Among The Living Edition
April 9th, 2013 by ironsoap
I’ve had a bit of a gaming resurgence of late. Actually, I should back up, because I sort of abandoned this site nearly two years ago when I began to loosen the hold that World Of Warcraft had on me. In fact, cutting myself off from Tunnels of Doom’s weekly navel-gaze-fest was part of my efforts to ease away from Azeroth. Maybe I’ll talk about my complicated relationship with WoW some other time, but suffice to say that final foray into MMOs was one of a long string of video game obsessions, many chronicled in this site’s archives. I decided I needed a break from it, needed some time to get perspective on my hobbies. I cut the cord on WoW, and I stepped away from video games and hobby games as well.
It may be easily inferred that I prefer deep, thematic games. Maybe not. But I’m telling you now, that is the case. I love any kind of game, but I never really feel like I get “into” a game unless it’s got a heavy theme and has a lot of depth: things like Arkham Asylum, Talisman, Blood Bowl, Thunderstone, etc. The problem is, often, my tabletop preferences lean toward heavy games with long set-up and/or play times. There is a specific game, perhaps a class of game although my experience with them in a larger capacity is limited, which meets all my criteria while still being fairly quick and easy to play. The game is Magic: The Gathering.
But here’s the reason Magic hasn’t worked for me as a protracted diversion: money. Occasionally I’ve found sealed deck or limited pool formats fun for periods of time, but the problem with Magic is that its core mechanic is somewhat flawed in that resource cards are dedicated, necessary, and yet have diminishing returns during gameplay. That is to say success is always, in part, based on hitting the sweet spot with opening draws of sufficient resources that don’t overwhelm your play cards. Victory is often a matter of achieving that ideal randomized initial pull and then pacing the resources appropriately through the deck. This limitation is often overlooked because the game has appeal in its cyclic nature as new cards are introduced which permit novel means (in theory) to overcome this inherent quasi-flaw and to achieve other interesting in-game effects. But, fundamentally, without the infusion of new cards (which directly correlates to more money funneled into it), it gets old. And, in a community of players, my experience has taught me that someone will always be pouring cash into the game.
Collectible card games (CCGs) all suffer from this pay-to-win (or, perhaps more accurately, pay-to-stay-novel) factor. “Suffer” may be editorializing, but it is ingrained in the format and for me personally, there is an upper bound to what I’m happy and comfortable paying for a game. Yet I love the persistent novelty and the deep-but-simple mechanics of CCGs (particularly Magic), I just can’t or won’t stay abreast of the game, much less others like it with fewer potential opponents. The other thing about Magic is that it typically requires other people to be putting in at least similar levels of resources simultaneously to be readily playable.
Which is why I’ve absolutely fallen in love with the Living Card Game concept. In a nutshell, these are CCGs with the collectible element excised. When you buy the base game you get all the cards in the core set. It’s enough for the base number of players to play, usually with “starter decks” pre-defined, probably with enough replay value for a dozen plays. Then you can customize the play decks in the core set and wind up with (depending on how into deckbuilding you are) anywhere from another dozen plays worth of novelty to hundreds of additional replays. And then each of these games are expandable with additional cards sold in standardized, complete sets for between $10-15 each. These expansions are totally optional (depending on your mode of play I suppose; tournament players probably will need or want access to as many additional cards as possible) and are released at regular intervals to freshen the game. What you’re left with is a CCG in spirit but without the stacks of unused duplicate cards and excessive cost native to games where the cards are randomized. It’s brilliant and it’s right up my alley. I’ve played a few now, and here are my thoughts on each.
Call of Cthulhu
This is a two player synchronous game with seven distinct factions (similar to Magic’s colors). Starting decks involve choosing two faction decks and one of two pre-selected sets of neutral cards. Game play involves vying for Story cards via a series of ordered struggles that fit with the theme. Each struggle has a distinct effect (losing a Terror struggle causes one of your characters—like creatures in Magic—to go insane and lose a turn; winning an Investigation struggle grants you a free progress token on the Story card, etc) and their order of resolution and the various card effects makes for an awful lot of strategic play. The core set comes with a lot of nice-to-have but ultimately unnecessary bits: the game board, the cardboard tokens and the resource drain markers (cool lil’ Cthulhu statuettes) can be easily replaced or omitted.
Favorite Element: The strategic depth; the cards in your deck become your resources as well so the focus is shifted away from resource ratio management and onto strategic decision-making. There are no one-turn wins here, and though I’ve only played a handful of times I can already see that there is a lot of opportunity for strategy in deck-building. [Edit and Aside: I did have one game that was won in two or three rounds, but it was more a matter of a spectacular bummer in the combination of opening draws, where the loser had a decent if fairly slow-moving hand and the winner had a access to unprecedented speed and a quickly established, debilitating combination.]
Biggest Complaint: The rulebook. Fantasy Flight makes really good games; beautiful in fact. But their rulebooks have historically been rough. This one has no index (for shame!), an advertisement on the back cover instead of the timing chart, and a couple of points where specific rules are either poorly explained (Steadfast, in particular, but also card states like Exhaustion and Insanity could be much clearer).
Other Thoughts: The heavy strategy that I love is also CoC’s weakness; with each choice, down to which cards to sacrifice into resources, gameplay grinds down. The Story phase, in particular, can invoke analysis paralysis like few other games: “If I commit this guy, and that guy, but move him over there, then you’ll block with that, unless you have an action…” The box says 30-60 minutes, but I think that’s stretching it, even once the rules lookup phases were no longer needed. I also wish the core set came with multiple copies of the cards (instead of the fairly useless extra bits) for better deckbuilding out of the box.
My nitpicky gripe with this game, too, is the way the Domains are handled. Three cards not in play for each side? Blech. For a game that includes a lot of fussy components that are largely unnecessary, you would think they could include six extra cards to represent the domains. Sheesh. Fortunately, the kind folks at BGG have a number of downloadable domain covers you can print off and sleeve with a standard CCG or print onto heavier stock that work great.
Lord of the Rings
One thing that is really impressing me about the LCG format is that FFG isn’t doing a bunch of re-skins but seems to be hitting various nerves with each game. The one title I played a couple of years ago, Game Of Thrones, was very competitive multiplayer-focused. CoC is two player adversarial (though there are a couple of multiplayer variants floating around), and as I’ll mention in a minute, Netrunner is asynchronous. Lord of the Rings is cool because it’s multiplayer cooperative, which I like. In LotR each player works in tandem against the quest deck with a clever threat mechanism that raises to indicate which player will get the focus of the monsters’ attention. I’m not sure on the balance and deckbuilding for a cooperative game seems a little redundant, but it does fill an interesting and much needed niche in the format.
Favorite Element: Cooperative play, all the way. Having a cooperative game makes teaching easy because the fiddly mechanics can be overcome by kibbitzing the new players and can ease them in, opening doors for questions to be asked as situations arise. A very teachable game, which is good because it’s pretty complex.
Biggest Complaint: Deckbuilding doesn’t really seem to have much purpose, except perhaps to pare older cards away in favor of new hotness from the expansions. I guess in that sense deckbuilding is more a means to keep the game fresh as opposed to dramatically change the strategies, but the expansions seem to have new challenges/quests which I would think keep it fresh just as well.
Other Thoughts: One thing I really appreciated was the immersive element to the game. It gives one a pretty strong sense of joining a Fellowship (if, perhaps, not The Fellowship) and existing within Tolkein’s world. I’ve played this one the fewest number of times so I’d really have to give it a few more attempts to make a strong evaluation of its complexity, but I can say that I like to think of myself as someone who picks up on core game mechanics fairly quickly and I found myself relying on my more seasoned friends an awful lot. Some of that could be because I was able to let them manage the quest components, but even some other factors that were directly under my control remained a bit mysterious until the end of the game.
Android: Netrunner
Admittedly, this is the game that kicked off my new LCG fascination. I really, really love this game. I think there are two main draws for me: One is the setting, because this kind of cyberpunk is super-cool to me and I think often done very poorly in mediums other than novels. Here, it’s just awesome. The other is the fact that this game is asynchronous which means each of the two players are working on completely different mechanics. One player acts as the Corp player, building servers (stacks of face-down cards in front of him on the playing surface) and trying to advance Agendas (the scoring cards). The other player is the Runner, breaking into those servers and trying to steal the Agendas. What’s nice is that the Runner player does most of their work “aboveground” (there’s sort of an irony in there) in that their cards and abilities (excepting their hand) are face-up. As such, it’s a good teaching role because the more experienced player can be the Corp, where a lot of their play area is hidden, and guide the Runner player along a little.
But both sides are super-fun to play, each in their own distinct way. There is a bit more strategy on the Corp side, due to a lot of bluffing and executional decision-making, but Runner players have fun too in that they really drive much of the action in the game.
Favorite Element: The theme, by far. It’s not just that the game has a cool concept, it’s that everything about the game is steeped in thematic elements. The gameplay feels very much like a cyberpunk game ought to feel, the terminology is consistently in-theme, the artwork works phenomenally to set the tone. Sometimes even the most thematic games struggle to capture that role-playing feel of immersing you into the game’s conceit (even some role-playing games fall short at this point). Am I really battling hordes of monsters or am I just rolling dice against a target number? A good example of this is Race To The Galaxy, a game I like quite a bit. But the theme is super-cool and yet it is so mechanical I never feel like I’m building galactic empires, I just feel like I’m placing cards where they are best suited to try and win. This is decidedly not the case with Netrunner, where I in fact keep thinking, “I’d love to run a cyberpunk role-playing game where we use Netrunner to resolve hacking attempts…”
Biggest Complaint: There isn’t as much player interaction in this game as in other LCGs I’ve tried. The Corp can’t do much to the Runner player directly unless the Runner ends up tagged, which means many turns can pass with no direct interactions (especially if the Runner is busy setting up their rig).
Other Thoughts: It’s hard to tell how the balance works in this game because of the asynchronous nature. The Runners seem to be at something of a disadvantage because they can lose by running out of cards in their hand whereas Corp players only alternate loss condition is getting decked. Mechanically, Corp players can overcome this by adding more cards, but Runner hand limits are much more difficult to boost (and never possible pre-game). Likewise, Runner decks seem to be constantly low on credits (the game’s primary resource) while most Corp decks wind up flush with cash. Again, this is thematically appropriate, but from a balance standpoint it seems to tip toward Corp wins more often. You could argue that Runners are much more likely to execute a turn-one win with a bit of luck, but that would require fairly spectacular bad luck on the part of the Corp (or spectacular ineptitude), at least with the cards in the Core Set.
I do appreciate that the game comes with multiples of many cards which makes deckbuilding easier and more enjoyable, and for once the instruction book isn’t objectively terrible (it even has a limited index!). I’m not sure why I can’t decide if I should be annoyed or delighted by the plethora of thematic tokens. Unlike CoC these don’t seem to be purely decorative (well, maybe the Brain Damage tokens), but they do complicate an already complex play area a bit. On the other hand, I can easily imagine trying to replicate all of them with glass beads for example and quickly getting confused, “Did we say the red ones were credits and the blue ones were virus counters?”
“No, the blue ones are advancement tokens and the white ones were virus counters.”
“I’ve been using the white ones as tags.”
“So you have four tags and not four virus counters? I thought tags were yellow.”
“First base!”
Non-LCGs
The other tabletop game I played recently was Cosmic Encounter. This is a strategic, space-themed game with light diplomacy elements in which you work to wrest control of various planets away from other players. This is done by allocating ships to a conquest attempt which match up one-to-one with the opposing ships stationed on the planet. You may then request aid from the other players to join the assault while your opponent may request aid in defending. Since planetary acquisitions represent victory points and can be shared (simultaneous winners are certainly possible) there is an incentive to participate with attacks. However, allied defenders receive compensation in the form of cards from assaulting players hands; since there is no natural draw phase and fresh cards must be acquired via mechanics, this is the opposing incentive. The strategic element comes in that once alliances are formed on either side, the attacking and defending player each play a card which modifies the ship strength.
There are plenty of other elements, of course. Each player is assigned an alien race with associated power: something that may influence the way ships are handled after a defeat, perhaps, or an ability that amounts to a secondary win condition (typically players win by earning five points, which usually means successfully winning five encounters). There are also cards that perform various functions like blocking abilities, canceling other cards, etc. There is also the option for encounters to be resolved via negotiation as opposed to assault. In that case allies are sent home and the attacking and defending players may arrange to swap planets or cards or combinations of the two.
I liked the game because, unlike other games with a diplomatic aspect, I didn’t feel it was leaving key elements outside of the rules. Granted, because it’s possible for a multi-player win, it might be that a couple of players could declare a strategic alliance and back each other no matter the circumstance. I don’t think even that would guarantee a win; part of the game’s balancing mechanism is that the target of each encounter is selected randomly from a deck and the diplomacy rules state that each player may pick and choose who to invite as allies. Two players obviously in cahoots would quickly find themselves dealing only with each other.
I’d say, “plus you wouldn’t want to play with people like that anyway,” but in my experience diplomacy games can sometimes bring out the worst in even sporting gamers. Still, I think Cosmic Encounter does a good job managing a dicey game element.
I don’t particularly care for some of the card design, I have to say. The cutout elements are fine, but the cards are just ugly and none of them seem like they’re from the same game (the encounter cards and flare cards, for example). The phase markers are also somewhat inconsistently applied. But, I had fun with it and would certainly play it again.
The State Of ToD
I realize this is the first update in a very long while. I’m not sure this means I’ll be blogging regularly here again. I’m trying to focus mainly on my fiction writing and blogging actively distracts me from that. I may make a small effort to provide shorter updates here on occasion, but no promises. If you still have this RSS in your feed reader of choice, thanks for sticking with me. If I’m talking solely to the ether, then, “Hi, ether! You don’t care. I happen to be just fine with that. Okay, bye!”









