Looking for solo & 2-player tabletop recommendations

[Olgar Shiverstone]

So I'm playing the Arkham Horror LCG as my primary solo game now. The theme is good and the implementation of the rules, especially for locations, is great to simulte an adventure -- it does much better than the LotR LCG, which though I prefer the theme is just very complicated to play with difficult deck-building plus too many effects to keep track of. Lots of multi-player co-op potential here, but I suspect too much complication to interest the spousal unit

Still struggling to get games to play with my wife. Fluxx survived a few games but was mostly meh. Exploding Kittens has had OK success and repeat plays, but would be better with more than two of us.

We recently tried Carcassonne (actually, the Carcassonne: Star Wars version). She mostly got the hang of it through our first game, and beat me. Complexity level and game time was about right, though the theme is pretty light. I appreciated the deeper strategy; she just wants to make quick off-the-cuff decisions. Maybe I'll be able to get her to play a second game, maybe not.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

My daughter and I like playing Santorini together. It's a chess-like strategy game. Very fast to learn and the games are pretty quick too.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

So FFG's upcoming Legacy of Dragonholt looks like an interesting way to introduce people to RPGs in a solo or cooperative mode. It appears to be a blend of board game, RPG, and Choose Your Own Adventure Book.

I may pick this up to play with the wife -- cooperative plus rules-lite is her style.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I may pick this up to play with the wife -- cooperative plus rules-lite is her style.

If you end up getting it, please let us know how it goes. I'm tempted to get something like this as an introduction to RPGs with my daughters but I also look at it and think it might be better to jump them right into a simple roleplaying game instead and let their imaginations run rampant.

 

[edhel]

Robinson Crusoe: Adventures on the Cursed Island is a tough-as-nails cooperative survival game. You can easily play it solo.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Robinson Crusoe: Adventures on the Cursed Island is a tough-as-nails cooperative survival game. You can easily play it solo.

Tough as nails is right! I've played it three times co-op and twice solo and never won. Sometimes it was not even close. It's a beautiful game that's well-designed and intricate but at least for me it was too difficult and now it never gets played.

 

[Jhaelen]

Tough as nails is right! I've played it three times co-op and twice solo and never won. Sometimes it was not even close. It's a beautiful game that's well-designed and intricate but at least for me it was too difficult and now it never gets played.

C'mon it's not _that_ hard! Admittedly, scenario 5 (Cannibal Island) is really tough, but the first four scenarios are quite beatable.

I actually consider the first scenario (Castaways) to be rather easy, now. While I failed in my first two (solo) attempts, all of the next five attempts (2 solo, 2 with 2 players, 1 with three players) were successes. Imho, the key is to craft the hatchet as early as possible. Make sure to play the explorer to increase your chances of discovering the required mountain tile.

The second scenario (Cursed Island) is easy once you realize that the sacred bell is a 'trap'. I failed five times before I realized this. Once I decided to just build thoses crosses, it was rather easy. I'd recommend to play a carpenter.

In the third scenario (Jenny needs help) I was probably a bit lucky. I just made it with my first attempt.

Scenario 4 (Volcano Island) can be tricky because you need to be on the move all the time. I think it's easiest with the Explorer.

Scenario 5, as mentioned above, is really, really hard; at least when playing solo. It should be a lot easier with more players, but I didn't get to try it yet. You should definitely have a soldier in your team, though.

I haven't yet attempted scenario 6 since I have yet to beat scenario 5...

Anyway, I think Robinson Crusoe is an awesome game. Don't let the difficulty deter you. It's also one of the few games that works well at any player count and the number of players makes a real difference, because you have to adapt your strategies accordingly. E.g. hunting is completely irrelevant in a solo game but crucial with four players.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

C'mon it's not _that_ hard! Admittedly, scenario 5 (Cannibal Island) is really tough, but the first four scenarios are quite beatable.

It's been such a long time since I played it that I can't give specific details on what went wrong. Sometimes it seemed like bad luck (e.g., searching but not finding a land type so we could make a specific item). I don't think we retried many scenarios so we probably didn't figure out key elements (e.g., ensuring you build the hatchet early, ignoring the sacred belt) in some of them.

Maybe for me it's a failure in expectations--what I want the game to be about vs. what the game actually is about. The game draws me in with the myriad of interesting options and I become enamored with how our efforts could build on one another to help our characters survive on the island. But the game itself seems to require more precision and seems to be more about cost/benefit analysis to accomplish the scenario than about exploring.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Nytmare]

Has anyone tried:

Ted Alspach's Castles of Mad King Ludwig.

I like it, and have the expansion Secrets of Mad King Ludwig, but in my experience a little less than a half of any random assortment of gamers is going to enjoy this kind of tile laying/building game.

I've only played it 3 and 4 player, maybe a half dozen games so far. Never tried it 1 or 2, but I'd imagine that it gets FAR more cut throat when you only have a single opponent to focus on/screw over.

I don't remember if this one was mentioned before, but I recently picked up Patchwork (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163412/patchwork) and it's a damn good, "light", 2 player game.