Ideas for posts come and go. I had a couple of ideas in mind and, then, got distracted with other stuff. So, I think I’ll just throw out some miscellaneous observations.
We played V:TES Sunday. We are still having issues with attendance, which leads to some unusual features of the environment. As I don’t want to metagame for an environment I hope isn’t the norm, I don’t think there’s much point to analyzing it.
A few amusing things happened. In one game, my Pieter Bum’s Rushed Hektor with Uncontrollable Rage to stop the Hektor Amaranthing menace. Hektor tried to run away like a wuss, but Pieter was doubly Swallowed by the Night to make sure they both went to torpor. Hesha finally ate Hektor, which later allowed Wren to hunt with Vulture’s Buffet. Hesha Ruhadze, the 9 cap !Gangrel with PRO, Rumbled Miguel Santo Domingo later with Uncontrollable Rage to make the fight-poor !Brujah have no game left.
Which is better – Haqim’s Law: Leadership or Art Scam? Apparently, weenie Presence vote is better in a fast game, as it beat both.
Still on the subject of V:TES or, at least, CCGs, Brad commented on my last post with how planning is work, which got me thinking about how much work CCGs are for me. Playtesting was work. Demoing was work. Organizing events was work, though running a tournament wasn’t, boring as hell if I wasn’t playing in the tournament but rather trivial in terms of effort required. Art requests were work. But, normal play stuff? The closest would be pulling cards, which I see more as a chore than work. What’s the point? The point is that I don’t see things like building decks or driving to get together with others or any of the normal stuff that goes into playing a CCG to be work. So, when people complain about how hard deckbuilding is or whatever, I just can’t empathize or sympathize – deckbuilding is what players should want to be doing.
Some are already aware that there is a marketing survey for V:TES up at vekn.net. I found it interesting how oriented questions were towards the idea that all cards would be purchasable at a flat cost. A subject I’ve begun to speak to in another thread on the forums but one which there should be more to write about.
I had a number of thoughts from the discussion Brad and I had in the comments of Panama!, but my mental clarity on that has dissipated. Possible ideas to flesh out include: randomness in resolution systems; random encounters, good or bad or something else?; what structure matters?; the organization of campaigns; the organization of parties; dissonance with expectations; how rewards should work for various groups.
For instance, last night we discussed what RPG stuff to do on Tuesday nights through the end of the year and what to do when HoR3 mods ran out next year. Having been in many, many discussions about what to play, it’s always so interesting how different folks have different priorities. While some folks were focused on game system and others the genre, I was far more concerned with the nature of the sort of adventures that would be had within the genre/subgenre. We eventually decided to play Star Wars. There was some concern over which edition of the RPG. Eventually decided the new, FFG one.
The curious thing is that the mini-campaign we have worked out has little to do with Star Wars. The system doesn’t have rules to cover Jedi, so you only can have Jedi wannabes and, even then, it’s not feasible with starting character creation points. Okay, there are many genres that have problems because what they are based on and what makes for a plausible game aren’t the same thing, whether it’s Melniboneans in Stormbringer/Elric, immortals in Highlander, Time Lords in Dr. Who, Jedi in Star Wars, or whatever where some characters are more special than others. But, the new game’s thrust is playing on the fringe of the galaxy, playing traders or smugglers or bounty hunters or other businessfolk much more like Firefly in that respect but also much more like Firefly in that it so very much isn’t space opera in tone. Star Wars is very clearly about black and white morality and the like. Doesn’t make much difference to me, but calling something a rose doesn’t make it a rose.
I have some boardgames to “master” as it’s what I’ll be running at the convention in February. I’ll probably generate some ideas on what makes for better or worse (or more fun or less fun for me, at any rate) boardgame mechanics. And, do the thematics matter? I find some funny, like the idea that the path to having a nice quiet palace is through breweries (guess the game?).