Co-Operative Board Games: Rising Five

I am a fan of co-operative board games. Most of them are puzzle-like and, most importantly, I can get Carrie to play them.

Co-operative games are normally two games in one for me: The physical game and the team partnership.

The physical game is obvious. I want to win the game! I don't want a push-over. I want to be pushed to think and feel victory was earned. I don't mind losing if it was hard fought and I learned (as long as the loss was not the right moves foiled purely thanks to randomness).

The team partnership is concurrent game. How did the team function? What was the atmosphere? Did we talk through ideas? Did we celebrate little victories? Did everyone have fun?

It is possible to play co-operative games alone as a solo puzzle, but I enjoy the social dynamic. I've played a lot of board games. I figure I can beat your average game most of the time when I know how it works. Adding people changes the flavor. It adds a new perspective, but takes away control. If a teammate makes a pick I wouldn't have? Maybe it adds to the challenge. Maybe it highlights a strategy I hadn't considered. I don't look at the discussion as a competition with one player winning, but more as a collaboration. We'll sink or swim together.

The social game is more important to me than the board game. I would feel better losing the game after a strong team performance than I would winning the game after bickering and infighting.

But of course, I prefer both to go well. Winning a game solo is nice, but a win shared is worth far more.

Which brings me to my review of Rising Five. Carrie and I played it while on vacation in SC.

I am normally opposed to apps in board games. I have avoided games with apps. I feel like it adds a video game to a board game, and if I wanted to play a video game I would have done just that.

When I did the research on Rising Five, I saw there was an app. However, the app's job was to hold a solution to a puzzle and give you feedback without revealing too much information. The game came with rules for how someone could GM without the app, but the program seemed simple enough and the function a valid one.

Carrie did not agree. She was skeptical from the get go. The skepticism made her more critical.Then there was a rule issue we disagreed on. The rule book never mentioned pieces with red borders in any examples. They did not appear in the app either. I thought it was clear what they were for, but was flummoxed in explaining my reasoning. We disagreed how to use them, but they were non-essential to playing. It left both of us frustrated.

It didn't help that Shane showed up while we were trying to learn the game. He wanted to 'help,' but that adds a new layer of stress to the game when he's trying to pick up cards and pieces off the board to look at them.

We won the mission, but the game was lost. Carrie probably won't play it again. I thought it was interesting and the kind of game she would have liked. I'd play it again if she asked. The dislike of the game and the miscommunications will at least be a memory and be fuel to sweeten any future victories in other games (Gotta haves peaks and valleys in life to fully appreciate things).

I'll try to play it solo a few time if I ever find oodles of spare time (gotta get my money's worth). I wouldn't mind teaching it and letting some other enjoy it, but for my collection the game is probably destined for a trade in.