Print

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

[dz]

After many years of experience, are you able to detect joke questions as soon as you read them?

How has your sleep schedule evolved over the years?

What do you and your irl playtesters talk about while playing games, and what % of it is laughing at  / disagreeing with something that an online playtester said in discord (most likely me)?

Among your online playtesters, who writes your favorite playtest reports?

How do you feel about playtesters programming their own version of games you’re working on, for private playtesting purposes (like how Ben King did this for some Dominion expansions)?

What Dominion rulings were you surprised to learn were controversial and commonly asked?
Actual example for me: I could’ve told you before release that Ferryman/Acolyte would be divisive (and last I checked, playtester JNails hates that ruling and thinks it should be changed). I did not anticipate “are Joust’s rewards a pile” to be on that level (sure some playtesters asked that before, but).

Other than the damn chat scrolling bug, what are the best and worst parts of being in spec chat?

[Holger]

Would that mean that Copper becomes exclusively a starting card and all cards that gain Copper are gone? What card that gains or interacts with Copper would you miss most?

That's what it would mean; you can see this played out I think in the Dutch beginner's product. It was a move you could do to lower the cost of the main game.

I don't have a list of Copper-gainers in front of me. I'm not the kind that misses those things though. I've played with so many cards that didn't make it to print.

For me the Copper pile was there as a fail-safe. What if you're so screwed that you can't afford anything? There's also, you'll have all the Coppers you aren't using due to the player count; why not let them be in a pile? And then the pile existed, so things could refer to it. In the end, it's better to not put you in the position of hopelessly buying Copper. And the space can trivially be used to generate more gameplay than the Coppers do.

It's all moot of course; just a lesson for future games.

Do you remember why you made the Copper pile as big as it is? 32-46 Coppers in the supply pile (4 players/2 players) seems rather much for a fail-safe (or the occasional Gardens fodder).

It's the biggest supply pile in 2p and still bigger than the Gold pile in 3p/4p games, although you gain far fewer Coppers than Silvers or Golds in most games.

[Donald X.]

After many years of experience, are you able to detect joke questions as soon as you read them?

I basically never catch them. Having asked so many questions, can you distinguish the joke answers? I mean it's all so impossible. Any communication has the message sent and the message received and that's one message too many. I always think of that Dinosaur Comics comic. https://qwantz.com/index.php?comic=168

How has your sleep schedule evolved over the years?

Once I didn't need to get up for a job, there was a big period there where it would slip a little each day, I'd stay up later and later until I finally had to pull an all-dayer and get back around to waking up in the morning. And I mean there's some joy there, seeing the world at all the different times. Though there are a lot of advantages to being awake when other people are. These days this doesn't happen though; periodically something will make me wake up early, and otherwise I mostly get up at a somewhat normal time for not having a job.

What do you and your irl playtesters talk about while playing games, and what % of it is laughing at  / disagreeing with something that an online playtester said in discord (most likely me)?

Well we don't talk about you. Online playtesters might come up post-game, "oh LF loves this card" or whatever. My games try to be super-involving, so there isn't a lot of downtime during a game. Some of my games have that downtime though, e.g. Dominion, and then you know, we talk about stuff like anyone. Things going on in people's lives. Entertainment.

Among your online playtesters, who writes your favorite playtest reports?

I like thorough reports. Wordiness and details. I want external playtesters who speak their minds. I mean otherwise I don't know what's going on. I do also want people to have insights, but if they say enough, maybe I can have the insights. You were a bonanza there. LastFootnote was the leader for a while.

How do you feel about playtesters programming their own version of games you’re working on, for private playtesting purposes (like how Ben King did this for some Dominion expansions)?

Well it's great.

What Dominion rulings were you surprised to learn were controversial and commonly asked?
Actual example for me: I could’ve told you before release that Ferryman/Acolyte would be divisive (and last I checked, playtester JNails hates that ruling and thinks it should be changed). I did not anticipate “are Joust’s rewards a pile” to be on that level (sure some playtesters asked that before, but).

I can see wondering if Rewards are a pile. I'm not actually sure what the Ferryman / Acolyte question is. Is it, can Acolyte get an Augur? That would go back to, what exactly is the rule for gaining outside of the supply. We want the default to be supply only; you can't Workshop stuff not in the game, and we don't want to have to say that on Workshop. We also want e.g. "gain a Horse" to not need more text to let you know you really can get one, when anyone playing will be sure they can get a Horse. And "gain a Duchy" can't gain a non-supply Duchy, one you left out because you only had two players. That all seems intuitive, so the tricky case is gaining by type. You know that "gain a Loot" works, and of course that's the same thing as the Horse case, except it's a type. And it's all covered in the rulebook, what "gain a Loot" means and how you shuffle the Loots. Augurs don't anticipate this. Augurs are a pile, so they work fine with Ferryman; you get an Acolyte, it says "gain an Augur," and there's no Loot-like exception there.

I can see the argument that it should be defined differently. But it can't just be e.g. "gaining has to be of cards being used this game," unless you want Workshops gaining Ghosts and things. And you know, those non-supply piles were made with the idea that Workshops couldn't get them.

The most common question back when was Throne / Feast. Questions that get sent to RGG tend to be any random thing, e.g. recently "we don't understand Charm."

I don't think "surprise" plays into it. Sometimes people don't like a ruling. Man sometimes they convince me. Ultimately real issues go back to areas that aren't perfect, like Duration tracking; when it's say that I worded a card poorly, well it causes problems but you know, there's no controversy, we all agree, we all wish the card had a better wording, and maybe someday it will get one.

Other than the damn chat scrolling bug, what are the best and worst parts of being in spec chat?

For me the spec chat is the whole point of hanging out watching a Dominion game. I'm happy to talk about the game or talk about other things. The best and worst parts, man. It's all about the people, and let's not play that game.

[Donald X.]

Do you remember why you made the Copper pile as big as it is? 32-46 Coppers in the supply pile (4 players/2 players) seems rather much for a fail-safe (or the occasional Gardens fodder).

It's the biggest supply pile in 2p and still bigger than the Gold pile in 3p/4p games, although you gain far fewer Coppers than Silvers or Golds in most games.

I suspect it just came down to, how many cards were we at otherwise. There were this many kingdom cards and VP cards and okay how do I divide up the rest into Copper/Silver/Gold. I wasn't thinking "maybe cut Copper by 11 and fit in another kingdom card." I'd settled on 25 kingdom cards and given that and other things the game had to be 500 cards and okay how many of them are Copper then?

[Jeebus]

I'm not actually sure what the Ferryman / Acolyte question is. Is it, can Acolyte get an Augur? That would go back to, what exactly is the rule for gaining outside of the supply. We want the default to be supply only; you can't Workshop stuff not in the game, and we don't want to have to say that on Workshop. We also want e.g. "gain a Horse" to not need more text to let you know you really can get one, when anyone playing will be sure they can get a Horse. And "gain a Duchy" can't gain a non-supply Duchy, one you left out because you only had two players. That all seems intuitive, so the tricky case is gaining by type. You know that "gain a Loot" works, and of course that's the same thing as the Horse case, except it's a type. And it's all covered in the rulebook, what "gain a Loot" means and how you shuffle the Loots. Augurs don't anticipate this. Augurs are a pile, so they work fine with Ferryman; you get an Acolyte, it says "gain an Augur," and there's no Loot-like exception there.

I can see the argument that it should be defined differently. But it can't just be e.g. "gaining has to be of cards being used this game," unless you want Workshops gaining Ghosts and things. And you know, those non-supply piles were made with the idea that Workshops couldn't get them.

Yeah, I don't think these rules are very intuitive.
"Gain a Rats" is equivalent to "gain a Rats from the Rats pile".
"Gain a Loot" is equivalent to "gain a Loot from the Loot pile".
"Gain a Reward" is equivalent to "gain a Reward from the Reward pile".
"Gain an Augur" is equivalent to "gain an Augur from the Supply".

Since there is a general rule that effects that tell you to gain a card with a specific name can gain from non-Supply piles, it seems that there could/should be a rule saying the same thing about a specific type. Especially since both Loot gainers and Joust seem to follow such a rule already.

(All cards that gain from non-supply piles could have just said "from its pile" or "from their pile", and then Rats could only be gained from the Supply, just like Augurs. But that's too late I guess.)

[X-tra]

This is just people who seem like they might currently be playtesting, if there was something for them to playtest. Or at least making some comments. Not counting the one online-only playtester who I don't really know, don't remember how they got there even, but man they do say things sometimes (it's X-tra; hi X-tra).

Oh uh, I know this is almost two months old, but I haven't been all too active on these forums lately. I feel like I should address this.

So, essentially, I was hanging in the depths of the variant community for Dominion, made some stuff that attracted the attention of LastFootnote, and we began testing some of our custom stuff on Tabletop Simulator. We played for a while, until he deemed me trustworthy enough to playtest some Allies games back when it was still in development. I passed my comments to him, which I believe he has relayed to you thereafter, though I told him not to mention they were from me. I was being a bit shy about it and sort of didn't want to impose. I already felt privileged enough as it was to have this opportunity.

Anyway, fast forward to TGG making their app. Sometimes during the ride, Jeff contacted me, wondering if I was interested to playtest there following LastFootnote's recommendation. I said yes, and here we are. I mostly just try to find bugs with the app and handle some of the translation. Sometimes, I try to collect my courage and pass my opinions about cards being tested, though I'm not always too confident about what I have to say. I definitely approach Dominion in a more casual way, and since I'm not a top scoreboard player (nor did I ever attempt to be), that makes me a bit more reluctant to be vocal. What do I know over all those pros, y'know? Still, I'll try to be less quiet about it in the future. Nobody likes a guy who just tags along for the ride.

And that's pretty much how I snuck my way there.

[segura]

I'm not actually sure what the Ferryman / Acolyte question is. Is it, can Acolyte get an Augur? That would go back to, what exactly is the rule for gaining outside of the supply. We want the default to be supply only; you can't Workshop stuff not in the game, and we don't want to have to say that on Workshop. We also want e.g. "gain a Horse" to not need more text to let you know you really can get one, when anyone playing will be sure they can get a Horse. And "gain a Duchy" can't gain a non-supply Duchy, one you left out because you only had two players. That all seems intuitive, so the tricky case is gaining by type. You know that "gain a Loot" works, and of course that's the same thing as the Horse case, except it's a type. And it's all covered in the rulebook, what "gain a Loot" means and how you shuffle the Loots. Augurs don't anticipate this. Augurs are a pile, so they work fine with Ferryman; you get an Acolyte, it says "gain an Augur," and there's no Loot-like exception there.

I can see the argument that it should be defined differently. But it can't just be e.g. "gaining has to be of cards being used this game," unless you want Workshops gaining Ghosts and things. And you know, those non-supply piles were made with the idea that Workshops couldn't get them.

Yeah, I don't think these rules are very intuitive.
"Gain a Rats" is equivalent to "gain a Rats from the Rats pile".
"Gain a Loot" is equivalent to "gain a Loot from the Loot pile".
"Gain a Reward" is equivalent to "gain a Reward from the Reward pile".
"Gain an Augur" is equivalent to "gain an Augur from the Supply".

On the contrary, they are quite intuitive and don’t cause any issues.

[Donald X.]

Yeah, I don't think these rules are very intuitive.
"Gain a Rats" is equivalent to "gain a Rats from the Rats pile".
"Gain a Loot" is equivalent to "gain a Loot from the Loot pile".
"Gain a Reward" is equivalent to "gain a Reward from the Reward pile".
"Gain an Augur" is equivalent to "gain an Augur from the Supply".

As always there's also:
"Gain a Duchy" is equivalent to "gain a Duchy from the Supply."

(You can't take one of the 4 not being used in a 2-player game.)

Since there is a general rule that effects that tell you to gain a card with a specific name can gain from non-Supply piles, it seems that there could/should be a rule saying the same thing about a specific type. Especially since both Loot gainers and Joust seem to follow such a rule already.

(All cards that gain from non-supply piles could have just said "from its pile" or "from their pile", and then Rats could only be gained from the Supply, just like Augurs. But that's too late I guess.)

It sucked to have to put "from its pile" on e.g. "gain a Horse." And I was confident that everyone knew that "gain a Horse" would work; that the game wasn't just laughing in their face, "ha ha I'm telling you to gain a Horse but you can't!" It would be clear.

So the Sept 2019 rules change is: "When a card tells you to gain a non-Supply card by name, you can gain it from its pile, even though it's not in the Supply."

That doesn't cover Loot/Rewards, but those rulebooks got to cover those things.

And that's where it stands... so "gain an Augur" has no official exception and so doesn't work if Augurs aren't in the supply.

It's not quite as simple as making "gain a type" be part of that rule; we don't want "gain a Treasure" to get you non-supply Treasures. You have to explain the difference between Treasure and Augur there. It's doable but well it wasn't relevant when I did the errata, and Ferryman/Augur has not motivated me to change this non-rulebook-rule further yet.

[Jeebus]

It's not quite as simple as making "gain a type" be part of that rule; we don't want "gain a Treasure" to get you non-supply Treasures. You have to explain the difference between Treasure and Augur there.

Good point!

[GendoIkari]

I'm not actually sure what the Ferryman / Acolyte question is. Is it, can Acolyte get an Augur? That would go back to, what exactly is the rule for gaining outside of the supply. We want the default to be supply only; you can't Workshop stuff not in the game, and we don't want to have to say that on Workshop. We also want e.g. "gain a Horse" to not need more text to let you know you really can get one, when anyone playing will be sure they can get a Horse. And "gain a Duchy" can't gain a non-supply Duchy, one you left out because you only had two players. That all seems intuitive, so the tricky case is gaining by type. You know that "gain a Loot" works, and of course that's the same thing as the Horse case, except it's a type. And it's all covered in the rulebook, what "gain a Loot" means and how you shuffle the Loots. Augurs don't anticipate this. Augurs are a pile, so they work fine with Ferryman; you get an Acolyte, it says "gain an Augur," and there's no Loot-like exception there.

I can see the argument that it should be defined differently. But it can't just be e.g. "gaining has to be of cards being used this game," unless you want Workshops gaining Ghosts and things. And you know, those non-supply piles were made with the idea that Workshops couldn't get them.

Yeah, I don't think these rules are very intuitive.
"Gain a Rats" is equivalent to "gain a Rats from the Rats pile".
"Gain a Loot" is equivalent to "gain a Loot from the Loot pile".
"Gain a Reward" is equivalent to "gain a Reward from the Reward pile".
"Gain an Augur" is equivalent to "gain an Augur from the Supply".

Since there is a general rule that effects that tell you to gain a card with a specific name can gain from non-Supply piles, it seems that there could/should be a rule saying the same thing about a specific type. Especially since both Loot gainers and Joust seem to follow such a rule already.

(All cards that gain from non-supply piles could have just said "from its pile" or "from their pile", and then Rats could only be gained from the Supply, just like Augurs. But that's too late I guess.)

So hold on... is it currently the case that if you get a Rats from Black Market, it will still gain you more Rats when played, due to the rule being that if you're instructed to gain a specific card then you do, even if it's not in the supply? I don't think I remember this being discussed back when the remove "from its pile" errata was first announced.

*Edit*, or, based on Donald X's last post, is "a non-Supply card" a card that specifically says it's a non-Supply card (Horses, etc)? Or is it any card that happens to not be in the Supply in this current game?

[Jeebus]

So hold on... is it currently the case that if you get a Rats from Black Market, it will still gain you more Rats when played, due to the rule being that if you're instructed to gain a specific card then you do, even if it's not in the supply? I don't think I remember this being discussed back when the remove "from its pile" errata was first announced.

*Edit*, or, based on Donald X's last post, is "a non-Supply card" a card that specifically says it's a non-Supply card (Horses, etc)? Or is it any card that happens to not be in the Supply in this current game?

As Donald X. wrote above, the rule is: When a card tells you to gain a non-Supply card by name, you can gain it from its pile, even though it's not in the Supply.

So Rats can gain a Rats from the Rats pile, not from the box.

And actually, "gain a Duchy" does not mean "gain a Duchy from the Supply", it means "gain a Duchy from the Duchy pile". If Duchy could have been chosen for Ferryman's non-supply pile, Transmute could gain it from there.
The only thing stopping Transmute from gaining Duchies left in the box in 2-player games, has to be the clause that it can only gain cards from their pile.

[infangthief]

And actually, "gain a Duchy" does not mean "gain a Duchy from the Supply", it means "gain a Duchy from the Duchy pile". If Duchy could have been chosen for Ferryman's non-supply pile, Transmute could gain it from there.
The only thing stopping Transmute from gaining Duchies left in the box in 2-player games, has to be the clause that it can only gain cards from their pile.

I mean, "gain a Duchy" could mean either "from the Supply" or "from its pile"; the two are indistinguishable as long as the Duchy pile is always in the Supply, and there's no wacky way for Duchies to find themselves in other piles.

I believe the point you are making is that there is no need for Duchy to be an exception to the principle that "gain a <named card>" means "gain a <named card> from its pile".

[Jeebus]

And actually, "gain a Duchy" does not mean "gain a Duchy from the Supply", it means "gain a Duchy from the Duchy pile". If Duchy could have been chosen for Ferryman's non-supply pile, Transmute could gain it from there.
The only thing stopping Transmute from gaining Duchies left in the box in 2-player games, has to be the clause that it can only gain cards from their pile.

I mean, "gain a Duchy" could mean either "from the Supply" or "from its pile"; the two are indistinguishable as long as the Duchy pile is always in the Supply, and there's no wacky way for Duchies to find themselves in other piles.

I believe the point you are making is that there is no need for Duchy to be an exception to the principle that "gain a <named card>" means "gain a <named card> from its pile".

"Gain a named card" means gain it from its pile, no matter if that pile is in the Supply or not. Sure, the Duchy pile happens to be in the Supply, but it needn't have been. Just like in the case of Rats. Only gain effects that don't mention the name gain specifically from the Supply. (This includes gaining by type, gaining by cost, or gaining a card with the same or a different name as another card.)

[GendoIkari]

So hold on... is it currently the case that if you get a Rats from Black Market, it will still gain you more Rats when played, due to the rule being that if you're instructed to gain a specific card then you do, even if it's not in the supply? I don't think I remember this being discussed back when the remove "from its pile" errata was first announced.

*Edit*, or, based on Donald X's last post, is "a non-Supply card" a card that specifically says it's a non-Supply card (Horses, etc)? Or is it any card that happens to not be in the Supply in this current game?

As Donald wrote above, the rule is: When a card tells you to gain a non-Supply card by name, you can gain it from its pile, even though it's not in the Supply.

So Rats can gain a Rats from the Rats pile, not from the box.

And actually, "gain a Duchy" does not mean "gain a Duchy from the Supply", it means "gain a Duchy from the Duchy pile". If Duchy could have been chosen for Ferryman's non-supply pile, Transmute could gain it from there.
The only thing stopping Transmute from gaining Duchies left in the box in 2-player games, has to be the clause that it can only gain cards from their pile.

It seems this still requires further rulebook clarification (that may already exist, I don't know) to tell us that card not taken out of the Box do not constitute "a pile". Does this work for Horses and Spoils? Are there rules specifically saying to take Horses and Spoils out of the box and make a pile of them if anything used this game can gain one?

[StrangerSon712]

So hold on... is it currently the case that if you get a Rats from Black Market, it will still gain you more Rats when played, due to the rule being that if you're instructed to gain a specific card then you do, even if it's not in the supply? I don't think I remember this being discussed back when the remove "from its pile" errata was first announced.

*Edit*, or, based on Donald X's last post, is "a non-Supply card" a card that specifically says it's a non-Supply card (Horses, etc)? Or is it any card that happens to not be in the Supply in this current game?

As Donald wrote above, the rule is: When a card tells you to gain a non-Supply card by name, you can gain it from its pile, even though it's not in the Supply.

So Rats can gain a Rats from the Rats pile, not from the box.

And actually, "gain a Duchy" does not mean "gain a Duchy from the Supply", it means "gain a Duchy from the Duchy pile". If Duchy could have been chosen for Ferryman's non-supply pile, Transmute could gain it from there.
The only thing stopping Transmute from gaining Duchies left in the box in 2-player games, has to be the clause that it can only gain cards from their pile.

It seems this still requires further rulebook clarification (that may already exist, I don't know) to tell us that card not taken out of the Box do not constitute "a pile". Does this work for Horses and Spoils? Are there rules specifically saying to take Horses and Spoils out of the box and make a pile of them if anything used this game can gain one?

There is. The rulebook enforces setup when those things are necessary. And for a case more real than Duchy, Rats cannot be gained by a Black Market Rats, but they can from a Ferryman Rats.

[Donald X.]

It seems this still requires further rulebook clarification (that may already exist, I don't know) to tell us that card not taken out of the Box do not constitute "a pile". Does this work for Horses and Spoils? Are there rules specifically saying to take Horses and Spoils out of the box and make a pile of them if anything used this game can gain one?

"In games using cards that refer to Horses, keep the Horse pile handy." Is what the Menagerie rulebook says in the setup section, for example. Then the Horses section goes over things like "This is a non-Supply pile; you can only gain a Horse from it when a card tells you to gain a Horse, not with cards like Falconer or Displace."

As always I like to have rulebooks not include answers to questions that never really come up. Aside from fun internet conversations, people do not ask me what a "pile" is.

[GendoIkari]

Aside from fun internet conversations, people do not ask me what a "pile" is.

In all honesty, when reading Jeebus's "'Gain a Rats' is equivalent to 'gain a Rats from the Rats pile'" combined with your "When a card tells you to gain a non-Supply card by name, you can gain it from its pile, even though it's not in the Supply", I really thought this meant that a Black Market Rats would now be able to gain another Rats. The answer of "Rats in the box are not a pile" is fine, but was not the clear only obvious choice of ruling there.

[Donald X.]

Aside from fun internet conversations, people do not ask me what a "pile" is.

In all honesty, when reading Jeebus's "'Gain a Rats' is equivalent to 'gain a Rats from the Rats pile'" combined with your "When a card tells you to gain a non-Supply card by name, you can gain it from its pile, even though it's not in the Supply", I really thought this meant that a Black Market Rats would now be able to gain another Rats. The answer of "Rats in the box are not a pile" is fine, but was not the clear only obvious choice of ruling there.

I wasn't somehow telling you that you knew the answer; I was saying that it's not the kind of thing I want in a rulebook. It still isn't.

[Nukatha]

All of this is just distraction from the fact that Dominion is the only game that allows you to purchase rats on the black market.

[dz]

What did you have for breakfast today, yesterday, and tomorrow?

Have you ever written a post (on here and/or discord), and decided at the last minute to not bother posting it?

How happy are you with Joust replacing Tournament? I ask because your playtesters basically pressured you into doing it, and I'm sure there are people who think Joust wasn't enough of an improvement.

What animation speed and background do you use on dominion.games?

Since I never technically got permission: am I allowed to share stuff from the private Donald X. discord, as long as it’s about already-released games (like this or that)? And did I just accidentally get myself banned from playtesting by pointing out those posts?

Usually you’re the guy defending the thing that people hate (recent example, Loot). How do you feel when the opposite happens and you’re the guy lamenting the thing that people love (recent example, Overlord)?
(My hot takes are that Loot doesn’t bother me and I don’t even groan when I see it, and I’ve gotten sick of Overlord and I’d be happy if I never saw it again.)

[Donald X.]

What did you have for breakfast today, yesterday, and tomorrow?

Most days I have fruit and a flax muffin, and those days weren't/aren't/are unlikely to be exceptions. Yesterday the fruit was strawberries and blueberries, today an apple.

Have you ever written a post (on here and/or discord), and decided at the last minute to not bother posting it?

Probably? Certainly I've done it at other places.

How happy are you with Joust replacing Tournament? I ask because your playtesters basically pressured you into doing it, and I'm sure there are people who think Joust wasn't enough of an improvement.

Well it went over great among the loud voices on the internet. And I wasn't confident it would, so hooray! I suspect it could be weaker and still be good, but I'm not sad about it.

What animation speed and background do you use on dominion.games?

Swift and 9 (the Dominion 2E cover).

Since I never technically got permission: am I allowed to share stuff from the private Donald X. discord, as long as it’s about already-released games (like this or that)?

Uh probably? Certainly the placeholder art from TGG is fine. Dominion outtakes are problematic in that maybe I want to fix up that concept someday; revealed outtakes want to be unfixable or things that stay close to the published card.

Usually you’re the guy defending the thing that people hate (recent example, Loot). How do you feel when the opposite happens and you’re the guy lamenting the thing that people love (recent example, Overlord)?
(My hot takes are that Loot doesn’t bother me and I don’t even groan when I see it, and I’ve gotten sick of Overlord and I’d be happy if I never saw it again.)

People love Loot, you can't fool me. The loud voices on discord aren't everybody. If everyone hated it, I don't think I'd be defending it.

It's a bummer when people want e.g. Throne / Horse to work and I give in. Them liking a card I don't isn't so bad, though I'll still try to avoid those mistakes in the future.

[Nflickner]

Do you ever play other deckbuilding games?  What are your thoughts on how deckbuilding has shaped so many games since Dominion, and how it has become one of the dominant mechanics in board games, alongside worker placement, etc.?   Thanks again for how you have made your latest expansions your best ones   (Reminds me of how Jesus saved the best wine for last at the wedding He was invited to). 

[Donald X.]

Do you ever play other deckbuilding games?  What are your thoughts on how deckbuilding has shaped so many games since Dominion, and how it has become one of the dominant mechanics in board games, alongside worker placement, etc.?

I mostly avoid playing Dominion-derivative games; I may want to make some myself, and don't want to be accused of ripping off some rip off. I've played a few though, specifically ones that weren't so much like Dominion. I've played: Eminent Domain; the one where you build a hand of cows while traversing a board that we mess with; and uh man the chips one that had a sequel and uh like you have monk chips and knight chips and so on, and activate abilities with sets of chips. And I played the Knizia one, but that one was way too derivative, very disappointing.

In the early days of Dominion-derivative games, they were mostly so very sad. Just, people copied Dominion, made it worse, and told themselves it was a new game. It was clear to me that all of the decisions I'd made were actually decisions, since I'd made them; "build a deck while playing" doesn't just mean "Dominion in its entirety." So I mean. I used to say, it's great that people got to make Dominion-inspired games, and sad what they chose to do with that ability. Eventually people did make games that were inspired by Dominion but actually new games; I always cited Eminent Domain and A Few Acres of Snow (which were early ones).

These days, well, I don't know much about these games; again, I mostly am avoiding them, intentionally. I've never even played Slay the Spire, though Sir Martin keeps trying to get me to.

"Build a deck while playing" has a key virtue for me, outside of "you get to explore what that means," which Dominion already does. And that is, that it lets you create more complex board positions than tableaus do, as you hide away your tableau in your deck. It's a great tool there. And for all I know people have made some great games that use that part and aren't just clones. It's certainly a tool you could do more with. My upcoming game Moon Colony Bloodbath has a deckbuilding element (and is nothing like Dominion).

Thanks again for how you have made your latest expansions your best ones

You get better as you go along; that's really all there is to it there. If I'd had e.g. Menagerie in 2008, well I sure wouldn't have saved it for years and years. And players got better, so playtesting got better too.

[LibraryAdventurer]

These days, well, I don't know much about these games; again, I mostly am avoiding them, intentionally. I've never even played Slay the Spire, though Sir Martin keeps trying to get me to.

FWIW, Slay the Spire has almost nothing in common with Dominion except the most basic buying cards to add to your deck.

[segura]

Most contemporary games with deckbuilding have as much to do with Dominion as a game with worker placement has to do with Caylus.