Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NoMoreFun]

We saw from Dark Ages a new type of "curse" entirely contained within that set. Why wasn't this done with the original "Curse" (rearranging the expansions so that "Curse" comes in a single expansion)? You could have saved room in the Base Set and Intrigue for more kingdom cards, and had a completely game changing expansion come out the other end.

The only thing I can think of is awkwardness with Familiar (but that could be fixed by making it a promo card) and a bit of redundancy like Witch and Young Witch being in the same set.

[Dsell]

If a quarter of any expansion was cursers, I probably wouldn't buy that set. I mean, I'm sure DXV could find some way to balance the set but I just don't see games heavy on that set being terribly exciting.

Edit: I think Dark Ages will be fine on that front because 1) there are no cursers, 2) ruins are not as bad for your deck as curses, and 3) one of the looters is a self-attack to compensate for how strong the card is.

[Beyond Awesome]

Cursing is a core concept of Dominion. That is why it is in Base. Ruins are like a new take on that core concept.

[ftl]

We saw from Dark Ages a new type of "curse" entirely contained within that set. Why wasn't this done with the original "Curse" (rearranging the expansions so that "Curse" comes in a single expansion)? You could have saved room in the Base Set and Intrigue for more kingdom cards, and had a completely game changing expansion come out the other end.

The only thing I can think of is awkwardness with Familiar (but that could be fixed by making it a promo card) and a bit of redundancy like Witch and Young Witch being in the same set.

Each expansion is designed to be standalone playable with the base set or intrigue.

An expansion filled with nothing but cursers would be sort of boring to play, a lot of games would be pretty much the same. 

[ftl]

Just like every expansion has trashing; trashing didn't all go to one "trashing-themed" expansion. Every expansion has villages. Every expansion has terminal draw.

They all do their own unique twist on it, of course. But just like that, every expansion has cursing - except Dark Ages, which twists it far enough that it's different, it has Ruins as its version of curses.

[NoMoreFun]

Witch
Torturer
Embargo
Sea Hag
Familiar
Mountebank
Young Witch
Jester
Followers* (So include tournament)
Ill Gotten Gains

I'd also add swindler (even though it isn't strictly a curser)

That'd be a more than half of a big box expansion, but it probably isn't that bad. If familiar was made a promo card, it would have (300-(110 cards+50 curses+5 tournament prizes))=155 other cards, so 14 other kingdom cards. If you replaced the curses and blanks in the base set with 3 more kingdom cards (none of which are cursers), the probability of getting more than one curser would be somewhere between 3% and 4%, and this probably wouldn't be the first expansion.

Edit: 20% of games of "Base"+this set would have at least one curser, so there's the unique flavour, but it isn't dominant.

[NoMoreFun]

It just always seemed like a waste to me to have an entire pile of cards dedicated to just Witch/Torturer (and swindler).

Edit: Especially when you read the Secret Histories and some good card ideas are not included and never will be included because there's "not enough room".

[Beyond Awesome]

It just always seemed like a waste to me to have an entire pile of cards dedicated to just Witch/Torturer (and swindler).

Edit: Especially when you read the Secret Histories and some good card ideas are not included and never will be included because there's "not enough room".

Hmm...

Well, Tournament eats up 5 extra slots with the prizes

We now have 50 Ruins eating up card slots
Rats eat up 10 extra slots
Then, we have Madman and Mercenary--both of which have only one card devoted to them.
And, Spoils only have three cards devoted them

The only cards that seem to really waste slots are Madman and Mercenary, but the concept is cool. We have a lot of curse givers now, so having those slots taken up in Base and Intrigue isn't a big deal, and besides Dominion wouldn't be Dominion if each expansion didn't have some variant Curse-giver.

[NoMoreFun]

It just always seemed like a waste to me to have an entire pile of cards dedicated to just Witch/Torturer (and swindler).

Edit: Especially when you read the Secret Histories and some good card ideas are not included and never will be included because there's "not enough room".

Hmm...

Well, Tournament eats up 5 extra slots with the prizes

We now have 50 Ruins eating up card slots
Rats eat up 10 extra slots
Then, we have Madman and Mercenary--both of which have only one card devoted to them.
And, Spoils only have three cards devoted them

The only cards that seem to really waste slots are Madman and Mercenary, but the concept is cool. We have a lot of curse givers now, so having those slots taken up in Base and Intrigue isn't a big deal, and besides Dominion wouldn't be Dominion if each expansion didn't have some variant Curse-giver.

Tournament actually perfectly fills up the spare room in Cornucopia, but I see your point. Maybe if Embargo was in Intrigue or Ambassador was in the base set (to imply that the curses are there all the time for a reason) I'd be less annoyed.

In fact I wouldn't be annoyed at all if it wasn't for the fact that Guilds is going to be the last expansion and some ideas like Durations and VP gainers have been confirmed as never appearing again, yet there's so, so many ideas out there for cards. In the same vein it's annoying to read that some cards were included for the sole purpose of looking strong but turning out to be weak (Thief) or that are mainly designed to combo with very certain cards (Scout, Ironworks to a lesser extent), or seeing some cards be severely outclassed as the expansions go on (Chancellor, Spy, Thief again)

[blueblimp]

Edit: Especially when you read the Secret Histories and some good card ideas are not included and never will be included because there's "not enough room".

Now that Goko exists, I wonder if we might see such cards in a computer-only realization.

[NoMoreFun]

Edit: Especially when you read the Secret Histories and some good card ideas are not included and never will be included because there's "not enough room".

Now that Goko exists, I wonder if we might see such cards in a computer-only realization.

There's also more promo cards, and maybe Dominion might continue beyond the original intentions of the creator (which I'd be very wary of considering how badly similar games have sunk into power creep).

I'd be so happy if there was an "Odds and Ends" expansion that you were only meant to buy if you had all the other expansions (Similar to Arkham Horror's Miskatonic Horror), or an expansion that was Donald X's favourite fan cards or something.

[Beyond Awesome]

It just always seemed like a waste to me to have an entire pile of cards dedicated to just Witch/Torturer (and swindler).

Edit: Especially when you read the Secret Histories and some good card ideas are not included and never will be included because there's "not enough room".

Hmm...

Well, Tournament eats up 5 extra slots with the prizes

We now have 50 Ruins eating up card slots
Rats eat up 10 extra slots
Then, we have Madman and Mercenary--both of which have only one card devoted to them.
And, Spoils only have three cards devoted them

The only cards that seem to really waste slots are Madman and Mercenary, but the concept is cool. We have a lot of curse givers now, so having those slots taken up in Base and Intrigue isn't a big deal, and besides Dominion wouldn't be Dominion if each expansion didn't have some variant Curse-giver.

Tournament actually perfectly fills up the spare room in Cornucopia, but I see your point. Maybe if Embargo was in Intrigue or Ambassador was in the base set (to imply that the curses are there all the time for a reason) I'd be less annoyed.

In fact I wouldn't be annoyed at all if it wasn't for the fact that Guilds is going to be the last expansion and some ideas like Durations and VP gainers have been confirmed as never appearing again, yet there's so, so many ideas out there for cards. In the same vein it's annoying to read that some cards were included for the sole purpose of looking strong but turning out to be weak (Thief) or that are mainly designed to combo with very certain cards (Scout, Ironworks to a lesser extent), or seeing some cards be severely outclassed as the expansions go on (Chancellor, Spy, Thief again)

I think having cards that appear strong but turn out weak is a good thing. Some players never learn. It tests the skill of the player and offers them an opportunity to learn. That is actually a sign of a very good game. Regarding Spy and Chancellor--well, not every card can be perfect. Base was also the first set to be released, so I'm sure it didn't get the same level of play testing as other expansions. You learn as you go.

[NoMoreFun]

It just always seemed like a waste to me to have an entire pile of cards dedicated to just Witch/Torturer (and swindler).

Edit: Especially when you read the Secret Histories and some good card ideas are not included and never will be included because there's "not enough room".

Hmm...

Well, Tournament eats up 5 extra slots with the prizes

We now have 50 Ruins eating up card slots
Rats eat up 10 extra slots
Then, we have Madman and Mercenary--both of which have only one card devoted to them.
And, Spoils only have three cards devoted them

The only cards that seem to really waste slots are Madman and Mercenary, but the concept is cool. We have a lot of curse givers now, so having those slots taken up in Base and Intrigue isn't a big deal, and besides Dominion wouldn't be Dominion if each expansion didn't have some variant Curse-giver.

Tournament actually perfectly fills up the spare room in Cornucopia, but I see your point. Maybe if Embargo was in Intrigue or Ambassador was in the base set (to imply that the curses are there all the time for a reason) I'd be less annoyed.

In fact I wouldn't be annoyed at all if it wasn't for the fact that Guilds is going to be the last expansion and some ideas like Durations and VP gainers have been confirmed as never appearing again, yet there's so, so many ideas out there for cards. In the same vein it's annoying to read that some cards were included for the sole purpose of looking strong but turning out to be weak (Thief) or that are mainly designed to combo with very certain cards (Scout, Ironworks to a lesser extent), or seeing some cards be severely outclassed as the expansions go on (Chancellor, Spy, Thief again)

I think having cards that appear strong but turn out weak is a good thing. Some players never learn. It tests the skill of the player and offers them an opportunity to learn. That is actually a sign of a very good game. Regarding Spy and Chancellor--well, not every card can be perfect. Base was also the first set to be released, so I'm sure it didn't get the same level of play testing as other expansions. You learn as you go.

It just sticks out like a sore thumb when the majority of cards appear to be overpowered and then underpowered (or vice versa), but eventually reveal themselves to be balanced.

Maybe that's how things will go for Thief and Scout (although the latter I doubt because it was specifically designed to work with other intrigue cards)

I actually like Chancellor quite a lot but I don't think its effect is simple or useful enough to justify a "Vanilla" version when stronger versions are planned (unlike say, Village or Smithy)

At any rate, I just want there to be as many heavily playtested, well conceived, balanced but unique cards as possible.

[Donald X.]

In the same vein it's annoying to read that some cards were included for the sole purpose of looking strong but turning out to be weak (Thief)

I have never made a card for the sole purpose of looking strong but turning out to be weak. The cards are all there to provide gameplay; to be cards people enjoy playing with, that change the game in whatever ways they do. Thief does look strong but turn out to be weak; but wasn't the point of Thief. Weak cards get played less often; strong cards cause other cards to get played less often. The game is at its best with balanced cards. Whether or not they look strong or weak at first glance, that's not as important, although certainly they don't want to all look awful.

There are four kinds of attacks in Dominion, four kinds that matter anyway. There is an essay about this elsewhere on this site but I will list them for you: give other players junk (Witches); trash other players' good cards (I think of these as Knights); make other players discard (Militias); and muck with deck orders (Spies).

With only four kinds of attacks, I want to be able to do each kind in each expansion, to maximize the variety of attacks. Therefore I want to be able to do Witches in each expansion.

You can hand out stuff besides Curses. Estates are pretty bad. Copper isn't so hot. But handing out that kind of thing has issues. The Copper pile doesn't have a definite size, and varies with the number of players in a poor way. There are not very many Estates. You can do a few Witches that use cards like this, but most Witches cannot.

You can add new cards to hand out, like Ruins. The problem here is that that is a giant pile of cards to stick in an expansion. You would have to be making some kind of insane 500-card expansion in order to have space for those.

But by putting Curses in the main set, every expansion can have a Witch while devoting zero space to Curses.

[NoMoreFun]

Thanks for the reply, but it's obvious to everyone that's played more than a couple of games of dominion that Thief was never intended to be anything more than a trick. You admitted in your post that "copper isn't too hot", so why would a card with the primary function of trashing your opponents copper (and allowing you to gain it) ever have any chance of being a good card? Is this what you wanted to design? A card for experienced players to secretly laugh at new players who'd dare think it was a powerful card? It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that Thief, despite being weak, is a trashing attack, which is the most hateful kind of play, and I can't imagine people getting any delight out of it being played other than the aforementioned in joke that comes with understanding how the game works.

You've created a wonderful game here, and one with potential far beyond what any single person could imagine. The fact that it's been limited to a small number of mostly arbitrarily themed expansions is inevitably going to be frustrating because of this, and cards like Thief just make it worse.

[theory]

Not all cards are useful all the time.  Thief happens to be a card that seems strong all-around at first, but actually only excels in particular circumstances, like Coppersmith and Counting House.  That's good for the game and part of good game design.

[polonkus]

Thanks for the reply, but it's obvious to everyone that's played more than a couple of games of dominion that Thief was never intended to be anything more than a trick. You admitted in your post that "copper isn't too hot", so why would a card with the primary function of trashing your opponents copper (and allowing you to gain it) ever have any chance of being a good card? Is this what you wanted to design? A card for experienced players to secretly laugh at new players who'd dare think it was a powerful card? It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that Thief, despite being weak, is a trashing attack, which is the most hateful kind of play, and I can't imagine people getting any delight out of it being played other than the aforementioned in joke that comes with understanding how the game works.

You've created a wonderful game here, and one with potential far beyond what any single person could imagine. The fact that it's been limited to a small number of mostly arbitrarily themed expansions is inevitably going to be frustrating because of this, and cards like Thief just make it worse.

I dunno, I get a fair amount of enjoyment out of going Thief on boards where TR/KC are out.
Sure it doesn't work out most of the time, but against an unwary or unlucky opponent it can be hilarious.

[eHalcyon]

You've created a wonderful game here, and one with potential far beyond what any single person could imagine. The fact that it's been limited to a small number of mostly arbitrarily themed expansions is inevitably going to be frustrating because of this, and cards like Thief just make it worse.

Dominion doesn't feel that limited to me...

[Beyond Awesome]

You've created a wonderful game here, and one with potential far beyond what any single person could imagine. The fact that it's been limited to a small number of mostly arbitrarily themed expansions is inevitably going to be frustrating because of this, and cards like Thief just make it worse.

Dominion doesn't feel that limited to me...

Haters gonna hate.

With that said, Dominion is awesome, and I have nothing against cards like Thief existing. Chancellor and Scout kind of suck, but they can't all be winners.

[PenPen]

Cards like Thief scale differently though. In a 2 player game, it is kind of meh, but if you're playing in 3-4 players (or heaven forbid, you get 5+ players), Thief performs much better.

[Donald X.]

Thanks for the reply, but it's obvious to everyone that's played more than a couple of games of dominion that Thief was never intended to be anything more than a trick.

Sometimes obvious things are also crazy wrong! This one for example. I mean, go ahead and believe I'm lying to you. Oh well.

You've created a wonderful game here, and one with potential far beyond what any single person could imagine. The fact that it's been limited to a small number of mostly arbitrarily themed expansions is inevitably going to be frustrating because of this, and cards like Thief just make it worse.

There is a thread in the forum of all me talking that explains why there are only so many expansions.

[engineer]

There is a thread in the forum of all me talking that explains why there are only so many expansions.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=73.0

[rinkworks]

I'm not sure I understand the logic here anyway.  If removing Curses from Base gave room for three more kingdom cards, fine, but then putting Curses in a future expansion would suck away spots for three kingdom cards there, so it's not like the total number of kingdom cards across all sets would have been larger.

Furthermore, putting all the Cursers into one box means (1) less variety of gameplay in all the other sets that don't have Cursers now, and (2) that one expansion is miserable and contains virtually no variety at all, since basically every single game is a Cursing game or, alternately, the same set of non-Cursers that fit into the expansion that you deliberately exclude because you're sick of heavy Cursing games.

[Archetype]

(2) that one expansion is miserable and contains virtually no variety at all, since basically every single game is a Cursing game

I don't know. I thought this set looked pretty fun: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1011.0

[WanderingWinder]

Thanks for the reply, but it's obvious to everyone that's played more than a couple of games of dominion that Thief was never intended to be anything more than a trick. You admitted in your post that "copper isn't too hot", so why would a card with the primary function of trashing your opponents copper (and allowing you to gain it) ever have any chance of being a good card? Is this what you wanted to design? A card for experienced players to secretly laugh at new players who'd dare think it was a powerful card? It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that Thief, despite being weak, is a trashing attack, which is the most hateful kind of play, and I can't imagine people getting any delight out of it being played other than the aforementioned in joke that comes with understanding how the game works.

You've created a wonderful game here, and one with potential far beyond what any single person could imagine. The fact that it's been limited to a small number of mostly arbitrarily themed expansions is inevitably going to be frustrating because of this, and cards like Thief just make it worse.

It's pretty bad in two player, but not totally terrible:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2862.0

And it can actually be pretty good in multiplayer, a la this game from the qualifiers to the US Championships, where I basically win because I thief:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120626-183047-a6084288.html
Look, it ain't a good card, but it's not like joke bad.

[Diving Pikachu]

Thanks for the reply, but it's obvious to everyone that's played more than a couple of games of dominion that Thief was never intended to be anything more than a trick. You admitted in your post that "copper isn't too hot", so why would a card with the primary function of trashing your opponents copper (and allowing you to gain it) ever have any chance of being a good card?

Dude. Thief can be a fearsome card, especially in games with heavy trashing. Its very presence in a Chapel game makes me reconsider my usual Chapel strategies very carefully. If you've got a trim deck and your economy is treasure-based instead of action-based (a very possible scenario; Minion won't be in every kingdom, after all), you can witness the very swift obliteration of your buying power as your opponent thieves away your Golds, Platinums, Horns of Plenty, or Spoils. Thief's interactions with Ill-Gotten Gains also shouldn't be underestimated. It can give you more chances to curse while disrupting the IGG-Curse-Duchy 3-pile early ending that often happens with the presence of IGG in a kingdom. And as WanderingWinder has pointed out, Thief's power scales up during multiplayer. My advice: Listen to WanderingWinder. And Theory. And Donald X.

Is this what you wanted to design? A card for experienced players to secretly laugh at new players who'd dare think it was a powerful card? It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that Thief, despite being weak, is a trashing attack, which is the most hateful kind of play, and I can't imagine people getting any delight out of it being played other than the aforementioned in joke that comes with understanding how the game works.

"The most hateful kind of play"? What does that even mean? And I must wonder whether you truly have "understanding" of "how the game works" if you think Thief's "primary function" is "trashing your opponents copper". Sure, opening with Thief is a pretty bad idea, but that doesn't mean it will always be doomed to have a "primary function" of trashing copper. Dominion is so flexible and variable that you can't predict a card's role in all kingdoms with such broad language.

[Jorbles]

Witch
Torturer
Embargo
Sea Hag
Familiar
Mountebank
Young Witch
Jester
Followers* (So include tournament)
Ill Gotten Gains

I'd also add swindler (even though it isn't strictly a curser)

Throw in a Bane (say Swindler) and you've got yourself the cursiest kingdom possible!

[Donald X.]

As I have previously posted, Thief is weak enough on average that I would like it to be better. I haven't been talking about that. I was disagreeing with the statement that Thief was *intended* to be weak. Man. It was not.

[WanderingWinder]

[Scout joke here]

[Robz888]

As I have previously posted, Thief is weak enough on average that I would like it to be better. I haven't been talking about that. I was disagreeing with the statement that Thief was *intended* to be weak. Man. It was not.

I would like to say that in one of my last games on Isotropic ever, I bought Thief and used it to great success. My opponent pursued Chapel/Treasure Map on an otherwise fairly weak board, and my Thief punished him relentlessly. I went Duchy-Duke, and grabbed an easy win.

Thank you, Thief. And thank you, Donald.

[Razzishi]

When I first read the thread title, I thought "base" was "bad".  I was very confused.

[carstimon]

There's something I like about cards that aren't usually useful.  It's very rewarding when you find a way to use them.  The number of times when it's obviously a dead card is offset by the coolness of finding a time when it's not.

[engineer]

There's something I like about cards that aren't usually useful.  It's very rewarding when you find a way to use them.  The number of times when it's obviously a dead card is offset by the coolness of finding a time when it's not.

That feeling actually was by design.  Donald mentions how he did a few cards that would only really be strong in certain situations, because some folks get a kick out of winning games with those cards.  I wish I could find the quote.

[Donald X.]

There's something I like about cards that aren't usually useful.  It's very rewarding when you find a way to use them.  The number of times when it's obviously a dead card is offset by the coolness of finding a time when it's not.

That feeling actually was by design.  Donald mentions how he did a few cards that would only really be strong in certain situations, because some folks get a kick out of winning games with those cards.  I wish I could find the quote.

For any given card it may or may not be by design (e.g. Scout wasn't intended to be weak), but yes, there are a very small number of cards that are so narrow that they often aren't very good, where the idea is, some people like to win with a card that you usually can't win with, and the only way to get that feeling is to have a card you usually can't win with. But I try to do very few of those, and Thief wasn't trying to be one of them. Thief in fact is one of the "pillars" of the main set, changing the game significantly, and as such it would be nice if it was still doing that for good players.

[engineer]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended. 

I know that this idea is icky: you want Dominion to stand on its own as a finished product, and "improving" it could backfire, sorta like how the original Star Wars trilogy was better before George Lucas went back and updated all the special effects. 

Still, it seems like the cards that actually could use a "fix" are so few and far between, there would be no chance of "ruining" the original flavor of the game (since the vast majority of games would be completely unchanged), and it could add some fun to kingdoms where the "fixed" cards happen to appear.

Maybe some day, when you're old and you decide you want the money, you could do the revised edition.  I certainly wouldn't consider it ill-gotten gains.   

[Donald X.]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended. 

There are I think only two things you can hope for here.

First, there might someday be a rethemed Dominion that's trying to get noticed by more people who aren't gamers. It's been brought up but hasn't happened (and may never). If it did happen then possibly I wouldn't change any cards, but I would tweak the exact mix of 25 in order to be better.

Second, if I make a Dominion spin-off and it is close enough to Dominion that some cards from Dominion will work in it, then naturally I will only be revisiting stuff in the best form I can make it at that time.

[LastFootnote]

If nothing else, it would be nice to hear how you would go about trying to make certain cards better. You've mentioned that you'd like Scout and Thief to be better, but you've never shared any specific ideas. Was that intentional, or have you just not given it much thought?

[Donald X.]

If nothing else, it would be nice to hear how you would go about trying to make certain cards better. You've mentioned that you'd like Scout and Thief to be better, but you've never shared any specific ideas. Was that intentional, or have you just not given it much thought?

Well I've mentioned a few things, but in general it's bad if I suggest changes. It sets people up to argue over whether to play the official rules or the designer's variant. This is something RGG in particular does not want to have happen.

I personally have not gone back and changed anything; I play the cards as printed. Which I guess isn't saying much, since online they're programmed as printed, and irl I don't play for fun, I just playtest (which is fun, but still), and to playtest I should play the cards as printed.

[Piemaster]

If nothing else, it would be nice to hear how you would go about trying to make certain cards better. You've mentioned that you'd like Scout and Thief to be better, but you've never shared any specific ideas. Was that intentional, or have you just not given it much thought?

Well I've mentioned a few things, but in general it's bad if I suggest changes. It sets people up to argue over whether to play the official rules or the designer's variant.

Yeah that's the issue I would have with it.  If some people sit down to play a game, but first have to agree about what set of rules to use and then end up having to constantly refer to printed copies of erratas and current rulings during the game then it cheapens the game and makes it less fun.  Obviously in many games this ends up being the lesser of two evils and is the best solution, but Dominion is currently a long way from that point and plays very eloquently in its original iteration.

[pst]

Yeah that's the issue I would have with it.  If some people sit down to play a game, but first have to agree about what set of rules to use and then end up having to constantly refer to printed copies of erratas and current rulings during the game then it cheapens the game and makes it less fun.

On the other hand, not changing any game rules as such, but just a few cards in a new edition of a particular box wouldn't mean that. You would play the cards as written. Just like people playing with Intrigue+Seaside are playing the same game as those playing with Base+Hinterlands, even though they don't use the same kingdom cards, they would be playing the same game as those with Base#2+Hinterlands. Eventually Thief#1 from Base#1 wouldn't be that common. For players playing with oldtimers and get Thief#1 in play it will be like a (slightly or totally) "new" card for them.

Not that this is necessary at all, but wouldn't have to mean any of that negotiation or retconning cards in errata.

[Grujah]

If nothing else, it would be nice to hear how you would go about trying to make certain cards better. You've mentioned that you'd like Scout and Thief to be better, but you've never shared any specific ideas. Was that intentional, or have you just not given it much thought?

He fixes it in expansions. See: Noble Brigand, Vagrant, Ironmonger, Scavanger

[Octo]

I think there's also something to bear in mind is the context of Thief: in base set alone thief has different potential than when all set are combined, and as mentioned thief varies with the numbers of players too. I've had games grind to a halt because of thief due to there not being enough +$ (in fact in that game the only +$ was mountebank which just made the situation even worse!!) and I've certainly had to think twice about going chapel when Thief is on the board, especially in 3/4 player games which is what I normally play. In 2 player, yeah, I may well ignore it, but I mainly play 3/4.

People seem to be so keen on labelling a card (and stuff in general) as "good" or "bad" so that they can pigeon-hole it, which means they don't have to think about it any more, the decision is made. This is naive and also leads to irritatingly polarised opinions such as "it's so obvious after a couple of plays that Thief is a trap card" .....really?.....REALLY? Maybe given some particular circumstances and events perhaps, but ........ no.

Re: Why is Curse a base card?

Because you've misunderstood themes in this game. Themes are layer on top of the basic mechanics. The basic game requires a certain amount to basic mechanics to be varied and fun - you cannot split absolutely every mechanic off into it's own expansion as that would be incredibly dull for the first few of sets until you got enough of a mix to make it interesting. Cursing is included in the basic mechanics as are trashers and dead drawers as previously mentioned as core elements of the game, not optional flavours of the game.

And also, yeah, you're only going to get X amount of cards in total - whether those curses appear in the base set or expansions it's still the same amount of cards.

[Beyond Awesome]

I think there's also something to bear in mind is the context of Thief: in base set alone thief has different potential than when all set are combined, and as mentioned thief varies with the numbers of players too. I've had games grind to a halt because of thief due to there not being enough +$ (in fact in that game the only +$ was mountebank which just made the situation even worse!!) and I've certainly had to think twice about going chapel when Thief is on the board, especially in 3/4 player games which is what I normally play. In 2 player, yeah, I may well ignore it, but I mainly play 3/4.

People seem to be so keen on labelling a card (and stuff in general) as "good" or "bad" so that they can pigeon-hole it, which means they don't have to think about it any more, the decision is made. This is naive and also leads to irritatingly polarised opinions such as "it's so obvious after a couple of plays that Thief is a trap card" .....really?.....REALLY? Maybe given some particular circumstances and events perhaps, but ........ no.

Re: Why is Curse a base card?

Because you've misunderstood themes in this game. Themes are layer on top of the basic mechanics. The basic game requires a certain amount to basic mechanics to be varied and fun - you cannot split absolutely every mechanic off into it's own expansion as that would be incredibly dull for the first few of sets until you got enough of a mix to make it interesting. Cursing is included in the basic mechanics as are trashers and dead drawers as previously mentioned as core elements of the game, not optional flavours of the game.

And also, yeah, you're only going to get X amount of cards in total - whether those curses appear in the base set or expansions it's still the same amount of cards.

Thief is a power card in 4-player games! In two-player, it's very weak. Also, Jester is a beast in 4-player. And, cursers get even more powerful.

[engineer]

I don't think thief is always bad even in 2 player games.  For example, if you play a colony game with thief and the other guy trashes his coppers in favor of better treasures, the thief suddenly becomes pretty strong.  Gank one plat and it has more than earned its place in the deck.

I just get the impression that thief is much weaker in most kingdoms than Donald intended.

[lespeutere]

When I first read the thread title, I thought "base" was "bad".  I was very confused.

So was I. Would've been easy +5 for me.. ;-)

[pst]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended. 

There are I think only two things you can hope for here.

First, there might someday be a rethemed Dominion that's trying to get noticed by more people who aren't gamers. It's been brought up but hasn't happened (and may never). If it did happen then possibly I wouldn't change any cards, but I would tweak the exact mix of 25 in order to be better.

Second, if I make a Dominion spin-off and it is close enough to Dominion that some cards from Dominion will work in it, then naturally I will only be revisiting stuff in the best form I can make it at that time.

Hoping for the third option instead paid off!

[Donald X.]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended. 

There are I think only two things you can hope for here.

First, there might someday be a rethemed Dominion that's trying to get noticed by more people who aren't gamers. It's been brought up but hasn't happened (and may never). If it did happen then possibly I wouldn't change any cards, but I would tweak the exact mix of 25 in order to be better.

Second, if I make a Dominion spin-off and it is close enough to Dominion that some cards from Dominion will work in it, then naturally I will only be revisiting stuff in the best form I can make it at that time.

Hoping for the third option instead paid off!

Sometimes, the horse learns to sing.

[madeofghosts]

You know, Donald, it would be really cool if you actually did a revised edition of dominion.  Like, rerelease the original set, but with slight card and rule changes that clarify lingering issues and perhaps "fix" cards that didn't work as intended.

Maybe some day, when you're old and you decide you want the money

[no comment]

[ackmondual]

Cursing is a core concept of Dominion. That is why it is in Base. Ruins are like a new take on that core concept.

Ditto with why each expansion also has cards that give you +Buys, branch actions (+2 or more actions), chains (+1 action), +cards, +coins, and trashing.  I hear Rio Grande Games likes to have expansions not require other expansions to play, so this sort of design works out well towards that, as opposed to having an "all/mostly card drawing" set, etc.