| From: | ">>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<<" <axlrose@**********.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Future expansions - specialization... |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:03:46 -0400 |
<Snipped my own text...>
>I don't know. I can see the plus side. The card as included with the
starter pack >explaining the optional rules of this set would allow you to
free up card text space. >Text space on individual cards is a precious
commodity and sets its own limits on just >what type of card you can create
or do with it.
I understand this point completely. When I look back upon my early
attempts at cards and compare what I created now, I ask myself "How in the
hell would all that fit?" That is what makes creating new cards so hard -
saying what you want to say in so few words.
>However, though the idea of specialzed themed sets is cool in it's own
right, I think >on a primal game mechanics level it would muddy the waters
more than anything.
>At least, right now, if I were to play with someone who may not have any
Underworld >cards, he can read the card I just put out and see what it's
capable of.
This is true. Though like anything else, as you have seen on the list, how
one person interprets the wording compared to another can and will be two
different points. Even with some aspects of the cards explained in further
details in the rule book thingy, people still 'argue' points back and forth.
>If it was a specialized set, just using the word "virus" in it's deck but
relying on a >special rules card or mini-RBT to explain the mechanics, that
could be a problem.
This I understand also - much depends on how much ~background~ someone
would have in a wide variety of the cards that would be available. Using
the Underworld example, stating what a virus is and can do will allow
someone to learn a new aspect of the game. But if the keyword is listed in
a special rules card that is then accepted across all fields of the game,
in time the word should become accepted for what it could do. For example,
in the Limited Edition, Gore Tusk is anti-social. The anti-social trait is
explained in the RBT what it curtails. Then in the Underworld, Bonsai is
anti-social also. But there was no explanation for it required because in
part that Underworld is but an expansion to Limited. Underworld introduced
some new points towards the Limited, and my understanding is that Corp Wars
will do the same. So in time, if someone does not have an expansion, will
game mechanics from that expansion then be voided in games? Will card text
that tries its best to explain something that a player does not understand
or sees the whole differently, then be omitted?
>I may know perfectly how the virus is supposed to work, so I didn't bring
my little >rule card to the game. In a tourney environment, this could lead
to added work load for >judges and refs as it's a "his-word-against-mine"
on what my virus card does.
I would believe unless the game was perfectly worded, there could always be
the possibility of conflicting ideas over wording. My point was could it
be feasible in time to introduce new keywords into the game so over time,
other expansions could use said words to expand card ideas? The virus as
introduced into Underworld would do this and that while explained in both
the next edition (second, third...) and Underworld. Matt, Teos, and
whomever else creates Amerindian card ideas and want the whole to have a
central boost or bane, could create a keyword that is explained in both the
next edition and in their expansions. Outer space encounters with the
keywords of 'Outer Space' would be explained in both sets. New ways to
promote so the widest group of people could and would understand the new
keywords could be via this list, via FASA themselves, via the newsletter(s)
in the works. I would like to limit the work load required on the cards to
explain points so I could use that space to expand onto new points.
>Do you see my point?
Of course - I am always up for different views to expand what I want to do.
> -== Loki ==-
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<
