Transcript of Chat with Richard Garfield

If anyone is interested, we have an edited transcript of the chat with Richard Garfield about the new Star Wars TCG he designed @

http://www.thisisgood.com/starwars/

See "Q&A with Richard Garfield".

 

It was very interesting reading. I thought RG would know more about the game he himself designed. Too often all he could say was, "well, the last time *I* saw it ...."

I think stacking cards to add abilities is an interesting strategy, and is unique (to CCGs anyway) as far as I can tell.

I'm still not convinced about dice, though. And why didn't anyone ask about the "best 2 out of 3" scenario?

 

Hi Artie!

Hi Artie-Deco... Glad you enjoyed it! I know many people aren't as excited about the dice as I am! I just ordered some black dice just for this game! You asked why no one asked RG about the 'best 2 out of 3'. We actually had an answer to that posted by WOTC's Michael Kent on our web site prior to the chat (scroll to the 21st), and also on our mailing list. I tried to
give the link to the answer as posted on our mailing list here. Thanks for the response

 

Also I don't think that any of us that participated in the chat really have a problem with a 2 out of 3 win condition. I never even considered it an issue.

 

Well, I've discussed my thoughts on the 2-out-of-3 win condition elsewhere (namely here) so I'll try not to go into all of that again.

But netcowboy, MJK doesn't really address my biggest concern with the best-of-3 scenario. Best-of-3 is fine for gameplay purposes -- which is what MJK seems to be addressing in the link you provided -- but I can't conceptualize it. In SW:CCG I can conceptualize the win condition in that you deplete your opponent of life force. In YJ you battle for control of the first planet, move on to a second planet and fight for control again, and if necessary set up a "final confrontation" on the third. Same in JK, except you have three planets before going to the final confrontation.

But what am I conceptualizing with this new game and it's best-of-three arenas? Unlike YJ, which is also best-of-three, the three arenas in SW:TCG are all happening simultaneously. It is one battle happening in three arenas simultaneously, not three separate battles happening sequentially. And what happens in one arena affects the other two. Up to this point I have no problem conceptualizing it, since it's how the climax to RETURN OF THE JEDI and THE PHANTOM MENACE were structured. But in the "real" SW universe, it was not enough to win "2 out of 3" scenarios ... our heroes had to win all three arenas, or there was no victory at all.

I also have trouble conceptualizing where all this action is happening. In all of the previous SW card games you have some concept of a "location". Where are the locations in SW:TCG? Doesn't it matter? Without locations, this "battle" is just taking place at some nameless location somewhere out there ... not very engaging, IMO.

Without putting a name to the location you're battling at, you have no context for your battle, and you're battling just for the sake of battling.

. . . .


Okay, so here's a practical question which maybe someone can answer me: You win the game if at any point in the game you control two of the three arenas. Does that include during the Setup phase?

Suppose my starting hand of 7 cards contains 4 space units and 3 battle cards. I discard the 3 battle cards and draw up 1 space unit and 2 mission cards. (I can't discard any of the space units, according to the rules.) I am in bad shape, and the game hasn't even started.

Let's say my opponent goes first, and plays a character unit - and draws a card. I play a space unit - and draw a ground unit. Too late, though ... My opponent plays a ground unit - and voila! he already controls two of the three arenas. Does he win the game??

Surely there is some rule saying you don't check for "control" until after the setup phase, isn't there?

 

ok, then make House Rule: Player must win all arena's to win game. Then see how long the game lasts...

 

Thanks for the transcript! That was great! This game sounds even better all the time.

 

Nice reply, DL.

How's this for a house rule: every time you lose a unit from battle, you're forced to forfeit cards from your deck or hand equal to the unit's health. If your opponent "decks" you, you lose the game.

Hmmm... where have I seen that before??


As I said, the "best-of-3" is fine from a pure gameplay perspective. But for me conceptually it is unsatisfying. Your suggestion doesn't help that at all.

 

I too was concerned regarding the best of three, but I think the setup phase should clear up the concern. A well tuned deck should clear up the "control after setup" problem. On the other hand, if you had 30 points of cards in the other two arenas and your opponent was more spread out, then the remaining arenas should be pretty much yours. (Again, we're talking well tuned deck here)

 

"Okay, so here's a practical question which maybe someone can answer me: You win the game if at any point in the game you control two of the three arenas. Does that include during the Setup phase?

Suppose my starting hand of 7 cards contains 4 space units and 3 battle cards. I discard the 3 battle cards and draw up 1 space unit and 2 mission cards. (I can't discard any of the space units, according to the rules.) I am in bad shape, and the game hasn't even started. "

Well since you are setting up the game and not actually playing it yet I would have to say no you can't win during the setup. Thats like saying that if you were playing checkers and you started placing your peices first you automatically win because your opponent has no pieces. I also doubt that a starting hand like that will really screw you once you get into the game because you draw a card during setup for each card deployed. Unless your deck is poorly made you should be able to draw some ground and character units.

 

Or it would just be a real fast game if your luck was that bad.

 

Having trouble conceptualizing winning 2 out of 3. I think this is an interesting point. First off, the combined space, ground, and character battles could play as described by scotbot in a chat at wizards.com/chat/ "Epic battles!!! I imagine this game playing like the thrilling last moments of ROTJ, Luke battles Vader and Emperor while a space battle led by Lando rages outside that depends on a mission on the planet Endor led by Han and Leia!! How Cool!"
Or I also imagine it being like the last part of Episode I. The concept seems very much like the epic battles in the movies. But the interesting thought is, does the Light or the Dark Side win if it only wins two out of three ... well, in the movies the three are so interconnected that it takes all three to win any of the three. Atleast RG says that the interconnectedness of the three arenas is preserved though.

 

Also if you look at episode 1 then you will see that the light side actually lost the "army" battle. They actually only won 2 out of their 3 battles but because they did they ended up winning the third.

 

As Queen Amidala said, "The battle is just a diversion." Didn't matter if the Gungans won or lost the ground battle, they were only a diversion.

 

exactly so they only needed 2 out of 3 to win

 

Artie,

Who really was the winner of Episode 1? All the light side did was stop the TF from taking over Naboo. Darth Sidious' plan still worked, though. He (Sen. Palpatine was elected to be Supreme Chancelor. He was the real winner. The only real thing he lost in his manipulations was Maul.

Also, the light side had to win all three battles in ROTJ because it is the end of the saga and the heroes always win in the final act. So, this is not a far scenario in judging the card game.

I think the game will be a little closer the feel of the movies with each of these 3 areas of combat all going on at once. But it will also give the dark side the chance to win in the end, unlike the whole saga.

 

j-s,

I'm sorry, I don't see the point of your post. Palpatine's secret machinations? The cinematic climax to ROTJ? I don't see how either of those address my concern.

I think the game will be a little closer the feel of the movies with each of these 3 areas of combat all going on at once.

Ummm... I said the same thing above.

Of course, all three of Decipher's SW CCGs have multiple "arenas" where battles happen simultaneously. The difference is the win condition. I have no problem with combat taking place in three arenas at once, I have a problem with the win condition being that I only have to win two of the three.

And my problem is not with the gameplay aspects of the "best-of-3", it is with the conceptualization. If I'm fighting a war or even just a single battle on three fronts, and I win two fronts but lose the third who says I have won the war/battle? If my opponent controls the character arena with a single storm troooper and the ground arena with a single AT-ST (or whatever) ... but I control the space arena with a huge fleet of star cruisers and X-Wing fighters ... why should my opponent win the game?

I have yet to hear a reasonable rationalization of this win condition. Darth Ludicrous above came up with the best reply so far, IMO: "Just live with it." (Shrug) If that's the case, so be it. Just quit trying to rationalize it to me, because none of you are convincing me.

 

I didn't like what he said about the non-battle aspects of Star Wars only having a subtle effect on the combat. If they do something like introducing alternate win conditions in the various arenas for various story elements, that would be cool. Blow up the Death Star to win the space arena, turn Luke to the Dark Side to win the character arena, blow up the Hoth shield to win the army arena, that would be cool. Just a "fight till you drop" is less exciting to me. But from what Richard Garfield said, it sounded more like the storyline would only enhance the combat, like "Han falls in love with Leia. Han is Power +2."

Like Artie, I want to know about location in this game. In space, are we going to be battling over a particular system defined by a location card? Will all 3 arenas be decided by one card (it would make more sense if all 3 arenas were on the same planet)? Or will we just be fighting in some amorphous "space", "ground", and "character" arenas?

I'm still concerned about the size of the sets, especially since Richard Garfield thought they'd be larger too. If he'd said "Oh don't worry, there's loads of gameplay packed into those 180 cards, with several available strategies of play", then I'd still have my doubts, but at least I'd think they knew what they were doing. Now I'm not so sure. He seemed to be more like "Hey, you're right, there SHOULD be more cards!" I hadn't heard about Sith Rising being only 90 cards, that makes me even more worried.

If there are more ways to win than just killing the other guys, there is some concept of location to these battles, and there's a decent enough variety in strategies, then I would want to give it a serious try. Otherwise I won't touch it.

 

locations would be cool for boosting power of certain characters or armies.

 

"And my problem is not with the gameplay aspects of the 'best-of-3', it is with the conceptualization. If I'm fighting a war or even just a single battle on three fronts, and I win two fronts but lose the third who says I have won the war/battle? If my opponent controls the character arena with a single storm troooper and the ground arena with a single AT-ST (or whatever) ... but I control the space arena with a huge fleet of star cruisers and X-Wing fighters ... why should my opponent win the game?

"I have yet to hear a reasonable rationalization of this win condition. Darth Ludicrous above came up with the best reply so far, IMO: 'Just live with it.' (Shrug) If that's the case, so be it. Just quit trying to rationalize it to me, because none of you are convincing me."

Artie, I don't think I can offer any more rationalization or explanation than I already have, but I wonder, why the focus on the conceptualization?

In the first case, no CCG fully matches the logic of the universe it's set in.

Second, early video games (some of the finest in game history) were horribly conceptualized. Take Frogger, in which you cross traffic (that moves in alternating directions) then jump on logs to make it home. You're a frog, but you can't swim. And yet, Frogger's one of the best games EVER (second only to Galaga).

But much more than that, chess is HORRIBLY conceptualized, and I've never heard ANYONE complain.

* The pawn is weak and simple, sure, but it's so dumb it can't turn around and walk backwards. And when it gets to the other side, it can become a QUEEN!

* The bishop is the king's religious advisor, so he shouldn't be on the field at all.

* And then's the ROOK, a castle tower. That moves. And attacks other pieces.

Certainly, straying too far from a consistent conceptualization can be a bad thing, and certain games need to have a fairly strict conceptualization - namely, role-playing games, computer simulation games, and strategy games (turn-based and real-time). But why does a card game fall under the same restrictions?

 

Because a CCG is more in line with RPGs and strategy games than with board games and video games.

Duh.

 

Let me clarify something here.

I'm "focusing" on the conceptualization because (1) I asked the question when the first rules were posted, "how am I supposed to 'conceptualize' this game?", (2) many people posted and continue to post their thoughts on how to conceptualize it, (3) I find all of their reasons lacking, and take the time to explain why, (4) I have to go back to the beginning and explain my question over and over again for new posters who haven't read all of my posts -- I'm not trying to beat a dead horse -- and (5) it's a "discussion board", and this topic has generated a lot of "discussion".

At the end of the day, I don't lose any sleep over this issue. It's a card game.

 

I don't remember that reason, but it sounds like something I might say if I was feeling particularly like an ******* that day.

 

Well, I was paraphrasing you....

 

"Because a CCG is more in line with RPGs and strategy games than with board games and video games."

Fair enough.

Given that restriction, the 2-of-3 is a break from strategic logic, but I'd still probably contend it's a necessary break for gameplay (i.e., a game that doesn't deadlock).

Wasn't harping on ya - just curious.