Ok, fists up!
I'm going to interleave ftl and Donald X's replies here a bit. Maybe a bad idea, but I don't want to respond multiple times to what I see as essentially the same points.
Also, Donald X, any time we get into one of these "discussions", it feels like either I'm not forming coherent sentences, I'm using vocabulary that has vastly different connotations to you, or you're not fully reading what I said. Sometimes I literally feel like you respond to points I didn't make. So 1) if you have any tips for helping me communicate with you, I'll totally hear them. But, 2) if we're just going to talk past each other, maybe we can skip to the relevant XKCD?
I would say uncreative because I, personally, find it to be obvious. More-objectively, there's nothing unique to Dominion about it. You could put "steal a turn" in every game that has turns.
Possession doesn't steal a turn; the other person still gets the same number of turns they would have had. You haven't "stolen" anything, unless you used an Amb or Masq. Possession lets you take a turn with the other person's deck, basically.
Yes, I realize the opponent gets the same number of turns. To me, the core concept is still best-described by "steal a turn", as you're taking your opponent's turn to benefit yourself. You "stole" that hand from them and used it for yourself. They don't get that hand again; they get the one after it.
I don't think I've seen the equivalent of that in any turn-based game. What would that be in, say, Monopoly? Roll the dice and move the other person's piece instead of yours? [I think it's pretty unique to Dominion... at least, I'm pretty sure none of the other board games I have have something equivalent to it, and basically all of them are turn-based. Plenty of games have "take another turn" or equivalent, and Dominion has Outpost for that role. Very few, if any, have "take a turn with your opponent's stuff" or equivalent. At the very least, you can fundamentally only do that in games where an opponent has stuff that you can reasonably use somehow.
ftl and Donald X, you seem to think that because it's not a common game mechanic, that it's an original one. That
could be true, but it's also not the only conclusion to draw. Another plausible explanation is that it's not generally worth the complexity. More on this below...
I would say uncreative because I, personally, find it to be obvious. More-objectively, there's nothing unique to Dominion about it. You could put "steal a turn" in every game that has turns.
This is just a really weird thing to be saying. By this measure most cards in games with rules on cards are uncreative. To the degree that those games are fun anyway, I guess it all works out! And Possession itself is just so ridiculously exotic. If it's so obvious, why don't all games have it? Because they're trying not to be so obvious?
On your first point ("By this measure..."), I think you're getting a little too black-and-white here. There's obviously a continuum of creativity / originality; I didn't think I needed to state that, but now I will (so at least you know I understand
that). Anyway, if we want to go really pedantic, every game ever (except the first one) is uncreative because there are
other games. But nobody's taking that position and to represent mine in that light feels disingenuous.
On the continuum of creativity/originality, I personally place Possession rather low. The card takes the concept of "turn" which is, by definition, fundamental to every "turn-based game" and says "what can we do with it"? Well, plenty of older games do this and many end up with a simple Lose a Turn. Possession is, in my mind, a variant on Lose a Turn (I also don't like what makes it the variant, but I'll get there). It could apply to any
turn-based game, which is the vast, vast majority of tabletop games. I can't honestly call a card that could exist (for better or worse) in virtually every other turn-based game "original". You said I sounded crazy and maybe that's because I didn't frame my argument well. But, from my perspective, it's crazy to think of a twist on Lose a Turn as "creative".
But WAIT. Because, as I type this, I really think you missed the core of my original post. I'm criticizing Possession for being uncreative, yes, but I also explicitly said
that's not the only reason I dislike it. Remember the part where I also said Smithy is uncreative but that I like it and think it has a place in the game? I think you got fixated on the "creativity" word and then used that to imply I think more creativity is always better and then tore me down as hypocritical. Either that's a straight-up straw man or you just didn't understand what I was saying. Here's your quote:
So, in my view, it's not adding much strategically. I get that it adds flavor and Timmy players like it and, yes, that it can be used to great effect. But it's also a single card that temporarily and fundamentally alters what things like Trash and Gain mean. No single card is worth that, IMO.
You want "creative" cards, but changing what trash and gain mean? Too creative! Wait, totally uncreative game staples, and bad for that reason?
It's fine to hate Possession, and I'm sure plenty of people thought of it before it showed up in Alchemy. Two guys thought of calculus (wikipedia actually indicates the number is higher than this). And I'm sure I do plenty of cliche things. You sound so crazy complaining about Possession being "uncreative" though.
I say adds very little depth because, IMO, it discourages creativity. Limitations should create trade-offs instead of cutting out strategic options. Possession has no in-game counter (it's not an Attack),
Possession has a bunch of in-game counters. Just because you can't Moat it doesn't mean you can't counter it.
This is such an obvious statement that it's clear I screwed something up. Sorry, let me try to clarify. For virtually every other attack-like thing in the game (except maybe Masquerade), the game provides tactical outs (as opposed to strategic outs). Maybe a given board doesn't, but that's the nature of a random game. But, with Possession, if it's viable, it's viable. There's no protection from its effects other than to prune out your own strategies. So, for me, that takes an aspect I don't like and amplifies it. This can be true even if there's a subset of creativity it doesn't affect.
And, sigh, let me also say I like Masquerade for a host of other reasons. My distaste for Possession is multi-faceted and I just want to cut somebody off from citing something that matches a subset of facets as evidence of hypocrisy...
so the primary counter strategy is to play simpler. Avoid powerful engines and megaturns as they could be used against you.
Even that simple counter creates a rock-paper-scissors scenario. If you go for a really simple strategy, then you're basically immune to being possessed. But then if your opponent goes for the complex engine, that'll beat your simple strategy. But then building a Possession deck will beat the engine?
So it creates interaction. You can't just ignore what your opponent is doing - you have to react. This isn't multiplayer solitaire! Play to keep your options open, ready to grab and use possession if your opponent has left themselves open for it, but be ready to flood your deck with green and destroy your engine as soon as your opponent gets a possession they can play reliably, and pick the right time to do it.
I don't think rock-paper-scissors is always a good thing. There's a reason rock-paper-scissors isn't turn-based: the player who goes first loses. The degenerate case here is that both players play simple until one flinches (usually in a last-ditch effort to come-from-behind). How is that any different than just playing simple? On a board where Possession is viable and opponents are skilled, you've taken the potentially-beautiful interactions of a kingdom and squashed them because exactly one card is present. I personally think that's something to be avoided. But, you know, I'm also just some guy on the internet who hasn't designed any sweet games.
Maybe you disagree strongly with me and that's fine. I just hope to be understood.
I say adds very little depth because, IMO, it discourages creativity. Limitations should create trade-offs instead of cutting out strategic options. Possession has no in-game counter (it's not an Attack), so the primary counter strategy is to play simpler. Avoid powerful engines and megaturns as they could be used against you. And if the winning engine on the board is still faster than Possession, then Possession was a wasted card in the kingdom. Its fundamental competitive purpose is to counter a strategy slower than itself.
Possession is there for the people who like it - for them it is not a wasted card on the table or in the expansion. It has no "fundamental competitive purpose."
About "fundamental competitive purpose": I meant the purpose for which one would leverage Possession in a competitive scenario. Donald X, you may not have given it a specific purpose, but it still has one in competition.
And if the winning engine on the board is still faster than Possession, then Possession was a wasted card in the kingdom. Its fundamental competitive purpose is to counter a strategy slower than itself.
I disagree with that "fundamental competitive purpose". Every card "counters a strategy slower than itself". Possession creates a whole new strategy space, with strategies fundamentally different than that which any other card creates.
You say this is a whole new strategy space, but I see it as primarily forcing a subset of the existing strategy space. I'm sure there are scenarios where it adds some depth, but a big part of my belief is that the card is just not worth the added rules complexity. I haven't seen Possession ever do anything I thought was exciting enough to justify it. Who knows - maybe I'll play a game tomorrow that will totally change my mind.