Design Flaw: Loot is the name of the game

[Harkone]

To compliment Kiero's thread on player-vs.-player antagonism, I though I'd chime in with a problem I've been seeing in the last few OOTS games I've played.

Players have been winning the game without defeating Xykon, or even acquiring very many schticks. I have found the game can be won (often quite handily) without battling many monsters at all. Players (and not just Elan) can hang back annd assist other players, who by choosing to fight monsters end up giving out more loot in order to defeat those monsters. By the time the game ends, the player(s) who have hung back and collected loot for assistance can win purely on excessive loot acquisition. Now, this seems to fly in the face of the spirit of the game, which is to defeat monsters, gaining both treasure (loot) and "experience" (schticks).

My regular group and I have implemented a house rule, where schticks are worth 2 Bragging Points at the end of the game (with Drooled-Over loot continuing to be worth 1); this should encourage players to both battle monsters for loot and eventual new schticks and collect loot for assisting others.

Thoughts?

[Kiero]

Interestingly, what I've found is that the killing of Xykon is what tends to be the decider. But the decider between the two players who got the most Loot (invariably Haley and someone else).

As it stands, the Loot-for-Schticks trade in is a poor economy. You're basically paying three points of Bragging Rights (ie three lots of Loot) for the price of one (the Schtick). Every time you make that trade, you've just lost 2 points of Bragging Rights. I made this very observation at the start of the last game, and unsurprisingly no one made that trade (which did do some interesting things to the Loot deck, which ran out...).

I think upgrading the Bragging Rights for Schticks is a step in the right direction. Then at least you're still making a "loss", but it's a fairer trade for greater in-play effectiveness. Means both killing things and taking their stuff are viable strategies for winning.

What I hope is that people can take these criticisms in the constructive way in which they are intended. We haven't just sniped at the game, we've suggested possible solutions and offered it up for discussion. The aim is to improve the game, not simple slag it off.

[Trinak]

I like that idea of making Shticks worth 2 points, it makes it almost worth it and actually may encourage trading in a little more, which would be good for those players who have troubles killing monsters to get sticks.

[Harkone]

As it stands, the Loot-for-Schticks trade in is a poor economy. You're basically paying three points of Bragging Rights (ie three lots of Loot) for the price of one (the Schtick). Every time you make that trade, you've just lost 2 points of Bragging Rights. I made this very observation at the start of the last game, and unsurprisingly no one made that trade (which did do some interesting things to the Loot deck, which ran out...).

I think upgrading the Bragging Rights for Schticks is a step in the right direction. Then at least you're still making a "loss", but it's a fairer trade for greater in-play effectiveness. Means both killing things and taking their stuff are viable strategies for winning.

What I hope is that people can take these criticisms in the constructive way in which they are intended. We haven't just sniped at the game, we've suggested possible solutions and offered it up for discussion. The aim is to improve the game, not simple slag it off.

Exactly, exactly, exactly.

[Harkone]

I like that idea of making Shticks worth 2 points, it makes it almost worth it and actually may encourage trading in a little more, which would be good for those players who have troubles killing monsters to get sticks.

And exactly.

[SPoD]

As I see it in our games, the "trade Loot for Shticks" rule is not intended to be used except in emergencies, when a player like Elan or Durkon collects a lot of Loot but can't get any shticks and therefore can't beat any monsters. Yes it IS a loss of bragging right points to do it...so you should never do it unless you just can't get that first new shtick to get your character into gear. If you're trading a lot of Loot in for shticks, of COURSE you're going to lose. So don't do it.

Why should the game encourage trading in at all? I would think the game should DIScourage it, so that players keep trying to fight monsters...and oh look, it DOES that already.

It's not a "design flaw" if it works the way the creators intended it, and you just don't care for it.

[Arcade]

I think you need to think of it in terms of economy.

When you offer other players loot, your goal is to offer it to whoeveris losing first. Elan and Durkon can be excpetions to this rule, but you should try to not overuse their abilities or they will win. Your goal os to have more bragging points then everyone, and so you need to spread the love around.

If you can do this, then schticks can be easily worth as much as loot. Let's say you want to defeat a creature with one loot and one X. You offer 1 bragging point worth of loot to do so. Likely you are already ahead of the game because you will be receiving a loot as reward. If this loot isn't worth a bragging point to you, it is worth that to someone else which will help you out. So let's say that the recovered loot is worth one bragging point, either in instant or future currency. Also the creature is worth 1/3 of a bragging point thanks to the X. It is probably worth more than that because any schticks you do gain give you more ability to gain loot and schticks in the future. But we'll leave that alone for now.

Unfortunately you don't win every fight. Let's say you only have a 2/3 chance of winning this fight, even with help. So the 4/3 bragging points (1 for loot, 1/3 for X) is only worth 8/9 of a bragging point since you might not get them.

Now you say - "But I'm only getting 8/9 bragging point and I gave away 1 bragging point to my opponent- I just put myself in a losing position!" This is true in a 2 player game. But if you are playing with any more players than that, you will be ahead as long as you keep spreading the loot around. Let's say you do the above trade off, once with player A and once with player B. Player A and B are now up by 1 bragging point each. You however are up by 16/9 bragging points and winning.

So, if you want to make your schticks worth the bragging points, you need to reduce the value of loot by passing it around so that your defeated monsters are, in the long run, more valuable than the loot. However, characters like Haley and Elan will want to shift the balance the other way, so if anything, you want to avoid giving them loot more than the other characters.

[RibbonViking]

My thoughts on trading in Loot for schticks:

Near the beginning of the game, it can be definitely beneficial. The earlier you can get a given schtick out, the longer you'll be able to make use of it, and the more it will help you, whether in terms of killing monsters directly, or garnering you more loot from other players. That alone can make it cost-effective to cash in Loot at the beginning, because you'll have a net payoff in the long run.

But let's also look at what Kiero mentioned in passing:

Every time you make that trade, you've just lost 2 points of Bragging Rights. I made this very observation at the start of the last game, and unsurprisingly no one made that trade (which did do some interesting things to the Loot deck, which ran out...).

Once the Loot deck recycles, you're not likely to be getting a whole hell of a lot out of it. A bunch of NPC Loot, and not much else. The only things you'll get with your face on them are the ones that you cashed in for schticks or that you paid the NPCs off with. Which means that if the game is going to run long enough that the Loot deck recycles, you may as well get some use out of that Loot, so you can get it back the second time through, and since you've gotten it back you haven't really lost anything, it's all net positive.

[Kiero]

We've only played short games (and even they weren't "short"...) and there's rarely been a chance for the deck to recycle. In the last game it simply ran out. That was because no one was cashing them in, instead saving them for the Bragging Rights from the off.

[Harkone]

I agree; I also find players (including myself) saving Drooled-over loot from the very beginning for Bragging Points at the end of the game. This is all part of why my players and I now count schticks as worth 2 Bragging Points.

[Arcade]

Is part of the problem that Xykon is perceived as too hard and thus stopping people from going after him? For instance, you are playing a game where you need 8 loot and 8 schticks to go to Xykon's level. You have 15 loot and only 6 schticks. At this point you have two options:
Trade in 6 loot to go down to Xykon's level and get an extra 4 or 5 bragging rights (Xykon is worth 2 times level, but you will likely get out last, so that penalty is reduced).
OR
you just keep picking off monsters for loot

Now if defeating Xykon won't get you the win, don't do it. But if it will, or if your chances seem lower in the future of winning than they are now, you need to go for it.
On the other hand, no sense fighting Xykon if you're just going to get your butt whooped. And in our group, fighting Xykon is always tough enough that no one bothers to do it until they are powered up so high that most of the loot is out. Which means loot is king at that point. But if characters tried to do it ASAP (as soon as they had the schtick/loot combo) and with some good timing, then not nearly as much loot would be gathered AND the Xykon bonus would be much more valuable (as would getting out first). And the schtick/loot ratios would likely be a lot closer as well.

[Harkone]

Unforunately, I have found that even in games where a player races to kill Xykon fairly early on, the loot factor still determines who wins the game. In the last game I played the player who destroyed Xykon still lost by a margin of several Bragging Points, based entirely on the fact that the winning player had far more Drooled-over loot.

[Kiero]

I also notice that people start hoarding Loot (even that they're not Drooling over) towards the middle, when they can see who's racing ahead in the stash stakes. Often amounts to people not asking Haley's player for help. And Elan's if they've noticed how much he's accumulating by being "helpful".

[Harkone]

Bottom line is that it seems strategically effective to hoard Drooled-over loot from the very beginning of the game, and disperse as little non-Drooled-over loot to the other players as possible. All of this seems to fly in the face of the spirit of the game, which is to explore the dungeon and defeat monsters and eventually Xykon.

[donkyhotay]

maybe instead of increasing the point level of shticks it might be best to lower the loot level, It'd be a little wierd but I was thinking of deducting every 3rd loot so loot is only 2/3 as useful.

[Kiero]

Why deal in fractions, when just doubling the points for Schticks is simpler?

[Harkone]

Yes: simple = good.

[dragonglen]

I wonder if Rich had any similar feedback in his playtesting. Or specifically, the opposite, where possibly the players felt that loot wasn't originally important enough and that there would be no possible way for Elan or Haley to win without it becoming more important.

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

[donkyhotay]

Because then it also increases the power of killing xykon and exiting the dungeon as well as improving shticks. The problem is loot is too powerful but it is difficult to lessen something below 1. On the other hand I'll admit it is difficult to have fractions when dealing with any type of score but it does make it easier to be fair.

[apegamer]

As I mentioned in the other thread (also called, unfortunately, "Design Flaw:"), thanks for your input!

It's late, but I did want to say one thing related to loot. We have, in fact, mentioned multiple times that trading loot for shticks can be a bad move. It might be argued that there are times that it makes sense to trade Loot in for shticks (and I think it might make more sense in some instances with the coming expansion) but overall you're dropping two victory points for a random shtick.

That said, when I play outside of playtesting, I'm really not as interested in winning as in having a good time, so I'll often trade in loot for shticks at the beginning of the game just to have more shticks to play with.

[dragonglen]

I like to trade in loot for schticks in the beginning of the game if I feel it can give me a clear-cut advantage. When my opponent did this with Belkar, combined with a little luck (and not knowing that the points at the end were based on drool loot), he quickly enabled himself to control the entire game.

I agree about having fun too. I like having multiple abilities, trying to figure out which is the best, and since I'm relatively new to the game, finding out what they all are in the first place.

[Kiero]

Part of the limitation of your experience dragonglen, is that you've only played 2-player games. Does have a very different dynamic in play to those with four or more players.

[Harkone]

I have to say the "play-to-have-fun-not-to-win" argument is kind of unsatisfying; why can't you structure the game so each player can do both (have fun and win, that is)? The excessive value of loot at the end of the game encourages loot accumulation from the very first turn; better to make schticks worth 2 Bragging Points at the end (with loot continuing to be worth 1 Point) to encourage battling monsters, which is really what the game is supposed to be about anyway.

[Kiero]

I'm hoping there are some more Loot cards in the expansion, because I don't think there are enough for anything other than a short game. Especially if people aren't trading them in, and the Traps are being removed when triggered.

[Harkone]

I hope so too.

[The Giant]

I have to say the "play-to-have-fun-not-to-win" argument is kind of unsatisfying; why can't you structure the game so each player can do both (have fun and win, that is)? The excessive value of loot at the end of the game encourages loot accumulation from the very first turn; better to make schticks worth 2 Bragging Points at the end (with loot continuing to be worth 1 Point) to encourage battling monsters, which is really what the game is supposed to be about anyway.

EDIT: (Never mind, I let myself get a little carried away here the first time.) Suffice to say that battling Monsters is NOT what this game is about. Modeling the specific adventures of the OOTS is, and they often run away from monsters.

At any rate, pricing shticks at 2 BP each without any other changes will essentially cripple Elan, and to a lesser degree, Durkon. The rates are what they are specifically to make Loot equally valuable to Shticks, because some players are designed to win the game by concentrating on non-combat means of earning points, such as collecting Loot from other players (rather than dead monsters). Change that, and you might as well not play those characters at all.

Remember, this isn't "D&D: The Board Game", it's "Order of the Stick: The Board Game", and in OOTS, some characters suck ass at combat. The game is as it is to allow a player to get the feel of kind of sucking at combat but still have an equal shot at winning through other means. Having each character FEEL like their comic self was our #1 design concern.

[donkyhotay]

Problem is players generally don't "play" a character they play to win which results in just about every character (roy included) as being exceptionally greedy and hoarding all loot.

[Harkone]

That's totally true.

[The Giant]

Problem is players generally don't "play" a character they play to win which results in just about every character (roy included) as being exceptionally greedy and hoarding all loot.

Except I didn't say that they should just "play" a character and not play to win. I never claimed that some characters were designed not to win, I said that each character was designed to win in a different way, and that way was based on the character's personality in the comic. And that not all of those ways involved combat as a large part of the winning strategy. If you try to play Elan as if all that matters is gaining shticks, you will lose. Gaining shticks is only one possible route to victory, but if you double the Bragging Points associated with shticks, it becomes the sole route to victory, shutting out those characters that are, by design, not as good at defeating monsters.

I'm not telling you not to play to win. By all means, play to win. I'm telling you that if you pretend that "playing to win" is synonymous with "defeating monsters", you are missing half the point of the game. The rules are written as they are specifically to enable non-combat victories through cooperation and other tactics, by making Loot equally as valuable as shticks.

The OOTS game is about finding the balance between cooperation and competition, and where the "sweet spot" lies between helping others to encourage them to help you (on one hand) and stabbing them in the back (on the other). Because if your gaming group is such that everyone immediately hoards all Loot and never gives out any in cooperation with each other, even at the beginning of the game, then OOTS really isn't the board game for them and you should find a game that has less cooperative elements and more direct competition.

[dragonglen]

I found a weakness in my opponent that I use as part of my strategy. I find that he really likes to get as many schticks as he can as fast as possible. What I found now is that I can usually trade him loot for assistance early in the game, knowing he's going to trade it in for a schtick. For us, if we doubled the value of schticks, it would change my strategy vs. him significantly. I agree that loot is extremely important, but for us it's a matter of how we use it. We still only play 2-player games, so our strategies are much different than a larger game, but I quickly found that he likes to ask for NPC help by using loot that also has my picture on it as quickly as possible so that I have less of a chance of getting it from him, though just about every turn he tries to make me think he pulled some loot that I could really use. This combined with Screw This cards is just so much fun.

I'm finding that luck has a lot more to do with the game than anything, which I really enjoy. That's one of the elements from Talisman that I was really looking forward to in this game.