I recently got to play an amazing game. It's called The Fox in the Forest, and although it's technically a card game instead of a board game, I'm going to review it here.
Wait, I just started out my review by offering my opinion, didn't I? I'm sorry. Please try to forget that I did that. I'm going to offer a completely impartial review.
Really.
Ok, seriously, let's take a look at this game. It's a surprisingly enjoyable little two player trick-taking game. So let's start with some numbers:
Randomness: 4
Complexity: 1
Humour: None
Attractiveness: Pretty
Average Length of Game Play: 20 minutes
Gamer Profile Ratings:
Strategy: Medium
Conflict: Medium
Social Manipulation: Low
Fantasy: Low
An Overview of The Fox in the Forest
The game consists mainly of a deck of thirty-three cards, with eleven cards each in three suits (bells, keys, and moons). Twenty six of these cards are dealt, thirteen to each player, then the top card of the deck is turned over to determine the 'decree.' Players then play these cards in tricks, just as you would in standard games like Hearts or Spades.
Tricks are as you'd expect: one player leads, the other player must follow suit if possible, and if the other player doesn't follow suit, then the player who led takes the trick unless the other player played the suit on the decree card. The player who takes the trick leads the next one.
But here's the thing: unlike most trick-taking card games, the objective is not to have more tricks than the other player(s), nor to reach a certain number of tricks, but to take a number of tricks that falls into specific ranges. The maximum number of points you can get from tricks (there are bonus points you can get from specific cards, but the points you get from tricks alone) is six. But you can only get six points if you get less than four tricks or if you get seven, eight, or nine tricks. Get between these numbers, and you get three or fewer; get more than this, and you get no points at all.
Here's the scoring chart:
What's particularly genius about this is that it is perfectly balanced between the players. If one player gets 6 points from the 'Humble' category, that means the other player has ended up in the 'Greedy' category. Likewise, if one player gets the six points from the 'Victorious' category, the other player is going to be in the 'Defeated' category.
But because there's that area in the middle, it gives the game that much more suspense. In the first few tricks, you're wondering if maybe you should go for the 'Humble' category, until you find yourself taking that fourth trick, and then you have to scramble to get at least three more tricks without painting yourself into a corner by taking ten or more tricks...
So there's a fascinating balance dynamic in this game.
The first player to 21 points is the winner.
Tricks are as you'd expect: one player leads, the other player must follow suit if possible, and if the other player doesn't follow suit, then the player who led takes the trick unless the other player played the suit on the decree card. The player who takes the trick leads the next one.
But here's the thing: unlike most trick-taking card games, the objective is not to have more tricks than the other player(s), nor to reach a certain number of tricks, but to take a number of tricks that falls into specific ranges. The maximum number of points you can get from tricks (there are bonus points you can get from specific cards, but the points you get from tricks alone) is six. But you can only get six points if you get less than four tricks or if you get seven, eight, or nine tricks. Get between these numbers, and you get three or fewer; get more than this, and you get no points at all.
Here's the scoring chart:
| Tricks | Points | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0-3 | 6 | Humble |
| 4 | 1 | Defeated |
| 5 | 2 | |
| 6 | 3 | |
| 7-9 | 6 | Victorious |
| 10-13 | 0 | Greedy |
What's particularly genius about this is that it is perfectly balanced between the players. If one player gets 6 points from the 'Humble' category, that means the other player has ended up in the 'Greedy' category. Likewise, if one player gets the six points from the 'Victorious' category, the other player is going to be in the 'Defeated' category.
But because there's that area in the middle, it gives the game that much more suspense. In the first few tricks, you're wondering if maybe you should go for the 'Humble' category, until you find yourself taking that fourth trick, and then you have to scramble to get at least three more tricks without painting yourself into a corner by taking ten or more tricks...
So there's a fascinating balance dynamic in this game.
The first player to 21 points is the winner.
Permutations in The Fox in the Forest
But that's not all there is to this game! Because the odd-numbered cards in each suit have special abilities.
- 1 (the swan): If you lose the trick in which you played this card, you lead the next trick.
- 3 (the fox): Exchange the decree card with a card in your hand.
- 5 (the woodcutter): Draw one card, then discard a card from your hand to the bottom of the deck.
- 7 (the treasure): When you play this card, you earn one bonus point for each 7 card in the trick.
- 9 (the witch): If there's only one 9 card in this trick, treat it as if it were the decree suit.
- 11 (the monarch): If you lead with this card, and your opponent can follow suit, your opponent must play either the 1 card or the highest card in hand.
So there are ways to suddenly turn things in your favour.
Final Thoughts on The Fox in the Forest
I should point out that this game is based on a short story by Alana Joli Abbot called 'The Queen's Butterflies.' The artwork and the names of the cards are based on that story. And the artwork is beautiful indeed.
But it's really the gameplay that I find so compelling about this game. The dynamics of the points system, the balance it creates between the players, and the ability to upset things with the special ability cards makes this game really well suited to a two-player setting. It's seldom that I find two-player games that work as well as this one. If chess is too cerebral for you, but you don't want something that is completely void of strategy, I think this game has a perfect blend of the suspense of a game of chance and the thinky-thinky-ness of a more strategic game.
And it's got a short play time, usually lasting around half an hour or so. Thus, it's good for times when you have a limited time frame, or between bigger games. In fact, the last time I played it, I was able to squeeze in a quick game whilst waiting for the other people in the river house to finish getting ready to leave.
And of course, we don't want to forget the Six Characteristics of a Good Game:
- It's fun to lose.
- It has no player elimination.
- It ends decisively.
- It's relatively simple.
- It allows for upsets.
- ❌ It mostly relies on player agency, but the luck of the draw is a big factor in the game as well.
So with that caveat for the last item regarding player agency, it scores five out of six. Not bad!
Obviously, it's not going to be for everyone. But hopefully, you'll be able to decide whether this game is worth a shot. And whatever you decide, I hope you remember to
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'll be along soon to make sure your comment isn't spam. Until then, just sit tight! Unless your comment IS spam, in which case, bugger off.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.