Musings On... Camelot Legends (#14)

Tom Vasel: Camelot Legends, designed by Andrew Parks and produced by Z-man Games, has some of the most beautiful artwork of any game I've seen. Basically, it's a card game that uses the events of King Arthur and his knights as a framework for a game. Camelot Legends reminds me of a collectible card game, since the cards with a vast amount of text provide different effects and have different statistics. For me, the game is very thematic, evoking the legend of Arthur in a way I've seen no other game do. If you're seeking for a game that faithfully recreates the legend of the Round Table, then Camelot Legends is probably your best choice.

Mike Siggins: Hi, all. Apologies in advance but I don't much like this game, so this will be a slightly more discursive exchange!

We are going to disagree on several things later Tom (!), so let's start with a positive. I too love the theme, and that was the main reason I bought the game. I also agree the artwork is excellent. As poor as this game is, I will keep the cards. I may try and make the game work, but I probably won't. The only point to note is that this is high medieval style art, not the gritty Anglo-Roman look of the recent movie, which was dictated by the latest Arthurian research that tries to place Arthur in context. Either way, top marks for aesthetics. All the characters are here, and plenty of flavoursome card titles and pictures besides. Fancy graphics help the atmosphere, but you need a decent game as well.

Paul Burkhard: I am a big fan of Camelot Legends, having originally picked it up based upon Tom's good review posted on Boardgamegeek.com.

Actually, it was not at all the sort of game that I would ordinarily purchase. I tried playing Magic: The Gathering many years ago and found that I just didn't like the idea of playing this card to nullify that card and combining these cards to give me some other power, etc. I had a great deal of difficulty keeping track of What was What and Who was Who. So, for the most part, I stayed away from CCGs and other similar games.

But I am a sucker for theme, nice artwork and King Arthur, so I bought the game.

For a "non-card-game-with-variable-powers" person, such as myself, the first look at the cards was a little overwhelming. Lots of text and lots of numbers. However, I talked my 11 year-old into trying it with me. We stumbled through the first couple of games and found that we liked it! Soon, my wife and father-in-law learned to play as well, and it was declared a big hit.

As many have mentioned, the game is high on theme. There are a ton of Character cards, each extremely well illustrated by a number of renowned Fantasy artists. The game's designer has done an excellent job of formulating character skills and statistics that are true to the stories and legends surrounding King Arthur.

Gameplay consists of forming Questing Parties from the character cards in your hand. These cards are played into each of three play areas: Camelot, The Perilous Forest and Cornwall. As the game progresses, Quests are revealed for the play areas. For the most part, the completion of a Quest requires a combination of skills and abilities across a number of characters in a party. Some quests will require characters with Chivalry, some with Cunning, etc. When a player completes a quest he is rewarded with Victory Points and (sometimes) extra skills and abilities.

As I previously stated, I am not much of a fan where "This Card" cancels "That Card," but for me, Camelot Legends works, on many levels.

Tom Vasel: I'm curious about the complaints about the amount of text on the card. Yes, that means that the cards can't be thrown down and quickly played, but Camelot Legends isn't meant to be played that way. It's more of a story, with each added knight completing a part of the story, participating in a different event. So the reading of the text on the cards, as well as the events, etc. - all forms a large tapestry of theme and fun. Camelot Legends, for that reason alone, would be a tremendous game for me.

Mike Siggins: Okay, so here goes. Initially I will throw in the token, but sincere, comment about really wanting to like this game…

Problem one is that we go through a lot of grief to satisfy the various quests, only to simply compare numbers. Admittedly they are often modified numbers, and one must deploy a modicum of skill in making sure you have the right type of numbers, but this is not rocket science. Nor is it particularly interesting – that prosaic phrase ‘no brainer’ does seem to fit here. It is also a huge anti-climax given what I for one was hoping for (and which Tom seems to have found) – a flavoursome, challenging game about Camelot.

This is the latest episode in the ‘mission mechanism series’. The challenge here is to make a mechanism that prompts decisions and which can provide a solution to a known or random mission. Star Trek CCG tried it (and got much the same result as here), other CCGs followed, Thunderbirds tried bravely, and Shadows over Camelot came up with pretty good stab, though one that is deceptive because of the co-operative nature of the game. And if you stretch definitions a bit, it is done well in Richard Breese’s Key games and in Louis XIV. But comparing numbers is the weakest possible solution. It is a five-minute answer for almost any of us. I expect more, especially in a package that has gone to town on some lovely artwork and is charging a chunk of change for a card game.

Problem two is the card text. This really grates with me as I like card games with effects and, more importantly, effect combinations and ‘engines’. That is a saving grace of Magic for me, so I will happily look for it in any other game. What should happen here is that the card text should add to (or indeed build) the narrative and flavour in pleasing and discrete ways. What in fact does happen, fairly quickly, is that you move from excitedly reading card text to re-reading and re-reading, and then checking and adding every blinking card for almost any game event. This is because some of the cards’ special abilities are persistent, or semi-permanents, and can also be local or universal in compass – their presence can affect other cards at any time, usually by applying a modifier or blocking an action. The biggest issue is when an influential card is on the other side of the table – the text is tiny.

On top of this, there are factions and character linkage. It is a task that a computer can perform in a millisecond, but which takes the human brain and eyes much longer. A game that suffered similar problems was the Sim City CCG. While nowhere near that horror of game design, the net result here is pretty grim. It is poor structural choice, and one really wonders if a single playtester pointed out the impracticalities (though see below).

Two other smaller points so far. These problems may not seem much to you, but for me they put two big holes in the hull of Camelot Legends, and it started to list very quickly. It was a sunken vessel even before the end of the second game and is now packed away in its box awaiting a rule fix. I have just spotted the Lords of Camelot official variant, so that may help.

The other, extremely puzzling, observation is that one of the lead playtesters is Coleman Charlton. Not a name to rank with the Knizia's and Teuber's in recognition perhaps, but nevertheless the hugely talented designer of my favorite game: Middle Earth: The Wizards, by I.C.E. His presence leads me to wonder if he spotted anything amiss, and if not, adding in Tom’s praise, wonder whether I am missing the trick here (I concede this is a possibility).

Nick Stellato: I so wanted to like this game. I have always liked the tales of King Arthur and Camelot. Unfortunately this game did nothing for me. Too put it bluntly, It was an exercise in mathematics. I understand that the game should evoke a feeling or transport you into the realm, but all I felt like doing while playing this was pull out an abacus and make the calculations.

Here is my background. I am an old school wargamer. I cut my teeth on the old AH, VG, SPI wargames in the eighties. I stopped gaming after I finished school and just got back into it over the past three years. I like playing euros, but my heart is still with the wargames. I don't mind adding numbers; most wargames have you trying to add up your counters to get better odds on an attack. In this game it seemed that's all you did. You had to juggle the numbers to complete the quests. It just didn't click with me. Since I do not have experience with CCGs (the only one I'll play is Blue Moon) maybe I'm not the best person to speak about this game.

Playing Camelot Legends was like studying for the GRE with flashcards. The game was too number heavy and completely overwhelmed the gameplay, hence I could never get into the theme. I liked the text on the cards and read them, but it was when I wasn't playing the game. When you're in a game, you really can't concentrate on the theme, you're too busy adding up the numbers and juggling lineups. Maybe others are able to look beyond the numbers and enjoy the experience, but for me it just did not work.

Tom Vasel: For me, the numbers were the theme. For example, if one person had a "4" in fighting and another a "1", I could easily tell who was the better fighter to add. Some of the characters, like Lancelot and Arthur, were exceptional at their stats - and that just added to the flavor for me. I thought the adding together of numbers was fairly easy.

I will concede the point about the amount of time it took to look at all the numbers and modifiers for some quests. For me, this wasn't a big deal - most players calculated their totals when it wasn't their turn. But I can see how this would turn people off who want snappy, quick play.

When I go into Camelot Legends, I expect to take a bit of time to read the text on the cards. But since only a few cards are added each turn - it really isn't that hard to remember what the other players have. And, the deck is fixed, unlike a CCG, so players shouldn't be surprised by cards after the first couple of games.

After reading my comments, I feel like I'm defending a game with flaws perceived by others, and trying to gloss over those flaws. Perhaps Camelot Legends isn't the most intuitive game. Perhaps it has too much number crunching. But for some reason, and I'm pretty sure it's the theme, I like the game. I simply like it, regardless of perceived flaws.

Mike Siggins: Well, sure, the numbers constitute part of the theme. We need to know who the best warrior is, how tough a dragon is, and whether you can die from a lucky arrow shot. More to the point, the game is driven off of sending the right people to do the job. All good stuff. Combine that with the art work, and the narrative building blocks - they are all there: characters, plot, events, drama - and we should have a theme rich experience.

So Tom, who should be standing by his guns, thinks the theme holds up, while others are looking at it from the other side and pointing out failings. I think this is down to transparency. Do the systems allow us to experience the situation without the penny dropping? We are all looking at the same numbers, and doing the simple math. It sounds like either the frequency of the calculations is breaking the spell, or there just isn't enough there in the first place to conjure the illusion.

Another aspect may be the lucid quality. Is there really anything here that challenges us? That forces us to make a game decision? I don't think 'agonising' is ever called for, but it is nice to have a problem to solve, especially in a mission based game.

Nick Stellato: Sorry about not talking more about Camelot Legends. I traded it away a couple of months ago. I agree with the poster that said it has all the components for a theme rich environment, and I can see where the numbers would work for someone who enjoys crunching numbers, however it just did not work for me.

There are a myriad of decisions to be made during a game turn. The company aspect of the game works in theory, but I just could not get past the adding and subtracting of the numbers. It just felt like a rudimentary mathematical exercise for me. To do anything in this game you have to juggle the numbers and I feel that is the main problem with this game. The number crunching overwhelmed the theme for me.

As for the comment on challenging the game players to make a decision, I really think that the frequency that you drew cards really pushed that on the back burner. I never felt the need to make an agonizing decision because I felt that after a few turns, I would be able to draw the requisite number to complete a quest. I just didn't feel any turn angst playing against others. There always seemed to be enough quests to work on and I didn't feel rushed to complete them and if I didn't complete one, another one would take its place.

Mike Siggins: Overall, I am just going to file this one under 'great art, real potential, but expensive and very disappointing'. This means I will mellow over time and try it again, perhaps with a different group of gamers, and it may tip the balance. At the moment there are better games to play. I rate Camelot Legends a 4, but I hope something comes along to crank it up a few points. As I said, I will hang on to it.

Tom Vasel: I'm going to hang on to it also, but simply because I like it as is. I very much understand why some folks may be turned off from it. But if you like the Arthurian legends and want to see the theme translated into a very fun, interesting game, then I believe that this game covers it in a fun, excellent way.


-FIN

And that's all folks! Hope you enjoyed it, stay tuned for the next Musings On...

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.tomvasel.com