"Why I got out of Magic"
Matthew M. Colville
In article <19970926012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ja...@aol.com
(JAPE) wrote:
> My question is this: I know why the gamers in our group quit playing MtG
> and sold their cards, and I have my own half dozen reasons for moving on
> (which, if anyone is interested, I'll post later), but I'm curious as to
> why other people have gotten out of the game. Was it burn-out, did you get
> tired of all the munchkins, or did the next flavor of the month come along
> and carry you away? I've found as many reasons for quiting as there were
> gamers and I'd like to get a cross-sampling of on-line gamers.
My web site has a brief history of how my group was introduced to, and
then moved on from, Magic, The Gathering.
First off, Magic was never seriously designed for multi-player play, and
really gaming is a social experience for my group. It's rare that there
are only two of us, and when there *is* only two of us, a CCG just doesn't
have any appeal.
Secondly, Magic is fairly simplistic in nature, compared with other
CCGs. This is only natural and to be expected, since it was the first.
When Jyhad first came out, my group was very skeptical. "How much
different can it *be*?" we wondered with extreme naïveté. When we got our
hands on it, it was significantly more sophisticated.
We tried a few other CCGs, but they didn't seem anywhere near as well
designed.
Then L5R came out, and my group was hooked on the genre and the idea of
personally allying yourself with a clan, and having a vested interest in
how your clan progressed. We *really* liked the idea of a storyline that
the players affect. The game itself has what I consider to be some serious
flaws, but I still enjoy playing.
Middle Earth caught our attention in a serious way because it was
faithfully based on the book, elegantly designed, and brilliantly drawn.
Middle Earth was more different from it's predecessors than anything else.
The idea of geography that affected what you could do was great. It was
far more balanced, as well.
And we're waiting anxiously for Dune because, even more than ME, my
group loves the Dune series and movie. We've already pre-ordered three
boxes, and picked our clans.
That's about it.
--
Matthew M. Colville mcol...@earthlink.net
Diplomat/Sage/Dunedain Unaligned Monk Philosopher
--
Role-Playing & Fiction; http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville
JAPE
After four years of playing Magic, I'm preparing to do what--even a few
months ago--would have been unthinkable: sell my cards. Besides being a
pack-rat, I love games and gaming theory, and Magic is a great example of both.
Yet as this year wore on the number of reasons I had to quit playing Magic
finally grew past the number of ways I liked the game; I mentioned I was
thinking of quiting and, bam, here I am with guys calling me in the middle
of the day asking what cards I have and how much I want for 'em. (And no,
please don't ask; I have enough interested parties locally without going on
line).
As it is, I'm the next to last holdout from the group that started 4 years
ago. Of the dozen guys I started playing with, only one still plays, and
only one other hasn't cashed in their cards yet.
My question is this: I know why the gamers in our group quit playing MtG
and sold their cards, and I have my own half dozen reasons for moving on
(which, if anyone is interested, I'll post later), but I'm curious as to
why other people have gotten out of the game. Was it burn-out, did you get
tired of all the munchkins, or did the next flavor of the month come along
and carry you away? I've found as many reasons for quiting as there were
gamers and I'd like to get a cross-sampling of on-line gamers.
Thanks ahead of time,
Jape
Dragon Clan Dueling Banjo
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
On 26 Sep 1997 01:21:46 GMT, ja...@aol.com (JAPE) uttered:
>I'm curious as to
>why other people have gotten out of the game.
Personally, I started back in Alpha days, and got out some six months
ago.
In my case:
1) The ever-changing tournament rules, card errata etc.
2) The sudden drop in time between expansions, after they promised
(after Legends, IIRC) to slow down. Not that you _needed_ any of the
expansions to have a decent deck, but keeping up with what special
abilities various cards have can be frustrating.
3) The "joy" of discovering a new card - either in a booster you
bought or in a deck you played against - was long gone. Card lists and
zombies buying cards by the truckloads killed that.
4) Plus, after having played several other CCGs, it became painfully
obvious M:tG isn't that good a game - all of RG's later designs beat
it to a pulp design-wise - esp. Netrunner. I _still_ consider
Spellfire and SimCity to be the lousiest of the TCGs, though.
All that said, I _do_ play Microprose's computer version, and
anxiously await the "Spells of the Ancients" expansion.
--
Becky!, Agent and Opera - now what was it I needed Netscape for?
T & M Davison
I sold most of my cards, but kept enough for casual play. I got out
because I could no longer keep up with all the expansions, and also because
there was little that was new in each of the new sets. I have been playing
games like Star Wars, MECCG, and LO5R which tend to introduce more new
wrinkles in each new set, and also have more depth in their gamepley.
But I still like a game of Magic now and again
Tony D
JAPE <ja...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970926012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Allan Goodall
On 26 Sep 1997 01:21:46 GMT, in message
>My question is this: I know why the gamers in our group quit playing MtG
>and sold their cards, and I have my own half dozen reasons for moving on
>(which, if anyone is interested, I'll post later), but I'm curious as to
>why other people have gotten out of the game.
I got into Magic when it first came out. I quickly realized that it was a
fairly simple game tactically, but winning and losing was in the strategic
deck building. I got a local friend into the game, and we started to play
irregularly. Another friend got into it and he and I played monthly.
I didn't play outside of our small group. The problem with CCGs is that
unless you play very regularly, you will get creamed by other players in
tournaments and store games. Since I wasn't willing to spend the money to
be competitive at a tournament level, I only played with my friends.
When _Mythos_ came out, one of my friends and I went whole hog into it. It
plays incredibly well compared to Magic and this grabbed our attention. My
other friend discovered _On The Edge_ due to its low cost recently. I just
picked up some L5R cards--based on all the hoopla--and some
Netrunner--based on the low cost as stores sell off backstock. I also play
_Dixie_ most days at lunch with a colleague at work who is into wargames.
In summary, it was Magic's simplistic game that started me looking
elsewhere. The high cost of being competitive started to kill the game for
me, though.
Allan Goodall agoo...@sympatico.ca
We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that Lady Luck dances
Roll the bones - N. Peart
Paul J. Lareau
JAPE wrote:
> ...I'm curious as to
> why other people have gotten out of [Magic]. Was it burn-out, did you get
> tired of all the munchkins, or did the next flavor of the month come along
> and carry you away? I've found as many reasons for quiting as there were
> gamers and I'd like to get a cross-sampling of on-line gamers.
My wife and I got into Magic after our daughter and her family got into
it. We are a three-generation gaming family, so this is nothing
unusual. I have to admit that I went into it with mixed feelings. As
an old baseball card collector back in the 1950's, the concept of a ccg
appeals to me. I love buying packs and searching for that "one elusive
card". On the other hand, I am by nature rather a non-competative,
"beer & pretzels" gamer, and games with "shifting rules" (like Cosmic
Encounters) had always required a bit too much concentration for my
taste. We have played for about three years now, mainly within the
family, and at this point, all four of us are out of Magic, pretty much
all for different reasons.
I was the first to drop it, and I have to admit I was never really
thrilled with it, but I wasn't sure why. A friend of ours introduced
us to VAMPIRE/JYHAD, and I took to that game a lot more. I really liked
the CHARACTER-ORIENTATION of Vampire. In Magic, creatures and spells
sort of roll together in my mind as "weapons to beat somebody with".
Winning decks were generally put together with "the right tools", and
even when the deck was "themed", it was mostly just a color thing, or
else it was a novelty deck, usually not very playable. In Vampire, you
got to know and like playing specific characters with a hint of a
personality. Also, the nature of the cards and the type of people drawn
to it tended to be STORYTELLERS, and the attempt to make "story sense"
out of what just happened in the game made it a lot more fun. Vampire,
however, didn't wear well on me because the rest of the family wasn't
really sold on the genre (fangs were not in!), and frankly, WoTC did
such a lousy job of developing the cards and rules, that everything was
an exception! You can't play the game without a rules lawyer to
interpret that garbage!
On the sell-off table of our local game store, I then picked up a very
inexpensive box of ON THE EDGE, because I had read good things about
it. I continue to play that game, have lots of very cheap cards, and
even run an Internet Web Site for the game. Like Vampire, characters
are interesting, and the world of Al Amarja is fun, outrageous, and very
attuned to storytelling. Like Vampire, it was originally based on a
role-playing game. Unlike Vampire, the RULES ARE CLEAR, relatively
simple, and decks are playable as they come ... NO NEED TO OWN LOTS if
you don't want to or can't afford them. I can peel off 100 cards very
easily to give to a new player, and they can probably make a fairly
competative deck out of them. But the longer I play, the more I find I
would rather write stories set in the world than to actually sit down
and play the card game. I find that even more true about a PBEM world
I'm involved in (THREE SUNS), which I find a bit less violent, nasty,
and dirty.
So the final conclusion I'm reaching is that, at heart, I'm probably
more of a closet role-player (and I prefer online to "in person" rpg's
because I'd rather write than talk a story through), and a party
board-gamer, than I really am a ccg player.
Just for your records, my daughter quit the game because she found it
TOO ADDICTING and EXPENSIVE to buy cards, and because many of her
playing FRIENDS QUIT. Her husband quit because he got disgusted that the
cards you needed to put together winning hands CHANGED every time a new
expansion came out with more powerful cards or more effective hosers.
He'd have been happier if Magic had died after the first 3 or 4
expansions. Finally my wife, the most enthusiastic player of the group,
has quit the ccg version, mostly because none of us play it much, and
she is usually too tired after work to party a lot. She picked up the
COMPUTER VERSION, and frankly enjoys it as much if not more than the
card version, and plays nearly every night...while I do PBEM's on a
matched computer nearby!
--
Paul J. Lareau
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[POST] 135 E. Viking Dr. #301, Little Canada MN 55117 USA
[HOME PAGE] http://www.wavefront.com/~pjlareau/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
John Yeung
I started around the beginning of summer, played quite a lot in the
first month, two months later I played less. Month three, I'm quitting
and selling my cards. I did get into it pretty quickly, and have at
least 6 boxes total worth of cards. I learnt a lot from net resources,
and maybe I learnt too fast.
I can't think of many reasons why I quit. To tell the truth, I didn't
feel it was complex enough, or not enough options to do things. Sure
they're lots of ruling questions, but they're usually about what
happens when you cast this with that ect(Also due to the speed of
expansions coming out). I found myself less involved in a game
compared to when I first played. In general, everygame felt similar,
nothing was new, everything became dull. In anycase, I'll probably
play once in a while, but you can bet I won't buying any boosters in
the near future.
My attention is turning towards other CCG's. And while I'm here, when
you find the time, please tell me something about other CCG's. Whether
they're playable out of the starters(ie how much I may want to
spend:), but most importantly how complex, fun and involved are they.
Also whatever you decided to include.
Yours, John.
Robert Rossney
The primary reason I got out of Magic was that I discovered Shadowfist.
Magic is really interesting and innovative and complex and deep, but
Shadowfist is FUN. The flow of a Shadowfist game is substantially more
bizarre and chaotic than a Magic game. Unpredictable things happen. Lots
of unpredictable things. But at the same time that it's a chaotic game,
one generally has the feeling that what is happening is not entirely
unexpected, and a growing familiarity with the card mix and the types of
decks one encounters bounds the chaos somewhat.
And the world of the secret war, with its unexpected alliances between
familiar archetypes (the Scrappy Kid, the Gruff Lieutenant) and bizarre
creations (the Chimpanzer? Dr. April Mucosa? The King Of The Thunder
Pagoda?) is a very strange place to spend time. You can keep your War
Mammoths, I have evil abominations from the future building the Arcanotower
in the depths of the South American rainforest.
Sadly, only about 60 people on earth seem to play Shadowfist. So I've also
taken up L5R. The more I play it, the more interesting it gets. It's a
very, very deep game, much deeper than Magic.
So deep, in fact, that it often isn't very much fun. There occurs, in the
closing turns of an L5R game, a point at which one of your opponents spends
five minutes staring at his cards, a disconsolate expression on his face.
He is thinking through everything that could possibly happen. He is trying
to figure out how he can make the move that he needs to make without losing
everything that he's spent the entire game building up. He knows that a
single misstep will cost him everything. Meanwhile, you are sitting,
silent, waiting, poised between irritation (can you PLEASE make a move THIS
CENTURY, please?) and sympathy (that could be me sitting there with that
pained expression, and in about three minutes, it will be).
It's the kind of thing that makes one long to drop Covert Operations on the
guy, just to rattle his cage. But unfortunately L5R is too serious for
such shenanigans.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Shin Chyang Yu
Well, several reasons:
1. I used to play with several friends of mine, but we moved apart
after graduating from college. Can't find another group to play with
the same casual atmosphere.
2. After starting grad school, I got very buzy and start falling
behind in collection when new expansions are coming out. After I'm
2 or 3 expansions behind, I just don't feel like going back to get
the cards when nothing that interesting seems to be in the newer
expansions.
3. The shift of the gaming style. When I first star playing, the
basic way to play to bring out land, then bigger and bigger
creatures for some chaoic melees. But later landless, creatureless
deck to me moved away from the original sprite of the game, and
to me boring to play.
John Yu
Dennis F. Hefferman
|My question is this: I know why the gamers in our group quit playing MtG
|and sold their cards, and I have my own half dozen reasons for moving on
|(which, if anyone is interested, I'll post later), but I'm curious as to
|why other people have gotten out of the game. Was it burn-out, did you get
|tired of all the munchkins, or did the next flavor of the month come along
|and carry you away? I've found as many reasons for quiting as there were
|gamers and I'd like to get a cross-sampling of on-line gamers.
I gave up on Magic when I got a G/R denial deck working. If you're
thinking that's not a denial mix, you're right -- didn't stop me. I
deliberately tried to push the envelope on suboptimal denial and when I was
still winning more than I lost I realised it was time to pack it in. It's a
denial game and it's never going to change. I've built and played a single
deck since; a Green deck (with tiny amounts of Blue or Red from the sideboard)
that I built just to vex a friend's ChronoStasis design so the kids could see
that the deck could be beaten. (FWIW, it used Elvish Spirit Guides (!), Tinder
Walls, Pyroblasts and Emerald Charms to pop the Stasis after he'd built up
several skipped turns, thus reversing the lock.) A game in which only one side
gets to have a strategy is pointless.
I also didn't have much use for the dumbing-down approach the company
is using -- if I hadn't quit before 5E I certainly would have afterwards. If
you think you actually have an argument for SERRA ANGELS being broken then
there's nothing to talk to you about.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: FuzyLogic heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I don't know why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't you
learned; if it's not happening to me it's not important?" -- Murphy Brown
Mowbert
I put down the Magic heroine needle for the Shadowfist crack pipe. An
earlier post stated why 'Fist is so cool-- FUN. Granted, Shadowfist is
produced by a company that seems to refuse to support it's product, but I
still love it.
Allan R. Babb
Well, to start with, it seems that most people quit Magic because of
the lack of players. My reasons are quite opposite, in fact two of my
friends that still play are Level I & II judges. However, the rate WotC
squeezes out the expansions seemed to me very greedy. The pro-tours
started and I didn't care for the way Magic was being played by the top
players(fighting, arguing, threatening opponents and all..I mean, how
much of a bad ass can Hammer be if he's an ex-wrestler?).
Any how, between the massive investment needed to play the game and
the bung holes that started to appear, it wasn't "fun" any more. I'd
probably play again if our play group(around 20 people or so) started a
sealed deck league again.
I still play CCG's, RPG's, Board games, War games, etc.; Magic just
"lost that magic fealing" for me. Besides that, I recently opened two
boxes of Illuminati:New World Order, and felt completely satisfied
afterwards, I have never had that satisfaction with opening any amount
of Magic cards.
I haven't sold any of my Magic cards(which date through to Mirage,
for some reason I tried to get back in the mood and bought a box, but
just never gained the feelings I had for it before) and probably never
will. I still get a nostalgic feeling when I look at my collection of
Unlimiteds through The Dark(and only 180 or so cards shy of a complete
set of Legends!). Someday I'll probably play again, but only Type I
(well I don't plan on making WotC any richer except through BattleTech,
a game which I've been playing since '87).
Well that's it from me before I start to ramble:-)
--
Allan R. Babb thi...@bellsouth.net
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/6018
Charter member of the Illuminati World Domination Bowling League
Christopher Bird
JAPE (ja...@aol.com) wrote:
> My question is this: I know why the gamers in our group quit playing MtG
> and sold their cards, and I have my own half dozen reasons for moving on
> (which, if anyone is interested, I'll post later), but I'm curious as to
> why other people have gotten out of the game. Was it burn-out, did you get
> tired of all the munchkins, or did the next flavor of the month come along
> and carry you away? I've found as many reasons for quiting as there were
> gamers and I'd like to get a cross-sampling of on-line gamers.
1.) Two years ago, I built a Magic deck that worked fairly well.
Then, I started playing it against the diehards, and even though the deck
was competitive, and fun (for me), I was still mocked for it.
"*Why* do you have a Thingydingy in that deck when a Super Thingymabob is
so much better? It costs less mana, and it's more useful! Having the
Thingydingy in that deck is just stupid!"
"Because I don't *own* a Super Thingymabob."
"So trade for one."
"Why? The deck works fine, and the Thingydingy might not be efficient, but
it's got cool art. I have fun playing the deck."
"That's idiotic."
Go pick up an issue of Inquest. They *rate every card according to
usefulness*. One of my favorite Magic cards, the Headless Horseman from
Legends, gets a one-star rating and they note that "nope, it doesn't do
anything". So? It's got cool flavor text and gorgeous Quinton Hoover art.
It's a *fun card*. But diehards don't seem to *get* that any more.
2.) One of the funniest GenCon stories came from a B-17 exhibition which
was right next to the Magic tournament. To get firing bonuses, you had to
rip up a CCG card (and loudly announce it). "Alpha Mox!" "Beta Lotus!"
(horde of Magic players looking like their spleen had been ripped out).
Magic players (and I know I'm generalizing here) don't seem to clue into
that any more. I sat down and played a game of Ironman magic just using
Unlimited edition cards last year, and I had little 12-year-olds
threatening to kill me for being so wasteful. (Which, admittedly, was
kinda sick fun by itself.) It's a *game*.
Oh, and they don't get Aphrodisiac of Lila from XXXenophile either. :)
3.) Gameplay and marketing...ehhh. I couldn't understand all the hoopla over
Ice Age. It had all the same cards with different names and new art...I'm
supposed to buy this, huh...nah. An expansion every three months? I can't
afford that, and even if I could, there's no guarantee that each of them
wouldn't be the next Fallen Empires or Homelands or what have you.
To add onto this, there's the fact that gaming is basically a social
activity, and Magic is an antisocial game...it's built around dueling, a
one-on-one thing. Multiplayer rules have been juryrigged a half dozen
times and scrapped because of play imbalance. Hell with it. I can go play
a game *designed* for multiplayer play like L5R or Vampire.
And there's no storyline. That pisses me off. They were starting to
approach it with Legends and the next couple of expansions, and then
veered off into "new worlds". Who was Urza? What was he like? This would
be *cool* to know. It could be a great story. Why the hell did he hate
Mishra so? But this was never actually answered. Yawn.
4.) Other games simply play better. L5R is so complex it's almost
mindboggling strategic (which isn't always a good thing). ShadowRun is
just crazy fun, as is ShadowFist (hmm. Connection?). Vampire is fun, and
Rage is a great beer and pretzels game. Even SimCity is a lot of fun if
you ignore the CCG aspect and just play with one big communal deck.
--chdb
mp...@cts.com
I got tired of all the rules errata. The friend who I usually play
Magic with, and myself, are both reasonably experienced players ... we
know the rules quite well. Even so, each and every time we play with
a new deck, some new question about rules precedence or timing arises,
and we then have to scramble to the computer database to look up the
errata. This gets tiresome after a while, particularly when so many
of the other CCGs on the market do not suffer from this problem.
Everyone says what a great game Magic is ... upon reflection, I would
differ with this somewhat. Magic is a great game *concept*. But the
particular rule set is not very good at all ... just look at all of
the banned cards ("Oops, we didn't realize how unbalancing that card
would be, let's ban it!").
As the earlier respondents have noted here, there are many other,
better games on the market. I'd urge all current Magic players to
climb out of the rut and give one or two competing products a try!
-- Mark Peterson
JAPE
<<Magic players (and I know I'm generalizing here) don't seem to clue into
that any more. I sat down and played a game of Ironman magic just using
Unlimited edition cards last year, and I had little 12-year-olds
threatening to kill me for being so wasteful. (Which, admittedly, was
kinda sick fun by itself.) It's a *game*.<<
One of the things that really left a bad taste in my mouth was a time I
had out a deck with timewalk and some other beta cards in it. As I remember
it, some bystander wanted to know why I didn't have all my early cards in
protective sleaves; when I told I didn't like playing with sleaves, he said
that was stupid. "Maybe so," I replied, "but they're my cards so I'll treat
them how I like." Then I was told I was an idiot and that maybe I should
just give them to someone who was going to treat them better (as if, by
being so reckless, I didn't deserve to own them). "Maybe I will," I said,
"but it won't be to you." Needless to say, that ended the conversation.
The funny thing is, that TimeWalk is all beat to shit and I'm STILL going
to get top dollar for it when I sell my cards.
Jeez-fucking-Louis, its just cardboard!
Jape
robin
"Robert Rossney" <r...@well.com> wrote:
>Magic is really interesting and innovative and complex and deep, but
>Shadowfist is FUN. The flow of a Shadowfist game is substantially more
>bizarre and chaotic than a Magic game. Unpredictable things happen. Lots
>of unpredictable things. But at the same time that it's a chaotic game,
>one generally has the feeling that what is happening is not entirely
>unexpected, and a growing familiarity with the card mix and the types of
>decks one encounters bounds the chaos somewhat.
This is a great way to describe the difference between the two games.
Really, Shadowfist has Magic beat in many departments:
* better art -- sometimes way better
* far superior flavour text; Magic is either puerile, irrelevant (why
Shakespeare guys, is he hanging out in Dominaria now?), or
head-scratchingly nonsensical
* more consistent rules, though not all that well expressed in the current
rulebook
* far better back story that is actually fun to discover
* lack of degenerate strategies. You can't reanimate creatures you
discarded (after all, they were never alive to begin with, they were just
*cards*). You can't destroy your opponent's hand or resources and thus
prevent them from playing the game (though Inauspicious Reburial is broken
in this respect -- which even Jose Garcia has admitted).
>Sadly, only about 60 people on earth seem to play Shadowfist. So I've also
>taken up L5R. The more I play it, the more interesting it gets. It's a
>very, very deep game, much deeper than Magic.
I would take exception to this. The number of possible strategies and card
combinations in Magic dwarfs those of any other game I know. That's one
reason it's so incredibly addictive. Players always want to find that
slightly better card, that marginally more workable combo. For me L5R is
much simpler, though overall a much better game.
>So deep, in fact, that it often isn't very much fun. There occurs, in the
>closing turns of an L5R game, a point at which one of your opponents spends
>five minutes staring at his cards, a disconsolate expression on his face.
>He is thinking through everything that could possibly happen. He is trying
>to figure out how he can make the move that he needs to make without losing
>everything that he's spent the entire game building up. He knows that a
>single misstep will cost him everything. Meanwhile, you are sitting,
>silent, waiting, poised between irritation (can you PLEASE make a move THIS
>CENTURY, please?) and sympathy (that could be me sitting there with that
>pained expression, and in about three minutes, it will be).
This is the problem with L5R. The combat system is by default all or
nothing. Of course there are many card effects that can alter this, and the
game often comes down to who has more (or better) effects to play on a
given combat. You've described perfectly the anguish that leads up to the
action in which one player is utterly defeated. Magic rarely has such a
decisive moment, though when it does (I Armageddon with an Ernham Djinn on
the board) it's an inherent part of the deck design and expected path to
victory -- which it is not in L5R.
Shadowfist suffers from neither effect. Players are always in the game
until the end and always have a chance for a surprise comeback.
Check out my web page for more CCG evaluations.
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| robin, co-ordinator | <Word falling -- Photo falling -- |
| Grey Room cell | Time falling -- Break through in |
| robin.es...@ACM.org | Grey Room> : W.S. Burroughs |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| jupiter.execulink.com/~robin/ |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
T & M Davison
I've just started playing Legend of the Five rings. It is fairly playable
out of the box, medium complexity with lots of options, looks OK for two
player or multi-player.
I am also into MECCG which is fairly complex, can take a time to play, but
adds lots of new mechanics with each expansion so keeps the environment
fresh. I find Star Wars fun socially, but you need lots of Rares to play
seriously.
Tony D
John Yeung <J.Y...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<342b1c8b...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
Brian Henderson
ja...@aol.com (JAPE) wrote:
>My question is this: I know why the gamers in our group quit playing MtG
>and sold their cards, and I have my own half dozen reasons for moving on
>(which, if anyone is interested, I'll post later), but I'm curious as to
>why other people have gotten out of the game. Was it burn-out, did you get
>tired of all the munchkins, or did the next flavor of the month come along
>and carry you away? I've found as many reasons for quiting as there were
>gamers and I'd like to get a cross-sampling of on-line gamers.
Well, I was never a huge MtG player in the first place, although I've
been around since Alpha and I have had friends who were REALLY into
it, I never found it all that fun. I still have most of my cards, but
they will probably rot in a closet forever, I really never felt the
urge to waste the time to sell them off.
Why don't I find it fun? First off, the game takes itself WAAAAAAY
too seriously, and the gamers that I have seen most often are so
fanatical about the silly game that they can't have any fun at it.
It's too competitive for me, who just wants to play a game, have a
good time and enjoy life. Most of the other games that I play now
poke fun at themselves and at the players and catching all the
in-jokes is at least as much fun as playing the game.
Secondly, MtG turned into a money pit. Even if you just try to keep
up with the new expansions, you're going to be out at least a couple
hundred dollars a year, and that's not even to stay competitive. MtG
is one of the few card games out there that costs an arm and a leg to
play and it's simply not a good enough game to be worth it.
So I moved on to games that are a lot more fun to play, don't require
you to mortage your house and aren't quite as anal as I've found MtG
to be.
-Brian
Allan R. Babb
Christopher Bird wrote:
>
> JAPE (ja...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > My question is this: I know why the gamers in our group quit playing MtG
> > and sold their cards, and I have my own half dozen reasons for moving on
> > (which, if anyone is interested, I'll post later), but I'm curious as to
> > why other people have gotten out of the game. Was it burn-out, did you get
> > tired of all the munchkins, or did the next flavor of the month come along
> > and carry you away? I've found as many reasons for quiting as there were
> > gamers and I'd like to get a cross-sampling of on-line gamers.
>
>
> Then, I started playing it against the diehards, and even though the deck
> was competitive, and fun (for me), I was still mocked for it.
>
> "*Why* do you have a Thingydingy in that deck when a Super Thingymabob is
> so much better? It costs less mana, and it's more useful! Having the
> Thingydingy in that deck is just stupid!"
> "Because I don't *own* a Super Thingymabob."
> "So trade for one."
> "Why? The deck works fine, and the Thingydingy might not be efficient, but
> it's got cool art. I have fun playing the deck."
> "That's idiotic."
>
Pro-wannabees.
> Go pick up an issue of Inquest. They *rate every card according to
> usefulness*. One of my favorite Magic cards, the Headless Horseman from
> anything"[I love the Headless Horseman myself, so how do the moxes rate? I'm sure they rate high, because "special" people need special cards. I'd like to see half of the people with moxes win in a type I tourney without them(or Black Lotus, Time Walk, Time Twister, Ancestral Recall, or The Library of Alexandria)] So? It's got cool flavor text and gorgeous Quinton Hoover art.
> It's a *fun card*. But diehards don't seem to *get* that any more.
personality. Their editor(if they have one) definately does not do
his/her job. I don't remember the last time a Juzam Djinn flew. I'm
sure many others can come up with some errors. If I had a copy of
"Insest" in front of me, I could probably find many more problems with
editors. The decks they come up with have to be the most degenerate
around. If they have a "National Inquierer" for Magic, this must be
it. Any other people have comments on this?
Lee Walker
> Any how, between the massive investment needed to play the game and
> the bung holes that started to appear, it wasn't "fun" any more. I'd
> probably play again if our play group(around 20 people or so) started a
> sealed deck league again.
> I still play CCG's, RPG's, Board games, War games, etc.; Magic just
> "lost that magic fealing" for me. Besides that, I recently opened two
> boxes of Illuminati:New World Order, and felt completely satisfied
> afterwards, I have never had that satisfaction with opening any amount
> of Magic cards.
I completely agree. My favourite game of all CCG's is INWO. (OK so the
Assasins expansion card sorting for boosters was a little off) but
still the best game going. IMHO.
It plays straight out of the box, no need to go messing for a bit.
Another game like this was NetRunner. Another great game that can
be played initially straight out of the box, then adapted later.
But somehow it didn't sell (or maybe didn't sell like Magic so
WOTC have large stocks of starters, and have a new expansion already
done, but they have no intention of publishing it.)
A great pity.
--
"What are we going to do tonight Brain ?"
"The same as every nighy Pinky, Try To Take Over The World !"
Zen Faulkes
Greetings,
Greetings,
Allan R. Babb wrote:
> Inquest sucks. This is definately a magazine for people who have no
> personality. Their editor(if they have one) definately does not do
> his/her job. I don't remember the last time a Juzam Djinn flew. I'm
> sure many others can come up with some errors. If I had a copy of
> "Insest" in front of me, I could probably find many more problems with
> editors. The decks they come up with have to be the most degenerate
> around. If they have a "National Inquierer" for Magic, this must be
> it. Any other people have comments on this?
I'm an occasional writer for InQuest, covering Legend of the Five
Rings. I don't have a comment (now), but a few questions:
What games magazines do you think do a better job, and why? I really
only know of three generally available CCG mags: InQuest, Scrye, and
Duelist. Scrye is primarily a news and price guide, and if you don't
play Wizards of the Coast games, Duelist has a limited appeal.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "errors"; factual mistakes,
or disagreeing with strategy?
Do you play anything besides Magic (as your post only mentioned it),
and if so, could you tell me what magazines cover other games better?
Because if you know of a magazine out there publishing good L5R strategy
on a semi-regular basis, I'll be one of the first in line at the
newstand to buy it. :)
Zen Faulkes!
InQuest contributer willing to take lumps for what he writes
Neal Feldman
Inquest may not be the best mag out, but at least they meet production
deadlines and get their magazine out on a regular basis, unlike Scrye
and Duellist.
--
Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
than...@cyberis.net
benjamin barnett
I, like apparently a lot of you, got out about the time Ice Age came
out. puh-LEEEEEZE. okay, I have a good job and a financial life, but
even with access to a fair quantity of leisure $$$ I don't feel a need
to throw money around chasing a few new rares padded with repackaged
same-ol' same-ol' commons/uncommons. plus, type II combined with the
expansion-every-3-months release sched is clearly tailored to separate
fools from their money. Thanks, but no.
Plus, all the rules-lawyering and severely tournament-competitive
attitude creep in my area sucks all enjoyment from the game. plain
sucks, too.
Finding shadowfist and V:tES (since ruined by WoTC, sadly) was just the
last nail in the coffin. Shadowfist rocks -- pass the ammo and watch
your feng shui sites! Weaklings and Permission Decks need not apply.
benjamin barnett; magic the who?
Joseph William Dixon
I've been trying to get out of Magic, but that's about the only thing
people are willing to play in my area - except for a small group I've
managed to get interested in Shadowfist. Not enough, tho. :(
/==== Joseph Dixon === aa...@chebucto.ns.ca == Gumby === Team AMIGA ====\
| "The worms crawl in and the worms crawl out / The ones that go in are |
| lean and thin / The ones that come out are fat and stout / Your eyes |
| fall in and your teeth fall out / Your brains come tumbling down your |
| snout / Be merry, my friends, be merry" ("Worms", by The Pogues) |
\================== http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~aa343/ ==================/
P. A. Craig
In article <342FCB...@bio1.lan.mcgill.ca>, Zen Faulkes
<zfau...@bio1.lan.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Allan R. Babb wrote:
>
> > Inquest sucks. This is definately a magazine for people who have no
> > personality. Their editor(if they have one) definately does not do
> > his/her job. I don't remember the last time a Juzam Djinn flew. I'm
> > sure many others can come up with some errors. If I had a copy of
> > "Insest" in front of me, I could probably find many more problems with
> > editors. The decks they come up with have to be the most degenerate
> > around. If they have a "National Inquierer" for Magic, this must be
> > it. Any other people have comments on this?
>
> I'm an occasional writer for InQuest, covering Legend of the Five
> Rings. I don't have a comment (now), but a few questions:
>
> What games magazines do you think do a better job, and why? I really
> only know of three generally available CCG mags: InQuest, Scrye, and
> Duelist. Scrye is primarily a news and price guide, and if you don't
> play Wizards of the Coast games, Duelist has a limited appeal.
I feel that InQuest is pretty good. It has gotten a lot better than when
it first came out. And they do a great job of covering other games.
InQuest came up with spoiler lists for Magic long before Scrye. And with
Scrye coming out every other month, I think it is falling by the wayside
(except for people who buy and sell cards). Many comic store owners and
collectors dislike InQuest because it is published by the same group which
publishes Wizard magazine.
> Could you elaborate on what you mean by "errors"; factual mistakes,
> or disagreeing with strategy?
I have had some frustrating experiences with incorrect checklists. Pretty
glaring ones, too. Whole sections of cards missing. Scrye makes no such
mistakes. Granted, some occasional omissions are made by the publisher of
the game which sends the list to Inquest, but these go beyond that. It is
possible that they have gotten better at proofreading the lists, but I
wouldn't know because after using a Star Wars list which lacked about 20%
of the cards, I don't trust them. I use either Scrye's, pull one off of
the net, or compile my own.
> Do you play anything besides Magic (as your post only mentioned it),
> and if so, could you tell me what magazines cover other games better?
> Because if you know of a magazine out there publishing good L5R strategy
> on a semi-regular basis, I'll be one of the first in line at the
> newstand to buy it. :)
It's pretty easy (and fashionable) to bash and criticize without offering
solutions (or even details).
"Inquest sucks."
"Yeah, it sucks! Sucks! hehe hehe."
"Shut up, Beavis."
Mike Hess
> My question is this: I know why the gamers in our group quit playing MtG
> and sold their cards, and I have my own half dozen reasons for moving on
> (which, if anyone is interested, I'll post later), but I'm curious as to
> why other people have gotten out of the game. Was it burn-out, did you get
> tired of all the munchkins, or did the next flavor of the month come along
> and carry you away? I've found as many reasons for quiting as there were
> gamers and I'd like to get a cross-sampling of on-line gamers.
I walked into a store the other day. It is my favorite place
to get cards, because it is run by an old guy with long hair
who just loves games. Unfortunately, he wasn't there, and I
had to deal with a young kid he has hired to help out. "Have
you picked up any new Middle Earth rares?" I asked.
"I don't know," he answered, "I only play Magic."
"Really?" I answered. "I used to play Magic, but I
got tired of it." To which I received a look of complete
incomprehension. Realizing suddenly that he might take
my words as an insult, I amended, "it's a fun game, I
just found another game I like better."
"Really?" He answered, "What game?"
Hesitating only slightly, I answered "Middle Earth. It's
based on the works of Tolkien."
"Who?"
"He's an author. He wrote The Lord of the Rings, and
The Hobbit, and a number of other classic works of
literature," I informed him.
"Oh." he said, his chubby face rounding itself into
an almost perfect O, "I just read comics. I don't
really read that kind of stuff."
"No wonder" I managed to avoid saying.
"Do you trade?" He asked.
"Yes, I trade extensively, mostly on the internet." I
answered.
"I got (insert list of overpowered Magic cards here),
what do you have?" He asked.
"Well," I said after longer hesitation, realizing I was
dealing with a person with whom absolutely nothing I
was saying was registering, "I still have a few old
Magic cards, but probably nothing that would not be
too out of date to be useful. In any case, if I were
going to trade them, I'd probably want Middle Earth
cards in return."
"But I've got (Insert list of overpowered Magic cards
here)" he said eagerly, apparently feeling that these
cards were so good that I should want them despite the
fact that I don't play the game to which they belong.
"Well, can I see the Middle Earth rares?" I asked,
trying to gently curtail his misplaced enthusiasm.
"Where are they?" He asked, in complete defiance of the
fact that he was the one working in the store, and I
was the customer. I politely pointed them out to him.
I silently searched through the Middle Earth singles
for awhile, and could feel his beady eyes upon my
neck as he tried desparately to fathom how anybody could
possibly want to play any other game besides the
one *he* likes.
Eventually, I came across a Riddle Game, for which
I have been trying to trade on the internet.
Pulling it out of the binder, I showed it to him and
asked, "How much is this going for?"
"I don't know" he said, "I only play Magic..."
--
Mike Hess mh...@iquest.net
"the man who doesn't read good books has no advantage
over the man who can't read them..."
--Mark Twain--
Frederick Scott
robin.es...@ACM.org (robin) writes:
>This is a great way to describe the difference between the two games.
>Really, Shadowfist has Magic beat in many departments:
>
>* better art -- sometimes way better
Sometimes way worse. Seriously, some Magic cards are excellent pieces of
art and some Shadowfist cards look like they were crayoned by 10-year-olds.
Sometimes it's the other way around.
>* far superior flavour text; Magic is either puerile, irrelevant (why
>Shakespeare guys, is he hanging out in Dominaria now?), or
>head-scratchingly nonsensical
...
>* far better back story that is actually fun to discover
Actually, the back story and the flavor text are exactly one of the two
main reasons I couldn't get into Shadowfist, having tried it with people
who enjoy about 8 or 10 times. Even though the text is often pretty funny
and has a very consistent character to it, action movies just don't seem
like an appealing subject for a CCG to me.
(The other reason had to do with how the game played out - too little
interaction early because defense seems to be more important as you develop
your position and then too much almost random, chaotic activity at the end
with too much emphasis on drawing exactly the right things during the
game-ending turns.
(Don't bother talking me out of it. I realize a lot of people dispute my
characterization of it and it's very possible that somehow my experiences
were atypical. But the nature of tried-it-but-didn't-like-it experiences
are that at some point, you stop trying it.)
The comments about Shadowfist being designed better in terms of rules and
degenerate strategies are on the mark, however. Magic's got a lot more
warts in that sense.
Fred
JAPE
Allan R. Babb wrote:
> Inquest sucks. This is definately a magazine for people who have no
> personality. Their editor(if they have one) definately does not do
> his/her job. I don't remember the last time a Juzam Djinn flew. I'm
> sure many others can come up with some errors. If I had a copy of
> "Insest" in front of me, I could probably find many more problems with
> editors. The decks they come up with have to be the most degenerate
> around.
Zen responded:
<<What games magazines do you think do a better job, and why? I really
only know of three generally available CCG mags: InQuest, Scrye, and
Duelist. Scrye is primarily a news and price guide, and if you don't
play Wizards of the Coast games, Duelist has a limited appeal.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "errors"; factual mistakes,
or disagreeing with strategy?
Do you play anything besides Magic (as your post only mentioned it),
and if so, could you tell me what magazines cover other games better?
Because if you know of a magazine out there publishing good L5R strategy
on a semi-regular basis, I'll be one of the first in line at the
newstand to buy it. :)
Zen Faulkes!
InQuest contributer willing to take lumps for what he writes<<
Zen, you tell your associates at InQuest that their rag rocks! Even after
I get out of Magic, I'm still thinking of keeping my subscription; penny
for penny its the one of the funniest fucking magazines out there. (Okay,
they they get their lists wrong every so often. So what. I see them as the
John Belushi of CCGs when it comes to accuracy. "Did we just give up when
the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!".... "Forget it...he's on a roll." But
I'll take attitude over accuracy any day.) No personality? If Magic needs
anything, its the smart-ass bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you attitude of Inquest.
Jape Trostle
Dragon Clan Cartoonist, also willing to take lumps for what he writes.
RIsaacs
Zen Faulkes Wrote:
<< Do you play anything besides Magic (as your post only mentioned it),
and if so, could you tell me what magazines cover other games better?
Because if you know of a magazine out there publishing good L5R strategy
on a semi-regular basis, I'll be one of the first in line at the
newstand to buy it. >>
Let me put it to you this way, Zen: According to Comic's Retailer, the
third most popular CCG in the month of June was L5R. It always hovers
somewhere in the top five top selling card games in the country. Yet I've
only seen sporadic support of the game - two articles, both written by you.
The same can be said of Star Wars and Middle Earth. These games are
always in the top five, but Inquest devotes a large portion of their
magazine to Magic. Magic news. Magic updates. Dead Man's Hand.
Stumpers. Three Magic articles. Magic price guide. Magic Player's Guide.
It's pretty obvious that Inquest knows which side its bread is buttered.
Ross A. Isaacs
Jack Dracula
Does another magazine do a better job? Yes, InQuest doesn't have enough about
non-Magic mags. However, they have more than anyone else.
Oh, and Magic is the best-selling CCG, that's not a question. That's also
why they have articles about it.
As for the other Inquest complaints:
- I like the new format, call me silly.
- I like some of the attitude, but they had best keep it in check
lest they fall into the downward spiral of _Inphobia_.
JD
RIsaacs
Jack Dracula wrote:
>>Does another magazine do a better job? Yes, InQuest doesn't have enough about
non-Magic mags. However, they have more than anyone else.<<
What the hell kind of defense is that?
They could give better coverage to the top five CCGs. I don't recall ever
seeing a Stumper article or Dead Man's Hand that was non Magic. How hard
would it be to make it a Star Wars or Middle Earth article once in awhile?
I certainly don't expect them to carry articles about Redemption or Shadowfist
every month. But you give decent coverage to those games that sell well. I'd
say that 90% of CCG coverage is devoted to M:tG. That's too much, IMHO.
And as for their coverage of RPGS, I fear they'll do the same thing they do
with CCGs - choose one and cover the shit out of it.
Ross A. Isaacs
Chris (Corwin) Blachowski
I think InQuest is one of the better CCG mags out there.
Before I get flamed by the masses, I can only say that I enjoy the
tremendous amount of humor that InQuest includes in their articles. Yes
they don't spend enough space on the other games, but Magic is the most
popular of all CCG's.
As with any mag, you have a choice on whether or not you want to buy or
read the magazine; simply put:
If you don't like it, don't read it.
Just my $.02
C
IQJason
Ross Issacs writes:
"They could give better coverage to the top five CCGs. I don't recall ever
seeing a Stumper article or Dead Man's Hand that was non Magic."
That's because those sections are devoted to Magic, the same way that Creative
Campaigning is devoted to RPGs. Stumpers Spotlight is the section for
non-Magic Stumpers. Trust me...if we received them, we'd run them.
"How hard would it be to make it a Star Wars or Middle Earth article once in
awhile?"
Not very. We've been doing M-E coverage since the game's debut (it's one of
Mike Searle's favorites). And there's a Star Wars Killer Deck almost every
third issue, it seems.
Jack Dracula writes:
"I like some of the attitude, but they had best keep it in check lest they fall
into the downward spiral of _Inphobia_."
Funny enough, I'd had this discussion with Greg Fountain from White Wolf. The
main difference between the InQuest and Inphobia attitudes is one of
inclusion: we may be sarcastic and irreverent, but we don't place ourselves on
any sort of pedestal above our readers.
yours,
Jason Schneiderman
Associate Editor, InQuest Magazine
IQJ...@aol.com
Jack Dracula
RIsaacs <ris...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Does another magazine do a better job? Yes, InQuest doesn't have enough about
>> non-Magic mags. However, they have more than anyone else.
> What the hell kind of defense is that?
The hell kind of defense that mean something, unlike your retort. You're
saying they don't put in enough non-Magic articles. I point out they do
more non-Magic articles than their competitors. Thusly, they're moving
in the right direction. Sorry to break it to you, but non-Magic CCGs
don't have that big a market share.
> They could give better coverage to the top five CCGs. I don't recall ever
> seeing a Stumper article or Dead Man's Hand that was non Magic. How hard
> would it be to make it a Star Wars or Middle Earth article once in awhile?
Write one! They'd love it. If not, don't complain.
> I certainly don't expect them to carry articles about Redemption or Shadowfist
> every month. But you give decent coverage to those games that sell well. I'd
> say that 90% of CCG coverage is devoted to M:tG. That's too much, IMHO.
Magic sells well, they give it decent coverage. Like you said.
> And as for their coverage of RPGS, I fear they'll do the same thing they do
> with CCGs - choose one and cover the shit out of it.
Like...? The demise of T$R has led to a vacuum in a #1 RPG. Even V:tM don't
appeal to everyone. And if you actually read any of the RPG articles, you'd
notice they're not for any one game system, but for genres, if anything.
JD
The Space-Crime Continuum
ris...@aol.com (RIsaacs) wrote:
>
>I certainly don't expect them to carry articles about Redemption or Shadowfist
> every month. But you give decent coverage to those games that sell well.
Um, they do. I see the Comics Retailer figures every month, and
there's about one game that sells well -- Magic. The other "top 5" are
far, far behind -- in the July report, their total average sales were
about 60% of Magic's average.
(The July figures, for anyone who's interested:
GAME AVG SALES/RETAILER % OF RETAILERS REPORTING GAME
Magic 14.09 96%
Star Wars 4.22 75%
L5R 2.26 27%
Middle-Earth 1.41 26%
Overpower .88 27% )
>I'd
> say that 90% of CCG coverage is devoted to M:tG. That's too much, IMHO.
>
Very possibly. But it is at least somewhat reflective of the relative
popularity of Magic and everything else.
(I'm *not* happy about this, by the way -- when CCGs got started, I
was looking forward to an interesting and diverse market, but all I
see is further contraction.)
>And as for their coverage of RPGS, I fear they'll do the same thing they do
> with CCGs - choose one and cover the shit out of it.
>
FWIW, I think Inquest has been doing an excellent job so far on RPG
coverage, not least because a lot of their coverage is agressively
"generic" -- articles that aren't tied to any particular system.
yours,
Chris
To reply via email, remove the "SPAMBLOCK" from our address above.
THE SPACE-CRIME CONTINUUM 92 King Street
science fiction, mysteries and games Northampton, MA 01060
Christopher Bird
Neal Feldman (than...@cyberis.net) wrote:
> Inquest may not be the best mag out, but at least they meet production
> deadlines and get their magazine out on a regular basis, unlike Scrye
> and Duellist.
I'm still trying to figure out the appeal of Scrye. I picked up a copy.
(adverts adverts) (letter column) (adverts adverts adverts) (Magic
article that's weeny and seems plagarized) (adverts) (article about random
CCG that reads like a flyer for said CCG and is often written by the
company that produces said CCG) (adverts adverts) (Magic price guide)
(adverts adverts adverts adverts)
Yup. That's it.
--chdb
Christopher Bird
Jack Dracula (vam...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
> Like...? The demise of T$R has led to a vacuum in a #1 RPG. Even V:tM don't
> appeal to everyone. And if you actually read any of the RPG articles, you'd
> notice they're not for any one game system, but for genres, if anything.
Yeah, they're for genres. Fantasy genres. Almost exclusively. And these
RPG articles, by their generic nature, tend to be bland stuff like "how
to make a good villain" or "how to make a good alien race". *yawn*
Exclusively grade-9 "I'm just starting to be a GM" stuff. There's a place
for that, but *all* their RPG articles read like that. Hell, Dragon used
to be better than that.
The problem with trying to be genre-generic when writing an article is
that most of the really good/really popular RPGs of the last decade have
been remarkably setting-specific. Vampire, Werewolf, and Wraith lose a lot
of flavour when you yank out the World of Darkness. (Mage and Changeling
can get away with it. Kinda.) I'm not a big fan of ShadowRun (icky game
system), but just relegating it to "cyberpunk with magic" is a ridiculous
insult to the rich game world they've created. Deadlands without the Weird
West? Call of Cthulhu without the Cthulhu Mythos? [a] Mechwarrior without
the Inner Sphere? BubbleGum Crisis without those stupid big anime robots?
Feng Shui without the Secret Wars? L5R without Rokugan? Paranoia without
Alpha Complex? (Yeah, they tried it. It was called "Post-Whoops". Boy, did
it suck.)
I remember picking up an issue of _Inquest_ and reading about an adventure
design contest. I was hyped...I've written a really good _Paranoia_
adventure and I wanted to enter that. But then I read the fine
print..."rules generic". Meaning vague rules and a vague setting. You
know what that means? Fantasy, because that's what adapts best to generic
rules. How many rules-generic cyberpunk adventures have you read? Sci-fi?
Humor? Not a lot, because these genres have barely three or four systems
to cover them (in the case of cyberpunk, there's...Cyberpunk,
check...ShadowRun, stretching it a bit but sure, it's possible...GURPS, of
course....ummm...that's it.).
Back to the CCG problems.
Their Magic concentration...look, if you're going to argue "it's not as bad
as it used to be!" all I can do is slap you with a sea bass and say "hah".
There is simply *no need* for a PRICE GUIDE EVERY SINGLE &^$*&& ISSUE. So
what if two dozen cards change in value by a couple of bucks? Make the
guide bi-monthly, and if you're not going to use the space for extra
articles, print full lists for other games. (I haven't seen a full
L5R list yet.)
That goes *double* for that idiotic "card rating/catalog" thing. For the
Magic section, you're essentially reprinting the same ten pages every
month. It only changes after a new expansion is released anyway! PRINT IT
ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS! Most places, you can pick up a back issue of IQ
if you hafta.
As for articles? Sure, you'll have Magic articles. You *don't* need
space-wasters like "the Inquest staff have a round-robin Magic tournament!
Here are the decks they used! Here's how they did!" *Who gives a shit*?
It's not a primer on deck construction...it's not a particularly good
example of anything...it's just tiresome ego wanking. You used to have a
Bullpen type of page, which is where *all* that stuff should be confined
forever and ever amen.
(Speaking of ego wanking, chain Rick Swan to a desk. Right now. Never let
him write anything ever again. He isn't funny. Worse, he isn't funny *and*
he thinks he's funny. His lameass "Swan Song" column is a page of toilet
humor every month that I *really* don't need.)
Hell, if you're *really* that hard up for articles (and increasing the
review space would both be appreciated; it's not like there isn't enough
for you to review), I'll start making minor clans for L5R out of whole
cloth, or I'll write adventures, or something. Anything. Just stop the
Magic insanity, already. Yes, it's a fun game, I suppose, but we've all
seen what happens when one product dominates the gaming market; it's no
different when one product dominates the gaming magazines.
--chdb
[a] Yes, I *have* read the non-Mythos adventures. They're fun, but a
campaign without the Mythos isn't really CoC any more.
Ouroboros
> Write one! They'd love it. If not, don't complain.
This is a joke, right? If _I_ can't write a magazine article _I_ can't
complain? Most people, including me, couldn't find the time, organize the
material, and write capably enough. For those among us without the skills,
letting it be known that we'd like something different is the best we can do.
The
Worm
Ouroboros
bdy...@network.rahul.net
In article <343148fc.3737426@news>,
The Space-Crime Continuum <SPAMBLOC...@crocker.com> wrote:
>FWIW, I think Inquest has been doing an excellent job so far on RPG
>coverage, not least because a lot of their coverage is agressively
>"generic" -- articles that aren't tied to any particular system.
Proving one's meat is another poison, I just finished reading another post
in this thread complaining about that exact same feature. He made a
convincing case for why that's bad; can you make a case for why that's
good? There's only so much you can say that's purely generic before you
either repeat yourself or start saying things tha can be said better
elsewhere (i.e. if I want to learn about incorporating classic myth into
my campaigns, I'll skim Campbell).
For my part, I've never picked up a magazine devoted to CCGs, and given
their MtG-heavy coverage, I doubt I ever will. Heck, my favorite games
are On The Edge (which I don't get to play much, as my roommate dislikes
the setting) and Wyvern, and I doubt we'll ever see articles on those
games in a magazine anytime soon, even should someone write one.
The other post I mentioned earlier summed up good criticisms of InQuest,
and to that I'll add that most of the things he mentioned are things I
wouldn't by a magazine for anyway, even if I did play MtG. Card lists? I
can get those from the Internet. Deck construction? Just remember the
key components. A quick flip-through would be enough for me.
Here's a thought: do magazines give CCGs some sort of legitimacy? I've
heard MtG compared to chess and billed as a mental sport, which frankly
strikes me as malarkey, but somebody must believe it. Do any of the
CCG-related mags try to further this opinion? Obviously they'd be mostly
preaching to the converted, but it might encourage casual players to
become more serious and spread the word.
--
Brian Dysart | Ours is not to reason why...
bdy...@rahul.net | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
RIsaacs
Jack Dracula asked me to write an article for InQuest, to put up or shut up.
That's a fair response.
I would love to write an article for InQuest. However, as a full time game
designer I do not have the time to spend writing an article on spec. If they
contact me and ask me to write something, I'll gladly give them an article
(deadlines permitting).
>>Like...? The demise of T$R has led to a vacuum in a #1 RPG. Even V:tM don't
appeal to everyone. And if you actually read any of the RPG articles, you'd
notice they're not for any one game system, but for genres, if anything.<<
Point of order. TSR continues to be the #1 seller in the country. The problem
has been a lack of backstock. I believe Vampire was listed at #2 for the July
market beat report in Comics Retailer.
Oh, and I actually read the RPG articles. As I said, I work in this business
professionally and try to keep up with as much as I can. That's why I get
InQuest. That's why I can say I'm disappointed in their coverage of other
CCGs.
Ross A. Isaacs
Glen Barnett
In article <342b1c8b...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
John Yeung <J.Y...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>My attention is turning towards other CCG's. And while I'm here, when
>you find the time, please tell me something about other CCG's. Whether
>they're playable out of the starters(ie how much I may want to
>spend:), but most importantly how complex, fun and involved are they.
>Also whatever you decided to include.
I've got to throw in a plug for INWO (Illuminati: New World Order) here then.
Not only is it playable out of a 110 card starter pack, I've played it out
of _half_ a starter (a 55 card box). If you can still find it around, it's
often very cheap, and there is a factory set, which can be good value -
its MRP is under $30 US (according to SJGames' pages last I looked). I've
seen them cheaper. To begin with, I think a starter each is fine.
With 2 starters and a handful of boosters you can build decks that
will do quite well in multiplayer games - the crucial element is
generally bargaining with the other players, and basically *anything*
can be bargained over.
The genre is basically secret conspiracy - the aim is to control the world.
You don't have to find starters to play - you can get booster boxes
very cheaply these days (under $10 US in some places), and the ULE
boosters (2 rares in each) occasionally have Illuminati cards in
them - you should find about half a dozen to a box. So you can also
buy a ULE booster box and 2 or 3 of you could easily play from that.
The mailing list is very active (recently it got umm... a little
overactive but it has settled back down again now), and there is
also a trades list and a list for homemade cards (of which some
2500 are archived - there are blank card sets available for you
to make your own cards).
I find it a lot of fun, and I've been playing fairly regularly
for almost 3 years now. Complexity is middling; it does take
a while to learn - though it's not hard if you have someone to
teach you - and the strategies seem endless (viz. some 50
"Decks of the Week" - which has 52 decks in it, the "Dirty
Tricks", Ralph's card commentaries, etc etc).
There are very few cards that have problems. It plays best as
a multiplayer game, though I have played a fair bit of 2 player
INWO (I prefer one big deck for 2 player). There is a record of
an email game on line (the game should finish soon, so all the
dirty dealings will be available for public view Real Soon Now),
where you currently can see all the "public" goings on:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralph/inwo/game/history.html
For general information, look at
http://www.sjgames.com/inwo
Glen
Daniel Casquilho
vam...@wam.umd.edu (Jack Dracula) wrote:
>{Snip Retort} You're saying they don't put in enough non-Magic articles.
Now I will admit up front that I have only been looking at Scrye and
Inquest for a few issues each, but in those few issues I must disagree with
you JD. In the issues I have seen Inquest was an obvious Magic based
magazine. In the Scrye I have seen they had a nice mix. Yes magic was still
the large share, but as you point out Magic has a large share of the industry
sales too. In any event, your advice is good. We that do not play Magic
should write something and send it to the magazine we like and help improve
the magazine.
Daniel
APVarney
Ross Isaacs wrote:
<<<I would love to write an article for InQuest. However, as a full time game
designer I do not have the time to spend writing an article on spec. If they
contact me and ask me to write something, I'll gladly give them an article
(deadlines permitting).>>>
This isn't an outlandish idea -- I started writing for INQUEST because an
editor called and asked me to -- but even so, this attitude strikes me as
counterproductive. If a professional is glancingly interested in writing for a
magazine, he writes for their guidelines or schmoozes with the editor at a
con, then hits them up with a brief proposal. In general, waiting around for
an invite won't get you in.
And IQ's pay rates are so much better than the markets that Ross is
currently writing for (as are DUELIST's and GAMER's) that "deadlines
permitting" probably wouldn't be a factor. [Insert smiley here.]
-- Allen Varney
Omega
Allan R. Babb wrote:
>
> Inquest sucks. This is definately a magazine for people who have no
> personality. Their editor(if they have one) definately does not do
> his/her job. I don't remember the last time a Juzam Djinn flew. I'm
> sure many others can come up with some errors. If I had a copy of
> "Insest" in front of me, I could probably find many more problems with
> editors. The decks they come up with have to be the most degenerate
> it. Any other people have comments on this?
Absolutely! In addition to championing several great causes of Magic
(they were one of the first to insist that the Channel/Fireball combo
was so utterly pointless and degenerate that the card should be banned
instead of merely restricted); in addition to pointing out that making
weaker versions of now restricted cards is simply driving people out of
Type One tournaments, and that instead, those cards should be reprinted
to even the playing field, or banned altogether; in addition to
championing the cause of "fun" Magic, by advocating that people play the
game for sheer enjoyment again instead of becoming obsessed with winning
(read "Swan Song" in InQuest #27 for a wonderful little parable on
winning Uber Alles); in addition to continually improving themselves to
the point where the errors they made in the first 8 or 9 issues are now
completely gone; in addition to all that, they are championing wargames,
strategy games, boardgames, and generally opening the minds of all those
little twelve year olds who only play Magic. Not to mention, they
highlight little-known classics, like WizWar and Cosmic Encounter (which
is admittedly well-known, but out of print) and sing the praises of
slow-selling but brilliant games like "Settlers of Cataan". If you've
only read the first few issues of InQuest, you're depriving yourself of
a great magazine.
John "Omega" Seavey
Omega
Christopher Bird wrote:
>
> Jack Dracula (vam...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
> > Like...? The demise of T$R has led to a vacuum in a #1 RPG. Even V:tM don't
> > appeal to everyone. And if you actually read any of the RPG articles, you'd
> > notice they're not for any one game system, but for genres, if anything.
>
> RPG articles, by their generic nature, tend to be bland stuff like "how
> to make a good villain" or "how to make a good alien race". *yawn*
> Exclusively grade-9 "I'm just starting to be a GM" stuff. There's a place
> for that, but *all* their RPG articles read like that. Hell, Dragon used
> to be better than that.
At the risk of sounding judgemental, If you don't like it, write a
better one. They are a magazine. They do publish freelance columns; it's
not all in-house stuff. Send something in. Assuming you're
competent--and if you've been a GM this long, you probably are--they
might very well publish it...and pay you to do so.
> Back to the CCG problems.
>
> Their Magic concentration...look, if you're going to argue "it's not as bad
> as it used to be!" all I can do is slap you with a sea bass and say "hah".
> There is simply *no need* for a PRICE GUIDE EVERY SINGLE &^$*&& ISSUE. So
> what if two dozen cards change in value by a couple of bucks? Make the
> guide bi-monthly, and if you're not going to use the space for extra
> articles, print full lists for other games. (I haven't seen a full
> L5R list yet.)
I have to admit, this'd be a nice change...on the other hand, they
finally started reprinting partial lists for more obscure games like
Shadowfist, so I'm hoping they're on a roll.
> That goes *double* for that idiotic "card rating/catalog" thing. For the
> Magic section, you're essentially reprinting the same ten pages every
> month. It only changes after a new expansion is released anyway! PRINT IT
> ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS! Most places, you can pick up a back issue of IQ
> if you hafta.
Not a bad idea. Why don't you suggest it to them?
> As for articles? Sure, you'll have Magic articles. You *don't* need
> space-wasters like "the Inquest staff have a round-robin Magic tournament!
> Here are the decks they used! Here's how they did!" *Who gives a shit*?
> It's not a primer on deck construction...it's not a particularly good
> example of anything...it's just tiresome ego wanking. You used to have a
> Bullpen type of page, which is where *all* that stuff should be confined
> forever and ever amen.
Yeah, and in issue #28, they had a pointless little story on Marton
Stromgald leading an army of starfish! Jeez, what were they thinking!
Obviously a space-waster...not a primer on deck construction, not a
particularly good example of anything...well, except the old adage,
"Never piss off a starfish," heck, I don't know why they printed it!
(Translation for the Sarcasm-Impaired--I thought the round-robin
tournament article was enjoyable. It was a fun little story, didn't take
up too much space, and made me laugh. If I want humorless, dull "deck
construction primers", I'll go read the Duellist.)
> (Speaking of ego wanking, chain Rick Swan to a desk. Right now. Never let
> him write anything ever again. He isn't funny. Worse, he isn't funny *and*
> he thinks he's funny. His lameass "Swan Song" column is a page of toilet
> humor every month that I *really* don't need.)
Let me guess--you change the channel whenever "South Park" comes on,
right?
> Hell, if you're *really* that hard up for articles (and increasing the
> review space would both be appreciated; it's not like there isn't enough
> for you to review), I'll start making minor clans for L5R out of whole
> cloth, or I'll write adventures, or something. Anything. Just stop the
> Magic insanity, already. Yes, it's a fun game, I suppose, but we've all
> seen what happens when one product dominates the gaming market; it's no
> different when one product dominates the gaming magazines.
Great! Then why not go write some of these articles and submit
them...I'm sure they're always looking for interesting ideas.
John "Omega" Seavey
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
On 30 Sep 1997 14:18:48 GMT, ris...@aol.com (RIsaacs) uttered:
>I don't recall ever
> seeing a Stumper article or Dead Man's Hand that was non Magic.
Um, are we reading the same magazine? I seem to find a small Stumper
list for a non-Magic TCG every issue, next to the vast amount devoted
to Magic stumpers. (This is, of course, an indication that most other
TCGs are better designed, with fewer "collisions". :-) ).
--
Becky!, Agent and Opera - now what was it I needed Netscape for?
RIsaacs
Allan Varney wrote:
>> This isn't an outlandish idea -- I started writing for INQUEST because an
editor called and asked me to -- but even so, this attitude strikes me as
counterproductive. If a professional is glancingly interested in writing for a
magazine, he writes for their guidelines or schmoozes with the editor at a
con, then hits them up with a brief proposal. <<
Oh I completely agree. I'm interested in InQuest's RPG coverage. Quite
honestly, in the crush of GenCon, I never got an opportunity to shmooze the
editors of InQuest. I'd love to find out what articles they're looking for.
On the flip side, I've currently got a full plate of assignments. Which is
better, writing the game for which I have a signed contract or typing an
article, sending it in and waiting to see what happens?
>> And IQ's pay rates are so much better than the markets that Ross is
currently writing for (as are DUELIST's and GAMER's) that "deadlines
permitting" probably wouldn't be a factor. <<
Nope. Were someone to call and offer me ten cents a word for my scribblings,
I'd make time in my schedule. ;)
Ross A. Isaacs
RIsaacs
Christopher Bird wrote:
"And these RPG articles, by their generic nature, tend to be bland stuff like
'how to make a good villain' or 'how to make a good alien race'. *yawn*
Exclusively grade-9 'I'm just starting to be a GM' stuff. "
Actually, there is a crushing need for just this kind of article. Several
industry professionals bemoan the lack of good, general articles. With the
disappearance of Dragon, and the unspoken perception that since we saw these
kinds of articles in Dragon ten years ago no one wants to see it now, few
magazines help the newcomer GM.
If RPGs are to survive, they must attract players. No matter how good your
rulesbook is, no matter how cool the genre, it all depends on the GM. I've
seen great games murdered by a bad GM. I've seen kids eager to try a neat new
RPG give up because the GM did a poor job. And if you've got 9th graders
playing an RPG, they likely prefer a 9th grader as a GM. This kid often has
little experience.
IMHO, the more people GMing, the more people you'll have gaming. I've seen
people not play RPGs because no one in the group wants to be the GM. They sit
around and do something else, or simply don't play anything.
Anything that attracts people to the fine art of GMing, gives them the tools
they need and targets kids is a fine idea. In that respect, InQuest is doing
fine.
Ross A. Isaacs
IQJason
Christopher Bird:
"And these RPG articles, by their generic nature, tend to be bland stuff like
'how to make a good villain' or 'how to make a good alien race'. *yawn*
Exclusively grade-9 'I'm just starting to be a GM' stuff. "
You have pinpointed our target audience for those articles *exactly*. Remember,
our readers are, at this point, primarily CCG players. They *are* just
starting to be GMs...and players, for that matter.
"There is simply *no need* for a PRICE GUIDE EVERY SINGLE &^$*&& ISSUE."
Spoken like someone who doesn't play the games. Yank the price guide and watch
the sales for that issue plummet.
"(I haven't seen a full L5R list yet.)"
*whistles a knowing whistle* That's coming up as part of something special.
"That goes *double* for that idiotic "card rating/catalog" thing. For the Magic
section, you're essentially reprinting the same ten pages every month. It only
changes after a new expansion is released anyway! PRINT IT ONCE EVERY THREE
MONTHS!"
You're not the first to suggest that. It's something we've been considering.
However, that "encyclopedia" has made InQuest a resource for Magic players,
and we're loath to give that up.
As for your opinions on the 'humor' articles...would it surprise you to know
that those articles, and those like them, are some of the most popular and
well-received ones we print? InQuest has a reputation as the gaming equivalent
of SPY or the National Lampoon (or, occasionally, MAD). We try to be incisive,
relevant, informative...and funny.
Christopher Bird
Omega (seav...@tc.umn.edu) wrote:
> At the risk of sounding judgemental, If you don't like it, write a
> better one. They are a magazine. They do publish freelance columns; it's
> not all in-house stuff. Send something in. Assuming you're
> competent--and if you've been a GM this long, you probably are--they
> might very well publish it...and pay you to do so.
The question, of course, is one of time. I have classes, a job, and an L5R
campaign, as well as something vaguely resembling a social life. If I can
squeeze in article-writing time...the enjoyable line about the "100-hour
day" comes to mind, quite frankly. I'd imagine I'm hardly the only one
with this problem.
And "if you don't like it, make it better yourself" is only a reasonable
argument up to a point, BTW.
> Not a bad idea. Why don't you suggest it to them?
A) Because I don't feel like wasting a stamp. Their email address...I've
tried half-a-dozen times to send mail. It's always clogged with mail
overflow.
B) Because I suspect (and rightly, from IQguy's response), that the guide
is too necessary to their target audience of Magic maniacs.
> Yeah, and in issue #28, they had a pointless little story on Marton
> Stromgald leading an army of starfish! Jeez, what were they thinking!
I don't have a problem with "fun" articles. IMHO, the in-house duel
article wasn't funny in the slightest. I'm sorry, but the old "look, we're
trash-talking each other" deal got stale a while back for me.
> > (Speaking of ego wanking, chain Rick Swan to a desk. Right now. Never let
> > him write anything ever again. He isn't funny. Worse, he isn't funny *and*
> > he thinks he's funny. His lameass "Swan Song" column is a page of toilet
> > humor every month that I *really* don't need.)
> Let me guess--you change the channel whenever "South Park" comes on,
> right?
Hardly. I *like* South Park. The problem here is that an endless stream of
profanity (or, in IQ's case, grossout-style jokes) ceases to be funny when
there isn't some lunatically inspired idea behind it.
The last couple of Swan Song pieces that I read were just sad. A "Gamer's
Classifieds" type deal, with the usual running gags and unfunny bits, and
a "Rick Swan plays against household objects" article that was lame enough
to be parody fodder. And going back, I really don't see anything
brilliantly funny about _Swan Song_ throughout. This isn't 'South Park";
this isn't "Beavis and Butthead". It's not offensive. It's just really sad.
--chdb
Sakurazuka Seishirou
>> That goes *double* for that idiotic "card rating/catalog" thing. For the
>> Magic section, you're essentially reprinting the same ten pages every
>> month. It only changes after a new expansion is released anyway! PRINT IT
>> ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS! Most places, you can pick up a back issue of IQ
>> if you hafta.
>Not a bad idea. Why don't you suggest it to them?
This I agree with. It will also provide more room for a wider range of
articles. Having Quarterly updates?
>Yeah, and in issue #28, they had a pointless little story on Marton
>Stromgald leading an army of starfish! Jeez, what were they thinking!
On the other hand, the article on obscure real life animals a while
back was quite informative, and an interesting source of ideas...
>> (Speaking of ego wanking, chain Rick Swan to a desk. Right now. Never let
>> him write anything ever again. He isn't funny. Worse, he isn't funny *and*
>> he thinks he's funny. His lameass "Swan Song" column is a page of toilet
>> humor every month that I *really* don't need.)
>Let me guess--you change the channel whenever "South Park" comes on,
>right?
>
I have never heard of this show, but I do agree that 'Swan Song' is,
imho, the worst part of the magazine...with some of the newer letters
pages beinc also horrid and juvenile.
Overall, it is one of the better choices.... and it tends to have L5R promo
cards every now and then, so I will get at least a few of them =)
-S
C. S. Gaines
Omega wrote:
> At the risk of sounding judgemental, If you don't like it, write a
> better one. They are a magazine. They do publish freelance columns; it's
> not all in-house stuff. Send something in. Assuming you're
> competent--and if you've been a GM this long, you probably are--they
> might very well publish it...and pay you to do so.
>
> Great! Then why not go write some of these articles and submit
> them...I'm sure they're always looking for interesting ideas.
>
> John "Omega" Seavey
request for their writers quidelines. Scrye responded promptly (No,
Scrye did NOT publish my article - probably because it sucked! In their
humble opinion :)). I don't know what experiences anyone else has had
with these two magazines.
From my experience, I don't think you can make the above claim!
C. S. Gaines
Glen Barnett
In article <342ea8dc...@newsrv.microsys.net>,
Brian Henderson <bhend...@microsys.net> wrote:
>
>Why don't I find it fun? First off, the game takes itself WAAAAAAY
>too seriously, and the gamers that I have seen most often are so
>fanatical about the silly game that they can't have any fun at it.
>It's too competitive for me, who just wants to play a game, have a
>good time and enjoy life. Most of the other games that I play now
>poke fun at themselves and at the players and catching all the
>in-jokes is at least as much fun as playing the game.
This is one reason I never got into Magic, except for just an occasional
game with friends - I watch people play in silence, never smiling, barely
interacting at all. If I want this, I can play chess.
When I play INWO, most of the enjoyment for me is social. Often I don't
care very much about winning (I try to win, but it is secondary). Even
tournaments are more of a social thing for me. It is just *fun*. When
I manage to play some cool combination, it's often as much fun (funnier
anyway) when it fails at the end due to a bit of bad luck, as when it
succeeds spectacularly. The enjoyment is there, win or lose - and the
better you get at negotiating, the less you need to have the "best"
deck. The more you play people, the more you have to rely on subtlety
and misdirection in your deckbuilding, and on creative negotiation
in your dealmaking. There's also an inbuilt safety mechanism - the more
popular a group becomes, the weaker that makes it in your deck (more
likely to bounce as a lead, and there are more agents for it in other
decks).
Played right, INWO is *noisy*.
Glen
Dennis F. Hefferman
In <3433dd74...@news.execulink.com> robin.es...@ACM.org (robin) writes:
|This is a great way to describe the difference between the two games.
|Really, Shadowfist has Magic beat in many departments:
|* better art -- sometimes way better
Absolutely not. There are some nice pieces in SF but Magic has a much
higher track record, which is not surprising since WoTC can pay more for its
art. The pieces posted to the Web for Throne War look downright pathetic.
|* far superior flavour text; Magic is either puerile, irrelevant (why
|Shakespeare guys, is he hanging out in Dominaria now?), or
|head-scratchingly nonsensical
This is neither here nor there.
|* more consistent rules, though not all that well expressed in the current
|rulebook
SF's rules are horrible. The rulebook is so flawed as to be useless.
Rulings are made based on wacky sematics, and cards with similar locutions are
ruled to work in completely different manners.
|* far better back story that is actually fun to discover
Eh. There's really not much to SF's backstory; the Antiquities War was
at least as interesting. (The current nonsense in Weatherlight is just silly.)
|* lack of degenerate strategies. You can't reanimate creatures you
|discarded (after all, they were never alive to begin with, they were just
|*cards*). You can't destroy your opponent's hand or resources and thus
|prevent them from playing the game (though Inauspicious Reburial is broken
|in this respect -- which even Jose Garcia has admitted).
I fail to see what's wrong with reanimator decks. As for degeneracy in
SF, resource destruction is quite viable in a two-player game; I've done it to
people myself. For multiplayer games degeneracy takes the form of siteless
decks that basically whack the other players upside their heads with a copy of
_Theory of Games and Economic Behavior_.
Shadowfist simply has too many problems that take too much work to
overcome in the early stages. It didn't catch on because quite frankly, it
didn't deserve to.
|I would take exception to this. The number of possible strategies and card
|combinations in Magic dwarfs those of any other game I know. That's one
Magic has one strategy: denial. Its actual gameplay is too primitive
to allow any real strategy, so winning is a matter of changing the rules on the
other player.
|Shadowfist suffers from neither effect. Players are always in the game
|until the end and always have a chance for a surprise comeback.
Nope. Common myth. There's no way to _de facto_ remove a player from
the game before the end, but it's quite easy to slap someone down so far
they'll never catch up.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: FuzyLogic heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I don't know why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't you
learned; if it's not happening to me it's not important?" -- Murphy Brown
ChanceMinn
I like InQuest. I like it quite a bit, thank you. I occasionally find the *Swan
Song* nigh on hilarious. Rick's column in #29 on gaming with common household
appliances was quite clever, IMO.
As for Christopher Bird's comment about how InQuest's more generic RPG articles
are (quote)
>> *yawn* Exclusively grade-9 'I'm just starting to be a GM' stuff. " << (close
quote)
How damn arrogant! And short-sighted!
What, Mr. Bird, did you begin gaming as an *enlightened* twentysomething? Let
me guess: your game-mastering sprung fully-formed from the head of Zeus.
In the U.S., (gaming's biggest market) kids have more disposable income than
any other age-group. Their patronization of the industry contributes to its
overall health. Good for them! (and good for the rest of us too).
Jeff Gaudry
> What games magazines do you think do a better job, and why?
I'll play devil's advocate here and say "Vault and most other e-zines".
:) Granted, they're not paper publications but IMHO they're the most
entertaining and most up to date publications you'll find.
> Could you elaborate on what you mean by "errors"; factual mistakes,
>or disagreeing with strategy?
InQuest in it's earlier issues developed quite a reputation for
spelling errors, factual mistakes etc. That added to the fact that by
the time the magazine hit the shelves all the info was out of date plus
a weaker and less popular price guide InQuest had a half-dozen marks
against them before the end of their first year. I must admit, there's
bits and pieces I really like about InQuest, probably the same stuff I
like out of Wizard (the humor mostly) but it's certainly not tops on my
reading list.
> Do you play anything besides Magic (as your post only mentioned
>it), and if so, could you tell me what magazines cover other games
>better? Because if you know of a magazine out there publishing good
>L5R strategy on a semi-regular basis, I'll be one of the first in line
>at the newstand to buy it. :)
It seems all CCG magazines have trouble with this, but they're getting
better. I still maintain though, the best resource for CCG strategy
info is the net. Newsgroups like this one plus webpages, chat rooms
etc. are as current as you can get.
The Space-Crime Continuum
cb...@chat.carleton.ca (Christopher Bird) wrote:
>Yeah, they're for genres. Fantasy genres. Almost exclusively. And these
>RPG articles, by their generic nature, tend to be bland stuff like "how
>to make a good villain" or "how to make a good alien race". *yawn*
>Exclusively grade-9 "I'm just starting to be a GM" stuff.
Um, over half my Inquest buyers are young teens who (if they're
roleplaying at all) are just starting out and don't know these things
yet. Yes, the articles are introductory articles -- but they're
appropriate to Inquest's audience and arguably are starting the people
who read them down the road to more advanced stuff.
>The problem with trying to be genre-generic when writing an article is
>that most of the really good/really popular RPGs of the last decade have
>been remarkably setting-specific.
A good point, especially that "if you're going to do a generic
article, it'll probably be fantasy". Though I think you can do a
pretty decent science fiction or historical scenario with some work. I
think what would help here is writing something "generic" with notes
for using the game with specific systems or backgrounds.
>Their Magic concentration...look, if you're going to argue "it's not as bad
>as it used to be!" all I can do is slap you with a sea bass and say "hah".
>There is simply *no need* for a PRICE GUIDE EVERY SINGLE &^$*&& ISSUE.
There is. Most of Inquest's readers won't buy it without the price
guide. Yeah, the price guide is stupid -- but it's driving sales and
will for some time to come yet. An issue without a price guide is
going to be an issue with a third the sales of normal.
I hate price guides on principle, which is why Inquest is the only
such magazine I carry -- and Inquest is only allowed on my racks
because I think it has other material that's worth putting up with the
guide. But even I have to admit that without the price guide it
wouldn't sell.
(Case in point: my Duelist sales are 1/3 my Inquest sales. Why? No
price guide. People hold up Duelist, ask if there's a price guide,
then put it back when they learn it doesn't.)
>That goes *double* for that idiotic "card rating/catalog" thing. For the
>Magic section, you're essentially reprinting the same ten pages every
>month. It only changes after a new expansion is released anyway! PRINT IT
>ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS! Most places, you can pick up a back issue of IQ
>if you hafta.
They might be able to get away with doing this every other month or
every three months. Then again, it is probably the second most-used
part of the magazine . . .
I can't argue with the other points (they're mostly personal taste,
and yours is just as valid as mine), but for what it's worth I do
disagree with most of them.
Christopher Bird
IQJason (iqj...@aol.com) wrote:
> You have pinpointed our target audience for those articles *exactly*. Remember,
> our readers are, at this point, primarily CCG players. They *are* just
> starting to be GMs...and players, for that matter.
Yes, which is exactly the problem. In your first issue as a "full" gaming
mag, you stated that you wanted to reach out to the rest of the gaming
community. I don't see that happening, and by your own admission you
aren't really trying to head in that direction anyway.
You want to really work over your target audience, fine and good. But don't
suggest that you're trying to embrace the whole gaming community by doing
what you're doing.
> Spoken like someone who doesn't play the games. Yank the price guide and watch
> the sales for that issue plummet.
Yes, it *is* spoken like someone that doesn't play Magic. These are *my*
concerns. I give a damn about Magic-the-fucking-Gathering. Do you realize,
then, that approximately *half of each magazine* (if I'm lucky) is of NO
USE TO ME? Again, fine, I have no problem with you being a
Magic-based magazine, but please, if that's what you want to be, then
*don't* waste my time with half-assed efforts to cover the entire
industry. Say in an editorial that Magic is your number one concern, admit
it, and get it out in the open.
> You're not the first to suggest that. It's something we've been considering.
> However, that "encyclopedia" has made InQuest a resource for Magic players,
> and we're loath to give that up.
Reducing the frequency won't make you any less of a resource. If your
target audience buys IQ every month, they don't need the encylopedia every
month, seeing as how it only changes once every three.
> As for your opinions on the 'humor' articles...would it surprise you to know
> that those articles, and those like them, are some of the most popular and
> well-received ones we print?
Given that your target audience tends to be somewhat younger than that
for, say, Shadis (or even Dragon), no, I wouldn't be. Hey, I thought
mindless fart jokes were funny when I was fourteen too.
> InQuest has a reputation as the gaming equivalent of SPY or the National
> Lampoon (or, occasionally, MAD).
I'd give you the Lampoon, but not MAD, and *definitely* not SPY.
> We try to be incisive,
> relevant, informative...and funny.
Keep trying.
--chdb
The Space-Crime Continuum
bdy...@network.rahul.net wrote:
>In article <343148fc.3737426@news>,
>The Space-Crime Continuum <SPAMBLOC...@crocker.com> wrote:
>
>>FWIW, I think Inquest has been doing an excellent job so far on RPG
>>coverage, not least because a lot of their coverage is agressively
>>"generic" -- articles that aren't tied to any particular system.
>
>Proving one's meat is another poison, I just finished reading another post
>in this thread complaining about that exact same feature. He made a
>convincing case for why that's bad; can you make a case for why that's
>good?
I actually answered that post a moment ago -- in brief, I think the
articles are good for the intended audience, which (from my
observation point behind my sales counter) is primarily younger gamers
who are new to roleplaying. A twelve-year-old running his first AD&D
campaign doesn't know how to get players or create a good villain yet,
and the articles Inquest has done on this are a good place to start
learning.
Inquest has also done an excellent job of drawing attention to classic
SF and fantasy characters and books. I've got a bunch of kids
devouring Zelazny and Donaldson for the first time, and part of the
reason is because they were mentioned in recent issues of Inquest.
>There's only so much you can say that's purely generic before you
>either repeat yourself or start saying things tha can be said better
>elsewhere (i.e. if I want to learn about incorporating classic myth into
>my campaigns, I'll skim Campbell).
No argument there. I'd like to see some more advanced or
system-specific stuff in the future. (And if their RPG audience grows
and the CCG audience shrinks, as is distinctly possible, that's very
possible.) But there are always (I hope) going to be beginners coming
into roleplaying -- and somebody should be publishing material for
them.
>Here's a thought: do magazines give CCGs some sort of legitimacy? I've
>heard MtG compared to chess and billed as a mental sport, which frankly
>strikes me as malarkey, but somebody must believe it. Do any of the
>CCG-related mags try to further this opinion?
If they do, they're not doing a particularly good job of it. IMHO, any
magazine with a price guide is automatically doing as much damage to
trading card games as it is helping it, but I'm really biased on this.
I've seen a lot of dreck in TCG magazine writing about "how to beat
your opponent senseless", or how valuable the cards supposedly are,
and a little bit of "here's fun, interesting things you can do with
TCGS" (which I like, and Inquest does a fair bit), but I have trouble
believing anybody takes this "mental sport" business seriously.
IQJeff
Of all the messages in this thread, there's one thing constant that rings true.
If you have problems with InQuest, you have two choices:
1) Don't buy it
2) Suggest improvements
Personally, I prefer if you choose option number two, and contrary to popular
comment, it's not that hard. And no, you don't have to write the articles...
If you've got ideas for features you'd like to see or games you'd like to see
covered, send me an e-mail at IQJ...@aol.com. We're always open to cool ideas,
and if you come up with a good idea but don't want to do any writing, we'll
find a freelancer to do it...
...which brings me to my next point. If you're interested in writing for
InQuest, all you have to do is send an e-mail to me or Tom Slizewski
(IQT...@aol.com). We'll end you a freelancer survey to fill out. And you don't
have to write an article just to be considered... a writing sample of about
400 words is fine... it can be something you come up with (like a small
portion of a killer deck) or somthing you've already written/published.
If you're interested in doing technical pieces (Reviews, Killer Decks, Basic
Training, Creative Campaigning, CCG Features, Dead Man's Hand) send e-mail to
me, Jeff Hannes. If you're interested in doing anything else (News, Non-CCG
Features, etc.) contact Tom. In both cases, be sure to mention what areas of
the magazine you're interested in working on. If you've already got a sample,
hey, send it... it'll only speed up the process.
Jeff Hannes
Games Editor, InQuest Magazine
IQJ...@aol.com
Kirby Krueger
In article <19971002151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
IQJeff <iqj...@aol.com> wrote:
>Of all the messages in this thread, there's one thing constant that rings true.
> If you have problems with InQuest, you have two choices:
>
Sure. I think, for one, that it's great that Inquest is running
entry-level RPG articles. I may have no use for them, but in hobbies like
this, it's so critical that new players get in, and there isn't a
magazine that caters to inexperienced gamers.
What I'd like to see is more support of non-Magic game. Magic obviously
pays the bills, but they have plenty of support. It'd be great if there
were things like columns every issue dedicated to talking about games
that people might like to check out. One thing that's been really
successful (as in people liking it) online is Zen's Card of the Week for
L5R - it'd probably be easy to have a card of the month feature for
some of the other games, and only talk a page, or half a page.
I don't know whether there's enough of a market to support a CCG magazine
that doesn't focus on Magic - if people think there is, and can try and
make one, great! Until then, Inquest is the _only_ magazine with serious
coverage of non-magic, and it behooves those of us who want such a thing
to pay attention to them and let them know we'll buy it if they increase
these features. After I ignore all the Magic pages, there has to be
enough to justify buying the magazine that month - and sometimes there
is, sometimes there isn't.
--
Kirby Krueger O- kir...@netcom.com
<*> "Most .sigs this small can't open their own jump gate."
The Space-Crime Continuum
cb...@chat.carleton.ca (Christopher Bird) wrote:
>IQJason (iqj...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> You have pinpointed our target audience for those articles *exactly*. Remember,
>> our readers are, at this point, primarily CCG players. They *are* just
>> starting to be GMs...and players, for that matter.
>
>Yes, which is exactly the problem. In your first issue as a "full" gaming
>mag, you stated that you wanted to reach out to the rest of the gaming
>community. I don't see that happening, and by your own admission you
>aren't really trying to head in that direction anyway.
>
>You want to really work over your target audience, fine and good. But don't
>suggest that you're trying to embrace the whole gaming community by doing
>what you're doing.
>
As a businessman, I can tell you that the first rule of reaching out
to new audiences is: don't screw things up with your current audience.
Getting new customers is a long and arduous process, and if you
alienate your current base in the process, you'll almost certainly end
with a net loss in customers.
As far as I can tell, Inquest is doing this expansion right. There is
a little more coverage for us advanced roleplayers who don't do much
card gaming. It's mostly reviews, nostalgia articles about classic
games and industry news right now, but it's there. But I think
actively trying to introduce younger gamers and card-only gamers to
roleplaying is an excellent strategy, and one that will have real
longterm benefits to the roleplaying.
I'm sorry Inquest isn't the magazine you want quite yet. But you are
an advanced gamer, and you need to give the Inquest people a chance to
bring their audience into your world. Personally, I think you're being
a jerk for screaming at them when all they're trying to do is make a
living and expand the industry a little. Hey, what have *you* done to
improve the world of roleplaying lately?
bdy...@network.rahul.net
In article <343287dc.7372802@news>,[snip]
>There is. Most of Inquest's readers won't buy it without the price
>guide. Yeah, the price guide is stupid -- but it's driving sales and
>will for some time to come yet. An issue without a price guide is
>going to be an issue with a third the sales of normal.
>
>I hate price guides on principle, which is why Inquest is the only
>such magazine I carry -- and Inquest is only allowed on my racks
>because I think it has other material that's worth putting up with the
>guide. But even I have to admit that without the price guide it
>wouldn't sell.
>
>(Case in point: my Duelist sales are 1/3 my Inquest sales. Why? No
>price guide. People hold up Duelist, ask if there's a price guide,
>then put it back when they learn it doesn't.)
[snip re card rating/catalog]
>They might be able to get away with doing this every other month or
>every three months. Then again, it is probably the second most-used
>part of the magazine . . .
So, basically, MtG players will pay for a price guide and card catalog
over and over? Even though most of it is primarily the same information
they had the last month? It sounds like they've extended their buying
habits from cards to card-related items. I'm trying to understand the
mindset that would need to be sure of the current market value of all
owned cards, and I just can't. Maybe it's because I buy card games for
games, and don't worry abput selling them someday, but the obsession with
card value just rubs me the wrong way.
bdy...@network.rahul.net
In article <34328a88.8056453@news>,
>articles are good for the intended audience, which (from my
>observation point behind my sales counter) is primarily younger gamers
>who are new to roleplaying. A twelve-year-old running his first AD&D
>campaign doesn't know how to get players or create a good villain yet,
>and the articles Inquest has done on this are a good place to start
>learning.
There is that. Would labelling such articles as "for beginning GMs" be,
mm, counterproductive? Obviously the people who would need such articles
_are_ beginners, but might resent being labelled as such. Maybe if there
were regular columns, one for beginners, one for established players/GMs,
there'd be a better mix.
[snip]
>No argument there. I'd like to see some more advanced or
>system-specific stuff in the future. (And if their RPG audience grows
>and the CCG audience shrinks, as is distinctly possible, that's very
>possible.) But there are always (I hope) going to be beginners coming
>into roleplaying -- and somebody should be publishing material for
>them.
If IQ printed both "beginners" articles and "masters" articles, they'd
please more people. For example, in the issue with the article on running
a good villian, include a piece about Jeremic Calin, cruel leader of the
asteroid pirates, with details on his lair, his minions, operations, etc.
An article like that would be something experienced GMs could get some use
out of, while at the same time giving beginners an example.
Of course, someone will say that if I want to see such articles, I should
write them. Printing better articles is a chicken and egg problem: the
magazine won't print them until it gets them, but nobody will submit them
if they won't see print. If IQ wants a different mix of articles, they
should ask for them: "We need some articles on X topic and Y topic, so if
you've got some ideas, write 'em down and send 'em in!" IQ could have
announce themed issues to get more submissions on certain topics. This
wouldn't preclude printing good but not-specifically-asked-for pieces, of
course, but if potential writers look at IQ and don't see anything like
what they'd like to submit, and don't see any desire for it either, why
bother?
>>Here's a thought: do magazines give CCGs some sort of legitimacy? I've
>>heard MtG compared to chess and billed as a mental sport, which frankly
>>strikes me as malarkey, but somebody must believe it. Do any of the
>>CCG-related mags try to further this opinion?
>
>If they do, they're not doing a particularly good job of it. IMHO, any
>magazine with a price guide is automatically doing as much damage to
>trading card games as it is helping it, but I'm really biased on this.
>I've seen a lot of dreck in TCG magazine writing about "how to beat
>your opponent senseless", or how valuable the cards supposedly are,
>and a little bit of "here's fun, interesting things you can do with
>TCGS" (which I like, and Inquest does a fair bit), but I have trouble
>believing anybody takes this "mental sport" business seriously.
I agree with you about speculation (I don't even like artificial rarity).
Have you seen the commercials for MtG? The TV ads make it look like just a
cool game (though they're not pushing too far toward mainstream; I've only
seen the ads on the Sci-Fi channel). The print ads, though, have a little
blurb about "some cards are worth as much as $500". Yeah, and alpha mox,
maybe. It struck me as odd that they'd use speculation as a selling
point.
InQuest has its audience, and apparently that audience wants price guides
and card catalogs (was it you that mentioned that elsewhere?). I wonder
how important the articles are to its success? Imagine they printed to
periodicals, one the magazine, the other containing only price lists and
catalogs; would the magazine still sell as well? If not, the articles
might be somewhat superfluous. Does anybody reading this thread know
which features in IQ are most popular?
John Peralta
> So, basically, MtG players will pay for a price guide and card catalog
> over and over? Even though most of it is primarily the same information
> they had the last month? It sounds like they've extended their buying
> habits from cards to card-related items. I'm trying to understand the
> mindset that would need to be sure of the current market value of all
> owned cards, and I just can't. Maybe it's because I buy card games for
> games, and don't worry abput selling them someday, but the obsession with
> card value just rubs me the wrong way.
I would have to agree with you here. The worst part of it is that I don't care what
anybody says, I would have a hard time selling 90% of my cards at even half the value
of the lowest price listed. most of my uncommons and at least half of all the rares I
own are worthless. I know because I have tried to sell them. I haven't given them away
simply because...well I don't know why not.
Getting back to the question that started this whole issue, the reason that I stoped
playing Magic: the money pitt is because I bought boxes and boxes of cards and was
still getting my ass kicked. I could not compete with the people who purchased even
more than I did. In the end all it came down to was the four to five rares that came
out with each expansion, and everyone had to have four copies of each. I think we all
know how much money that would take, more than we care to spend (notice that I didn't
say have to spend.) I find I get much more for my money from all the other games I
play.
As far as Magic content is concerned there is a much better mag out there for that.
It's called Duelist. The articles in there are much more complete and expansive. I
fail to get anything substantial out of a two page article on anything writen in 12
point font, we want details and examples not summaries and generalities so vague they
are hard to put into practice.
Lastly I do think InQuest over does it by printing the same card catalogue every &*!$#
month! How about some different games like L5R, or METW, or anything, just not Magic.
when I pick up a mag I always decide how good it is based on how useful and
informative it is. Printing the same damn pages every month is neither.
Ultimately, I've got to agree with the fact that InQuest is the best CCG mag out
there. I know I just ragged on it but that doesn't change the fact that all other mags
out there are even worse. At least they come out on time ( a compliment! and it has
absolutely NOTHING to do with content). InQuest if you're listening please help all of
us magic-abused card players feel better. Try a little harder.
John Peralta
mp...@cts.com
I stopped reading Inquest about a year ago because of what I would
characterize as arrogant reporting. I found that most of the
'reviews' (I use the term loosely in order to be polite) of other CCGs
contained little (if any) factual or objective information. Instead,
there was just a lot of dweebish ranting and raving about how the game
'sucks' or was a 'rip-off' of Magic.
By my mind, there isn't a single CCG out there that does not have its
plusses and minuses. These should be reported as objectively as
possible, so that the reader can decide whether the plusses outweight
the minuses for him/herself. I never found this in Inquest ... all I
found were vituperative comparisons to MtG, and a slavish adoration of
Mtg. I can't see spending my money on such drivel, particularly when
other magazines (Conjure, TuffStuff's Gamer, Scrye) did a much better
job.
-- Mark Peterson
Christopher Heard
In article <60uo50$5...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, cb...@chat.carleton.ca
(Christopher Bird) wrote:
> The last couple of Swan Song pieces that I read were just sad.
And while we're on the topic ... the "idiot religious fundamentalist
condemns Magic as Satanic" theme that got trotted out again in the "Swan
Song" for IQ 31 is old, tired, and no longer amusing. IQreps, please ask
Mr. Swan to move on to something inventive.
Chris
..........................
Christopher Heard
che...@post.cis.smu.edu
http://www.smu.edu/~cheard
C. S. Gaines
>
> There is. Most of Inquest's readers won't buy it without the price
> guide. Yeah, the price guide is stupid -- but it's driving sales and
> will for some time to come yet. An issue without a price guide is
> going to be an issue with a third the sales of normal.
>
> I hate price guides on principle, which is why Inquest is the only
> such magazine I carry -- and Inquest is only allowed on my racks
> because I think it has other material that's worth putting up with the
> guide. But even I have to admit that without the price guide it
> wouldn't sell.
>
> (Case in point: my Duelist sales are 1/3 my Inquest sales. Why? No
> price guide. People hold up Duelist, ask if there's a price guide,
> then put it back when they learn it doesn't.)
>
>
> They might be able to get away with doing this every other month or
> every three months. Then again, it is probably the second most-used
> part of the magazine . . .
Can I ask a question: who uses the InQuest Price Guide? That thing is
full of errors. As a Star Wars collector/player I lost ALL respect for
InQuest's Price Guide when they had Son Of Skywalker listed for $5.00.
What a laugh! My theory is that they make up the prices. If anyone
wants a price guide, use Scrye. In my experience everyone uses it. I
don't remember one time when anyone used a price listed in InQuest as
anything other than a joke!
C. S. Gaines
C. S. Gaines
Glen Barnett wrote:
>
> In article <342ea8dc...@newsrv.microsys.net>,
> Brian Henderson <bhend...@microsys.net> wrote:
> >
> >Why don't I find it fun? First off, the game takes itself WAAAAAAY
> >too seriously, and the gamers that I have seen most often are so
> >fanatical about the silly game that they can't have any fun at it.
> >It's too competitive for me, who just wants to play a game, have a
> >good time and enjoy life. Most of the other games that I play now
> >poke fun at themselves and at the players and catching all the
> >in-jokes is at least as much fun as playing the game.
Thank you very much for this post. I've wondered why I have stopped
playing chess so much. You are 100 percent correct about the attitudes
that many chess players have, and some CCG players as well. It's the
rating thing that has taken the fun out of chess, in my opinion. Once a
player has a rating the game becomes a job as the player tries to
maintain or increase the rating. I play games for fun. I take my job
seriously, not my games!
C. S. Gaines
The Space-Crime Continuum
bdy...@network.rahul.net wrote:
>
>So, basically, MtG players will pay for a price guide and card catalog
>over and over? Even though most of it is primarily the same information
>they had the last month?
Yep. Scary, huh?
>It sounds like they've extended their buying
>habits from cards to card-related items. I'm trying to understand the
>mindset that would need to be sure of the current market value of all
>owned cards, and I just can't. Maybe it's because I buy card games for
>games, and don't worry abput selling them someday, but the obsession with
>card value just rubs me the wrong way.
>
I've done my best to discourage it. We don't sell singles and I
usually feel justified in making fun of anyone who's obsessed with
card values. Unfortunately, that really doesn't make much of a dent --
greed is a *very* powerful force.
Omega
RIsaacs wrote:
>
> Jack Dracula wrote:
>
> >>Does another magazine do a better job? Yes, InQuest doesn't have enough about
> non-Magic mags. However, they have more than anyone else.<<
>
> What the hell kind of defense is that?
>
> They could give better coverage to the top five CCGs. I don't recall ever
> seeing a Stumper article or Dead Man's Hand that was non Magic.
And "Dead Man's Hand" has been around for...six months now? Seven? Give
them time. Better yet, come up with a puzzle for a card game you enjoy,
and send it in.
John "Omega" Seavey
Brian Henderson
SPAMBLOC...@crocker.com (The Space-Crime Continuum ) wrote:
>Um, over half my Inquest buyers are young teens who (if they're
>roleplaying at all) are just starting out and don't know these things
>yet. Yes, the articles are introductory articles -- but they're
>appropriate to Inquest's audience and arguably are starting the people
>who read them down the road to more advanced stuff.
Which basically leaves the experienced gamers of all sorts not buying
InQuest, I guess. But then again, I started role-playing in 1974 when
the original Chainmail rules came out, so I'm nowhere even close to
being a beginner.
>There is. Most of Inquest's readers won't buy it without the price
>guide. Yeah, the price guide is stupid -- but it's driving sales and
>will for some time to come yet. An issue without a price guide is
>going to be an issue with a third the sales of normal.
Doesn't that say something pretty pathetic about the people who buy
InQuest (and other similar magazines) then? Are people really so
stupid that they can't live without knowing exactly what their cards
are worth this month?
>(Case in point: my Duelist sales are 1/3 my Inquest sales. Why? No
>price guide. People hold up Duelist, ask if there's a price guide,
>then put it back when they learn it doesn't.)
To be honest, I used to buy Duelist regularly, not because I loved
Magic, far from it, but because I thought a lot of the articles were
interesting and the magazine was well put together. Of course, today,
I refuse to buy any of the magazines because they've all turned into
company rags, and if I cared what the companies thought of their own
products, I'd just go to their web sites.
-Brian
Brian Henderson
iqj...@aol.com (IQJason) wrote:
>Christopher Bird:
>"There is simply *no need* for a PRICE GUIDE EVERY SINGLE &^$*&& ISSUE."
>Spoken like someone who doesn't play the games. Yank the price guide and watch
> the sales for that issue plummet.
Now wait a second, are we talking about PLAYERS or SPECULATORS?
A player shouldn't give a damn about what the cards are worth, just
their rarity and usefullness in a deck. A speculator would care, but
are you making the magazine for people who PLAY the games or people
who try to get rich off them?
There are reasons I wouldn't pick up an issue of InQuest if my life
depended on it.
-Brian
Brian Henderson
"C. S. Gaines" <cga...@slipnet.com> wrote:
> Thank you very much for this post. I've wondered why I have stopped
>playing chess so much. You are 100 percent correct about the attitudes
>that many chess players have, and some CCG players as well. It's the
>rating thing that has taken the fun out of chess, in my opinion. Once a
>player has a rating the game becomes a job as the player tries to
>maintain or increase the rating. I play games for fun. I take my job
>seriously, not my games!
Absolutely. There are far too many people who think that playing
these silly games *IS* a job! People, they are stupid little pieces
of cardboard! As William Shatner said once of another piece of
entertainment that is often taken to fanatacism... GET A LIFE!
I used to play chess too, as well as do a lot of other things that
have gotten far too competitive. I do things for fun. If I want to
be rated... I'll go elsewhere. This is a HOBBY!
I fail to see why some people have such a hard time with that concept.
-Brian
Philippe DUCHON
In article <343483...@slipnet.com> cga...@slipnet.com writes:
> Can I ask a question: who uses the InQuest Price Guide? That thing is
>full of errors. As a Star Wars collector/player I lost ALL respect for
>InQuest's Price Guide when they had Son Of Skywalker listed for $5.00.
>What a laugh! My theory is that they make up the prices. If anyone
>wants a price guide, use Scrye. In my experience everyone uses it. I
>don't remember one time when anyone used a price listed in InQuest as
>anything other than a joke!
>
> C. S. Gaines
Around here (this is France, so take it for what it's worth), _all_ price
guides are used as jokes. InQuest is the one most often cited, but "American
Prices" usually means rip-off prices, usually when referring to big-numbers
creatures (the stereotype being that Americans _always_ like anything with big
numbers on it, Magic-wise).
There's also a French mag. that publishes a Magic price guide (Lotus Noir), but
their prices are _not_ what I can see locally (though I think they're more
accurate by Paris standards, where the singles market is _very_ active). By
asking 50% of Lotus Noir prices I can get some cards moving, and when I
really want to get rid of everything I'll probably offer them for 20% of LN
prices.
--
Philippe Duchon (duc...@labri.u-bordeaux.fr)
Philippe DUCHON
In article <3434968e...@newsrv.microsys.net> bhend...@microsys.net (Brian Henderson) writes:
>
>To be honest, I used to buy Duelist regularly, not because I loved
>Magic, far from it, but because I thought a lot of the articles were
>interesting and the magazine was well put together. Of course, today,
>I refuse to buy any of the magazines because they've all turned into
>company rags, and if I cared what the companies thought of their own
>products, I'd just go to their web sites.
Yeah, I used to be very proud of my complete collection of Duelists, back
when it was the gorgeous, high-quality magazine it used to be. Now, it's
just full of glory-to-WotC talk and Magic Pro Shit. They used to do artist
interviews, but now they just _know_ nobody cares for the art on their cards.
Last time I checked a Duelist, there were _3_ pages that _might_ interest me:
a two-page article on Jyhad (I think), and Garfield's page. Not too good...
Now, I'll sometimes buy InQuest when there's something in it for me (like a
L5R or MECCG promo, or a spoiler list for ME), but I'll make sure _before_
I buy it that there is something I'll enjoy reading - the weak humour may be
slightly entertaining, but it's not worth the price for me...
--
Philippe Duchon (duc...@labri.u-bordeaux.fr)
Derek Hohls
C. S. Gaines wrote:
>
> Glen Barnett wrote:
> >
> > In article <342ea8dc...@newsrv.microsys.net>,
> > Brian Henderson <bhend...@microsys.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Why don't I find it fun? First off, the game takes itself WAAAAAAY
> > >too seriously, and the gamers that I have seen most often are so
> > >fanatical about the silly game that they can't have any fun at it.
> > >It's too competitive for me, who just wants to play a game, have a
> > >good time and enjoy life. Most of the other games that I play now
> > >poke fun at themselves and at the players and catching all the
> > >in-jokes is at least as much fun as playing the game.
>
> playing chess so much. You are 100 percent correct about the attitudes
> that many chess players have, and some CCG players as well. It's the
> rating thing that has taken the fun out of chess, in my opinion. Once a
> player has a rating the game becomes a job as the player tries to
> maintain or increase the rating. I play games for fun. I take my job
> seriously, not my games!
Agreed!
I think this puts the "definition" of what seperates a game from a
'job'. Think about
- chess
- bridge
- go
- ASL (and some other wargames)
- most sports
and you'll see that most involve some kind of rating ... thereby
indicating that the activity in question has moved from being "just a
game" to "a way of life".
Derek ("what, me play Bridge?!")
--
dho...@csir.co.za (remove NOSPAM. in header)
variables are irrelevant. functions are useless.
prepare to be encapsulated...
Christopher Heard
In article <3433FD...@ix.netcom.com>, John Peralta
<john...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > So, basically, MtG players will pay for a price guide and card catalog
> > over and over? Even though most of it is primarily the same information
> > habits from cards to card-related items. I'm trying to understand the
> > mindset that would need to be sure of the current market value of all
> > owned cards, and I just can't. Maybe it's because I buy card games for
> > games, and don't worry abput selling them someday, but the obsession with
> > card value just rubs me the wrong way.
>
care what
> anybody says, I would have a hard time selling 90% of my cards at even
half the value
> of the lowest price listed. most of my uncommons and at least half of all
the rares I
> own are worthless. I know because I have tried to sell them. I haven't
given them away
> simply because...well I don't know why not.
A lot of this is because InQuest's (and Scrye's and everybody else's)
"price guides" are based on what a limited number of retailers who sell
singles sell the cards for, not the true "street price" of a single through
individual sales, net sales, or strictly mail-order operations. So for
example my local retailer, who sells the Borg Ship from Star Trek for
$12.50, might be included in the "price guide" calculations, but the
various folks who sell Borg Ships on the
rec.games.trading-cards.marketplace.misc newsgroup for $4.00 would not be
included. This emphasis on retailer-reported prices is a vicious cycle in a
way, for some retailers then turn around and use the InQuest or Scrye price
guide to price their singles, guaranteeing they will remain at the higher
rate. This structure, it seems to me, does a disservice to ccgamers without
usenet access who have to rely on their local retailers for singles.
Christopher Heard
In article <34349315...@newsrv.microsys.net>, bhend...@microsys.net
(Brian Henderson) wrote:
> A player shouldn't give a damn about what the cards are worth, just
> their rarity and usefullness in a deck. A speculator would care, but
> are you making the magazine for people who PLAY the games or people
> who try to get rich off them?
Actually, it *is* useful to players to know what cards are typically
selling for, for purposes of equitable trading. I'd be stupid, for example,
to trade my Jean-Luc Picard for an Anti-Time Anomaly .. both are Rare cards
in the Premiere ed. of the Star Trek CCG, but people will pay $15+ for JLP
and only $2 or so for an ATA. So it's not *only* speculators who benefit
from knowing the going prices. *On the other hand,* the magazine price
guides have problems that have been discussed elsewhere on this thread.
IQJason
Christopher Bird:
"Yes, it *is* spoken like someone that doesn't play Magic. These are *my*
concerns. I give a damn about Magic-the-fucking-Gathering. Do you realize,
then, that approximately *half of each magazine* (if I'm lucky) is of NO
USE TO ME?"
I see there is an error in my thinking. You're not saying our magazine is
useless; you're saying it's useless *to you*. Obviously, you know your needs
better than anyone else.
"Again, fine, I have no problem with you being a Magic-based magazine, but
please, if that's what you want to be, then *don't* waste my time with
half-assed efforts to cover the entire industry."
Now, this gets me. Whether or not you find our efforts to your liking is one
thing. But this makes it seem like a personal affront. No one is holding your
eyelids open and forcing you to read our magazine; if you find it doesn't meet
your needs, don't buy it.
"Say in an editorial that Magic is your number one concern, admit it, and get
it out in the open."
Our number one concern is our readers' needs, both present and potential. After
your experiences, it's apparent you don't count yourself among them.
yours,
Jason Schneiderman
Associate Editor, InQuest Magazine
IQJ...@aol.com
Bryant Durrell
In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu>,
Dennis F. Hefferman <heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
> Shadowfist simply has too many problems that take too much work to
>overcome in the early stages. It didn't catch on because quite frankly, it
>didn't deserve to.
Sure; the slow rate of expansion sets had nothing to do with it.
Neither did the relatively poor PR (compared to, say, L5R, which
came out at the same time and has slightly worse gameplay).
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Anybody who thinks of going to bed before 12 o'clock is a scoundrel."
-- Samuel Johnson
The Space-Crime Continuum
"C. S. Gaines" <cga...@slipnet.com> wrote:
>
> Can I ask a question: who uses the InQuest Price Guide? That thing is
>full of errors. As a Star Wars collector/player I lost ALL respect for
>InQuest's Price Guide when they had Son Of Skywalker listed for $5.00.
>What a laugh! My theory is that they make up the prices. If anyone
>wants a price guide, use Scrye. In my experience everyone uses it. I
>don't remember one time when anyone used a price listed in InQuest as
>anything other than a joke!
>
You know, I find the truly clueless fascinating.
In a sense, Inquest does make up the numbers -- and so does Scrye and
any other price guide that still exists. They don't make it up
themselves -- but they collect information on the prices charged by
various businesses that sell single cards.
Where do *those* people get the prices? They make them up. If they
have any sense, they estimate demand among their customers and come up
with a price their customers pay. But many of them base their prices
on the magazine -- "because that's what the magazine says".
It's a little circular hamster wheel of prices based on fantasy and
the occasional nod to customer demand. So repeat after me: individual
cards have no intrinsic value. "Value" is not an absolute. The only
value to a card is the value you place on it. And any fool who insists
that a particular value placed on a card is "right" or "wrong" is out
of touch with reality.
Ng, Kai Koon
On 2 Oct 1997 18:41:50 GMT, bdy...@network.rahul.net wrote:
>>They might be able to get away with doing this every other month or
>>every three months. Then again, it is probably the second most-used
>>part of the magazine . . .
>
>So, basically, MtG players will pay for a price guide and card catalog
>over and over? Even though most of it is primarily the same information
>they had the last month? It sounds like they've extended their buying
>habits from cards to card-related items. I'm trying to understand the
>mindset that would need to be sure of the current market value of all
>owned cards, and I just can't. Maybe it's because I buy card games for
>games, and don't worry abput selling them someday, but the obsession with
>card value just rubs me the wrong way.
As far as I am aware, most 'worldly' players will not use the InQuest
price guide to buy cards. Most of the prices are a bit high, and IMHO
are only good for ripping off little kids starting out; not that I
would do such a thing. As to buying the guide again and again, I have
seen people charging rather exhorbant prices for a card using the
justification that 'it is the price in the latest InQuest'.
Please note that this is no criticism on the magazine. I'm sure they
do the best they can to give us an accurate price guide, but it
probably takes at least a month between writing the guide and the
magazine hitting the shelf, it is going to be fairly hard to get it
accurate.
Cheers
Christopher Bird
IQJason (iqj...@aol.com) wrote:
> I see there is an error in my thinking. You're not saying our magazine is
> useless; you're saying it's useless *to you*. Obviously, you know your needs
> better than anyone else.
Yes, but the problem herein (and I apologize for being bitchy earlier; it
was a bad day, etc.) is that, well, I kind of represent a large chunk of
the gaming population, IE, those who could care less about Magic. It's not
so massively popular as to dominate the gaming industry to the extent you
cover it.
And you say dropping the price guide every issue will lower your sales?
Yeah, it probably will. Of course, if you filled that space with articles
that were of use to experienced gamers, or even articles of use to the
*entire* RPG playing community rather than just beginners, more
experienced gamers might buy the magazine. As it stands, you've *chosen*
to relegate yourself to being completely tied and heavily dependent to the
Magic-buying population; your articles, your writing style, even your
adverts are all geared towards them. Half of everything is compared to
Magic as if the game was the first in all recorded creation, and double
that for every CCG that comes down the pike. (Example: the review of
ShadowRun, where the game design was needled for "copying Magic" because
the cards had attack/damage ratings and a card system similar to tapping.
NB: 1.) attack and damage ratings precede Magic greatly, and 2.) tapping a
cad is simply a way of showing that the card's ability has been used, and
if I felt like it I could probably pull out multiple examples of different
methods that predated Magic).
*My* problem with IQ is that when someone gripes about it, the usual
response is "so write for us and make us better". This is a semi-valid
response, but, as you've shown previously, your current path is something
you really don't want to stray from; this makes it less than motivating to
write an article about...oh...say...ShadowRun (the RPG), because you've
already stated that your preference is more towards "generic" articles.
Unless I specifically get contracted to write the said article, why would
I want to bother submitting it to IQ, when, say, Dragon or Pyramid or
Shadis offers better odds of getting it published? Hell, this is assuming I
can find the time to write the article in the first place. And when you say
"well, we're heading in this direction", it sounds *a lot* like a
pre-rejection.
But, in the end, this isn't about contributors deciding not to write for
you. It all boils down to the fact that IQ has its target audience, and is
determined to cater to them first and foremost. And it's not anyone's
fault but IQ's that the perceived target audience of IQ, throughout
gaming, is typically younger Magic players and "just starting out" gamers.
Fine and good.
>Now, this gets me. Whether or not you find our efforts to your liking is one
>thing. But this makes it seem like a personal affront. No one is holding your
>eyelids open and forcing you to read our magazine; if you find it doesn't meet
>your needs, don't buy it.
This isn't a measure of affront; it's one of disappointment. I rarely
bought IQ a couple years back, because there wasn't any point. Then, along
came expanded RPG coverage, and this was a good step, but it never really
went too much further than that. I *want* IQ to be a magazine I
enthusiastically look forward to buying every month, rather than something
I'll only buy if there's a decent L5R article in it. But that would
require more game-specific articles and less space devoted to Magic, and
you've made it clear that you don't anticpate IQ going that route.
>Our number one concern is our readers' needs, both present and potential. After
>your experiences, it's apparent you don't count yourself among them.
Again, I'll still buy IQ when there's an article that looks interesting.
But that's about it. Other than that, what reason can you give me to
bother buying it? And what reason can you give all us "experienced" gamers?
--chdb
C. S. Gaines
Christopher Heard wrote:
>
> In article <3433FD...@ix.netcom.com>, John Peralta
> <john...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > over and over? Even though most of it is primarily the same information
> > > they had the last month? It sounds like they've extended their buying
> > > habits from cards to card-related items. I'm trying to understand the
> > > mindset that would need to be sure of the current market value of all
> > > owned cards, and I just can't. Maybe it's because I buy card games for
> > > games, and don't worry abput selling them someday, but the obsession with
> > > card value just rubs me the wrong way.
> >
> care what
> > anybody says, I would have a hard time selling 90% of my cards at even
> half the value
> > of the lowest price listed. most of my uncommons and at least half of all
> the rares I
> > own are worthless. I know because I have tried to sell them. I haven't
> given them away
> > simply because...well I don't know why not.
>
> A lot of this is because InQuest's (and Scrye's and everybody else's)
> "price guides" are based on what a limited number of retailers who sell
> singles sell the cards for, not the true "street price" of a single through
> individual sales, net sales, or strictly mail-order operations. So for
> example my local retailer, who sells the Borg Ship from Star Trek for
> $12.50, might be included in the "price guide" calculations, but the
> various folks who sell Borg Ships on the
> rec.games.trading-cards.marketplace.misc newsgroup for $4.00 would not be
> included. This emphasis on retailer-reported prices is a vicious cycle in a
> way, for some retailers then turn around and use the InQuest or Scrye price
> guide to price their singles, guaranteeing they will remain at the higher
> rate. This structure, it seems to me, does a disservice to ccgamers without
> usenet access who have to rely on their local retailers for singles.
>
>
> ..........................
> Christopher Heard
> che...@post.cis.smu.edu
> http://www.smu.edu/~cheard
the few resources within travelling distance. That's why stores use
those price guides: they have a captive market.
One point, though, in the stores' favor: over the net you cannot
examine the condition of a card as you can in a store. Store owners
HAVE to sell top quality or drop the price.
C. S. Gaines
C. S. Gaines
than others because of demand. The Son Of Skywalker example I used
above is a rare, character card from the SW: Dagobah expansion.
Lieutenant Suba is also a rare, character card from the SW: Dagobah
expansion. Due to the higher demand for Son Of Skywalker, no one will
trade a Son Of Skywalker for a Lieutenant Suba without something else
being added to the bargain.
Yes, both cards were printed by Decipher at exactly the same cost. But
that says nothing about demand! Demand is the non-subjective item I use
the Scrye Price Guide for. Why Scrye? Because it is accurate! The
InQuest Price Guide does not seem to represent anything other than the
editor's imagination.
C. S. Gaines
Beowulf
Well, then Dennis, why do you keep playing then?
You bash the game enough, yet you play. Why?
--
Tom(asi) at:
taki...@hooked.net
taki...@psygnosis.com
- Damage, Inc. -
We'll chew and spit you out...
We'll laugh, you'll scream and shout...
All flee, with fear, you'll run...
You'll know just where we'll come from...
- Redwood City Q-Zar, California, USA
Craig Bertolucci
> > > >
> > > >Why don't I find it fun? First off, the game takes itself WAAAAAAY
> > > >too seriously, and the gamers that I have seen most often are so
> > > >fanatical about the silly game that they can't have any fun at it.
> > > >It's too competitive for me, who just wants to play a game, have a
> > > >good time and enjoy life. Most of the other games that I play now
> > > >poke fun at themselves and at the players and catching all the
> > > >in-jokes is at least as much fun as playing the game.
> >
> > Thank you very much for this post. I've wondered why I have stopped
> > playing chess so much. You are 100 percent correct about the attitudes
> > that many chess players have, and some CCG players as well. It's the
> > rating thing that has taken the fun out of chess, in my opinion. Once a
> > player has a rating the game becomes a job as the player tries to
> > maintain or increase the rating. I play games for fun. I take my job
> > seriously, not my games!
>
Even in real-time computer games such as Warcraft, the appearance
of "league players" has really detracted from the net gamming experience.
Can't find a competitive game, unless your willing to sell your soul to
some punk teenaged computer geek so that you can be in his league or clan
as they call it. The only problem there is wanting competitive play. No
matter what the game, the best players are trying to get rated somewhere,
so if you want to play the best, you have to put up with their attitudes.
Still more fun than trying to get the wife play though.
-Craig
John Fiala
Hi.
Brian Henderson <bhend...@microsys.net> wrote in article
<3434968e...@newsrv.microsys.net>...
> SPAMBLOC...@crocker.com (The Space-Crime Continuum ) wrote:
>
> >Um, over half my Inquest buyers are young teens who (if they're
> >roleplaying at all) are just starting out and don't know these things
> >yet. Yes, the articles are introductory articles -- but they're
> >appropriate to Inquest's audience and arguably are starting the people
> >who read them down the road to more advanced stuff.
>
> Which basically leaves the experienced gamers of all sorts not buying
> InQuest, I guess. But then again, I started role-playing in 1974 when
> the original Chainmail rules came out, so I'm nowhere even close to
> being a beginner.
Oh, I dunno. The article on going back to the real, legendary basics of
various horror monsters and using those to trip up players who expect the
hollywood versions of the various monsters is something I'm going to use,
and I've been playing since, oh, 13 years ago.
On the other hand, what magazine can the experienced gamer read, other
than Pyramid? Shadis is a neat idea, but all-too-often leaves me cold. By
supporting InQuest and sending them commentary (either through mail or on
the group here), I try to seduce them into printing more RPG and board game
articles for older gamers. Bwa-ha-ha.
Actually, that's a good question, and not just for Brian. If you consider
yourself an experienced RPG'er, what magazines do you read?
--
-john
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/5665/
jcf...@cssltd.com
IQJeff
>>There's only so much you can say that's purely generic before you
>>either repeat yourself or start saying things tha can be said better
>>elsewhere (i.e. if I want to learn about incorporating classic myth into
>>my campaigns, I'll skim Campbell).
>No argument there. I'd like to see some more advanced or
>system-specific stuff in the future. (And if their RPG audience grows
>and the CCG audience shrinks, as is distinctly possible, that's very
>possible.) But there are always (I hope) going to be beginners coming
I admit, I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest, and a couple of
people have managed to hit it right on the mark. We've intentionally startd
out our RPG coverage with more generic articles because at the time we began
the expansion into RPGs, the vast majority of our audience was CCG players.
Just look at our first RPG article... An Intro to RPGs (issue #27).
We've already got system-specific RPG features in the works... I can't give too
many details (since, well, they're still in the works) but EXPERIENCED World
of Darkness storytellers are going to be very happy with the first of these
setting-specific features we've got lined up.
Also, note that we need about four months of lead time to work on a feature,
and we're just now getting a good amount of feedback on the inclusion of RPG
coverage. From what I've seen, especially in this thread, people are glad
we're doing it. So, now that we know people want more RPG coverage, we're
working on taking it to the next level.
We're not looking to become the next "arcane" overnight, but by issue #34/#35,
we sure would like people who used to read "arcane" to turn to our mas: we ARE
responsive to the fans... our number one concern is to put out a product
people want. It's your job to tell us what you want (and so far you're doing a
pretty good job)...
And there you have it. Now if only we get some people to change the title of
this thread... ;)
Jeff Hannes
Games Editor, InQuest Magazine
IQJ...@aol.com
Brian Henderson
che...@post.cis.smu.edu (Christopher Heard) wrote:
>In article <34349315...@newsrv.microsys.net>, bhend...@microsys.net
>(Brian Henderson) wrote:
>> A player shouldn't give a damn about what the cards are worth, just
>> their rarity and usefullness in a deck. A speculator would care, but
>> are you making the magazine for people who PLAY the games or people
>> who try to get rich off them?
>Actually, it *is* useful to players to know what cards are typically
>selling for, for purposes of equitable trading. I'd be stupid, for example,
>to trade my Jean-Luc Picard for an Anti-Time Anomaly .. both are Rare cards
>in the Premiere ed. of the Star Trek CCG, but people will pay $15+ for JLP
>and only $2 or so for an ATA. So it's not *only* speculators who benefit
>from knowing the going prices. *On the other hand,* the magazine price
>guides have problems that have been discussed elsewhere on this thread.
Dunno then, maybe I'm just weird, but if I had a pile of Picards and
really needed an Anti-Time Anomaly, I'd trade it in a second. The
value of the cards is irrelevant, I buy them to play with them, I'm
not going to put the stupid things in plastic sleeves or anything like
that, and when I'm done playing, I'll either leave them sitting on the
shelf or throw them away.
And yes, the price guides are really ridiculous as far as the actual
prices are concerned.
-Brian
Sakurazuka Seishirou
In article <614ers$j...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
Christopher Bird <cb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>IQJason (iqj...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> I see there is an error in my thinking. You're not saying our magazine is
>> useless; you're saying it's useless *to you*. Obviously, you know your needs
>> better than anyone else.
>
>Yes, but the problem herein (and I apologize for being bitchy earlier; it
>was a bad day, etc.) is that, well, I kind of represent a large chunk of
>the gaming population, IE, those who could care less about Magic. It's not
>so massively popular as to dominate the gaming industry to the extent you
>cover it.
Actually, I feel I have to disagree. I have been involved in RPGs, in
SF, and various related fields for half of my life. I have not seen ANY
RPG store that does NOT sell MtG cards... and there are all the card stores
that do not sell RPGs. Waldenbooks annd other chains that have minimum RPG
sales ALSo carry several card games... and you can buy boosters and decks
of MtG and Star Wars at at lesat 3 chains of supermarkets nearby...(I
know Meijers is mostly Midwest based, but I can't believe this is a strictly
local phenomenon).
Also, while there are people out there that have never heard of anime, who
have only vaguelly heard of D&D and don't know that there are other
RPGs out there, EVERYONE has heard about MtG.
Yes, there are gamers who hate MtG/WotC with a passion, but in sheer numbers,
they are a small minority compared to those who DO play MtG.
Now I agree, that InQuest would better fit *ME* with less MtG, more
of other games, and other RPG articles and no Rick Swan, but [Unless
*I* put out a magazine] *N*O* magazine will fit me perfectly. There are
lots of items I find interesting enough to spend the handful of dollars
on.
>And you say dropping the price guide every issue will lower your sales?
>Yeah, it probably will. Of course, if you filled that space with articles
>that were of use to experienced gamers, or even articles of use to the
>*entire* RPG playing community rather than just beginners, more
>experienced gamers might buy the magazine. As it stands, you've *chosen*
Perhaps true.... POSSIBLY if large numbers of experrienced GMs also
heard about it. But in numbers, I *THINK* the number of People who Play
MtG is greater than "Gamers who do NOT play MtG"
Besides, there ARE RPG magazines...this is a magazine doing a balancing
act with being more than one magazine at once...
-S
Christopher Heard
In article <3435EB...@slipnet.com>, cga...@slipnet.com wrote:
> I agree. People who do not have usenet access are basically
trapped by
> the few resources within travelling distance. That's why stores use
> those price guides: they have a captive market.
> One point, though, in the stores' favor: over the net you cannot
> examine the condition of a card as you can in a store. Store owners
> HAVE to sell top quality or drop the price.
> C. S. Gaines
On the other hand, I've never had a problem with the quality of cards I
received trading or buying over the net. Maybe I've just been lucky ... but
it seems to me that most net traders go by the "do unto others as you would
have done unto you" motto and trade good-quality cards.
John R. Williamson
Can this question be answered?
Can Inquest Survive if it had less about Magic and more about anything
else?
Is there market research that clearly indicates one way or the other?
Like many (off and on) Inquest Readers, I don't play Magic, and so from
the start I know half of your Magazine will not interest me when I think
about purchasing it.
Brian Henderson
Lee Walker <lwa...@netmatters.co.uk.nospam> wrote:
>I completely agree. My favourite game of all CCG's is INWO. (OK so the
>Assasins expansion card sorting for boosters was a little off) but
>still the best game going. IMHO.
>It plays straight out of the box, no need to go messing for a bit.
Agreed. INWO is the best game, bar none, and it doesn't cost an arm
and a leg to get into, plays great out of starter packs and there are
no killer combinations to speak of.
How many other games can make the same claim?
-Brian
Zen Faulkes
Greetings,
John R. Williamson wrote:
> Can this question be answered?
Sure it can be answered. If you'd like a *correct* answer, things get more
complicated...
Let me relate a little something that happened this weekend. I've been
running Legend of the Five Rings tournaments here in Montreal for about a
year now. Biggest turnout I've had was 18 people, which I was ecstatic about.
If I totaled up all the players I've had in all my tournaments, I might have
50 players.
I walked to the store where I'm holding my next tournament. They were
closed for the day at their normal location. I walk to where the sign tells
me they are for the day. Turns out they're holding a M:tG Tempest pre-release
tournament. I walk into a room filled with -- by a rough estimate -- *at
least* 200 people. 200 paying customers.
When you're not a regular Magic: the Gathering player, it's easy to forget
how genuinely popular the game is.
On the other hand, I was very surprised how little M:tG coverage there was
in this issue of inQuest. One feature on Tempest, some news pieces, and the
normal "encyclopedia" at the back. If you don't include the stuff in the back
that runs every issue, M:tG was clearly in the minority.
Zen Faulkes!
Glenn Kuntz
Derek Hohls <NOSPAM...@csir.co.za> wrote:
>C. S. Gaines wrote:
>>
>> Glen Barnett wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <342ea8dc...@newsrv.microsys.net>,
>> > Brian Henderson <bhend...@microsys.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >too seriously, and the gamers that I have seen most often are so
>> > >fanatical about the silly game that they can't have any fun at it.
>> > >It's too competitive for me, who just wants to play a game, have a
>> > >good time and enjoy life. Most of the other games that I play now
>> > >poke fun at themselves and at the players and catching all the
>> > >in-jokes is at least as much fun as playing the game.
>>
>> Thank you very much for this post. I've wondered why I have stopped
>> playing chess so much. You are 100 percent correct about the attitudes
>> that many chess players have, and some CCG players as well. It's the
>> rating thing that has taken the fun out of chess, in my opinion. Once a
>> player has a rating the game becomes a job as the player tries to
>> maintain or increase the rating. I play games for fun. I take my job
>> seriously, not my games!
>
>
>I think this puts the "definition" of what seperates a game from a
>'job'.
Interesting point. I was chatting with a Crokinole player a
few weeks ago who commented that he enjoyed playing the game so
much because, "It's a *real* game; It's not like homework."
> Think about
>- chess
>- bridge
>- go
>- ASL (and some other wargames)
>- most sports
>
>and you'll see that most involve some kind of rating ... thereby
>indicating that the activity in question has moved from being "just a
>game" to "a way of life".
>
>Derek ("what, me play Bridge?!")
Crokinole *does* have tournaments, but no "ratings", and
*every* Crokinole tournament, regardless of size or location,
is for the "Championship of the Universe". Somehow, it's all
kept tongue-in-cheek. People seem to like it that way. The
good time always seems to override the competition, as it
should be with games.
Richard Dicks
Christopher Bird wrote:
>
> Zen Faulkes (zfau...@bio1.lan.mcgill.ca) wrote:
>
> > Let me relate a little something that happened this weekend. I've been
> > running Legend of the Five Rings tournaments here in Montreal for about a
> > year now. Biggest turnout I've had was 18 people, which I was ecstatic about.
> > If I totaled up all the players I've had in all my tournaments, I might have
> > 50 players.
>
> > I walked to the store where I'm holding my next tournament. They were
> > closed for the day at their normal location. I walk to where the sign tells
> > me they are for the day. Turns out they're holding a M:tG Tempest pre-release
> > tournament. I walk into a room filled with -- by a rough estimate -- *at
> > least* 200 people. 200 paying customers.
>
> the summer ran both L5R and Magic tournaments, about one of each every
> other month. The L5R tournaments had about 20-25 people each. The Magic
> tournaments were cancelled after lack of interest, because neither got
> more than two people.
As a former "player" (occasional borowing from a friend deck type of
thing)
I can tell you that Overpower is bigger in Orleans than Magic (no more
tourneys), however, in downtown Ottawa Magic still holds up top notch
NBarnes
robin wrote:
> heff...@pegasus.montclair.eduwrote:
> > I fail to see what's wrong with reanimator decks. As for
> > degeneracy in SF, resource destruction is quite viable in a
> > two-player game; I've done it to people myself. For multiplayer
> > games degeneracy takes the form of siteless decks that basically
> > whack the other players upside their heads with a copy of _Theory
> > of Games and Economic Behavior_.
> Gee, siteless decks must be really wonderful seeing as how they
> win so many tournaments. Characterless decks do really well too,
> and almost everyone around here plays lock decks that establish
> themselves after only three or four turns. Perhaps you'd be
> interested in my Cadaverous Bloomin' Architects deck that plays
> turtle for four turns and then kills on the fifth every time. Or
> my Eaters of the Black Lotus deck that generates 10 power in the
> first turn and then recursively timewalks through the Netherworld
> denying my opponent the opportunity to even play the game.
> That was sarcasm, BTW.
If you think that that's how Magic tournaments usually go, then
all you've proven with that paragraph is that you have no idea
what Magic tournaments are like, and have been like for over two
years.
> > Shadowfist simply has too many problems that take too
> > much work to overcome in the early stages. It didn't catch on
> > because quite frankly, it didn't deserve to.
> Magic has the most intricate rules, massive errata, and downright
> broken cards/combos of any game I can think of. None of this
> doomed it to failure. It is a leap of rather perverse logic to
> assume that Shadowfist's problems, at least an order of magnitude
> less severe, were the cause of its lukewarm reception.
More cheap shots. Magic's rules don't even come close to Star Wars'
for complexity and sheer space needed for them all. The massive
errata sheet for Overpower known as the 'Specials guide' dwarfs
anything WotC has ever needed (no knock at OP, I like the game, but
geez...). Broken cards? *cough, cough* *throws down gauntlet*
Name me a broken combo in T2 right now, please. I want to know about
it. There's money to be made with it, and you are obviously far
smarter than all the Magic players that play competatively, because
they haven't found it yet.
NBarnes
James Hamblin
: > Eh. There's really not much to SF's backstory; the Antiquities War was
: >at least as interesting. (The current nonsense in Weatherlight is just silly.)
:
: I know of *not a single person* who cares a whit about the Magic back
: story. And I know a lot of Magic players. The Shadowfist players I know
: (and even quite a few non-players) think the back story is intriguing. If
: there's "really not much" to it, I wonder how they based an entire RPG on
: the concept?
Well, now. I thought I'd have to speak up on this. I greatly enjoy
playing Shadowfist, but that's mostly because of the game mechanics and
general atmosphere of the game, not the back story or the genre.
I couldn't care less about Hong Kong action movies in general. But the
general feel of the game is not that of _just_ a movie or just a movie
genre. I get a kick out of the goofy Jammers cards, 'cause they're funny.
I thought the $10,000 Man was hysterical the first time I saw it. But I
don't care about the back story per se. In fact, I call the factions
Silver, Gold, Pink, Purple, Brown, Green, and Jammers. When someone talks
about their Architects deck, I have to remember that Architects is
"Silver".
So don't get me wrong; I really like the game, and the back story / flavor
text is often amusing, but it's not what got me into the game or what
keeps me there.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"I didn't play D&D for all those years without learning a little something
about courage."
-- Blaine Faulkner, "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'", X-Files