|
Hi Tim,
Welcome back -- I'm glad you got your problems
fixed.
Thanks for your comments. I agree with the
principles you've stated: I think it's fun to figure out new things to do with
cards, even if they go beyond the intention of the author.
In the case of the Hand Limits, though, there are
other principles that outweigh that, at least for myself. First, even
though the flexible Hand Limit timing does not break the game, it "feels" wrong
to many players. Such a feeling is not an absolute veto, but it is
something to take seriously. A clearer wording in future editions can help
eliminate that, however Andy decides.
Second, and more important, I strongly prefer the
strict order of turn steps: Draw, Play, Hand Limit, Keeper Limit. There is
a careful balance in game rules about the amount of constraints to place on the
player: too many, and a player feels frustrated with the limited choices
available; too few, and it feels too free and pointless. (Robert Frost
said that writing verse without rhyme or meter felt like playing tennis without
a net.) Fluxx already has a lot of options in its play; a strict turn
order gives a good amount of constraints, forcing certain types of planning and
tactics.
This is my own taste, of course; your mileage may
vary. (It isn't required to vary, you just have the option
:-)
Regards,
Bryan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:59
PM
Subject: Re: [Fluxx] Hand Limits
Optional
Howdy, Wow. I didn't intend to open up such a
pandora's box with that comment on hand limits. Sorry about that.
:-) And sorry to just be catching up to the discussion I inadvertently
started. Robin helped me figure out my issues with the list (thanks
Robin!), so I can chime in now. My intent with that comment last week
was just to illustrate that sometimes a card may have a function beyond what
we initially see, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. As long as it
doesn't break the game, I'd say it's a good thing. I come from a long
background of CCG's, both casual playing and playtesting/design. Part of
the fun of those types of games is discovering new things to do with your
cards and figuring out new decks and combos with old and new cards.
Often, we'd come up with stuff that the designer never intended or thought
of. Unless the combo was broken or abusive to the game, those things
usually stayed in. Personally I feel the same way here. Just
becuase it was never the original intent of the card, or just because
most people never realized they could do something with the card, doesn't
necessarily mean the card now needs to be changed. There are other cards
out there that people (verteran fluxx players and newbies alike) assume work a
certain way and miss some valid options. A few off the top of my head
that I've experienced in some games...
- Cross Bonus - if I'm wearing a cross or have the cross keeper, I may
play 1 extra card.
- rich bonus - if I have more keepers than anyone else, I may choose to
play 1 extra card.
- grandparent bonus - I may ignore hand limits
- parent bonus - I may draw one extra card
- trash a keeper - discard a keeper from in front of any player (including
myself)
(And no, not all bonuses have the 'may'. The
no-hand bonus does not, which I interpret means you must draw those three
cards before your new hand.) People often play those cards above as if
you must do those actions, as if those cards add to the mandatory draw or play
rules. Or they play something like trash a keeper and not realize that
they can trash one of their own keepers. But the options exist based on
the wording, and I can think of some game instances where you might not want
to take advantage of those bonuses or do some of those actions. But just
because some people don't realize that those options exist and it's become the
common interpretation of those cards doesn't mean the options should no longer
be available. As for Andy's question on what should be
done on the wording of hand limits.... I personally don't see a need for
change. It's not an abusive strategy (it really doesn't come up all that
often, honestly). I'm not against changing the text for clarity.
Just because a card is established doesn't mean it can't be made better.
You updated the basic rules from previous versions. But at the same
time, even though I dislike changing the function of an established card
that's a staple in every version, I don't think changing hand limits to take
out the option would hurt the game much (as I said, it doesn't come up that
much). In fact, I doubt very few people would notice. If I had to
vote, I'd say I like option 2 the best, then 1, and 3 the least. But
whichever you choose, it wouldn't bother me too terribly much. Have
a good one! Tim
|