anyone who hadn't played it before, and would expect to get five games value from it for most gamers. How many games can say that? Apart from perhaps the end game, this is a very well developed system and one can see that the designers have worked hard, and love the subject. It also looks incredibly good. More generally, this game is the first to make me think Days of Wonder might actually make some games I enjoy playing and, as previously indicated by Terra, that they are willing to take risks. A co-operative game is not for all, but a flavoursome, co-operative game with a traitor is well worth trying.

I rate this game a 7 currently, expecting it to fall off over time.

Shannon: I can see Shadows dropping off over time too, but it hasn't happened for me yet, and the color & fun level both remain great. I expect this to remain high on my less-strategic playlist throughout the year, and it's the exact type of game that I'm more likely to play with less experienced gamers.

Thus far I think Days of Wonder has had an astounding record at producing games. Not only is this one no exception, but it's also not a carbon copy of their other successes, but rather a very different type of game.

I rate it an "8" out of "10" and am pretty sure it'll always be an above average game.

Chad: Overall, I just need to feel like I'm making more important decisions if I'm going to devote this much time to a game. If Shadows was a light, fluffy, 15 minute game, I'd be happy with the number of decisions involved. But, as a game that takes 1.5 hours to play, making four meaningful decisions the whole game just leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

I'll agree that this game was sort of fun the first time or two I played it, and that the game will probably appeal to a lot of people. I also agree with Mike, however, that this one will quickly wear out its welcome after about 5 plays or so.

Tom: For me, Shadows over Camelot is a top notch game. The natural appeal of the theme (who doesn't like the Round Table?), the fact that it handles quite a few players, and the tension the traitor brings makes this a clear winner in my book. I think that replayability is quite high and haven't seen a drop off in interest yet in my groups. As Mike said in a previous essay, it's often difficult to assuage what exactly makes a game "great." The sheer likeability and fun factor of Shadows over Camelot would put it in my "great" column.

Tom's Rating: 9 out of 10
Chad's Rating: 4 out of 10
Mike's Rating: 7 out of 10
Shannon's Rating: 8 out of 10

Tom Vasel is a game enthusiast currently living in Korea. He has written over 300 reviews, which can be found at www.tomvasel.com , and plays games solely to have fun. He writes a weekly game blog at www.Gamefest.com, also the home of his interviews with gaming notables, “Interviews by an Optimist.”

Mike Siggins has been playing all sorts of games for 30 years and writing about them for the last 20. For ten of those years he published Sumo magazine, which pioneered in-depth coverage of German Games. He served as a member of the editorial board of Games & Puzzles, on the Daily Telegraph Game of the Year panel, and is a founder member of the IGA committee. He is also a current contributor to Counter Magazine. His main gaming interests are innovative systems, sports games and narrative atmosphere. He is currently developing several boardgame titles for major publishers. Mike was born in 1961 and lives in Cambridge, England.

Our guest reviewers are…

Chad Krizan is an avid board game player and a regular at BoardGameGeek. He is a member of a number of game groups, including the Kansas City Kingmakers and the Tabletop Blockheads. Outside of board gaming, Chad enjoys his job as an urban planner for a small architecture firm in Lawrence, KS, and also enjoys frisbee golf, ultimate frisbee, and thrifting/garage saling.

Shannon Appelcline is a game player, reviewer, and kibitzer. He's written over 200 reviews to date at RPGnet, and continues to add to them on a weekly basis. He was also a developer for the Mythos CCG, brokered the recent reprint of Arkham Horror and is currently working on a few game designs of his own. Shannon's fondness for the Arthurian genre, demonstrated by his published Pendragon game books and the short story "Keystones", no doubt influences his continued enjoyment of Shadows over Camelot.