Design flaw: the over-emphasis on character antagonism

[Kiero]

I've been giving the Adventure Game some thought this morning on something I think gets right to the heart of some of the major problems with play. That is what I consider to be an over-emphasis in the design on character vs character conflict.

Now I'll clarify exactly what I mean by distinguishing it from the player vs player conflict that is provided through two means: use of Screw This! cards and how you place your Battle Deck. That dynamic, to my mind works very well, providing opportunities to both help and hinder your fellow players, and without it being especially personal. Nor does it impact on the character level, since it's all in the metagame space.

On the other hand, character antagonism (specifically attacking and stealing from the other characters with your character's Schticks) feeds into two of the biggest problems: the game running long and lack of balance between the characters. It also, IMO lacks a thematic justification, in the way it operates in the game.

What I mean is that the Order of the Stick, for all their foibles is largely a functional party who co-operate quite a lot. For all that Belkar talks a good game about hating the others and wanting to kill them, he doesn't actually do very much of it in the comic. Mostly because he realises that should he do so, the others would kill him in short order. None of the rest of the characters ever get anything more than verbal with the others.

It's in the design of Belkar that this flaw is epitomised. The optimum strategy for Belkar's player is essentially to antagonise the other players by attacking them, and basically slow the game down. Unlike the use of Screw This! cards and placement of monsters, this is the kind of thing that easily spirals out of control, turning the game into a feud between Belkar's player and everyone else. One which is to the detriment of speedy resolution. Where the inclusion of Elan as a PC tends to make the atmosphere a more co-operative one, a PC-Belkar makes it more antagonistic.

This is because his Schticks are much more effective against the players than they are the monsters; which is completely contradictory, given in the comics not only does he never actually fight the others, but he's pretty damned effective at killing things too.

It also creates a slew of Schticks and an entire mode of the game geared towards the other characters defending themselves against Belkar. V has a hard enough time as a ranged character with flippable powers without having to watch out for Belkar's player attacking him every time he rests. Haley is as effective as Roy in a scrap and has nothing to fear from Belkar. I think this dynamic is wasteful, both in terms of what other more interesting abilities everyone could have had instead, and forcing the player of Belkar into a nasty bind. They can forfeit the game for the sake of a nice playing atmosphere and getting the game over with, or they can become the focus of everyone else's negative feeling and bring the game grinding to a halt.

I think the game would run much smoother if all Belkar's "anti-player" Schticks were changed for those like Roy's or Haley's that work against monsters, and all the "anti-Belkar" Schticks were replaced with something else. Not only would it give Belkar's player a chance of playing in a positive way, it would also speed up the game and give everyone a few more interesting abilities. Plus V wouldn't be as nerfed as he/she already is.

You'd have a viable Belkar, and more than enough player antagonism in the metagaming.

Does anyone have any ideas for simple fixes that might alter Belkar to be less player antagonism-focused, and better at fighting monsters?

[Kiero]

I've had a look through the Schticks and pulled out all those with built-in antagonism, or dual-use for review.

Belkar

Starting with the primary offender himself, I find there are only five cards, but that does come to a quarter of his total. More importantly, two of them are his main Weapon Schtick, Twin Daggers of Doom.

Simplest fix I can think of here is to change the Boost so it no longer does additional Wounds against other players. Maybe a simple +1 Attack and +1 Defense? Or better yet +2 Defense, since he gets very few bonuses to it. Also encourages Belkar's player to seek out monsters, rather than the other players.

The most troubling is Deep Seated Emotional Problems, giving a substantial bonus against other players (especially if they're resting). Too big a temptation, even moreso when he's less effective against the monsters. I can't actually think of a useful fix for this, other than perhaps switching it to a boost on Twin Daggers of Doom.

Doesn't Play Well With Others is another problem card, again incentivising antagonism. Again not sure what to do with it.

Schadenfreude is less of an issue, and thoroughly in keeping with Belkar's character.

Durkon

The dwarf has just two and they're both dual use. Goblinthwacker and Incomprehensible Accent are safe enough to remain as-is.

Elan

Conscience Demon makes no sense; a trivially small reward for playing against type. An Elan who doesn't help the other players is an Elan who doesn't get any Loot. Maybe call this Rapier.

Wacky Hijinks would probably work better as a Screw This! card, but not sure it needs changing.

Vaarsuvius

V has only one, which is probably why he/she gets nerfed by Belkar so much. That said it's probably not worth changing Ambiguous Gender.

Roy

Roy has a brace of them. Prime offender is Logic, which appears twice, though it's much more effective when defending yourself against attack. It does however slow the game down, by making someone miss a turn, but that might be deterrent against antagonism.

Party Leader Veto on the other hand is pretty mean-spirited. At least, though, it's flippable. Not sure what to do with it.

Haley

Her's are like Roy's. Ridiculous Bluff encourages antagonism for an extra turn, as well as putting someone else out for one. Although it does flip.

Second-in-Command is just like Roy's Party Leader Veto, and again isn't very friendly, though is flippable. Not sure what to do with it.

[Harkone]

I agree; player-vs.-player antagonism slows the game down, along with all of the other ill effects described above. Especially the Belkar player feels inclined to continually attack other players (because he's so good at it), which angers them and leaves him with far less loot and schticks than any other character by the end of the game.

The question remains: what is the solution?

[Jamin]

This is untrue. Having played Belkar 3 times and coming in 2nd or 1st each time I think I have the exp. needed to say something. If played right it adds no real time to game at all just wait untill you get doesn't play well with others which makes Belkar one of the Strongest characters in the game.
Look Kiero, you keep talking about the lack of character balance but I say yet again that all six characters in our games hace come in at least 2nd you just got to know how to play them. Yes Belkar gets more stuff for attacking other players umm SO WHAT! blah blah about the real oots. It is fun to attak people.

[Kiero]

I agree; player-vs.-player antagonism slows the game down, along with all of the other ill effects described above. Especially the Belkar player feels inclined to continually attack other players (because he's so good at it), which angers them and leaves him with far less loot and schticks than any other character by the end of the game.

The question remains: what is the solution?

I'm hoping that my tweaking of his Schticks above might address that. The Boost on Twin Daggers of Doom especially to give Belkar a chance when triggering battles, rather than relying on whacking on the players might help.

I'm open to ideas, though.


This is untrue. Having played Belkar 3 times and coming in 2nd or 1st each time I think I have the exp. needed to say something. If played right it adds no real time to game at all just wait untill you get doesn't play well with others which makes Belkar one of the Strongest characters in the game.

You've missed my point. Which is that Belkar can only be "successful" by being disruptive. Attacking and antagonising the other players breeds a negative atmosphere and slows the game down.

The fact that Belkar's Schticks are designed to be much more effective against the other players than monsters encourages this style of play.

As to "adds no real time", you're simply wrong. There's even a note in the rulebook (sidebar on p7) that more antagonism will result in a slower game. Why? Because people being wounded by other players will spend more time Resting and going back to the dungeon entrance to recover. Time spent moving back and forth like that is time NOT spent advancing to the end.

Finally, that you've recognised that one of the most antagonistic of Belkar's Schticks (Doesn't Play Well With Others) is the most powerful in playing him disruptively, proves exactly the point I'm making.


Look Kiero, you keep talking about the lack of character balance but I say yet again that all six characters in our games hace come in at least 2nd you just got to know how to play them. Yes Belkar gets more stuff for attacking other players umm SO WHAT! blah blah about the real oots. It is fun to attak people.

Actually dealing with the monsters isn't a particularly viable strategy for Belkar because his access to Defense schticks is limited. That's the "so what" you've completely missed. Never mind that in the source material he's one of the best fighters in the group!

It's not "fun to attack people" when it comes at the price of prolonging the game interminably, and annoying everyone else at the table.

There's more than enough competitiveness in use of Screw This! cards and how you play your monsters. The game isn't improved any by adding another layer through Belkar's player being incentivised towards aggression towards everyone else.

[Trinak]

I have to agree with Kiero. Having played Belkar a few times myself, its hard to use the little guy. He doesn't have the greatest defense so he can't kill monsters as easy, and because most of the players have "anti-Belkar" cards he either has to be very patient for them to rest and him to get into position or very lucky. On an amusing note though, I still remember one game where I was V and Belkar attacked me to take my loot. I didn't feel like giving out assistance for an equipped loot I didn't care about. Two turns later Belkar rested and I nuked him from a range of 7. Was very amusing.

[Harkone]

You've missed my point. Which is that Belkar can only be "successful" by being disruptive. Attacking and antagonising the other players breeds a negative atmosphere and slows the game down.
The fact that Belkar's Schticks are designed to be much more effective against the other players than monsters encourages this style of play.

I agress completely. There's enough competition-elements without everyone getting mad at the Belkar player, who's only doing his job, after all. The Belkar player is held hostage to his schticks, which demand player-vs.-player action.

I also agree that Belkar's lack of Defense is a huge liability. It is very difficult for him to win battles when entering empty rooms and provoking new battles; thus he ends up with fewer schticks and far less loot than the other players, and what little loot he does get is purely from attacking other players.

[SPoD]

Our group enjoys attacking one another directly, and while yes, it probably does add time to our game, we only play when we were going to play D&D but someone isn't showing up, so we all set 5-6 hours aside anyway. Frankly, I would think the game would get repetitive if we weren't having fun looting each other all the time.

Has anyone considered NOT playing Belkar as an easier solution than rewriting all of the shticks? Or do you play with 6 players every single game?

At any rate, I once again have to say that a feature of a game that you, personally, don't care for, but functions the way the creators intended AND is appreciated by other players with different tastes is NOT a "design flaw".

[Kiero]

Our group enjoys attacking one another directly, and while yes, it probably does add time to our game, we only play when we were going to play D&D but someone isn't showing up, so we all set 5-6 hours aside anyway. Frankly, I would think the game would get repetitive if we weren't having fun looting each other all the time.

Well that's your group. Mine would prefer to have the game resolved faster, and not have the time to be getting bored.


Has anyone considered NOT playing Belkar as an easier solution than rewriting all of the shticks? Or do you play with 6 players every single game?

So we should forever be restricted to only five players and only five of the characters? Fixing Belkar's schticks is a much better long-term solution.

It's hardly "all of the schticks", I already outlined the ones that are even relevant above.


At any rate, I once again have to say that a feature of a game that you, personally, don't care for, but functions the way the creators intended AND is appreciated by other players with different tastes is NOT a "design flaw".

When the game already runs slow, and provides plenty of scope for competition, that extra layer is a flaw. Especially when it has no precedent in the source material.

[dragonglen]

My first game (still in progress) pits me as V vs. my co-worker as Belkar. Since he started he has been on the offense and either will directly attack me, or aide the enemy any time I battle. It's worked wonders since he's taken my equipped loot that boosted one of my spells and traded it in for a schtick (I guess to rub it in my face and keep me from being able to get it back) and with his schticks he now has as much range as I do with his leaping attack boosting his TDoD and his 2 equipped loot that boosts both schticks. I finally equipped loot that gave me +1 vs. players and got a schtick that boosted Magic Missile and Lightning Bolts vs. players, but he still beat me and took that.

What it boils down to now is that he keeps me on the upper floors and will hunt me down anytime he thinks I have nice loot, especially if I equip it. He's getting +7 to attack and can deal I believe 4 wounds in a single hit with a range of 4. Coincidentally my friend who bought me the game also had the misfortune of playing Belkar vs. V as his first game as well, with the same results, leading to a lopsided victory.

In this regard, some alternative ruling would be helpful for 2-player games for PvP combat. I'm definitely up to the challenge and have changed my strategy quite a bit to help me out, but it's difficult to gain any loot with V, and when I do, I know I'm going to be hunted. He never needs assistance because he can heal when I lose a battle (from one of his schticks) and can safely rest since I don't dare to enter his range.

Since this is my first game, I'm not sure how other character combinations work out. I think that more players could help the situation because I could at least ask for assistance. Until then I'll be staying near the entrance killing what I can one at a time while he's down on the 3rd level taking on stacks of monsters.

[Arcade]

I think you're doing something wrong if he's dealing 4 wounds with a single hit. The only way that can happen is with a Screw This card. Otherwise, Belkar is maxed out at 3.

2 player games can lead to the worst lop-sided results. V does OK against everyone but Belkar. Elan can't hold his own in a 2 player game against anyone. This is a case where it's not player antagonism which causes the problem, but the dynamics of 2 player games.

However, I think you have come across the heart of the matter - you changed your strategy quite a bit. I think for all characters and game sizes, this is an important leap to make. If your group always win with certain characters, than everyone who doesn't play those characters should be working against them and coming up with different strategies. I'm guessing that if you had to start your game over again, things would be quite different because you would know what to expect from Belkar and deal with it better.

As for increasing game length, that's another issue which is likely true. As for making the game too antagonistic, that's an individual taste issue, but it's not a design flaw. Just some people's personal tastes.

[Kiero]

Ouch, you've got quite possibly the worst combination of characters for a 2-player game there. :p

Issue you might have with avoidance - he'll drag all the NPCs (and thus Assistance) down to the lowest level of the dungeon that he's on, leaving you on your own.

I'm certain giving TDoD a different Boost would make a lot of difference. Like +2 Defense instead, so Belkar can win battles against monsters. Nerfing Deep Seated Emotional Problems would be another easy fix. Turn it into a Boost for TDoD instead (and with the variant outlined earlier).

[dragonglen]

I think you're doing something wrong if he's dealing 4 wounds with a single hit. The only way that can happen is with a Screw This card. Otherwise, Belkar is maxed out at 3.


You're right. We decided to scrap that game and play a new game with the 4 remaining characters - with 2 a piece. Going back through his schticks it looks like he was including damage from Leap Attack. He had both TDoD, all 3 Leaping Attacks and the equipment equipped that boosts each of them. He had all this mid-game before I even got my 6th schtick and 3 loot (he took the rest or I dropped it from dying to him).

He agreed that it was unbalanced and that there was no way he was going to let me gain any ground, so we conceded the win to him. We'll see how the new game plays. So far I find that I don't like playing 2 characters because now we all help each other and there's very little chance of losing anything unless we don't have loot to offer.

I need to find more coworkers who'd like to spend their lunch break playing. With one hour, taking the time to set up and then to pack up, plus eating, we only get a handful of turns in. We were able to explore the entire first floor so far.

[Roxysteve]

Well, instead of everyone getting mad at each other in the forum, why doesn't Kiero simply road-test the suggested rules changes in a few games and get back to us on how successfully they altered the gameplay from the perspective of reducing the emphasis on direct player-v-player combat?

Saying that the players never attack each other in the comic is a little off base. Belkar and Vaarsuvius had at it (for a variety of reasons) in a number of episodes. Haley, while not directly attacking the others, has gleefully swiped more than her fair share of loot, one at least one occasion directly from another OOTS cast member (Belkar's potion of healing, if memory serves). Minor episodes all, of course.

Personally I prefer the passive-agressive inter-player combat carried out via inventive monster selection and Screw This cards, rather as it happens in Munchkin. That's just my preference though. Were I in the designer seat I might easily have forbidden direct combat between players (possibly excepting Belkar and Vaarsuvius under special circumstances - such as a Screw This card) but allowed the monster stack to be built by the non-combatants to order rather than the order in which the cards are played, thus allowing them to minmax the available opponents to their best advantage.

A quick fix for the NPC nonsense, taken directly from the comic I might add, would be to split into teams, taking specific NPC's with specific players. This complicates the loot-for-favours mechanism no end though. Alternatively, NPCs could be bribed to stay with a character with loot. A bidding session could be had any time the NPC shared a room with a player character to see if he or she changed teams. NPC-Elan should be last to be bid for in this case.

Steve.

[bingo_bob]

I think my big question here is that if you take away his PvP abilities, what makes Belkar Belkar? What makes him unique? What makes playing him feel like you're playing a CE halfling?

Each character has a unique play style, and Belkar's is to stab other players. If you took that, what would you change it to?

[RibbonViking]

In a 2-player game over the weekend, I was Belkar against V. I won, but not by beating up on V. I tried, but only won (I believe) twice, despite all the bonuses, and with a net loss of loot over it, not counting what I spent for help. Also, V had more schticks out than I did throughout the game, though I spent the entire game running ahead on Loot.

The strategy that worked for me as Belkar was to Leap Attack into a room (if possible), which then sets me up for attacking on successive turns, and never having to defend. Alternatively, when I did have to defend, I'd either call for help or Hide, which again allowed me to attack on the next turn.

The point is that while Belkar's schticks are geared toward PvP (or CvC), the player doesn't have to take it that direction. If the vast majority of your schticks come from monsters rather than Loot, you can pick your schticks for your play style.

I'm all for trying to turn Belkar's CvC into Defense boosts on TDoD, but I suspect that that would make him too powerful.

[Kiero]

I'm all for trying to turn Belkar's CvC into Defense boosts on TDoD, but I suspect that that would make him too powerful.

No more powerful than Roy, Haley or Durkon. That's where I took the inspiration for adding just to Defense. He's already got Leaping Attack to give him Attack bonuses, but nothing to raise Defense.

Don't forget Roy, Haley and Durkon all get Boosts on both Attack and Defense through their Schticks. Fully-boosted Roy gets +6 Attack and +4 Defense on his Greatsword alone. All my tweak would mean is that Belkar can get +4 Defense with the two Schtick-Boosts to his Twin Daggers of Doom.

I'll give it a try next time we play.

[Harkone]

So you have Twin Daggers of Doom boosting +1 Defense instead of +1 wound vs. players? Any attack boost as well, or is that considered covered by Leaping Attack?

[Kiero]

So you have Twin Daggers of Doom boosting +1 Defense instead of +1 wound vs. players? Any attack boost as well, or is that considered covered by Leaping Attack?

Just +2 Defense I think works better than one on each. Belkar already has plenty of boosts on Attack (as you say, by Leaping Attack), where he's sorely lacking is Defense options.

That puts him on a par with Roy, Haley and Durkon for being able to trigger battles and fight them on Defense.

Turn Deep Seated Emotional Problems into a Boost on TDoD as well, or else perhaps something that gives him a bonus when fighting without assistance?

[Harkone]

Maybe Deep-Seated Emotional Problems should boost Victory Taunt somehow (maybe draw 2 loots instead of one)? Perhaps Doesn't Play Well With Others should too, since I can't think of any other ideas for those schticks (and more boosting to the Twin Daggers of Doom would be too much).

Probably Evil, Joy of Killing, and Schadenfreude can remain as is, I think.

So your way would be Twin Daggers of Doom boosts +2 on defense (so when Belkar has both, he is +3 on attack [plus whatever Leaping Attack he has] and +3 on defense)? If so, that works for me.

[Kiero]

Actually I was thinking +2 for each Boost. There's only one other of it in the deck (so total +4), plus the Loot that Boosts it (another +2). Along with DSEP for a total of +8. No different from the Boosts available to Roy and Durkon for their weapons.

Maybe Doesn't Play Well With Others should be some kind of Great Cleavage-a-like when he battles without assistance?

[Harkone]

I think you're a bit off. Belkar starts with Twin Daggers of Doom at +3 attack and +1 defense. A second Twin Daggers of Doom (boosting +2 on defense) would make him +3/+3, and the loot booster Magic Daggers (which isn't always available) would take him to +3/+5. With all 3 Leaping Attack schticks and the loot booster for that (Ring of Jumping), Belkar gets up to +7 attack and +5 defense. To me that's sufficient, and compares favorably with Roy and the rest of the characters.

As for Doesn't Play Well With Others, we could go with your idea about a Great-Cleavage-style boost, that's further boosted by changing Deep-Seated Emotional Problems into a second Doesn't Play Well With Others schtick:

Doesn't Play Well With Others (new): +1 attack for each monster previously defeated without any assistance from another player.
Boost (Deep-Seated Emotional Problems): +1 attack for each monster previously defeated without any assistance from another player.

Sound good?

[Kiero]

So treat the boosts like Haley's Longbow (which is always boosted by Sneak Attack, effective)? Where Belkar's daggers and Leap Attack are his "always on" combo? Makes sense. No need to give him a third Schtick that Boosts it.

I like the new Doesn't Play Well With Others and Deep-Seated Emotional Problems combo.

All those taken together should make Belkar a much less antagonistic choice, and one which emphasises that he does his best work alone.

[Harkone]

Yeah; in my mind Belkar should fight almost as well as Roy (but not quite) and better than Haley and Durkon (and of course Elan). I believe if we implement these modifications we will have a Belkar that does exactly that.

Now we just have to fix Elan (Conscience Demon), Roy (Logic x2 and Party Leader Veto), and Haley (Ridiculous Bluff and Second-in-Command).

Conscience Demon has to go (as you said earlier, it completely goes against Elan's character and is strategically pointless - why would you take a weak +1 to Attack in exchange for rejecting all offers of loot?).

As for the others, we could leave them as-is, but only if Belkar keeps his Doesn't Play Well With Others and Deep-Seated Emotional Problems schticks as originally written. If we alter these two as indicated above, though, we have to change Logic, Party Leader Veto, Ridiculous Bluff, and Second-in-Command; if we take away Belkar's player-vs.-player schticks, we have to take away everyone else's as well.

[Trinak]

Personally, I'd like to see what the giant or ape games thought about all this or altering it in the expansion. I do like the ideas though, but if we're modifying cards theres at least one more card I can think of that needs help. V's worthless staff. I realize that this card can be helpful if he encounters a monster thats enchanted, but it doesn't improve his odds that much. It's usually the last card I'd get (closely tied with elven senses tinglings, another card that needs help, stairs aren't that hard to find).

[Harkone]

I agree; both of those schticks need to go, or at least be drastically changed. Hopefully the Giant himself and/or Ape Games will read our little thread here and comment.

[Kiero]

Personally, I'd like to see what the giant or ape games thought about all this or altering it in the expansion. I do like the ideas though, but if we're modifying cards theres at least one more card I can think of that needs help. V's worthless staff. I realize that this card can be helpful if he encounters a monster thats enchanted, but it doesn't improve his odds that much. It's usually the last card I'd get (closely tied with elven senses tinglings, another card that needs help, stairs aren't that hard to find).

An alternate set of those ten or twelve cards highlighted would be nice. Replacement options for a less antagonistic game, or something. I'm sure there must have been several alternatives that didn't make it into the final cut.

Maybe just make his/her staff non-negative?

[dragonglen]

I thought Elven Senses was the most worthless schtick, but if you're playing V, it's extremely important if you can get it early enough in the game. That way you can line all the stairs up as close as possible to the dungeon entrance since he needs them the most to heal and flip spells. Late-game it's pointless (in fact, when I finally had the chance to take it, all stairs were already found).

As I mentioned in the other thread about loot, I wonder if Rich had any similar feedback in his playtesting. Or specifically, the opposite, where possibly the players felt that there wasn't enough PvP combat and that playing Belkar wasn't as fun unless he was antagonistic.

It'd be interesting to know some of the playtest history and what changes ended up being made to the final product.

[Kiero]

Indeed, those would be useful to know.

[apegamer]

Let me say first off say thanks much for taking your time to put down your thoughts. Let me state my opinion on this issue.

You say that PvP slows the game down, and we acknowledge that. However, we're working on other ways to speed the game up (as much as cutting the game length in half!) without having to remove the PvP element.

Second, as you say, it can breed ill-will. I've played the game a LOT and I've definitely seen it happen that people get upset when they keep getting picked on. While Belkar is best at beating on other players, however, he doesn't have a monopoly in that arena. And, I've more often seen friends play each other who get a real bang out of the PvP element. My personal choice is not to do as much PvP when I play, but I've seen a lot of other people who enjoy playing that way.

And though Belkar is best at PVP, it's not his only game. For example, Leaping Attack gives Belkar a total of +4 to his attack. Add in Hated Enemy and a Halfling Rage and you've got a force to be reckoned with. He's still no Roy, true, but then Belkar isn't the primary fighter.

The rules say to pick characters to play randomly, but you could institute a house rule where players pick the character they want to play - or remove Belkar altogether except in a 6-player game, if you feel no one wants to play him (or if it's your game and you don't WANT anyone else to play him.)

To conclude, I definitely don't want it to sound like I'm shutting down your ideas for alternative Belkar shticks. I just wanted to share my play experience and let you know a little bit about what's coming up.

Thanks again for your input. Keep it coming!

[Harkone]

I assume it would be too much to ask when we can expect the much-heralded expansion?

(just thought I'd give it a shot)

[Kiero]

And though Belkar is best at PVP, it's not his only game. For example, Leaping Attack gives Belkar a total of +4 to his attack. Add in Hated Enemy and a Halfling Rage and you've got a force to be reckoned with. He's still no Roy, true, but then Belkar isn't the primary fighter.

Here's the nub of the issue, though: characters with poor Defense don't get to do as much as those with better Defense. Roy, Haley and Durkon all have reasonable Defense, which improves as they go. This means they get to act each and every turn, because they're never going to fear triggering a new battle and having to fight on the Defense.

Having big Attack values means the optimum strategy is to wait for others to trigger battles, then hit them from range without moving. Not being able to move and attack puts you immediately in a reactive space where you do less than everyone else. It's also the reason why ranged characters (ie V, or Haley if you're foolish enough to try to play her as an archer) are inherently weaker than those who can melee.

[dragonglen]

I disagree to an extent. I've only played a small amount, but I know for a fact that V and Belkar have schticks (and I believe they're available to start) that give you a better defense at the expense of a draw. In our game, Belkar would walk into a room, Hide, ask for assitance if he thought it was out of control, and next turn he would start his fight using his Attack strengths. Alternatively, with Leaping Attack, he could also attack into a room if I've uncovered monsters and be in position on the next turn to start on the stack. Stairs were key to his strategy, which coincidentally were also a key to my strategy playing V.

It was interesting because I was V and my opponent was Belkar. When we weren't fighting each other (which, though it started to become a little frustrating, was EXTREMELY fun) we were constantly adjusting our tactics to take advantage of the other player's position. For us it was like a chess game. We purposely looked for stairs in specific areas. One thing that was cool was when I found the stairs, he entered a room and found another on the same floor. As soon as he went down on his end, I knew I had a few turns before he could come back for me, so I ventured down and kept exploring away from him, blasting enemies at Range 0 with Fireball, picking up loot, and when he saw what I was doing and adjusted, I quickly moved to the entrance to heal. Due to a poor decision on my part (and a miscalculation) he was able to catch up to me and send me fleeing for the entrance, but it was so fun. We've attempted another game since then, and I keep thinking how much I would have rather finished the first. We made too many mistakes unfortunately (our first game, there were a lot of rules we either misinterpreted or just plain missed) so we felt it was best to start over, but I would love to do a rematch. I think V can hold off and win against Belkar with a little luck and some adjustments to my strategy, although I do believe Belkar has the advantage.

Personally, for me I would rather keep Belkar as an NPC that change his schticks if my group really wanted to, but I really like the challenge even if I know I have a good chance of losing.

[Kiero]

I disagree to an extent. I've only played a small amount, but I know for a fact that V and Belkar have schticks (and I believe they're available to start) that give you a better defense at the expense of a draw. In our game, Belkar would walk into a room, Hide, ask for assitance if he thought it was out of control, and next turn he would start his fight using his Attack strengths. Alternatively, with Leaping Attack, he could also attack into a room if I've uncovered monsters and be in position on the next turn to start on the stack. Stairs were key to his strategy, which coincidentally were also a key to my strategy playing V.

Here's the problem, if you've used Hide (or Armour or any other "get out of fight free" Schticks), you've just wasted a turn. Someone with a directly useful Defense Schtick could have killed a monster and grabbed XP in that same turn. Or simply roll in and do that to the monster you just revealed, but avoided.

If you're playing Roy or Haley, you can fight battles and get XP and Loot almost each and every turn, provided the dice like you. If you don't have a good Defense, you'll quickly start falling behind if they're being played that way.

Last game I played Elan. I was having no problems on the Loot front, but had hardly any XP because I didn't fight many battles. To win would have meant burning up Loot and pushing the others even further ahead.

[donkyhotay]

I was wondering if it would make things too unbalanced to allow PC's to move and do a range attack in the same turn. It has always seemed to me that ranged attacks are weak because: You can't move, you can only whack one monster per turn (assuming your not using a fireball) and you don't get loot afterwards (assuming you don't have blackwing which is iffy). Also any monster worth whacking generally has the range to counter-attack if you fail. I've found that while the long-range attackers are getting into position the melee'ers will just move out of range of the long-rangers so that if the melee'ers fail they either need to move into range (losing a turn) or the melee'ers will just slay all the monsters in the room (especially roy when he gets great cleave going). The people I play with don't play long-range very often (for this reason) so maybe I'm missing something but after playing haley once I think it would be good if she could either move and fire or fire and move (I assume same for V who I have never played yet).

[Harkone]

I disagree to an extent. I've only played a small amount, but I know for a fact that V and Belkar have schticks (and I believe they're available to start) that give you a better defense at the expense of a draw. In our game, Belkar would walk into a room, Hide, ask for assitance if he thought it was out of control, and next turn he would start his fight using his Attack strengths. Alternatively, with Leaping Attack, he could also attack into a room if I've uncovered monsters and be in position on the next turn to start on the stack. Stairs were key to his strategy, which coincidentally were also a key to my strategy playing V.

I agree basically with what Kiero said in response to this. When Belkar, who is terrible on Defense, walks into an empty room and Hides, that opens the door for other, more melee-oriented characters that can fight on Defense (ie, Roy, Haley, Durkon, and even Elan or V if they boost their X-Treme Diplomacy or Magic Missile, respectively) to come in and kill the monsters on Defense before Belkar can turn around and Attack on his next turn. Like Kiero said, depending on Attacking wastes turns; Vaarsuvius falls into this trap too if he plans on using ranged attacks too often.

[apegamer]

The argument of whether a strong Defense is better than a strong Attacke is a different one than whether the game should have PvP, which I thought was the intent of this post.

To summarize, though, we tried to give the characters better D or A, depending on their character's style in the comic. V (with Fireball) and B (with TDoD and LA) are better attackers, and as pointed out, they have to wait until the next turn to attack. Sometimes other characters pick off the monsters before they can get there. On the other hand, the A starting shticks are a little more powerful than the starting D shticks.

If your play style is to play to win, then play the character that you think gives you the best chance of winning. If you don't think that you can win with Belkar, then don't play him. When I sit down to play, I enjoy trying a different character each time, and playing to that character's strengths. Granted, I'm more experienced than most of the people I play against, but I tend to do well my share of the time. Whether I win or not tends to be based a lot more on luck of the dice and cards than whether other players pick off monsters before I can get to them on attack.

Moving forward, we're paying very careful attention to not blurring the characters' strengths. We don't want it to turn into a game where the only difference between them is the name on the card.

[The Giant]

I agree with Keven, the question of whether A or D is better is not the same as any question of whether there's too much emphasis on PVP. (And for the record, my early playtests asked for MORE PvP than was in the game to start, so saying it is not good for the game is an opinion, not a fact.)

To my knowledge, there is one major benefit the Attack-focused players have: You are never forced to Attack. Every time a player Attacks, they are doing so because they decided to. They looked at the odds and judged them in their favor. If Belkar goes into a room and reveals a Monster and Hides, on his next turn he gets the choice whether to Attack or (if the Monsters are too tough) run away. Players that rely on Defense are far more likely to have to fight whatever comes their way and take their lumps when they lose. Thus, it's a little harder to Attack than Defend, because the Attacker will almost always not engage unless they are all-but-guaranteed a win.

Further, the very "kill-stealing" some of you are talking about is one of the key ways in which Attacking players succeed! If you're going to invoke it as a weakness in the strategy, you have to realize that it is also a strength for the OTHER Attacking players. If Belkar and V are playing each other, every time Belkar has to Hide, it sets up V to Attack. Every time V has to use Verbose Recitation, it sets up Belkar to Attack. And every time a Defense player loses, the Attacker can kill-steal them, too. It's one big circle of kill-stealing, you just have to make sure you're not on the wrong end of it.

[Enaloindir]

Further, the very "kill-stealing" some of you are talking about is one of the key ways in which Attacking players succeed! If you're going to invoke it as a weakness in the strategy, you have to realize that it is also a strength for the OTHER Attacking players. If Belkar and V are playing each other, every time Belkar has to Hide, it sets up V to Attack. Every time V has to use Verbose Recitation, it sets up Belkar to Attack. And every time a Defense player loses, the Attacker can kill-steal them, too. It's one big circle of kill-stealing, you just have to make sure you're not on the wrong end of it.
The main "problem" I see with this strategy is that the players coming into a room to attack the monsters are always forced to fight the first monster on defense. This forces them to spend quite some loot to get their defense bonus high enough. However, they also tend to have a higher attack value, which allows them to attack the remaining monsters with less loot spent on assistance.
All in all, I think the things should balance out more or less. :)

Enaloindir

[Kiero]

The argument of whether a strong Defense is better than a strong Attacke is a different one than whether the game should have PvP, which I thought was the intent of this post.

They're actually tied together; PvP is based on having a high Attack, because if you're initiating it you always have to Attack. Thus any character with a high Attack is better at PvP, and those without any corresponding strengths in Defense are going to struggle with battling monsters (since only Roy has a Schtick that lets him Attack straight off).


To summarize, though, we tried to give the characters better D or A, depending on their character's style in the comic. V (with Fireball) and B (with TDoD and LA) are better attackers, and as pointed out, they have to wait until the next turn to attack. Sometimes other characters pick off the monsters before they can get there. On the other hand, the A starting shticks are a little more powerful than the starting D shticks.

If your play style is to play to win, then play the character that you think gives you the best chance of winning. If you don't think that you can win with Belkar, then don't play him. When I sit down to play, I enjoy trying a different character each time, and playing to that character's strengths. Granted, I'm more experienced than most of the people I play against, but I tend to do well my share of the time. Whether I win or not tends to be based a lot more on luck of the dice and cards than whether other players pick off monsters before I can get to them on attack.

My issue isn't that Belkar's player has it hard. It's that his very presence is disruptive to a smooth-flowing game where we aim to resolve it in reasonable time.


Moving forward, we're paying very careful attention to not blurring the characters' strengths. We don't want it to turn into a game where the only difference between them is the name on the card.

I recognise that it's a balancing act. Just that I think there's more than enough antagonism in use of Screw This! cards and placement of monsters without adding direct PvP to the mix.

In fact PvP isn't necessarily the problem, it's that Belkar's player has no other resort to actually achieving anything.


I agree with Keven, the question of whether A or D is better is not the same as any question of whether there's too much emphasis on PVP.

As I outlined above (and below), I think they're separate, but linked issues.


(And for the record, my early playtests asked for MORE PvP than was in the game to start, so saying it is not good for the game is an opinion, not a fact.)

I'm saying it's not good for a smooth-flowing and timely game, not bad for the game in general.

I'd be interested to see what changes were made to accomodate the perceived lack of PvP after the playtests.


To my knowledge, there is one major benefit the Attack-focused players have: You are never forced to Attack. Every time a player Attacks, they are doing so because they decided to. They looked at the odds and judged them in their favor.

Which isn't that great a thing, when you can always be forced to Defend.


If Belkar goes into a room and reveals a Monster and Hides, on his next turn he gets the choice whether to Attack or (if the Monsters are too tough) run away. Players that rely on Defense are far more likely to have to fight whatever comes their way and take their lumps when they lose. Thus, it's a little harder to Attack than Defend, because the Attacker will almost always not engage unless they are all-but-guaranteed a win.

Presuming that the monster is still there on his next turn. If it's a relatively moderate encounter, someone with a good Defense (or indeed someone else with an Attacking Schtick who doesn't mind not getting any Loot) will have skragged it.

This is what I'm saying about Attack-focused characters; you're always on the back foot waiting "until the next turn". Which invariably doesn't arrive because the Defense-focused types are swooping in and grabbing everything.


Further, the very "kill-stealing" some of you are talking about is one of the key ways in which Attacking players succeed! If you're going to invoke it as a weakness in the strategy, you have to realize that it is also a strength for the OTHER Attacking players. If Belkar and V are playing each other, every time Belkar has to Hide, it sets up V to Attack. Every time V has to use Verbose Recitation, it sets up Belkar to Attack. And every time a Defense player loses, the Attacker can kill-steal them, too. It's one big circle of kill-stealing, you just have to make sure you're not on the wrong end of it.

Which is exactly my point about "kill-stealing" being linked to Attack-focused characters. Antagonism and the imbalance between Attack and Defense are separate, but linked issues. This kind of play is ancillary to actually winning the game in a timely fashion. Time spent messing about waiting for the other to effectively miss a turn through a Draw is time not spent getting on with it.

Along with Attack-focused characters being reliant on the failure of Defense-focused ones. It's a reactive position, and not even an ideal one, especially when later in the game they fail a lot less.


This does ultimately come down to taste, I can agree with that, I don't find a slower game a good trade-off for antagonistic play. We don't tend to play that competitively on the character level (as distinct from the player level) anyway.

What are the chances of getting a handful alternate Schticks in the expansion that accomodate a different style of game?

[Harkone]

In fact PvP isn't necessarily the problem, it's that Belkar's player has no other resort to actually achieving anything.

Which is exactly my point about "kill-stealing" being linked to Attack-focused characters. Antagonism and the imbalance between Attack and Defense are separate, but linked issues. This kind of play is ancillary to actually winning the game in a timely fashion. Time spent messing about waiting for the other to effectively miss a turn through a Draw is time not spent getting on with it.

This is the crux of the issue. If you are so much better at Attacking, rather than Defending (like Belkar), it is simply a better option to engage in PvP than to provoke fresh battles with monsters. That way you have the choice of always playing to your strength, which is Attacking.

[The Giant]

I'm saying it's not good for a smooth-flowing and timely game, not bad for the game in general.

I would strongly suggest your gaming group have a Gentleman's Agreement to not use Belkar, then, if "smooth-flowing" and "timely" are primary concerns for your players.


I'd be interested to see what changes were made to accomodate the perceived lack of PvP after the playtests.

Early in the testing, walking into a room with a player and wanting to start a fight triggered a Defense battle instead of an Attack battle, thus making it very difficult for Belkar to actually attack other players, which was his pre-conceived purpose as a character. We also changed shticks of other players to make them more useful in initiating PVP, such as Haley's Swipe and Ridiculous Bluff shticks and Roy's Logic. We also allowed players to take equipped Loot instead of just a random draw, to provoke treasure-stealing.


This does ultimately come down to taste, I can agree with that, I don't find a slower game a good trade-off for antagonistic play. We don't tend to play that competitively on the character level (as distinct from the player level) anyway.

Again, timeliness is not of paramount concern for all players. Some prefer direct confrontations with one another. We tried to accomidate both by making only one potential character PVP-driven, on the assumption that groups that didn't like PVP would simply not use that character. Obviously, this will be even more obvious when we add additional playable characters in some of the expansions.


What are the chances of getting a handful alternate Schticks in the expansion that accomodate a different style of game?

Very good. Also, we are experimenting with more cards that actually do link PVP more closely to winning the game (rather than thwarting others from winning, which its current primary function), for those that wish to use them in that way.

[Enaloindir]

Hooray for Rich and his revealing of some of the expansion's features! :elan:


Enaloindir

[Harkone]

Hooray indeed. And don't get me wrong; all commentary aside, I love the game.

[Kiero]

I would strongly suggest your gaming group have a Gentleman's Agreement to not use Belkar, then, if "smooth-flowing" and "timely" are primary concerns for your players.

That's often what we do, at present. Though for those times when we do have six players, some alternates would be handy.


Early in the testing, walking into a room with a player and wanting to start a fight triggered a Defense battle instead of an Attack battle, thus making it very difficult for Belkar to actually attack other players, which was his pre-conceived purpose as a character. We also changed shticks of other players to make them more useful in initiating PVP, such as Haley's Swipe and Ridiculous Bluff shticks and Roy's Logic. We also allowed players to take equipped Loot instead of just a random draw, to provoke treasure-stealing.

Any chance of getting the "originals" before that test in the expansion? The "less PvP" schtick, that is.


Again, timeliness is not of paramount concern for all players. Some prefer direct confrontations with one another. We tried to accomidate both by making only one potential character PVP-driven, on the assumption that groups that didn't like PVP would simply not use that character. Obviously, this will be even more obvious when we add additional playable characters in some of the expansions.

What I will say is that additional characters who aren't necessarily PvP-driven will do a lot to alleviate my concerns. Only minor issue there is the existing characters with those PvP-oriented schticks (which would be "wasted" in a friendlier game), but frankly not a big deal compared to Belkar.


Very good. Also, we are experimenting with more cards that actually do link PVP more closely to winning the game (rather than thwarting others from winning, which its current primary function), for those that wish to use them in that way.

Cool, well if there are thoughts in the opposite direction (less PvP) as well, I'd be interested to see that.

[Uthrac]

As The Giant points out, the main use of PvP in our games is to drag down a character who jumps out to a big lead. B is a great character who can get assistance from others to slow down a Roy or Haley who gets some good first-schtick draws.

It sounds as though your group does not like the PvP flavor, which is fine, and your suggestions seem to indicate that you would like him to be more of a Roy/Haley combat character . . . strictly modifying his schticks to make him more monster-combat oriented.

As previously noted, if this works best for your group, then you should by all means, house-rule it in!

However, as there are many players who enjoy/utilize the PvP aspect, it hardly seems to be a "design flaw."

[donkyhotay]

Kind of hard to do when your trying to "play nice". Especially with a 1v1 game.

[the_tick_rules]

yeah. too many of the cards required players fighting.

[smellie_hippie]

Every time my group has played, up to this point, there have been no PvP attacks. Belkar has also come in 2nd on a couple of those sessions. The PvP can slow things down, but it's not a necessity.... despite the strength of the schticks.