Splitsville

One of my favorite games for a large group is Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig, a fusion of two different games (Between Two Cities and Castles of Mad King Ludwig) that allows up to 7 players to play a strategically intriguing game in the span of 45 minutes. It's a good game for gamers at a party who aren't looking for a party game. Still, it's not "perfect." Scoring is convoluted and dense; it can take 10 minutes at the end of the game to figure out who won. That's because the rules on how to score are pretty complicated; that's the tradeoff you make to get some of the strategic nuances.

Now, Splito has entered the "chat." This game from designers Romaric Galonnier and Luc Rémond isn't going to replace Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig for me, but it is a welcome substitute that offers a simpler version of similar ideas. Splito features a large deck of cards: six suits with numbers 1 through 6 (two of each number), plus a series of "goal cards" (I'll come back to those). You shuffle up and deal 13 cards to each of the up to 8 players.

Play is quite simple. Everyone chooses one card from their hand, then places it face down in a scoring zone next to them: either the zone they share with the player on their left, or the zone they share with the player on their right. Once everyone has chosen, cards are revealed, and then everyone passes the remaining cards in their hand to the next player on their left. Play proceeds, playing a card to one of two zones then passing the rest, until all cards have been played.

The goal cards are key to scoring. Each one lists some particular condition that must be met in the zone where you play them, and some number of points (1 to 4) that meeting the condition is worth. A 1-point goal might be to play at least one card of three different specific colors into the zone. A 4-point goal might be to play at least one of every number in the zone, 1 through 6). In between, you might get goals like "play no orange cards in this zone" or "play at least 15 cards in this zone" or "play exactly two 2s in this zone."

When you reach the end of the game, you look at each zone and total up the points that it's worth. (Two "communal" goals in play for the whole game can also each be added to one specific zone.) Then each player calculates their personal score: multiply the points in your left zone by the points in your right zone. Whoever has the most points wins.

This is an incredibly fast-paced game, playing in just 10-20 minutes even with more players and even if you're teaching it for the first time. It doesn't have the breadth of decision making in Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig, but you do have to make the same kinds of decisions (and often enough to make for a satisfying experience). Which of your zones should you be prioritizing right now to get your end score up? If you pass these cards "downwind," can you count on your partner to help your shared zone, or will they focus on their other zone? If you and a neighbor both play into the same zone at the same time, are you confident you aren't "duplicating effort" (or worse, unknowingly sabotaging a specific goal)?

I've had a chance to play Splito several times now (the fast play makes that easy to do). I've also played it with a lower player count and a higher player count. So far, it's been pretty solid in all those cases. It doesn't have the nuance of Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig, but in exchange for giving those up, you get to play a game in half the time. (Or closer to one third the time, if you include the difficult scoring of BTCoMKL in the tally.) So yes, depending on what I'm in the mood for on a particular occasion, I feel like both games now have a place in my collection. I give Splito a B+.