Population — Me
Every day I bother to log on I’ve gleefully watched my “Games Played for last 30 days” count fall. Ignoring bridge (2 sessions) and solo games its now two, both played with my kids. When I took my son to game night, I didn’t play a thing and felt good, that meant my number would go down. I took the time to call people and chat.
Sometimes I get looks when people invite me to play a game and I decline. I won’t lie, sometimes it is personal, but that’s a small percentage of the population and gamer stereotypes exist for a reason. I found the “courage” to duck boring games a decade ago; now I’m ducking games I like.
Hopefully, Hopefully, this is my Lent to enjoy belated Fat Fridays. But I don’t actually like conventions. I discovered this at Austin Game Fest a few years back – a ‘meh’ day I spent ducking games – but I apparently never posted about that day. I sat with friends and didn’t play more than a handful of games over 30 hours and I’d paid money (quite a bit, counting hotels). And its not just gaming conventions, my best WorldCon moments involved watching my kids have fun.
I am looking forward to next week, even if I continue my perverse gaming hate I’ll catch up with old friends, stay up late and oversleep and generally relax. Maybe I can route my schedule back to normal by regressing via collegiate debauchery, at least clock-wise. (Working an odd shift for the Q1 contributed to my mood). Games, right now, are just a bonus.
Perchance I’ll have something interesting to say then, too.
So consider this a pre-apology and confession, if I duck out on a game.
What is the greatest audible in television history?
What writer/director/actor just took the script, threw it away, and made a good show great? This is a serious question, because I don’t know most of the stories behind shows. But I do know the story behind Justified, and it’s the great audible I know of. Justified has a mere two episodes left until it disappears from the air, and has been one of my two spring-time shows for the last few years.
Why? Justified’s writers understand, deep in their marrow, two things:
- Gunfights (explosions, etc) don’t create tension. Waiting for the inevitable gunfight creates tension.
- The world needs more Elmore “God-damn” Leonard (who sadly died last year). The man could write, and this shows has roughly one great line per act.
There’s also comic relief, will-they-or-won’t-they, great actors (Character Actress Margo Martindale’s Emmy) criminals ranging from “eternal survivor” to “brilliant mastermind” to “crazy psychopath” to the (frequent) “average stupid guy who can’t stay out of jail.”
And Justified, to my knowledge, has the greatest audible in TV history … not killing Walton Goggins in the pilot, but keeping his character (Boyd Crowder) as the frenemy and dark mirror to Timothy Olyphant’s Raylan Givens. I’d never seen Goggins before, but I went back to watch The Shield (the other major show he’s been in). Goggins is good, but Boyd commands the screen — the articulate hillbilly former preacher with neo-nazi tattoos whose love of explosives took him from the mines to the army and back to crime.
Dear Lord, before we eat this meal, we ask forgiveness for our sins. Especially Boyd, who blew up a black church with a rocket launcher, and afterwards he shot his associate Jared Hale in the back of the head out on Tate’s Creek Bridge. Let the image of Jared’s brain matter on that windshield not dampen our appetites, but may the knowledge of Boyd’s past sins help guide these men. May this food provide them with all the nourishment they need. But if it does not, may they find comfort in knowing that the United States Marshal Service is offering fifty thousand dollars to any individual providing information that will put Boyd back in prison. Cash or check, we can make it out to them, or to Jesus, whoever they want. In your name, we pray. Amen. — Raylan Givens
The final Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality chapter posted today and it’s safe to say that the last month that has been my obsession. It will, inevitably, fade; but it has been a great obsession.
In looking back on my greatest media obsessions, I note one thing. They never end on a binge. I may (often do) start by catching up. Those goes hand in hand with my belief that it’s an efficient use of my time to let others filter out the vast majority of entertainment (unless it’s just clear that it should be in my wheelhouse). But once that filter is hit, then I’m perfectly content to catch up over the space of a weekend/month or whatever.
Part of the enjoyment of truly great writing is letting it roll over you and pondering how the next chapter/episode/book will play out. Rarely does the writer’s answer work as well as all those things you imagined. I’m not just speaking of the final exam, for example many of the writers in the SF club in college debated how to resolve The Best of Both Worlds, part I and I heard several brilliant ideas, the best being totally unfeasible for TV. So, I waited for each month’s Sandman (once I heard about it, roughly halfway through the series). I’m buying each month’s Saga, the same way (having been introduced via the first hardcover). I got up at 5.30 am on Monday mornings to watch the final season of Breaking Bad. The only possible exception to “Don’t finish on a binge” rule I can think of is Patrick O’Brian’s classic series and it’s hard to binge a 20-book 6,000 densely written page series; it took me years to read it (the first time).
Many series I enjoyed do not rise to the label of great art (which I define roughly: something which can be viewed multiple times with increasing pleasure and deeper understanding each time) but even then there’s something to be said for watching at least the final season in real time. (Spoiler prevention being the other great reason). The timing, the shared conversations with other fans, it gives the art a rhythm that even music lacks.
What does this have to do with games? Great long games cannot be shortened, although you can make a similar short game that may also be great. But it’s not the same experience. Duration (itself) is no sign of quality, but the subtle, drawn out drama has greater highs and lows than the binged pleasure.
That, I think, is the same for both genres.
Thanks to A____ R____ (a nobleman of most refined tastes) I have been made aware of the new Pandante rules and Kickstarter for Pandante 2.0 / Expansion. However, having read the proposed updates I must admit I am a sad panda. Presumably 2.0 adds something, but let’s look at the rules changes.
The breakfast step has been removed — A minor change, but I thought being able to keep your hand, and when to buy was interesting.
The ante is now 3 gold instead of 1 gold (but you can fold on the first betting round) — Already Pandante was somewhat no-fold-em (I tended to fold more than most, in the local game), the bigger pots will make it more so.
Floosh and full house swapped positions in hand rank — Calculating the odds of getting a hand (ignoring snacks) did indicate that they were in the right position before. (And believe me, doing those calculations was tricky). But in my initial notes on Pandante Strategy (unpublished), I note that two pair is the kiss of death. It’s a very inflexible hand. So, I agree with the rationale that a busted Floosh may often salvage something but a busted full house is probably toast, so I do not mind this change (assuming I had corrected mats).
Somewhat streamlined kicker and challenge rules — I am ambivalent.
The Joker wins the full pot, but hands with joker’s lose ties — Strongly against. The joker was a mixed blessing, usually beneficial but also forcing some caution on abilities and sometimes with hand declaration (to try to win without having to reveal the joker). I’ve thrown the joker away and been right. The current joker is still not always better than other cards, but it’s not nearly as interesting.
Abilities can no longer be challenged and are no longer tied to suits — Pandas do drugs? This is simply bad.
Not having read the full list of new abilities, perhaps the new game is amazing. But let me be clear. The abilities (and challenging thereof) are Pandante’s heart. I’m not sure how long my strategy notes would be if I finished them, but they would be much, much shorter with 2.0 rules.
- You can make money by suckering people with abilities, even if you lose the hand.
- Linking abilities to suits means there are 15 different combinations of the 7-2 offsuit (ignoring which suit is high) (+ six combinations of 7-2 suited). They are all phenomenally different. And the values of suits change based on position. 7-2 Red/Green is good in under the gun, and mediocre on the button. 7-2 Orange/X is terrible early, mediocre in the middle, and reasonable on the button.
- They are modifying or eliminating Black (Greed). Greed was good. Greed was right. Greed works. Greed makes some borderline hands playable and also induces folding in others. The blue/black interaction is a fascinating subgame, as the distinguished gentleman above noted.
- On a related note, the Panda Lords are also changed for one ability, which means that the suits are all indistinguishable. Ugh.
- I fully understand that this is the slow part of the game. That’s because this is the interesting part. The lying and challenging. Snacks selection is basically a mathematical game (with some assumption setting).
Finally, the challenge rules are such that multiple people challenge (simultaneously) only one gets paid. Again, no.
It may very well be that the new game is still interesting, or even more interesting. However, these rules do not inspire confidence.
 So far around 8-10k words.
 I mean, as 7-2 hands go.
I had a thought: “Which famous celebrity, living or dead, fictional or real, would you want to play Celebrities with?”
- The celebrity is your partner. You don’t have to want to win, but if you do, you do.
- We assume all Celebrities magically speak English and know common celebrities, but also know all the obscure ones in their field.
Ones I thought of:
- Marcel Marceau — Killer skills in round 3.
- Christopher Walken — Because it would be funny
- Abraham Lincoln — History’s straight man
- Nicollo Machiavelli — Just to see what he does.
The floor is open.
OK, I’ve played a few AP solo games, and my thoughts so far.
- If an AP rolls ECON its much harder. (The game where one AP got 3 ECON rolls was impossible). Give up X CP once t gain X CP/turn starting 3 turns later is great.
- Easy isn’t too difficult. Normal difficulty is much harder. So much so that I wonder if difficult can be beaten at all….
- The AP sends off too many small fleets.
- The AP has poor tech choices.
- It’s a bit to easy to see the movement.
- The AP launch a fleet that serves no purpose.
Here’s what I”m thinking of doing to modify it to make it a bit more uncertain and harder to predict. To keep it from being uniformly harder, I’m going to make ECON rolls weaker. You may also have to lower the CP a notch. Most of these are sever-able ideas, mix and match to taste. (I suspect at Normal difficulty you wouldn’t need all these rules).
- The AP gets instant tech upgrades. (Just to be clear).
- The human does his full econ phase before the alien’s roll.
- No nuking fleets by flipping unrevealed counters underneath alien fleets. (Too gamey).
- If the AP roll’s ECON, you get the die (in 3 turns, as normal) but the AP gets one die of NEGATIVE CP (to Fleet or Tech only, can go negative). So you give up 2 dice of production right now to get a die (forever) in 3 turns. (This maybe should even be 4 turns later).
- Decoys — When you first encounter an alien fleet in combat, before you roll for tech/fleet composition, figure out the fleet strength. If the die roll is a 1 (or less), the fleet is a decoy. It disappears and the AP gets the fleet points back on it’s sheet. A fleet that reaches a valuable undefended target (colony, pipeline) is never a decoy. Raider fleets may be decoys.
- Modifier 1 — Divide your fleet cost (in CP) by the AP fleet cost. If that’s 2 or higher, the modifier is that number -1. Example — the Alien Fleet is 18 CP. If your fleet is 6-35, it’s a decoy on a 1. If it’s 36-53, it’s a decoy on 1-2, etc.
- Modifier 2 — Subtract 1 from the roll unless the AP can afford to upgraded Size, Attack, Defense or Tactics. The AP is maxed out or would gain no benefit from upgrading those. This is -1 for all three, not -1 for each.
- Move Technology
- Alien Powers increase their move on 1-4, but if increasing their move technology would not shorten the time (in econ rounds) to reaching any legitimate target (at time of launch) there is a +1 to the roll. (Rationale — Why increase move if it’s not going to help? and this just sucks points from combat techs).
- Timing — The roll is made the first movement phase the alien would get a bump in movement. (This makes the alien reveal when a human would, not several phases earlier).
- Purchasing — When rolling to increase technologies, APs do not roll until they are out of points. If there are 3 rolls in a row that cannot be bought, aliens stop buying and save their money. ([i]Rationale[/i] — Often APs are forced to buy Minesweepers at lower levels, which puts them at a disadvantage).
- HW Defense — When you attack a HW seriously, all unrevealed fleets roll a d10. If the roll is greater or equal to their distance from the HW, the fleet is a decoy (put all fleet points back at the HW). Do the same for each ship that was revealed since the last econ phase. (A serious threat is one that could take the HW, not just to figure out if it’s bases or mines. There’s no good definition, use your judgement). Rationale — To prevent the player from just allowing a fleet to launch and then attack a weakened homeworld. Recalling revealed ships prevents gamey tactics, although it’s still useful.
- Turn order — Select the turn order you’d prefer (first or last). Roll a d10.
- 1-3: You get the order you prefer if you spent that many points on turn order bid. Otherwise you get the other one.
- 4-10: You get the order you wanted.
Gaming Heloise says go to a teaching store. Those have (had?) tubs of 1000 small plastic cubes in ten colors. Apart from being a wonderful chocking hazard for their target audience, they are useful in plenty of situations. Especially if you are prototyping. But you’ll also help…
…A game with too many counters in small hexes, you have 10 fleet counters and matching off board marker.
I bought one a decade ago for $20, and haven’t run out yet.