If an old game has a user rating of 6.5 on BGG, is it even worth reprinting?  

Many publishers would likely (and justifiably) say no.  Why bother fighting an uphill battle of convincing today’s gamers that such a design is fresh and exciting when there are higher-rated classics or entirely new concepts that don’t come with potential baggage?  On the other hand, some publishers have built their entire company on this challenge and been very successful at it.  Just look at Restoration Games who has taken Top Race (6.8, 1996) and turned it into Downforce (7.2, 2017) or Buried Treasure (6.0, 1992) and turned it into Berried Treasure (7.0, 2021) or Dark Tower (6.9. 1981) and turned it into Return to Dark Tower (8.6, 2022).  Of course, Restoration seems to have a keen eye for selecting nostalgic titles of the past and preserving that nostalgia as they work their development magic to modernize the mechanisms.

But the thing is that these nostalgic games are generally highly thematic.  Do dry, old-school, German style euro’s carry the same level of nostalgia?  Probably not.  To me, marketable nostalgia requires a combination of vivid memories, settings, and sensations, and thus pure mechanisms are a tough sell from the sentimental approach.

On top of that, there are some hobbyists who won’t even bother touching games that are rated below a 7 on BGG.  Why should they when there are so many other options that are statistically all the more likely to satisfy their gaming groups?  Of course, those of us who are willing and able to put in the extra research, time, and risk will often find “hidden gems” that become favorites in our collection.  For me, these include games such as Stephenson’s Rocket (6.9, 1999), Condottiere (6.9, 1995), Orongo (6.7, 2014), Municipium (6.7, 2008), and more.

The way I look at games that are rated below 7 on BGG is not so much that these titles are “sub-par” or “ok at best.”  Rather, this tells me that a game really works for a lot of folks (fans who rate it 7, 8, 9 or 10), yet for one or more reasons there is a decent chance that it may not work for everyone (those who rate it 5 or lower).  But if a sub-7 title presents a mechanism or theme from a creator I love, then perhaps it’ll be right up my alley!

So as a publisher, when analyzing and reimplementing a game that falls in this range, this presents an opportunity for evolution.  As we’ve seen recently, a legendary and universally acclaimed game like Ra (7.5, 1999) merely needs a great new coat of paint and some thoughtful production decisions to soar in today’s tabletop crowdfunding landscape.  On the other hand, a cult-classic such as Quo Vadis (6.5, 1991) probably needs a little something more.

A couple years back, I found that my appreciation for tabletop gaming was growing exponentially.  Part of this was thanks to the fact that I was honing my tastes and preferences and finding plenty of thrilling designs (new and old) to feed my focused appetite.  Two key preferences included Reiner Knizia’s design style — that of simple rules, elegant gameplay, layered strategies, tense decisions, and emergent interactions — as well as negotiation games.  So it was only natural that I soon sought out a used copy of the out-of-print game Quo Vadis, the design that fans point to as Knizia’s preeminent take on negotiation.

Despite it appearing as perhaps the world’s driest board game, my first play of Quo Vadis was everything I could have hoped for.  The competing incentives of racing to the inner sanctum (so your points actually matter) before you are blocked out versus hanging back to wheel and deal with your opponents to earn laurels (points) presented a dramatic, tense urgency within a satisfyingly quick (45-minute) romp.  

In this game of Roman elections, players are aiming to advance their Senator pawns up through political committees of various sizes by convincing their opponents to vote them onward through the use of bribes, deals, and promises.  The winner will be the player who gets at least one of their Senators into the inner sanctum and earns the most laurels along the way.  In classic Knizian fashion, the challenge here is about playing your opponents just as much as you are playing the board.  It was obvious that when this little box hit the table, it would consistently pack a punch.  But that was perhaps the hardest part—getting something so beige to the table when so many vivid boxes on my shelf could excite my gaming groups more easily.

On top of that, this 30-year-old design seemed to have developed a bit of an identity crisis over the course of its several reprintings.  Variants within the rulebook and online were like an overwhelming — even paralyzing — sprawl of menu options.  All I wanted to know is what is the best way to play Quo Vadis?  With public points or secret points?  As a three-act game or one quick round?  With a laurel supply quantity tailored to the player count, or with everything always available?  With or without the special disks from the Mayfair Edition?

That last variant in particular, the special disks, is especially notable because I included it in my second play of Quo Vadis when I introduced the design to a different group of gaming friends.  Fortunately, they all seemed to enjoy the game.  As for me, I found that I strongly disliked this variant.  While the special disks appear to add excitement — presenting players with an additional action option of drawing an exciting ability such as gaining a bonus vote or canceling an opponent’s vote or more — I found that they actually detracted from what made Quo Vadis shine — the reliance on your opponents and the negotiations that naturally emerge from this reliance.

Quo Vadis is not the only victim of such decades-long tinkering and dilution.  On the one hand, these many variants represent a legacy of ideas, creativity, and passion from fans and publishers alike.  On the other, they can be off-putting to newcomers who don’t want to invest so much energy in eliciting the “ideal” way to play.  So as a publisher who desired to shepherd Quo Vadis into the modern tabletop gaming industry, the main challenge was in seeing through the weeds and truly understanding Quo Vadis — What makes this design special?  What do raving fans love about it?  Where and why doesn’t it click for those who played it and rated it below 7?  How can we adapt it to a modern audience and help it to reach its full potential?

To answer these questions, I turned to a fundamental tool that is used within the world of business.  Although I don’t remember everything I was taught while pursuing my Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration, at least one principle that has stuck with me is the SWOT Analysis.  It’s funny… I always thought that I’d primarily be applying my business education to managing a dental practice (yes, our publishing company is called Bitewing Games because it was started by two dentists — myself and Kyle), but I’ve actually found myself putting this experience to use far more frequently as a designer, publisher, and developer of board games.

The SWOT Analysis is typically used by companies to evaluate their brand or a specific product within its market.  It’s a way to analyze and understand the internal Strengths and Weaknesses of the subject as well as the external Opportunities and Threats in its industry.  For Bitewing Games, I’ve found that it is perhaps our best tool in evaluating, developing, and marketing our games.  This is a topic that I discussed more thoroughly on the Board Game Design Lab Podcast. https://boardgamedesignlab.com/community-spotlight-evaluating-your-game-with-swot-analysis-with-nick-murray/ 

While it works for every project we’ve taken on, the nice thing about doing a SWOT Analysis on a game like Quo Vadis is that we have over 30 years of data (primarily from Board Game Geek’s database) to study and learn from.  So I did what any sane person would do and consumed it — all of it.  I combed through the 800 comments, clicked through the 106 forums, soaked in the dozens of reviews, explored the countless ideas and discussions, collected the numerical data, and presented my findings to the legend himself, Dr. Reiner Knizia.  By using the SWOT Analysis, we were able to maintain a focused perspective and condense all of this information into something more clear and actionable.  Importantly, I restricted this analysis summary to a single slide:

This slide gave us an overhead view of where Quo Vadis was at as well as where we should take it.  Naturally, our main focus was on the weaknesses and opportunities of the game which we dove into further…

Let’s skip to the second bullet point and start with the “Dry” Look & Theme.  One pattern that stood out to me while perusing the comments on Quo Vadis was that many players (including myself) found the presentation to be bone-dry.  This is even considering the fact that Roman Senatorial Politicking is in many ways the perfect fit for the mechanisms of Quo Vadis.  The problem is not within the pairing of the design and theme, rather it is within the presentation and crowdfunding appeal of such a game.

So how do we moisten up this good old game in a way that attracts newcomers yet doesn’t ruffle the feathers of longtime fans?  Well, the answer is simple: That’s not possible 😆.  As we’ve seen in recent examples such as Libertalia -> Winds of Galecrest or Colossal Arena -> Equinox and so many more, a change in theme or presentation is always going to lead to polarizing opinions.  While I wish we could satisfy everyone, we ultimately have to follow the most logical branches on the decision tree.  And as we all know, that naturally leads to one crowning answer… indeed, this is the answer to the great mysteries of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The answer?… Anthropomorphic Animals.

😂 Alright, I apologize for trolling the naysayers.  To you fine folks, please give me these following paragraphs to explain our decision.  Our priorities as a publisher are the following:

1. To publish a game with a theme and presentation that offers the most hooks to the largest number of backers (so the game can successfully fund and actually reach your table with the best quality possible).  I’m sorry, but plain old Roman Senators just don’t typically stand out in the crowded field of crowdfunding.
2. To design the box and components in a way that lowers the barriers to entry and increases your likelihood of getting it to the table.  I’d say there’s roughly a 99% chance that if I pull Quo Vadis and any other game off my shelf and let newcomers pick one to play based on their boxes, they will choose the other game.  So next time you pull a gorgeous box with a vivid theme off your shelf and players go “Oooooo!” don’t forget how easy it was to get people excited about playing it.

Now to be clear, I was being cheeky earlier.  I’m absolutely not saying that all themes should be anthropomorphized, and I can empathize with the exhaustion that comes from too many animals or too many zombies or too much Cthulhu in our hobby.  But I can assure you that Zoo Vadis wasn’t born from the desire to shoehorn animals into the art.  Rather, the solution to my above priorities (while maintaining a theme that was true to the gameplay) was in essence a Zoo where the Zoo Animals ran the zoo like a civilized Roman government.  You have exhibits where species coexist and campaign their way up to the star exhibit.  You have laurels being earned from raving fans (visitors) and envious rivals.  You have a zoo keeper (the Caesar token in the original game) who lets animals advance freely.  You have glorious political zoo artwork by Kwanchai Moriya and Brigette Indelicato.  It even fits the other gameplay changes better than the original Roman Senator theme would have (more on that later).

The next issue was blatantly obvious from an analysis of the data.  Quo Vadis has the capacity for 3-5 players, which is a narrow count to begin with, yet most players felt like it was essentially a 4-5 player game.  If you want your publication to have legs, then you need to make it easy for players to get it to the table and have an enjoyable session.  This narrow player count is an even bigger issue when comparable negotiation games such as Bohnanza will satisfy its participants from 3 all the way up to 7 players. 

So how do you address that in a pure design like Quo Vadis?  I certainly had some ideas…

Credit where credit is due: The idea of a neutral figure to improve the 3-player game came to me as a result of my recent plays of the then newly released Renature by Michael Kiesling and Wolfgang Kramer.  One of my favorite aspects of Renature is the neutral plant color that players can use in absolute savage ways to negate the area influence of opponents.  And if neutral figures can help improve the lower player count experience of an area majority game, perhaps it could do the same for a negotiation game…

As for the 6-7 player possibility of Quo Vadis, my thinking was as follows… If you look at the recommended player count stats like a bell curve, Quo Vadis is less of a curve and more of a ramp up toward higher player counts that drops off a cliff after 5 (because that’s all the game supports).  If this is (currently) the kind of game that has a “more the merrier” vibe to it, then perhaps a game board that supports 6-7 players could work just as well (if not better).

My ideas sounded great in theory, but ideas are worth nothing in game design if they aren’t properly implemented.  Fortunately I had one of the world’s greatest problem solvers ready and eager to conjure an answer.  The heavy lifting of these changes came from the design, development, and playtesting all done by Knizia and his testers.  What he eventually came back with was even better than I had expected (note: this pattern of Reiner, Kwanchai, and Brigette exceeding expectations continues through every aspect of their work on Zoo Vadis).  

Here is what Reiner wrote to me via email when he first introduced me to the changed rules (Note: While this communication was meant to be a private conversation between designer and publisher, Reiner has granted me permission to share these quotes in this Publisher Diary):

“The development was not as straight forward as I expected. It took a lot of testing and exploring until we were finally happy with the current [rules]:

“1. We now have a second board for 6 and 7 players. This plays very well!

We decided to stay as close to the original design as possible, which helps the orientation when playing with varying player numbers.

“2. I wanted to enhance the 3-player-game (and the 4-player-game) in a natural way, without the introduction of awkward special rules. We finally found the solution in the [neutral] figures which we now use for all player numbers. By varying the number of [neutral figures] in the game, the tightness of the board can nicely be adjusted to the different player numbers.

“In addition to bribing the ‘neutral’ [figures] for votes, the [neutral figures] also introduce a nice play option: you may move a [neutral] figure instead of an own figure, even into the [Star Exhibit], to obstruct other players.”

Reiner Knizia

I can’t help but laugh in noticing that Reiner calls the opportunity to “obstruct other players” (I.e. brutally blocking someone from even qualifying for victory) a “nice play option” 😂.  It warms my heart to see him stay true to his cold-blooded design tendencies.

Anyway, you’ll notice that this modified prototype from Reiner features a double-sided board (depending on player count) that elegantly keeps a similar structure (as he noted) while displaying start spaces for the neutral figures to be placed (also depending on player count).  Thrilling changes, indeed!  

The neutral figures are introduced in Zoo Vadis as a fourth action option where you can choose to advance one to the next enclosure (no majority votes needed!) and earn 1 laurel in doing so.  Furthermore, you can bribe these figures with a single laurel token (worth 2 points or better) to gain a vote if they are in your enclosure and you desperately need the majority support.  Perhaps my favorite aspect is that they can also be used savagely to clog an exhibit or even block a player from entering the Star Exhibit!

While deciding what animal the neutral figures should be, my wife, Camille, brilliantly suggested peacocks as an option.  If you’ve been to a few zoos, then you’ve likely encountered roaming peacocks who strut up and down visitor paths or in and out of various enclosures as if they own the place.  The fact that peacocks can be your greatest ally or your worst nightmare according to the bribes and wims of players is a concept that delights me to no end.

After playing and witnessing 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7-player games of Zoo Vadis, I’m ecstatic to find that all counts are a blast.  While I’m generally very sensitive to “optimal” player counts in games I play (I’ll actively avoid playing games I love if it’s not within my preferred player count), Zoo Vadis is one that I would happily at the entire range of 3-7 players thanks to the new game boards, roaming peacocks, and asymmetric animal abilities…

But before we get into the the animal abilities, let’s look at what led us to them.  Of all the 800 comments of user reviews that I read on the Quo Vadis BGG page, there was one that stood out to me the most:

Now many Kniziaphiles (myself included) tend to roll our eyes when anyone suggests that a Knizia design is too simple or needs more depth or complexity.  More often than not, these types of comments are born from a person’s single play (i.e. superficial experience) with a game where they never uncovered the subtle strategic layers lurking underneath.  Yet, whether Chg21012 played Quo Vadis only once or dozens of times doesn’t matter, because in this case his comment struck a chord.

The important thing is that they came into a “pure negotiation” game with expectations, and Quo Vadis didn’t quite meet those expectations.  As a fan of the genre, I totally get what they mean.  For me, the highest highs of negotiation come from designs like Chinatown or Sidereal Confluence which offer delicious flexibility in what you can trade and how those deals are made.  You get exciting moments like 3 or 4-way trades between several players at once.  With more experience, you realize that future promises can be even more valuable and interesting than immediate exchanges.  And you’re not simply bribing somebody else with a couple points or a bit of cash, but you’re actually exchanging favors.  These games are dynamic enough to allow players to creatively conjure value out of nothing for everyone involved in the deal.

Contrast this to something like Bohnanza or Quo Vadis and you’re more likely to disappoint folks who have tasted the forbidden fruit of more dynamic negotiation games.  Don’t get me wrong, I think both of these games are great, but the opportunity for strategic negotiations here are much more limited when all you can do is basically trade some beans or offer some votes or points.  

So how do we keep the purity of Quo Vadis while breaking through that negotiation ceiling?  Here was my idea:

Those who have tried the Special Disks from Quo Vadis will recognize a few of the ideas made it into my proposal.  But the key point here was the possibility of turning special abilities into tradable items.  If players had rule-breaking powers that could be added to their negotiation utility belt, then perhaps the game could reach the highs that Chg21012 was looking for.

This feels like a good time to get back to Reiner’s email to me about the new rules:

“3. The asymmetric player powers turned out to be the most difficult part. Originally, they brought the opposite effect to what was desired. They gave the players more powers and tempted them to do their own thing, diminishing negotiations and co-operation rather than boosting them…

“The solution was to make the player powers only applicable to other players but not to yourself. This also led to making the player powers non-tradable. They are truly your personal ability – and we really love the variety and interaction they bring into the game! 

“This will go nicely with the individual animal characteristics in Zoo Vadis 😊!

“The player powers make the game more dynamic and even more dramatic. Due to the increased urgency, it turns out that we never entered more than 5 senators during the games. Reducing their numbers from 8 to 6 will be safe even for other play styles and will save a lot of components while widening the player range 😊.

“Finally, we have used the new features ([peacocks] and powers) as an opportunity to introduce some special laurel tokens, similar to those allowing an additional [Zoo Keeper] movement.

“After a rather long and time-consuming process, we are now very happy with the results. The [additions] are elegant enhancements of Quo Vadis and introduce exciting new features without overloading the play. The features are well tested, and we love them.”

Reiner Knizia

As the man so often loves to do, Reiner took this interesting idea and flipped it on its head.  Yes, he added asymmetric ability tokens, BUT you can’t use your powers on yourself and you can’t even trade them to other players!  No, Zoo Vadis is a negotiation game.  And the best way to elicit negotiation is to force reliance and interdependence upon the players.  So all you can do with your powerful ability tokens is offer to spend your power on another player during their turn. 🤯🤯🤯🤯

And rather than give a player more power tokens to spend to compensate for a weaker power, players are instead awarded laurel tokens (points) for spending their abilities on opponents.  Thus players are incentivized to use their abilities on each other, yet stronger abilities (that can earn you more lucrative deals) reward you with less automatic laurels.

From a gameplay standpoint, these abilities are perhaps the most exciting new feature in Zoo Vadis for how they absolutely blow open the doors of negotiation possibilities.  You have the armadillo faction which allows opponents to use their underground tunnels as free shortcuts into higher exhibits.  You have the marmoset faction that, like any good monkey, helps opponents retrieve any laurel token of their choice from the board rather than the weaker token they are advancing over.  You have the rhino faction with the strength to transport two figures at once during a movement.  And that’s only 3 of the 7 powers!

I’ve seen some truly transcendent deals made between players such as the following:

Crocodile needs a vote from Rhino in order to advance into the next exhibit, but Rhino is reluctant to offer their support because then Crocodile would advance into the last open space of the next exhibit and block Rhino from entering that exhibit until another animal vacates.  

In the original version of Quo Vadis, that would often be the end of the story, because the voting player would demand too steep of a payment from the advancing player, so no deal would take place.  

Fortunately, this is Zoo Vadis, and so the crafty Crocodile sees a mutually beneficial opportunity thanks to the animal abilities.  You see, Ibis is also in that next exhibit that Crocodile and Rhino both wish to enter, and Ibis desperately needs two votes to advance onward (which the three neighboring Hyenas have thus far stubbornly refused to offer).  So here is Crocodile’s proposal to these fellow animals in need:
“Rhino, if you vote me through then you can also spend your ability token on me and I’ll use your power to bring you along with me.  Since there is only room for one of us, we also need you, Ibis, to spend your ability token on us which allows an extra animal to enter a full exhibit.  Then, because you helped us both fit into the exhibit, we’ll vote you through on your turn.”  All three parties are happy with this agreement and the deal goes through.

Zoo Vadis is the endless discovery and thrilling execution of creative negotiations — in a more vibrant setting and for a wider range of group sizes.  This kind of experience is exactly what instills in me (and hopefully many fans) an insatiable hunger to play and enjoy many games of Zoo Vadis.  Rather than dilute or detract from what made Quo Vadis special, these changes amplify the strengths of the design and help it evolve into its fullest potential.  Just like the starry-eyed animals who are aiming to reach the Star Exhibit and become the Zoo Mascot, it seems that Quo Vadis was always aspiring to be Zoo Vadis.

The Kickstarter pre-launch page for Zoo Vadis is now live! Be sure to subscribe here so you don’t miss out on the January 24th launch.

Article written by Nick Murray. Outside of practicing dentistry part-time, Nick has devoted his remaining work-time to collaborating with the world’s best designers, illustrators, and creators in producing classy board games that bite, including the upcoming Zoo Vadis by Reiner Knizia. He hopes you’ll join Bitewing Games in their quest to create and share classy board games with a bite.

The post Publisher Diary: Reiner Knizia’s Zoo Vadis appeared first on Bitewing Games.

Negotiation is one of my all-time favorite ingredients in tabletop games.  It’s a mechanism that steps out of the way and lets the players do the talking, literally.  For me, one of the most satisfying elements of this hobby is the above-the-table interaction that happens between opponents and/or teammates, and negotiation offers this in spades.  Not only that, but it often allows individuals to bring their own personalities into the competitive experience.  

Are you the generous type who offers favors out like candy at Halloween, all the while earning good karma that will pay off in the long run?  Or are you a greedy wheeler and dealer who tries to milk your competition for all they are worth?  As long as participants are open to making deals and hearing offers, then you’re bound to have a blast with a good negotiation game.

With Bitewing Games soon launching a crowdfunding project for not one but two negotiation games, I’ve been playing and exploring many of the all-time greats in this genre.  We are finally ready to reveal our own publications, so in celebration of that reveal I’d like to share my personal Top 10 Negotiation Games.  Be sure to stick around after perusing my list, because I’ll have some exciting new details to reveal for fans of this mechanism.

Chinatown

What better way to start this list off than with the 1999 classic, Chinatown?  Chinatown has become one of my all time favorite games to introduce to anybody (gamers, non-gamers, family, friends, you name it) thanks to its smooth approachability and lively antics.  Players are seeking to establish the most profitable businesses on the block by acquiring connected lots and building certain businesses on those lots.

Negotiation is at the beating heart of this game, as each round you’ll secretly choose to acquire a few lots from the hand of cards that are dealt to you.  You’ll also draw business tiles from a bag that range from take-out to laundry to flowers and more.  Then, you’ll reveal your lots and tiles and let the wild rumpus begin!  In real time (no clockwise turn structure here!), players simultaneously make offers and negotiate trades of their lots, business tiles, and money.  The rules offer complete freedom in what you offer, how you trade, and how you earn the most money to win the game.  The real fun comes in figuring out how to wring lot 43 from an opponent’s grasp or in realizing how desperately your neighbor wants your dim sum tile and basking in their desperation.  Chinatown never fails to be a hit at our table.

The King’s Dilemma

From a decades-old classic to the second-newest release on this list, The King’s Dilemma features an exciting mix of legacy role-playing, epic kingdom politicking, and tense auction voting.  This one is admittedly not quite as easy to get to the table as Chinatown, as it requires (ideally) 5-players who are willing to assemble semi-regularly and play through roughly 12-20 sessions.  But if you have the right group for it, then you are certainly in for a romp!

This one sees players acting as influential advisory houses to the king.  Together, your council faces an endless stream of dilemmas that have long-term consequences on the military, culture, economy, and moral of your people.  You will use your power (through voting auctions), your money (through bribing), and your wit (through persuasive conversation) to decide the fate of the kingdom as you seek to fulfill your house’s secret agenda.

Cosmic Encounter

Might as well keep the time period whiplash going by jumping back to the oldest game on my list: the legendary Cosmic Encounter.  This is one that I’ve labeled “the pizza” of board gaming, and I stand by that comparison.  The real draw of Cosmic Encounter, and the reason why it has stayed relevant and seen updated versions since its 1977 release, is the fact that it offers an infinite combination of wacky alien powers for players to explore.

Yet the element that keeps its old gears greased is undoubtedly the opportunity for negotiation.  It doesn’t matter that one player’s alien ability is infinitely more powerful than any other, because that simply means the opponents must team up to overcome the galaxy’s Goliath.  While it’s a competitive game at its core, Cosmic Encounter allows its players to collectively dictate who crosses the finish line and victoriously colonizes five planets—resulting in one or multiple winners.

Sidereal Confluence

Let’s continue along the space theme with my next pick, Sidereal Confluence.  While this one also features asymmetric alien powers, like Cosmic Encounter, its gameplay is actually much closer to Chinatown.  If Chinatown is the simultaneous negotiation game made for anyone and everyone, then Sidereal Confluence is the hardcore hobbyist version.

This one is so outlandishly ambitious that I still can’t believe how well it comes together.  I’ll tell you what: the first time I heard about this game I was immediately running in the opposite direction.  Featuring 268 cubes, 9 alien factions whose names simulate a spelling stroke, and multiple hours of resource conversion.  No thank you.  Yet beneath this rough exterior hides one of the greatest negotiation games ever designed.

Here, you’ll find all the chaotic fun of Chinatown with infinitely more layers of strategic possibilities.  All deals are binding and virtually nothing is off limits—you can promise a share of the profits from your convertor to the player who helps you fuel it, or even lend the convertor itself to a neighbor when you find it useless to your needs.  You can exchange planets for ships, ships for food, food for protection, protection for research—the list goes on!  While this sprawling game initially appears alien and unwieldy, it’s surprisingly straightforward, laser-focused, and entirely engaging once the rounds get going.

Quo Vadis?

From the new hotness to another old classic, let’s now examine Quo Vadis.  I never try to hide my biases on any post, but fair warning, I’m definitely biased and personally tied to this game (more on that later).  But even if Quo Vadis was completely unrelated to Bitewing Games, it would still be on my Top 10 Negotiation Games list.  That’s because this one is a playground of pure, zesty politics from one of my favorite designers, Reiner Knizia.

Believe it or not, Quo Vadis is now over 30 years old and among the very first notable releases from Dr. Knizia.  It is certainly starting to look its age in board game years, yet the core experience is as spicy as ever.  The game is a race to squeeze one or more of your senators into the Inner Sanctum before it fills up, because only those who have reached the Inner Sanctum qualify for victory.  The only problem is that it is extremely hard to get there without the help of your opponents.  Through bribing, voting, exchanging favors, and sometimes even backstabbing, only the most cunning players will rise to the top of the Roman Senate.  But you can be the last to cross the finish line—getting in by the skin of your teeth—and still claim the victory for yourself!  That’s because the winner will be the Inner Sanctum player who earns the most laurels from successful campaigns and lucrative deals along the way.  It’s simple, it’s fast, and it is incredibly thrilling.  One must balance the pressing urgency of reaching the Inner Sanctum with the lucrative opportunities to hang back and milk your opponents and the game board for laurels.

As much as I love this game, I’ll be the first to admit that has a few flaws.  Most notably, the board loses some of its tightness and the table some of its tension if you’re playing with 3 people instead of 4 or ideally 5.  And if those people are new to the game, then getting them excited about this grungy old box and bone-dry board is usually a challenge.  Finally, those who enjoy a broader trading sandbox from games like Sidereal Confluence will obviously feel a bit more restricted here.  It’s understandable for some players to come away from the relatively dry Quo Vadis being thirsty for a little more juice in their negotiations.  To that end, I’m thrilled to share that Bitewing Games and Reiner Knizia have worked to address every major flaw in this classic game—so stick around to hear about Quo Vadis evolved.  But for now, let’s pay our respects to the original Quo Vadis and continue on to my next pick…

Root

Root is one of a few picks on my list that features negotiation as a secondary or supplemental mechanism to the core experience.  In fact, the best place you’ll find negotiation in this game is actually within the first expansion thanks to the Riverfolk Company faction of profit-seeking otters.  This commercial crew offers their services to the other woodland critters by displaying their hand at all times and setting prices on their offerings.  Not only can opponents buy cards from your public hand, but they can also use your riverboats to get around the board easier and utilize your mercenaries to bully their targets more effectively.

Being a good merchant otter is not only about setting the right prices for your services, but it’s also about keeping your finger on the woodland’s pulse and enticing your opponents with offers they can’t refuse.  Yet negotiation can even be found outside of the Riverfolk Company as players can form an alliance with the Vagabond or collaborate with enemies to destabilize an even bigger threat.  Designer Cole Wehrle is known for embracing the memorable meta that can arise from a board game, and Root is all about gaming the players.

Oath: Chronicles of Empire and Exile

If gaming the players is the kind of thing you are looking for, then Mr. Wehrle’s later design, Oath, might be an even better fit for you.  Oath was my favorite release from last year—I’m now 11 meaty plays into it and still having a blast.  But that doesn’t mean it’s for everyone.  Nooooooo way, you better know what you’re getting into with Oath before you take the plunge.

If you too want to have a blast with Oath, then you ideally need a regular group of 3-5 players.  Your group needs to be totally okay with a lengthy rules explanation, a cloudy first play (or more), an unwieldy labyrinth of strategic possibilities, a wide range of emotional highs and lows, and the ever present possibility of kingmaking looming over each game’s outcome.  In many ways, Oath is less about reaching a competitive conclusion and more about charting a civilization’s journey.  But if you’re here for the negotiations and politicking, then you’ll find plenty to love.

Each result of a play of Oath has a direct effect on the setup of the next—like a pseudo legacy game that is constantly morphing and never ending.  The winner of one game always becomes crowned (or continues) as Chancellor in the next.  This Chancellor’s goal is to hold their new oath (a unique victory objective) while keeping the Exiles of the kingdom in check.  Often, the Exiles and their followers can become so dangerous and unwieldy that the Chancellor may be compelled to offer citizenship to a lowly Exile in a desperate attempt to retain control.  The problem is that this Exile-turned-Citizen will do everything in their power to succeed the Chancellor as they cooperate together.  

One of my most recent plays of this game saw one exiled player forcing his citizenship upon me, the Chancellor of the session, and convincing me to share my war bands and power with him to help maintain order in my Empire.  And each time I trusted him with my resources, he immediately stabbed me in the back by revealing secret plans and motives of his own.  Fortunately, the other exiles proved to be a large enough threat that he was compelled to concede his ulterior motives for the next era and help my Empire maintain its grasp on the land.

Inis

Interestingly, Cole has cited that one of his main inspirations for Oath was in fact Inis, by Christian Martinez.  That’s more due to the fact that Inis and Oath both feature multiple paths to victory within a tumultuous power struggle—yet they both possess elements of negotiation as well!  Ironically, the only place that you’ll really find negotiation in Inis is within the conflicts between warring players.

The thing I love about conflict in Inis is that it is completely devoid of things like combat dice and power cards.  These tropes are replaced by a simple question: “Would you like to stop fighting?”  If the answer is no, then players will continue to slap valuable troops out of each other’s armies or precious cards out of each other’s hands until one retreats or is wiped out.  But if the answer is yes—and both players can agree to stop before one or both are virtually annihilated—then the conflict is over.  Simple as that.  The different bands will simply coexist on the same board space.

Inis remains a brilliant game of political power grabbing that is further improved by several of the modules in its expansion.  I’m all ears for the recently announced second installment in this “political trilogy” from designer Martinez and publisher Matagot titled Galactic Renaissance.

Lords of Vegas

Speaking of one game being the inspiration for another, Lords of Vegas actually owes some of its DNA to the previously listed Chinatown according to the designers of this next game on my list.  It certainly makes sense when you look closely enough.  Both games see players taking control of lots on a square grid and seeking to erect businesses across connected lots in order to gain the most profits.  Yet where Chinatown is pure, unadulterated negotiation, Lords of Vegas is a game of cutthroat casinos ripe with entrepreneurial gambling and sprinkled with the opportunity for trading and negotiation.

In this 12-year-old fan favorite, players are constantly risking their hard-earned cash on ambitious endeavors.  These pursuits include everything from building, upgrading, and spreading owned casinos to hostile takeovers of the competition or even high-stakes gambling to steal each other’s cash.  With all of these thrillingly thematic possibilities, it can be easy to forget the advantageous opportunity to trade at any time.  The ability to trade most anything—including money, lots, dice in casinos, and actions—can really help tip the scales of luck in your favor.

Bohnanza

We’re going to close this Top 10 out with another classic trading game that has long been a favorite of many gamers across the world.  Apparently the gateway to becoming a legendary German game designer is by starting with a simple negotiation game.  As Reiner Knizia began his design journey with Quo Vadis (among others) so Uwe Rosenberg started his ludography with the bean-trading card game, Bohnanza. Many frown upon the garish art style of this game, but I personally find it to be quite charming and iconic.

While I personally gravitate toward games that offer more strategy and flexibly in their negotiation possibilities, Bohnanza remains a worthwhile and amusing classic thanks to its unique locked hand card play.  Here, you are not allowed to rearrange any cards in your hand, and you must play them into your fields in order.  This forces players to give up beans to their opponents in hopes of receiving others, as you’ll score more points if you are able to play multiple beans of a single type in a row.  For those who are curious, Bohnanza sits as the most family-friendly negotiation game on this list. If you’re wanting to get gamers or non-gamers hooked on this genre, then Bohnanza, Chinatown, and Quo Vadis are the three best entry points.

Honorable Mentions

No top 10 list is any good without a handful of honorable mentions, right?  At the very least, these mentions help to dampen the outrage of passionate fans who saw their favorite negotiation game shafted on my list.  So let’s get into them!

• John Company: Honestly, I have no doubt that the second edition of this game was merely a few months away from making my Top 10 list and pushing off another title listed above.  Cole Wehrle is a favorite designer of mine (if you didn’t notice from Root and Oath being mentioned above), and John Company is his most negotiation-focused game of all.  I can’t wait to dive into this one when it finally releases in Q3!
• Rising Sun: I’ve heard two main things about Rising Sun.  1) It claims to be a negotiation game but many detractors say that’s a weak claim at best.  2) Many folks also say that this is the weakest design of the Eric Lang / CMON trilogy (Blood Rage, Rising Sun, Ankh).  So will I ever get the chance to try it?  Who knows.  But here it is.
• Twilight Imperium: These next two games are probably the ones that will get me in the most trouble with negotiation fans (because they are on my honorable mentions rather than my Top 10).  I’m still not sure whether I would enjoy this 8-hour extravaganza or simply be annoyed that I didn’t spend an entire day playing 4-10 other games that I know I love instead.  But from the sound of it, those who enjoy TI are hooked from their first play and ever hungry for more plays.
• Diplomacy: Another beast of a game (roughly 6 hours) that apparently must be played at exactly 6 or 7 players who will likely enter as friends and leave as mortal enemies.  Diplomacy apparently takes the back-stabbing part of negotiation and makes it a glorified feature in this epic game of military might.
• Dune: Dune, like TI and Diplomacy, has been around for decades, although it recently received a facelift.  These games also share the common problem of possessing many barriers to entry and requiring the perfect group (in this case 6 players hungry for a heavy 3-hour game).  Dune features deeply asymmetric factions, shakey alliances, and secret treachery.
• Pax Pamir: While Pax Pamir is one of my all-time favorite board games, I couldn’t justify fitting it onto my Top 10 list when negotiation is such a light feature compared to the other games in contention.  The most negotiation you’ll find here is mostly in the table talk—convincing others to join or support your faction and work against opponents.  Of course, you can also waive the forced bribes present in the game if a player is seeking to help your cause—but most often those bribes are enforced because the economy is so tight here.
• Genoa: I’ve come close to tracking down a copy of Genoa, and perhaps that’ll happen before too long.  This one seems to be a bit more polarizing—either you love the dynamic gameplay that Genoa provides, or you hate it for being too long and dry.
• Moonrakers: This is undoubtedly the hottest negotiation game at the moment as Moonrakers is currently having its second smash-hit Kickstarter campaign featuring all kinds of expansion content. What happens when you combine negotiation with deck-building in space? Only Moonrakers can answer that question.
• Panic on Wall Street: I rarely hear about this 2011 game, but it still has its fans.  This one is about loudly negotiating and trading stocks for 3-11 players in only 30 minutes.
• Catan: “Two sheep for a wood?” How could I not mention one of the most popular trading games of all time?
• Spartacus: A Game of Blood and Treachery: Like Quo Vadis, Spartacus is also about competing for power in Ancient Rome.  Only the competition here plays out in gory gladiatorial arenas rather than dignified senatorial committees.  Apparently this one got a somewhat recent reskin as well.

Introducing Zoo Vadis and Gussy Gorillas

I started this post by sharing how negotiation is one of my all-time favorite ingredients in tabletop games.  So of course, as a publisher, I’m eager to keep this genre alive and contribute to the list of legends which include the games noted above.  For my tastes, this might be the most exciting project that we’ve had the privilege to work on.  Let’s dive into the next two releases coming from Bitewing Games… 

Zoo Vadis

When I reached out to Reiner regarding Quo Vadis, I had a vision for what the game could become.  We weren’t interested in simply painting over the cracks in the design.  Rather, I dug through over 30 years of data (thanks BGG) and presented my analysis to Reiner including several development goals for the game.  Then off he went with his decades-old design to give it new life—like a phoenix reborn from the flames.  I’ll be sharing a full publisher diary before too long on all the nitty gritty details behind the evolution of Quo Vadis to Zoo Vadis, but for now let me simply explain the end result, Zoo Vadis:

What if the animals were the ones who ran the zoo?  

…Presumably, this wild government would be built upon the support of fellow creatures and fueled by the fame, attention, and prestige of wide-eyed visitors.  Naturally, the most aspirational beasts would lobby for a position in the star exhibit, and the lead star would be elected Zoo Mascot.  

In order to join the star exhibit, each species must campaign its way up the hierarchy of enclosures with the majority support of animal voters.  And the lead star will be the species that has earned the most laurels from both raving fans and jealous rivals along the way.  

How does one gain support and earn laurels?  Through crafty politicking, clever negotiations, and ruthless schemes.  There can only be one Zoo Mascot, after all.

Where are you going?  That is the ultimate question of Zoo Vadis.

Zoo Vadis is an evolution of Reiner Knizia’s cult-classic negotiation game, Quo Vadis?.  It retains the elegant, political gameplay that fans have come to love while introducing many innovations and improvements by:

-Enhancing the 3-player game and tailoring the board to all player counts through neutral, bribable figures—roaming peacocks

-Widening the player count with a second game board for 6-7 players

-Expanding the possibilities for strategic negotiation with asymmetric animal abilities 

-Increasing tactical opportunities with new special laurel tokens

-Broadening the appeal of the theme and presentation with vibrant zoo art by Kwanchai Moriya and Brigette Indelicato

-Enlivening the production with chunky animal figures and functional player screens

Like the original design, the game ends immediately when the Star Exhibit is full.  Only the animals who have reached the Star Exhibit qualify for victory, and the winner is the player with the most laurels.

Gussy Gorillas

Before Bitewing Games had ever reached out to Reiner Knizia or Ryan Courtney, we had a couple designs of our own that had survived the gauntlet of playtesting and were games that we were eager to share with the community.  One of those is Gussy Gorillas, and we’re jazzed to finally be publishing it alongside Zoo Vadis in our upcoming negotiation games crowdfunding campaign…

Gussy Gorillas are a peculiar group of primates that strive to keep each other gussied up and well-groomed. Through social grooming, these apes remove dirt, insects, and debris from the difficult-to-reach and difficult-to-see places of each other’s fur. Reciprocation is expected and awarded in this kind of monkey business! The player who acquires the most diverse and exotic collection of groomed goods will earn the respect of their fellow primates and be awarded the golden banana of victory.

In Gussy Gorillas, players start out with a personal deck of face-down cards. Without looking at the card(s) in their hand, players simultaneously trade or keep their hand, one or two cards at a time, to form a personal collection. Once all cards have been traded or kept, players tally their collections and the highest score wins — but pairs can cancel out and special cards are not always helpful, so trade carefully!

Similar to the popular game Hanabi, in Gussy Gorillas players hold their cards facing away from themselves…but instead of being a co-operative memory game, this is a competitive negotiation and bluffing game. Things get even more interesting once players realize that every card can either be very good or very bad for one’s collection, depending on the context. You’ll have to convince your opponents to keep bad cards for themselves and give great cards to you if you want to swing away with the win…

There are still plenty more juicy details to share over the coming months and we hope to have your support when Zoo Vadis and Gussy Gorillas launch this January!  The best way to help Bitewing Games and not miss out on these upcoming releases is to subscribe to the Bitewing Games newsletter. Bitewing Games is only made possible and kept alive by the support of backers and fans of our published games.   Thanks for your support!

What is your favorite negotiation game?  Share in the comments below!

Article written by Nick Murray. Outside of practicing dentistry part-time, Nick has devoted his remaining work-time to collaborating with the world’s best designers, illustrators, and creators in producing classy board games that bite, including the upcoming Trailblazers by Ryan Courtney. He hopes you’ll join Bitewing Games in their quest to create and share experiences that, much like a bitewing x-ray, provide a unique perspective and refreshing interaction.

The post Top 10 Negotiation Board Games + A Bitewing Games Publication Reveal! appeared first on Bitewing Games.