[Pazuzu]

This is not the first time I mention the success of the Player's Committee, but so far nothing was transfered here or even acknowledge that it's being worked on. If you (as in the CC) need any help, please let me know.

[BCSWowbagger]

This is not the first time I mention the success of the Player's Committee, but so far nothing was transfered here or even acknowledge that it's being worked on. If you (as in the CC) need any help, please let me know.

Can you code? There is an STCCG-GEMP project. I'm sure it could use another hand.

[Pazuzu]

I am a bit rusty, but I did code in the past. I could give it a try.

[BCSWowbagger]

I don't know who controls access to the GEMP development forum right now (and honestly I don't understand why it's not a public forum), but I think it's either @doctorjoya or @JeBuS and hopefully one of them can get you added to it!

[abargar7510]

I don't know who controls access to the GEMP development forum right now (and honestly I don't understand why it's not a public forum), but I think it's either @doctorjoya or @JeBuS and hopefully one of them can get you added to it!

@eberlems ?

[Pazuzu]

I guess they're currently busy on Worlds. I'll ping them next week then.

[Rachmaninoff]

Bumping this six-week-old thread because the "game is dying" discussion has prompted a good amount of self-reflection and it's taken me a while to organize my thoughts. In particular because I'm probably one of the obvious targets for this kind of question -- back in Decipher era I played all the time, I've been hanging around TrekCC for close to 15 years at this point but have played an embarassingly small number of games since (like, one game every 4-5 years) even though I read the boards most every day and post semi-regularly.

The honest truth is that there are enough other things going on in my life it's really hard to find a dedicated block of time for deckbuilding/playing. I can pop onto the boards with random bits of free time here and there, and post something when I have some spare brain cycles -- but longer, uninterrupted blocks of time are much scarcer, and frankly I prioritize those for the researching/writing/programming parts of my day job. I know there are ways around such things -- netdecking, preconstructed decks, warp speed, Squire's Rules, etc. all cut down on deckbuilding and playing time -- but I've always had a big "Johnny" streak and building and tuning my own decks has always been a point of pride. (Yes, I know that I'm letting perfect be the enemy of the good.)

So I don't know what the answer is for me if the question is "what would get me to play more games." But I'd like to think I'm part of the community in my own way, even if it's very rare that I actually play a game. I love seeing new cards, thinking of tech and countertech, exploring nooks and crannies of the rules. I love getting into discussions on the boards about design philosophy. I've always loved mathematics, computers and other formal systems. Viewing the game as one such system, the time I spend thinking about the game is satisfying to me both intellectually and as a Trekkie, even if I don't get to put ideas into practice. For the moment I'm happy being a solitary theoretician who chimes in randomly with historical facts, crazy ideas for angle shots, or Rube Goldberg contest entries, rather than a regular tournament player. And maybe that's OK.

PS: I am grateful to @Ashigaru and @phaserihardlyknowher for exposing me to the wonderful piece of performance art that is the 2222-card Yugioh deck. "Mischen: Impossible" has to be one of my favorite deck titles of all time and the 100+ page deck list takes the cake.

[PantsOfTheTalShiar]

It's interesting to hear that SWCCG is growing, because their game has the same issues that people have been complaining about here for a long time:

Complicated rules/cards, steep learning curve, large card pool, large classes of cards are unplayable, a lot of jumpstarting and deck searching, games that can last over an hour while each player gets fewer than 10 turns, etc.

Makes you think...

Wait, you can't stop there! It makes you think what?

(It made me think "the most important thing for the long-term survival of the STCCG is the development of an STCCG GEMP and I should consider resigning all my positions to focus on building one." But I don't know what conclusions you drew, and I would like to.)

GEMP certainly is huge, but I think there's there's more to it than that. When I look at SWCCG, I see a community that accepts what their game is, accepts that it's not easy, and then creates resources (tutorials/primers/gameplay videos) to help players learn and get better at the game. And it makes those resources easily available.

When I look at the CC, I see a community that does NOT accept what their game is, and wants to redesign the game into something easier, simpler, slower-paced. Redesigning a game is much harder than putting information on a website, forum, or YouTube. It becomes especially difficult because of the constraints that the CC operates under: Can't get rid of any cards because people like the idea of having every card available. Can't significantly change cards because that would be like getting rid of the card. Can barely make new cards because new cards contribute to power creep, and the power level is already too high for the CC. Can't make more rules because the game already has too many. Can't get rid of most rules because cards depend on those rules, and the rules make the game feel Star Treky. So the CC is stuck trying to redesign the game without redesigning the game, and that's why people are still complaining about the same things they complained about 5-10 years ago.

If the CC wants to distill the game down to its core to make it more accessible (whether by transforming Modern Complete or by making a separate format), then there needs to be a clear vision of what that core is. (Though different formats can have different cores!) What is essential to the game; what is the game really about? What are the gameplay experiences that are going to hook the player and make them want to play more?

I don't see a clear vision of what the game is supposed to be from the CC, except that we're supposed to get excited about new Star Trek cards every few months. It's like the CC just assumes the game is fun, and then its job is to remove things that can be difficult or unfun. The problem is that usually those difficult or unfun things are actually the fun things to different players!

So what IS the game about?

Is it figuring out how to combine play and draw engines to maximize resources for mission attempts and/or interference? Not with the way most engines are designed these days. In fact, the CC would prefer you NOT think too much about how to combine play and draw engines.
Is it creative deckbuilding? No.
Is it story-driven experiences? Sometimes, but a CCG has to be one of the worst possible game formats for something story-driven, so good luck with that.
Is it strategically choosing dilemmas and where to seed them? No.
Is it strategically choosing teams for mission attempts? No.
Is it interacting with your opponent? No; there's a reason people make solitaire jokes.
Is it getting to play with your old cards again? No, you should print off the updated version, where the update may be anything from fixing a typo in lore to a major redesign. Oh, and now it has a goofy purple face on it.

So I'm left to conclude that the core of the game is just "Yay Star Trek Cards!"

Obviously I am exaggerating a bit here. Lots of players (including me) find fun in lots of the elements I listed above. But when I look at the starter decks, later iterations of Block, and even a lot of the new cards released, I don't see much except Yay Star Trek Cards.

[Goret'Utan]

Thought-provoking comments

I agree with a lot of this post. At the same time, I think there is an animating vision of 1E, and it's the same as it's been since the beginning: a CCG that simulates the Star Trek universe.

To me, 1E is a sterling example of '80s-'90s game design. It was an era where simulation was the goal of many designs, and complexity wasn't viewed as a problem. If you needed more rules to achieve a more accurate simulation, then so be it.

(There's a fascinating interview with one of SWCCG's designers, where he says that he realized with the Dagobah set--four sets in!--that complexity was a problem. By then, he also realized, the horse was out of the barn.)

There a thread elsewhere on this board about "why play 1E." To me, it's because of that simulation. 2E is a better game, by almost any design principle you care to mention. However, 2E games feel like games. 1E games--at least, at the more casual level--really do feel like episodes or seasons of a television show.

If one accepts that simulation is the animating principle, "yay more cards" becomes a totally valid goal! Before I couldn't simulate the "Twilight" timeline, and explore what would happen if the heroes failed to cure Archer. Now I can. The simulation has grown, and that's a primary objective.

Now, I think there's a fair argument that "improve the simulation" is a problem as an animating principle. It discourages any kind of limits on the card pool, which makes balance extremely difficult. It promotes new card types, new interactions, and ever-increasing complexity. It's bad for the game-qua-game.

But, speaking for myself, I'm not bothered about it. As you said, the SWCCG community accepts that the game is wildly complicated by today's standards. It tries to lower the barriers to entry as much as possible. Ultimately, though, the game is as hard as it is. If you want the unique experience of a game where "if it's in your head, it's in here," you have to accept the overhead. I accept it for SWCCG. I accept it for 1E.

[abargar7510]

Thought-provoking comments

I agree with a lot of this post. At the same time, I think there is an animating vision of 1E, and it's the same as it's been since the beginning: a CCG that simulates the Star Trek universe.

To me, 1E is a sterling example of '80s-'90s game design. It was an era where simulation was the goal of many designs, and complexity wasn't viewed as a problem. If you needed more rules to achieve a more accurate simulation, then so be it.

(There's a fascinating interview with one of SWCCG's designers, where he says that he realized with the Dagobah set--four sets in!--that complexity was a problem. By then, he also realized, the horse was out of the barn.)

There a thread elsewhere on this board about "why play 1E." To me, it's because of that simulation. 2E is a better game, by almost any design principle you care to mention. However, 2E games feel like games. 1E games--at least, at the more casual level--really do feel like episodes or seasons of a television show.

If one accepts that simulation is the animating principle, "yay more cards" becomes a totally valid goal! Before I couldn't simulate the "Twilight" timeline, and explore what would happen if the heroes failed to cure Archer. Now I can. The simulation has grown, and that's a primary objective.

Now, I think there's a fair argument that "improve the simulation" is a problem as an animating principle. It discourages any kind of limits on the card pool, which makes balance extremely difficult. It promotes new card types, new interactions, and ever-increasing complexity. It's bad for the game-qua-game.

But, speaking for myself, I'm not bothered about it. As you said, the SWCCG community accepts that the game is wildly complicated by today's standards. It tries to lower the barriers to entry as much as possible. Ultimately, though, the game is as hard as it is. If you want the unique experience of a game where "if it's in your head, it's in here," you have to accept the overhead. I accept it for SWCCG. I accept it for 1E.

Great post

[AllenGould]

(There's a fascinating interview with one of SWCCG's designers, where he says that he realized with the Dagobah set--four sets in!--that complexity was a problem. By then, he also realized, the horse was out of the barn.)

That's come up with a lot of the first-wave games. It's easy for folks today to forget that in 94-95, no-one could even fathom a game still releasing expansions a year for decades and decades. Even if your game had expansions, there was maybe a handful and then it was done. There was no reason to plan ten years down the road, because what's the odds of that happening?

(And if you look historically, most TCGs don't make it that far. You just don't remember them because, well... they didn't stick around for 20 years. )

[Goret'Utan]

(There's a fascinating interview with one of SWCCG's designers, where he says that he realized with the Dagobah set--four sets in!--that complexity was a problem. By then, he also realized, the horse was out of the barn.)

That's come up with a lot of the first-wave games. It's easy for folks today to forget that in 94-95, no-one could even fathom a game still releasing expansions a year for decades and decades. Even if your game had expansions, there was maybe a handful and then it was done. There was no reason to plan ten years down the road, because what's the odds of that happening?

(And if you look historically, most TCGs don't make it that far. You just don't remember them because, well... they didn't stick around for 20 years. )

All fair points! I didn't mean to criticize the designer--just to point out that complexity wasn't an issue Decipher was concerned about early in the design process.

[Armus]

Yeah I'm old enough to remember the original plan was Premiere->AU->QC->Holodeck Adventures->All Good Things. That's a full game with <1000 cards. Not too complex.

[Kander77]

Bring back battle decks to destroy all current deck types