Learning curve, analysis paralysis and randomness

[Fentum]

A gentleman over on BGG was asking about Mage Wars and was worried about these three areas. I shared my experience so far (limited) and thought I might post it over here too...

steep learning curve
My 11 year old son wandered in whilst I was doing a solo match. He is more into rugby and PC games than boardgames, but he immediately had a good grasp of Mage Wars by simply looking at the board, cards and spell book.

'Ok, so the Beastmaster has brought out loads of animals to kill the Priestess.'

'The Priestess has a couple of good guys there - are they defending her from the foxes?'

He watched me playing solo for about five minutes and quickly understood the game flow. To the extent that he joined in, playing together, taking best options for each mage. He called the spells for each round and made sensible choices. He was also able to figure out the best creatures to cast spells on and so on.

It's not a complex game. In fact it feels very intuitive.

analysis paralysis
Definitely possible for this to happen. Early games are all about figuring out what spells do, and access to all spells means that AP can happen. Apprentice (half size) spell books help, but definitely a concern. My son had no trouble with this, and chose within a few minutes each turn, and he is a bit of a thinker.

Choice and randomness
There is a HECK of a lot of choice given all the options for your spellbook then all the options during play. BUT it doesn't feel random at all. Quite the reverse. Access to all spells means you are actively choosing tactics ecah turn, not randomly drawing cards. There IS randomness in the dice rolls, but the combat mechanisms seem to give 'average' results most of the time. i.e. it's a high peaked bell curve and even the outliers are not usually significant enough to 'kill' the game. The one bit of randomness that does feel pretty binary and significant is the DEFENCE mechanic which gives a straight % chance to completely avoid an entire attack. Even that can be ameliorated by multiple attackers and so on.

It's a great game to me, and your specific concerns may be addressed. There is an excellent series of gamelapy videos on BGG by Tox. Watch those and see what you think.

[Preacher]

A gentleman over on BGG was asking about Mage Wars and was worried about these three areas. I shared my experience so far (limited) and thought I might post it over here too...

steep learning curve
My 11 year old son wandered in whilst I was doing a solo match. He is more into rugby and PC games than boardgames, but he immediately had a good grasp of Mage Wars by simply looking at the board, cards and spell book.

'Ok, so the Beastmaster has brought out loads of animals to kill the Priestess.'

'The Priestess has a couple of good guys there - are they defending her from the foxes?'

He watched me playing solo for about five minutes and quickly understood the game flow. To the extent that he joined in, playing together, taking best options for each mage. He called the spells for each round and made sensible choices. He was also able to figure out the best creatures to cast spells on and so on.

It's not a complex game. In fact it feels very intuitive.

analysis paralysis
Definitely possible for this to happen. Early games are all about figuring out what spells do, and access to all spells means that AP can happen. Apprentice (half size) spell books help, but definitely a concern. My son had no trouble with this, and chose within a few minutes each turn, and he is a bit of a thinker.

Choice and randomness
There is a HECK of a lot of choice given all the options for your spellbook then all the options during play. BUT it doesn't feel random at all. Quite the reverse. Access to all spells means you are actively choosing tactics ecah turn, not randomly drawing cards. There IS randomness in the dice rolls, but the combat mechanisms seem to give 'average' results most of the time. i.e. it's a high peaked bell curve and even the outliers are not usually significant enough to 'kill' the game. The one bit of randomness that does feel pretty binary and significant is the DEFENCE mechanic which gives a straight % chance to completely avoid an entire attack. Even that can be ameliorated by multiple attackers and so on.

It's a great game to me, and your specific concerns may be addressed. There is an excellent series of gamelapy videos on BGG by Tox. Watch those and see what you think.

I agree with your points aside from the randomness issue I will go into in a minute. Firstly though I think it has a fairly steep-ish learning curve for kids, it is also very intuitive and once you know the spells and some of the main 'options' and strategies in a given book it becomes a lot quicker and you get quite a bit less AP. My 10 yr old lad loves it and plays at a quite high level now.

On to the randomness... More and more in games these days I seek as little randomness as possible, it just doesn't fill me with love, at all. You're right on with your MW random elements and for me they *almost* spoil a great game to the point of knocking it down a point or two in an out of ten score. I adore the non-random card choice and the tactics it opens up for you to explore and the hard choices it makes you take but I've had a fair few games now where dice rolls, be it damage dice or defence dice have decided the outcome despite a really strong buildup and strategy from the losing player.

Now don't get me wrong here, I get that it's gladiator style combat and that 'random' things are going to happen but for me personally, I would have much preferred a diceless system of combat and before you ask, yes I am fine with auto-lose and auto win situations  B)

Perhaps some middle(er) ground would have been my overall best case scenario as even though the dice are custom and as you say are statistically likely to give a close to average score, they often don't in my (painful) experience and going back to your point about kids, this is a hard one to sell for multiple plays if it keeps happening.

[piousflea]

On randomness: I think Mage Wars has just enough randomness to introduce an element of unpredictability and controlled risk-taking. With nonrandom damage (ie M:TG or WoW), you could look at a bunch of creatures and instantly know which creatures will die in a single attack. You then plan your moves around that knowledge.

In MW, I can look at a bunch of creatures in a zone and say, "This grizzly bear has 3 health remaining, but he has 3 Armor. If I melee him with 4 dice, I might kill him but it's no guarantee. I really want to make sure that he dies before he gets another 7-dice melee attack off; so I'll Hurl a Boulder at him." That's an 8 mana expense to mitigate some randomness.

Over the course of an entire game, there are such a large number of attacks and defense rolls that all of the randomness averages out. Even the effect die randomness (which can feel very random indeed) averages out over time. MW is definitely much less random than M:TG or WoW where an excellent draw can win the game right away.

Out of the many, many games of MW I've played, I have not had a single game where at the end of the game, the losing player said "If only I rolled better I would have won." Instead, I say (and hear other players say) things like "If only I had placed that spawnpoint in a less vulnerable position I would have won," or "If only I hadn't attacked into a Reverse Attack I would have won," or "If only I'd killed your creatures before trying to focus-fire your Mage, I would have won."

[Preacher]

Out of the many, many games of MW I've played, I have not had a single game where at the end of the game, the losing player said "If only I rolled better I would have won." Instead, I say (and hear other players say) things like "If only I had placed that spawnpoint in a less vulnerable position I would have won," or "If only I hadn't attacked into a Reverse Attack I would have won," or "If only I'd killed your creatures before trying to focus-fire your Mage, I would have won."

Wow, that really, really shocks me. Genuinely.

I think almost without exception I have had the opposite experience. There's almost always a key roll or a key play that requires a roll that is on a knife edge which is cool for emotion and feeling invested in the game but often I find a player saying "ughh that roll was awful and the dice boned me there" or "good game man, I got REALLY lucky on that 8 dice roll and hit you for 13 which was awesome for me and did you in"

YYMV but I find it a little too random for my own tastes, not too much to kill it as another has said and sure you can go overkill to compensate but (ideal world here and totally appreciating how hard game design is) I would like less randomness myself.

[sdougla2]

I agree with Piousflea on the randomness issue. The dice can decide close games, but they tend to average out. I don't think I've ever had a game against another player where I felt like the outcome was determined by primarily by the dice. I've had a few games against myself where I felt that the dice decided things, but that was partially because I wasn't as comfortable dealing with the bluffing elements playing against myself. I've had a few games where I won a round earlier or a few rounds later due to good or bad dice rolls, but it was pretty clear that I was going to win one way or the other.

The way that the dice and armor works gives much lower variance on the damage dice than many games. The effect die has much higher variance, and has a bigger ability to swing games, but the random factors still usually even out overall.

[Tacullu64]

Out of the many, many games of MW I've played, I have not had a single game where at the end of the game, the losing player said "If only I rolled better I would have won." Instead, I say (and hear other players say) things like "If only I had placed that spawnpoint in a less vulnerable position I would have won," or "If only I hadn't attacked into a Reverse Attack I would have won," or "If only I'd killed your creatures before trying to focus-fire your Mage, I would have won."

Wow, that really, really shocks me. Genuinely.

I think almost without exception I have had the opposite experience. There's almost always a key roll or a key play that requires a roll that is on a knife edge which is cool for emotion and feeling invested in the game but often I find a player saying "ughh that roll was awful and the dice boned me there" or "good game man, I got REALLY lucky on that 8 dice roll and hit you for 13 which was awesome for me and did you in"

YYMV but I find it a little too random for my own tastes, not too much to kill it as another has said and sure you can go overkill to compensate but (ideal world here and totally appreciating how hard game design is) I would like less randomness myself.

I find my feelings on this topic a bit odd. Under normal circumstances I would find myself in total agreement with preacher, I really like games that limit the randomness. However, I find myself in total agreement with piousflea on this one.

I played a game as the warlord versus the forcemaster. The forcemaster didn't miss a single defense roll the entire game. If I remember correct, he went 7/7 on the defense rolls. I lost a close game in which I would have finished off the forcemaster in the last turn if she hadn't finished me off first. I am pretty sure that if the forcemaster had went 4/7 on defense rolls I would've won the game. My first instinct after the game was to look back at the choices I had made and the ones I could've made differently to secure a better outcome for the warlord. I had made several sub optimal decisions during the game that could have swung things my way if I had made a different decision.

I believe it's the sheer volume of decisions I get to make during the game that makes me think that AW has hit the sweet spot for randomness in MW. Even though I'm at the mercy of the dice I feel like I have control of the outcome of the game.

[sIKE]

I find the randomness of the game to in the right location. I do not like most of the LCG because of the random nature from the draw of the cards. Here it feels very much like the randomness of battle. Yes even an arrow to the heel of the mighty Achilles has a good bit of randomness to it. Which I feel the game implements quite well.

Unlike Piousflea, I feel that the randomness of the dice smooth out over games not during (one game I am hot the other my opponent is, many times I cannot roll that damn 6+ to get the stun etc). Within the game the dice can really determine the outcome quickly.

I think at one point I posted about in one game I was hit by a reverse attack with 9 dice which caused 14 points of damage and then the LOH hit me for 8 dice of damage for 10 points of damage. In one round 24 points of damage after armor 18 points of damage were applied! Oh yeah and two burns and a stun. Very very unhappy camper.

With all of that said, the randomness can be a bit frustrating but I think mechanically it is in the right place within the game itself.

[Preacher]

I find the randomness of the game to in the right location. I do not like most of the LCG because of the random nature from the draw of the cards. Here it feels very much like the randomness of battle. Yes even an arrow to the heel of the mighty Achilles has a good bit of randomness to it. Which I feel the game implements quite well.

Unlike Piousflea, I feel that the randomness of the dice smooth out over games not during (one game I am hot the other my opponent is, many times I cannot roll that damn 6+ to get the stun etc). Within the game the dice can really determine the outcome quickly.

I think at one point I posted about in one game I was hit by a reverse attack with 9 dice which cause 14 points of damage and then the LOH hit me for 8 dice of damage for 10 points of damage. In one round 24 points of damage after armor 18 points of damage were applied! Oh yeah and two burns and a stun. Very very unhappy camper.

With all of that said, the randomness can be a bit frustrating but I think mechanically it is in the right place within the game itself.

That's well said and I agree, over games it'll probably even out but again, that's frustrating and *personally* I find the randomness of battle perhaps one notch too much for my own tastes.

[Sausageman]

Wow - I find myself agreeing with sIKE so much I even used the 'hardly ever used' Thank You button....

The game is great, it really is, but sometimes the randomness is SO apparent it makes me want to pull my hair out. The infamous game where I layered 5 armour, and my opponent scored only critical hits from then on - through about 30 attack dice, and many other stories where the rolls played a MASSIVE roll in things.

In fact, if there was one change I could make to this game, it would be to change the dice to D8s, and adding another blank and another 1 damage. It doesn't sit well with me that you're just as likely to crit as you are to do normal damage....

But I digress Lots of randomness here is my feeling. Not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes, it will make you think that a deity is actively picking on you

[Preacher]

Wow - I find myself agreeing with sIKE so much I even used the 'hardly ever used' Thank You button....

The game is great, it really is, but sometimes the randomness is SO apparent it makes me want to pull my hair out. The infamous game where I layered 5 armour, and my opponent scored only critical hits from then on - through about 30 attack dice, and many other stories where the rolls played a MASSIVE roll in things.

In fact, if there was one change I could make to this game, it would be to change the dice to D8s, and adding another blank and another 1 damage. It doesn't sit well with me that you're just as likely to crit as you are to do normal damage....

But I digress Lots of randomness here is my feeling. Not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes, it will make you think that a deity is actively picking on you

Agreed on all apart from the D8, surely that would make things even more random?

So from sIKE and your post, do you both feel that it's the averaging out over the course of games (note plural here) that make it all ok? Because I totally agree, within *a* game, there is a lot of randomness.

As a very stark and simplistic example; given equal skill and well-matched or equal spellbooks and few or no huge mistakes, the winner will be determined by luck some of the time. Would that be fair to say?

There's a 'thank you' button??  :ohmy:

[piousflea]

Agreed on all apart from the D8, surely that would make things even more random?

So from sIKE and your post, do you both feel that it's the averaging out over the course of games (note plural here) that make it all ok? Because I totally agree, within *a* game, there is a lot of randomness.

As a very stark and simplistic example; given equal skill and well-matched or equal spellbooks and few or no huge mistakes, the winner will be determined by luck some of the time. Would that be fair to say?

There's a 'thank you' button??  :ohmy:

Luck certainly plays a role in MW, but skill plays a much larger role. When we're sitting around dissecting our moves in a post-game analysis, we usually find that positioning and spell selection count for much more than any lucky or unlucky roll. Luck plays a much smaller factor in winning games compared to a typical "CCG" where your hand is randomly drawn.

[Sausageman]

Agreed on all apart from the D8, surely that would make things even more random?

Well, I wouldn't say more random, but it flattens things out a little - maybe crits and 2 damage less likely to happen. It was only a little related to the randomness point anyway, just a personal bugbear of mine

As for the rolls leveling out, I really don't feel games are long enough to get average rolls.

[sIKE]

Yes, I have seen things just level out. My last game the dice gods were in my favor. The previous game were in his. We also played a game of Eclipse last Wednesday. On the last round of the game we ended up fighting for a zone with a single Interceptor each and each had to roll d6 with a result of 6 for him to win and I have to roll 6 two times to win the battle. I have to tell you after 6-7 rolls the thrill of rolling to see who would win that little battle, kept increasing he eventually won but man let me tell you have much fun those roles were and it was one of the highlights of that game day. Just who would win, when that six would appear! Pure randomness, pure joy!

[Sausageman]

Luck plays a much smaller factor in winning games compared to a typical "CCG" where your hand is randomly drawn.

I don't agree - it plays at least as much in my experience. Obviously, as Mage Wars is still in it's infacy, it's difficult to tell whether the same players consistantly win their games, but there's a reason the same ccg players won theirs....
Fact is, I have both won and lost games (lost more than won too) purely because of terrible dice on my behalf or amazing on my opponents (often both at the same time, which makes a massive difference....).

Like I said, I'm not saying randomness in a game is bad, far from it - but I like to be able to mitigate randmoness where possible...

[Preacher]

Luck certainly plays a role in MW, but skill plays a much larger role. When we're sitting around dissecting our moves in a post-game analysis, we usually find that positioning and spell selection count for much more than any lucky or unlucky roll. Luck plays a much smaller factor in winning games compared to a typical "CCG" where your hand is randomly drawn.

Guess I'm not comparing to CCGs here, perhaps MW is more of a boardgame or at least somewhere between LCG, CCG and BG for me and I certainly value less randomness is boardgames.

As I say, I think my experience is different from yours, does player skill come into it at all? New players etc? I've played a fair few games now where there's not been too many mistakes at all and then it really does come down to luck more often than not.

Another (slightly disturbing) aspect to the luck thing we've not mentioned is the surprise (for me anyway) post on here from one of the designers saying that the direction was very much the stone/paper/scissors school of design, at least in part. ie. X mage type counters Y mage type more often than not.