Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

[Fluxx] Re: Deck Size Question

  • From"Dim Bulb" <dimbulb@xxxxxxxx>
  • DateWed, 17 May 2006 10:32:21 -0500
> > One day (after wondering how to deal with "Goal Bloat") I decided to put the
> > Keepers and Goals into one giant loop.
> > Except for "10 Cards in Hand" and "5 Keepers" each Goal needs two Keepers,
> > and except for "Doppelganger" each Keeper is part of only two Goals.
> > I brought back the Keepers from 2.1 and even a couple "from the future"
> > ("Book" and "Cake" from Fluxx Reduxx) to help close the loop.
> > Having all the Keepers (except "Doppelganger") be equally powerful and
> > having "Doppelganger" be obviously the most desirable makes it harder for
> > new players to unknowningly play a weak Keeper instead of a strong one.
> I have, as well, noticed
> the 'keeper loop' phenomenon. V3 has a smaller loop, with Money, Time,
> Sleep, and Dreams in it.
> Money and Time = "Time is Money"
> Time and Sleep = "BedTime"
> Sleep and Dreams = "Dreamland"
> Dreams and Money = "Winning the Lottery"
> If one needed to trim the deck to match the number of rules and
> actions, one could easily take out this smaller loop.

As long as we're thinking about Keeper-Goal connectivity, I might as well resurrect this old page:


that I once put together in the context of a similar discussion on this mailing list.  It is woefully out of date, but it could still be useful for purposes of visualising and quantifying what's going on.

Myself, I think Fluxx benefits from a certain amount of imbalance in the Keepers.  In general, it's bad to have a Keeper that's only good for one thing, but it's good to have a few Keepers that are good for many more things than average (e.g. Chocolate).  But I know a lot of people prefer evenly balanced Keepers, so take your pick of opinions here....

Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/

Current Thread