Root vagabond faction for conflict averse player??
Hi - most of my game group enjoys conflict heavy games with direct confrontation; lots of wargames like Advanced Squad Leader, and 4-player conflict like Sword of Rome, Space Empirse 4X, Merchants and Marauders, GMTs COIN series, etc. We also as a larger group play a lot of Euros and co-ops, like Pandemic, Puerto Rico, Crayon Rail games, etc.
One of our core players HATES direct conflict. Any time there is a game mechanic where another player can come along and destroy something he built, he hates it. Competition is ok, blocking is ok, but killing his carefully constructed empire, engine, etc is a no go.
I was hoping that the Vagabond character in root would allow our group to let everyone have their cake and eat it too. Any input?
Posted Apr 9, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC
Despite what people say, no faction in Root is truly conflict independent. The best way to stop any faction from winning is to attack them. This includes the Vagabond, the Otters, everyone. So unless you want to squabble over territory while your friend sails to victory, this game won't solve that problem. Think of it like any COIN game.
Other games with both aggressive and non-aggressive play styles:
I agree that these games offer both aggressive and non-aggressive play styles, but problem seems to be that OPs friend dislikes losing stuff thus I think there is a problem here: Almost all the games on the list that I have played involve players losing stuff. Here is a quick summary (pinging OP u/cpthomp ):
In Innovation you can lose cards from your symbol engine, and this happens quite often.
In Eclipse you can just straight up kill other players and conquer their areas, so he will dislike that too.
Food Chain is on the edge - no one can directly kill your stuff, but they can indirectly cause you to lose things.
I have not player 51st, but I have played the game it is heavily based on. In that you can lose cards from your prebuild engine, not so often, but it will happen on occasion.
In Twilight Imperium you can lose territory, which can be no go.
Spirit Island is Co-Op unlike rest of the games on this list.
Apparently OP has played both Brass and Clan, so not commenting on those. I would have agreed that Brass would be a good suggestion though (and Clan I have not played).
OP mentioned several wargames and fiercely aggressive non-wargames that the majority of the group likes to play. The non-aggro player prefers euros and doesn't mind healthy indirect conflict. It's so difficult to find a middle ground there, but I think the key is identifying games where there are strategies that don't involve straight up attacking one another. That way, aggression both by and towards that player is minimized.
Root is a game where every strategy can and should be thwarted by regular attacks. So obviously that's out. It's not like I recommended Kemet or anything. The games I listed all have ways to avoid the other players, avoid conflict, or even work with them towards a common victory or against a common threat. In many of these games, you can even win by keeping a low profile.
I'm not convinced that all or even most of my recommendations wouldn't work for the whole group. And if these don't, and that player is unable to accommodate the tastes of his friends by playing games he dislikes occasionally, it seems no recommendation can fix this problem. And Root certainly isn't the answer. I just think OP should look into these. It's good you added those caveats though.
Yeah - as a group we have settled on a sort good equilibrium of mostly playing games that everyone likes, and then occasionally getting together as a sub-group to play wargames or other very aggressive type games. It is tricky picking games that make everyone happy at times, the more aggressive players in our group start to become a bit vocal if we end up playing too many co-op type games too :D
I've had a similar experience. But the warmongers are in somewhat a minority.
We've played Clans of Caledonia and Brass, and he likes both of those. Thanks for the list of suggestions.
Oh, perfect. Both of those are fairly light on direct interaction but have some excellent ways to benefit from one another's economies and block each other. Not as heavy as either of those, but 51st State has similar player interaction. Direct conflict is rare and expensive.
What I like about Sidereal Confluence is that players can be aggressive, flighty, wishy washy, arrogant, pushy, annoying, silly, boisterous, reserved, it doesn't matter. All sorts of play styles lead to a fun and interesting session. Maybe that's not the group's style but it sounds like it might be a good experiment.
I'll check it out, thanks.
Can someone comment on the relative levels of conflict in 51st State Master Set and Imperial Settlers? Is one of them clearly the more aggressive game?