Prejudice Against (Collectable) Card Games
Thalkyudes
general. There's good reason for them to look down on Magic, because it
isn't really much like a boardgame, is mostly a game where the person who
spends the most wins, and has drawn a lot of interest away from
traditional boardgames.
But that resentment shouldn't also apply to other CCGs. Many of them are
virtually just boardgames in disguise. Look at Dixie.
Kyo
David desJardins
> but when you combine the supposed high cost of collecting cards and
> the lack of a meaningful board all of a sudden they flame madly and
> deny any legitimacy to the game in question.
Neither of these are significant factors to most strategy gamers, who
are perfectly willing to play games which are expensive and/or which
don't have boards.
> It's undeniable that many CCGs include a huge amount of strategy
> and some even have a solid physical aspect to them.
Certainly.
> I can only guess that somehow they feel threatened by CCGs
If you would listen, then you wouldn't have to guess. There are a large
group of strategy gamers who are attracted to games precisely as the
concept of an _equal_ competition between two or more players, where
victory is determined solely by skill and by luck. They don't _want_ to
play games in which buying, collecting, and trading have a significant
effect on victory. Regardless of whether they are played with boards,
cards, dice, or pigs' feet.
And they told you all this the _last_ time you posted on the subject.
What's new except that you've now chosen to be more insulting about it?
David desJardins
--
Copyright 1995 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote
from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.
Alec Habig
1) The big complaint is that r.g.b. people don't want TCG's discussed in that
newsgroup, because of the horrible effect MtG had on the group till it got
its own is a harsh reminder of why topicality in newsgroups can be a good
thing.
2) Many gamers don't like the collectable aspect, preferring a game that can be
bought once, and played with people who don't have the game, even if it's an
expensive item like ASL.
Neither is really prejudice. The first is organizational. The second is
preference. Some gamers don't want to play fantasy based games. Others don't
like modern-era wargames. Still others only play railroad games. I'd wager
that the majority of gamers reading r.g.b. would happily play a TCG if their
friend owned it and wanted to play. A somewhat smaller majority probobly own
at least one deck of something anyway.
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Randy Moorehead
: After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
: there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
: gamers.
... stuff deleted...
Perhaps that is because this is rec.games.board, emphasis on _board_. The
CCG have their own groups. Discussion of CCG should be directed to the
appropriate group.
Randy Moorehead
ran...@unm.edu
Bill Tricomi
>
>I can only guess that somehow they feel threatened by CCGs, that they are
>shaking up their small, traditional world of strategy gaming and they are
>clinging to the board as an excuse for closing out the realities of what's
>going on in a world of strategy games which is suddenly too large and
>frightening.
I don't believe that boardgamers as a whole despise CCG's. Perhaps you are
hearing only from those among us who do. Those who feel the strongest
(for or against) about a subject are more likely to post their opinions.
In our club, I know of three people who took a long time stand against CCG's, but
it only needed the right CCG to break through their resistance. Star Trek won
over two of them and SimCity, the third.
However, there is one aspect of CCG's that legitimately threaten a
boardgamer's well-being. Stores have only so much
display area and inventory concerns. CCG's take up a relatively small area and
are fast movers. Game sellers like items that turn over their inventory quickly.
When deciding what to stock, will they order something that may still on a shelf
for months or something that they can move out in, perhaps, days? With CCG's
and boardgames competing for the retailers' dollars, the CCG's typically win out.
Many boardgamers see their local hobby stores slowly increasing their stock of
CCG's and lowering the number of boardgames on their shelves at the same time.
Even The Gamers are trying to set up a mail order business because the number
of units they sell through "traditional" channels has fallen off significantly. This
isn't all the fault of CCG's, but certainly, their popularity has had an impact on
the sale of the boardgames in today's market.
I don't for a minute think that the boardgame is about to become
tomorrow's dinosaur, but today's market strategy
calls for a realistic appraisal of what different forms of game design will have
what size market share. Regardless of one's personal taste, one must live with
the reality of the situation.
Alec Habig
>Illuminati: New World Order is very similar components-wise, but even a "One
>with everything" deck costs much more money ($70?), and doesn't realistically
>allow more than about three people to play using it.
Nitpick - $30-$40 (same as most board games). If one chooses to play it using
the "one big deck" option, it's really nothing more than a new edition of the
old game, with far snazzier components, slightly different game play, and many
more cards.
INWO is unique in that it is either a Collectable Card Game or a Traditional
Board game, depending upon how one approaches it.
Robin D. Laws
gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
>After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
>there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
>gamers.
>Boardgamers are exactly the kind of people who SHOULD like the more
>strategic, less expensive CCGs enormously, yet they are sticking their
>noses in the air and rejecting a whole realm of games which they would
>probably enjoy a great deal. So why does this prejudice exist?
There's a historical thing re: the board games newsgroup happening
here. When Magic first game out, r.g.b. was flooded with posts,
making it hard for the oldtimers to follow other threads,
and then there was a big foofarah in defining whether MtG was a
board game with an invisible board and belonged in the r.g.b.
hierarchy or in a hierarchy of its own.
There are undoubtedly people who play both ccgs and board games.
The board gamers who want to play ccgs have already discovered
them. Those who don't want to play ccgs are unlikely to start
at this point.
As to the crossover types, They want to read about ccgs here
(in r.g.t-c.m), and about other board games in r.g.b.
Take care >>> Robin
Alan Kwan
>After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
>there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
>essentially card games), they'll discuss Advanced Squad Leader (which
>costs more than any CCG needs to), but when you combine the supposed high
>cost of collecting cards and the lack of a meaningful board all of a
>sudden they flame madly and deny any legitimacy to the game in question.
> [...]
IMO (of a boardgamer who doesn't really like CCGs, but looks at them)
the first CCG on the market is largely responsible for this attitude.
In a board game, the resource each player has at his disposal is
defined by the game. In a CCG, it is influenced by the amount
of money the player spends on the game. THIS is the aspect that
boardgamers hate. They hate playing a game in which the player
who spends more money buying cards has an advantage, even a
perceived one as some (blind?) MtG adherents claim. If you
buy just a starter and 2 boosters and build a deck to play
against a tuned deck in MtG, you'll know what I mean.
Deck-building is a nice concept. But concepts such as rarity
(especially powerful rares) drive boardgamers nuts. Why must
there be expensive, hard-to-get rares in almost every CCG?
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
Ed Glamkowski
:P After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
:P there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
:P gamers. They'll discuss Talisman or Cosmic Encounter (which are
:P essentially card games), they'll discuss Advanced Squad Leader (which
:P costs more than any CCG needs to), but when you combine the supposed high
:P cost of collecting cards and the lack of a meaningful board all of a
:P sudden they flame madly and deny any legitimacy to the game in question.
actually, the reason i hate ccgs so much is because
they are won, in almost all cases, by the person who
has spent the most money, as opposed to the person
who is a good strategist or even just someone who is
lucky.
i.e. a game should be based either primarily on
strategy (or tactics, depending on the level of the
game) or else luck (but then it is more akin to
gambling then gaming... ;)
a game should not be decided based by who is willing
to spend the most money.
:P
Christopher L. Tumber
Dave Nalle wrote:
>After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
I don't think it's a prejudice against the "Card Game" in CCG, it's the
"Collectible" part. Traditional gamers had no problem accepting the original
Illuminati game from Steve Jackson Games which was very similar to the CCG.
In fact, it was an award winning favorite.
People have seen what happened when the "Collectible" part got out of hand
in other hobbies like Sports Cards and Comics and the market gets flooded
by a mass of crappy but "collectible" product (Can you say I-M-P-L-O-S-I-O-N?)
and that's probably what's going to happen to CCG's too.
It's also the fact that for many CCG's the player's ability is secondary to
the strength of the player's deck. And the strength of the player's deck tends
to depend upon the amount of money the player's willing to shell out for
boosters and/or ultra-rare-out-of-print cards. (Whereas in boardgames and
such, the cost may be high as well, but ALL players benefit from new
expansions, rules, etc, not just the one with the biggest pocketbook.)
Marius Pontmercy
why people object: the concept of stacking one's deck.
In a traditional game, there are definite guidelines on how to set up the
game. The strategy begins when you sit down. This allows:
1. You can use somebody else's game, and if you are a good player, you are
at no disadvantage.
2. Fate can be good and bad. That is, if there is an element of chance in
the form of dice or card draws, you can have good and bad cards.
In a CCG, you aren't using the same deck as everyone else. This means
that you have to spend a lot of money and bring your own deck wherever you
play. It also means that you can't have some cards that are better than
others, only cards that are better in some particular situations.
Actually, many CCGs do make superior and inferior cards, but this is a Bad
Thing, since it doesn't add the same spice as it would in a board game; it
only forces you to buy enough cards to get only the best ones.
Finally, boardgames companies' outlooks are far more benign. They want
you to play the game and play with your friends so they'll buy a copy to
play with their other friends, who will... There isn't much opportunity
to cheat you. You know what you are getting up front. You can make a
calculated cost-fun decision.
Card game companies have more insidious strategies. They want lots of
people to play, but more importantly, they want the people who do play to
pay more. So they keep making new and more powerful cards that you need
to buy if you want to win. And you don't know what you'll get in advance,
which means you keep spending more and more money (and then look back and
say "Sure, this is fun, and I'll keep playing it, but it wasn't worth what
I spent." And now you've invested a lot of money, and the next expansion
comes out, and you have to buy it or your friends start beating you all
the time. You end up spending a lot more money for your fun, and you
didn't realize this would happen when you started.
So yes, I like _playing_ CCG's, but I dislike paying for them. I have far
more respect for, say, Avalon Hill than for [insert card game company of
choice here]
Joerg
[snip]
>
>It's sort of weird, but I feel sorry for them. The boardgamers who take
>this stance are, after all, the ones who are losing out.
Why? Because they have a different taste? CCGs are something which has
been promoted a bit too enthusiastic by their vendors, and the rich-
kid syndrome strikes here more than in any board game I know. There
are a few things in the world which people either love or hate, and
CCGs are one of them. Both board games and CCGs now have their own
newsgroups, so the animosity should cease if people simply can avoid
each other.
>
>Now roleplayers are a whole different kettle of fish. I think they have
>some legitimate reason to resent CCGs.
Why???
Joerg
Roberto Ullfig
|> After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
|> there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
|>
|> them. It's undeniable that many CCGs include a huge amount of strategy
|> and some even have a solid physical aspect to them. There is far more of
|> movement and physical relationships in INWO, Quest for the Grail or Dixie
|> than there is in Cosmic Encounters or any of those Games Workshop games
|> which have a nominal board.
|>
|> Boardgamers are exactly the kind of people who SHOULD like the more
|> strategic, less expensive CCGs enormously, yet they are sticking their
|> noses in the air and rejecting a whole realm of games which they would
|> probably enjoy a great deal. So why does this prejudice exist?
|>
|> shaking up their small, traditional world of strategy gaming and they are
|> clinging to the board as an excuse for closing out the realities of what's
|> going on in a world of strategy games which is suddenly too large and
|> frightening.
|>
|> this stance are, after all, the ones who are losing out.
|>
|> some legitimate reason to resent CCGs.
|>
I disagree,
I don't think there is a general prejudice against CCGs in this group. Were
you reading this group when Magic came out. If you were then you would know
why there is resentment to *discussion* of CCGs in rec.games.board. It has
nothing to do with prejudice as I think a lot of people on this group have
played CCGs at one time or another. I think you're way off in your opinion
of attitudes towards CCGs among gamers of all types. CCGs are just another
genre of games which some people like and others don't; prejudice is not an
issue.
--
Roberto Ullfig - ull...@fnrobo.fnal.gov
Hunter Johnson
Dave Nalle <gra...@infinity.ccsi.com> wrote:
>It's sort of weird, but I feel sorry for them. The boardgamers who take
>this stance are, after all, the ones who are losing out.
Actually, I would think that the publishers are also losing out, since
they have not managed to get every man, woman, and child into their
market window. If boardgamers *did* take up CCGs en masse, the
publishers would sell more product, make more money, and count
themselves bigger winners.
And although your post didn't make note of it, aren't you a publisher?
"Never blame the audience. If you do, not only have you failed, but
you have failed to learn from your mistakes." Carlo Mezzini-Clemente
(sp?)
Hunter
-- /\
J. Hunter Johnson / \ jhun...@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jhunterj
GURPS Bibliographer / () \ finger jhun...@io.com for GURPS bib.
& Errata Co-coordinator /______\ sjg-e...@io.com
"What's the point of trying if you can't be a winner?" -- Calvin
rudi...@utdallas.edu
down at the table with better cards than I have. This is by no means my
first experience with such people. In Poker one occasionally has to deal
with somebody who thinks he should be allowed to hoard all the aces. I
avoid playing with such people. Making it legal does not improve it,
because my point it esthatic, not moral. I actively prefer a fair game.
CCGs have an especial appeal to that small minority of gamers who *don't*
prefer a fair game.
There have always been gamers who actively want to have a major advantage
before the game starts. CCGs attract all of these folks. It attracts
many other people, too, but almost every gamer that I don't want to play
with is over at the CCGs lately. (No, I am not being prejudiced here,
discussing thousands of people I don't know. I'm talking about a very few
specific gamers I know that I don't like playing with, because they don't
like fair games. They are *all* now playing CCGs almost exclusively now.)
Jay Rudin
rudi...@utdallas.edu
> After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
> there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
> gamers. They'll discuss Talisman or Cosmic Encounter (which are
> essentially card games), they'll discuss Advanced Squad Leader (which
> costs more than any CCG needs to), but when you combine the supposed high
> cost of collecting cards and the lack of a meaningful board all of a
> sudden they flame madly and deny any legitimacy to the game in question.
It's *not* prejudice. Prejudice is the act of pre-judging -- judging
without getting the facts first. I have looked into CCGs and decided
that they are not for me. Most games aren't. I play only about three
role-playing games these days, and only about ten in all the years since
I picked up D&D before Greyhawk came out. Am I "prejudiced" against the
other ones? If so, I'm "prejudiced" against most board games, too, and
I'm primarily a board-game player.
> . . . they are sticking their
> noses in the air and rejecting a whole realm of games which they would
> probably enjoy a great deal.
> I can only guess that somehow they feel threatened by CCGs, that they are
> shaking up their small, traditional world of strategy gaming and they are
> clinging to the board as an excuse for closing out the realities of what's
> going on in a world of strategy games which is suddenly too large and
> frightening.
Now these statements, if they were intended to include *anybody* whose
words you had not yet heard or read, are prejudice. Me, for instance.
In fact, I request a clarification, or an apology. Please either confirm
that your *original* intent was to include only those gamers whose
opinions you knew directly, or apologize for making up things about
people you don't know.
By the way, somebody alleged that you were a publisher. If this is
untrue, then I will commit to defending you and demanding a retraction
from that person. In this context, that implies that you are attacking
people for not buying your games -- extremely unfair if untrue.
If it is true, could somebody who knows please e-mail
rudi...@utdallas.edu, with the name of the company so I can know to
boycott their products and/or write a letter of protest? Note: I did
*not* ask that that information be put out publicly on the net. But
unless I learn otherwise, I will assume that this is just a false and
unfair accusation from somebody who didn't like your comments.
Jay Rudin
Dave Nalle
there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
gamers. They'll discuss Talisman or Cosmic Encounter (which are
essentially card games), they'll discuss Advanced Squad Leader (which
costs more than any CCG needs to), but when you combine the supposed high
cost of collecting cards and the lack of a meaningful board all of a
sudden they flame madly and deny any legitimacy to the game in question.
Board games are basically games of strategy with a physical dimension to
them. It's undeniable that many CCGs include a huge amount of strategy
and some even have a solid physical aspect to them. There is far more of
movement and physical relationships in INWO, Quest for the Grail or Dixie
than there is in Cosmic Encounters or any of those Games Workshop games
which have a nominal board.
Boardgamers are exactly the kind of people who SHOULD like the more
strategic, less expensive CCGs enormously, yet they are sticking their
noses in the air and rejecting a whole realm of games which they would
probably enjoy a great deal. So why does this prejudice exist?
I can only guess that somehow they feel threatened by CCGs, that they are
shaking up their small, traditional world of strategy gaming and they are
clinging to the board as an excuse for closing out the realities of what's
going on in a world of strategy games which is suddenly too large and
frightening.
It's sort of weird, but I feel sorry for them. The boardgamers who take
this stance are, after all, the ones who are losing out.
Now roleplayers are a whole different kettle of fish. I think they have
Brian Hebert
>
>Board games are basically games of strategy with a physical dimension to
>them. It's undeniable that many CCGs include a huge amount of strategy
>and some even have a solid physical aspect to them. There is far more of
>movement and physical relationships in INWO, Quest for the Grail or Dixie
>than there is in Cosmic Encounters or any of those Games Workshop games
>which have a nominal board.
The dislike among some boardgamers for CCG's is not prejudice, it's a
matter of rational preference. It's not based on the components or the
rules involved, it's based on the marketing practices. The concept of
rarity classes requires a large expenditure to get anywhere near having
the "whole game." Some people like the collecting/trading aspect. Others
don't.
I've read the r.g.b. threads on ccg's and they don't even approach
prejudice (or any of the other pejoratives you sling in your following
paragraphs, "afraid, clinging, weird, small, traditional"). What I have
seen is some pretty clear explanations of their (easily understood) position.
I'll summarize it:
1. We don't like collectibility in our games.
2. Please restrict your posts to the proper groups.
I think you need to relax Dave. I'm sure your game will be a big success
even without the r.g.b. folks.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Brian Hebert heb...@uclink.berkeley.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Brent Michael Krupp
>the supposed high
>cost of collecting cards and the lack of a meaningful board all of a
>sudden they flame madly and deny any legitimacy to the game in question.
A few months ago, you posted similar drivel in here (in rec.games.board), and lots
of people told you exactly why board-gamers hate CCGs. I have no idea why you are
back, fanning the flames of this non-issue, but since you couldn't seem to
understand us last time, I'll give it one more try.
It is *not* the cost, it is *not* the lack of a board, it is the fact that the
"rules", as reflected in the game components, are inherently open-ended and it is
difficult, expensive, or impossible to buy the entire game and actually play it
using *all* of the rules, right off-the-bat. When I buy a new game at the store, I
expect it to be COMPLETE, within that single box and have all the rules and
components for several of my friends and I to enjoy many playings. With CCGs, it is
a major hassle to get all of the cards, and even then, one often needs duplicates
of certain basic cards, and even then, one needs a set of cards for every single
player! Sure, you don't need them all for every different person, but between, say,
six gaming buddies, you end up needing way more than even one-of-everything to give
each person a chance to participate fully.
As a counterpoint to my argument, you might bring up games like Advanced Squad
Leader that have multiple expansions, but even a game like this is far superior to
a CCG. Each expansion to a game like ASL makes it a whole new game, with more stuff
to do, but even with NO expansions, ASL is a complete and deep and robust game.
There is no comparison between buying a full-fledged expansion for a game like ASL
and having to eternally shell out money for "booster packs" for aCCG.
>Board games are basically games of strategy with a physical dimension to
>them. It's undeniable that many CCGs include a huge amount of strategy
>and some even have a solid physical aspect to them. There is far more of
>movement and physical relationships in INWO, Quest for the Grail or Dixie
>than there is in Cosmic Encounters or any of those Games Workshop games
>which have a nominal board.
I don't believe that this has anything to do with the issue. It's not the
components, it the "collectibility" i.e. the INability to easily acquire the whole
game and all of its rules. The original Illuminati had no game board, and was
mostly cards, but it was a wonderful and well-loved game that up to eight people
could play after just one of them shelled out $20 for it. Illuminati: New World
Order is very similar components-wise, but even a "One with everything" deck costs
much more money ($70?), and doesn't realistically allow more than about three
people to play using it.
>Boardgamers are exactly the kind of people who SHOULD like the more
>strategic, less expensive CCGs enormously, yet they are sticking their
>noses in the air and rejecting a whole realm of games which they would
>probably enjoy a great deal. So why does this prejudice exist?
It is not prejudice. It is a very rational rejection of a class of games based on a
fundamental aspect of them which we hate.
Brent Krupp (flet...@u.washington.edu)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~fletcher/
"The fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from
one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater
wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only
from one end of the bar to the other."
-- Edward R. Murrow
Tom Grant
says...
>
Well said! I play CCGs myself, but I still consider them to be an inferior
alternative to both boardgames and role-playing games. I'd much rather buy
a game and be able to play it right away, instead of spending lots of money
and needless hours sorting through cards, building decks, etc.
I happen to like Magic, Doomtrooper, INWO, and a few other CCGs, so I'm no
bigot. However, much like the person writing this post, one big feature I
liked about the old Illuminati vs. INWO was that you got everything in one
box, and the card selection was designed to keep the game balanced. The
same goes for Cosmic Encounter, one of the best games of all time, soon
also to be supplanted by a CCG alternative.
Essentially, I don't prefer CCGs because they're too expensive for too
little return, in comparison to other games I've played right out of the
box for a lot less money ($35 for the Mayfair version of Cosmic
Encounter!). However, I'll admit to snobbery about one point.
Sure, the CCGs cards are often gorgeous, and a few of the better games can
have a lot of variety. However, I have to lend a lot more respect to the
designers of games like ASL, Third Reich, and other historical simulations.
Who else spends so much time and care researching the history behind a
game, and then tries to strike a difficult balance between realism and
playability? And how much more brainpower does it take to master a game
like, say, The Russian Campaign or Squad Leader than OverPower or Dragon
Dice?
Phew. Finally, I said it. I'm a historical simulation snob.
==========================================
"The punishment which the wise suffer,
who refuse to take part in the government,
is to live under the government of
worse men."
--Plato
------------------------------------------
Tom Grant
Documentation Manager
Web and Workgroup Systems Division
Oracle Corporation
tgr...@us.oracle.com
==========================================
DANNY HOLTE
>
>By the way, somebody alleged that you were a publisher. If this is
>untrue, then I will commit to defending you and demanding a retraction
>from that person. In this context, that implies that you are attacking
>people for not buying your games -- extremely unfair if untrue.
>
>If it is true, could somebody who knows please e-mail
>rudi...@utdallas.edu, with the name of the company so I can know to
>boycott their products and/or write a letter of protest? Note: I did
>*not* ask that that information be put out publicly on the net. But
>unless I learn otherwise, I will assume that this is just a false and
>unfair accusation from somebody who didn't like your comments.
Hey, I'll ask! Please, someone post it publically!
Let's get something GOING here!
A CCG publisher crossing newsgroup boundaries, abusing and stereotyping the users in
their own domain, and all for personal profit?
I LOVE it!
"SATAN'S MINIONS OR JUST CCG PUBLISHERS? This afternoon on Heraldo we're going
to..."
BAAAHAHAHAHA!
<vwg>
Danny
Brian Hebert
[snip! Sorry if I messed up the attribution here]
>Are you sure about that? I would venture to say that the game Up Front has
>been discussed on this group from time to time. Most people even consider it
>some kind of variant of a board game. It is clearly a "card game" and not a
>board game. It is not collectable. I suspect this is the root of the
>problem. I think ccg's are some kind of cross between a miniatures game,
>where no on complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board
>games. Yet I don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular basis.
Two points:
First, I think you would see "slagging of miniatures" (interesting word
choice :) if there were a problem of mini players posting in r.g.b. The
genres are pretty distinct and they each have their own group, so there's
really no reason to discuss, say Warhammer, on r.g.b. I think the
original poster, Dave "did I mention what a great game QftG is" Nalle,
really has his nose bent out of shape because he'd like to promote his
game on r.g.b. and folks there consistently (and *usually* politely) ask him
not to.
Second, collectibility of miniatures is quite distinguishable from
collectibility of cards in ccgs. You can have the most expensive,
coolest, prettiest, most historically accurate miniatures on the table,
and besides any slight psychological value, it won't affect game play.
Collectibility in ccg's affects the *rules* of the game. This is what
makes them quite different from traditional board or miniature games.
Some people like them and play them. Some people don't. But they have
their own newsgroups and it is courtesy, not prejudice, which requires
that they not be discussed in r.g.b.
A last note, I own and play both and believe that ccg's shouldn't be
discussed in r.g.b. I don't know why Dave "did I mention what a great
game QftG is" Nalle chose to criticize the r.g.b. community so rudely,
but he should realize that he's not just alienating "prejudiced"
opponents of ccg's, he's alienating potential players of QftG as well.
Not the marketing approach I'd take.
Erich Schneider
>I think ccg's are some kind of cross between a miniatures game, where
>no on complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board
>games. Yet I don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular
>basis.
I have heard some people criticize Games Workshop on a basis similar
to this. Occasionally, it seems, Citadel Miniatures would come up with
a keen new hunk of lead they wanted to sell, so _White Dwarf_ would
publish some "supplementary rules" for said hunk making it a real boss
unit in one of GW's games, making everyone want to go out and buy the
figure so they could get a leg up on their Warhammer 40K (etc.)
gaming partners. When a new miniature came along, the cycle repeated.
This led to the question "_White Dwarf: gaming magazine, rules supplement,
catalog, or dessert topping?".
--
Erich Schneider er...@bush.cs.tamu.edu http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/~erich
"The Hierophant is Disguised and Confused."
Chris Camfield
Aside from the discussion issue mentioned in a previous article, the
thing I shake my head at is the amount of money that some CCG players
send on their games. Hundreds of dollars, on maybe one game.... and I
realize that they could get a lot back or more by selling those cards
individually, but still:
If you spent several hundred dollars on board games, you would get many
more _complete_ games. Just think about the differences between
playing Civilization, Titan, Diplomacy, Star Fleet Battles, Eurorails,
Advanced Squad Leader, etc. It seems to me there is a much broader
range of _different gaming experiences_ to be found in board games
because there is a greater flexibility available to the designers.
I have no problem with CCGs as games - far from it! But may I play
with part of your deck? Thanks. :)
So, a little plea to CCGers: before you next spend $30 on some more
cards, why not try something completely different? You might enjoy
a board game!
Chris
--
Christopher Camfield ccam...@uwaterloo.ca
1996 BMath Joint CS/C&O [1998 BA Classical Studies]
"contra negantem principia non est disputandem"
("there is no disputing with one who denies the first principles")
Bob Rossney
>In article <graball-0112...@rezaul.ccsi.com> gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) writes:
>>After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
>>there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
>>gamers.
>> [...]
>In a board game, the resource each player has at his disposal is
>defined by the game. In a CCG, it is influenced by the amount
>of money the player spends on the game. THIS is the aspect that
>boardgamers hate. They hate playing a game in which the player
>who spends more money buying cards has an advantage, even a
>perceived one as some (blind?) MtG adherents claim. If you
>buy just a starter and 2 boosters and build a deck to play
>against a tuned deck in MtG, you'll know what I mean.
It must be said: it's possible to buy nothing more than 2 Dixie decks
and have a pretty good time playing it. The collectability aspect of this
game doesn't seem all that compelling, unless you're really into getting one
card for each regiment at Shiloh or whatever.
Similarly, it's not at all necessary to buy a ton of SimCity decks - and
indeed, the MtG deck-vs-deck approach isn't even used in SimCity.
(Though I'm not sure that SimCity is a very good game, though that's
another issue.)
CCGs aren't inherently evil. But they also aren't, you know, board games.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Monty Ashley
>In a CCG, you aren't using the same deck as everyone else. This means
>that you have to spend a lot of money and bring your own deck wherever you
>play. It also means that you can't have some cards that are better than
>others, only cards that are better in some particular situations.
You don't "have to spend a lot of money". Maybe, for *some* games, you
have to spend money to keep up with *other* people who spent a lot of money,
but there's ways around that: a local "league", with a spending cap,
for example.
OTOH, for sheer spending power, Magic (or fill-in-th-CCG-here) really
has nothing on, say, Advanced Squad Leader. Now *there's* a money
sink!
-Monty
--
"The banana _hates_ the apple." -Ratbert
*** This message brought to you direct from the Box of Snakes ***
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
been discussed on this group from time to time. Most people even consider it
some kind of variant of a board game. It is clearly a "card game" and not a
board game. It is not collectable. I suspect this is the root of the
Malebroche
>untrue, then I will commit to defending you and demanding a retraction
>from that person. In this context, that implies that you are attacking
>people for not buying your games -- extremely unfair if untrue.
What difference does whether or not the poster is a publisher make?
From what I read of the original post it was entirely generic in
nature and had nothing to do with any specific game.
>If it is true, could somebody who knows please e-mail
>rudi...@utdallas.edu, with the name of the company so I can know to
>boycott their products and/or write a letter of protest? Note: I did
>*not* ask that that information be put out publicly on the net. But
>unless I learn otherwise, I will assume that this is just a false and
>unfair accusation from somebody who didn't like your comments.
What kind of a jerk are you, anyway? Are you a member of the
American Family Association too?
Mal
Michael Lindeman
>In article <DJ06p...@midway.uchicago.edu>, mtli...@woodlawn.uchicago.edu (Michael Lindeman) writes:
>> You haven't played and given up Warhammer 40,000 yet, have you?
>>
>Actually I have never played 40K, I am familiar with the usual arguements
>about GW stuff. That is not the point here. The point is the fact that each
>player has to buy an individual supply of game components is unlikely to be
>the reason that any prejudice exists against CCG's. It is unlikely to be the
>fact the game is played with cards, as evidenced by games like Up Front.
I don't think you understand my phrase. I never said the
point that each player has to buy an individual supply of game components
is the problem. The problem is that each player has to buy an individual
supply of game components. Then, a new army list comes out, and each
player has to buy a new supply of game components. Then, my opponent
decides to spend $30 on the Ork nobz weapon of doom. I am outclassed.
So Games Workshop sells me the Space Marine Imperator weapon of doom. Then
the Chaos force is out classed. So he is forced to buy...
This is the problem, both with Warhammer 40K and CCGs. Not the
fact that I have to buy my own stuff, but that the fact that I spend
$90 on this rare piece of equipment let's me kick the crap out of the guy
who didn't. Why not just play, my very own new, thought up on the spot,
card game.
Send me whatever denomination of money you wish. I will send
you an official Dragonbill amount back (the same amount you sent me).
The rules are simple, and that is what makes the game exciting. You
play your amount of money. Your opponent plays his. You each roll a three
sided die. Multiply that by the amount of your money. The person with
the higher end result wins. It's exciting, yet simple.
--
-Michael Lindeman is: mtli...@midway.uchicago.edu
Canticle
> In article <graball-0112...@rezaul.ccsi.com>, gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) says:
> >It's sort of weird, but I feel sorry for them. The boardgamers who take
> >this stance are, after all, the ones who are losing out.
> Why? Because they have a different taste? CCGs are something which has
> been promoted a bit too enthusiastic by their vendors, and the rich-
Actually, I think the major problem with CCGs is far too many RPG store
owners and operators are pulling investment out of other lines of gaming
in order to pour funds into CCGs...which is a very bad idea. Diversity
allows you to suck up a lot in the way of trend losses (when CCGs go out
of fashion for example, we'll be doing business in other areas enough to
compensate). Business wise, it's a foolish thing to promote CCGs over
other product lines, and for the gaming community, it is a bad thing
because you are pulling support away from other areas.
> >Now roleplayers are a whole different kettle of fish. I think they have
> >some legitimate reason to resent CCGs.
> Why???
Probably for the reasons I outlined above...far too many store owners
have pulled out of other areas of gaming to leap into the CCG market.
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{}Jeff Franzmann {} Turning to go {}
{}Internet Representative {} Heard you call out my name {}
{}Campaign Outfitters {} Like a bird in a cage {}
{}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Spreading its wings to fly {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Campaign Outfitters Home Page & Orders:http://www.aratar.mb.ca/aratar
Opinions expressed above are mine, and may not reflect those of my employer.
GothCode1.1 GoSS+ T3(4) B11Bk@ c1z++ P1(3,4) M++ a22 n---- b+:- H5'7" g m--#
w++ r+ D+ h+P(3,4) s9 k++ R+ Ssy LcaMB+
David desJardins
> This is exactly how I feel, but several times I have gotten extremely
> hostile comments and email from board gamers regarding CCGs, and some of
> the posts to this thread seem to support my original belief that there are
> boardgamers who harbor a serious grudge against CCGs for reasons beyond
> just a proliferation of posts on r.g.b.
Of course there are. I'll be the first to say that I'm unhappy about
the fact that a significant number of my potential and former opponents
are no longer available to me because they are off playing CCGs instead.
About the fact that game shops carry less of the products that I'm
interested in, because CCGs are more profitable. About the fact that
game designers whose work I enjoy are designing CCGs instead of games
that I want to play.
But none of that has much to do with the question of whether I
personally want to play CCGs. The fact that I have a "grudge" regarding
the subject is an entirely separate question from that of whether I have
rational reasons for not wanting to play such games.
The simple fact is that collecting does _not_ appeal to me, that I
actively dislike the idea of playing a game where I have opportunities
and options that aren't exactly equal to those of my opponents. That's
a philosophical objection that most of the responses to your posting
have made, and which you have repeatedly and continually ignored.
Instead you pick out the lone poster who says that CCGs cost too much,
which I think is _not_ the primary problem that most board gamers have
with them. (In my experience, the more money people have, the less
likely they are to be attracted to CCGs. CCGs appeal to young people,
like high school students, in a way that board games never have.)
> My intention in making the original post was to generate an interesting
> and constructive discussion which would bring two groups of gamers with
> similar interests together.
If you want that to happen, then you have to be willing to accept the
fundamental fact that there are good, rational reasons why some board
gamers do not like CCGs, and address those reasons. I happen to believe
that there are, in fact, lots of ways in which CCG developers can appeal
to that group who has so far rejected them. But the first step has to
be to understand and accept their reasons and their preferences, rather
than dismissing them out of hand.
If you were to say, "Yes, I understand that some players do like games
of strategy and maneuver, but don't like games where one player can gain
an advantage over another by collecting and trading cards, and here's my
reaction to that," then I think you would get a response 180 degrees
different from what you get by just ignoring those preferences.
David desJardins
--
Copyright 1995 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote
from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.
John_Da...@cup.portal.com
present the "charges against CCGs" and see who can answer them.
1. When I buy a game, I expect to get a complete game, which I can keep and
play for years and become good at it. Many CCGs, and especially Magic, are
marketed like the "I Love Lucy" episode with the vacuum cleaner salesman.
First he sells you "the works." After buying it, you discover you haven't
bought everything, but just the "guts" of the machine (game), and he offers
you "accessories" (really the other parts of a complete game) at ever higher
markups. The difference between the two is that at some point, Lucy has the
entire vacuum cleaner and can stop buying -- but you never have a "complete"
Magic game, because they keep coming out with new cards that make your deck
obsolete (= no longer competitive in an average convention tournament).
Worse, if you started in the last two years, you can't even GET a deck that
isn't obsolete, unless you want to pay collectors $100+ EACH for the key,
indispensable cards which are out of print!
(Aside: I feel that the rightful purpose and use of copyright is to ensure
that authors get paid -- NOT to let them deprive a lot of people by publishing
"limited editions" or short print runs. If a work is out of print for a year,
anyone should be free to copy it. Write your congressperson. Followups on
this to talk.politics.*, please.)
2. A good game is social. That means it doesn't require more solo setup
time than playing time. CCGs do. Usually 3-4 times as much.
3. A good game requires significant thinking and strategy, DURING the game.
In a CCG, there is very little opportunity for that. All the thinking comes
during deck construction.
John David Galt
John_Da...@cup.portal.com
1-800-GAME-CLUB.
Malebroche
They want lots of people to play, but more importantly, they want the
>people who do play to pay more. So they keep making new and more
>powerful cards that you need to buy if you want to win.
If this were true it would be a legitimate basis for complaint. But even
Magic the Gathering isn't designed with that intention. Magic has gone
through a process which is almost exactly the opposite of this. The
publishers are removing powerful cards from the set and concentrating more
powerful cards in the more common frequencies. In Type II play the best
decks are often ones made with well chosen common cards.
Any card game company which followed the strategy you suggest would
alienate their customers very quickly, because most people buy these games
to play them.
I'm guessing that most of the vehement anti CCG posters here are reacting
mostly to the legendary high prices associated with MtG without knowing
much about other CCGs which are very, very different.
Most CCGs aren't really all that collectible and have little difference in
value between rare and common cards. Most CCGs are just bought to be
played, and YES you can play with my cards.
And I've seen someone pay $350 for a mint copy of SPI's Campaign for North
Africa, so it could be argued that boardgames (at least ones which go out
of print) are just as guilty of collectibility.
Mal (I can't believe I just defended MtG)
RagnarokGC
Were you reading this group when Magic came out. If you were then you
would know why there is resentment to *discussion* of CCGs in
rec.games.board. It has nothing to do with prejudice as I think a lot of
people on this group have played CCGs at one time or another.<<
I wasn't reading r.g.b at the time Magic came out and I wasn't aware of
this problem. Had I been I might not have brought the topic up, because I
would have been aware that not all responses would have been entirely
rational.
My intention in making the original post was to generate an interesting
and constructive discussion which would bring two groups of gamers with
similar interests together. After reviewing this thread it is clear that
I was naive. I wish I could take my original post back and end this whole
discussion, but the horse is out of the gate, so to speak.
>> I think you're way off in your opinion of attitudes towards CCGs among
gamers of all types. CCGs are just another genre of games which some
people like and others don't; prejudice is not an issue.<<
This is exactly how I feel, but several times I have gotten extremely
hostile comments and email from board gamers regarding CCGs, and some of
the posts to this thread seem to support my original belief that there are
boardgamers who harbor a serious grudge against CCGs for reasons beyond
just a proliferation of posts on r.g.b.
Dave Nalle
(posting from an AOL account because our regular server is down)
RagnarokGC
they are won, in almost all cases, by the person who
has spent the most money, as opposed to the person
who is a good strategist or even just someone who is
lucky.<<
This is exactly the kind of complaint I had hoped to address in this
discussion, because while your opinion is true of some early CCGs, more
and more it is not the case with the newer CCGs. I think that designers
and publishers have realized that they have to place playability first and
use the collectible aspect of these games as a way of adding depth and
variety, rather than just gouging the customer.
I've been a boardgamer ever since I first played Gettysburg 22 years ago,
and what attracted me to CCGs was the huge variety of strategies which are
possible when you have such a large number of cards to draw on. The
customizability and the design strategies add a level of sophistication
which very few other games can match. Some wargames do it, but usually at
a cost of considerable mechanical complexity.
Dave Nalle
(posting from this account because our regular news server is down)
RagnarokGC
an online rep for a game publisher.
Apparently that makes me automatically a vapid shill in the minds of some.
However, I was a gamer and a boardgamer before I ever got involved in
publishing, and like most game designers I got into the field because I
liked playing games and wanted to share my ideas with others.
It made me curious when I saw otherwise rational folks rejecting a whole
class of games which they might otherwise enjoy because of assumptions
which I believe to be false. If I shared those assumptions I would never
have become involved in designing a CCG.
I thought we might be able to bring the two sides in the argument together
in a productive way and set the record straight. I did not intend to
engender acrimony, and I clearly wasn't trying to promote any specific
game.
I suggest we just let this thread drop if we can't turn it into something
useful.
Dave Nalle
(posting from another account because our regular server is down)
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
>In article <49qf8f$6...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> zor...@Hoover.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>>no on complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board
>>games. Yet I don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular
>>basis.
>
>to this. Occasionally, it seems, Citadel Miniatures would come up with
>a keen new hunk of lead they wanted to sell, so _White Dwarf_ would
>publish some "supplementary rules" for said hunk making it a real boss
>unit in one of GW's games, making everyone want to go out and buy the
>figure so they could get a leg up on their Warhammer 40K (etc.)
>gaming partners. When a new miniature came along, the cycle repeated.
>
>This led to the question "_White Dwarf: gaming magazine, rules supplement,
>catalog, or dessert topping?".
This is actually a pretty well known phenomenon. However, you don't hear
people saying miniatures are a brainless genre of gaming because of it. Even
in games which don't engage in this there can be a miniatures arms race. Look
at something like DBM, you might need/want to buy new miniatures to get a new
army that can beat the army of your regular opponents or to fill out a list in
just the right way.
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
>>It is not collectable. I suspect this is the root of the
>>games. Yet I don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular basis.
>
>
Actually I have never played 40K, I am familiar with the usual arguements
about GW stuff. That is not the point here. The point is the fact that each
player has to buy an individual supply of game components is unlikely to be
the reason that any prejudice exists against CCG's. It is unlikely to be the
fact the game is played with cards, as evidenced by games like Up Front.
Michael Lindeman
>It is not collectable. I suspect this is the root of the
>problem. I think ccg's are some kind of cross between a miniatures game,
>where no on complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board
>games. Yet I don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular basis.
You haven't played and given up Warhammer 40,000 yet, have you?
--
-Michael Lindeman is: mtli...@midway.uchicago.edu
Jose Garcia
(RagnarokGC) wrote:
> >>actually, the reason i hate ccgs so much is because
> they are won, in almost all cases, by the person who
> has spent the most money, as opposed to the person
> who is a good strategist or even just someone who is
> lucky.<<
>
That's not universaly true there are some games where deck
construction skill, tactics and in some cases inter player politics is
more important than having 5 copies of every single card printed. I was
playing Shadowfist yesterday at a local gaming store showing off the new
Netherworld cards. Some people wanted to join in but left their decks at
home, I handed out my killer decks took a few starters and quickly
modified using a small collection of cards that were lying about. We then
split off into groups and played a few multiplayer games, the barely tuned
starters won several games in competition with people who had complete
sets (and in some cases several complete sets) and had constructed tuned
decks using that collection.
But then again I'm hardly impartial.
On the other hand, if what I hear about people disliking games where
players don't use identical rules/components then there's no point trying
to create a "TCG for boardgamers" because that is *the* entire point to
TCGs (its not collecting, at least not for most people).
Jose Garcia
Shadowfist Co-Designer
jga...@halcyon.com
Shadowfist FAQ available at http://www.halcyon.com/rev/faq.html
dan...@beta.delphi.com
>OTOH, for sheer spending power, Magic (or fill-in-th-CCG-here) really
>has nothing on, say, Advanced Squad Leader. Now *there's* a money
>sink!
>
Actually, there's no comparison here.
You -can- spend a lot on Advanced Squad Leader. But, all you really need is the
Rules and Beyond Valor or Paratrooper. Yes, you can add all of the modules and
spend a few hundred dollars (If you're buying at list price and brand new). With
this, you will have every 'option' open to an ASL player and you'll be able to
compete at every level of tournament play. Of course, only one player in the game
needs to own these.
If we are comparing M:TG to ASL in this way, we must now buy EVERY card in M:TG,
including all of the moxes, black lotus, etc (which you must have to compete at the
highest levels). Ka-CHING! Ka-CHING! Since the only way you're going to get these
cards is to buy 'pre-collected' ones, let's compare that to buying used ASL gear.
Now the disparity begins to REALLY grow. Thousands vs. probably $150.00
Anyway, there are some GREAT card games out there; Pit, Poker, Mille Bornes, and
the best(IMHO), Up Front by AH. M:TG and is an okay game; it's the 'collectible'
aspect that is suspect.
-Danny
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
>As one who has this "prejudice," I feel there are good reasons for it. Let me
>present the "charges against CCGs" and see who can answer them.
>
>1. When I buy a game, I expect to get a complete game, which I can keep and
>play for years and become good at it. Many CCGs, and especially Magic, are
>marketed like the "I Love Lucy" episode with the vacuum cleaner salesman.
>First he sells you "the works." After buying it, you discover you haven't
>bought everything, but just the "guts" of the machine (game), and he offers
>you "accessories" (really the other parts of a complete game) at ever higher
>markups. The difference between the two is that at some point, Lucy has the
>entire vacuum cleaner and can stop buying -- but you never have a "complete"
>Magic game, because they keep coming out with new cards that make your deck
>obsolete (= no longer competitive in an average convention tournament).
>Worse, if you started in the last two years, you can't even GET a deck that
>isn't obsolete, unless you want to pay collectors $100+ EACH for the key,
>indispensable cards which are out of print!
>
>(Aside: I feel that the rightful purpose and use of copyright is to ensure
>that authors get paid -- NOT to let them deprive a lot of people by publishing
>"limited editions" or short print runs. If a work is out of print for a year,
>anyone should be free to copy it. Write your congressperson. Followups on
>this to talk.politics.*, please.)
Well this pretty much rules out most miniatures games as well as CCGs. Do you
have the same problems with miniatures games? Games in which it is possible
to spend just as much as one does on say magic, and this includes games which
are not put out buy Games Workshop.
>
>2. A good game is social. That means it doesn't require more solo setup
>time than playing time. CCGs do. Usually 3-4 times as much.
>
This is one of the big advantages of CCGs. I have spent many happy _hours_
playing CCGs against a wide variety of opponents on the same night. This is
something that does not really happen with board games. Indeed one of the big
advantages of CCGs is that in many ways they can be more social than
traditional board games.
>3. A good game requires significant thinking and strategy, DURING the game.
>In a CCG, there is very little opportunity for that. All the thinking comes
>during deck construction.
Again this is not necessarily true. First, CCGs can have a good amount of in
game thinking. Second, many board and miniatures games involve significant
amounts of pre-game thinking, at least as much as CCGs. If you don't believe
this try to set up a good defense in the ASL scenario Sea of Tranquility. I
played it once as the Japanese and spent at least 2 hours setting up a
defense. I hae also been led to believe that the miniatures game Armati is
determined primarily by pre-game setup.
>
>John David Galt
Allan Goodall
long to repeat here).
I am a gamer. I like games. Period. My first love is miniatures, but I
mostly play RPGs because my social group is heavily into Call of Cthulhu
and other RPGs. When M:TG came out, I picked up a couple of decks,
enjoyed the game, picked up some decks for my wife, and the two of us
started to play. When Jihad came out, we started playing that. I
preferred it due to the deeper strategy elements.
The problem with CCGs is the collecting aspect: if you don't "Keep up
with the Joneses" you will fall behind in an arms race. In fact, M:TG
may be a better simulation of the cold war than people give it credit.
:-)
If the extra cards don't add variety and change the game, why should you
buy them? How many 1/1 creatures do you need? When Dixie came out, I
gathered up all of the Bull Run cards because there was strategy in the
game and because after you had one of each of the 200 cards, you were
done. Of course, now there's Shiloh, and the Waterloo game...
I just heard that a friend has discovered M:TG. Before our next Cthulhu
game, I'm going to play it with him. As I said, I like the game. It's not
bad as a beer-and-pretzels kind of game, but if I didn't get a large
discount at a friend's comic store, I would never have gotten into it.
The cost is just too prohibitive. I hear that INWO is different in that
a small cost outlay (for CCGs) can give you a game that plays like
Illuminati. Fine, but I already have the original Illuminati, thank you
very much.
Another friend plays at work with 6 other players (he works in the head
office of a large bank). They made the rule early that you could only
play with a deck made up of 6 booster cards. The strategy element is
almost gone as there is no deck building, but with fairly little cost
paid by each player, they have created a beer-and-pretzel game that they
can finish in a lunch time. Even still, if you add up the TOTAL cost,
they spent more money on M:TG than on almost any major simulation game.
Oh, well. The fad is dying. Ask any game store and they will tell you
that CCG sales are dropping as players become more jaded, tired of
the "yet another CCG" syndrome as the market fractures, and (quite
frankly) feel that they've spent enough on their games. Many are just
plain tired of the games (which have an annoying tendancy to look exactly
like every other CCG). Anyone putting out a new CCG has already missed
the crest of the wave. In three years, things will be quieter around
here as all but a few die off.
Hmm. What's this in the desk drawer. It's a deck of cards. Anyone want to
play? It's not collectible, and there are only 52 cards in the deck, but
it comes with some neat scenarios. This one's called "Poker" and you play
it like...
--
Allan Goodall, Sales and Marketing Systems, Kodak Canada, Inc.
INTERNET: all...@kodak.com
VOICE: (416) 766-8233 ext 35473 FAX: (416) 760-4597
Visit the Kodak Web site at: http://www.kodak.com
rudi...@utdallas.edu
> A final note of clarification. Someone took issue with the fact that I'm
> an online rep for a game publisher.
Let me clarify myself. I do not object to the fact that you are a
publisher. I do not object to the fact that, as a publisher, you are on
the net trying to generate interest in your games. I *do* object to your
insults about me and my friends because we aren't buying your games.
We are both free people, in a free society. You have the right to call
me prejudiced, and several other things besides. I have the right to
spend my gaming dollars where I choose. We both choose to exercise our
rights.
> I thought we might be able to bring the two sides in the argument together
> in a productive way and set the record straight. I did not intend to
> engender acrimony, and I clearly wasn't trying to promote any specific
> game.
These goals are simply inconsistent with accusing one side of prejudice,
insecurity, and fear. Such accusations push the two sides apart in a
non-productive way, and keep the record from being set straight. They
also engender acrimony. We will assume that it is the merest coincidence
that you are just now publishing Quest for the Grail, a CCG.
> I suggest we just let this thread drop if we can't turn it into something
> useful.
It has turned into something useful, at least on my account. As much
interest as I have in the Arthurian mythos, I was about to get involved
in my second CCG. Now I won't, and I've saved some money.
Jay Rudin
rudi...@utdallas.edu
> What kind of a jerk are you, anyway? Are you a member of the
> American Family Association too?
Mal, I'm the kind of jerk who doesn't like being insulted. I didn't like
being called prejudiced, and I don't like being called a jerk.
By the way, I don't even know what the American Family Association is.
Jay Rudin
Alan Kantor
>
>The simple fact is that collecting does _not_ appeal to me, that I
>actively dislike the idea of playing a game where I have opportunities
>and options that aren't exactly equal to those of my opponents.
I began collecting and playing Magic: The Gathering since the
Alpha/Beta release. I was very high on the game during the first year. It was
different and exciting. There seemed to be a limit to the total number of cards
available and rarity levels had some meaning. That is (or was), An opponent
might have a rare card which you do not have but you would possess a different,
equally powerful rare card.
THEN THE GAME BECAME EXTREMELY POPULAR.
This destroyed the rarity levels and it became a game of aquisition of
cards outside the playing session. The trading aspect paled rather quickly as
everyone started assembling small, deadly decks. The additional expansions
further destroyed the playing value of the cards. There were so many cards and
so many rules changes that I dropped the entire game, sold my cards for a
handsome profit and explored other avenues of gaming.
Board games have never lost their playability for me. Monopoly,
Balderdash, Axis & Allies, Risk... whatever. All of these games can be left
for weeks or months and when one returns to them, they are still playable with
the original equipment. Nobody has buit extra spaces onto the board or decided
that certain die rolls don't count.
Right now I AM enjoying the collectible DICE game called Dragon Dice
though I suspect that this too will become a "most cash wins" type of game. It
incorporates a limit on certain aspects of the game which will be useful in
avoiding this however (for those of you reading who play Dragon Dice, I am
referring to the battle levels aspect of the game).
Pardoz
>As one who has this "prejudice," I feel there are good reasons for it. Let
>me
>present the "charges against CCGs" and see who can answer them.
Fair enough. I'll give the counter-case a stab.
>1. When I buy a game, I expect to get a complete game, which I can keep and
>play for years and become good at it. Many CCGs, and especially Magic, are
>marketed like the "I Love Lucy" episode with the vacuum cleaner salesman.
>First he sells you "the works." After buying it, you discover you haven't
>bought everything, but just the "guts" of the machine (game), and he offers
>you "accessories" (really the other parts of a complete game) at ever higher
>markups.
Quite unlike, off the top of my head, ASL, SFB, or any of Games
Orkshop's games, right?
Cheap shots aside, there's some truth to this (especially in regard
to Magic, for historical reasons). On the other hand, a lot of the more
recent games are quite playable out of a single starter deck (On The Edge is
a good example - there's an entire international league based around single
starter play). Granted, a single starter probably won't be competitive in
the average tournament (unless it's a sealed-deck tourney or something
similar), but so what?
>2. A good game is social. That means it doesn't require more solo setup
>time than playing time. CCGs do. Usually 3-4 times as much.
Not in my experience. I take, on average, fifteen or twenty minutes
to put together a deck. An average three or four player game may last half
an hour or forty-five minutes, and we usually get in four or five games in an
evening (a bunch of us get together once a week to play). One of the things
I like about CCGs is that since setup (deck design) is an essentially solo
activity, people do it before they show up to play, which is something I
appreciate - I don't have nigh as much time to spend on gaming as I used to,
and if I've only got a few hours to spend I'd like to spend 'em *playing*,
not setting up.
>3. A good game requires significant thinking and strategy, DURING the game.
Agreed.
>In a CCG, there is very little opportunity for that. All the thinking comes
>during deck construction.
Yes and no. Deck design is strategy; playing the resulting deck is
tactics, and a good CCG leaves a lot of room for tactical decisions during
play in my experience.
Maintainer of Liad, the Liaden universe mailing list (to subscribe send
mail to majo...@io.com with "subscribe Liad" in the body of your message) or
use the forms at http://www.io.com/~pardoz.
Markus Stumptner
>In article <49p55f$e...@nkosi.well.com>, r...@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney) writes:
>>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>>>In article <graball-0112...@rezaul.ccsi.com> gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) writes:
>>>>After reading postings on rec.games.board I've become accutely aware that
>>>>there is a prejudice against CCGs of any kind among 'traditional' board
>>>>gamers.
Keep this kind of trolls to the trading-card groups, please, that's
what they're for. There is no generic prejudice among board gamers
against these (in fact I have many friends who play those games). There
is, however, significant annoyance created by people who can't keep to
the relevant newsgroups.
(Personally, I won't buy a game that is nothing but a blatant
marketing scheme. But that is everybody's own individual decision.)
>>CCGs aren't inherently evil. But they also aren't, you know, board games.
>>
>Are you sure about that?
Yes.
>I would venture to say that the game Up Front has
>been discussed on this group from time to time. Most people even consider it
>some kind of variant of a board game.
Not anyone I've played it with.
>It is clearly a "card game" and not a
>board game. It is not collectable. I suspect this is the root of the
>problem.
There is no problem. Up Front is not collectible and therefore
does not have a group of its own. Discussions on it are limited,
and therefore it's no annoyance to anyone. In fact, there has probably
been about as much Up Front traffic in this group over the last
six months as there was CCG traffic in this group over the last
two weeks due to David Nalle's advertisement crossposting. I wish
him good luck with his "perhaps they'll buy my game if I insult them"
approach.
>I think ccg's are some kind of cross between a miniatures game,
>where no on complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board
>games. Yet I don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular basis.
Because the miniatures gamers are capable of keeping to the miniatures
groups instead of keeping crusading to rec.games.board, as CCG proponents
keep doing? And because miniatures rules are usually not based
on the notion of "who spends most, wins easiest"? I any case, they
have no problem accepting that miniatures and boardgames are something
different (yes, I play with miniatures, too).
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Technische Universitaet Wien m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria vexpert!m...@relay.eu.net
You may just have missed your last chance for incremental garbage collection.
Alec Habig
>I think ccg's are some kind of cross between a miniatures game, where no on
>complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board games. Yet I
>don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular basis.
Miniature gamers (excluding some anal Games Workshop fiends) aren't usually
worried about the figure representing exactly what it looks like. In CCG
lingo, "proxies" are happily accepted (usually). I don't have to paint up a
zillion different regiments of Rebels to play "Johhny Reb" - my Virginia regt,
a Missouri regt, and a generic unit were accepted as three Alabama regiments
without question yesterday. I even fleshed out the units (which were larger
than usual in this scenario) with stands from a Texas regt.
One of my Skaven Gutter Runners in Blood Bowl got the long legs mutation, and
is now represented by a werewolf figure. My "stunty" mutant is represented by
a "halfling in full plate" figure from Grenadier's "Comedy Lords" box. No
one's complained. In fact, these guys have gotten me complements for
originality.
Now, try this in a CCG. Turn a swamp into a Black Lotus with a magic marker,
then try to make it out of the room alive.
Another big difference - the attitude of the gamers to their collections in the
two games. I'm putting a lot of time and skill into painting up some figures,
and am proud of my work (as well as their usefulness in a game). A CCG gamer
is proud of his trading skill, or how much money he dropped on a card (as well
as how useful it is). So both games contain a "collection" aspect, but the
motivations are quite different.
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Alec Habig
>John_Da...@cup.portal.com wrote:
>>1. When I buy a game, I expect to get a complete game, which I can keep and
>>play for years and become good at it. Many CCGs, and especially Magic, are
>>marketed like the "I Love Lucy" episode with the vacuum cleaner salesman.
>>First he sells you "the works." After buying it, you discover you haven't
>>bought everything, but just the "guts" of the machine (game), and he offers
>>you "accessories" (really the other parts of a complete game) at ever higher
>>markups.
>
> Quite unlike, off the top of my head, ASL, SFB, or any of Games
>Orkshop's games, right?
Yes, very much unlike ASL and SFB. The basic ASL buy is advertised as a WWII
squad level game featuring conflict between Russians and Germans. This is
exactly what you get. One buys it, they can play it. Their friends can play
it. They never need buy another ASL product as long as they live. The same
story with SFB.
Now go to the store. Buy one starter deck of any CCG out there aside from
INWO. Can you play a game with it? NO! Your friend needs to buy one too.
Then you can play some pale approximation of the game you'd play if you went
and bought enough cards to tune your deck, or design different decks. Why?
Because, as everyone admits, a big part of the fun and game play of a CCG is
designing your deck, sommething you can't really do out od a single starter
deck (modulo intense trading, natch - but we're back to the problem that many
people don't find trading enjoyable).
The supplements for ASL and SFB expand upon the basic game in much the same way
as expansion sets of a CCG - more variety. But we're talking the basic game,
here.
> Cheap shots aside, there's some truth to this (especially in regard
>to Magic, for historical reasons). On the other hand, a lot of the more
>recent games are quite playable out of a single starter deck (On The Edge is
>a good example - there's an entire international league based around single
>starter play). Granted, a single starter probably won't be competitive in
>the average tournament (unless it's a sealed-deck tourney or something
>similar), but so what?
Not quite - your single starter deck can only be played if you know someone
else who's also got at least a single starter deck. This seems to be one of
the main gripes of the r.g.b. crowd.
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
>Dave Nalle/RagnarokGC <ragna...@aol.com> writes:
>> This is exactly how I feel, but several times I have gotten extremely
>> hostile comments and email from board gamers regarding CCGs, and some of
>> the posts to this thread seem to support my original belief that there are
>> boardgamers who harbor a serious grudge against CCGs for reasons beyond
>> just a proliferation of posts on r.g.b.
>
>the fact that a significant number of my potential and former opponents
>are no longer available to me because they are off playing CCGs instead.
>About the fact that game shops carry less of the products that I'm
>interested in, because CCGs are more profitable. About the fact that
>game designers whose work I enjoy are designing CCGs instead of games
>that I want to play.
I have often thought this is the real root of prejudice by boardgamers and rpg
players to CCGs. The fact the a new product, which they don't care for, has
come onto the seen and gotten all of the attention and players.
>
>But none of that has much to do with the question of whether I
>personally want to play CCGs. The fact that I have a "grudge" regarding
>the subject is an entirely separate question from that of whether I have
>rational reasons for not wanting to play such games.
>
>The simple fact is that collecting does _not_ appeal to me, that I
>actively dislike the idea of playing a game where I have opportunities
>and options that aren't exactly equal to those of my opponents.
This is true in practically all games that aren't chess, go or monopoly. What
you dislike is that you don't have the control over the environment you do in
a boardgame. In a boardgame you know exactly what the other person has
available to them, before starting the game. CCG's are much more like
miniatures in the available forces arena.
That's
>a philosophical objection that most of the responses to your posting
>have made, and which you have repeatedly and continually ignored.
>Instead you pick out the lone poster who says that CCGs cost too much,
>which I think is _not_ the primary problem that most board gamers have
>with them. (In my experience, the more money people have, the less
>likely they are to be attracted to CCGs. CCGs appeal to young people,
>like high school students, in a way that board games never have.)
>
>> My intention in making the original post was to generate an interesting
>> and constructive discussion which would bring two groups of gamers with
>> similar interests together.
>
James R. McClure Jr.
>3. A good game requires significant thinking and strategy, DURING the game.
>during deck construction.
Peace John,
This statement leads me to believe that you aren't very familiar with non-MtG
TCGs. There are several TCGs which involve significant strategic choices,
both during your turn and during others' turns (Jyhad is a good example of
this). Yes, Magic does basically boil down to "what combo is this deck about"
and then waiting for it to come up in play, but Magic isn't all TCGs.
>2. A good game is social. That means it doesn't require more solo setup
>time than playing time. CCGs do. Usually 3-4 times as much.
Yes, you could spend a lot of time designing your deck(s). You could also
spend lots of time examining the charts/boards to a game, analyzing them
for hidden advantages. It does not take me 3x-4x time units to design
decks for the TCGs that I play (where x is the time spent actually playing
the game). Again, this can be true of Magic (where one and two turn games
are "desired"), but not so in most other TCGs.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
>In article <49s40g$j...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, <zor...@Hoover.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <DJ06p...@midway.uchicago.edu>, mtli...@woodlawn.uchicago.edu (Michael Lindeman) writes:
>
>>>
>>about GW stuff. That is not the point here. The point is the fact that each
>>player has to buy an individual supply of game components is unlikely to be
>>the reason that any prejudice exists against CCG's. It is unlikely to be the
>>fact the game is played with cards, as evidenced by games like Up Front.
>
>point that each player has to buy an individual supply of game components
>is the problem. The problem is that each player has to buy an individual
>supply of game components. Then, a new army list comes out, and each
>player has to buy a new supply of game components. Then, my opponent
>decides to spend $30 on the Ork nobz weapon of doom. I am outclassed.
>So Games Workshop sells me the Space Marine Imperator weapon of doom. Then
>the Chaos force is out classed. So he is forced to buy...
I am exactly familiar with the GW phenomenon. However, one can argue that it
is present in all miniatures games, though to a lesser extent. Sure the DBM
people aren't making up army lists to get you to buy more miniatures, but
buying more miniatures to make new or more varied armies can get you an
advantage.
> This is the problem, both with Warhammer 40K and CCGs. Not the
>fact that I have to buy my own stuff, but that the fact that I spend
>$90 on this rare piece of equipment let's me kick the crap out of the guy
>who didn't. Why not just play, my very own new, thought up on the spot,
>card game.
This only really happens in GW stuff and the upper reaches of magic type I
tournament play. In other CCGs and the lesser reaches of magic it is really
more analogous to other miniatures games.
> Send me whatever denomination of money you wish. I will send
>you an official Dragonbill amount back (the same amount you sent me).
>The rules are simple, and that is what makes the game exciting. You
>play your amount of money. Your opponent plays his. You each roll a three
>sided die. Multiply that by the amount of your money. The person with
>the higher end result wins. It's exciting, yet simple.
>
>
Chris Kessel
|> >
|> ...
|> where no on complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board
|> games. Yet I don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular basis.
Well, miniatures are a bit different. The armies are fielded by point values,
not by the number of miniatures.
For a CCG vs. miniatures analysis you'd have to assign points to each CCG card
and then each player has XX number of points to spend on their cards. The problem
with CCG's is that you get whatever you can field which isn't a level playing
field. With miniatures the field is leveled by limiting (by a point system) what
you can field.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Robin Kessel Portland, Oregon | Yes, I was named
chr...@protocol.com Protocol Systems | after *that* Christopher
-------------------------------------------------| Robin. Winnie the Pooh
Tigger: "I'm Tigger!" | is my hero. :)
Pooh: "Yes, I know. You've bounced me before." |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Glamkowski
:P >And I've seen someone pay $350 for a mint copy of SPI's Campaign for North
:P >Africa, so it could be argued that boardgames (at least ones which go out
:P >of print) are just as guilty of collectibility.
but the difference is, how often do you see someone go out
and spend $350 on a boardgame, and how often do you see people
go out and spend $350 on magic cards?
most of the gamers i know have maybe $100-200 or so worth of
games, while most magic players i know have $500 to over $1000(!)
invested in their cards.
and combine that with the fact that the boardgamers tend to
collect their games slowly, over a lifetime, whereas magic
players will accumulate a deck of enormous value in maybe
one or two years, and still keep buying them up with no end
in sight.
:P
John H Kim
Personally, I don't have any problem with the games themselves,
although certainly people do seem to spend an excessive amount on
them. I see a problem more with the enthusiasts than with the
game design.
The thing is, I spent about $30-$35 on M:tG cards, and for
this (and some trading) I've got a fairly fun game to play with my
friends. At this level, it's not an especially deep strategy game
(comparable to _Talisman_ or _Cosmic Encounter_), but it's pretty
fun and interesting. I would say that in play, it has about as
much strategy as a simple, high-randomness game like _Talisman_.
Plus, there is the additional level of deck-building strategy.
-*-
Yes, obviously, for "completists" the collectible aspect
of the game is a problem. You can get a "complete" SFB for around
$700 or so, while I suspect it is considerably more for M:tG.
However, for non-completists, you can get a playable,
interesting game for around $30-$50, and you can be a competing
tournament player for $100-$200.
I am not at all convinced by the argument that "the more
you spend, the more you win". This because I often find myself
(with my $30 decks) winning against people who have spent over
$100 on cards. Of course, none of them are serious tournament
players - but I also know people who have competed in tournaments
with nothing but fairly common cards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Monty Ashley
>marker, then try to make it out of the room alive.
Better yet, take a Magic Marker (tm) and write "SWAMP" on a Black Lotus
and try to get out of the room alive. <evil snicker>
-Monty
--
"The banana _hates_ the apple." -Ratbert
*** This message brought to you direct from the Box of Snakes ***
David desJardins
> On the other hand, if what I hear about people disliking games where
> players don't use identical rules/components then there's no point trying
> to create a "TCG for boardgamers" because that is *the* entire point to
> TCGs (its not collecting, at least not for most people).
I'm not sure I understand what it is that Jose thinks is "*the* entire
point" of CCGs. I can think of several things which have variously been
presented as "the point." I'm not sure I believe that any of them is
entirely fundamental to the concept:
1. Basing a game on a large variety of cards which are not all in play
at the same time (and perhaps not even all available to the
players), so that each game is different and that players can have
new experiences as they discover and learn how to use new cards.
2. Collecting cards and trading them with one another in order to
acquire a more powerful or more interesting or more valuable
collection.
3. Constructing a deck by taking an available mix of cards and
choosing a subset of those cards which work well together.
4. Minimizing the importance of skillful play relative to skill and
effort in card collecting and deck construction.
I think that most board gamers who dislike CCGs generally dislike #2.
Some of them also dislike #3, while others wouldn't be bothered by #3 so
long as there were a mechanism to ensure that each player has an equal
opportunity to start with (i.e., acquiring cards by some method other
than #2). Many of them dislike #4, because what they most enjoy is the
skill of the card play itself. I've heard very few board gamers
complain about #1, which to my mind was one of the original ideas of
CCGs, although perhaps the least realized in practice since the wide
popularity of CCGs has meant the wide availability of card lists and
complete sets.
I _think_ that Jose is saying that he does not consider #2 to be
essential to the CCG concept. If that's true, then I think it _is_
worth thinking about "CCGs for board gamers." I can think of many types
of such games, which work by including only a subset of the above
concepts (concept #4 depends on the details of the game design; I'll
assume that all of the following would try to put a greater emphasis on
good card play than some CCGs which mostly focus on deck building):
A. A game in which there is only one basic deck of cards, in which
every player buys the same deck, and gets the same cards, and then
players compete against one another by constructing subsets of that
basic deck and playing them against one another. This game has #3
but not #1 or #2.
B. Like A, but there might be several basic decks. So that you could
buy an Orc deck, or a Dwarf deck, or an Elf deck, but your Orc deck
would have the same cards as every other Orc player, and you would
then choose a subset of those to compete with. This adds more of
the flavor of #1, especially if new races continue to be
introduced, while still avoiding #2.
C. A game in which each player buys a single "game deck", but not
every game deck is identical. Each game deck contains a random
subset of the total universe of cards, probably with various levels
of rarity and so on. However each game deck that is sold is marked
with a serial number, so that players cannot exchange cards between
game decks. A player still has to select a subset of cards from a
single game deck in order to compete with. This game adds even
more of the flavor of #1, and still has #3, while still avoiding
#2. In fact, this game might achieve #1 to a greater extent than
most current CCGs do, because there would be less of an advantage
to buying many decks, and a disadvantage to trading with other
players (it would prevent you from actually playing with the traded
cards), so players would typically see fewer distinct cards except
by actually playing against different opponents.
D. Like B, but the player who buys a deck then uses that entire deck
in play, so there is not only no trading but also no "deck
construction" phase separate from play. Players can still purchase
different decks, study their different tactics, and learn to use
them in play. And additional decks can be published over time to
keep the game fresh, distinguishing this game from a conventional
board game. But obviously this game puts much more emphasis on the
card play itself than does any conventional CCG, and is much more
like a board game.
E. Like C, but the entire game deck is used in play. Like game D,
this game has no trading and also no deck construction. But
because every deck is different it still has more variety than the
traditional board game, and more than game D. It also has more of
an opportunity for players to become expert at the properties of
their particular decks. It might have too much of an opportunity
for "power gaming" by buying dozens of game decks looking for an
especially favorable mix, but whether that is actually true would
depend on the game design.
I don't know whether any of these or similar concepts is commercially
viable. I do know that they all sound like games that I would be much
more interested in playing than I am in conventional CCGs, assuming of
course that the game play itself were up to snuff. If game designers
and others are really interested in the question, "Why don't board
gamers like CCGs?" I think they could benefit by thinking about
different concepts like these, and how they could appeal to board gamers
in ways that CCGs presently don't.
David desJardins
> Maybe if you played a CCG with them they'd play a boardgame with you.
I could also pay people $1000 to play with me. I don't have much desire
to do either one. If people have different interests than I do, that's
just life. I'd rather look harder for people with similar interests,
than try to persuade people who would rather be doing something else to
play games with me instead.
> For that matter, have you considered that if they are getting the same
> kind of fun out of a CCG that they used to be getting out of boardgames
> then there might not really be that much difference between the two?
I considered it for a few nanoseconds, before rejecting it. I know what
is inside my own head much better than you do. I know what I like and
what I don't like. For you to suggest that I'm mistaken about what I in
fact like is more than a little bit odd. To me there is a big
difference, and the things about CCGs that I don't like are very
important to me. I have friends to whom those same things are not
important. I don't find it particularly surprising that different
people with some common interests still might have very different
opinions about some things.
> I've seen several people say this. All I can say is that in our local
> stores they have taken the profits they've made from CCGs and used them to
> diversify what they are carrying in other areas. Not so much in
> boardgames, but very much so in roleplaying material.
Great, just what I need. Stores which are making profits off of one
thing that I dislike (CCGs) to expand in another area I dislike even
more (roleplaying). How is this supposed to make me happier?
> Designers design the kind of games they want to play.
I think game designers compromise between what they like to do, and what
they can economically do while staying in business. The designers who
only do exactly what they want, had better have day jobs.
> If you like collecting, that may be what CCGs are all about for you, but
> for me they offer something entirely different. The large card sets which
> they have and the huge variety of options and strategies are something
> which very few other strategy games with or without a board can match.
> It makes them highly variable and lets the players have much more
> creativity so that games are different every time you play. This is the
> big strength of these games for me.
That would be great. I don't think those are bad things. So why isn't
anyone designing games that offer those things to players who don't want
to collect or trade (essential elements of current CCGs)?
>> I actively dislike the idea of playing a game where I have
>> opportunities and options that aren't exactly equal to those of my
>> opponents.
>
> As someone posted earlier this is not generally true of CCGs as a whole,
> and even in CCGs like Magic it is very easy to control by playing with
> freshly opened starters or in a limited card selection league.
I agree that one can view a limited selection league or a sealed-deck
tournament as a single game involving CCGs which meets my criteria.
And I think that CCG developers, by providing a lot more support for
this form of competition (appropriate packaging and so on), could
increase their appeal to board gamers.
But the main reason that I still don't find these as appealing as board
games is that they require a lot of people (you certainly can't have
much of a sealed-deck event with a total of two players!) and possibly
an ongoing commitment to a single group (with the league concept). I
can take my board game to any convention or club meeting and find
another player to sit down and play with. I can't carry my sealed deck
or league deck around with me with the same results.
I also, personally, find the diplomatic and trading skills that such
events reward less interesting than emphasizing the game play itself, as
board games and noncollectible card games do.
David desJardins
> On the other hand, a lot of the more recent games are quite playable
> out of a single starter deck (On The Edge is a good example - there's
> an entire international league based around single starter play).
Do I understand this correctly, that there is a large group of people
who play with a single starter deck _without trading_? If true, that's
quite noteworthy, and something I haven't heard of before. Most CCGs
simply aren't playable that way, as the original poster said. If, on
the other hand, all you are saying is that this is a large trading group
based around trading from a single starter deck, then that's not
qualitatively different from other CCGs: it still means that players who
enjoy playing but not trading aren't going to be attracted to it. (In
fact, trading in such a league is probably _more_ intense and important
than with open purchases.)
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
><zor...@Hoover.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board games. Yet I
>>don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular basis.
>
>worried about the figure representing exactly what it looks like. In CCG
>lingo, "proxies" are happily accepted (usually).
Well you do need a big exception for GW as their "official" tourney rules
require you to use GW figs.
I don't have to paint up a
>zillion different regiments of Rebels to play "Johhny Reb" - my Virginia regt,
>a Missouri regt, and a generic unit were accepted as three Alabama regiments
>without question yesterday. I even fleshed out the units (which were larger
>than usual in this scenario) with stands from a Texas regt.
>
>One of my Skaven Gutter Runners in Blood Bowl got the long legs mutation, and
>is now represented by a werewolf figure. My "stunty" mutant is represented by
>a "halfling in full plate" figure from Grenadier's "Comedy Lords" box. No
>one's complained. In fact, these guys have gotten me complements for
>originality.
>
>Now, try this in a CCG. Turn a swamp into a Black Lotus with a magic marker,
>then try to make it out of the room alive.
>
Well where I play this is not that uncommon. You would get in trouble for
doing that for the big type I spoilers, because most people aren't using
those. If you do it for some relatively benign card no problem.
>Another big difference - the attitude of the gamers to their collections in the
>two games. I'm putting a lot of time and skill into painting up some figures,
>and am proud of my work (as well as their usefulness in a game). A CCG gamer
>is proud of his trading skill, or how much money he dropped on a card (as well
>as how useful it is). So both games contain a "collection" aspect, but the
>motivations are quite different.
I am not really sure these are different for all people, but in general I
agree. The point I am trying to make is that CCGs and particularly the
aspects of CCGs people seem to object to have precursors in other games.
Fuzon
marker, then try to make it out of the room alive.<<
In any situation other than a tournament this shouldn't be a problem if
you tell people in advance that you're testing a deck design and are using
proxies to do it.
Erich Schneider
> Board games have never lost their playability for
>me. Monopoly, Balderdash, Axis & Allies, Risk... whatever. All of
>these games can be left for weeks or months and when one returns to
>them, they are still playable with the original equipment. Nobody has
>buit extra spaces onto the board or decided that certain die rolls
>don't count.
This brings to mind an encounter I had at an SFB event at my first
gaming con (in 1987). I offhandedly mentioned the whole "Star Fleet
Lawyers" concept to someone who then told me he was a lawyer in real
life ... and who said he didn't like SFB because of the penchant for
the game's designers, in that era, to constantly make tiny changes to
the rules, thus allowing his better-informed opponents to make little
tricky moves which were only canonical because of a recent addendum.
In this case people _were_ "building extra spaces on the board".
I, personally, don't play CCGs because I get in enough fun gaming time
doing historical boardgames week after week, I own far more boardgames
than I can probably play practically, and I spend enough money on
boardgames as it is. I _am_ a huge Up Front fan.
--
Erich Schneider er...@bush.cs.tamu.edu http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/~erich
"You are a true believer. Blessings of the State; blessings of the
masses. Thou art a subject of the Divine, created in the image of
Man, by the masses, for the masses. Let us be thankful we have
commerce. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy. And be happy."
- Confession booth blessing, _THX-1138_
BenF
On 4 Dec 1995 zor...@Hoover.Stanford.EDU wrote:
> >Of course there are. I'll be the first to say that I'm unhappy about
> >the fact that a significant number of my potential and former opponents
> >are no longer available to me because they are off playing CCGs instead.
> >About the fact that game shops carry less of the products that I'm
> >interested in, because CCGs are more profitable. About the fact that
> >game designers whose work I enjoy are designing CCGs instead of games
> >that I want to play.
>
> I have often thought this is the real root of prejudice by boardgamers and rpg
> players to CCGs. The fact the a new product, which they don't care for, has
> come onto the seen and gotten all of the attention and players.
Wrong, actually most of us boardgamers look upon the CCGs as a good thing.
I.E. more people gaming. We are aliitle disappointed that there are not
as many people who play CCGs crossing over to board games as we hoped (I
crossed over from FRP). But, who knows, maybe that will change. But
what we don't like is salespeople clogging up r.g.b with items designed
solely to promote their product. Especially when they have a newsgroup
to do this.
Actually, if we wanted to discuss something, we could talk about the
ignorance of CCG players. I bet 80-90% of strategy boardgamers in the US
have played a CCG. But the percentage of CCG players to have played a
strategy boardgame would be much lower, say 20-40%. I bet the people who
read and post on this newsgroup know much more about the CCGs, than the
people who read and post on the newsgroups for the CCGs know about the
games we play.
> >> My intention in making the original post was to generate an interesting
> >> and constructive discussion which would bring two groups of gamers with
> >> similar interests together.
That was a mighty contentious post for someone whose motives were so pure.
> >If you want that to happen, then you have to be willing to accept the
> >fundamental fact that there are good, rational reasons why some board
> >gamers do not like CCGs, and address those reasons. I happen to believe
> >that there are, in fact, lots of ways in which CCG developers can appeal
> >to that group who has so far rejected them. But the first step has to
> >be to understand and accept their reasons and their preferences, rather
> >than dismissing them out of hand.
> >
> >If you were to say, "Yes, I understand that some players do like games
> >of strategy and maneuver, but don't like games where one player can gain
> >an advantage over another by collecting and trading cards, and here's my
> >reaction to that," then I think you would get a response 180 degrees
> >different from what you get by just ignoring those preferences.
I disagree here. The point is to have as many different types of games
as possible. Instead of trying to convert everyone over to one
specific type of game, incourage the development of many different types
of games. That way there is a much better chance that everyone finds
games that they really like to play. And a diverse set of games also
means that when one type of game grows stale, another is there to replace
it until the interest in the first perks up again.
- Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colours from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which one is right.
And which is an illusion???."
from Nights in White Satin by The Moody Blues 1967
dan...@beta.delphi.com
>
>And I've seen someone pay $350 for a mint copy of SPI's Campaign for North
>
Aaah, but have you actually seen anyone PLAY Campaign for North Africa? <g>
BTW, a copy of McLoughlin's BULLS AND BEARS (1896) went for $28,000 at an auction in
1992, so maybe we should go attack those damn 'finance game people'! <g>
-Danny
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Etloh Technologies ---- Dealers In Rare Games ---- Makers of the "Flightdeck"
Compatible with Thrustmaster and CH Products systems
714-891-6425 P.O. Box 1493 Westminster, CA 92684-1493
Dan...@Delphi.com, Dan...@beta.delphi.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bill Seurer
reasons are (at least partly) bogus.
1) "CCGs will destroy the boardgame hobby."
I have two responses to this. First of all, I heard this before with
role playing games. I have been chewed out at some early conventions
when I reffing an RPG event by some war game bozos. Hey, I play war games
too and last I checked RPGs hadn't killed board/war games. I think they
will survive the challenge.
The second response is, "Compete or die!" If CCGs turn out to be more
popular than board games, well, tough! Do you expect people to play
games they don't find as enjoyable?
2) "He with the most money wins in CCGs."
There are several response to this too. First of all, I don't think it
is completely true. Given two good players of equal skill then the one
with access to a greater varierty of cards probably will win more often.
If skills are different then the one with greater skill will win most
of the time.
BUT that assumes that both players are out to win at any cost. Frankly,
I have (well, had, I sold many of them) more MtG cards including tons of
the old out of print ones than anyone else I know. But I play to have
fun and try fun strategies more
than to win. I still try to win, but I don't try to win at any cost and
thus drive away my friends who I play with. I don't play with
win-at-any-cost boardgamers either. And the premise that you have to
have certain cards to win is utterly flawed in any case. As several of
my friends on more limited budgets keep proving by making fun, winning
decks without access to the supposedly "must-have" cards.
And if you still think the premise is true, don't play that way! GASP!
Yes, you too can play with just a few cards! We've play that way
sometimes and it is a lot of fun! Just start a limited deck group where
the players are limited only to some initial, small number of cards.
Finally, some CCGs are set up differently than what most people think.
Dixie for instance has only one rarity of card AND you are limited to
only one of most of the cards in any deck anyway. Other games have
placed a "cost" on some of the more powerful cards so having lots of them
is worse than having none at all.
--
- Bill Seurer ID Tools and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
Brent Michael Krupp
RagnarokGC <ragna...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I wasn't reading r.g.b at the time Magic came out and I wasn't aware of
>this problem. Had I been I might not have brought the topic up, because I
>would have been aware that not all responses would have been entirely
>rational.
>
>My intention in making the original post was to generate an interesting
>and constructive discussion which would bring two groups of gamers with
>I was naive. I wish I could take my original post back and end this whole
>discussion, but the horse is out of the gate, so to speak.
>
>Dave Nalle
I do believe that Mr. Nalle is lying on both counts above. A few months
back he was posting in this very group about how people hate CCGs, and how
they really shouldn't. At that time, his posts generated a huge thread in
which people outlined all the reasons why they hate CCGs, including the
fact that r.g.b got clogged when Magic came out. He continued to post
and respond in that thread, so I am fairly certain that he read peoples'
various explanations. Now, he would seem to be claiming to have amnesia, and
had no idea that people hated CCGs so much. Bullshit. His original post
in this thread (a few days ago) is basically just sophisticated flame-bait,
and we've gone for hook, line, and sinker.
It is an interesting discussion, but he *had* to have known how it
would progress -- he's seen all of this said (to him) very recently.
Brent Krupp (flet...@u.washington.edu)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~fletcher/
"The fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from
one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater
wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only
from one end of the bar to the other."
-- Edward R. Murrow
Fuzon
the fact that a significant number of my potential and former opponents
are no longer available to me because they are off playing CCGs instead.<<
Maybe if you played a CCG with them they'd play a boardgame with you.
For that matter, have you considered that if they are getting the same
kind of fun out of a CCG that they used to be getting out of boardgames
then there might not really be that much difference between the two?
>>About the fact that game shops carry less of the products that I'm
interested in, because CCGs are more profitable.<<
I've seen several people say this. All I can say is that in our local
stores they have taken the profits they've made from CCGs and used them to
diversify what they are carrying in other areas. Not so much in
boardgames, but very much so in roleplaying material. Maybe we just have
a smarter breed of shop managers.
>> About the fact that
game designers whose work I enjoy are designing CCGs instead of games
that I want to play.<<
Designers design the kind of games they want to play. If you respect
their work as designers maybe you should respect their decision to branch
into this new format. Maybe they find it rewarding in ways which are
more than just monetary.
>>The simple fact is that collecting does _not_ appeal to me,<<
If you like collecting, that may be what CCGs are all about for you, but
for me they offer something entirely different. The large card sets which
they have and the huge variety of options and strategies are something
which very few other strategey games with or without a board can match.
It makes them highly variable and lets the players have much more
creativity so that games are different every time you play. This is the
big strength of these games for me.
>>that I
actively dislike the idea of playing a game where I have opportunities
and options that aren't exactly equal to those of my opponents. <<
As someone posted earlier this is not generally true of CCGs as a whole,
and even in CCGs like Magic it is very easy to control by playing with
freshly opened starters or in a limited card selection league. That's how
I do virtually all of my play.
Christopher Esko
> but you never have a "complete" Magic game, because they keep >coming
out with new cards that make your deck
>obsolete (= no longer competitive in an average convention tournament).
It seems a lot of people have this mistaken concept for a game to be
"complete" to be good. One of the things that makes Magic so
interesting is that no one owns the same set of cards. My game is
different from my friends game is different from some one else's game.
Also, the card set is constantly changing. In sixth months, Magic will
be a different game than it is now.
"dan...@beta.delphi.com" <dan...@beta.delphi.com> writes:
>If we are comparing M:TG to ASL in this way, we must now buy EVERY
>card in M:TG, including all of the moxes, black lotus, etc (which you
must >have to compete at the highest levels). Ka-CHING! Ka-CHING!
>Since the only way you're going to get these cards is to buy
>'pre-collected' ones, let's compare that to buying used ASL gear. Now
>the disparity begins to REALLY grow. Thousands vs. probably $150.00
The other misconception is that you need to own all the cards to compete
in tournament. This is simply not true. You can design a deck by
simply knowing what the cards do, and buy or trade for the cards you
need to make that deck. And for "competing at the highest levels" you
don't need moxes, lotus, etc. because the World championships are in a
format that doesn't allow those cards.
John_Da...@cup.portal.com writes:
>2. A good game is social. That means it doesn't require
>more solo setup time than playing time. CCGs do.
> Usually 3-4 times as much.
Magic is very social. I can play it at the drop of a hat with people
I've just met. I can play it in large groups or 1 on 1. If I design a
deck in an hour, I can spend many hours playing that deck.
>3. A good game requires significant thinking and strategy,
> DURING the game. In a CCG, there is very little opportunity
>for that. All the thinking comes during deck construction.
Some decks play themselves, but the top tournament decks require a lot
of thinking and strategy to play. Sure, Magic isn't chess or ASL, but
strategy during the game is still a factor.
I also have to say that Magic has had some positive influence on the
games played at my gaming club. Titan recently experienced a resurgence
of people playing it, mainly because you can play a game of magic in
time that would have been spent waiting for other players to finish a
battle.
Chris Esko
black...@CMU.EDU
ce...@andrew.cmu.edu
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/usr/ce24/homepage.html
----------------------------------------
"It's just a flesh wound!" -The Black Knight
Nick Wedd
impressions.
My first impression of many board games comes from reading a posting
discussing the rules, or strategy. Quite interesting, even when I don't
know the game.
But the first I ever heard of CCGs was a posting "I need a Blue Lotus,
and would be willing to trade ..". And it was posted to a totally
inappropriate place. We all know how often these happen.
I think that non-Net users do not show the same prejudice against CCGs
that Net users do.
--
Nick Wedd Ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk 72133...@compuserve.com
Robin D. Laws
>> On the other hand, a lot of the more recent games are quite playable
>> out of a single starter deck (On The Edge is a good example - there's
>> an entire international league based around single starter play).
>
>Do I understand this correctly, that there is a large group of people
>who play with a single starter deck _without trading_? If true, that's
>quite noteworthy, and something I haven't heard of before.
True fact. It's called Omni League.
Cards do change hands, but only as ante when games are won or lost --
the number of cards you've won is your score.
Take care >>> Robin
dan...@beta.delphi.com
>Malebroche (maleb...@aol.com) wrote:
>> What kind of a jerk are you, anyway? Are you a member of the
>> American Family Association too?
>
>Mal, I'm the kind of jerk who doesn't like being insulted. I didn't like
>being called prejudiced, and I don't like being called a jerk.
>
>By the way, I don't even know what the American Family Association is.
>
>Jay Rudin
Don't take offense. I think he's just got an attitude problem because the
'traffic flag' broke on his BMX bike, and Mom won't let him go hang out at the
comic/M:TG store now.
<g>
-Danny
Allan Goodall
>Actually, I think the major problem with CCGs is far too many RPG store
>owners and operators are pulling investment out of other lines of gaming
>in order to pour funds into CCGs...which is a very bad idea.
It was a good idea at the time. CCGs had a wider appeal and were drawing
in far more people than the RPGs. A local game store had a very good year
last year, mostly due to CCGs. Unfortunately for a lot of stores, they
relied upon CCGs and now that the balloon has burst, some are having a
harder time of it this year. Particularly those stores that were selling
Star Trek cards for $8 a booster last Christmas and now can't even give
the things away.
--
Allan Goodall, Sales and Marketing Systems, Kodak Canada, Inc.
INTERNET: all...@kodak.com
VOICE: (416) 766-8233 ext 35473 FAX: (416) 760-4597
Visit the Kodak Web site at: http://www.kodak.com
Allan Goodall
>I think this is not actually true. There seems to be a widespread belief
>that CCGs are dying out and that the market is saturated, but when you
>actually examine the facts of the situation the evidence just isn't there.
I think it is true, with information I've picked up from 6 game retailers
(two comic stores, three game stores, and one miscellaneous retailer) in
the Toronto area.
>Rumor: Stores are dumping CCGs or getting out alltogether.
>Fact: Only trading card stores are really dumping the cards or getting out
>of them. Gaming stores and to some extent comic stores keep selling
>selected CCGs just like other games.
I agree with you here. However, sales of both are way down from last
year, and purchases of CCG material is down. One game store is now only
buying a single half-case of decks for any new game they choose to
purchase. They still have a large selection of MT:G, Spellfire, Dixie,
etc. They cut back their initial order of MT:G Ice Age to a third of
their "pre-order" amount, and they still have half of this left. The
stores aren't getting out of them, but they aren't buying nearly as much
as they used to.
>
>Rumor: The market is flooded, there are too many CCGs. Or as one retailer
>put it to me, there have been 60 new CCGs in the last two months.
>Fact: An awful lot of companies announce they are going to produce CCGs
>and relatively few of them actually come out. There are only about 30 on
>the market right now and of those easily half are on their way out of
>print or bad enough that no one carries them. The good games continue to
>go strong and the fact of the matter is that only 2 or 3 new games get
>released each month. Look at this month. It's Christmas, the ultimate
>time for releasing new games. How many new CCGs are coming out for
>Christmas? I can count all of THREE: Middle Earth, Heresy and Quest for
>the Grail. And isn't there some doubt that Heresy will actually make it?
>Wow, what a flood.
Uh, but these are NEW games. Games you have to start collecting right
from the word go. And you didn't mention Redemption, or the new WWII
game that are both out, or the James Bond game due out later this month,
or the Call of Cthulhu game due out by Christmas, or the Waterloo game
like Dixie that's due this week. In fairness, these two haven't been
released yet, and may not contribute to the monthly total. However, I
asked one store how many they saw on their order forms, and they said
that there were at least a dozen. Of those dozen, they are getting in one
(the Waterloo game). The "flood" pertains to all of the games out there
right now that haven't gone under. Do I really have to list them?
>
>Rumor: Players are jaded and no longer playing.
>Fact: Yes, players are tired of MtG clones. But the interest in the store
>I frequent is incredibly strong for new releases. People want CCGs that
>are different and are actively seeking them. Initial response to Middle
>Earth is surprisingly strong and there is great anticipation of Heresy and
>Quest for the Grail.
This is the exact opposite of the interest in the game stores I visited.
All willingly admitted that the "curiosity" factor is gone and few new
players are coming into the stores (that is, people who have never played
a CCG before). What's more, total sales of ALL CCGs are way down from
last year, in one case by more than 60%. There may be interest in new
games, but it's nowhere near the interest shown last year. And people
aren't dropping one game to play another.
Toronto is a big city: 3 million in metro, over 6 million within a 40
minute drive. A lot of smaller stores have diversified and now sell CCGs
(including one computer store I frequent). I do have two pieces of
anecdotal evidence that sales of CCGs in the area are dropping in total
numbers and not just spreading to smaller outlets. 1) For the first time,
distributors are now selling half-cases of CCGs instead of forcing store
owners to buy them by the case full. 2) At least one distributor phoned
around several of the stores I talked to and asked if they would like to
DECREASE their orders for the Christmas period. Compare this to the
stores I talked to, all of which say that sales of CCGs are way down and
I'd say that the bloom is off the rose.
Bill Seurer
|> The point is the fact that each
|> player has to buy an individual supply of game components
NO THEY DON'T! 99.44% of the CCG players I know (ok, ALL of them)
will gladly lend you a deck to play. Heck, some of them will even give
you cards! I bet half the time I play someone who is playing is using a
borrowed deck.
Some people just like to play and don't like making their own decks.
A few people I know seem to enjoy making decks up more than playing.
This is exactly the same as for miniatures. I like playing but there's no
way I'm going to spend all that money on buying all the pieces let alone
spend all the time to make them look nice. I know a few people who love
collecting the perfect whatever army but don't particulary like to play
with them.
Alan Kwan
>Fuzon <fu...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Designers design the kind of games they want to play.
>
>I think game designers compromise between what they like to do, and what
>they can economically do while staying in business. The designers who
>only do exactly what they want, had better have day jobs.
Here, I concur with David. Fuzon is mistaken. Designers of CCGs (mostly)
either play with a practically endless supply of cards, or they
play something like starter vs. starter (for some newer CCGs).
No CCGs I have seen on the market is playable with a single starter
against a practically endless supply of cards. Yet, in practice,
players have to face that problem, unless you shell out lots of $$$
to get much more than a single starter. I challenge any CCG designer
to "like to play" his own game that way (against an equally competent
opponent).
Maybe the game is playable if all the players have an abundance of
cards, or if all the players have the same /shortage/ of cards,
but playability under these constraints isn't the exact notion of
"playabiliby" for some boardgamers who hate CCGs.
The "designer's game" is different from the "consumer's game",
in practice.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
Tom Grant
or sheer spending power, Magic (or fill-in-th-CCG-here) really
>has nothing on, say, Advanced Squad Leader. Now *there's* a money
>sink!
>
Nope, I completely disagree. I easily spent $150 on Star Trek the CCG, and got
only half the rares. I've easily spent on some card games (Doomtrooper, INWO)
as I have on my entire ASL collection. That's not to mention all the Magic
expansions I've purchased...
And in contrast with all these CCGs, I know *exactly* what I'm getting when I
purchase ASL. And before you leap on me for saying that I'm some kind of
unimaginative sort who doesn't like to trade, let me say that with some
substantial trading I still don't have close to a full set of most of the card
games I own.
--
==========================================
"The punishment which the wise suffer,
who refuse to take part in the government,
is to live under the government of
worse men."
--Plato
------------------------------------------
Tom Grant
Documentation Manager
Web and Workgroup Systems Division
Oracle Corporation
tgr...@us.oracle.com
==========================================
Christopher Esko
>
Yes, very much unlike ASL and SFB. The basic ASL buy is advertised as a
WWII squad level game featuring conflict between Russians and Germans.
This is exactly what you get. One buys it, they can play it. Their
friends can play it. They never need buy another ASL product as long as
they live. The same story with SFB.
>
Wait, won't you be playings some "pale approximation" of the game?
There are expansion sets for the games, and reason you need to buy them
is because they make the game more interesting and add new aspects to it.
>
Now go to the store. Buy one starter deck of any CCG out there aside
from INWO. Can you play a game with it? NO! Your friend needs to buy
one too. Then you can play some pale approximation of the game you'd
play if you went and bought enough cards to tune your deck, or design
different decks.
>
What if you bought two decks? You could play the game with your friend,
then, and you'd have spent less money than if you bought ASL or SFB.
And Magic was still a great game when all I owned and played with was a
starter deck.
David desJardins
> So it's an entirely emotional and irrational response. I can accept that.
> I guess it's not. I didn't realized you were a complete One True Wayer.
> Since you have already admitted to a complete, wilfull ignorance of CCGs,
All of the above are false statements. I'm not going to reply further
to them, but I suggest that anyone who believes any of these statements
should reread my original posting.
> BTW, how do you feel about Diplomacy the board game? From your
> statements here I would think you hated it.
Then you would be mistaken. I don't hate Diplomacy. I do dislike
playing it, but just because I don't like playing a game doesn't mean I
hate the game itself. I'm perfectly able to accept and appreciate the
existence of games that I don't personally enjoy playing, and of people
who have different preferences than I have. Mr. Fuzon could stand to do
the same.
Fuzon
Certainly due consideration.
>> I know what
is inside my own head much better than you do. <<
Certainly. The steel trap keeps me out.
>> I know what I like and
what I don't like. For you to suggest that I'm mistaken about what I in
fact like is more than a little bit odd. To me there is a big
difference, and the things about CCGs that I don't like are very
important to me. I have friends to whom those same things are not
important. I don't find it particularly surprising that different
people with some common interests still might have very different
opinions about some things.<<
So it's an entirely emotional and irrational response. I can accept that.
>>Great, just what I need. Stores which are making profits off of one
thing that I dislike (CCGs) to expand in another area I dislike even
more (roleplaying). How is this supposed to make me happier?<<
I guess it's not. I didn't realized you were a complete One True Wayer.
>>> It makes them highly variable and lets the players have much more
> creativity so that games are different every time you play. This is the
> big strength of these games for me.
That would be great. I don't think those are bad things. So why isn't
anyone designing games that offer those things to players who don't want
to collect or trade (essential elements of current CCGs)?<<
Since you have already admitted to a complete, wilfull ignorance of CCGs,
how would you know if any of them had these characteristics? In fact a
number of them do get by primarily on the attraction of large card sets
over the collectible aspect. Look at INWO or Dixie for prime examples.
>>I agree that one can view a limited selection league or a sealed-deck
tournament as a single game involving CCGs which meets my criteria.
And I think that CCG developers, by providing a lot more support for
this form of competition (appropriate packaging and so on), could
increase their appeal to board gamers.<<
This is the STANDARD form of competition, even with Magic and has been
from the start.
>>But the main reason that I still don't find these as appealing as board
games is that they require a lot of people (you certainly can't have
much of a sealed-deck event with a total of two players!) and possibly
an ongoing commitment to a single group (with the league concept). I
can take my board game to any convention or club meeting and find
another player to sit down and play with. I can't carry my sealed deck
or league deck around with me with the same results.<<
The flip-side of this is that I found that people I know who boardgamed
occasionally began to play much more frequently once they discovered CCGs.
The portability of the games and the ease of set-up makes them much more
appealing than boardgames which require far more work to get going. You
can play a CCG with 2 people or with 20 people and still have fun. For
most boardgames you're either limited to 2 or have to have another
specific number. Plus you have to commit more time all at once. It's
just easier to get people to play a CCG, so they play more often.
I, for one, would rather have people playing strategy games a lot than
playing just occasionally.
>>I also, personally, find the diplomatic and trading skills that such
events reward less interesting than emphasizing the game play itself, as
board games and noncollectible card games do.<<
Of course, with sealed decks there is no trading or diplomacizing. BTW,
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
>|> >CCGs aren't inherently evil. But they also aren't, you know, board games.
>|> >
>|> Are you sure about that? I would venture to say that the game Up Front has
>|> ...
>|> where no on complains about having to buy (and paint) an "army" and board
>|> games. Yet I don't see board gamers slagging miniatures on a regular basis.
>
>not by the number of miniatures.
You seem to have missed my point. Miniatures, like card games, are games
where players have to buy their own gaming supplies. Now each has a different
system for determining what is a legal playable collection of components, but
both require players to buy their own pieces. This is different from the
typical board game, where one copy of the game provides components for all
players. Also in miniatures, like card games, players can get an advantage
from having more components and more options.
>
>For a CCG vs. miniatures analysis you'd have to assign points to each CCG card
>and then each player has XX number of points to spend on their cards. The problem
>with CCG's is that you get whatever you can field which isn't a level playing
>field. With miniatures the field is leveled by limiting (by a point system) what
>you can field.
>--
Well if you look at how CCGs are actually designed there are generally deck
building rules, analogous to a point system. In other games the design is to
allow for unlimited choice, but is self-balancing in some way.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Christopher Robin Kessel Portland, Oregon | Yes, I was named
>chr...@protocol.com Protocol Systems | after *that* Christopher
>-------------------------------------------------| Robin. Winnie the Pooh
>Tigger: "I'm Tigger!" | is my hero. :)
>Pooh: "Yes, I know. You've bounced me before." |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Brian Henderson
>The simple fact is that collecting does _not_ appeal to me, that I
>actively dislike the idea of playing a game where I have opportunities
>and options that aren't exactly equal to those of my opponents. That's
>a philosophical objection that most of the responses to your posting
>have made, and which you have repeatedly and continually ignored.
I agree with you completely, David. I came from a mostly RPG
background and when Tragic: The Blathering came out and it became
painfully obvious that it wasn't skill, it wasn't strategy, it wasn't
even luck that decided the outcome, it was money pure and simple that
decided the outcome of every game. For that reason, as well as
others, I wouldn't touch Magic with a 10' pole. I've also never been
into the collecting aspect of CCGs. I buy games to play. When it
starts costing $50 for every good card in the deck because some
speculators decided to buy up all the cards, that's where I give up
and go play something else.
>Instead you pick out the lone poster who says that CCGs cost too much,
>which I think is _not_ the primary problem that most board gamers have
>with them. (In my experience, the more money people have, the less
>likely they are to be attracted to CCGs. CCGs appeal to young people,
>like high school students, in a way that board games never have.)
Likely true. Now I am not much of a board gamer (although I do enjoy
Cosmic Encounters and some Games Workshop material). Actually, I
don't think the generalization about money really works. To be
*SUCCESSFUL* in some games, Tragic being one of them, you almost have
to spend $1000+ on cards each time a new edition comes out. My sister
and her fiance, who bought heavily into Magic when it first came out
and have steadily bought up to (but not including) 4th edition and
Homelands, have at least $10,000 worth of cards. You can almost buy a
luxury car with that kind of money.
>If you want that to happen, then you have to be willing to accept the
>fundamental fact that there are good, rational reasons why some board
>gamers do not like CCGs, and address those reasons. I happen to believe
>that there are, in fact, lots of ways in which CCG developers can appeal
>to that group who has so far rejected them. But the first step has to
>be to understand and accept their reasons and their preferences, rather
>than dismissing them out of hand.
The reason that CCGs took off was that:
a) other markets had largely stagnated in recent years. Neither the
board game or RPG markets have done much new lately and the market was
primed for something new.
b) initially, CCGs have a low buy-in price. You can get a starter
pack for $8 and usually even play with it. However, once you do play,
you will realize that skill has nothing to do with winning, buying
more cards does.
c) ease of learning. A brain-dead chimp can learn to play Magic in a
few minutes. No intelligence required.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Brian Henderson == Internet: BHen...@kirk.microsys.net ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== BHen...@microsys.net ==
+ Furry Fan, Babylon 5, == ==
+ MST3K, Atheist, Skeptic, ==========================================
+ Sliders, RPG Gamer, INWO, == I'm not saying what I'm thinking, so ==
+ Herpetophile, Gargoyles == I don't think anyone agrees with me! ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
Brian Henderson
>>OTOH, for sheer spending power, Magic (or fill-in-th-CCG-here) really
>>has nothing on, say, Advanced Squad Leader. Now *there's* a money
>>sink!
>Actually, there's no comparison here.
>You -can- spend a lot on Advanced Squad Leader. But, all you really need is the
>Rules and Beyond Valor or Paratrooper. Yes, you can add all of the modules and
>spend a few hundred dollars (If you're buying at list price and brand new). With
>this, you will have every 'option' open to an ASL player and you'll be able to
>compete at every level of tournament play. Of course, only one player in the game
>needs to own these.
As much as I hate to defend MtG, I've got to say that the above poster
was right. In order to be *COMPETITIVE*, which is what we're really
talking about, ASL might be more of a money sink than MtG, simply
because ASL requires that you own (or that someone own) a few hundred
dollars worth of product. This becomes even worse with some of the GW
products when you're trying to field a huge army. With MtG, you can
pick and choose X cards to make up your deck and sideboard, buy them
separately and get away relatively inexpensively.
>If we are comparing M:TG to ASL in this way, we must now buy EVERY card in M:TG,
>including all of the moxes, black lotus, etc (which you must have to compete at the
>highest levels). Ka-CHING! Ka-CHING! Since the only way you're going to get these
>cards is to buy 'pre-collected' ones, let's compare that to buying used ASL gear.
>Now the disparity begins to REALLY grow. Thousands vs. probably $150.00
But can a person really compete at the highest levels of ASL without
owning all the ASL products? A person playing MtG certainly can.
Granted, most MtG players have purchased thousands of cards, so we can
certainly look at this different ways.
Ronald Legere
: Now, try this in a CCG. Turn a swamp into a Black Lotus with a magic marker,
: then try to make it out of the room alive.
Hmmm.. this is a good point. I like the customizable aspect of
ccg's. However, some cards (for most if not all games) are intrinsically
much more valuable then others (besides rarity). If the cards were more
balanced (I.e. a powerful card requiring equally powerful sacrifices)
then I should not mind you turning a swamp into a black lotus or
whatever... You would be able to customize your deck in any way
whatsoever.
I guess you can do this to some extant with the CD- Rom version :)
can you imagine people battling it out with whatever cards they wanted?
Might be interesting to see what results from that :)
Anyone care to speculate on which Games (future or present) do a better
job of balancing the cards?
.
job of mb
--
| | |
)_) )_) )_) Captain:Ron Legere
___|____|____|___ email: leg...@Minerva.cis.yale.edu
---------\ /---------
Alec Habig
>aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>>Yes, very much unlike ASL and SFB. The basic ASL buy is advertised as a
>>WWII squad level game featuring conflict between Russians and Germans.
>>This is exactly what you get. One buys it, they can play it. Their
>>friends can play it. They never need buy another ASL product as long as
>>they live. The same story with SFB.
>Wait, won't you be playings some "pale approximation" of the game?
>There are expansion sets for the games, and reason you need to buy them
>is because they make the game more interesting and add new aspects to it.
you convieniently clipped my next paragraph, which pointed out that the
expansions for ASL/SFB are directly comparable to the expansions for a CCG. A
CCG expansion gives you a new series of cards - say, allowing you to play an
Icathian deck - an ASL expansion gives you a new series of scenarios,
and the ability to play, say, the Japanese.
I'm only considering the base set. A box of cards about equals the cost of the
ASL rulebook plus Beyond Valor.
The ASL purchase allows me to play every German or Russian scenario one could
want. The CCG purchase, even with a lot of trading, won't get me even one of
each card in the basic set. Let alone the duplicates needed to fashion the
different decks one could conceive of. That's the difference.
>What if you bought two decks? You could play the game with your friend,
>then, and you'd have spent less money than if you bought ASL or SFB.
>And Magic was still a great game when all I owned and played with was a
>starter deck.
True. You'd have spent ~$20, which is a bit cheaper than most board games.
However, you would have still virtually zero ability to design different decks,
which is, by anyone's estimation, a large part of any CCG. THAT's the
"pale approximation" I was talking about.
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Bill Seurer
|> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Joerg wrote:
|>
|> > In article <graball-0112...@rezaul.ccsi.com>, gra...@infinity.ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) says:
|>
|> > >It's sort of weird, but I feel sorry for them. The boardgamers who take
|> > >this stance are, after all, the ones who are losing out.
|>
|> > Why? Because they have a different taste? CCGs are something which has
|> > been promoted a bit too enthusiastic by their vendors, and the rich-
|>
|> Actually, I think the major problem with CCGs is far too many RPG store
|> owners and operators are pulling investment out of other lines of gaming
|> allows you to suck up a lot in the way of trend losses (when CCGs go out
|> of fashion for example, we'll be doing business in other areas enough to
|> compensate). Business wise, it's a foolish thing to promote CCGs over
|> other product lines, and for the gaming community, it is a bad thing
|> because you are pulling support away from other areas.
|>
|> > >Now roleplayers are a whole different kettle of fish. I think they have
|> > >some legitimate reason to resent CCGs.
|>
|> > Why???
|>
|> Probably for the reasons I outlined above...far too many store owners
|> have pulled out of other areas of gaming to leap into the CCG market.
2 years ago (i.e., pre MtG) you could hear these EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS
except then it was, "...far too many game store owners are pulling
investment out of other lines of gaming in order to pour funds into RPGs."
RPGs haven't disappeared and I dount CCGs will either.
Luke Vaughn
Chris Camfield <ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <4a2s6p$m...@news1.inlink.com>,
>Chuck Kallenbach II <scou...@inlink.com> wrote:
>>My collectible card game is like this:
>>
>>Easily portable.
>>Pretty.
>>Quick to set up.
>>Fun to trade cards with.
>>Games usually last about an hour.
>>Games can include a varying number of players.
>>
>>Can you say the same for your boardgame or your miniatures game or your
>>roleplaying game? I've played 'em all, so I have no particular
>>"outside-looking-in" negative slant from the get-go.
>
>You've played them _all_? Really? Ever played a mini-game? Easily
>portable, quick to set up, games usually last about an hour, games can
>include a variety of players. That's 4 out of 6, which isn't too bad,
>and there are (were) lots of them. (Says he, looking over at his shelf.)
>Some of them had beautiful maps too - Outpost Gamma certainly, the later
>maps for GEV and Ogre by Denis Loubet are good too. I might not even need
>an opponent if I choose to play some of them, and have a good time even :)
>
Funny you should mention Ogre/GEV. It happens to be made by Steve Jackson
Games, the same guys who made the CarWars and Illuminati 'mini-games'. Whats
even more amusing is that SJGames is now producing a direct sucessor to their
original Illuminati game. Its called Illuminati: New World Order. You may
have heard about it. Its a CCG[Note: Yes, I am being slightly sarcastic here,
I can't help it, the *fnord* is making me do it], and its a darned good one.
And as you point out, CCGs have a lot of relation to the 'mini-games'. Least
wise a lot more then to a boardgame like Risk or Diplomacy, or an RPG like
AD&D. Though, I must amend that Diplomacy and INWO aren't that far off in
certain respects, being that at times the game is mearly a vehicle for the
plots, deals, plans and conivances. But, in any case, everybody likes something
different, and even among CCGs there is a lot of disagreement, I like INWO and
GE, but think SimCity is something only a CPA could enjoy. Others hate all
three and prefer ONtE or ST:CCG. Its all a matter of style, and if our styles
didn't diverge, we would probably be living in Marx's idea of a nice place.
Cheers,
Luke Vaughn
vau...@ucs.orst.edu
Tom Grant
>My intention in making the original post was to generate an interesting
>and constructive discussion which would bring two groups of gamers with
>similar interests together. After reviewing this thread it is clear that
>I was naive. I wish I could take my original post back and end this whole
>discussion, but the horse is out of the gate, so to speak.
>
No, I wouldn't regret it at all, if I were you. This is an important schism in
the hobby right now, and it deserves discussion. CCG players are feeling as
though they're the victim of prejudice, while board gamers see an increasing
predominance of games they just don't like. (It doesn't help that some of the
major board game manufacturers, esp. Avalon Hill, are going through tough
times.)
jere7my tho?rpe
words. For reference, I enjoy just about every kind of game,
from Magic to RoboRally to Champions to Diplomacy to Wiz War
to Republic of Rome to Klondike to Clay-O-Rama to 1830 to Civ,
and my gaming time is generally spent 1/2 on CCGs, 1/3 on
board games, and 1/6 on others. (I would spend more time
playing board games, but finding 4-8 people and setting aside
3-12 hours is often a hassle...a big plus for CCGs.)
There are a lot of misconceptions out there about CCGs.
One I've seen crop up here is that "More money" = "More games
won." This is true to some extent, but certainly not the
defining factor. In general, I'd say that there are three
types of players, based on how much each has spent, and
players within each category can compete more or less equally.
(My examples will refer to Magic, it being the best-known and
most-maligned CCG.)
1) Newbies, who have spent less than $20-$30 on cards.
You can make interesting and fun decks with two or three
starter decks; I enjoy this play environment, myself, and am a
member of a league in which everybody has $15 worth of cards.
We trade amongst ourselves, and are all on an even resource
footing. There are, of course, better players and better
deck-designers, but that's a matter of skill. (Btw, last
year's world champion lifetime Magic monetary output was
exactly $7.95 (plus tax); he then traded up to have the
officially recognized Best Deck on Earth.)
2) Enthusiasts, like myself, who have spent between $30
and $500 on Magic, and who don't have the "game-breaker" cards
(Moxen, Loti, etc.), which have been discontinued. Believe it
or not, all these people are pretty much on an even footing.
By way of example, I've spent perhaps $400 on Magic cards, and
my girlfriend has spent perhaps $50. In general, I win about
3/5 of the games we play, and the imbalance is probably a
result of the effort I've put into learning about deck
construction. I know a bunch of other people in her range who
I'm pretty well matched against as well. (On the other hand,
my friend Fred constantly bests my $400 deck with his $15
league deck. He's a pretty good deckbuilder...)
3) The Obsessed, who have spent over $500 on Magic cards,
and who have complete sets of Moxen and Loti and whatnot. I
agree that these sorts of people aren't much fun to play with,
if they bring all their guns to bear. However, you can
generally ask them to make a deck comparable to yours; often,
these sorts will stop making killer decks after a while on
their own, and concentrate on fun. My friend Don is like
this; he owns at least one of each Magic card extant, yet
plays fun theme decks which are an even match with the $15
league decks. Most people want to have fun, and it's not much
fun to stomp your opponent into the ground.
My advice: don't play against people outside your range,
and things will be peachy. Of course, if you're in the middle
range and just starting out, other people in your range will
have had a lot more experience building and playing decks, so
you will be trounced. This is probably not a matter of your
opponent having spent more money than you, just a question of
their time and effort spent in learning.
So, yes, money is a factor, but not an overwhelming one.
Generally, it is the skill of the player building and playing
the deck which counts the most towards who wins. And even if
money _is_ a factor in your gaming community, there are plenty
of ways around it. The league I mentioned; we have about
twenty people, and play a lot of Magic together, all at the
same level. Or, if your opponent has many more cards than
you, use _his_ cards to build your deck, or ask him to use a
subset of his cards. (A similar variant is the "Box o' Magic"
we use around here, in which everyone draws from the same
central pool of cards.) Most people will allow you to use
proxies for those Moxen and Black Loti you don't own, if they
themselves use them. Borrow a deck. Ask your opponent to
play using Type II Tournament rules--only currently-available
cards can be used. I generally use Type I tourney rules:
60-card minimum, and no more than 4 of any one card, excepting
restricted and banned cards. All these things even things up.
The basic point is, money is only a factor if you allow
it to be. The rich guy's cards won't do him any good if
you've built a lean, well-thought-out deck of commons. (I saw
Richard Garfield holding his own at a con last year with an
all-common deck.) More importantly, most people stop building
degenerate decks after a while, because they're simply not
fun. As long as everybody agrees what kind of game you want
to play beforehand, there should be no problems.
This is true for most games; somebody trying to play
cutthroat Diplomacy against someone out for a friendly game
will win handily, and it'll be like pulling teeth. Ditto for
Magic. Set ground rules before you play, and you can define
the game to be whatever you wish.
(Btw, in tournament play, much of this goes out the
window--people there are always cutthroat, and always build
degenerate decks. Avoid them--I do. :)= )
----j7y
**************************** <*> ****************************
jere7my tho?rpe "Arf, arf."
Physicist and Artist Guy The sound of certain death in
jtho...@cc.swarthmore.edu the land of the 50-ton dogs.
(610) 604-0669 (Mister Boffo)
Jeff W. Alexander
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Here, I concur with David. Fuzon is mistaken. Designers of CCGs (mostly)
>either play with a practically endless supply of cards, or they
>play something like starter vs. starter (for some newer CCGs).
>No CCGs I have seen on the market is playable with a single starter
>against a practically endless supply of cards. Yet, in practice,
>players have to face that problem, unless you shell out lots of $$$
>to get much more than a single starter. I challenge any CCG designer
>to "like to play" his own game that way (against an equally competent
>opponent).
Realize what you're asking for: a customizable card game in
which deck construction doesn't matter. I don't believe that's
logically possible in a one-on-one setting. Multiplayer games are
a different story, especially those with victory conditions that
involve each player reaching a private goal rather than being the
sole survivor. In these, your sole starter gets a chance to develop
since other players start out as more pressing threats.
Jeff A.
Brian Henderson
>>>Now, try this in a CCG. Turn a swamp into a Black Lotus with a magic
>marker, then try to make it out of the room alive.<<
>In any situation other than a tournament this shouldn't be a problem if
>you tell people in advance that you're testing a deck design and are using
>proxies to do it.
Heck, I should be able to do that in *ANY* game, tourney or not. The
point of the game should not be how much money you are willing to blow
but how much skill and strategy you have.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FFFFFF N N OOO RRRR DDDD
% Brian Henderson %% % F NN N O O R R D D
% Internet: BHen...@kirk.microsys.net % FFF N N N O O RRRR D D
% BHen...@microsys.net % F N NN O O R R D D
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F N N OOO R R DDDD
Stay Alert - Trust No One - Keep Your Laser Handy!
"Order the fries, Earthling!"
The Dragon Reborn
: The reason that I don't like CCGs is quite simple. People try to sit
: down at the table with better cards than I have. This is by no means my
: first experience with such people. In Poker one occasionally has to deal
: with somebody who thinks he should be allowed to hoard all the aces. I
: avoid playing with such people. Making it legal does not improve it,
: because my point it esthatic, not moral. I actively prefer a fair game.
: CCGs have an especial appeal to that small minority of gamers who *don't*
: prefer a fair game.
What?? How do you perceive that a CCG is unfair? Every person is
allowed to play with the same rules and cards. I get the impression that
you think that because everyone does not have the same financial and/or
trading resources that people gain an unfair advantage. An advantage,
yes, an unfair advantage, no. If you do not have the financial
resources then you will be restricted in your ability to compete in most
comtetitive games in this world (tennis lessons cost money too). If you
don't like to trade, then that is your loss. Being able to make your
deck better is hardly cheating, just as taking tennis lessons (or chess,
or golf, etc) in order to beat your local group is not cheating. But it
does take time and money.
: There have always been gamers who actively want to have a major advantage
: before the game starts. CCGs attract all of these folks. It attracts
: many other people, too, but almost every gamer that I don't want to play
: with is over at the CCGs lately. (No, I am not being prejudiced here,
: discussing thousands of people I don't know. I'm talking about a very few
: specific gamers I know that I don't like playing with, because they don't
: like fair games. They are *all* now playing CCGs almost exclusively now.)
Instead of assuming that they are into CCGs because they want an unfair
advantage, perhaps you should also consider that perhaps the CCGs give
them something that other games don't. I have played probably hundreds
of different games over the years, and get an enjoyment out of CCGs that
I never got out of any other game. I can spend hours developing a deck
idea, and get great enjoyment out of the development, even if the deck is
weak. Board games seldom are configured in a way that allow you to
develop a strategy ahead of time, and 'pure' luck is often a big factor
(roll those dice). I love to win, but if I am playing a new player or
someone that I know doesn't have a lot of money for cards, I play my
more common decks, saving the killer decks for the more hard core players.
Even though you know these people, does not mean that you know what
motivates them.
Bill
David desJardins
> Realize what you're asking for: a customizable card game in which deck
> construction doesn't matter. I don't believe that's logically
> possible in a one-on-one setting.
Why isn't it possible? To use an analogy, you can play Star Fleet
Battles and play customizable scenarios in which fleet construction
doesn't matter. You get 500 BPV to build your fleet and (if the BPV
values are reasonably accurate) you don't get a big advantage from
constructing one 500 BPV fleet instead of another. But you do gain the
ability to play lots of different 500 BPV scenarios instead of a single
one, and as new ships and BPV values are published you increase the
variety of fleets you can form.
If it's really true that giving an advantage to the player with more
cards (and more valuable ones) over the player with fewer cards is not a
fundamental _goal_ of CCG designers, then it certainly should be
possible to construct CCG-like games in which that's not true.
In a recent posting, I listed quite an assortment of different
variations on the CCG theme, which have, to various extents, all of the
other features that CCGs have, including the virtues that supporters
cite, except for the one particular feature that players can build more
powerful decks by collecting more cards and spending more money. Those
variations are games which I personally would enjoy much more than
present CCGs. I believe that the reason that those games don't exist is
that the popularity of CCGs really is strongly tied to the ability to
boost one's power by buying or trading for more cards. That doesn't
mean that every player plays the game solely that way or for that
reason, but it does mean that it's important enough to enough players
that it seems to be an indispensable element.
I'd be ecstatic to be proved wrong by someone publishing (or pointing me
to!) CCG-like games of the types that I said I would like to play.
Chris Camfield
Chuck Kallenbach II <scou...@inlink.com> wrote:
>My collectible card game is like this:
>
>Easily portable.
>Pretty.
>Quick to set up.
>Fun to trade cards with.
>Games usually last about an hour.
>Games can include a varying number of players.
>
>Can you say the same for your boardgame or your miniatures game or your
>roleplaying game? I've played 'em all, so I have no particular
>"outside-looking-in" negative slant from the get-go.
You've played them _all_? Really? Ever played a mini-game? Easily
portable, quick to set up, games usually last about an hour, games can
include a variety of players. That's 4 out of 6, which isn't too bad,
and there are (were) lots of them. (Says he, looking over at his shelf.)
Some of them had beautiful maps too - Outpost Gamma certainly, the later
maps for GEV and Ogre by Denis Loubet are good too. I might not even need
an opponent if I choose to play some of them, and have a good time even :)
Chris
--
Christopher Camfield ccam...@uwaterloo.ca
1996 BMath Joint CS/C&O [1998 BA Classical Studies]
WeMakeAPieceOfArt AndWePutItOnTheWall SecurityGuardsCantGuardIt
Mandala
Chuck Kallenbach II
Easily portable.
Pretty.
Quick to set up.
Fun to trade cards with.
Games usually last about an hour.
Games can include a varying number of players.
Can you say the same for your boardgame or your miniatures game or your
roleplaying game? I've played 'em all, so I have no particular
"outside-looking-in" negative slant from the get-go.
I saw a guy nearly wet his pants when he picked up his copy of Second
Front, the rather large-sized WWII boardgame. That is without a doubt,
the ugliest game I have _ever_ seen. The counters, rules, map,
everything--yucko. He was overjoyed, and I think that's terrific.
Part of the joy in CCG's (and I know you're not going to believe this) is
the constantly-changing game environment. If you don't like this kind of
thing, you won't like them. That's a big factor in this "prejudice." I
understand perfectly that you want to buy a "complete" game. Reenacting
history doesn't provide quite as much surprise factor--that Union Corps
in Terrible Swift Sword is always coming in on the same game turn. (Yes,
I know about alternates and variants, but you get my point.)
Some people like Pepsi and some like Coke. It's just a different point of
view. I just want you guys to know that some people _like_ the constantly
changing game environment. Ask the Games Workshop players. Their playing
field gets redefined about twice a year, they know what I'm talking
about.
Oh yeah, and one more thing--the money issue. I never hear the miniatures
gamers griping about the cost of CCG's, because they know how to shell
out big bucks for their hobby. And let's compare MTG to ASL--WOTC never
charged me $45 for a _rulebook._ Further, you _can_ make a fine CCG deck
with a boardgame-like investment of $30-$50. Not everybody plays in
tournaments.
Thanks for your time.
Scoundrel
David L. Williams
Who are you hoping to convince of what?
My advice to people who don't like CCG's is (drum roll, please):
Don't play them.
My advice to people who like CCG's is:
Quit arguing and go make a deck.
:)
Roger Barnes
: Now, try this in a CCG. Turn a swamp into a Black Lotus with a magic marker,
: then try to make it out of the room alive.
There is a difference. Proxying a swamp for a Lotus or Mox or (random
Type I Beta here) is like taking a stand of US Marines and saying that
they're Cofederates. Sure, you'll have problems with people, if you want
to proxy a Lotus, but proxying a, say, Stormbind or Ernham Djinn, those
you could get away with.
Nate Barnes, using his father's account.
Bill Seurer
|> John_Da...@cup.portal.com wrote:
|> >2. A good game is social. That means it doesn't require more solo setup
|> >time than playing time. CCGs do. Usually 3-4 times as much.
|>
|> Yes, you could spend a lot of time designing your deck(s). You could also
|> spend lots of time examining the charts/boards to a game, analyzing them
|> for hidden advantages. It does not take me 3x-4x time units to design
|> decks for the TCGs that I play (where x is the time spent actually playing
|> the game). Again, this can be true of Magic (where one and two turn games
|> are "desired"), but not so in most other TCGs.
Good point. I used to set up various scenarios in a WWII strategic game
I used to play all the time and play them out before I got together with
my buddies. I developed several new attack strategies on France that
way that worked quite well! One of the guys did the same and sometimes
brought a page of notes on stuff he thought of between game sessions.
Chris Mattern
: Now go to the store. Buy one starter deck of any CCG out there aside from
: INWO. Can you play a game with it? NO! Your friend needs to buy one too.
YES! Try Shadowfist. Try this: buy a starter deck. Shuffle it. Deal half
to your friend and half to yourself. The decks will be legal (well, the odds
are astronomical that they won't be--the only deck limitation is that you
can't have more than 5 of any one card), and truth to tell, will probably
give you a pretty good game.
: Then you can play some pale approximation of the game you'd play if you went
: and bought enough cards to tune your deck, or design different decks. Why?
: Because, as everyone admits, a big part of the fun and game play of a CCG is
: designing your deck, sommething you can't really do out od a single starter
: deck (modulo intense trading, natch - but we're back to the problem that many
: people don't find trading enjoyable).
Shadowfist is still feeling itself out, but the optimum deck size is looking
to be rather less than 60 (which is the number of cards in a starter)--and the
game mechanics militate against stocking yourself with lots of rares.
I'd say with a 60 card deck and some trading, you could make some interesting
design decisions. With a 60 card deck, a couple of boosters and some trading, you could
make a lot of interesting design decisions. If you don't like trading, I'm
willing to say CCG's may not be for you--trading is pretty much an integral part
of them, so if you don't like that, you might be better off in something else.
Nothing's for everybody.
Chris Mattern