I think Seth's comment in the previous post was spot-on; at this point, finding ways to integrate systems is important, and connecting encounters and check marks could be a great -- and satisfyingly thematic -- way to do just that.
I'm also mindful of Steve's concern; sometimes, you want to stop in a city that you're "just passing through", and don't want to be encumbered by needing to pay out cards (or else you'd just pay them to get to your destination), but it would still nice to be able to do something beyond simply passing your turn.
I think I have an idea that might address both of these. We know that there are four city types (circle, pentagon, square, and triangle). Assume there are (say) 6 different "sub-location" types -- eg a library, a museum, a hotel, a tomb, etc -- and each city type has 2 or 3 associated sub-locations (eg "circle cities" all have libraries and museums, etc) Each sub-location has an associated deck of encounter cards. AND, each encounter has one or perhaps two different associated "characteristic outcomes", such that if you "pass" the encounter, you will get one of those two things. For example, maybe a "library" gives a check mark; a "hotel" gives a lead to a theme card; a market gives you an ally card, etc. So when you're in a city, even if it's just to kill time, you can still do something potentially productive, but you can also choose what potentially productive thing you want to try to accomplish. And, this could also aid route planning -- if you know you need a clue to the temple location, you might visit a city with a tomb. Etc.
This addresses half of Steve's concern; the other half of it was not needing to pay any adventure cards. Two possible approaches for that; there could be a "do nothing" option that's always available in every city (maybe it's thematically dressed up to be "go to the marketplace" or "go to the consulate", so that your action selection on your turn is always structured as "go to a city and pick a sub-location to visit") -- which could perhaps let you draw a card or look at a lead or something like that.
Another, not necessarily mutually exclusive approach, could be simply that ALL of the encounter cards provide safe passage at the lowest adventure payout, but the "safe passage" will be boring. For example, say you have a stat of 3 in Luck, so you select "Luck 3" for an encounter in which you face an Arab swordsman. Maybe the outcome is that you simply survive the encounter, but you don't get anything interesting for it, either.
A totally different, and again, not necessarily mutually exclusive, option is to have each player have a particular "skill" that connects to the visuals on the cards. I had originally thought this would be a special power, but maybe it's instead that when you see your "trigger" on a card, you get a check mark -- eg, your skill is "languages", so when you see a "book" on an encounter card, you get a check mark in a particular solution category. So this gives you something else interesting to be looking for when you have nothing you especially want to do; you can face an encounter and go fishing for a trigger to your skill.
(Incidentally, another thought -- can check marks be lost?)
Steve's concern; sometimes, you want to stop in a city that you're "just passing through", and don't want to be encumbered by needing to pay out cards (or else you'd just pay them to get to your destination), but it would still nice to be able to do something beyond simply passing your turn.
ReplyDeleteI must have forgotten something about this game, or else something has changed since I've played - I simply do not understand this concern.
The way the game worked when I played it, you chose a destination, paid cards to get there and face the challenge, then got your check marks or looked up your clues or whatever. There's really no such thing as "Stopping in a city that you're just passing through."
If you stop there and are encumbered by paying cards (for the challenge), then you're not "just passing through" - you're stopping there on purpose to visit the theme card, look up a clue, or dig for the temple or something.
So what am I missing?
Also, no - I submit that check marks should not be able to be lost. Especially if they represent information - I think "forgetting stuff" is outside the scope of this game.
ReplyDeleteNow I could see how "information" could be int he form of the Grail Diary or something, where the character in the game is unlikely to have memorized or even really read all of it - and that item could be lost... I suppose there could be such items in the game (indeed, there are already - the Franciscan Manuscript and the Knight's Shield for example). You can carry those around and they have symbols on them... but in the current version you either have looked at them (gotten check marks) or not.
Perhaps those should count as check marks while you hold them, rather than allowing you to 'visit' them?
but I think the rules would be simpler if they worked the same way as other theme cards, and if you couldn't lose a check mark.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteIn the most recent couple of versions I've been trying out, the theme cards don't all start out on the board -- their whereabouts has to be "discovered". So sometimes you'll arrive in a city that doesn't have a theme card in it.
Now, I know you've said that this is just too much hoop-jumping for the player, and that's quite possibly true. But I think it's more true IF the game is built around the theme cards, which, admittedly, it always has been up to now. But if instead it's built around the check marks, and there are other ways to get them, but theme cards are where you go (a) to get bigger payouts of check marks, and (b) to be able to look up clues, then maybe it's more permissible to have this additional layer where the theme cards come out progressively.
I don't think so. I still think that would feel like hoop jumping. I much prefer the idea of all theme cards starting in play.
ReplyDeleteThat it removes the 'just passing through' nature of some turns is just more evidence in favor of that :)
Well, keep in mind that at no time have all the theme cards started on the board -- the three relics always started off-board, of course. So, you could think of the new framework as an extension of that same concept.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, it's hard for me to defend an idea I'm not yet committed to! I just point it out as a possibility because I think it opens some interesting thematic and gameplay functions, but as Steve has observed, it changes the emphasis of the game from a route-planning game to a clue-following game. And I think we may differ on which is actually more in the spirit of the IJ films!
it changes the emphasis of the game from a route-planning game to a clue-following game. And I think we may differ on which is actually more in the spirit of the IJ films!
ReplyDeleteThis is a solid point. I'd also be concerned about which makes for a more fun game (that feels like an IJ film).
Following clues to gather info and figuring out how to get to the end goal feels to me like The Last Crusade. Following clues until you eventually end up at the end goal feels like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If it were up to me, I'd go for The Last Crusade over Kingdom of the Crystal Skull any day.
What I'd really, really love to achieve is where clues springboard off of one another -- where, depending on the information you get from one clue, it tells you something about where you should go to get even more information. That was what I was going for with the idea of categories -- that if you ask someone who knows about "Egyptology" for a clue and get one, maybe you should ask other people who know about Egyptology as well. Really, I just think this is an inevitable sacrifice if we're using separate decks of clue/solution cards. You can really only do it with a solution table or paragraph book approach, but I think the card-based framework is really the best for a number of reasons.
ReplyDelete