{"id":77,"date":"2016-08-08T17:28:47","date_gmt":"2016-08-08T17:28:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/?p=77"},"modified":"2016-08-08T17:28:47","modified_gmt":"2016-08-08T17:28:47","slug":"40000-decklists-under-the-sea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/40000-decklists-under-the-sea\/","title":{"rendered":"40,000 Decklists Under The Sea"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I\u2019ve known one of my friends for about six years now, and he has a fascinating pattern of hobbies. He\u2019ll get into a game really intensely for a month or two and talk to me nonstop about his favorite strategies before suddenly switching to another one. These games are in genres that require a huge amount of thinking and advance planning, and include <em>Android: Netrunner<\/em>, <em>Summoner Wars<\/em>, <em>Warhammer<\/em> (both types), <em>Warmachine, X-Wing<\/em>, <em>Magic: The Gathering<\/em>, and <em>Hearthstone<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>I find this interesting for two reasons. First is the way our tastes diverge: I have about as much free time and budget for games as he does, but he gets into games that have a much higher time and financial commitment than what I like. (The only deep game I\u2019m consistently passionate about is <em>Magic: The Gathering<\/em>, which gets a pass because I\u2019ve been playing for 10 years.) The second is that he has a really good time in these games, even though he doesn\u2019t go very far from surface strategies.<\/p>\n<p>High-depth games are usually swept into the broom closet with 18XX stock simulators and non-<em>Twilight Struggle<\/em> historical games because the audience and its expectations are thought to be fundamentally different from people who prefer strategy games with a lower barrier to entry. But what makes high-depth games more appealing to some people than cheaper standalone games? The full answer is too complicated to find in a biweekly design blog, but we can at least begin the search.<\/p>\n<p><strong>What is deep?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Though there certainly are complex Eurogames that require experience in the genre, most high-depth games belong in specific genres. These include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Miniatures games (<em>X-Wing<\/em>, <em>Warhammer, Dropzone Commander<\/em>)<\/li>\n<li>Trading card games and living card games (<em>Magic<\/em>, <em>Netrunner<\/em>, <em>Summoner Wars<\/em>)<\/li>\n<li>\u201cClassic\u201d games (Chess, go, bridge)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The largest amount of complexity in modern games happens before the game starts, where the player decides on what to bring with them. Bringing a suboptimal army or creating a mediocre deck will frequently lead to a player losing before they even start the game.<\/p>\n<p>Classic games, on the other hand, require no prior choices, but the amount of strategy contained within them is mind-bogglingly huge. Although it\u2019s easy to learn how chess pieces move or how to capture stones in Go, if an amateur plays against a pro they will be demolished with almost 100% certainty.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, an all-encompassing definition of a \u201cdeep\u201d game could be:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><em>A) A game with a large amount of choices,<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>B) Most of which are bad for you.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>What kinds of players are interested in games like this? Fortunately, articles on <em>Magic<\/em> design have provided us with answers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Jenny and Spike<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Many <em>Magic<\/em> designers writing about the game\u2019s design specify three player archetypes. Two of them would not exist in games that aren\u2019t deep.<\/p>\n<p>Johnny\/Jenny players play games to express themselves. If they build a deck or army list that wins in a bizarre way or plays with unique cards\/units, they\u2019re satisfied even if what they\u2019ve made isn\u2019t consistent or doesn\u2019t win as much as the top tier.<\/p>\n<p>However, \u201cshallower\u201d hobby games simply don\u2019t provide the resources to allow this kind of player to create something that bears their signature. Most games have very narrow paths to victory, and even the suboptimal choices aren\u2019t particularly different. For example, in <em>Catan<\/em>, you can try to win by building cities or focus on roads to choke your opponents\u2019 development, but neither of these are particularly different from each other, nor is there a way (even an unrealistic one) to try to pursue victory via some other means.<\/p>\n<p>Spike, meanwhile, prefers point B to point A on our definition above. Building skill is the reason this kind of player plays any games at all, and the best way to prove one has built skill is to demonstrate it through play. (In this way, the archetype has been conflated with \u201clikes to win\u201d, but this article goes into the nuances.) Games that unforgivingly punish poor skill, either through complex board states or by requiring work before the game can begin, conversely reward good skill in finding the most efficient combinations or a strategy that can bust the metagame.<\/p>\n<p>Hobby games are a little more forgiving to Spikes than they are for Johnnies and Jennies. Certain games reward skill enough that a competitive environment can be built around them (I believe <em>Agricola <\/em>tournaments exist, for instance), but many games are accessible enough they don\u2019t create the vast differences between new and veteran players that \u201cdeep\u201d games would. This is, in general, a boon and not an issue, but it doesn\u2019t appeal to people who want to be able to achieve a higher skill level than a hobby game might be able to offer.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conclusion: Okay, So?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>What does any of this have to offer to us, who I assume are mostly people that design these hobby games?<\/p>\n<p>I think the most important factor that studying deep games adds, assuming we don\u2019t play them very often, is perspective. It\u2019s easy to assume, especially when playtesting in groups similar to your demographic, that everyone has fun and thinks the same way as you. Under this assumption, people who prefer to play deep games are blinked out of existence \u2013 since you don\u2019t play them, you might as well not pay attention to the people who do.<\/p>\n<p>However, deep games attract people who are much different from the people who enjoy hobby games, even people like my friend who only play an individual one for a short period of time. They might not be in your target demographic, but studying their habits and preferences will give you information you can\u2019t find by staying in your ludological lane. I\u2019m going to continue thinking about the differences between these audiences, and I invite you to join me.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I\u2019ve known one of my friends for about six years now, and he has a fascinating pattern of hobbies. He\u2019ll get into a game really intensely for a month or two and talk to me nonstop about his favorite strategies before suddenly switching to another one. These games are in genres that require a huge amount of thinking and advance planning, and include Android: Netrunner, Summoner Wars, Warhammer (both types), Warmachine, X-Wing, Magic: The Gathering, and Hearthstone. I find this interesting for two reasons. First is the way our tastes diverge: I have about as much free time and budget for games as he does, but he gets into games that have a much higher time and financial commitment than what I like. (The only deep game I\u2019m consistently passionate about is Magic: The Gathering, which gets a pass because I\u2019ve been playing for 10 years.) The second is that he has a really good time in these games, even though he doesn\u2019t go very far from surface strategies. High-depth games are usually swept into the broom closet with 18XX stock simulators and non-Twilight Struggle historical games because the audience and its expectations are thought to be fundamentally different from people who prefer strategy games with a lower barrier to entry. But what makes high-depth games more appealing to some people than cheaper standalone games? The full answer is too complicated to find in a biweekly design blog, but we can at least begin the search. What is deep? Though there certainly are complex Eurogames that require experience in the genre, most high-depth games belong in specific genres. These include: Miniatures games (X-Wing, Warhammer, Dropzone Commander) Trading card games and living card games (Magic, Netrunner, Summoner Wars) \u201cClassic\u201d games (Chess, go, bridge) The largest amount of complexity in modern games happens before the game starts, where the player decides on what to bring with them. Bringing a suboptimal army or creating a mediocre deck will frequently lead to a player losing before they even start the game. Classic games, on the other hand, require no prior choices, but the amount of strategy contained within them is mind-bogglingly huge. Although it\u2019s easy to learn how chess pieces move or how to capture stones in Go, if an amateur plays against a pro they will be demolished with almost 100% certainty. Therefore, an all-encompassing definition of a \u201cdeep\u201d game could be: A) A game with a large amount of choices, B) Most of which are bad for you. What kinds of players are interested in games like this? Fortunately, articles on Magic design have provided us with answers. Jenny and Spike Many Magic designers writing about the game\u2019s design specify three player archetypes. Two of them would not exist in games that aren\u2019t deep. Johnny\/Jenny players play games to express themselves. If they build a deck or army list that wins in a bizarre way or plays with unique cards\/units, they\u2019re satisfied even if what they\u2019ve made isn\u2019t consistent or doesn\u2019t win as much as the top tier. However, \u201cshallower\u201d hobby games simply don\u2019t provide the resources to allow this kind of player to create something that bears their signature. Most games have very narrow paths to victory, and even the suboptimal choices aren\u2019t particularly different. For example, in Catan, you can try to win by building cities or focus on roads to choke your opponents\u2019 development, but neither of these are particularly different from each other, nor is there a way (even an unrealistic one) to try to pursue victory via some other means. Spike, meanwhile, prefers point B to point A on our definition above. Building skill is the reason this kind of player plays any games at all, and the best way to prove one has built skill is to demonstrate it through play. (In this way, the archetype has been conflated with \u201clikes to win\u201d, but this article goes into the nuances.) Games that unforgivingly punish poor skill, either through complex board states or by requiring work before the game can begin, conversely reward good skill in finding the most efficient combinations or a strategy that can bust the metagame. Hobby games are a little more forgiving to Spikes than they are for Johnnies and Jennies. Certain games reward skill enough that a competitive environment can be built around them (I believe Agricola tournaments exist, for instance), but many games are accessible enough they don\u2019t create the vast differences between new and veteran players that \u201cdeep\u201d games would. This is, in general, a boon and not an issue, but it doesn\u2019t appeal to people who want to be able to achieve a higher skill level than a hobby game might be able to offer. Conclusion: Okay, So? What does any of this have to offer to us, who I assume are mostly people that design these hobby games? I think the most important factor that studying deep games adds, assuming we don\u2019t play them very often, is perspective. It\u2019s easy to assume, especially when playtesting in groups similar to your demographic, that everyone has fun and thinks the same way as you. Under this assumption, people who prefer to play deep games are blinked out of existence \u2013 since you don\u2019t play them, you might as well not pay attention to the people who do. However, deep games attract people who are much different from the people who enjoy hobby games, even people like my friend who only play an individual one for a short period of time. They might not be in your target demographic, but studying their habits and preferences will give you information you can\u2019t find by staying in your ludological lane. I\u2019m going to continue thinking about the differences between these audiences, and I invite you to join me.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":78,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77\/revisions\/78"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}