Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I've sort of made it a personal undertaking to try and look at the complexities of Redemption and try to compare them with other tcgs/ccgs if possible and otherwise try to see where complexity may be able to be alleviated in the future.

Redemption has a high barrier for entry due to its rules so simplification is something I believe we should strive for in the future but not something that should be taken lightly either. My intention is to try and take an in depth look at various issues that players have (difficulties for newer players should be a primary focus imo) and to try to create a discourse and possible plan of action for these issues in the future in an educated fashion. I don't expect that change will occur or necessarily should in all matters but rather educated discourse may be able to change the game in a positive way in the future.

As a start I know ill be exploring modifiers and "the stack"/Special Initiative. Let me know what you think. It may end up just being a personal endeavor that doesnt amount to much but if you're up to it let me know.

This might not be so much complex as it is a slogging chore, but the cascade negates you could get into win just the I/J starter decks is a bit of a turn off, honestly.

^This. #cascade negate delenda est

Looking at the rules systems of other games is not necessarily a bad idea but I would also encourage just doing what is best for Redemption.  Simplification of rules is a very good thing but I don't think that means Redemption should copy other games.  Yes, there is plenty to learn from success of other games but don't want that to be a limiting factor either.

Whether something is a search ability depends on the location.

If you exchange with something in hand or territory, that is NOT a search.

If you exchange with something in deck, Reserve or discard pile, that is a search.

1) Which abilities that are inherently CBI.
     I only just learned a few days ago that all side battle abilities are cbi.

This is kind of correct--side battles and the abilities that result are CBI once the side battle has completed because it's a separate phase. Cards that start side battles can still be interrupted/negated while the side battle is going on (either by a card played in the side battle or by something like Woes or Gam's Speech).

I think a larger issue than specific complex rules is that there is no real substantive, up-to-date rulebook. Most people who play a card game would never think of having to read through a document like the R.E.G. and the game really needs a more "casually readable" document that clears up some of the easy to address but unfortunately commonly misunderstood questions that get repeated asked by new players.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 26, 2019, 04:20:40 PM

I think a larger issue than specific complex rules is that there is no real substantive, up-to-date rulebook. Most people who play a card game would never think of having to read through a document like the R.E.G. and the game really needs a more "casually readable" document that clears up some of the easy to address but unfortunately commonly misunderstood questions that get repeated asked by new players.

There was some progress made on an updated rulebook, but the decision to release PoC in two phases slowed down that project so it is still in the works.

If there's anything I can do personally to speed that up I'm happy to help.

I just wanted to thank everyone for their replies and thoughts.
While I will primarily focus on the mechanics of Redemption gameplay all feedback is welcome and useful for discourse on possible change in the future to make Redemption a better game for all. Thank you all.

I'm starting to hear the phrase "Well, Redemption isn't for everyone" now when I push for less complexity and a change of mindset/approach when it comes to the rules, new starter decks, etc.

You could even print an updated rulebook with said starters! Amazing!

Players should not have to resort to external resources to play Redemption at anything past the I/J level. The REG is great for things like; "What Heroes are prophets?" It should not be required for things like "How do Artifacts/Fortresses/Sites work?"

If the only starter deck (possibly the only cards, period) people ever buy is the I/J, and the included rulebook is lacking even in simple definitions, that's a problem. It's not a problem for vets, since we already know all this thanks to G/H and the community; it's not a problem to newcomers under the tutelage of a vet, since we already know all this and can instruct them proper; it is a problem for people who are neither. Which is, of course, the vast majority of consumers.

I am not so sure the rules are complex as much as they are nuanced but abilities are complex. With territory class, a bunch of stuff triggering in upkeep, and cards generally doing more players have a lot more to keep track of. More to keep track of than is appropriate for the ability level of many kids. In watching most 10-13 year olds play you inevitably see watered down interactions (based on the cards they have in deck), perhaps their own coping mechanism.

 Implied searches is my biggest frustration. Currently a search ability is an ability that fulfills the definition of search which makes some sense but then you run into abilities like exchange that can be exchanges or searches? You then have take which is not obviously a search ability by reading the card. Not hard to keep straight with some practice but boggles the mind. I cannot relate to the frustrations of cascade negate, however, it follows from the definition of negate 

As it is, with Redemption's small niche following and complex rules, it's a game for elite players, designed by elite players. 

I have to disagree in part. The fact that it is designed by elite players does not really have anything to do with the complexity of cards. Any designers of Redemption would likely be forced to cater to the caliber of the majority of players.

Redemption is like a small private school the cool kids sit at the cool table (elite players) and the other more inexperienced players cannot find many people to relate to (players to compete with) so they just sit by themselves or awhile then decide it's probably better to not eat lunch altogether. Not making any statements about the fellowship, though Redemption can be very cliquey too but that's neither here nor there. The size of Redemption is a perpetuating problem, a problem that I would argue is not the fault of any of the Elders.

Just wanted to bring this topic up again due to current experiences.

First of all I'd like to know whether this approach is still being headed for which I'd really appreciate. While I played several starter deck games during past months and years to introduce Redemption for me (and some of the players) that became a little but boring/uninteresting. But even with our latest starters some of the IMO difficult mechanics are showing up.

Lastly I played several starter games with a colleague of mine who is a former MtG Pro (still playing that game) and a game enthusiast at all (mainly boardgames and card cames).
He got interested and proposed I should construct two decks out of my cardpool. It took me some time but I came up with a variant of my The Exodus deck (deck mill + some combos setup around CoW Moses) and a Musician/Persian littly speed ressurection heavy deck.

We played two games and even I got a little bit disenchanted since I had promising expecations on finally playing some constructed decks outside Lackey.

Main reason for me was that there wasn't any runny gameplay but game ceases/stalled very often - and this was not related to thinking about next action but on getting some overview and immediate/quick capturing on what is going on and what are the options (I know with very experienced players this will not happen in the same manner).
Several reasons contributed to this experience: When playing live at table the entire game is quite often quite confusing/unclear. To check what is all around and what might trigger when IMO is even very hard for experienced players.
Another part is the complex ruling situation and ability interactivity rules like effects taking place, getting reverted after negates, taking place again due to negation of previous negate while not everything inbetween is reverted etc. etc. E.g. having an ability bring in another card which activates and changes your deck by reveal+underdeck or similar and later on another card is played which let you draw cards. Now the first card gets negated while the card which let you draw gets not. Now the underdeck gets reverted but since the drawing ability already happened the situation is not exactly as it was before. When it is played such as if the first ability did not happen at all then you would have to rearrange everything so that the 2nd card let you draw different three cards which contain the ones that have been underdecked meanwhile and afterwards have been put on top of deck again. Not to speak about scenarios where the 2nd card which did not get negated was drawn and played by due to a card played before which afterwards gets negated. Such and other even more difficult scenarios are not exeptional but nearly regular in many games. Do not know how judges and pros can deal with all that really complex stuff all the time and quick enough.
But coming across such kind of situations when playing constructed decks makes it hard for newcomers and provide quite a bad playing experience for them (and also sometimes for me) which IMO annoys them quite early and make them leave the game.

--part 2 see below

Thank you, Reth. This is helpful.

Gabe:  Was my comments helpful?