Review: Blood on the Clocktower:: Let's Talk About…Blood on the Clocktower: A Meta-Review

by Mools

OBLIGATORY PREAMBLE
Hello and welcome to my first ever board game review. I will just apologize in advance for being longwinded. Bear with me and I’ll stumble onto a point or two eventually.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about language and fan groups or “cultures” that pop up on the internet. How “reviews” of products often feel flat, or superficial to me. Or worse yet, reviews that just feel like they pull so much language and descriptors from every other review it blurs the line between honest opinion and plagiarism. Has anyone else noticed this? Like you read a bunch of reviews for something and start to notice a lot of them seem the same, using the same language and words and descriptions? I’m at the point with boardgaming where if a review uses vague terms like “interesting mechanisms” or basically any sort of food/eating-based adjectives (ie. meaty, crunchy, chewy, etc.) to describe a game, I’ll probably never read their content again.

I’m sure it can be difficult for everyone to always be original when their job or hobby is reviewing a product. Especially if they are reviewing dozens, if not hundreds, of games. I wonder how much is quick thoughts being written and published as quickly as possible, and how much is just laziness? How much is sincere vs a sort of mental “me too”ism (ie. you like something someone else likes so you just adopt their language and words and reasons rather than actually reflecting)? This may be helpful for reviewers, but not always helpful for readers. Especially if that shorthand results in language makes sense on the surface, but potentially misleads readers about the game itself.

Which brings me to Blood on the Clocktower, the #1 “party game” on BGG. A game that shouldn’t be “for me” because I’m a borderline hermit these
days and long-time master of introversion. I have been known to experience strong anxiety prior to social situations. I’m not a LARPer, I’m not a drama or theater student, I’m not someone burnt out on soap operas, or a reddit mod or former hall monitor…yet I love this game. It has been one of the most memorable gaming experiences I’ve had in a long time.

This won’t be a normal review, but a more long-form review in the context of where I think other reviews, good or bad, are getting it wrong.

BRIEF RULES
I’m not going to get too deeply into the rules. In short, Blood on the Clocktower is built on the foundation of games like Werewolf or Mafia. It’s a “social deduction” game where players will be trying to sus-out who is good and who is evil, in an attempt to hold a public vote to execute the demon. The demon, leading an evil team of misinformation peddlers, privately gets to kill a player each night.

The differences with Blood on the Clocktower is that every player has a special role/ability/power that gives them unique information. Sometimes you will use this information to gain trust with the other players, or maybe you are evil and want to use this information against the good team.

The game ends if the “demon” is able to take out the good team, or if the good team is able to execute the demon player. There’s some other special ways to win dependent on what roles are in the game, but that is basically the main and most common win conditions players will experience.

Finally, when you die in the game, you still get to play. You don’t have to sit quietly and watch. You don’t have to tuck your tail between your legs, bow your head, and shamefully leave. You lose your power, can’t nominate, and get one remaining vote to save for when you feel it’s more needed. Aside from that, you are still free to play and participate and discuss just like everyone else.

ANCIENT HISTORY
I first signed up to play this game about a year and a half ago. It was at a 24-hour gaming event, and the game started at midnight. I had heard about the game, was curious, and felt a social deduction game at midnight would be a good way to wake up the brain after 14 hours of more standard games.

During the game, I was the Chef and told that there were two pairs of evil players. In our player count, that meant all evil players were sitting beside each other. I stayed quiet for the first couple nights, thinking that once some people were taken out, it should be relatively easy to start pinning down where those clumps of evil players were hiding. As the game went on, people got more involved and more into it. Most of us were new players, or only played a couple times, so there was confusion and chaos at times. There were times we thought the storyteller was making rules errors.

Ultimately we lost, and evil won. Then the storyteller reveals all the roles and notes that because my wife was the poisoner and poisoned me the first night, my super-awesome and useful information was all a lie. I thought I was helping my team but really, I was constantly pushing them away from the truth. I was handed a piece of a puzzle, only to learn it was a fake because my wife stabbed me in the back.

My mind was blown. Suddenly the confusion and chaos made sense. Everything clicked into place like that scene at the end of Sixth Sense. My mind flashed back to the confusion, realizing I was part of the problem. My mind flashed back to the group focusing on rules errors by the storyteller and realizing there were no errors…he just couldn’t reveal why the information wasn’t lining up the way we thought. It was our fault the whole time for losing focus of the evil roles and that a poisoner or even a drunk existed. The clues were all there the whole time, we just missed most of them due to our inexperience.

What was even more mind-blowing is that I could have swore the game only took about an hour, yet slightly more than 2 hours went by. Time had vanished while we plotted and discussed and slowly got killed off by the evil team.

I couldn’t stop thinking about that experience. For days my wife and I kept talking about it. We told everyone we knew about it, and eventually I had to buy myself a copy knowing full well the chance of ever getting it played with my own friends and family was practically zero. I just HAD TO have it. I even told my wife that if I had to, I would make all new friends to get it played…something I never thought I’d ever say in my life. So clearly my opinion of BotC is overwhelmingly positive. I’d honestly call it a perfect product. That’s hot take #1.

SO WHERE ARE PEOPLE GETTING IT WRONG?
The main problem I have is that both fans of the game, as well as critics, have glommed onto certain terms that, while accurate as short-hand, don’t accurately capture what BotC is, or accomplishes. We all know the terms – party game, werewolf, social deduction, etc.

I’m not saying these terms are wrong. Yet when I read some of the negative reviews, it strikes me as good intentioned people who are let down or disappointed because they have a “THING” in mind when they hear those terms being repeatedly used. Then when their game of BotC doesn’t align with what they feel those terms mean, they are disappointed or let down.

In my opinion, a product is typically reviewed based on four underlying factors: developer intent, how well they accomplished that intent, gamer expectation, and whether those expectations are met. If a developer doesn’t pull off their intended vision…the game is likely going to be not that great. The developer had an experience in mind and wasn’t able to pull it off.

If the developer nailed their intended experience, then you may still not like the game at all, but it’s harder to say the game is “bad” in my opinion. You just don’t like it or it wasn’t made for you and your tastes. It’s a different thing. I personally don’t like online FPS videogames because they don’t provide an experience I enjoy or find fun, not because they are “bad” games.

Finally, if your expectations going in are accurate, and yet the game didn’t meet your expectations, it’s often a problem with marketing or hype. This is the whole “over rated” argument. It’s perfectly understandable. This game is big and expensive and requires an investment, but it also came out during Covid and the publisher – Pandemonium Institute – has had to rely on word of mouth and building a community to promote and sell the game. Community love and hype came from fans who drove it to #1 here on BGG, but it also seems to have bothered a number of people as well.

I call this a meta-review, because my opinion is already out of the way – 10/10. I’d like to discuss and “review” BotC in light of what other reviews keep saying about it and whether that is actually an accurate expression of what BotC does, and arguably, aims to achieve as a gaming experience.

For example:

IT’S A WEREWOLF CLONE
The majority of positive and negative reviews LOVE comparing this game to Werewolf. “It’s an improved or better version of Werewolf.” “It’s worse than Werewolf because it’s too convoluted and long.” It’s inescapable, and I honestly understand why it happens. I just don’t agree.

Hot take #2: Blood on the Clocktower is NOT Werewolf or a Werewolf clone at all. I will die on that hill. Perhaps you have heard of the “Ship of Theseus” paradox? It’s a philosophical problem where one questions how much of a thing (a ship in this case) can be changed before it becomes a new thing. So the ship of Theseus is wood and needs repairs. If you remove all the wooden planks and strip it down to the frame, then add new wood to that frame, is it still the same boat or a new/different boat? The question is where that line gets drawn and what makes a “ship” – is it the essence or the parts?

I see this with BotC and the comparisons to Werewolf. While BotC is clearly built on the framework of Werewolf, it is a totally different creature completely. They play very differently, require totally different approaches and mindsets, and have totally different designer intentions and deliver different experiences.

Let’s dig into it, shall we? Close your eyes and imagine the last time you played a social deduction game. How do people typically approach those other games and what kind of experience do they provide?

Well, having played a lot of social deduction games in various settings, the typical approach is to just accuse everyone as much as possible and dominate the discussion as much as possible in hopes of winning. There’s rarely ever a sense you are solving something, and mostly people are yelling and taking blind shots in the dark based on nothing more than vibes.

You win or lose, but it’s mostly luck or the opposing team are bad liars. It’s rarely about actual deductive reasoning paving the way to your victory. But it’s ok! It’s quick fun! You just reshuffle the deck and start all over again.
Personally, I don’t mind these games, and have more than my fair share of drunken shout-fests playing Resistance and Avalon. However, I also find them to be unsatisfying and sometimes exhausting despite the short length because the “fun” comes from arguing and everyone yelling at each other. The outcome is much less satisfying. When I think of “deduction”, I think of Sherlock Holmes. He isn’t just yelling and accusing people based on nothing, but evidence only he sees and knows and is able to put together.

Blood on the Clocktower may occasionally have these moments of just blindly blaming people, but it’s not the same game. Why? Because each role in Blood on the Clocktower is a piece of a puzzle. It is information unique to you without being absolute on its own. This forces players to communicate, share, build trust, and eventually solve the puzzle before the game end condition (which is evil killing off the good team).

Evidence and facts DO exist in this game. The social aspect comes from collecting and sharing information, as well as social reads when you suspect the puzzles aren’t fitting together the way they should.

Players who think they can just yell and assert their will over everyone else just won’t work here. You can’t just have a good bluffer with strong personality dominate the game, because of that evidence. Winning or losing depends on who is best at putting the puzzle together, not who talks the best/loudest.

This is not a minor difference from Werewolf or other social deduction games. It is quite significant. To say otherwise, in my opinion, is like saying all worker placement games are just convoluted clones of Agricola, or Dune is just convoluted version of Dominion because deck-building. They are different because the developer’s intent was different. The game experience and how that experience plays out, is different. Worker placement may be in both Dead of Winter and Agricola but nobody would compare the two. Deck-building is in Dominion and Dune, but they are totally different experiences and you approach and play them differently despite similarity in mechanisms.

Blood on the Clocktower is NOT werewolf. It’s not a typical social deduction game. BotC is more of a social puzzle game. It has more in common with old PC games like Myst/Riven than Werewolf despite having similar foundations. You aren’t in a group yelling and arguing…you are walking around an environment collecting clues to a giant puzzle.

Or better yet, think of BotC more like a large-group escape room. Players run around trying to find a solution to a complex puzzle within a time limit. The time limit being the demon in play and number of players. There is also the time limit window set by the story-teller and how long they allow discussion (clue collecting) to go on each round.

THAT is the game and that is what is missing from most reviews I’ve watched or read so far. This difference is very clear when watching live plays online. Watch a video of people playing werewolf, then watch one of people playing BotC. They are very different and look like completely different games.

SO IT’S CONVOLUTED WEREWOLF?
This is a trickier claim to discuss. Sure, if you go strictly by the dictionary definition then BotC is “convoluted”. But the dictionary definition misses the INTENT. Again, you wouldn’t call an escape room a convoluted way to open a locked door. You wouldn’t call jigsaw puzzles a convoluted way to make a picture. Why? Because the dictionary definition of “convoluted” suggests the intent is lost due to other things getting in the way.

The ”convoluted” elements of BotC are the roles and the “puzzle” that players put together. And since that puzzle is both the intent and core element of the game…it can’t really be convoluted. It’s only convoluted if you think everything but finding the demon is irrelevant and a barrier. It’s not. That IS the game you are overlooking – the attempt to solve the puzzle like Sherlock Holmes solves a murder. Players just miss that intent piece because they are focused on the wereworld comparison, or the “social deduction party game” categories. Hopefully that makes sense.

The same is true for people who say this isn’t a party game because it’s too long or complicated. Every time I’ve played BotC, it IS a party. People drink and talk and laugh and have a great time. The energy in the room starts off quiet and uncertain, but by the end it’s a louder, more energetic event. When it’s done…we play again (or we spend more time discussing the game we just played). I think it does all party games a disservice to define them as small games that are just a quick distraction while something else is going on. Like leaving the TV on in the background but getting upset if it gets too loud or people start watching the game. Why can’t a party game BE the party?

If you come into a game of BotC, with the expectation or belief this is just “fancy werewolf”, or the typical cliched party game…then you are coming into the game with incorrect assumptions about how it plays, what is expected of you the player, etc. You are missing the whole point and will likely leave confused and frustrated and disappointed. I don’t see that as a game problem though. That is why I’m writing this review.

It’s also not a “you problem” either. These misconceptions exist because every single review out there is calling this Werewolf, whether positively or not. There’s no set definition for what makes a party game, but we all kind of know what that means, don’t we? There are flaws with this review shorthand, and I think it contributes to misconceptions of how the game truly works and plays and what makes it good for fans.

I HEAR THE GAME IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND NOT WORTH THE PRICE
I hear that too. I find price and value to be extremely subjective. As I’ve already stated, I was obsessed about the game and had to buy a copy. It had value to me.

And if you are the type of person who is willing to go through the trouble of making your own functional copy of the game? Well, good for you, but that also tells me you find enough “value” in the gameplay to go through the trouble.

What I will say is the box is massive and heavy. No corners have been cut and nothing feels half-assed or not fully considered. Everything is well developed, well produced, and abundant. That comes with a price. Whether or not you think it’s worth it is up to you. Your mileage will obviously vary, but I think if you look at all the content the game provides: infinite replayability, the ability to make your own scripts online as well as share with others, the countless roles, the accessibility considerations, and the quality of gameplay? I argue it’s clear that “value” there in the production.

SO EVERYONE WHO DOESN’T LIKE THE GAME IS WRONG?
No. Not at all. As I said above in my comment about the 4 elements of a good review, not all games are for all people. You can take any game that has ever been top 10 on BGG and you will find fans and haters. Everyone is different and has different tastes, but there is a difference between criticism and spiteful attacks. Pandemonium Institute has done the almost-impossible. They’ve created a game that completely turns expectations on its head, possibly changed how we look at an entire genre and what it can be, and they’ve shot to #1 Party Game on BGG because they’ve focused as much on building a welcoming and positive community as well as a game. That matters and it’s something we as board gamers SHOULD very much support and appreciate, at least in principle, even if we dislike the game itself.

What I do find strange is when people try and put down those who enjoy it.
Or especially when certain reviewers just flat out say they won’t review it or play it because fans like it too much. That shows a certain level of spite and contempt for the very things we should want to see in gaming and what board gaming is about – community, love of gaming, positive experiences in a welcoming environment, accessibility for all gamers, etc. This game was built on word of mouth, and yet that is now spitefully being used to dismiss or ignore the game completely. It’s strange and comes across as almost gatekeeping in a way, although I’m sure that isn’t the actual intention. But it does feel gate-keepy to me nevertheless.

There are many reasons someone doesn’t like a game. As I said, some people just want different things from their gaming time, or different experiences, etc. But I also believe that negative opinions should be grounded in a common reality. So when people say BotC is 4-5 hours to play (when I’ve rarely played games more than 2 hours with 12-14 players), or that it’s only for (insert negative personality trope here), it does all gaming a disservice. That is not a review or even a “first impression” that is being presented in an honest and good faith way. Any review – good or bad – MUST be made in good faith to have credibility. The goal should be to accurately portray what is intended, whether the developer achieved that, and then discuss why it was or wasn’t “for you”. This way, good or bad, the reader will walk away with at least an accurate idea of what the game offers and whether it may or may not be for them anyway.

Hopefully I have succeeded with my own intentions with this analysis and review of a game I love. If you’ve read this far, thanks for your time and attention.