Conan, what is best in life?
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"
He has a certain animal appeal. I remember reading Robert Howard paperbacks in high school - Conan is a barbarian. He's strong and a skilled warrior. He's almost supernaturally savvy, his instincts giving him an edge up over similarly strong and skilled fighters. Most recently, I had some friends pass along several books about Kane, the immortal badass (Karl Edward Wagner).
Last night, we had a one-off from a normal Pathfinder game. The plot of the adventure was taken out of a collection of Conan stories done by Howard. Essentially Conan gets roped into helping a nearby town, takes some guardsmen, and hunt down the orc (Pict) in the jungle across the river. The DM chose a very deadly story - the plan was to kill all of the NPCs as well as the PCs. Not even in a chancy way at the end - just throw small waves of orcs at us.
Overall, it's a recurring story about Conan (or Kane). Lots of random folks die, especially those helping the hero (or anti-hero). For me, it's tragic. The characters are mostly one-dimensional. They don't change, evolve, or challenge the world in a meaningful way. And this impacts players who are shaped by what they read.
1. Death by combat is often the only solution.
2. NPCs are rated on how powerful in levels they are, and if they can be fought.
3. No continuous character development - they gain hp/feats/skill points, but mostly remain the same mental state from where they started from.
This is a trap for players and DMs. In one-shot games, it's not as important, but it can reinforce these behaviors. One of the 3.5 campaigns in, the DM stuck us in a never-ending dungeon. I think we spent a half-dozen sessions, trying to heal up enough to make headway. We leveled up, but our only motivation was to become killing machines in the game. The rest of the campaign, that became most of our goal.
How can you combat this (if you think it's a negative in a game)?
1. Leave NPCs alive, at least sometimes. Not only is it challenging to do this (in both mechanics and role-play), it gives the game a bump in continuity. And maybe the semi-evil henchman that you let live today, comes back in a future episode to save/help you. There are some 110% evil people in games, but all? Think of the angle of redemption and forgiveness.
2. The first level mayor can be a pain in the ass. The baker's daughter might be wiling to risk her life for perceived love, or even just a patriotic call to arms.
3. Take several minutes before your weekly session, and think about what drives your character - their flaws, their dreams, their fears. Think how it will shape the game that day.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Risk management in board games
'Risk management' is used in a lot of business speak, and it trickles into game designing meaning both something similar and different. It's also a term used in "Traders, Guns, and Money" - which again is more of a business sense.
Risk management is somewhat of a trick. One, it implies that there are (probably dangerous) risks out there, and that someone else can come along and manage it for you, so you can think about all the profits you'll make. Traders, Guns, and Money - risk management is supposed to limit the damage that bad trades can cause.
In games, I use it to cover both sides of a fence. If you're ahead, you want to expose yourself to the least risky course, and glide into the win. If you're behind, you're looking for someway to make up the shortfall and vault into first place. It's rare that you're at equal chances of both winning and losing, which would be the top edge of the fence. So, you use risk management one way or the other...to push the envelope, taking higher risks to win, or to find paths that let you avoid pitfalls. (Tonight's game of Mage Knight, the girl found herself behind, so she took more difficult unknowns. It didn't help.)
Several years ago, I picked up a copy of Pitchcar. To play the game, you flick your wooden disc around the track, bouncing off of guardrails, muscling past other cars, and hope to stay on the track as well. There's a lot of risk. If you flick it too hard, you go off the track, and lose your turn. You can attempt to glide along the rails, but if you miss the shot, you're off the board or rebounding back towards where you came from.
If you're in first, you skip the risky plays. If you don't go off the course, other players are going to have to push their cars hard to catch up. By flicking their cars harder, they're more likely to force their own car off the track, or in rare cases, actually catch up. If you're a half track ahead, chances are slim that they can ever catch you. (Designers of Powerboats - take note! Ugh. Really, take note.)
There's another racing game that addresses the issue, which is Mario Kart. It's fast, it's furious, you can take some risks, but you're really just trying to drive as accurately as possible in your cartoon car, at its fastest speed. There's really no risk for driving the best...but it's not exciting if you know who's going to win. The risk of being ahead in Mario Kart is that you get less options on your powerups. While others get the full range...but especially the Blue Shell of Death. It auto-hits the first place player, but only the last place players have a chance of picking one up from a box. Experienced players can complain about it, as it's a risk they can't avoid, except by not winning. Thus there's tension for 1st, even though they are winning...but will it show up in the powerups?
Other forms of risk can be demonstrated in Diplomacy, where you open yourself to dangers as treaties are formed with other players. Other players will be lying to you at some point - figuring out the how and when can limit how much damage you take, your exposure to risks.
You can also take risks when you ARE in first - to make it more interesting for you or for other players, due to perceived 'fun', or maybe because the game forces you to. The last part is particularly interesting, where you aren't allowed to just coast...you still need to make good decisions to win.
Risks are inherent in a lot of games. Eliminate the need to choose what risks a player engages in, and you're stuck playing a game of Life. Going too deep into complex ideas, while allowing the player many risks to manage, your game comes to a standstill. Creating an intuitive flow with several paths of risk management is a thing of beauty.
PS - To 'fix' Pitchcar, I mocked up some extra items to turn it into Mario Kart in some ways. (If you're interested in doing the same, it's discussed in a thread here. There are some newer threads that did a lot more work, if you liked my Mario Kart variant.)
Risk management is somewhat of a trick. One, it implies that there are (probably dangerous) risks out there, and that someone else can come along and manage it for you, so you can think about all the profits you'll make. Traders, Guns, and Money - risk management is supposed to limit the damage that bad trades can cause.
In games, I use it to cover both sides of a fence. If you're ahead, you want to expose yourself to the least risky course, and glide into the win. If you're behind, you're looking for someway to make up the shortfall and vault into first place. It's rare that you're at equal chances of both winning and losing, which would be the top edge of the fence. So, you use risk management one way or the other...to push the envelope, taking higher risks to win, or to find paths that let you avoid pitfalls. (Tonight's game of Mage Knight, the girl found herself behind, so she took more difficult unknowns. It didn't help.)
Several years ago, I picked up a copy of Pitchcar. To play the game, you flick your wooden disc around the track, bouncing off of guardrails, muscling past other cars, and hope to stay on the track as well. There's a lot of risk. If you flick it too hard, you go off the track, and lose your turn. You can attempt to glide along the rails, but if you miss the shot, you're off the board or rebounding back towards where you came from.
If you're in first, you skip the risky plays. If you don't go off the course, other players are going to have to push their cars hard to catch up. By flicking their cars harder, they're more likely to force their own car off the track, or in rare cases, actually catch up. If you're a half track ahead, chances are slim that they can ever catch you. (Designers of Powerboats - take note! Ugh. Really, take note.)
There's another racing game that addresses the issue, which is Mario Kart. It's fast, it's furious, you can take some risks, but you're really just trying to drive as accurately as possible in your cartoon car, at its fastest speed. There's really no risk for driving the best...but it's not exciting if you know who's going to win. The risk of being ahead in Mario Kart is that you get less options on your powerups. While others get the full range...but especially the Blue Shell of Death. It auto-hits the first place player, but only the last place players have a chance of picking one up from a box. Experienced players can complain about it, as it's a risk they can't avoid, except by not winning. Thus there's tension for 1st, even though they are winning...but will it show up in the powerups?
Other forms of risk can be demonstrated in Diplomacy, where you open yourself to dangers as treaties are formed with other players. Other players will be lying to you at some point - figuring out the how and when can limit how much damage you take, your exposure to risks.
You can also take risks when you ARE in first - to make it more interesting for you or for other players, due to perceived 'fun', or maybe because the game forces you to. The last part is particularly interesting, where you aren't allowed to just coast...you still need to make good decisions to win.
Risks are inherent in a lot of games. Eliminate the need to choose what risks a player engages in, and you're stuck playing a game of Life. Going too deep into complex ideas, while allowing the player many risks to manage, your game comes to a standstill. Creating an intuitive flow with several paths of risk management is a thing of beauty.
PS - To 'fix' Pitchcar, I mocked up some extra items to turn it into Mario Kart in some ways. (If you're interested in doing the same, it's discussed in a thread here. There are some newer threads that did a lot more work, if you liked my Mario Kart variant.)
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Overall Mage Knight design discussion
I've played the game enough now, I feel competent in discussing what's really going on.
Mage Knight is a light deck-building game. You'll add cards to your deck, but not every turn. Getting rid of cards in your deck is very rare - you'll add more luck to your deck with more powerful cards. (Mostly an innate balancing factor, you are more powerful, but at the cost of your deck tipping to one side or the other.)
Adding more cards is kind of like winning - you'll get more points for them. You'll also be gambling on big turns more often. If things come together, it will be AMAZING. If it doesn't come together, you'll be stuck imagining what could have been, and hope for it next game.
Sadly, you'll generally need a big turn to take on multiple monsters at a site, or even just a Draconum. What does it tell you when you're an experienced adventurer, but you still choke on turns? Tough love.
Allies are a guaranteed use, once per round. It means you don't need to draw them, or take up precious hand-size. They're even victory points. The silver units are roughly on par with a basic card from your deck...is it worth spending a couple of turns to get them? Maybe not.
Realistically, you'll probably lose a turn or two every round due to a bad hand. Don't have any move? Feel like pitching a hand of combat cards to move one space? Maybe you drew your influence cards after you left civilized areas. Honestly, the move actions are probably the most painful to appreciate. Much like the movement dice in Runebound, it can end your turn immediately.
I think there's a key element of spectatorship in most games. In a game like Carcassonne, another player is placing a tile, there's two elements of interest for you - what you could do with that tile if you had it, and maybe cheering them on for how it can help them. In Mage Knight, there's none of that. Maybe you can offer some critiques on how they can be more efficient, but you won't have knowledge of their entire hand. It's possible you can talk about their options on where to go next. In Vlaada's Through the Ages, it was sometimes entertaining to watch opponent's actions - what are they really valuing? What motives do they have for doing X as opposed to Y?
Overall, the game is pretty solid. The movement issues are mostly okay - it added some design options for extra abilities/spells/advanced actions. I'm frequently sad on other player's turns...nothing to really spectate, and their turn can last 5 minutes or so if they are optimizing. (And if they are optimizing, they might need silence at the table.)
Mage Knight is a light deck-building game. You'll add cards to your deck, but not every turn. Getting rid of cards in your deck is very rare - you'll add more luck to your deck with more powerful cards. (Mostly an innate balancing factor, you are more powerful, but at the cost of your deck tipping to one side or the other.)
Adding more cards is kind of like winning - you'll get more points for them. You'll also be gambling on big turns more often. If things come together, it will be AMAZING. If it doesn't come together, you'll be stuck imagining what could have been, and hope for it next game.
Sadly, you'll generally need a big turn to take on multiple monsters at a site, or even just a Draconum. What does it tell you when you're an experienced adventurer, but you still choke on turns? Tough love.
Allies are a guaranteed use, once per round. It means you don't need to draw them, or take up precious hand-size. They're even victory points. The silver units are roughly on par with a basic card from your deck...is it worth spending a couple of turns to get them? Maybe not.
Realistically, you'll probably lose a turn or two every round due to a bad hand. Don't have any move? Feel like pitching a hand of combat cards to move one space? Maybe you drew your influence cards after you left civilized areas. Honestly, the move actions are probably the most painful to appreciate. Much like the movement dice in Runebound, it can end your turn immediately.
I think there's a key element of spectatorship in most games. In a game like Carcassonne, another player is placing a tile, there's two elements of interest for you - what you could do with that tile if you had it, and maybe cheering them on for how it can help them. In Mage Knight, there's none of that. Maybe you can offer some critiques on how they can be more efficient, but you won't have knowledge of their entire hand. It's possible you can talk about their options on where to go next. In Vlaada's Through the Ages, it was sometimes entertaining to watch opponent's actions - what are they really valuing? What motives do they have for doing X as opposed to Y?
Overall, the game is pretty solid. The movement issues are mostly okay - it added some design options for extra abilities/spells/advanced actions. I'm frequently sad on other player's turns...nothing to really spectate, and their turn can last 5 minutes or so if they are optimizing. (And if they are optimizing, they might need silence at the table.)
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Mage Knight, 4-player
Soon on the heels of the 3-player game, we taught the game to 2 new players. They're competent gamers, and I had learned how to teach the game. 4 player game took about 3 hours, including explanation...not too bad.
I ended up playing the Elf lord, Norowas. I had last choice of day actions, which led me into going first with card #3. I managed to get to the nearby village and hire crossbowmen on my first turn. Second turn, I beat up the marauders, giving me the free ranged attack skill, and an Advanced Training that gave a white crystal or Ranged Attack 4.
For the rest of the game, I attempted to fight non-fortification monsters...meaning monster dens, dungeons, and rampaging monsters. The second monster den wounded me as I was eventually caught out, but I was able to end the third round very early, discovering the city on my first turn. After end-game scoring, I had 37.
Arythea the Blood Cultist got stumbled in the first turn - it was tough racing ahead, when you start behind. It persisted the rest of the game, trying to get to the monsters that could be defeated reasonably.
Tovak was played by one of the new players - he focused on keeps, no allies, and the backstabbing skills (can't draw on the source and the one that deals wounds for drawing on the non-selected mana). He finished second with 36.
Goldyx had the misfortune of battling a summoner-type in a fight for a mage-tower during the first Day round. Brutal 5, when you're not ready for it, is messy. (6 wounds. Fortunately he could heal two immediately after combat, but the others would be more painful to cure.)
The Tovak player embraced a healthy strategy - try a specific strategy, even if it fails, he's learned something.
The Goldyx player played an open game - go for whatever feels most easily scored. There's nothing wrong with this, it just means the player will miss out on deeper strategies until later.
My focus on ranged attack was pretty good, although I wish I had picked up my opponent's discarded range attack skill...that would have been +3 ranged attack, every turn, night and day turns. It was definitely painful, where I couldn't pick up keeps or mage towers. I had a lot of influence, but the monasteries were usually full, and the mage towers were scattered to the edge.
I'm looking forward to trying some of the new-to-us scenarios. I might like 2-player a little more in some ways - 3 and 4 ruins at least one player because they get shut out of explores in the normal wedge shape.
I ended up playing the Elf lord, Norowas. I had last choice of day actions, which led me into going first with card #3. I managed to get to the nearby village and hire crossbowmen on my first turn. Second turn, I beat up the marauders, giving me the free ranged attack skill, and an Advanced Training that gave a white crystal or Ranged Attack 4.
For the rest of the game, I attempted to fight non-fortification monsters...meaning monster dens, dungeons, and rampaging monsters. The second monster den wounded me as I was eventually caught out, but I was able to end the third round very early, discovering the city on my first turn. After end-game scoring, I had 37.
Arythea the Blood Cultist got stumbled in the first turn - it was tough racing ahead, when you start behind. It persisted the rest of the game, trying to get to the monsters that could be defeated reasonably.
Tovak was played by one of the new players - he focused on keeps, no allies, and the backstabbing skills (can't draw on the source and the one that deals wounds for drawing on the non-selected mana). He finished second with 36.
Goldyx had the misfortune of battling a summoner-type in a fight for a mage-tower during the first Day round. Brutal 5, when you're not ready for it, is messy. (6 wounds. Fortunately he could heal two immediately after combat, but the others would be more painful to cure.)
The Tovak player embraced a healthy strategy - try a specific strategy, even if it fails, he's learned something.
The Goldyx player played an open game - go for whatever feels most easily scored. There's nothing wrong with this, it just means the player will miss out on deeper strategies until later.
My focus on ranged attack was pretty good, although I wish I had picked up my opponent's discarded range attack skill...that would have been +3 ranged attack, every turn, night and day turns. It was definitely painful, where I couldn't pick up keeps or mage towers. I had a lot of influence, but the monasteries were usually full, and the mage towers were scattered to the edge.
I'm looking forward to trying some of the new-to-us scenarios. I might like 2-player a little more in some ways - 3 and 4 ruins at least one player because they get shut out of explores in the normal wedge shape.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Mage Knight follow-up, 3-player
We played a 3-player game last night, where we taught a new player the game. Rob is a pretty relaxed and easy-going guy, but he can get frustrated if the game is messy. A test of teaching the game, as well as introducing it to a new player.
A three-player game was tough - monsters get wiped out much faster, allies are purchased earlier...going last in a round can really be a hindrance.
Elle grabbed a keep in the first Day cycle, while I managed to snag a Mage Tower. For Elle's level-up, as the blood cultist, she could pitch wounds to other players, which was pretty nice. Rob managed to beat up a couple of marauding monsters.
The Night cycle is pretty awesome for spells. I picked up a fire-based spell that blocked damage, and if I spent a red and a black mana to do it, it destroyed the opposing creature - no Attack damage needed. The second Day felt less exciting - we got stuck without moves or without attacks, leading to a couple of dead turns in the beginning.
My second dungeon was tough - I had a good mix of Attack and Block cards, but the dungeon spawned a 5 defense (easy), 7 damage monster with swiftness - it was either Block 14 or take 7. My hand was good, but not that good. The three wounds I racked up turned out to be bad for me...my healing spell I picked up went on top of my deck, and I didn't discard enough cards to draw it (I figured there would be a couple of turns left.) Sadly, the final turn came early, as Elle stopped battling and continued to explore - with the first of the final tiles showing the end condition. I managed to heal one of my wounds at a magic glade, but it left me with wounds and the most wounds tile...losing the the game.
I managed to defeat two dungeons, a keep, and a mage tower. Sadly, both dungeons awarded spells - I really wanted an artifact. The keep was stolen away by Elle - only got half fame for the gray monster guarding it, but gave her 2 fame at the end, as well as taking 2 fame away from me.
I still haven't recruited like I should - they are better than spells, in that they don't require you to draw them and usually don't take mana to power them. There was a rules question I got wrong during the game - I wanted to use black mana from the source, during the day, but in a dungeon (dungeons are considered night). Sadly the rulebook uses the words "never" about usimg black mana from the source during the day. Go rules FAQ on BGG!
Other missed rules - when buying multiple things with influence in a turn, your reputation penalty/bonus only applies the first time. Buying spells, you also need to spend mana of the same color of the spell. There are lots of little things that happen in the game - I'm sure as the full rulebook is consumed, there will be dozens of understandings corrected. Clumsy.
Next up, a 4-player game.
A three-player game was tough - monsters get wiped out much faster, allies are purchased earlier...going last in a round can really be a hindrance.
Elle grabbed a keep in the first Day cycle, while I managed to snag a Mage Tower. For Elle's level-up, as the blood cultist, she could pitch wounds to other players, which was pretty nice. Rob managed to beat up a couple of marauding monsters.
The Night cycle is pretty awesome for spells. I picked up a fire-based spell that blocked damage, and if I spent a red and a black mana to do it, it destroyed the opposing creature - no Attack damage needed. The second Day felt less exciting - we got stuck without moves or without attacks, leading to a couple of dead turns in the beginning.
My second dungeon was tough - I had a good mix of Attack and Block cards, but the dungeon spawned a 5 defense (easy), 7 damage monster with swiftness - it was either Block 14 or take 7. My hand was good, but not that good. The three wounds I racked up turned out to be bad for me...my healing spell I picked up went on top of my deck, and I didn't discard enough cards to draw it (I figured there would be a couple of turns left.) Sadly, the final turn came early, as Elle stopped battling and continued to explore - with the first of the final tiles showing the end condition. I managed to heal one of my wounds at a magic glade, but it left me with wounds and the most wounds tile...losing the the game.
I managed to defeat two dungeons, a keep, and a mage tower. Sadly, both dungeons awarded spells - I really wanted an artifact. The keep was stolen away by Elle - only got half fame for the gray monster guarding it, but gave her 2 fame at the end, as well as taking 2 fame away from me.
I still haven't recruited like I should - they are better than spells, in that they don't require you to draw them and usually don't take mana to power them. There was a rules question I got wrong during the game - I wanted to use black mana from the source, during the day, but in a dungeon (dungeons are considered night). Sadly the rulebook uses the words "never" about usimg black mana from the source during the day. Go rules FAQ on BGG!
Other missed rules - when buying multiple things with influence in a turn, your reputation penalty/bonus only applies the first time. Buying spells, you also need to spend mana of the same color of the spell. There are lots of little things that happen in the game - I'm sure as the full rulebook is consumed, there will be dozens of understandings corrected. Clumsy.
Next up, a 4-player game.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Initial review of Vlaada Chvatil's Mage Knight
I'm hugely disappointed that Wizkids doesn't offer rules support for Quarriors - to the point where I'd even avoid purchasing other games they produce, even by a favorite designer. I've mulled over Mage Knight since it came out, but couldn't pull the trigger.
My girlfriend was aware of my "could be good, but not buying it" stance, and just bought it one day when we were hanging out at a game store. It sat on our shelf for several weeks, waiting for the right time to come and play.
It plays 1-4. Word on the street is that the rules and game are dense. I ended up doing a single-player game as a warm-up one day, watched a guy play a single-player on youtube (painful, it's not worth it!), and then played a 2-player with the girl.
The rules are dense and somewhat clunky. I like Chvatil's design for Through the Ages - elegant! Dungeon Lords, Galaxy Trucker, and Space Alert are good in different ways. Mage Knight has so many rules that are not easily intuitive, I'm sad.
** The overview **
Mage Knight is an adventuring board game, in a complex vein of Runebound. Each player has a hero, who slowly walks around fighting monsters, occasionally picking up an ally. There are different scenarios to play, but that's pretty much the focus of the game - level up, take on bigger rewards.
The engine for gameplay is your own custom deck of cards. Everyone's deck is the same except for one card. You'll be able to add more cards to your deck, pretty much at the expense of your entire turn...I think we each added 4-5 cards. Everyone has their own selection of skill level-ups, but you won't see many in a game - maybe 2.
Your starting hand each turn is 5 cards. They can have a range of ordinary things - Move, Attack, Block, Influence, and custom effects that affect other cards. Each of those ordinary effects have a number - Attack 4 is good. Attack 2 means you'll need to add extra cards to make it work. Move 2 gives you enough move into a plains hex, or explore the edge of the map. If you have enough Block, you can avoid taking wounds (that clutter your hand and deck). Influence (combined with whatever reputation you've gained) is used in towns to pick up allies, spell cards, and advanced training cards.
Each card in your hand has a second effect. You can borrow 1 energy die from the common pool to use the second/better effect. If you have other energy lying around, you could boost more than one card. Needless to say, the basic effect of each card is tough to love. (Cards in your hand can be used as Attack/Move/Block/Influence 1. Wounds cannot be used that way.)
It's really about just wandering around and killing monsters. You can attack monasteries, Mage Towers, dungeons, tombs, monster dens...they all give you some kind of bonus, with the more challenging ones giving a bigger reward.
***
That quick overview is about it. The game adds some complexity on how monsters deal damage or avoid damage, as well as rules for playing during the day vs. a turn at night. Overall, it's a lot of fiddly bits.
First - movement is cranky. You thought Runebound was awkward, with rolling dice for movement. If you want to move and attack, you better have exactly the right cards. Mostly, you'll move and then have to attack next turn, because you'll probably need Block cards too (starting hand size is 5 for awhile). Or maybe you just want to move, and none of the cards you drew have move icons - each card can be used as a Move 1...which means you spend 2 to get just one plains space. (Your movement and vision change at night, as well as some spell effects.)
Second - damage is sluggish. You need X to kill a creature - fine. But to avoid damage from a monster, you spend block value equal to or greater than their attack value...or don't spend the cards. How about managing damage? Damage absorption is messy. And what happens if combat goes awry? Your hand floods with wounds, making you unable to draw cards. You spend your next turn, or turns as needed, discarding wounds into your discard pile (so next round you'll be crippled). Amazingly punishing.
Third - it's a deck-building game. You're supposed to add more cards to make your character better, right? The basic game is 3 large turns (Day, Night, Day.) Typically when you get a card, it goes on top of your deck - you'll get it for next turn. It's hard to imagine getting any of those cards in the first day cycle, which means for the effort of buying those cards, you *might* use them twice the entire game. Assuming you don't buy them on turn 3, or buy them turn 2 and not see them in turn 3.
There are variants, which I'm sure we'll explore. And the player vs. player, which they recommend for later games...maybe I'll revisit after some more experience.
My girlfriend was aware of my "could be good, but not buying it" stance, and just bought it one day when we were hanging out at a game store. It sat on our shelf for several weeks, waiting for the right time to come and play.
It plays 1-4. Word on the street is that the rules and game are dense. I ended up doing a single-player game as a warm-up one day, watched a guy play a single-player on youtube (painful, it's not worth it!), and then played a 2-player with the girl.
The rules are dense and somewhat clunky. I like Chvatil's design for Through the Ages - elegant! Dungeon Lords, Galaxy Trucker, and Space Alert are good in different ways. Mage Knight has so many rules that are not easily intuitive, I'm sad.
** The overview **
Mage Knight is an adventuring board game, in a complex vein of Runebound. Each player has a hero, who slowly walks around fighting monsters, occasionally picking up an ally. There are different scenarios to play, but that's pretty much the focus of the game - level up, take on bigger rewards.
The engine for gameplay is your own custom deck of cards. Everyone's deck is the same except for one card. You'll be able to add more cards to your deck, pretty much at the expense of your entire turn...I think we each added 4-5 cards. Everyone has their own selection of skill level-ups, but you won't see many in a game - maybe 2.
Your starting hand each turn is 5 cards. They can have a range of ordinary things - Move, Attack, Block, Influence, and custom effects that affect other cards. Each of those ordinary effects have a number - Attack 4 is good. Attack 2 means you'll need to add extra cards to make it work. Move 2 gives you enough move into a plains hex, or explore the edge of the map. If you have enough Block, you can avoid taking wounds (that clutter your hand and deck). Influence (combined with whatever reputation you've gained) is used in towns to pick up allies, spell cards, and advanced training cards.
Each card in your hand has a second effect. You can borrow 1 energy die from the common pool to use the second/better effect. If you have other energy lying around, you could boost more than one card. Needless to say, the basic effect of each card is tough to love. (Cards in your hand can be used as Attack/Move/Block/Influence 1. Wounds cannot be used that way.)
It's really about just wandering around and killing monsters. You can attack monasteries, Mage Towers, dungeons, tombs, monster dens...they all give you some kind of bonus, with the more challenging ones giving a bigger reward.
***
That quick overview is about it. The game adds some complexity on how monsters deal damage or avoid damage, as well as rules for playing during the day vs. a turn at night. Overall, it's a lot of fiddly bits.
First - movement is cranky. You thought Runebound was awkward, with rolling dice for movement. If you want to move and attack, you better have exactly the right cards. Mostly, you'll move and then have to attack next turn, because you'll probably need Block cards too (starting hand size is 5 for awhile). Or maybe you just want to move, and none of the cards you drew have move icons - each card can be used as a Move 1...which means you spend 2 to get just one plains space. (Your movement and vision change at night, as well as some spell effects.)
Second - damage is sluggish. You need X to kill a creature - fine. But to avoid damage from a monster, you spend block value equal to or greater than their attack value...or don't spend the cards. How about managing damage? Damage absorption is messy. And what happens if combat goes awry? Your hand floods with wounds, making you unable to draw cards. You spend your next turn, or turns as needed, discarding wounds into your discard pile (so next round you'll be crippled). Amazingly punishing.
Third - it's a deck-building game. You're supposed to add more cards to make your character better, right? The basic game is 3 large turns (Day, Night, Day.) Typically when you get a card, it goes on top of your deck - you'll get it for next turn. It's hard to imagine getting any of those cards in the first day cycle, which means for the effort of buying those cards, you *might* use them twice the entire game. Assuming you don't buy them on turn 3, or buy them turn 2 and not see them in turn 3.
There are variants, which I'm sure we'll explore. And the player vs. player, which they recommend for later games...maybe I'll revisit after some more experience.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
How does my love affair with Eclipse die?
There are several main reasons why you give up a favorite or cherished game...here are some ideas.
Even in the games where it isn't going your way, there's that nagging feeling of those golden fields from the games of yore. Games strive for that sweet spot - it obviously can't happen every time, but it needs to happen *just* enough.
There's a game that my girlfriend picked up, seeking a good 2-player game. A Few Acres of Snow is an interesting game, where each player essentially builds their deck and plays it out according to their needs at the time. One person plays the British, the other French...deciding who wins the war in early North America. It has a sense of flavor for the history of that time period, which is awesome. Sadly, when looking up a rules clarification on BGG, it turns out there is one and only one strategy for the game, and it generally means that the British win. I read through it, displeased that it existed. Oh, the problems of static games. Imagine if there was a perfect opening for white in chess...only we're just not smart/computational enough to see it.
There were games before Eclipse. My friends and I have a long tradition of Settlers of Catan (more specifically, Cities and Knights). Race for the Galaxy and its expansions took over more than a couple of game groups. Through the Ages took out Le Havre. But by and large, the "perfect" game comes along rarely. More rarely, that it comes along to wipe out an existing perfect game.
Friends - they drive games the most. You can play some games solo, but that's usually not the motivation when desiring to play a board game. At Spiele, I found vendors were pretty much interested in doing demos for groups of friends. 4 people, great! My cynicism is that there's a chance that at least one person in the game will feel that it's the perfect game, and will champion it to the others (as well as picking up a copy, of course). Maybe that friend is tired of the favored game coming to the table. Someone recently told me a story of a friend who ONLY wants to play Power Grid. They sit down to decide a game, and the only game that he will play is that one...the group usually concedes out of politeness, but he'll find himself looking for a new group eventually.
Or sometimes you tire of the group who will play the game. Maybe you need new blood, or you become exhausted dealing with a certain player's style - whining, bickering, politicking, analysis-paralysis, etc.
For me, it'll probably be #3 - maybe that's what everyone should hope for. A better game can be hard to imagine, but maybe someday...
- You've played it so much, there is nothing else to learn or appreciate
- It turns out there is only one way that anyone should play the game
- You find a new game that you love more
- Your friends tire of winning/losing/playing the game all of the time
- You tire of your friends who will play the game
Even in the games where it isn't going your way, there's that nagging feeling of those golden fields from the games of yore. Games strive for that sweet spot - it obviously can't happen every time, but it needs to happen *just* enough.
There's a game that my girlfriend picked up, seeking a good 2-player game. A Few Acres of Snow is an interesting game, where each player essentially builds their deck and plays it out according to their needs at the time. One person plays the British, the other French...deciding who wins the war in early North America. It has a sense of flavor for the history of that time period, which is awesome. Sadly, when looking up a rules clarification on BGG, it turns out there is one and only one strategy for the game, and it generally means that the British win. I read through it, displeased that it existed. Oh, the problems of static games. Imagine if there was a perfect opening for white in chess...only we're just not smart/computational enough to see it.
There were games before Eclipse. My friends and I have a long tradition of Settlers of Catan (more specifically, Cities and Knights). Race for the Galaxy and its expansions took over more than a couple of game groups. Through the Ages took out Le Havre. But by and large, the "perfect" game comes along rarely. More rarely, that it comes along to wipe out an existing perfect game.
Friends - they drive games the most. You can play some games solo, but that's usually not the motivation when desiring to play a board game. At Spiele, I found vendors were pretty much interested in doing demos for groups of friends. 4 people, great! My cynicism is that there's a chance that at least one person in the game will feel that it's the perfect game, and will champion it to the others (as well as picking up a copy, of course). Maybe that friend is tired of the favored game coming to the table. Someone recently told me a story of a friend who ONLY wants to play Power Grid. They sit down to decide a game, and the only game that he will play is that one...the group usually concedes out of politeness, but he'll find himself looking for a new group eventually.
Or sometimes you tire of the group who will play the game. Maybe you need new blood, or you become exhausted dealing with a certain player's style - whining, bickering, politicking, analysis-paralysis, etc.
For me, it'll probably be #3 - maybe that's what everyone should hope for. A better game can be hard to imagine, but maybe someday...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
