Whether R7RS-large will ever be completed is now a big question. Here’s my quick and dirty summary of recent events.

Until last fall, the R7RS Working Group 2 was regularly voting on libraries and features to add to the standard. (See this page for the results.) There were complaints about this approach, and, last fall, there was a major shake-up. A new effort was started by Daphne Preston-Kendall and Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen to split R7RS-large into two languages, Foundations and Batteries. Both are supposed to be compatible with R6RS, which was not originally a goal for R7RS-small or -large. The goal, in part, is to “heal the split” between R6RS and R[57]RS in the Scheme community. Marc, Daphne, and others are working hard on these languages, but there’s no sign of the split healing. Some implementers remain complete opposed to a Scheme based on R6.

This past week, John Cowan resigned as chair of Working Group 2, saying

I do not think that there is any further hope that I can get sufficient agreement among the different players to have any hope of coming to a conclusion.

At this point, the Scheme Steering Committee, the group that organized the R7RS project, must do something to keep R7RS-large afloat. No-one’s heard much from the SC in years, however; according to John, they haven’t spoken as a body since 2013. Thus it’s currently unclear whether there will be a new chair or any further work on R7RS-large.

Regardless, work on the Foundations and Batteries languages continues. Whether this will lead to an officially-blessed Report is anyone’s guess. The old R7RS-large voting schedule has vanished with John’s resignation, though, so it’s the only game in town for now.

I hope this is some help. Daphne has just written her summary of the situation here.

I discovered ‘jeroboam’ in The Difference Engine by Gibson & Sterling. It’s an interesting word: when capitalized, it’s a Biblical king; otherwise, it’s a bottle.

You’re very welcome. I’m glad to hear it was a success.

I agree about Werewolf. It’s especially nice that the set of characters can be varied for lesser or more experienced groups.

I’ve had a terribly boring time with large-group (five or more) Wingspan. Admittedly, I’m not very enthusiastic about the mechanics in the first place, but the game seems to drag badly with more than four players. I also would not recommend it for groups with inexperienced players. Wingspan’s combo-oriented engine-building can be punishing for those without “system mastery”, as can the odd “score n points for each bird with a red tail who’s looking to the left” objectives.

No, but I would like to. I have not seen either game at our local stores, sadly.

A good question and an interesting thread. At five, our group sometimes tries a substantial game like Viticulture or Power Grid. Knowing the game is critical, however, since many complex games are not at their best with five players. When our group hits six, we’ve recently been playing Mysterium, which is an excellent, simple investigation game with evocative art and a great deal of replay value. It’s surprisingly accessible for new players.

With even larger groups, we sometimes play Mascarade. This Bruno Faidutti social deduction game is similar to his later Citadels, but easier to get started with. Another hit has been Bohnanza, although its wheeling-and-dealing style may not appeal to quieter folks.

When we have players who are easily overwhelmed by lots of rules, we tend to fall back to Sushi Go. This is entertaining enough–though beware of playing it with hate-drafting Magic players.

EDIT: It’s “Mascarade”, not “Masquerade”.