Lack of Theme? I beg to differ!

By zmobie, in Star Wars: The Card Game

Posted at

I'll not dwell on the finer points of the game. There are plenty of glowing reviews of Star Wars LCG to be found littered throughout the galaxy. The mechanics are elegant, the deck building unique, and the quality of components is classic FFG. Nor will I dwell on the negatives leveled against it. The mechanics are sloppy, the deck building needlessly different, and the card stock leaves something to be desired. These have been covered in a thousand blog posts, podcasts, and forums.
What I would love to address is the one criticism I see over and over. It seems to have wormed its way into every gamers vernacular. It has memetically spread itself across the interwebs. I talk to people who have never played the game who sing the woes and gnashings of a thousand gamers who all say…
The GAME doesn't FEEL like STAR WARS…
"If only it weren't a Star Wars game, maybe I could enjoy it more!"
"The mechanics and gameplay are great! But how can a Rancor eat a capital ship?"
Oh the wounds FFG has inflicted upon us with this abomination! They have made an incredible game, that doesn't live up to my interpretation of how a star wars game should FEEL! Or… have they?
On the contrary. I believe that FFG has provided an aesthetic experience that is very close to my experience of Star Wars. So much so, that I've concluded that gamers that level this claim against the game not only miss the aesthetic representation the game provides, but also have a misguided idea of what Star Wars itself is.
The GAME doesn't FEEL like STAR WARS. This is the claim. Let us dissect this claim and figure out what is really being said here.
The GAME -
In this context, what a critic is referring to by saying 'The GAME' is the mechanics, and to some extent the dynamics of the game. We're all big nerdy game critics here, so I can assume you are familiar with the MDA framework.
[geekurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDA_framework]MDA Framework on Wikipedia[/geekurl]
Mechanics are the nuts and bolts of the game, and dynamics are the behaviors the mechanics elicits from its players. These are fairly easy to pin down, but it's when we get to the 'A' in MDA where we run into problems.
… doesn't FEEL like STAR WARS
So when a critic of this game plays the game, they dont' FEEL like they are playing playing a Star Wars game. This is a little vague all by itself, but using MDA framework we can come up with a better idea of what is trying to be said here.
"The Mechanics of the Star Wars LCG create a dynamic in game experience that gives me a different emotional response than Star Wars".
Again we run into more vagueness here. What does the critic mean by 'Star Wars'? There are a thousand ways to experience Star Wars. From just watching episode 4, to watching the whole trilogy, to watching Episodes 1-6, to reading the expanded universe… Star Wars is many things to many people.
Since it is clear by the thematic elements of the card game that FFG is mainly targeting the theme of episodes 4-6, we'll revise our statement to say…
"The Mechanics of the Star Wars LCG create a dynamic in game experience that gives me a different emotional response than the original Star Wars trilogy (plus a little bit of expanded universe stuff)".
Here is a claim we can sink our teeth into. It's nice and specific. Now lets try to show why it's utter poppycock.
If you haven't played Star Wars, go watch the FFG how to play video. Go ahead. I'll wait. Good. Welcome back. Now watch the Team Covenant how to play review video thing… Waiting… ok. Thanks. Now you have a pretty decent idea of the ebb and flow of a game, we can dig a little deeper.
There are a number of card types in the game. Units, enhancements, etc. Nothing new to note here except for two little tiny 'insignificant' details.
1. Events - Please notice that they are called 'events'. In another game I've played for quite some time (Legend of the Five Rings CCG (L5R) ), an event is a one-time effect. It's a card that pops up, happens, and goes away. The represent some overarching narrative that effects all of the game state. In Star Wars LCG, an event is mechanically different. It is analogous to actions, sorcery's, or interrupts in other card games. You hold them in your hand and play them at the right time.
I think it's important to note here that these are called events because it really shows what the creators of the game were trying to get across. These cards aren't necessarily actions taken by a specific individual. Nor are they one-time things that are beyond your control.
You, as the player are not just the general of your side's army. You are not the Jedi Master telling your Padawan what to do. You are a storyteller or a god, deciding the events that are occurring in your universe. This is important for understanding the aesthetics that are represented in this game.
2. Objectives - The main resource in Star Wars is points produced by your objectives. There are resource cards in the game, Sith Library, Dagobah Training Ground, various holdings that you would expect to be able to fuel the playing of cards… but why do we have a completely different card type that produces resources, and why are they called 'objectives'.
Objectives represent the current mission, or focus of your faction. Sometimes they are seemingly narrative in nature (journey to dagobah). Sometimes they are just locations (decoy at dantooine). They always represent some mission that your faction has some stake in. As a Jedi player, it's fairly important that Luke trains with Yoda at Dagobah. As a Rebel Alliance player, if you can get the pesky empire to fall for your ruse at Dantooine, he is shooting himself in the foot.
The object of the game (moreso for the light side player), is to 'destroy' another players objective. This is easy to interpret when a light side player destroys 'Kuat Reinforcements'. Its pretty much a straight up military narrative. What does this mean when you, as a dark side player, destroy something like "Fleeing the Empire". That's where you need to go back to the word "objective". You haven't 'destroyed' a thing, you've destroyed an objective. Meaning you've foiled their plans in some devastating manner. In this scenario, the outcome of the engagement was that the leaders of the Rebellion were unable to flee to the outskirts of the Empire. You've cornered them and added one to the dark side dial. One more step closer to crushing the rebellion.
3. The Force - In Star Wars you commit units to the force in order to win force battles. Winning the force battle means your side controls the force and gains major in-game benefits. For the Dark Side player, you tick the dial faster. For the Light Side player you 'damage' an enemy objective.
First is committing a unit to the force. This makes sense when Yoda or the Emperor do it, but what about a tie fighter or Rancor? From the rulebook.
"A committed unit is acting or being used by its side away from the front lines in order to further the cause of the light or dark side of the Force. Meditation, study, training, recruitment, and transportation of key figures are some examples of the functions a committed unit may be serving."
When you commit your Storm Troopers to the force, they could be on a mission to destroy an ancient Jedi relic. When you commit your Rancor to the force, he could be guarding a sith stronghold.
Second, when you control the force, you get an in-game benefit. For the dark side player it's pretty straight forward. We are emulating episodes 4-6 here. The empire is in control, and if the force is all black and dark and cloudy, yoda has no clue whats going on. You get closer to total annihilation of the rebel alliance.
For the light side player it seems less thematic at first glance. "What? I damage something? Just shooting stuff for controlling the force? That doesn't make sense". Au contraire padawan, remember, we are 'damaging' an objective, not a star ship. When yoda is committed to the force and it is controlled by the light side, he sees the machinations of the dark side. He knows what the Empire is up to. Their plans are ruined without so much as an engagement happening. This is the power of the force…
4. Engagements - Another important word swap here, the game uses 'engagements' instead of 'battles'. Recall the battle of Endor, where Ewoks and the Rebels took down walkers and the death star. Or the Battle at Hoth where Luke single handedly downed a walker as they evacuated. Or even recall storm troopers chasing luke, han, obi-wan, and chewie off of Tatooine. Leia helping take down a Jabba's barge. Darth Vader hiding out in the cloud city after strong-arming Lando. Storm troopers leveling Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.
Every scene I listed could not have happened without key characters, vehicles, weapons, and a series of well planned events. Star Wars is not just a space battle movie. It is a Space Opera. Even while the battle of Endor raged on, the Emperor and Luke sparred with words and willpower. Action, adventure, and conflict are rampant, but the movies always hang on a few key decisions, lucky guesses, and risky gambits. Star Wars is drama, not blaster pistols.
5. Edge Battles - Star Wars is rife with these dynamic engagements where key players and events turn the tide of the larger narrative arc. In this framework, we can understand where the edge battle comes in. The edge battle is the struggle for supremacy that takes place off camera. It is the Bothan Spies delivering the plans for the death star. It Darth Vader holding Lando to the fire. It is Jabba being tipped off to Leia's ruse. It is the station being fully operational all along.
When you put it all together you see how the game perfectly emulates the narrative arc of the movies. Blast damage just becomes how easy it is for a character to complete, or disrupt missions. Blaster symbols can be taken quite literally, or even as a characters ability to remove another from the conflict in any way. Throwing around focus tokens represents Vader's tie advanced spinning out of control away from the exploding Death Star.
Conclusion
I think saying the game doesn't feel like star wars is unfair, and shows a very shallow understanding of the Star Wars experience. Star Wars is the most important modern incarnation of the heroes journey. It's a narrative, a story, a drama, a space opera. When someone complains that Yoda shouldn't be able to disable a capitol ship with his one focus token, you should weep for their lack of imagination.
Many card games have you acting as a general, or plainswalker, summoner of creatures, leader of clans. You command forces and make important decisions for someone in that role.
Star Wars is different. Once you understand it as a game where you control the events, and the motivations of the characters themselves, Star Wars lets you and your opponent be storytellers.
Posted at

It's hard not to compare the game to the old Decipher Star Wars CCG and no game can ever come close to that one for capturing the "feel" of Star Wars: you could hang the Milennium Falcon off the side of a Star Destroyer with a Landing Claw; you could play sabacc on Cloud City; you could trap door someone in Jabba's Palace and send them to the Rancor to be eaten; you could put a Sandtrooper on a Dewback and even give him a T-21 Repeating Blaster and a Stormtrooper Backpack; the things you could do in that game were unbelievably endless. Force Drains got ridiculous near the end of the Decipher run in 2001 with the infamous Dagobah deck and Cloud City drain deck, but, hey, it was a great game. It also named a ton of minor characters and equipment and ships and such and gave them backstories: who knew of Jas Phur or the Relentless or all the names of Death Squaron's Star Destroyers and pilots before Decipher gave them names?

I like this game too, but the mechanics are awkward: a rancor can eat a Star Destroyer, after all, and it doesn't have the grand epic all-encompassing feel that the Decipher CCG had.

Posted at

I maybe should have provided a TLDR for this because you are sort of perfectly illustrating the points I've argued against here. The things you listed are the insignificant minutiae of the Star Wars universe. The decipher game may have simulated these smaller details, but the FFG game is a Space Opera simulator.

Posted at

I think the problem is people a Literal Game like the previous SW card game. Ship vrs ship man vrs man, like X-wing. What they got was a game that asks them to use there imagination. How can luke blow up a starship, i dont know but he did a pretty good job wrecking jabas pleasure barge.

Its a game, its fun, it FEELS like SW if your not brain dead.

Magni

Posted at

people want a literal game. (my bad left the want out)

Posted at

I wouldn't go as far as to say they are brain dead, and maybe my tone has been a little on the condescending side. I apologize to anyone who may be offended.

My only goal here is to end this meme that star wars lcg lacks theme. It's not a simulation of the events that occur in the star wars universe, its a simulation of star wars general narrative arc. The broad strokes of the brush. It does this perfectly in my opinion. Im just hoping others see that and play this incredible game with me.

Posted at

zmobie said:

Conclusion
I think saying the game doesn't feel like star wars is unfair, and shows a very shallow understanding of the Star Wars experience. Star Wars is the most important modern incarnation of the heroes journey. It's a narrative, a story, a drama, a space opera. When someone complains that Yoda shouldn't be able to disable a capitol ship with his one focus token, you should weep for their lack of imagination.

Have you ever heard the saying "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?"

Being insulting towards the people you are trying to convince to amend their views is probably the poorest way to go about making an argument. I've only quoted a very short segment of what you posted above, but you do mention a number of times that people who are disappointed by a game that has a fairly abstract implementation of its theme are 'lacking in imagination" or "show a very shallow understanding of the Star Wars experience." I don't think this is particularly fair to those people who either A) came from the Decipher game and were expecting something a little more in line with that experience, or B) aren't a fan of abstract games with a light theme.

I know what kind of games I like, they tend to be gritty, detailed and rules heavy. The main reason I was disappointed in what we were presented with is that the game seemed to be the complete opposite of that, with no real mechanics that made it seem like it was anything but a cheap mash of systems stolen from various other games, with a pasted on asynchronous victory condition (because that’s totally in right now). Seriously, I still don't get why there had to be a 'Death Star Dial,' surely this mechanic could have been achieved without adding more clutter and busywork to the tabletop.

Lack of imagination has very little to do with disliking the way the game has been implemented. Some people don't like abstracted mechanics or pasted on themes, euro games vs ameritrash or, if you don't like those terms, mechanical emphasis vs thematic emphasis. The Star Wars LCG very much reads like it was deliberately designed to be fast playing and mechanically fun, but lacking in any real heavy thematic influence (at least from what can be inferred by reading the the rules). You could almost argue that purely from a rules perspective the game has been designed to be very tournament friendly. It even includes a timer to make sure games don't run on too long. The kind of game I would have liked would definitely not have fit into that category.

Now, I will freely admit that I've not played the game, and I do intend to give it a fair shot (it was only recently released here in Australia). However, from what I've seen and read so far I don't hold out much hope of the game appealing to me because, when it comes down to it, given a choice between Settlers of Catan or Arkham Horror, I'll pick Arkham Horror every time.

Posted at

Zethnar said:

zmobie said:

Conclusion
I think saying the game doesn't feel like star wars is unfair, and shows a very shallow understanding of the Star Wars experience. Star Wars is the most important modern incarnation of the heroes journey. It's a narrative, a story, a drama, a space opera. When someone complains that Yoda shouldn't be able to disable a capitol ship with his one focus token, you should weep for their lack of imagination.

Have you ever heard the saying "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?"

Being insulting towards the people you are trying to convince to amend their views is probably the poorest way to go about making an argument. I've only quoted a very short segment of what you posted above, but you do mention a number of times that people who are disappointed by a game that has a fairly abstract implementation of its theme are 'lacking in imagination" or "show a very shallow understanding of the Star Wars experience." I don't think this is particularly fair to those people who either A) came from the Decipher game and were expecting something a little more in line with that experience, or B) aren't a fan of abstract games with a light theme.

I know what kind of games I like, they tend to be gritty, detailed and rules heavy. The main reason I was disappointed in what we were presented with is that the game seemed to be the complete opposite of that, with no real mechanics that made it seem like it was anything but a cheap mash of systems stolen from various other games, with a pasted on asynchronous victory condition (because that’s totally in right now). Seriously, I still don't get why there had to be a 'Death Star Dial,' surely this mechanic could have been achieved without adding more clutter and busywork to the tabletop.

Lack of imagination has very little to do with disliking the way the game has been implemented. Some people don't like abstracted mechanics or pasted on themes, euro games vs ameritrash or, if you don't like those terms, mechanical emphasis vs thematic emphasis. The Star Wars LCG very much reads like it was deliberately designed to be fast playing and mechanically fun, but lacking in any real heavy thematic influence (at least from what can be inferred by reading the the rules). You could almost argue that purely from a rules perspective the game has been designed to be very tournament friendly. It even includes a timer to make sure games don't run on too long. The kind of game I would have liked would definitely not have fit into that category.

Now, I will freely admit that I've not played the game, and I do intend to give it a fair shot (it was only recently released here in Australia). However, from what I've seen and read so far I don't hold out much hope of the game appealing to me because, when it comes down to it, given a choice between Settlers of Catan or Arkham Horror, I'll pick Arkham Horror every time.

*fart*

Posted at

Read the card text for Rancor… It can't eat a capitol ship, but picture a rancor bursting out of a shuttle in one of Home One's landing bays.

As for "Luke taking down a Star Destroyer," and "How can a TIE Fighter commit to the force?" you could make a strong argument that not Lando, not Han, but Ewoks destroyed the Death Star II, R2 saved the day on many occasions, and 3PO was clearly an agent of the Light Side.

And to the "Decipher was better…" crowd, I'll remind you that you are comparing a one month old game with nothing but a base set (which some of you haven't played) to a game that ran for 6 years and had 11 full expansions and then some. If you want to compare this the the CCG, please hold all comments until 2019.

Posted at

LMKComaBlack said:

Read the card text for Rancor… It can't eat a capitol ship, but picture a rancor bursting out of a shuttle in one of Home One's landing bays.

As for "Luke taking down a Star Destroyer," and "How can a TIE Fighter commit to the force?" you could make a strong argument that not Lando, not Han, but Ewoks destroyed the Death Star II, R2 saved the day on many occasions, and 3PO was clearly an agent of the Light Side.

And to the "Decipher was better…" crowd, I'll remind you that you are comparing a one month old game with nothing but a base set (which some of you haven't played) to a game that ran for 6 years and had 11 full expansions and then some. If you want to compare this the the CCG, please hold all comments until 2019.

Being a long-time SW:CCG player, I love this game! They are both deep games with strong strategy and tactics, but with different play formats.

If I'm in the mood for a long game, it's SW:CCG, but if I want a faster-paced game, then this game satisfies well.

I think people just need to open their mind a bit.

Posted at

I can understand the issues people are having with the specific engagements of one type of unit with another, but I think the rules book itself offers some interesting justifications. You can consider the units to not technically be engaging each other, but rather participating in the same battle and influencing it overall. There's a lot of discussion of subversion and espionage in particular when it comes to the Tactics mechanic, so while it may not make sense for Obi-Wan to stop a Star Destroyer in its tracks, a plan he concocted and helped execute easily could have. Additionally, there are far more literal ways any and all of these interactions could have played out. If you've ever read Dark Empire, for example, Luke faces down an AT-AT and defeats it one-on-one in a more direct way than he did in The Empire Strikes Back. Come to think of it, that's a perfect example right there!

Overall I was extremely pleased and excited as I read through the rule book by how well I felt Fantasy Flight captured the theme of Star Wars. This was solidified rather definitively for me when I finally was able to actually play. Not only is there the broad sense of a galactic civil war, there's rather ingenious representations of how the Force affects said war and how the characters involved can manipulate it to their advantage. Yes, it does seem weird that a TIE Fighter can commune with the Force, but again that is a bit too literal a reading of what the mechanics are representing. The rules specifically list "Meditation, study, training, recruitment, and transportation" as examples of how a unit can assist in their side's manipulation of the Force. Sounds good to me.

I also love how the different factions feel very distinct and representative of the characters, vehicles, creatures, and skills of each. The Sith feel like Sith with their direct damage, hand manipulation, and general representation of raw power. The Jedi are a more subtle and defensive inversion of the Sith. The Rebels rely on clever tactics and precise timing of strikes to cope with the superior technology and numbers of the Imperial Navy. Scum and Villainy and Smugglers and Spies have less representation, but both feel spot-on so far with the bounty mechanics of the former and the sneaky tricks of the latter.

Finally the individual characters are dead-on. Boba Fett captures people and can collect bounties, Leia inspires the Rebels, and Darth Vader hacks his way through enemy forces while choking them out with direct damage. These are just three examples. Han even shoots first, for Pete's sake!

I don't think many people were as crushed as I was when the Decipher game folded. I had played it since its inception in 1995 and loved the attention to detail when it came to representing what is probably my favourite fictional universe of all time. Unfortunately, that same slavish devotion to the minutiae of Star Wars was easily the biggest albatross around the game's neck: The rules were so complicated and there was so much errata that it was incredibly inaccessible to new players. Practically everything you see in the movies had its own intricate mechanics. That's really cool in some ways, but is ultimately a significant burden when it comes to game design, balance, and accessibility. For a more specific example of the clunkiness inherent to that game, more often than not decks would play cards that cancelled other cards specifically by name. It led to this odd rock-paper-scissors element that was exacerbated by the deck size limit and was only slightly mitigated toward the end when sideboards were introduced.

Overall I think this new game is great and this is just the beginning. I think I may end up enjoying the more elegant simplicity of its design over Decipher's everything and the kitchen sink approach as more and more cards come out. The mechanics are open enough that we will likely see all kinds of cool stuff come down the pike. The first thing, design-wise, I want to see is "Fast" units: Units that have the chance to strike first regardless of the edge battle. This could be overpowered, but I'm sure there's a way to balance it. Maybe adding an extra focus token or something. Just think of how perfect that would be for the Millennium Falcon or speeder bikes. I definitely want the two mini-factions to grow ASAP, as well. Bounty hunters? I NEED their scum!

EDITED BECAUSE POSTING ON A CELL PHONE BUTCHERS FORMATTING ON THIS FORUM

Posted at

Ok Backstory: Decipher's SWCCG is one of my all time favorite games, ever. It's easily my favorite format for a CCG/LCG, and one of my all time favorites despite balance issues. My brother, my friend and I still regularly pull out my boxes of cards and play it. So if anyone has a definite bias, it's me.


That said, I really, really like the new LCG. I'm not a big LCG player (I only just got into Netrunner and this one, and I dabbled in the Cthulhu LCG), so I don't know about the recycled mechanics or anything like that, but the game as it is fascinates and pleases me. I particularly love the Objective Set deck building mechanic, which is something I've never done in a CCG before and I love it.

But I too, find that the LCG does manage to capture Star Wars spirit, but in a manner much different than the CCG.

The CCG had a particular charm - if you wanted to run a deck of only Jawas playing Sabbacc, you could (I did). If you wanted to send a Jawa to Dagohbah to become a Jedi Knight, you could (I did that too! Didn't work, was awsome nonetheless). You could have Darth Maul and Evil Lando face down a hoard of Ewoks on Endor, and it rocked.

But while the CCG told a narative story taylored to your deck, the LCG requires a bit more imagination. But what it captures well is the spirit and emotions . When you're playing the Rebels, you feel desperate, backed up against the wall, and still hopeful for a win. When you play the Empire, you're the powerhouse, but with a secret dread the Rebels will break through and destroy you. And even then, you can apply the spirit of the cards with a bit of imaginitive tweaking. How did that Rebel Trooper take out the Tie Fighter? Maybe he shot the pilot before he could get to the ship. Why is the Rancor munching on X-Wings? Ever see Godzilla or King Kong? :D


So in short, they're both great games in different ways, and I love em both.

Posted at

Master Fwiffo said:

Ok Backstory: Decipher's SWCCG is one of my all time favorite games, ever. It's easily my favorite format for a CCG/LCG, and one of my all time favorites despite balance issues. My brother, my friend and I still regularly pull out my boxes of cards and play it. So if anyone has a definite bias, it's me.


That said, I really, really like the new LCG. I'm not a big LCG player (I only just got into Netrunner and this one, and I dabbled in the Cthulhu LCG), so I don't know about the recycled mechanics or anything like that, but the game as it is fascinates and pleases me. I particularly love the Objective Set deck building mechanic, which is something I've never done in a CCG before and I love it.

But I too, find that the LCG does manage to capture Star Wars spirit, but in a manner much different than the CCG.

The CCG had a particular charm - if you wanted to run a deck of only Jawas playing Sabbacc, you could (I did). If you wanted to send a Jawa to Dagohbah to become a Jedi Knight, you could (I did that too! Didn't work, was awsome nonetheless). You could have Darth Maul and Evil Lando face down a hoard of Ewoks on Endor, and it rocked.

But while the CCG told a narative story taylored to your deck, the LCG requires a bit more imagination. But what it captures well is the spirit and emotions . When you're playing the Rebels, you feel desperate, backed up against the wall, and still hopeful for a win. When you play the Empire, you're the powerhouse, but with a secret dread the Rebels will break through and destroy you. And even then, you can apply the spirit of the cards with a bit of imaginitive tweaking. How did that Rebel Trooper take out the Tie Fighter? Maybe he shot the pilot before he could get to the ship. Why is the Rancor munching on X-Wings? Ever see Godzilla or King Kong? :D


So in short, they're both great games in different ways, and I love em both.

As a fellow long-time SWCCG player, this is probably one of the best descriptions of the pure-awesome of each game in their own rights I've read. I like that each game feels so different, it makes it much easier to play both of them!