NPE - Could it defeat the purpose of Academy?

[Laddinfance]

I'm sorry that you've had a difficult time teaching your wife to play Academy, and Arena before that. I've been mulling over your post since you first wrote it. There is a lot to think about in there. Right now we're finishing up the Priestess and the Warlock for Academy. After reading your post, I've been going back over the cards again and again. I think both the Priestess and the Warlock will really help broaden out the strategies in Academy.

When we were playtesting Academy, one of the things that we tested in depth was mana drain. Things were found to be generally even. Now, this is not to say that a new player will immediately stumble onto the correct plays or to say that a match like that isn't occasionally frustrating. But it is to say that this strategy is not unassailable. In fact slavish adherence to that strategy can just as often lead a Wizard to disaster. Academy, like Arena, is a game about anticipating problems and quickly finding the appropriate response. As such more experienced players are almost always at an advantage. Because we want to reward the players who really delve into the game and because we try to mitigate issues of randomness, a new player playing against an experienced one is often at a disadvantage. From the demos we've run across three different conventions we have not had an issue with two new players learning Academy, or for that matter two experienced players playing academy.

Finally, it's never too late. Thank you for your very intelligent and well reasoned post. Being up front helps us to see exactly what you see. And frankly, it's a goal of mind to help be a voice for our players. So, thanks.

[ringkichard]

A couple of days ago I wrote a response to this topic that I immediately regretted and deleted. I'm going to try again now that I'm feeling more reflective.

--

I want people to know that Aaron and Bryan a lot of playtesters do worry about NPEs, and that this issue is taken very seriously. There's always a balance to be struck between fun and challenge, and I think we've been doing a better job of it as all learn from past experience. I'm very glad response to Academy has generally been so positive, and I think one reason for that is how effectively Aaron's been voicing player feedback and concerns. Every bit of constructive crit is helpful to me, and I imagine doubly so to the designers.

Thank you.
--

Thinking about Negative Player Experiences, I realized they're only somewhat tied to winning and losing. While losing is obviously less pleasant than winning, I can still have a negative experience even when I win. And while sometimes it can be incredibly satisfying to defeat some jerk (probably me) who was using an aggravating strategy, sometimes it's just not worth the effort.

An example of this I had in Arena recently, was a game that stretched on for multiple hours. I was playing Necro, and my opponent was a Priest, and because of my far superior channeling and better long game options, the longer the game went, the better my chances of winning. And since my opponent refused to attack (due to a rules misunderstanding), the game just continued quite a bit longer than was interesting for either of us. Each turn I thought, "Alright, I could attack him now, but there's no reason to, and each turn that passes benefits me slightly more than it benefits him." He just spent the time putting on more armor. Eventually I killed him without even dissolving the armor. I was saving my dissolves for a relevant piece of equipment, and winning at half speed was still going to be a win.

But neither of us enjoyed the stalemate. Priest is most fun to play against when he's attacking, but if the player feels that they can't, it can be a long drawn out game. Eventually we figured out the rules misunderstanding, so he won't have that specific problem again, but it was still too late to save that game's fun.

--

When teaching Academy to my wife, I try to stay aware of NPEs and how I can avoid creating them. During the learning period, I'm winning a lot of games. My wife is ferociously intelligent and a quick learner, but I've got so much more experience with Arena (and hobby games generally) that until she loses a dozen times she's not going to be able to compete very well. But she's also wise enough to understand that, and set her expectations accordingly. Because of that, she easily sees through my ruse if I try to go easy on her, and she doesn't seem to like that very much. Understandably, she sees it as condescending.

So, in this situation, I avoid playing mana denial against her. Even though in Academy aggression is generally the stronger strategy, our experience gap means I'm going to win anyway. And losing to mana denial is frustrating no matter the actual reason for the loss. I won because of my greater experience, but she had an NPE because she lost to mana denial.

In that circumstance it doesn't actually matter that two evenly matched players won't have a problem with the game, because the game isn't always played by evenly matched players. And while it seems fair and fun if I play Beastmaster and win decisively with big stompy creatures, it's unfun if I do the same thing with Mana Worms and Draining effects and a slow, inevitable, frustrating, helpless doom.

It doesn't just matter why I won, but how.

[Intangible0]

There is an understandable fear here. The best games I've had are when I could look at my opponent on the last round and say, "I don't even care if I win or lose, this has been the best game I've played." It was about both players and mages playing to the fullest of their abilities, seeing blow for blow, and one spell after another make all the world of difference.

Resource denial is generally fun for the player on the denying side, at least when the obstruction is visible (Discarding). However, it isn't as entertaining for the guy on the other side, unless that player manages to respond appropriately and pull off a win with what little they had at their disposal. The issue there of course is if they're new, they may not know how to respond properly.

Ultimately, if two people pick the game up for the first time, then yes, there's a decent chance that they might have a NPE. I do feel that if at least one of them is familiar with MW then there won't be an issue. Also, in the pre-made book there isn't as much mana denial as there could be. There's only going to be a ton of mana denial if the book was crafted by a player familiar with the game, and most likely he's going to be playing that deck against another experienced player. So really the chance of a new player facing off against a mana denial deck is pretty low, since it would be an experienced player using his crafted book against the new guy... kinda a jerk move.

The last thing to point out is that mana lock down hasn't really been a viable strategy, and now with Academy, it might be. So, although that has nothing to do with NPE, it is important to bring up. We've seen a lot of books revolve on the same strategies over and over again, it's time to see some new blood. 

[Sailor Vulcan]

I think that we need to figure out what it is, exactly, about mana denial, and perhaps defensive/controlling strategies in general, that makes it so unfun to play against for so many people. I myself actually like playing against that sort of strategy. A true game of strategy takes place in the mind just as much as on the table if not more so, and this is often most apparent to me when I'm playing against a controlling strategy. Unfortunately a lot of other people seem to get frustrated, feeling like "they can't do anything". If they have less mana, they have fewer options for spells they can cast in a given round.

Perhaps a lot of people don't know how to enjoy that.

I've noticed that the vast majority of people that I've ever met don't like investing much energy on deep thinking, at least in certain situations. They'll do it if they have to, but they hate it. I suspect that fighting mana denial is similar. It constrains someone's decision making process in the game in such a way that it brings them FAR outside their comfort zone. I've often heard people who are playing mtg say that they "get bored" when playing against control. Maybe if the number or power level of cards which aren't just counters to other cards, and that are physically being put on the table, gets decreased,  then it feels like the action is decreasing even if it's actually not. Which might explain why they get bored. Even if the actual amount of action hasn't decreased, there's less going on visually.

[ringkichard]

Vulcan, I was thinking about that the other day, too! Some people really like hard games. Roguelikes, Dwarf Fortress, old arcade games, Pandemic on hard mode, etc.

I tend to like that sort of challange sometimes, but it's a real brain-burner for me, so I have to take it in limited amounts. I'm also not thrilled by it in multiplayer games. When it's PvE I enjoy it because it's not supposed to be fair, but PvP seems like it should have different rules.

--

Your second point about "nothing's happening" is also interesting! It reminds me of something I read a while ago about "why games should be balanced." An unbalanced game only uses part of the designed experience. If, for example, Jinx persists as a metagame defining card, that'll be a problem because it means that players will spend a lot of the game working around Jinx, and not playing against all the other spells in the game. Jinx is a fine card, but it's not so interesting that it's fun to see 6 times in an 8 round game. Even worse, if Jinx were that dominant, people might just stop playing Quick Action spells entirely. That's a whole lot of game design (and space in the box) going to waste, and there'd be no guarantee that what remains would be balanced. 

[iNano78]

Thanks for the responses.  Here is some more information about the backgrounds of the players whose experiences led to my "article."

For the record, my wife (who is a scientist) is a pretty hardcore gamer.  Until recently, she ran a gaming group at her work (comprised of mostly scientists, engineers and statisticians).  She loves a good brain-burner.  She enjoys other medium to long-ish board games with a wide variety of themes and mechanisms - e.g. Hive, The Resistance, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek: Fleet Captains, Dominant Species.  Quite often I have to turn down a game with her because I'm too tired for such a thinky game; e.g. the other night she wanted to play a deep abstract game and I said "I don't know if I'm up for that; how about Star Realms?"

Similarly, one of the regulars at our Mage Wars organized play nights had high expectations for Academy, hoping that it might be something his "casual gamer" wife would like.  She enjoys games like Eclipse, Keyflower, Belfort, Troyes, Robinson Crusoe: Adventures on the Cursed Island, Twilight Struggle, etc.  Fairly thinky games, some with a considerable amount of direct conflict.  But she didn't like Mage Wars Arena because it involved knowing a lot of cards and spending time outside the game building decks. Like my wife, she prefers to play a few different games a month, not the same game again and again on a weekly basis.  So he was hoping Academy might be something she would like.

After a couple plays with my wife, she identified what she didn't like about it, and that was the NPE mana denial and/or Stagger incapacitate effects that reminded her of previous "unfun" experiences with Mage Wars Arena - which is what inspired my "article."  She'd rather play a 2-player game that she always enjoys, even if she doesn't always win - like Hive (which she wins about 50%), Star Realms (for some reason she's only won once or twice out of about 15 plays), an abstract from the GIPF series (she tends to win more often than not), Mr. Jack (about 50%), etc.

After a single play, similarly my friend realized Academy wasn't quite what he was hoping for.  While the game play itself is streamlined (e.g. no planning phase, no conjurations (yet), less options available) and matches are much shorter, the cards are still quite complex (with even more card text on the average Academy card compared to the average Arena card), there is still the need to occasionally check the Codex on what a condition or effect does, and there are some "unfun" effects (like Mana Drain and Exile and Stagger) - enough for him to anticipate that his wife wouldn't enjoy it.  "It's still Mage Wars, it's still pretty complex, it still benefits from building your own spell book, and it still has a lot of conditions, effects and situations that will require checking the Codex or FAQ."

In other words, Academy probably won't appeal to people who don't like Mage Wars (Arena) - unless the only thing holding them back from playing Arena was the match duration. 

In that way, it might appeal to (former) MtG players, and other CCG players ... and for the record, neither of our spouses were fans of MtG for similar reasons.  For instance, my wife played MtG for a while but didn't like the huge card pool that often led her to say "if I'd known that card existed, then I would have tried something else." Also, she didn't particularly enjoy building her own decks due to the time commitment, and didn't like the frequency of new releases and of cards rotating out of legality. She'd rather pick up a game and play it, then be able to leave it alone for a while before doing the same again a month or two later.  And while Academy's starter spell books might suggest that's possible, the starter spell books still didn't appeal to her for all the other reasons mentioned above.

Anyway, hope this adds some perspective.  I appreciate that Arcane Wonders is aware of NPE-inducing effects and is actively trying to make their products appealing to a wider range of players.

[Ganpot]

I'm a play tester for another popular tabletop game.  One of the things we're aware of when designing/testing/revising new game effects is whether or not that effect, on its own or in combination with other effects, might be "unfun" for one player and lead to NPE.

(omitted)

Note to Arcane Wonders design team: If you want people to like Academy enough to play it again, don't include resource denial as a primary strategy of one of the only two mages available upon release - especially not in the recommended starter spell book - and don't include a condition (let alone invent a new condition specifically for this set) that prevents creatures from functioning when one of the two mages is supposed to be all about summoning creatures.  Hopefully this isn't "too little too late."

I like that you took the time to write out a detailed and thought out topic, but I disagree with a lot of your assessments.  "Fun" factor is a very tricky thing to tie down, because it varies massively from person to person.  It's easy to label something as a NPE, but there are successful games built entirely around systems many people consider incredibly unfun.  Some games are heavily luck-based, some encourage players to team up or betray each other, and some are just outright sadistic.  As such, negative player experiences aren't so much a problem as they are an audience limiter.  People are either capable of enjoying (or even embracing) such a set-up, or they aren't.  I've played games in which I've known without a shadow of a doubt, from very early on, that I had no chance of winning.  A lot of people would have been very frustrated by this revelation, but I decided that I would just have fun anyway by doing ridiculous things in-game. 

Additionally, you'd have to rip the heart out of Mage Wars to get rid of NPEs.  The more complex a game is, the more potential for "unfun" strategies and combinations exist.  Mage Wars has a massive amount of potential interactions, and therefore a lot of opportunities for NPEs.  But again, that's not necessarily a problem, because the depth of Mage Wars is precisely why a lot of people enjoy playing it.  Not to mention that there will always be a chance for NPEs in competitive games.  After all, somebody has to end up losing. 

I think the most important sentence in your post is that after your wife's disastrous defeat due to your Sleep spell, she was considering rebuilding her deck or changing her strategy to deal with that situation in the future.  In my opinion, THAT is the correct way to deal with potential NPEs in Mage Wars.  The best part of the game is coming across unexpected obstacles and trying to figure out how to deal with them (either during or after the match).  People need to view defeat as a learning experience.  Mass Sleep isn't an inherently negative player experience.  Your wife just didn't have enough experience to overcome it (a very similar thing happened to me when I first encountered that card). 

There always seem to be people who really, really despise control builds/decks in any game that allows them, which I find interesting.  However, I disagree that resource denial mechanics shouldn't be included for the Wizard.  Mana supremecy and (short-term) creature control are basically WHAT HE DOES.  They are the strategies that set him apart from the other mages (as well as all the elemental attacks, obviously).  That's kind of like being upset at the Warlock for using de-buffs all the time. 

While I understand how it can be frustrating to be blindsided by such a strategy while playing for the first time, new players need to be exposed to it so that they can become better players, and hopefully move on to Arena (and potentially play as the Wizard there).  If the Academy mages played nothing like their Arena counterparts, it would probably be even more frustrating for new players, since Academy would be actively teaching them the wrong things.  The same is true of Stagger.  Players need to be exposed to it so that they know how to deal with Stun and other nasty conditions, both in Academy and Arena. 

All of that being said, I have not played Academy yet since I don't own it.  If one of the mages, cards, or strategies is noticeably unbalanced, that would be very bad for the game, and Arcane Wonders should take steps to fix that (either by adding new cards to the next releases of Academy, or by changing existing cards if absolutely necessary). 

I think that we need to figure out what it is, exactly, about mana denial, and perhaps defensive/controlling strategies in general, that makes it so unfun to play against for so many people.  ....  Unfortunately a lot of other people seem to get frustrated, feeling like "they can't do anything". If they have less mana, they have fewer options for spells they can cast in a given round.

Perhaps a lot of people don't know how to enjoy that.

....  Maybe if the number or power level of cards which aren't just counters to other cards, and that are physically being put on the table, gets decreased,  then it feels like the action is decreasing even if it's actually not. Which might explain why they get bored. Even if the actual amount of action hasn't decreased, there's less going on visually.

This is a great post. 

[Erebus]

I am a really big fan of strategic, well-thought out combinations which, while not always the NPE culprits, can be frustrating. To me, the less options you give your opponent to react and execute their plans the better.

I have consciously avoided NPE against younger players and have lost games because of this "self-filtering". It's a little less fun when you can't always make the best move you think of, but it does improve their perception of the game. Still, Mage Wars is a competitive game so once you're playing with people who want to be fully challenged... just go ham. Mage Wars is as much about creating options as it is removing them.

So I guess my point is that you can control the NPE in your games as long as your aware of the other player's feelings. When I play with my younger sister, it's very easy to tell when she's not having fun. I think most newer players dislike having their plans foiled by cards they didn't know existed, so a couple games of Academy will mitigate this. Also, Academy has no planning phase so reacting to new threats/mana denial should be easier.

I don't think any game that's set up for a competitive environment can fully avoid NPE, because the concept itself is somewhat nebulous/subject dependent. NPE is mostly about awareness of other players feelings.

In this case, your wife is clearly knowledgeable about the game (not the "newer player" I think NPE affects more often),  but Academy just doesn't fix the things she didn't like. I agree that this is probably because the heart of Academy is still many of the same mechanics, so a dislike of some of these mechanics would impact one's enjoyment. That said, I think it finds success in shorter games and a greater accessibility which should hopefully let more new players gain affection for Mage Wars.

[ringkichard]

Very interesting point about the lack of planning phase making solutions more available, as long as they start in the spellbook to begin with.

[Mrmt]

Good post.

So once again we see a problem with the wizard?

Seems to be baked into the dna of MW somehow...

I do wonder why they went for the wizard as one of the two first mages. I get that it is the fundamental magic-user of the game, but it's also always been the Mage that's caused the most trouble. Should have gone for a firelock, necro, or Druid imo.

[flamespeak]

Sorry, I have been away from the Arcane Wonders forum for a long time.

The problem with a mana denial mechanic causing a NPE is because it is a tactic that only really works by screwing with another players tactics. Sure, people aren't mad if you banish a card or kill a creature in combat or by using a tricky spell up your sleeve, but if your main tactic is to keep your opponent from actually realizing their ability to play effectively, well, it feels like more a dick move than a smart one.

To put it into perspective, it would by like tying someone's shoelaces together stealthy before the 100 meter dash in the Olympics. The person who lost isn't really mad they lost, they are mad at how they lost and the victory is extremely hollow to a true athlete.

Maybe an easier way to counter a drain ability is to offer the ability to give it a choice of draining mana or health to the person being affected by it. It is nuisance, but it does allow you the drain to do something each turn so it isn't a waste for the person utilizing it and when the game gets down to the late game, losing that mana is far more tempting than losing that life point. That's just a thought. I don't know how much that will effect the game though, maybe one of you people who actually have Academy can try that as a variant and see if it helps out if the current play is troublesome.

[Gwathdring]

This is a game that has complicated deck construction, extended and complex tactical play, has additional rules printed on every single card, requires a codex to track card traits and effects and throws dice in there for good measure.

The core conceit of the game is that every spell you could possibly cast is thrown in your face right from the start. This is one of the most unwieldy games possible for someone prone to AP. This is not a game that is designed--on any level of it's production--for players who are not comfortable with a rapidly changing games state and an aggressive opponent.

I sort of understand why one would take for granted that resource disruption can lead to negative play experiences ... but I think it's reasonable to argue that resource disruption is a valid tactical element, that it occurs in countless games without much in the way of remark, and that it's perfectly fine if people don't like it--that's not the sign we should be looking for that it is broken.

In Chess I can prevent my opponent from doing anything except moving their king. I can check them and capture their useful pieces and gridlock their pawns and fork and pin then and otherwise force them into unwanted situations. It can be extremely unpleasant for some people. When it happens to me? I certainly get agitated but it is a sort of agitation I relish. That's the challenge engaging. That's the game and my opponent telling me that I'm being outplayed, that I didn't protect my resources or my board position well enough. That I don't have enough cheap/efficient spells in my deck. That I needed a different opening. Etc.

If we're going to claim any mechanic in mage wars has a poor cool-experiences to negative-experiences ratio I'd start looking sideways at the dice rolling rather than resource manipulation.

Dueling games are intense. If you're not literally taking away pieces, blocking routes, stealing resources ... then you're doing it indirectly by forcing the opponent to react to your plays. That's just what having the upper hand in a complex dueling game is about. It's about having control. The only way to reduce the "negative player experience" of being controlled is to remove controlling play. There are lots of ways to do this--introduce hidden information, social mechanics, more chaos via extra players, more randomness, lower player interaction ... but all of those involve stepping way from the core concepts of what Mage Wars wants to be.

Quite simply, if you don't like being controlled, pushed, bullied and strangled within the scope of a board game ... then you need to play less competitive games or play with less competitive players. I don't think taking out Mana Drain will fix these "NPE"s for most people; if it wasn't mana drain it would be something else. Mage Wars is not a game with universal appeal. It is long, it is intricate, it uses randomness to increase your need to pay attention rather than decrease it ... again, it overwhelms you by it's core gameplay conceit. If you want a game that puts less pressure on you and gives you more room to breathe I think Mage Wars is a lost cause for you.

That doesn't mean Mage Wars doesn't have issues or that it can't be critiqued or that it can't be imbalanced. I haven't played with or against such strategies enough to figure what I think of the specific resource-denial-y cards and whether they're costed appropriately and so forth. But I can say that this is by no means the only game in my collection where a skill mismatch results in very brutal play that is unpleasant for all but a select few masochistic players like myself. Chess is the firs that comes to mind--one of the oldest and most widespread games still played today. It's perfectly ok if the game isn't intersting enough for some players to invest the energy needed to pull through these kinds of brutal defeats or through tedious stalemates or through those completely out-of-nowhere board states that crop up when neither player can quite figure out what they other player is up to. That isn't for everyone. But it isn't something every game needs to design around.

[Sailor Vulcan]

This is a game that has complicated deck construction, extended and complex tactical play, has additional rules printed on every single card, requires a codex to track card traits and effects and throws dice in there for good measure.

The core conceit of the game is that every spell you could possibly cast is thrown in your face right from the start. This is one of the most unwieldy games possible for someone prone to AP. This is not a game that is designed--on any level of it's production--for players who are not comfortable with a rapidly changing games state and an aggressive opponent.

I sort of understand why one would take for granted that resource disruption can lead to negative play experiences ... but I think it's reasonable to argue that resource disruption is a valid tactical element, that it occurs in countless games without much in the way of remark, and that it's perfectly fine if people don't like it--that's not the sign we should be looking for that it is broken.

In Chess I can prevent my opponent from doing anything except moving their king. I can check them and capture their useful pieces and gridlock their pawns and fork and pin then and otherwise force them into unwanted situations. It can be extremely unpleasant for some people. When it happens to me? I certainly get agitated but it is a sort of agitation I relish. That's the challenge engaging. That's the game and my opponent telling me that I'm being outplayed, that I didn't protect my resources or my board position well enough. That I don't have enough cheap/efficient spells in my deck. That I needed a different opening. Etc.

If we're going to claim any mechanic in mage wars has a poor cool-experiences to negative-experiences ratio I'd start looking sideways at the dice rolling rather than resource manipulation.

Dueling games are intense. If you're not literally taking away pieces, blocking routes, stealing resources ... then you're doing it indirectly by forcing the opponent to react to your plays. That's just what having the upper hand in a complex dueling game is about. It's about having control. The only way to reduce the "negative player experience" of being controlled is to remove controlling play. There are lots of ways to do this--introduce hidden information, social mechanics, more chaos via extra players, more randomness, lower player interaction ... but all of those involve stepping way from the core concepts of what Mage Wars wants to be.

Quite simply, if you don't like being controlled, pushed, bullied and strangled within the scope of a board game ... then you need to play less competitive games or play with less competitive players. I don't think taking out Mana Drain will fix these "NPE"s for most people; if it wasn't mana drain it would be something else. Mage Wars is not a game with universal appeal. It is long, it is intricate, it uses randomness to increase your need to pay attention rather than decrease it ... again, it overwhelms you by it's core gameplay conceit. If you want a game that puts less pressure on you and gives you more room to breathe I think Mage Wars is a lost cause for you.

That doesn't mean Mage Wars doesn't have issues or that it can't be critiqued or that it can't be imbalanced. I haven't played with or against such strategies enough to figure what I think of the specific resource-denial-y cards and whether they're costed appropriately and so forth. But I can say that this is by no means the only game in my collection where a skill mismatch results in very brutal play that is unpleasant for all but a select few masochistic players like myself. Chess is the firs that comes to mind--one of the oldest and most widespread games still played today. It's perfectly ok if the game isn't intersting enough for some players to invest the energy needed to pull through these kinds of brutal defeats or through tedious stalemates or through those completely out-of-nowhere board states that crop up when neither player can quite figure out what they other player is up to. That isn't for everyone. But it isn't something every game needs to design around.

I'm not sure it's a reason not to play the game. In MtG it seemed like most people I ever played against hated control decks and it seemed like a common consensus that people who played control were bad sports. A lot of people harassed me for playing control, both in real life and online. And yet that didn't stop them from playing mtg.

Now I actually kinda suspect the problem with mana denial might be a Timmy/Johnny/Spike thing by nature.

Johnny likes to be creative. Spike likes to be competitive. Timmy likes to be showy.

Mana denial makes it rather difficult to be showy for at least a good portion of the game. Maybe it forces opponents to try to think more like a Johnny or a Spike before they can pull off a Timmy finish to the game?

[iNano78]

These are some well thought out posts, especially for first posts... But I'm not sure if we're talking about the same game. 

Mage Wars ACADEMY is the short, light introductory game introducing players to the world of Mage Wars. I personally have little issue with resource denial and control strategies in Mage Wars Arena/Domination. Those games can really be wars of attrition, and I too enjoy the competitive challenge of those long, tough matches from time to time. But to have resource denial as a central theme of one of the recommended starter decks of ACADEMY, which advertises itself as a quick (20-30 minute) light(er) card game seems unwise.  I personally think that resource denial is better left for the heavier strategy board game inspired by tactical minis games that is now called Arena ... But what's done is done.

P.S. @ Gathdring: welcome to the forum! And @ flamespeak: welcome back!

[Gwathdring]

My favorite two player games are Neuroshima Hex, Chess, Go, Babel and Hive. Neuroshima Hex could be said to be a little on the heavy side. Chess and Go certainly so. Of these, Go has the least direct resource denial.

I think Babel and Hive work wonderfully with their denial mechanics--I think at the very least, it's not that denial exists, it's how the denial is implemented, how easily you can avoid it, and how much patience you as a player have for not knowing what to do or not getting your way. In Babel, a clever player can pull off absurd combos stripping you of combo power and points while also protecting themselves as well as can be. But that's just it--a clever player who knows the game can do this. A player who understands what's in front of them and knows how to use it well can destroy your ability to act productively.

And as per my earlier post, to an extent I think that's how competition works. Smaller, lighter, shorter games aren't necessarily less brutal. Tokaido is one of the most cut-throat games in my collection, and it's about taking a nice little walk from Edo to Tokyo. But it's a game of trying to race to opportunities and pace yourself and guess what other players will do, and because of that everything you do denies someone opportunities, denies yourself opportunities, guarantees some third party yet other opportunities you've permanently passed up ... it's a game of one-way maneuvers in which you try to back yourselves into a tiny space, bashing your heads against a wall of arithmetic all while trying to ensure no one else is squeezing themselves into your spot. But it is by no means heavy or particularly long, and it has been a hit every time I've brought it to the table. It's not for everyone but, well, neither is Mage Wars or Magic. I say this without judgement--if you can't take the heat, you shouldn't spend your recreational time around a bonfire of competition and fiddly rules and economic management like Mage Wars, Magic the Gathering, heavy euro games, Tokaido ... it's not good for your sanity! There are so many games out there. Not everyone has to like all of them.

Casual play is casual play regardless of the intensity of the game. You can play Fire in the Lake with a casual attitude and fudge the rules when you forget them or don't like them and give people mulligans and do-overs or go easy on other players or just sit back and generally focus on telling a cool story with your game rather than fighting a hard fight. Competitive play is always going to find the pressure points in a game and I don't think it makes sense to make resource denial out to be the issue. Again, it's incredibly easy to shift the bounds on what's considered a "resource" and turn all sorts of classic game mechanics into "resource denial"--and that's not just a word game. It's a reality of tactical play.

I find it frustrating in games like Magic that players look down upon entire genres of play as poor sportsmanship or bad form. Or when fighting game players--casual or otherwise--look down on you for using the mechanics at your disposal. It's one thing if you start the game and clearly lay out "These are my preferences, I'm only willing to play if we don't allow these cards/play-styles/what-have-you" in the manner of clear house-rules and such. It's another thing when you take the rules you made up in your head and then judge people for not following them. Rules like "you can't use control" or "you can't stop me from playing my powerful spells that I like" or "you can't use the same rapid attack combo 10 times in a row when I don't understand how to stop you."

That's poor sportsmanship--expecting people to follow arbitrary rules about what you personally think is fair or fun or interesting without telling them those rules first and without seeking explicit consent to play by rules different from those printed on the page. We've all met players who make the experience less pleasant because of their attitude ... but I find those players are just as likely to not be highly tactical players with annoying, fiddly, precise, and knowledgeable play styles! I find those players are just as likely to be grumpy that you've found a loophole that means they can't beat you their way while you're just having fun messing with an interesting system while in the company of friends. Sportsmanship is about attitude, graciousness, and communication. It's not about the Unspoken Laws Forbidding "Unfair" But Legal Strategy.

I guess that's part of where I'm coming from. There may well be something wrong with Mage Wars! But I just feel like I want something better than NPE. Card art that isn't to taste can be an NPE. A bad slew of dice rolls can be an NPE. Encountering spiders in a game as an arachnaphobe can be an NPE. But being an NPE isn't enough. Sure, you can stop people from playing cards they want to play if they don't understand that you can do that and work so as to prevent it. I can't escape feeling that that sounds like ... a game that requires learning. On a sliding scale from Tic Tac Toe to Go, I'm pretty sure even the lighter, faster, simpler version of Mage Wars isn't supposed to be particularly pick-up-and-grok ... just more pick-up-and-play than Arena is. And it sounds like in that it is a rousing success.

Maybe you could explain more why the shorter time frame and simpler setup makes resource denial so much more grievous a problem? How denying mana fundamentally different from forging a better creature economy and beating up all your opponent's creatures as soon as they can cast them? Is there anything that could be done to make it work better without removing mana-related card effects? What is it that makes the specific mana drain mechanics so insidious and unbalanced in your perspective? How could the cards be changed to improve the situation?

Obviously I don't speak for everyone, but I don't really come to a relatively complex game about dueling wizards with the expectation that no one is going to disrupt my plans. So many euro games rely on the same sorts of concepts--restricting you opponent's resource flow while improving yours--and that's even in games that don't feature direct conflict! And yet I so rarely here this kind of complaint in those circles. Mage wars DOES feature direct conflict. Mage Wars does. This is a wizardly brawl. Surely someone here for that thematic space can be reasonably expected to accept that there will be some sneaky "mean" tactics they have to plan around and watch out for?

What's different here? I'm quite tempted by the above statement about showy-ness. Maybe it's that simple--a lot of players in these sorts of games what to play their coolest cards and their most interesting combos and they aren't really that interested in the rest of the mechanics so when they're locked into trying to work with lower level utilities or trying to carefully outwit specific manipulative strategies ... they get bored and frustrated. But I would caution that mana drain is merely the most explicit trigger of this sentiment! Removing mana drain mechanics might help these players enjoy the game more, but that kinda just postpones the inevitable. They need a complete retrofit, I think. A game that doesn't have tight economic systems and certainly dice-related combat. A game that lets them try all of the cool tricks in their sleeve relatively uninhibited by their opponent's actions whether or not they're still interacting with their opponent heavily in other ways. I think fixing that Mage Wars isn't actually about playing your coolest spells and combos would take WAY more work than just removing mana denial. That sounds like a whole new game design.