|
I wonder if letting players choose the items which get damaged when the vagabond gets smacked in some way could help. The most fun I've had with the vagabond was a multi vagabond game against a house rule buffed clockwork cat
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
I remember reading a series of blog posts which argued that the vagabond is broken in large part because they are effectively playing with their own resource pool - the items - which nobody else competes for. They thought that two vagabonds fixes this to some extent. Any truth to this? I have never played with two vagabonds. They also argued that the vagabond is fundamentally a failed design because the concept was supposed to be a faction too weak to win without allying themselves with another, but would have incentives to attract allies. What we got is a walking atom bomb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
It makes no real sense for the vagabond to get a solo victory anyway, he's one guy. You can't dominate a whole forest as just one guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Vagabond is not nearly as powerful/imbalanced here as many folks here seem to think. It can run the table if other players are inexperienced and all, but against competitive experienced players they can get really shut out. I think the newer advanced setup also randomizes which Vagabond card you get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
an iksar marauder posted:It makes no real sense for the vagabond to get a solo victory anyway, he's one guy. You can't dominate a whole forest as just one guy This gets at the element that made Root not click for me, which is that winning the game doesn't really feel like your faction succeeded to me, just that you performed enough of whatever arbitrary action scores you points to cross the 25 point threshold. I recognize that a lot of people do feel that theme coming through, but for me it didn't work enough to keep me playing the game (and is the one area that I do think Vast did better, even though it did everything else worse - killing the dragon/escaping the cave/etc. all felt like your faction had succeeded at its major goal to obtain the victory and directly beaten the others. Minus the thief of course, whose general disconnection from the others was why it was the worst.) To be fair, it's not my favorite type of board game anyway and I don't think the issue would have put me off if I did enjoy the mechanics more, but that thematic disconnect was sort of the final nail in the coffin for me personally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Vagabond is not nearly as powerful/imbalanced here as many folks here seem to think. It can run the table if other players are inexperienced and all, but against competitive experienced players they can get really shut out. I think the newer advanced setup also randomizes which Vagabond card you get. Vagabond's win rate is way above average on the BGG rankings in the most experienced group and shutting them down just involves repeatedly telling the player to skip a turn. It's boring for the vagabond player and sucks for whoever is on vagabond stomping duty because they immediately fall behind
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
an iksar marauder posted:Vagabond's win rate is way above average on the BGG rankings in the most experienced group and shutting them down just involves repeatedly telling the player to skip a turn. It's boring for the vagabond player and sucks for whoever is on vagabond stomping duty because they immediately fall behind BGG rankings are definitely a solid source of information  I'm not saying the faction is without design faults, mostly related to the skip a turn to recover and lack of VP for attacking them, but balance wise it's not as awful as implied and it plays an important role in the base game in clearing ruins. And it is still the most fun of the base factions to play, the items give a freedom and action economy no other faction has. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Sep 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
an iksar marauder posted:Vagabond's win rate is way above average on the BGG rankings in the most experienced group and shutting them down just involves repeatedly telling the player to skip a turn. It's boring for the vagabond player and sucks for whoever is on vagabond stomping duty because they immediately fall behind This is the issue really. For it to be fun to play the vagabond you need to work with other players but it's against the other players interest to work with the vagabond. You have to just shut the vagabond out, which really sucks for the person playing them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
DashingGentleman posted:I remember reading a series of blog posts which argued that the vagabond is broken in large part because they are effectively playing with their own resource pool - the items - which nobody else competes for. Recent expansions have changed this item pool competition. A faction (The Lord of Hundreds), a crafted card in the Exiles and Partisans deck (The League of Adventurous Mice), and at least one hireling (The Exile / The Brigand, though they are mutually exclusive with the Vagabond) allow more interaction with the Crafted Item box.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:BGG rankings are definitely a solid source of information Not sure what the relation of that ranking is to the google spreadsheet with hundreds of games logged into it (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yf1kZLdlWCSBdiROvzjIZt2Zay9ec7BzyIbdybI5NE4/edit#gid=831647157). It's been linked before and it's not perfect but there is zero proof that the vagabond only performs well against weak players aside from the occasional poster saying it
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
According to that, Corvids are the second strongest faction (ignoring the new two) behind Vagabond, which is extremely suspicious. Corvids have a lot of issues getting the last ~12 points without other players making obvious misplays. The balance issues with Root are more on the underpowered end than overpowered, people just really harp on the vagabond because they don't like playing against it and it's a strong faction overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
It's probably best to regard those win rate values as fuzzy (so, not precise values but with error bars for example). Like I said it's not perfect but it does make it more difficult to buy that the vagabond is a newbie stomper
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Since Root chat has come back up again, any tips for playing the Moles? I bought them mostly since I had read they are a good alternative to always having to have Cats/Birds as the main "military" faction on the board, and also because I don't already some expierence playing as/against them in the App version.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
an iksar marauder posted:Some vagabond subtypes are way better than others, might be worth banning the tinker for example What if instead, more tinker. A whole faction of tinker. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2619192/old-man-tinker-root-fan-faction
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Fate Accomplice posted:I thought it was neat and worth sharing; thank you for correcting me! I appreciated it I just don't have anything interesting to say about it. jmzero posted:Yeah, I know a few random people - family, co-workers - who did the Catan cycle ("wow so neat", "wow so neat except politics at the end", "huh actually this whole game is samey and frustrating", "maybe expansions/house-rules fix it?", "I promise I will never play Catan again") post Covid. I still don't like Catan for the same reason as ever, it inevitably leads to one player who gets left out because of bad rolls. Maybe if you're a group that plays Catan constantly you play fast enough not to care, or you just kibitz and don't care about the game much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:The 5th card isn't auctioned off, but it does help decide what cards are worth that season. At least that's the case in the Mayfair version. I remember because the helpful little explainer highlights some ill-considered terminology. Something like "Remember to evaluate all sold cards, even the 5th card which is not auctioned off I'm not sure what version we got, whatever the base one is? Those two cases, as per this rulebook: art only pays its value from previous seasons if it was hot this season (10, 20, or 30) and you can unload a lone 2x by playing it, then the person to the left can play one of the same suit to complete the 2x and they become auctioneer, passing to the left. If they can't then they pass to the left and it's the same deal. I don't know what happens if you play a 2x and no one has a matching suit to play?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 03:02
|
|
". Modern Art has enough editions, each having to rewrite the rulebook, that edge cases are even hazier than normal. Other examples are does art always pay its value(s) from previous seasons, even if they weren't in the top 3 this year? (no in Mayfair, seems to be yes in Oink), or what the gently caress happens if you only play 1 "double auction" card.
|
If nobody plays the second card in a double auction, the first player gets the first card.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Ah, yes, that's true. It never came up but the rules man said it in his video
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
The Shame Boy posted:Since Root chat has come back up again, any tips for playing the Moles? I bought them mostly since I had read they are a good alternative to always having to have Cats/Birds as the main "military" faction on the board, and also because I don't already some expierence playing as/against them in the App version. I played them for the first time this week. You really need to be as mobile as you can, spreading your pieces to several clearings and managing your card draws with markets so that you can play ministers. Make use of the fact that you don't have to rule or have presence to dig in a clearing. I was really hampered by the 2 action limit, so you have to manage your move, dig, build, and battle actions carefully and use your ministers to help that. Avoid turtling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:This is the issue really. For it to be fun to play the vagabond you need to work with other players but it's against the other players interest to work with the vagabond. You have to just shut the vagabond out, which really sucks for the person playing them. Yeah I remember reading somewhere, it said that if the Vagabond is having fun, it means no one else is; and if everyone is having fun, it means the Vagabond is not having fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 08:45
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Yeah I remember reading somewhere, it said that if the Vagabond is having fun, it means no one else is; and if everyone is having fun, it means the Vagabond is not having fun. This (plus all the other comments) are super gratifying, in a way, because we were so sure we'd hosed something up. This is secretly good news, because it means I have to buy more Root expansions! I got the other deck and the monuments, because they were cheap and seemed fairly inconsequential, but actually looking at the deck it looks a lot more appealing to me than base. Given I now have Base, Riverfolk and those small ones, what would you say is the best next purchase?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 09:18
|
|
|
I really like the moles and corvids, but people say the corvids are pretty weak/not well put together. I haven't actually played with the marauders expansion yet, but lord of the hundreds seems like it works really well from what I've goldfished
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
It's funny that I was answering Modern Art questions earlier in the thread, because I actually just had my first game of Modern Art tonight. I just had the info fresh in my head from reviewing it to teach people. I...won without every buying a painting? It was really close, but people were getting caught up in the moment, driving the price up, or buying their own auction, so there was a lot of money flowing around. I just managed to make sure I only ever gained money. Everyone had a great time!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 10:05
|
|
|
Vagabond chat: seconding that using Despot Infamy and/or running a Lord of the Hundreds alongside them makes the Vagabond a lot more palatable for the other players (and reduces the amount of policing the LoH that the others need to do). One thing that I didn't see mentioned and that you might have overlooked regarding a Vagabond going for points via Alliance: even warriors removed in defense will trigger the Hostile status, so you can attack the vagabond (and hope both dice are at least 1) to mess up their Alliance plans. The vagabond counter to this is to not take (or discard) all swords which makes them defenseless in combat (+1 extra hit). Player count chat: very dependent on your players. I've been running 5p for the last three weekends with a group completely new group to the game and the last time we got through three games in 5 hours, and that's with plenty of table talk, rules clarifications, etc. Ironically my regular group takes much longer because that group has a very AP-prone player.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 13:19
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Vagabond is not nearly as powerful/imbalanced here as many folks here seem to think. It can run the table if other players are inexperienced and all, but against competitive experienced players they can get really shut out. I think the newer advanced setup also randomizes which Vagabond card you get. Root is a heavily political game; the Vagabond being "within range of being balanced by politics, if the table is experienced" isn't really saying much. Or, rather, it's kind of leaning towards the opposite point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Root is a heavily political game; It’s really not though, especially compared to Cole‘s other designs, but even generally. It’s no more political than Blood Rage, Kemet, etc. Inis has more mechanical incentive for politics and deal making because of shared incentives to peacefully coexist in spaces. The only politicking in Root is bash the leader and strategic whining, but those are present in most games with direct conflict. It’s thematically political, but not mechanically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Root is a heavily political game
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Root is a heavily political game; the Vagabond being "within range of being balanced by politics, if the table is experienced" isn't really saying much. Or, rather, it's kind of leaning towards the opposite point. My thoughts nearly exactly. Genuine question for the Root lovers out there: I've played about a half dozen games of it (base + Otters) and I don't think I've ever had a Great Time™ with it. Every time the game collapses because one person isn't experienced enough (myself included) with a faction that leads to an imbalance and someone else naturally taking over. That's not including the vagabond vagabonding around and like people are saying, playing optimally means not having fun and wasting time bopping him while your opponents laugh and say thanks. So the question: is Root actually a Good Game? Because my surface analysis would be to say NO if only because it's in that category of "well you need to play it 30 times and have a dozen plays of each faction under your belt for it to shine and that goes for everyone you're playing with too". When the game clicks it's quite fun and I've had fun playing it but the amount of times I've sat down and just felt vaguely miserable (not to mention teaching the core game constantly AND THEN teaching each faction and their own unique mechanics) far outweighs the good times. Maybe the game just isn't for me or I need to play it more (a game that's only fun if you play it a dozen times seems suspect) but I have to say my copy is gathering dust on my shelf and I would rather pull out Pax Pamir and grind through the teaching for that than play Root.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
I like root
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
an iksar marauder posted:I like root everdell scythe
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It’s really not though, especially compared to Cole‘s other designs, but even generally. It’s no more political than Blood Rage, Kemet, etc. Inis has more mechanical incentive for politics and deal making because of shared incentives to peacefully coexist in spaces. CitizenKeen posted:A game being about politics doesn't make it a political game. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not saying it's "about politics" thematically, I'm saying it's political mechanically, in a game design theory sense. To clarify: A multi-player game (>2P) is "political" to the extent that players can choose to harm or help specific other players. "Bashing the leader" is one hallmark of a political game (along with others like "Fly Under the Radar", and "Only Trade with Losers"). When someone says that the vagabond is balanced as long as people choose to beat him up, that's saying that the role is balanced by politics. Edit: And yes, Root is no more political than some other very political games. But it's much more political than a random Euro (or a "conflict" game with more effective blunting of politics, like Tash Kalar or King of Tokyo). jmzero fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
I specifically addressed how Root is not political mechanically. The only exception is the Vagabond allying but that is basically never in play meaningfully. quote:"Bashing the leader" is one hallmark of a political game (along with others like "Fly Under the Radar", and "Only Trade with Losers"). None of those are political mechanics. Those are metagame concerns and pitfalls of multiplayer conflict designs. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I specifically addressed how Root is not political mechanically. The only exception is the Vagabond allying but that is basically never in play meaningfully. Sorry, again, I think we're just using a different definition here. I'm not using a regular definition, like "the activities associated with the governance of a country..." I'm using "politics" as a term of game design theory (eg. see the section on politics here: Characteristics of Games) jmzero fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I'm not using I'm using a regular definition, like "the activities associated with the governance of a country..." And it's pretty clear I'm not either. You're talking about out of game politics and I'm talking about in game mechanics that reinforce political workings, such as shared incentives in Pax Pamir, citizenship in Oath, etc. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I appreciated it I just don't have anything interesting to say about it. I dislike Catan for any number of reasons, but one thing you can do to even out bad rolls is use a "deck of dice" -- 37 cards, 36 of which represent the 2d6 bell curve of results and 1 reshuffle that you stick in over the last 6 or so cards in the deck for some small amount of randomness (if you like -- it's optional to include the reshuffle). If you don't have blank playing cards or opaque card sleeves to make your own, you can create your own with two packs of playing cards (discard kings and aces, use 1 Queen for the 12, 2 jacks for the 11s, and 1 joker for the reshuffle).
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:And it's pretty clear I'm not either. Ah yes, "politics" is "things that reinforce political workings". And a "horse" is a "horse shaped thing that horses". And for my supposed definition of politics, you've again used "politics" in the definition, and ignored the two explicit times I've defined exactly what I mean, and which isn't what you say. Also, how does your definition even fit how you used it previously?: Bottom Liner posted:The only politicking in Root is bash the leader and strategic whining,
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
I don't know why you don't see the difference in social politics above the table and mechanical politics in a game design. Strategic whining and game politics as you define them can be applied to any game with any level of player interaction. In Agricola you can beg people to not go to a certain spot, in Skull you can whine about someone bidding too high to start a round, in Ganz Schön Clever you can try to influence someone to take a certain die. None of those games are political. Social dynamics =/= game mechanics. Again, those are metagame concerns and pitfalls of multiplayer conflict designs. quote:Also, how does your definition even fit how you used it previously?: The very next sentence says that's not mechanically political. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I don't know why you don't see the difference in social politics above the table and mechanical politics in a game design. Strategic whining and game politics as you define them can be applied to any game with any level of player interaction. In Agricola you can beg people to not go to a certain spot, in Skull you can whine about someone bidding too high to start a round, in Ganz Schön Clever you can try to influence someone to take a certain die. None of those games are political. Social dynamics =/= game mechanics. Again, those are metagame concerns and pitfalls of multiplayer conflict designs. "Strategic whining" would be a good example of "out of game interactions that fit a normal definition of negotiation or politics". And this is what you seem to think I'm talking about when I say "politics". Please... please believe me that that's not what I'm talking about. I don't know how to make that clearer, at least not under my current assumption that you're not reading my posts before replying. And yes, clearly there is some level of "politics" (by my definition) in almost all multiplayer games. But that doesn't mean that there isn't variance between games with high politics (Risk) and low politics (Dominion). Edit: To be clear, I said "my definition" above, but I mean "the definition I'm using". Which I learned out of a textbook. And sorry, yes, when you wrote this: quote:The only politicking in Root is bash the leader and strategic whining, but those are present in most games with direct conflict. It’s thematically political, but not mechanically. ...I assumed the "it" was "Root", not "strategic whining", so I may have misunderstood what you where trying to say with that. (ie. I thought you were saying Root had some politics - "bash the leader" - but that that alone didn't make it political). jmzero fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
Can you explain why your definition of politics (jmzero) includes bash-the-leader but not strategic whining? In my mind it would be hard to distinguish between those two. Strategic Whining: "Don't keep attacking me, it's not fair, I'm never going to wiiiiiin...." Bash the Leader: "Don't focus on yourself, focus on Tim, if you don't attack Tim he's going to wiiiiiiin...."
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
I quoted your list of political game hallmarks, so yeah, I know what you're saying. The book you referenced is not concerned with mechanics but social dynamics creating a political experience out of game, and even agrees that those elements often devolve into the flawed chip-taking example. Kingmaking in Root is not political. It's a bad outcome of the design that sometimes rears its head. Kingmaking in Oath is political, because it can have in-game ramifications and reasons for why you would choose one player over another. Alliances are in-game, not above the table such as in Risk. The game itself is mechanically political.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:59
|
|