Print

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

[Tables]

How did you decide which abilities could be stackable with TR/KC (e.g., Bridge) and which ones couldn't (Highway, Princess, and Goons being the obvious examples)?

IIRC, Donald has said Bridge would be worded differently (same as Highway) if he made it today.

[AJD]

How did you decide which abilities could be stackable with TR/KC (e.g., Bridge) and which ones couldn't (Highway, Princess, and Goons being the obvious examples)?

I'm gonna guess that Highway, Princess, and Goons aren't stackable mainly for tracking purposes rather than for balance purposes (i.e., you only have to check how many copies are in play, and not remember how many times you played them), and the only reason this isn't the case for Bridge and Coppersmith is that the while-in-play clause hadn't occurred to him yet.

[SirPeebles]

How did you decide which abilities could be stackable with TR/KC (e.g., Bridge) and which ones couldn't (Highway, Princess, and Goons being the obvious examples)?

I'm gonna guess that Highway, Princess, and Goons aren't stackable mainly for tracking purposes rather than for balance purposes (i.e., you only have to check how many copies are in play, and not remember how many times you played them), and the only reason this isn't the case for Bridge and Coppersmith is that the while-in-play clause hadn't occurred to him yet.

This is a silly reason.  The Throne Room is still right there.  It's no different than remembering to double the buys and coins from a Throned Woodcutter.  If anything, the exception makes it more confusing for new players.

[GendoIkari]

The other prototypical non-stackable is Tactician.  The "if you discard a card this way" clause is there to prevent doubling the effect from Throne Room.  Of course, there is still that obscure edge case where Golem can cause multiple Tactician effects.

Madman and Treasure Map also.

[Donald X.]

How did you decide which abilities could be stackable with TR/KC (e.g., Bridge) and which ones couldn't (Highway, Princess, and Goons being the obvious examples)?

Every action should be Throne-able unless there's a good reason for an exception. There are two main exceptions.

First there are cards where the ideal phrasing makes the card not Throne-able. This is the case for cards with below-the-line text like Highway, and also Treasure Map. It's just fallout from caring more about good wordings. Scheme went back and forth, but the wording I went with happens to allow Throne.

Second there are cards where being Throne-able was such an issue that they specifically have anti-Throne clauses. The cards in this category are Tactician, Madman, and Outpost. Princess might have had an anti-Throne clause if the ideal phrasing didn't already make it non-Throne-able, although it might not have. Possession at one point had an anti-Throne clause, but it didn't fit, and it would have been more about fun than power level.

There are of course also cards where you naturally get no meaningful advantage from Throning them, like Counting House. Tournament has a "you need another Province" clause (which is to say you discard the Province) but that was more because of the potential to play multiple Tournaments rather than Throne specifically.

It is cool that you can Throne Bridge and Coppersmith. It's nice that that's in the game even though I have no regrets on making Highway with my preferred wording.

[AJD]

To what extent did you design cards to fit the themes of expansions, vs. having the cards pre-designed and then assigning them to expansions that fit them? So like, did you say "I'm doing an expansion with a next-turn theme; how about an attack that top-decks curses" or "I've got an attack that top-decks curses; I'll put that in the expansion with a next-turn theme"? Except, not just Sea Hag specifically, I mean.

Or could I just figure out the answer to this by rereading the secret histories?

[Donald X.]

To what extent did you design cards to fit the themes of expansions, vs. having the cards pre-designed and then assigning them to expansions that fit them? So like, did you say "I'm doing an expansion with a next-turn theme; how about an attack that top-decks curses" or "I've got an attack that top-decks curses; I'll put that in the expansion with a next-turn theme"? Except, not just Sea Hag specifically, I mean.

Or could I just figure out the answer to this by rereading the secret histories?

I made most cards for the expansions they ended up in, though some have moved.

The broad story that I have told many times but focusing on this goes like:

- I made a pile of cards; none of these were made for a particular expansion.
- I divided them into a main set and two 15-card expansions.
- I made cards for these specific expansions to expand them to 20 cards.
- I made three more 20-card expansions; all cards went right into the expansion they were made for, no moving.
- I made a batch of random new cards and reconfigured everything into eight smaller 16-card expansions (splitting Seaside/Hinterlands).
- I shifted things around again into six 25-card expansions, with work left to do on many of them.
- As I worked on each expansion in its day, I stole cards from later sets if I wanted them, and made new cards specifically for the current expansion.

So there were two big time periods in which cards moved around, and otherwise some cards moved in the direction of the current set (or out of it if they didn't fit). Lots of cards were made for the sets they're in though.

I will consider just Prosperity. Trade Route, Quarry, Bank, and Peddler are from other sets. Grand Market is partially from another set; Monument was from the batch prior to the 16-card expansions. You can quibble about Vault but it's basically a Prosperity card. The other cards are native to Prosperity.

[GigaKnight]

1) According to the BGG ratings, Prosperity is the most universally loved expansion. Have you got any thoughts on why that is so? Do you think it is fair or do you think the set is overrated?

I don't have any real data but can think of some things.

...

- The set is low attack, high non-attack interaction. It is my experience in general that, people who uh don't play Magic tend to be more uppity about losing their stuff, their precious stuff. Like, I will make a game, and it will have a card that makes other people lose stuff, and it seems fine and normal to me, nice as a thing to have that's different from other things in the game, but some people will specifically dislike it, perhaps being used to games where nothing remotely like that is possible. I am used to losing my stuff; in Magic you lose stuff constantly, it is a pillar of the game. But like I will tone down a game to having just a few ways to make people lose stuff, completely balanced as far as I am concerned, and then a publisher will say, we didn't like that one card. Anyway so. I think Dominion players in general, there are a lot of Magic players yes, but there are a lot of people who do not play Magic, and among those people I think losing stuff is less popular, and uh let's reset this sentence. I think Dominion players in general like attacks less than I do. So, Prosperity got fewer attacks specifically to make going for Colonies easier, and then it turns out people liked that. Later Dominion sets tone down attacks a little as a result. Now this may all seem silly when two of the three attacks in Prosperity are Mountebank and Goons, but still.

...

This is a really interesting point and I, for one, really appreciate you taking the time and energy to go into weird details like this.  It also occurs to me that losing things in Magic often either:

1) is specifically a choice of the player losing their stuff (e.g. "I choose to block or I choose to sacrifice".)  Even if it's a false choice, it gives the player the illusion of control.
2) costs something on the part of the attacker (i.e. they have to actually spend a card so at least they won't do it every turn).

That's not always the case and I haven't really played magic in a while, so I could be also be misremembering.  In Dominion, on the other hand, most attack cards get played over and over; their only "cost" is the Action they consume.  Does this seem like a relevant distinction?  And, as a designer, do you think this has a material impact on the psychology of the mechanics?


Another related question that popped into my head:

Did you ever toy with the idea of a reaction that trashed the cards they react to?  Is this a particularly bad idea or am I venturing too far into potentially-spoilery territory?

[heron]

...Watchtower.

[AJD]

Did you ever toy with the idea of a reaction that trashed the cards they react to?  Is this a particularly bad idea or am I venturing too far into potentially-spoilery territory?

Donald's essay on "why not have a reaction that hurts the attacker" can be found here.

[Donald X.]

That's not always the case and I haven't really played magic in a while, so I could be also be misremembering.  In Dominion, on the other hand, most attack cards get played over and over; their only "cost" is the Action they consume.  Does this seem like a relevant distinction?  And, as a designer, do you think this has a material impact on the psychology of the mechanics?

These things don't mean the same thing between the two games.

Magic has both "I use my card to trash your card and now they're both gone" and "My card sits there killing stuff of yours turn after turn." They do way more of the former these days, because reusable removal dominates Magic games and can be no fun. You sit there with cards you can't play because they will just die.

Attacks in Dominion are multi-use but then so is everything (except the things that aren't, which includes attacks). I get Saboteur, you get Workshop, we're even. It's similar to in Magic when I play a card and you play a one-use card to destroy it, except that in Dominion we both still have our thing (unless of course the Saboteur hits the Workshop). If you need to compare Dominion's "removal" directly to Magic's multi-use removal, then the cards you remove are like tokens made by token-making artifacts etc. in Magic - the multi-use removal is up against multi-use generation (not a typical case in Magic).

When I said, "I will make a game, and it will have a card that makes other people lose stuff," I meant, those other games, that aren't Dominion, that have those cards. In those games the removal that I was describing was one-for-one, like in Magic - I lose a card to make everyone else lose a card - and nevertheless that thing will be what some people cite as "what is this nonsense." Being one-for-one does not solve the problem for those people, they really just don't want to lose stuff.

So overall: 1) being reusable just isn't the same thing between Magic and Dominion, such that Dominion's attacks are not actually analogous to Magic's reusable removal; and 2) Magic-style one-for-one removal is exactly the thing I was describing that bothers some people.

Did you ever toy with the idea of a reaction that trashed the cards they react to?  Is this a particularly bad idea or am I venturing too far into potentially-spoilery territory?

That's a more extreme version of something already bad: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=71.0

[philosophyguy]

As I usually tell people who want to show me cards, the obvious ideas are obvious to me too, and I had a big head start. For example Richard Garfield suggested 3 cards while he was playtesting Seaside. One was already in a set and has survived; one was already in a set but currently isn't in one although I have an idea for fixing it up. The third card was the reaction that reflects the attack, which I had had suggested so many times that I had already written up an essay on why it doesn't work.

The quote is from the linked bit on DXV's response to reactions that hurt the attacker. My question is: what were/are the first two cards that Richard Garfield suggested?

[Donald X.]

The quote is from the linked bit on DXV's response to reactions that hurt the attacker. My question is: what were/are the first two cards that Richard Garfield suggested?

Bank and a Throne Room for treasures. Prosperity had the Treasure Throne but it didn't work out (not popular enough); as you know I got it to work in Dark Ages by having it trash the treasure.

[SCSN]

It is my experience in general that, people who uh don't play Magic tend to be more uppity about losing their stuff, their precious stuff.

They should try playing chess.

[Avalanchian]

It is my experience in general that, people who uh don't play Magic tend to be more uppity about losing their stuff, their precious stuff.

They should try playing chess.

Or shogi. In shogi the soldiers you lose are actually captured by the enemy and turned against you in some sort of twisted betrayal. As your castle crumbles around your king, you can't help but look at the traitors who once fought by your side and ask, "why?! Please.... Why?"

Also this appears to be your first forum post. Welcome!

[Davio]

No Harakiri?

Would love to see a game like that which involves Harakiri (or Seppuku).

Like, you don't actually capture a piece, but the piece that is about to be captured commits Harakiri instead.

[Watno]

If you were making Moat and Lighthouse today, would you phrase them in a way so they protect from IGG's and Noble Brigand's on gain/buy effects? or was it intended from the beginning that they wouldn't protect against everything?

[Donald X.]

It is my experience in general that, people who uh don't play Magic tend to be more uppity about losing their stuff, their precious stuff.

They should try playing chess.

They also won't like how hard it is to see what your possible moves are, and the potential to see many moves in advance.

[Donald X.]

If you were making Moat and Lighthouse today, would you phrase them in a way so they protect from IGG's and Noble Brigand's on gain/buy effects? or was it intended from the beginning that they wouldn't protect against everything?

The idea wasn't to specifically make un-Moatable attacks, but I also wouldn't make Moat confusing in order to have it cover those cases. Moat looks at attack cards being played. Saying "When an another player plays or buys an attack card" would be too weird, unless the main set had an attack card that did something to you when bought.

[Awaclus]

If you were making Moat and Lighthouse today, would you phrase them in a way so they protect from IGG's and Noble Brigand's on gain/buy effects? or was it intended from the beginning that they wouldn't protect against everything?

The idea wasn't to specifically make un-Moatable attacks, but I also wouldn't make Moat confusing in order to have it cover those cases. Moat looks at attack cards being played. Saying "When an another player plays or buys an attack card" would be too weird, unless the main set had an attack card that did something to you when bought.

Did you consider "when an attack card would affect you"? If you did, what was your reasoning to go for the actual wording?

Though, I'm perfectly fine with Lighthouse not preventing IGG.

[ashersky]

If you were making Moat and Lighthouse today, would you phrase them in a way so they protect from IGG's and Noble Brigand's on gain/buy effects? or was it intended from the beginning that they wouldn't protect against everything?

The idea wasn't to specifically make un-Moatable attacks, but I also wouldn't make Moat confusing in order to have it cover those cases. Moat looks at attack cards being played. Saying "When an another player plays or buys an attack card" would be too weird, unless the main set had an attack card that did something to you when bought.

Did you consider "when an attack card would affect you"? If you did, what was your reasoning to go for the actual wording?

Though, I'm perfectly fine with Lighthouse not preventing IGG.

Your wording has no effect on IGG, though, right?  It's just a treasure card, I thought.

[Watno]

Well, you then could easily add the word Attack to IGG.

[soulnet]

Well, you then could easily add the word Attack to IGG.

Then each play would trigger Horse Traders and Secret Chamber as well. The "would affect you" is not clear enough, everything affects you as long as it affects the game state.

[Donald X.]

Did you consider "when an attack card would affect you"? If you did, what was your reasoning to go for the actual wording?

No, that's not as good and I didn't consider it. In general you want to avoid "would" when you can because it's confusing. "When another player plays an attack card" is straightforward. It creates the question of "is this before or after it resolves" but answers it on the card with "well this card does nothing if it's afterwards so what are the odds."

As I always say, Moat has no obligation to prevent anything bad from happening to you. You can't Moat them buying a Province. I never felt like Moat had to do something about Masquerade or Possession, which were around before Moat was finalized, or IGG or Noble Brigand, which postdate it. At some points you could Moat Noble Brigand when bought because it was "when you buy this play it," and I would have done that if the wording had worked out, but it didn't.

Moat originally went into play when reacting, all reactions did, and I have explained before that that would probably be better. That has no bearing on the question but that's what I might do differently with Moat. I changed it to revealing specifically to make Moat more powerful, and don't know exactly what Moat would look like the other way, since I haven't had to do that work.

[SirPeebles]

You can't Moat them buying a Province.

Zoning Ordinance
$5 Treasure-Reaction

+$2
---
When another player would gain a Province, you may reveal this card.  That player gains a Duchy instead.