Yup, here I go again. Bringing up something from an entirely different game in order to shed some light and additional perspective on matters in our own beloved game. In this case, a Daily Magic article regarding bannings that I thought might have some interest after our recent Restricted List addition.

Read it here.

Good to know even a highly compensated and focused playtest group (i.e. MTG still screws up). Over on the Warhammer boards people are complaining about a thankless (and unpaid for FFG) job of playtesting, especially 6-12 months in the future.

I find that one of the most awesome attitudes on banning I've ever seen. It almost makes me want to play Magic again.

Interesting article. I also found it interesting that I fundamentally don't understand how to play Magic anymore, and most of the game terms were completely new. Of course, the last time I played was in junior high (15 years ago), but still funny to see how much the game has changed...

I loved the point about how banning a card = breaking a promise to the buyer. Slightly different in an LCG, but still relevant, especially when I bought three copies of a CP for one card...

I liked how they said that they playtest group was 20 players. Twenty! Now, I'm sure these are some of the most informed Magic players (though not necessarily the best), but it does show how few people are actually involved in testing the cards and making sure they play correctly. And that stuff does get missed.

Of course, I figure the Magic playtesters have more time to devote to the effort than our essentially volunteer groups.

Darksbane said:

HOWEVER, the best thing about this article, I think, is that a high-level staff member deeply immersed in game design took the time to communicate directly with the players through a thoughtful, candid letter. This is *starkly* different from what FFG has done over the past 3 years, which is essentially post ads with spoilers as monthly "articles." To be clear, I'm not complaining about the ads...I find them as interesting and informative as everyone else (and glad to see a few extra spoilers). But compared with the MTG article, FFG has MUCH room for improvement.

Just to give people a more concrete idea of what I mean: FFG's recent letter about the restricted list was less than 400 words; this MTG article is 1,500 words long. TO CLARIFY, MTG ran a 1,500-word article explaining why they *wouldn't* restrict a specific card for balance...us AGOT players, we got less than 1/3 the explanation for a change that is arguably the most monumentous since this game transitioned to LCG.

I recognize that staff time constraints are likely an issue, and probably more so for a smaller company like FFG, but I personally feel the community would be stronger, there'd be less complaining/bickering, and my personal game experience would be improved by an occasional (monthly?) thoughtful designer journal. As Darksbane himself notes, articles like this make games more attractive to play (that means more money for the gaming company).

I just don't understand at all why all we get is marketing fluff, when a crappier game (in terms of flavor and mechanics) gets something worthy of admiration.

Twn2dn said:

When A Game of Thrones starts making FFG millions, we'll probably start getting better communication.

Given the speed of FFG's expansions and acquisitions over the last couple years as well as their booth size at GenCon (which is a pretty flimsy indicator, I'll admit) do they really qualify as a small company in this field any more?

In the gaming field? No.

In the collectible card game field (which, let's face it, this game still fits into), Yes.

JerusalemJones said:

I don't know about you, but if I knew one of my competitors was doing something relatively cheaply that was drawing in customers and/or helping to keep them interested despite turbulence, I'd definitely want to try it out. But then, this is all assuming FFG is shooting for growth with their LCG model. Given the terrible transition from CCG to LCG, and the lack of direct communication immediately after, you could be right in assuming FFG as a company doesn't much value the "community" aspect of the customer base (to be clear, by "company" I don't mean the designers specifically...for all I know, they may want to write but aren't allowed). I'm betting that if FFG's customers were kept more in the loop, and by extension felt more connection with the company, there would have been fewer people who dropped off after the transition and a few more old-timer's still playing AGOT today. (Instead, it felt like FFG ignored many of its customers.)

I'm not saying FFG is doing terribly or anything, and in some ways they're much better now than 2 years ago. All I'm saying is that there seems like a lot of growth potential for a VERY MINOR investment. And hey, if the investment doesn't bear fruit, then cut the designer journals. It isn't like we're talking about creating and abandoning a whole line of product...the designers think about the issues that they write about whether or not an article is ever published. It's just putting their thoughts down on paper for the rest of the community to engage.

@JJ: Rather than argue theory, let me just ask you. Would you like to see more articles like those Wizards releases? And if yes, would you assign any value to them? For example, would you be more or less likely to buy FFG products in the long run? (I know I would be more inclined to keep up on chapter packs if I felt like I was part of something larger than a game.)

@Twn2dn (and urbody else), as a previously quasi-competitive-mostly-losing magic player, most of Daily MTG (their daily interaction with the community, and where that banning article is from) doesn't actually deliver the kind of article you just saw. Heres a breakdown of Daily MTG (broadstrokes here people) and what I have to say about it in relation to the agot community.

Serious Fun ; This is my favourite article. Its just about fun MTG - fun decks, fun play variants, fun multiplayer games, its all about the casual.

Building on a Budget ; its a column about not breaking the bank. Usually starting with a basic card interaction between a few easily acquired/undervalued cards and building a deck around it, explaining its matchup with other deck types in playtesting, changes made throughout the process, and a final list. Or, it starts with a competitive deck and transfers that theme into more easily acquired cards so that you have a casual deck that does the same thing, has the same feel, just not with the same price tag.

Top Decks ; this is a more competitive column. It examines decks that are proving to be the cream of the cream of the crop at tournaments across the world, the grand prix events, magic online, or just sent in after it stomps at FNM.

Savour the Flavour ; This is how the cards in magic relate to cards in the storyline. So for us, its the equivalent of an article on Nedlyness - how Bran Stark from LoW perfectly matches the story GRRM wrote.

From the Lab ; This is all about deck building. Not just deck building, its about combos and card interactions. It is Shagga oriented. The first article I see right now when I go there is a six card combo that wins you the game. You get the drift.

Latest Developments ; This is about the design process. It starts with the initial version of a card, how it changes through playtesting, how it fits with the set, from start to finish. Its neat to see what cards were initially and what they became.

The Week That Was ; Coverage of premier Magic events around the globe as they happen.

Making Magic ; How the games changing, where its coming from, where its going, why, what the blocks focuses are, that kind of thing. Its written by the lead designer, Mark Rosewater, who is a boss.

Limited Information ; This articles about a specific style of magic called Limited. It would be like playing with the recent deck design competition rules where you only get one cycle.

Why all of this doesn't translate into Game of Thones LCG:

The Week That Was - No - We just don't have enough premier AGOT events going on every week. Coverage of each Regionals could certainly be looked at, but on a week by week basis the tournaments just are not there (that I know of anyway).

Building on a Budget - Not Really - The LCG aspect really gets rid of this. Your not buying 300 dollars worth of cards to get your four Jace Belerens.

Top Decks - Possible, But Wont Happen - The LCG environment makes decklists pretty sensitive. Sure, they are released post-tournament to see the top ones. But never before, because with easy access to everything you just don't want 200 other people to see what your running. A friend and I were late for a tournament at christmas because we waited to sleeve at home. Why? No reason to let our opponents see our tech. So although its possible for everyone to send in their best decklists as they fine tune them and get them to the competitive level they want for GenCon, its just not going to happen. Why would it when all that hard work and ingenuity that you bled over can just be taken by someone else? A friend of mine runs almost literally card for card the World Champ lanni kneel (or maybe it was second place) from last GenCon. Now, would the winner have liked him to show up with the same list to play in the event against him? No. Personally, my greatest shower revelation (and like they talked about in the latest episode, it actually happened in the shower) was sent in to 2 Champs and a Chump and I hope it makes the cut of things to talk about. Sure, I could have ran it. But I don't have all the cards to do so and I've already accepted I am not winning Regionals For those who still have hope, I just don't see your lists being relinquished, at least not outside of your playtesting group.

Limited Information - Maybe - We just had a competition about it, so its definitely doable. Plus it makes a nice style of play for newcomers, and with the house orientations in Brotherhood its pretty clearcut on the decks you would build.

Making Magic - Yes - Totally doable, I think. A look at how the game focus has changes since A Clash of Arms, how the House tier has changed and why, how they are trying to correct it by bringing in new things to houses. I could see it.

Latest Developments - Yes - After a card comes out, like say... Lucas Blackwood. It would be cool to go through and see where he came from. Did they do what MTG does and start with an ability and work their way into fine tuning it, then send it to the people who name it and give it flavour text and potential art, and then see if it all matches up with the feeling of the cycle? I don't know. But it would be cool. At least for some super common cards. We saw it explaining the Bara Kings, or maybe my mind just explained it to me. Regardless, its doable.

From The Lab/Savour the Flavour/Serious Fun - Yes/Yes/Yes - All Completely doable. But.... (read below)

Now, what this all means...

Most of the articles and columns and feedback that we can take from what MTG does is on a large part dependent on us. The community. Not just Nate and Nate alone as the White Wizard who guides our forces to defeat Sauron and the forces of Mordor (Thats Gandalf, not Saruman). Yes, the changes in the meta and the card development process cannot be written by us, because we are by and large not part of it the development process. However, columns about the Nedly, the Shagga, the general fun decks to play and games that have been played, can be written by us. You see a lot of that in 2 Champs and a Chump. I don't think FFG would turn you down if you said "Hey, I want to write a Bi-Weekly column for your website about my local AGOT play" I think they would be happy for the opportunity. Tournament coverage (the upcoming Hand of the King or Regionals or GenCon) would be taken the same way, I assume this because FFG seems very reasonable.

Having that kind of community interaction is two ways. I think its up to us to start it up.

And remember, more time writing us things means less time making us things, less time playtesting those things, and so on and so forth.

I'm not an expert on writing those sorts of articles day in, day out, but I would think that an article once a week or month would take roughly an hour and a half for a couple Word doc standard pages plus a touch of editing per article. While I understand that the employees at FFG likely have a great deal going on, I'm not convinced that the loss of the time it would take for one or two internal playtest games is going to break the system.

~If it really did, then we probably ought to deny our designer/developers lunch breaks as well. Even at just half an hour a day for a 5 day work week, that's still 2.5 hours! Just think of all the extra playtesting that could be done!

As far as the individual articles that Wizards runs, I'd absolutely love something like Making Magic or Latest Developments for AGoT. Making Magic each Monday is easily one of the most fascinating things that I'm likely to read all week.

Kennon said:

Mocking noted, not particularly appreciated.

Apologies. I rarely mean ill, though my sense of humor can be decidedly.... acerbic. Particularly after hanging out with the Thrones guys here as I did last night. We talk an awful lot of smack.

I'll just have to remember to repay you in kind at GenCon

By all means, bring it on. You've listened to the podcast and heard just a small sampling of the crap I already get from folks, I'm sure. Lol

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that time spent communicating with the playerbase is time wasted. Also, I heard somewhere (can't really remember where) that Nate enjoys writing articles on the game/mechanics.

I do agree that the current format for news posts is dumb as hell. I really wish they'd just drop all pretense of the news posts being "articles", since they're basically just advertisements combined with blatantly obvious statements about the new cards.

Well, Nate used to write articles on the old AgoT forums (when the game was still a CCG). Why he stopped, only Nate and FFG knows. Maybe he got tired of doing it or maybe FFG decided they didn't want him to be communicating with the player base anymore. Damon used to be an active member of the AGoT forums, but since he took a position at FFG we've only heard from him during the QoD announcement (and maybe some other announcement I'm forgetting).

Point is, both Nate and Damon used to actively communicate with the community, but no longer do. Maybe the extent of their duties really do prevent them from writing articles or perhaps they really have lost interest, but honestly, it seems more likely they are being told they can't communicate with us by their superiors, which would be a shame; however, if true, all it would take to see more articles like the one in the OP is for FFG to make a policy change.

FATMOUSE said:

Yeah, this is (unfortunately) my conclusion as well. I really hope it's not the case that they are being prevented from interacting more with the player base.

FATMOUSE said:

It is my understanding, from talking with people are have worked or still work for FFG (and I will not name names, though they may not be people you know) that there is actually a policy (perhaps unwritten?) that staff members are not to communicate with the community via forum postings or the like, and that all communications are supposed to be through announcements and other official postings. This is the primary reason that we never see Nate or Damon posting on these threads. Although people (including Christian) do post on the threads occasionally, this is the exception and not the rule. From my understanding, this was started because it became difficult for the communities to differentiate between "official" statements by the company and opinions by the people involved in the game. In too many cases people were taking what was being posted in forums as fact, when certain decisions were not set in stone, leading to confusion among the player bases (this is across the board at FFG, not limited to their lcgs).

You can easily argue that Nate and the other LCG designers should be posting more regularily on the site (and not necessarily the forums, but even more articles), and I wouldn't agrue with you. I do believe that communication with your player base is the best way to increase involvement in a game (and in this case, involvement means more players means mroe sales). FFG currently has four LCGs, and 5 or 6 employees working in those fields (Nate, Damon, I believe James Hata is still there, Lukas, and they are hiring a new person). For a game system (I am lumping all of them together here) to have that little of an employee base means they are likely spending the majority of their time on design issues, in-house playtesting, and all the other aspects of design.

Whenever FFG posts a "card of the week" article, or an announcement, someone from the line has to write it up. I doubt any announcement, including the short Restricted list one, took 20 minutes to write up. So it is likely that these write-ups are meant to take as little time as possible away from their actual design work. Mind you, I have no exact knowledge of this; again, I am going off of things I have heard from people I know who have been invovled with FFG. If you look at the Call of Cthulhu wite-ups, they are all from a "guest," even though that guest has been active in the CoC community for many years. But he is not an FFG employee. It would be as if Rings or Dobbler or Ktom were to write up the card of the week articles. And look at how often they may make a mistake in their write-ups, sucha s how a card may interact with a combo. And when something sure-new (like Lord of the Rings) is on the horizon, how much time got spent promoting the new game, which in turn left less time for other lines.

What I was getting at with my previous relation between FFG and Magic is that Magic brings in so much money to Wizards that they can afford to hire on additional staff members to work design issues, playtest issues, write articles (Daily MTG vs. Card of the Week) and all the other parts of the gaming pie. FFG still has limited resources, and they need to balance where their people are spending their time.

Imagine how much time it took FFG to make the decision on the Restricted List. I doubt anyone woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's just do this thing" without looking at the ramifications or taking time to try out decks and how they played out. They probably spent weeks figuring out is the best solution to power cards and stifiled deck design was rotation, banning of restricting. This is what gaming companies do.

I personally feel that the players and the gaming community in general is better served by greater communication between the game companies and designers with their customer base (which includes players are well as retailers). While I can see why a policy was instituted, I don't necessarily agree with it. But we do have to understand that FFG does have limited staff, and that they have duties that tend to preclude them from posting the type of articles we are going to find at MTG or other sties where ccgs, because of their sales model, bring in lots more money that lcgs possibly ever will. And, yes, that doesn't mean we have to like it.

Twn2dn said:

I don't think I actually answered your last questions in my long post. I just went on about why we don't see them.

Yes, I would LOVE to see more articles. As both a player and a retailer, I am a rabid fan of FFG games. The three games I play the most are Game of Thrones, Arkham Horror and Battlestar Galactica. If I didn't have my own store, I'd be going to the Events Center often to play games (unless someone else opened a game store in my area, which I doubt will happen if and when we close our store). Those articles make me feel part of their community, and I love that feeeling. It is why I check their site multiple times daily, hoping to see some new stuff on any of the games I an interested in.

Do I assign them value? Yes, I do. I think every article contributes to customer involvement in the game, and faith int he company. But I just don't believe that FFG has the resources to provide them as frequently as we would like. A close friend of mine worked for FFG, and he would tell me how it would take days from when he would send an article to be posted before it got the go-ahead to make it to the site (after editing, formatting, and making it into the queue). Mind you, this was years ago and before the site redesign, but it still appears to ring true.

And when FFG provides me with more information about something coming up, the more likely I am to commit to carrying the game, and/or purchasing copies myself.

I agree it is probably from the top down. I don't try to say I know Christian very well having only met him a handful of times, but he seems very well informed on what the Boards do say and think. It is just his style to stay out of it completely, for better (posting can be mis-construed, people can get wrapped up in it) or worse (major changes seems to be glossed over heavily). There is a bit of un-intended hubris or maybe coldness in it as well, from the fact that he has built a very successful gaming company, and we haven't (a valid point). It probably trickles down from there.

Also, from what I have seen, people at FFG are expected to work very hard and efficiently. They wear many hats - Nate just developed another game for goodness sake (LoTR LCG)! There seems to be a little burning out, so I think they do what they can to keep their heads above water in a tough industry.

I don't think the designers should be partaking in forum discussions. That's probably a bad idea for multiple reasons, but monthly/quarterly/annual addresses, articles, statements, or whatever you want to call it, would be very nice. Anything that let's us know what they are thinking. It doesn't have to be a tell-all, but just enough to keep everyone in the loop. Such a task would have a relatively low cost, but with a very high reward. I personally know former CCG players that would follow the game more if such articles existed and they would be more likely to get back into the game.

When you also consider that more people may be looking at the LCG now that the series is out and many of them will already be CCG players, I think they'd appreciate the game designers' perspective.