Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions  (Read 5630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« on: July 01, 2015, 03:45:46 pm »
+2

(Branching from the Asper's Cards thread)
Without having played with it, I'm leery of Minister. I feel like cost reduction and gaining are such a powerful combo that they don't need to be on the same card. On the other hand it hasn't been done before and it's simple rules-wise. The penalty is also a nice simple thing. I was going to talk about how I prefer fan expansions to be self contained—not needing components (like VP chips) from other sets—but I suppose this isn't an expansion so much as a collection of cards, and it already uses Potions, etc. So nevermind that; cool penalty.

Thanks. I don't consider my cards an expansion, as you said. If anything, it's more of a treasure chest. I mean, i catch myself thinking stuff like "i don't have enough cheap cards" or "i don't have a Cornucopia card, yet", but that's light compared to the complexity of making a realistic expansion that has to follow the rules you mentioned, and many more. If i really wanted to do an expansion, i'd not only have to worry about things like components or card count, but also couldn't reasonably have that many different kinds of cards in it. But looking at Seaside, thinking "Can i make a card that would fit in Seaside?", that's fun to me, and as i'm not going to make money with it either way, Donald doesn't care much about fan cards, and most people here either have the components or play online anyhow, i'm fine with just fooling around.

Wanted to quote the whole message, but this is the specifc part I want to reply to:
I was going to talk about how I prefer fan expansions to be self contained—not needing components (like VP chips) from other sets—but I suppose this isn't an expansion so much as a collection of cards, and it already uses Potions, etc.
I want to throw out my view on this:  Whether fan card designers consider a set of their cards to be an expansion or not, I don't see any reason for them not to use mechanics or components of any other set. Let's face it: No fan card expansion is going to be made into an official expansion. No fan card expansion is likely to be published in any kind of widespread or even semi-official way. Whatever tokens or mats fan cards refer to are likely to always use whatever around that is handy as a token or mat (most likely using tokens or mats from an official card or set). If anyone wants to print out a fan card to use, they can also print out any card that the fan card refers to (like ruins or spoils) just as easily if they don't happen to have Dark Ages or whatever official set has the appropriate component(s).

Also, when people critique fan cards, it's fine to make comments on stuff like art or formating, but those are not (IMO) what we should critique when we critique fan cards. Helpful critique helps make the card more fun, whatever that entails. Ease of understanding, preventing confusion, and simplicity are generally all included/involved in making the card more fun, and so are good things to critique on. I hate to complain that my cards don't seem to get much critique compared to other fan cards, but I'm concerned that part of the reason for that is because I'm not receptive to formatting or knitpicky critique* or critique that conflicts with my fan expansion philosophy in the previous paragraph. I would like to suggest focussing our critiques on helping to make fan cards more fun to play with.
[/rant]

*And there has been at least once instance where certain critique seemed knitpicky to me, but it turned out the way my card worked conflicted with official rules, and that causes confusion which isn't fun. The line between knitpicky and helpful is fuzzy sometimes, so I need to consider more carefully the things that initially strike me as knitpicky. So I recognise I haven't been as receptive as I should've been to some helpful critique, and I'm sorry about that.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 04:04:48 pm by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2015, 04:00:52 pm »
+3

To me, having fan expansions be "self contained" is important aesthetically. Maybe somebody wants to print out your expansion and get the "whole experience", but wait they don't have Prosperity so this one VP token card won't work. Nobody is printing out 50 Ruins just to use your one Looter card. I think you're right that it's not important in practice, but my opinions aren't likely to change. I think fan expansions should feel like real expansions, which means having one or more mechanical themes, not having a random mish-mash of stuff from all existing sets.

It's possible that some people won't comment on your expansion because they don't like something about it (including perhaps aesthetic stuff like card wordings). That's life!
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2015, 04:27:49 pm »
+1

It's possible that some people won't comment on your expansion because they don't like something about it (including perhaps aesthetic stuff like card wordings). That's life!
Yeah, that's fine. I guess this post was for myself as much as anyone, to get it off my chest.

To me, having fan expansions be "self contained" is important aesthetically. Maybe somebody wants to print out your expansion and get the "whole experience", but wait they don't have Prosperity so this one VP token card won't work. Nobody is printing out 50 Ruins just to use your one Looter card. I think you're right that it's not important in practice, but my opinions aren't likely to change. I think fan expansions should feel like real expansions, which means having one or more mechanical themes, not having a random mish-mash of stuff from all existing sets.
I don't expect anyone to print out 50 Ruins, but needing 50 ruins is unlikely. And printing 20-30 ruins is no more trouble than printing 2 or 3 fan cards (or two official cards you don't have -while you're at it, you could also print Cultist, Marauder, and/or Death Cart for more fun!) And tokens are easy, any token will do. Lacking official tokens, you could always use pennies or printed paper tokens. 
Personally, I think there's some interesting unexplored design space in mixing the mechanics of official expansions (coin tokens, durations and ruins), and we may as well use that design space in a fan expansion(s).
...Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 04:37:49 pm by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2015, 04:35:17 pm »
+2

This is going on a tangent, but I don't often comment on fan expansions because it just takes so much time, and usually most of my comments end up being negative (though constructively so), which isn't that fun for me and might not be appreciated by the designer.  Sometimes I randomly decide to take a look and leave some thoughts.  If I don't, it's not really a comment on your work but just that I didn't feel like it.
Logged

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2015, 05:08:21 pm »
+4

I find that 3 is about the maximum number of cards that I am willing to read at once. I might read more if they are already in a card template, and not separated from each other by paragraphs of text explaining the card.

Anyway, the point is, people are usually overwhelmed by fan expansion threads and end up not commenting at all. It's usually better if they are presented slowly (like Greed, for example).
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2015, 05:56:38 pm »
+2

Whether fan card designers consider a set of their cards to be an expansion or not, I don't see any reason for them not to use mechanics or components of any other set.
I agree with caveats.
When a card designer says "These cards are an expansion," that person has placed in me the expectation that the cards that are presented are all part of a cohesive set. In that case, I expect there to be a particular cost distribution of cards, a set of card functionalities fulfilled, and mechanical themes present throughout the majority of the cards. I am perfectly content if someone wants to make a set using VP-tokens, or reserve cards, or what-have-you, but if one has defined the cards presented as though an expansion, I find seeing one Duration card, one Potion-cost card, one Looter, and so on rather disagreeable because of the strange erosion of the set's identity and bleeding into another set's through those peculiar mechanisms. If Adventures had only one Duration card I would probably mistakenly think of it as part of Seaside since Seaside is the Duration set, but since Adventures is also a Duration set I don't have that problem.

I ask for focus in an expansion.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

horatio83

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2015, 03:47:40 am »
+3

To me, having fan expansions be "self contained" is important aesthetically. Maybe somebody wants to print out your expansion and get the "whole experience", but wait they don't have Prosperity so this one VP token card won't work. Nobody is printing out 50 Ruins just to use your one Looter card. I think you're right that it's not important in practice, but my opinions aren't likely to change. I think fan expansions should feel like real expansions, which means having one or more mechanical themes, not having a random mish-mash of stuff from all existing sets.

It's possible that some people won't comment on your expansion because they don't like something about it (including perhaps aesthetic stuff like card wordings). That's life!
First, I doubt that folks who do not already have all Dominion sets would go to the trouble and expense of printing out fan cards. In addition to that there are far too few cards with VP or coin tokens in official Dominion so I am all for fan cards that use mechanisms from expansions (Cookielord's Mediator comes to mind).

Second, speaking for myself, I scanned the entire board and collected about 40 cards which I like. I ordered three from Printerstudio and if they turn out to be decent I might order more. As I only picked out some cards from numerous "expansions" I couldn't care less about whether any of the designers has done a proper expansion with a central theme.

Unless you do not choose your deck for a game randomly the fact that expansions do have a central theme or mechanism doesn't matter much for playing Dominion. Sure, you might condition using Colony/Platinum and Shelters upon how many Prosperity / Dark Ages cards are in the deck but that's about it. For an actual game it doesn't matter much that Guilds has coins and overpaying, cards which use that mechanism could be spread over all expansions and your gaming experiences would be identical.

So if it doesn't matter much in the case of official Dminion it shouldn't matter in the case of fan cards either. Of course there is nothing wrong with designing cards around one or two central ideas if these ideas are good and improve the cards. But if you have no key idea and just a bunch of ideas for single cards plus variations of existing cards that is totally fine.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2015, 06:49:35 am »
+2

(Moved here from http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13749.msg522603#msg522603 )
I don't get what the problem is with saying "Pure victory card". I just tell people what it means when the card is in the kingdom.

This is generally referred to as the "designer in the box" problem. Lots of things make sense if the designer is there to explain them, but you really would prefer that not be necessary; you don't have the luxury of including the designer in the game box. Obviously this is your card and you can do what you want, but this is why so many people are mentioning it.
I still don't get it. If it was part of an official expansion, a definition of 'pure victory card' could easily be included in the rulebook.
But these are fan cards. There is no game box. They're not going to be used by a lot of people and might not be used by anyone but me and the people I play with IRL. So I can just tell them how it works. What is the problem with it?

« Last Edit: September 06, 2015, 06:51:44 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2015, 04:21:46 am »
+3


I still don't get it. If it was part of an official expansion, a definition of 'pure victory card' could easily be included in the rulebook.
But these are fan cards. There is no game box. They're not going to be used by a lot of people and might not be used by anyone but me and the people I play with IRL. So I can just tell them how it works. What is the problem with it?

Partially it's an aesthetic thing. Sure, it's not an official expansion, and you can and should hold yourself to whatever standards of design work for you. A lot of people try and hold their (and other people's) work up to the same standard as the official game, though, and that includes things like templating. If I wrote a fan card that says "flip cards until you find an action", someone would come along and say "well, I get what you mean, but the official wording would be this". You're already putting in enough effort to make card mock-ups to print out and play with; might as well make them as close to official as you can at that point, you know what I mean?

And if there was an official card that referred to this concept, I'm certain it would say something like "Victory Card that isn't an Action Card or Treasure Card", or "Non-Action Non-Treasure Victory Card". Neither of those is as succinct as "pure Victory Card", true, but they also don't need extra rules added to the game for them to function. But more likely than any of that, I'd expect the official card to be rewritten to avoid the issue altogether. The card that comes closest to this concept is Rabble, and it doesn't have the word Victory printed anywhere on it.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2015, 04:24:11 am by Drab Emordnilap »
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2015, 12:22:05 am »
0

I still don't get it. If it was part of an official expansion, a definition of 'pure victory card' could easily be included in the rulebook.
But these are fan cards. There is no game box. They're not going to be used by a lot of people and might not be used by anyone but me and the people I play with IRL. So I can just tell them how it works. What is the problem with it?

Partially it's an aesthetic thing. Sure, it's not an official expansion, and you can and should hold yourself to whatever standards of design work for you. A lot of people try and hold their (and other people's) work up to the same standard as the official game, though, and that includes things like templating. If I wrote a fan card that says "flip cards until you find an action", someone would come along and say "well, I get what you mean, but the official wording would be this". You're already putting in enough effort to make card mock-ups to print out and play with; might as well make them as close to official as you can at that point, you know what I mean?

And if there was an official card that referred to this concept, I'm certain it would say something like "Victory Card that isn't an Action Card or Treasure Card", or "Non-Action Non-Treasure Victory Card". Neither of those is as succinct as "pure Victory Card", true, but they also don't need extra rules added to the game for them to function. But more likely than any of that, I'd expect the official card to be rewritten to avoid the issue altogether. The card that comes closest to this concept is Rabble, and it doesn't have the word Victory printed anywhere on it.
I see what you're saying now. It just really bugs me when people act like it's a serious problem when really it's a matter of taste. In this message, you treat it like a matter of taste and I appreciate that. Earlier, you treated it like it was an actual problem with the card, and that isn't helpful.
I try to use official wording whenever it's feasible. In this case "pure victory card" is a lot shorter and seems a lot simpler than saying "card that isn't an action or treasure", so I think it's worthwhile to create a new term for it.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2015, 12:31:08 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2015, 03:11:09 am »
+1

It can be a serious problem for some people -- it depends on what the goal of making the cards is. There's probably an assumed goal of "make cards that are fun and also interesting and also templated like official cards", so people will give feedback as though that's the goal, whether that's what's being aimed for or not. Not trying to tell you what your goal _should be_, though. :)
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2015, 03:45:38 pm »
0

"A Victory card with no other types" is I think the shortest wording that isn't ambiguous.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2015, 09:15:57 am »
0

I'll blame the cross-thread discussion for this double-post: My suggestion is "Victory-type only card".
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2015, 01:53:56 pm »
0

"A Victory card with no other types" is I think the shortest wording that isn't ambiguous.
"A Victory card with one type" is shorter and not ambiguous, though awkward.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1794
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2015, 11:13:45 pm »
0

I'll blame the cross-thread discussion for this double-post: My suggestion is "Victory-type only card".
Well, the point of me moving the discussion to another thread was that I'm not looking for alternate wordings. I was looking for why (and if) I needed an alternate wording in the first place. I'm not convinced that I do.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2015, 04:34:43 am »
0

I'll blame the cross-thread discussion for this double-post: My suggestion is "Victory-type only card".
Well, the point of me moving the discussion to another thread was that I'm not looking for alternate wordings. I was looking for why (and if) I needed an alternate wording in the first place. I'm not convinced that I do.

Oh, okay. In that case, of course you don't. I'd argue that if your goal is to mimic official cards as close as possible, it's not the thing to go for, but if that isn't your goal, why should you. You can also use abstract art for your card, or another typography, or introduce directed attacks, or cards that ask people to run around the table. You're doing something for your own fun, and the level of diversion from official cards is yours to choose. Different people will think that different levels are okay. I'd say this is relatively minor, though i don't actually understand why you prefer this wording. I simply don't see "short" being a strong point. But if you prefer short wordings over such that mirror official ones, well, go for it.
Logged

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2015, 08:04:29 am »
+5

Oh, okay. In that case, of course you don't. I'd argue that if your goal is to mimic official cards as close as possible, it's not the thing to go for, but if that isn't your goal, why should you. You can also use abstract art for your card, or another typography, or introduce directed attacks, or cards that ask people to run around the table. You're doing something for your own fun, and the level of diversion from official cards is yours to choose. Different people will think that different levels are okay. I'd say this is relatively minor, though i don't actually understand why you prefer this wording. I simply don't see "short" being a strong point. But if you prefer short wordings over such that mirror official ones, well, go for it.
DXV-style writing score: 7/10.  Needs moar bacon.
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

SCSN

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2227
  • Respect: +7140
    • View Profile
Re: 'Philosophy' of fan cards and fan expansions
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2015, 05:34:51 pm »
+3

"Single-type victory card" is succinct yet has a pleasing rhythm.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 20 queries.