Print

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

[Donald X.]

Why can't Miser reserve non-Copper treasures?

I wanted to avoid potential confusion on the Tavern mat. The only card there that isn't a Reserve card is Copper.

[RTT]

Why can't Miser reserve non-Copper treasures?

I wanted to avoid potential confusion on the Tavern mat. The only card there that isn't a Reserve card is Copper.

Or a Overlord/Band of Misfits

[Cave-o-sapien]

If Miser let you put any Treasure card on your mat, things could get very confusing indeed with Capitalism.

[humcalc216]

If Miser let you put any Treasure card on your mat, things could get very confusing indeed with Capitalism.

There's also Coin of the Realm for Miser shenanigans in that scenario.

[buckets]

Why the return to Bridge-like cost reduction with Inventor? (rather than Highway-like)

I'm into it.

[crlundy]

Why the return to Bridge-like cost reduction with Inventor? (rather than Highway-like)

I'm into it.

Why were Priest and Inventor worded such that their effects don't apply to their  first play? I.e why isn't Inventor " Cards cost $1 less. Gain a card costing up to $3"

Also why aren't they "while this is in play" effects?

Both things are for simplicity. Doing the math for you is simpler than not doing it for you. For a bit there I favored "while in play" but now I think people find it more confusing than "this turn."

[buckets]

You can also argue that probably any 9th expansion is only for people who bought 8 expansions (or maybe 6-7 leaving out 1-2 that sounded bad to them), no matter what the contents.

300 year old post, but I feel like it didn't really pan out this way. One of the cool things about Dominion (imo) is that any combination of expansions is fine, and no set depends on having experience with any other set. That made it considerably less intimidating to get into for me, knowing that it basically didn't matter what order I bought them in.

A number of your older posts talk about how expansions can only do so much, and that you'd prefer to do more spin-offs. Obviously you thought releasing a recent expansion was a good idea (spoiler: it was ), but do you still agree with past-DXV re: spin-offs?

Also, thank you to the above poster for quoting Donald's post re: Inventor.

[Donald X.]

You can also argue that probably any 9th expansion is only for people who bought 8 expansions (or maybe 6-7 leaving out 1-2 that sounded bad to them), no matter what the contents.

300 year old post, but I feel like it didn't really pan out this way. One of the cool things about Dominion (imo) is that any combination of expansions is fine, and no set depends on having experience with any other set. That made it considerably less intimidating to get into for me, knowing that it basically didn't matter what order I bought them in.

A number of your older posts talk about how expansions can only do so much, and that you'd prefer to do more spin-offs. Obviously you thought releasing a recent expansion was a good idea (spoiler: it was ), but do you still agree with past-DXV re: spin-offs?

I haven't re-read the old posts but I bet I do.

I think there are plenty of people who bought expansions up to a certain set and then stopped. Sure there are other people who bought the five sets that looked the best, which weren't the first five in order, and may someday get another.

One issue with expansions over spin-offs is that they get more complex over time. This totally happened. Renaissance struggles to be simpler, but it's not like I can just do that every time and get that level of complexity. You really run out of simple stuff. Spin-offs offer the chance to do new simple cards based on whatever other elements the game has.

And they give people the chance to buy real Dominion with a different theme instead of buying a clone. That's nice too. The people who would have preferred a new expansion can still play the spin-off; it just doesn't combine. In exchange it gets to have whatever else it has.

What happened with the spin-offs was, I made one and took the Dominion part out and that's Kingdom Builder. And I made a second and took the Dominion part out and that's Temporum. I still think it would be good to make some.

[NoMoreFun]

Wouldn't Dominion reach "peak complexity" given the limited size of Kingdoms? You can already have "12 unique mechanics" kingdoms.

[Donald X.]

Wouldn't Dominion reach "peak complexity" given the limited size of Kingdoms? You can already have "12 unique mechanics" kingdoms.

There's no such thing as peak complexity. As you use up simple ideas, they're used up, and the cards get more complex.

[GendoIkari]

Wouldn't Dominion reach "peak complexity" given the limited size of Kingdoms? You can already have "12 unique mechanics" kingdoms.

This only makes sense if complexity is narrowly defined as "number of unique mechanics in the same game".

[Donald X.]

Wouldn't Dominion reach "peak complexity" given the limited size of Kingdoms? You can already have "12 unique mechanics" kingdoms.

This only makes sense if complexity is narrowly defined as "number of unique mechanics in the same game".

It doesn't even work then, because cards can have more than one mechanic.

[Donald X.]

It doesn't even work then, because cards can have more than one mechanic.

Example!

silk merchant - when-gain / when-trash / coffers / villagers
vampire - night / bat / hexes / states
peasant - travellers / reserve / tokens on piles
marauder - ruins / spoils / cause shelters to be added
tracker - heirloom / boons / wisp
treasurer - interact with trash / artifact
bridge troll - duration / -$1 token
contraband - treasure that does something / cause platinum and colony to be added
knights - mixed pile / VP that does something
possession - potion

pilgrimage - event / journey token
mountain pass - landmark / VP tokens / debt / bidding

[Doom_Shark]

It doesn't even work then, because cards can have more than one mechanic.

Example!

silk merchant - when-gain / when-trash / coffers / villagers
vampire - night / bat / hexes / states
peasant - travellers / reserve / tokens on piles
marauder - ruins / spoils / cause shelters to be added
tracker - heirloom / boons / wisp
treasurer - interact with trash / artifact
bridge troll - duration / -$1 token
contraband - treasure that does something / cause platinum and colony to be added
knights - mixed pile / VP that does something
possession - potion

pilgrimage - event / journey token
mountain pass - landmark / VP tokens / debt / bidding

You forgot a card from this kingdom:
Young Witch - setup rules, extra supply pile, types not written on the card

[Asper]

You have to put progressively more effort into making designs simple as there are more cards, but that doesn't mean simple designs have become impossible. It means you have to decide whether you prefer to spend increasing effort or prefer increasing complexity.

[Holunder9]

Well, you can do all kinds of Smithies or Villages with a cherry on top but after some time most good ideas are used up and then you have to add an extra mechanism like e.g. Boons with Blessed Village. That is clearly more complex than Mining Village from the first expansion. Same like e.g. Nomad Camp and Woodcutter. Woodcutter is as simple as it gets so every Woodcutter variant is automatically more complex.

You can try to stick to simple stuff with new mechanisms and while Renaissance is arguably simpler than Adventures, Empires and Nocturne it doesn't do hypersimple, there are on-gain and on-trash triggers, there are States Artifacts and there are permanent Events Projects. This is arguably more complex than the early expansions.

So Donald is right. You can try to keep it as simple as possible but the general trend is naturally towards more complexity.

[Donald X.]

You have to put progressively more effort into making designs simple as there are more cards, but that doesn't mean simple designs have become impossible.

Similarly you can keep getting toothpaste from a tube forever; you just need to apply more and more force. http://wondermark.com/776/

Which is to say, I disagree. And I mean there's no way out, there's no, oh there's the secret corner of simple cards. For example, Smithy is +3 Cards. That's the end of the line for that level of simplicity; there's no compelling single + left to do. Whatever hope +4 Cards had vanished when I did +4 Cards with a bonus. I could potentially do one via having a new kind of cost like debt, or a new kind of + like +Coffers... but that's added complexity, I just moved it to the rulebook. I can't make the same argument for e.g. Harbinger's level of complexity, and there is probably stuff left to do at that level. But you definitely run out. It's not just a question of how lazy I am. There is some amount of complexity, that Dominion has already used, where you can keep going long enough to not worry about it; the goal though is to be less complex than that.

I will explain it in detail. Card text is made up of qualified rules atoms strung together by program flow. Rules atoms are the smallest things you can do in the game; qualifiers are the most basic ways of distinguishing things. Program flow is logic for doing things - "do a then b," "if x do a else do b" and so on. There are only so many rules atoms, only so many qualifiers, and only so many ways to have programs flow. For a certain number of steps, there is a finite amount you can do; it's inarguable. And Dominion then drops huge chunks of possibilities by avoiding having cards that are so similar that players wouldn't like it. As well as e.g. by avoiding cards that would just be stupid. It also has very few rules atoms.

It means you have to decide whether you prefer to spend increasing effort or prefer increasing complexity.

Those aren't the only options. There are spin-offs; there are unrelated games.

[NoMoreFun]

I think what Asper meant was that there are still plenty of card ideas that don't add any new complexity to the game, but it's going to be harder to do that than to introduce a new mechanic over time.

Every expansion so far has done both and I like it that way (although Hinterlands' mechanic appears in prosperity, and Empires and Nocturne have very few cards that only use base set mechanics).

Not sure how I'd feel about a new expansion with no new mechanics.

[NoMoreFun]

And Dominion then drops huge chunks of possibilities by avoiding having cards that are so similar that players wouldn't like it

Do you have a standard for this? Has it changed over time?

Unless I did the maths wrong, even if all you own is Base Set (1st Edition), Guilds and Renaissance, the probability of a game with both Ducat and Candlestick Maker is 1 in 43.4 (61C8/63C2), and even then there are several cards that would make them different enough to be interesting. That's the worst case scenario (as long as there are no more small expansions). In my view, that is rare enough that the risk from any new card that's too similar to one from another expansion wouldn't warrant too much hate.

[LostPhoenix]

How much time do you have logged in this forum?

[Awaclus]

How much time do you have logged in this forum?

[LostPhoenix]

How much time do you have logged in this forum?

Looks like I forgot about this feature. Also, congrats on almost 300 days Awaclus!

[Donald X.]

I think what Asper meant was that there are still plenty of card ideas that don't add any new complexity to the game, but it's going to be harder to do that than to introduce a new mechanic over time.

You are the one talking about that.

[Donald X.]

And Dominion then drops huge chunks of possibilities by avoiding having cards that are so similar that players wouldn't like it

Do you have a standard for this? Has it changed over time?

Unless I did the maths wrong, even if all you own is Base Set (1st Edition), Guilds and Renaissance, the probability of a game with both Ducat and Candlestick Maker is 1 in 43.4 (61C8/63C2), and even then there are several cards that would make them different enough to be interesting. That's the worst case scenario (as long as there are no more small expansions). In my view, that is rare enough that the risk from any new card that's too similar to one from another expansion wouldn't warrant too much hate.

There are already people who don't like Ducat, so it's not great to do lots of that, but I was talking about cards even more similar than that.

I don't have a way to quantify how new the cards have to be; they have to be new.

[Asper]

I think what Asper meant was that there are still plenty of card ideas that don't add any new complexity to the game, but it's going to be harder to do that than to introduce a new mechanic over time.

You are the one talking about that.

No, this is what I meant. Apparently you were able to do something like Scolar after deciding to do, let's say, Vampire.