[Board Games] Actual Play Review: Lords of Waterdeep (Wizards of the Coast)

Lords of Waterdeep

Basically, this is a worker recruitment Eurogame, under the D&D licence, which inverts the usual process of D&D. Now you get to play the quest givers – the movers and shakers of Waterdeep, sending your agents out into the city to a) read the word on the street, finding out what quest-like activities can be done to serve your agenda, b) recruit adventurers to fulfil said quest-like activities and c) screw around with the other Lords through a little thing called Intrigue.

All of this is done by taking meeple and assigning them to buildings. Some buildings let you buy other buildings, drawn at random from a stack. Some let you collect quests, drawn at random from a stack. Some let you draw Intrigue cards. At random. From a stack. There are four different kinds of quest. Your Lord will benefit from pursuing two of them. Your Lord is drawn. At random. From a stack.

I… don’t know if I like this game. We played it twice. The first run was fine, although I didn’t do well. The second left me feeling a little salty, and I suspect the salt levels would only rise with repeated playthroughs. I wanted to like it, and I didn’t hate it, but I’m not sure it deserves the amount of effort that liking it required me to put in.

Quite often, the D&D trappings are just trappings. The Harpers make an appearance, but there’s no reward for playing them Neutral Good; they’re just a colour of token. I ended up playing the City Guard as a pious den of thieves run by a moneylender Lord because of how the game shook down, and that felt slightly off to me – just arbitrary, I suppose.

As I type it out I nod sagely and start homebrewing an explanation for that, which is fine, but if I think like the kind of person who’s super-into the Forgotten Realms, the potentially inappropriate combinations may bother me a lot more, because that’s not the lore. Being a homebrew kind of guy whose contact with the Realms came through a bunch of turn-of-the-millennium computer games, I was able to recognise some things and go “oh hey, neat, it’s that” but still (mostly) back off and accept that they’re just green meeples and victory conditions and it doesn’t really matter who’s who.

The real problem with all the random drawing isn’t faith to the setting, though. It’s more a matter of agency.

Firstly, Lords of Waterdeep can straight out disengage players who aren’t into the theme of the Lord they drew. This happened in my second run, and while I was able to roll with it, it kind of seasoned all the other ways in which I could feel the game pushing me this way and that.

From the pure Eurogamer perspective it doesn’t matter that the quests are called Warfare and the orange cubes are called Warriors (Katy just calls them all ‘cubes’), but Lords of Waterdeep is going out of its way to attract roleplayers to Eurogaming by invoking themes and yet not affording the agency that I think most of us want. I’m fine with pre-generated characters but I still want to pick which pre-generated character I get, y’know?

Secondly, some of the quest types really struggle for resources unless particular buildings come out early on. In our second run I found my turns becoming very samey. I’ll try to model the reason why.

My Lord wanted to complete Commerce and Piety quests. Hardly any Commerce quests came out, so I had to bed in on Piety. Most Piety quests require at least two Clerics. Clerics were slow to recruit – the base board only provides one per turn, and there weren’t many Cleric-friendly buildings coming out, and the Plot quest that converts other adventurers into Clerics didn’t show its face until near the end.

What this all meant in practical terms was that every turn I’d have to a) hope I was still going first, because otherwise I could be locked out of a quest completion by not having access to two Clerics every turn, b) recruit two Clerics from the same two buildings and c) make sure I had a Piety quest to complete, which locked me in to visiting the tavern. At least I was generating Warriors and Rogues aplenty from the available buildings, so I generally had the other adventuring resources I needed, but if something needed a lot of gold I was generally taking two turns to ramp up to one quest.

It worked, in so far as I came a solid second, but it was a) demanding in order-of-execution terms and b) too easy to derail if one other player happened to want a Cleric this turn. If there hadn’t been a building that let me hijack other buildings I’d have been gimped.

This combination of scarcity and randomness makes the game feel self-solving, in a way that doubles down on the arbitrary assignation of objectives. If particular quests or buildings don’t show themselves, and if one player happens to be the only person who needs to pursue a particular kind of quest, it’s easy for some players to be stuck in a resource war while someone else can bed in on stuff for which there’s no competition.

The game tells me who I am and what my priorities are and, as particular cards and buildings come up (or don’t) how I’ll have to get there. It’s like the difference between solving chess puzzles and actually playing a whole game of chess, and I don’t know if there’s a way out.

If I’m competing with someone for Commerce and someone else for Piety, and if someone else is establishing a clear lead because they’re the only person going for Arcane, then can I win by abandoning the contest (and my victory point bonuses) and bedding in on Warfare instead? I’m not sure.

On top of that… because the game’s assigned me a character, a role to play, I found it harder to do what I did with The Castles of Mad King Ludwig and tell it where to get off because screw the win conditions, I’m in this for the aesthetic.

Ultimately I think Lords of Waterdeep imposes a little bit too much – it’s able to screw you in three different ways and you’re stuck going along with it. I suspect I’d like it a lot more if we could pick or at least draft our Lords rather than just picking one out of the bag. That would restore a measure of control, and make the arbitrary scarcity of objectives and resources during play a lot more bearable: if we end up in a bad place it would at least be one of our own choosing.

The next game I’m going to discuss doesn’t have any of this roleplaying baggage -indeed, it’s the most ‘pure Eurogame’ of the titles we played together – but I found it the most alienating and intimidating of the lot. Stay tuned for fun and frolics with Brass.

5 thoughts on “[Board Games] Actual Play Review: Lords of Waterdeep (Wizards of the Coast)

  1. I played this myself last year as an “off-game” during our D&D 5E campaign, which is set in the Realms. I agree with your assessment, and would that, as players coming from the opposite direction, I think our group found the D&D and setting elements too shallow. It actually may have damaged our immersion in our D&D game, which was at that point in Waterdeep, rather than boosting it as I’d hoped. Just a theme on top of a Eurogame, as you said. Forcing people to randomly choose their character, and all the factions being identical in practice, are pretty much the opposite of D&D. So it just felt odd.

    The game itself was fine I guess if you like euro games. I like them perhaps more than the average person, but less than any of the people I habitually play board games with. I think I’m more of an American game type person. I like Wizards of the Coast’s kids D&D game Dungeon way more than Lords of Waterdeep. You choose your character, you move spaces and explore a dungeon, you fight monsters, you pick up their treasure and the first one to escape with the required amount of gold wins. And the different classes have (elegantly simple) different abilities.


    1. Yeah – I definitely found myself catching on the D&D elements rather than being drawn further in by them, whereas my more D&D-neutral colleagues are able to engage with the game for what it is. I think it has a major structural problem as a Eurogame (the likelihood of self-solving at the start, depending on who ends up focusing which objectives), but with a workaround for that it’s probably okay for them as likes that sort of thing.

      Based on what you said about Dungeon, I advise you to pop back on Friday for the Near & Far review. I suspect you’ll like that one.


  2. I’ve played many games where your ‘character’ /role/position/whatever, is a random choice. This gets really annoying in the style of game you have described. The best way I (and my usual group of gamers) find to deal with this is to randomly selected two (or three) roles and play one. There’s not so much randomness. Of course, this requires a game where the number of ‘characters’ somewhat exceeds the number of players.


    1. Draw three and pick one would work in the same way that the draft would, aye.
      I wonder if putting extra characters in the box doesn’t lead you to the Scythe problem, though – the one where providing seven sets of tokens mean people will play with a group of seven, despite the developer’s insistence that it’s tuned around five.

      (I hope I mean Scythe. I read a lot of game reviews this week and they might have become a bit… jumbled.)


  3. I played Lords of Waterdeep a bunch of times and I liked it but I had similar reservations. The DnD element seems blatantly tacked on and I just found myself being focused on getting my own objectives without taking into account the moves of any of the other players for the most part. There is suprisingly little interaction in lords of waterdeep, with most of it coming down to turn order/blocking the right buildings whilst attaining ones own quests.

    Happy new years Von


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s