I’d like to thank this thread for leading me to this Wiki page:
5 Likes
how has psi not been mentioned yet? That’s definitely not in the rules. Currents count for me too, however they do illustrate that what counts as a new mechanic is a little debatable - some things are clear new mechanics, some things just deviations on a theme and others lie somewhere in between. I personally consider a lot more things that those listed to be new mechanics, but don’t expect everyone to agree on them. Will post them later, will be interesting to see what other people think.
However I think one of thing in the debate, perhaps more important, is that some mechanics just “click” and others seem a bit janky, and this is a personal thing too - if they fit well and are used enough so they’re not just a gimmick then the system can stand to take a lot more of them, however if they’re done badly or don’t gel then the system feels overloaded sooner.
Psi’s been around since the first datapack, it’s an oldy.
Yeah sure, but it’s still an additional mechanic that’s not in the rules. It just seems normal because it’s been around so long.
2 Likes
I think rotation is going to be good for the game. It will allow the creators to revise and reprint existing cards that have cycled out, and allow them to re-tread already-covered ground in interesting ways. Just think of the first pack after rotation hits–they have room to play with new 3/2 agendas, new powerful breakers (bye bye precious Faerie), etc. It’s definitely a healthy thing for the game’s future that they added rotation.
1 Like
I think everyone more or less agrees that rotation is the right call and if anything it should be faster/more aggressive.
4 Likes
I definitely would not count something that’s been around since the core set as “new mechanic”. That’s like saying that “when accessed” effects are a new mechanic.
A new mechanic, at least in my opinion, has to be something that requires new rules (and I’m talking actual new rules, not clarifications to already existing rules). Flip IDs are the first example of this. Currents definitely do not count. Sure they are “new” in that there hadn’t been anything using the game mechanics in thay way before, but they still operate entirely within the scope of the existing game using their card text (just a replacement effect on the regular game structure keeping the card in play).
2 Likes
Actually the first PSI card is Snowflake from What Lies Ahead, not core set. That said with the lot of them printed in Honor and Profit we are stuck with them at least till a latter version of rotation.
Since nesei division is in honor and profit psi games will have new cards printed for the life of the game probably.
Oh good call. I guess then psi games are sort of “new mechanics”, though they still operate entirely without new rules required based solely on their card text so I wouldn’t personally classify them as such.
I don’t know if I personally would classify “new mechanics” without new rules that harshly. In any ccg/lcg or any game influenced by Cosmic Encounters for that matter, it was always seen as preferable to introduce new things as card text and then move them into the core rules (much) later. This is always how The Other Gametm has used evergreen keywords, and how games like ANR provide flavor.
I would favor at the very minimum a slightly more inclusive definition like: A new mechanic is something that introduces a self contained element in the gamestate that is not defined by the core rules.
So that way completely core rule independent sub systems like PSI games (introduces a contained sub game), currents (introduces a new area in the gamestate), and Biotech (introduces bringing cards from out of play) would all be included.
2 Likes
I trust the designers completely. No worries from me.
2 Likes
I’m on Team Worrying About Adding Too Many New Mechanics. I’ve already had games against newer players where I play a current and they don’t have a counter in their entire card pool; it feels unfair in a way that simply having more of the same type of cards does not. That’s not my main concern though, people with incomplete playsets are always going to be at some disadvantage.
There is still a lot of room left on the table to explore the existing mechanics. Small twists like the power counter breakers (dogs, Overmind, D4V1D), cybernetics using damage as an install cost, Faust, Clot vs. CVS timing windows, etc. aren’t new mechanics per se but very interesting ideas that open up a ton of design space. It’d be cool to explore some of the fringes further…like, say, print more than just 3 cybernetics cards that are all in different factions, virtually ensuring Chrome Parlor never sees the light of day (same with genetics & their shoppe). I’d rather see these subtle changes explored further as opposed to creating entirely new keywords/dynamics. Magic, for instance, seems like a parody of its former self with how many keywords there are now, some of which simply replace prior ones.
Mumbad looks pretty tame thus far. New deckbuilding rules frontload the complexity before an actual match which is a safe move. That said, the runner consumer-grade cards might be unplayable. With limited card slots to accomplish so many things, 6-of utility cards feels bad. But I digress…
1 Like
I don’t remember the specifics, but cases where cards are hosted face down and something “happens” to the host.
The rules for installed-face-down runner cards in D&D are actuall un-necessary, I believe they were included since a lot of people would ask questions, and a lot of people still do. This is a common “problem” stemming from people reading things into the game that are not there. So for the face down runner cards. Does it say anywhere that a face down card can be flipped, that it can do something etc? No it doesn’t. So why would you assume there is a way to flip them up, or assume that they do anything? If the rules do not say that you can do something, you can’t do it. And no, don’t say they should put everything you can’t do explicitly in the rules, it is impossible (literally). So, not a new mechanism imo.
If I am worried about one thing, it’s increasingly complex deck construction. Whilst for anyone who plays competitively things like netrunnerdb will ensure that decks built are legal, newer players or more casual players trying to integrate new cards into funky builds will likely end up making mistakes, not counting influence right or not having enough cards of a certain type or whatever in their deck…deck lists, at least in my meta, don’t get checked as is, whereas I think it should be mandatory before double elimination, and should also happen regularly over the course of the event. New deck building mechanics will hopefully drive the need for that home
Yeah, I know what you mean here, but that’s why I mentioned that I don’t think people agree at all on what counts as a new mechanic. You’re definition seems to be very exclusive @jakodrako, and certainly requiring explanation outside of the card text is subjective: you should consider cards that repeat the rules over and over on all variations - one could argue that these rules should be taken off the card and a key word used, which is what Magic does. The only reason netrunner gets away with it is it keeps the rule concise, but being concise does not mean they’re not a new mechanic. I don’t know which side I fall on, but you’ll notice that those types of cards have the appropriate sub-type every time, and so really do have a keyword already - it’s just the rules are re-iterated every time rather than being printed elsewhere.
Been thinking about it a bit and looking through some cards, and things I consider new mechanics are probably as follows. I divided them up as some are much more noticeable than others.
Strong Mechanics - mechanics that create new game states or mini-games or need clear explanation. Contradicting core rules with an associated card subtype is relevant too, though interestingly one-offs don’t feel so much like mechanics as just exceptions.
ID swapping (Rebirth in mumbad) - substantially changes core mechanic of the game, though it is only a one-off.
Public Agendas (the faceup ones) - reverses a core rule of all the things installed by corp, particularly agendas. Yeah, it’s not complicated, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a new mechanic, its just an elegant one.
Alliances - manipulation of influence limit outside of ID
Flip-IDs - changeable ID abilities.
Agendas that work in the runner’s score area - again, reverses a long established rule for agendas and requires explanation every time. Would’ve just been a one-off until 15 minutes.
Agenda points from non-agenda cards (executive, notoriety etc.) - agendas were the only things that gave you points originally, now we have things that are not agendas but turn into them in certain circumstances provided other avenues for scoring.
Face-down installs (Apex)
Currents - arguably these should be a new card type completely (though you couldn’t search for them as events/operations anymore) as they don’t behave like events at all and behave more like resources - just look at the titles, they not the names of events, they’re the names of states and things, you don’t do them, they are.
Psi games - introduces a new mini-game that is outside of the normal manner of things.
Personally I think Lukas made a mistake with these last two and they could’ve been handled much more elegantly if they had got over their desire for no new rules required. Imagine “Psi(3): if successful end the run.” (like a trace) or whatever rather than all that waffle. Much clearer, allows more design space for different numbers elegantly or multiple psi game subroutines etc. The Future Perfect is ridiculous, and nisei division’s text is also sideways (it could just says whenever you play a Psi game… but it can’t because no such thing actually exists in the game). And currents - just repeated waffle on every card, which is a waste in my opinion.
Soft Mechanics - certain types of things that generally have a keyword-subtype and rules explaining that keyword on every card that uses it. Also, the mechanic is separate from the effect generally - i.e. the mechanic can be described independently of the cards real card text. This is true for many other things, but it’s just one of many soft criteria - on its own probably not enough.
Grail Ice - do you see how much text is required to explain that every time? and that’s just how it works, not what that card actually does that’s different from the others
Caissa programs - movement explanation rules seem pretty distinct from what the program actually offers you
Cloud Breakers - yes it will cost no memory if I have 2 link, but what does this card actually do?
Stealth breakers/money
Consumer-grade hardware
Really Soft Mechanics - I’m less sure about these, but they still stick out of mechanical tweaks to my brain.
Double Events
Morph Ice
NEXT Ice
Virus cards that are trashed when purged, rather than it just being tokens
Now some of these you will disagree with those for sure, but if I was talking with someone I wouldn’t think twice if they said “Yeah, the NEXT ice has this cool mechanic where…” and this illustrates my final point: this is just semantics. Despite all my guff up above, what does and doesn’t count as a ‘mechanic’ is irrelevant really - the issue at hand from OP is really “when does this game have too many rules & mini-systems floating about that it jumps the shark?” Call them rules, exceptions, mechanics - whatever - the intent of the question is still the same.
My answer would be: not yet, but some mechanics are worse (more janky) than others, and are made worse by not fully exploring them. Rebirth from Mumbad is one, Alliances I don’t like either but I’m glad they stuck with doubles and currents and fleshed them out more rather than just doing them in one cycle or something which I thought was going to happen.
6 Likes
The reason I’m being a little draconian about thisis because the premise of this thread is whether or not Netrunner has jumped the shark. When we’re dealing with the question of “is Netrunner now too far gone from how Netrunner used to be for new players to jump in,” we’re talking about two types of costs: overhead complexity and comprehension complexity. Netrunner already requires a high amount of comprehension complexity because the rules are crunchy but only vaguely documented, but cards only create extra amounts of comprehension complexity when they involve entirely new concepts or concepts that are detached from the card itself (through a keyword, for instance). A card demands extra overhead complexity when they involve new rules that weren’t In the core rule book or further developed in the FAQ. Again, Netrunner already has pretty high overhead complexity because the templating is sloppy and essentially requires that the FAQ grow with every new release in order to keep players understanding.
So when evaluating “has Netrunner jumped the shark”, then I think “new mechanic” must involve a sognificant amount of both overhead and comprehension complexity above and beyond the already constant cost Netrunner imposes, and only the things I mentioned before have really done this. In many other contexts, I would agree on a broader definition of “new mechanic”.
6 Likes
Hm, great thoughts on complexity there. So your list is the mechanics that actually make the game more complex, a short list of those relevant to the discussion. Ok, well, I would just point two things to think about here:
First Rules Fatigue - new players joining was not what came to mind when thinking about jumping the shark - I was thinking of existing players getting turned off and leaving the game due the game being a morass of disjunct mechanics, features and rulings, and the OP doesn’t mention new players either so your interpretation of shark jumping maybe different from others. So does that perspective change your thoughts at all?
Second Feature Creep- I completely sympathise with the OP when it comes to feature-creep in Carcassonne, and the way it relates to this is that no particular mechanic broke it, it’s just when taken altogether the game really loses something. I’ve found that with lots of games that have expansions, at some point the expansions are just adding to the game without making it any better. With board games I find on average that just the one expansion is usually best and I find I’ll sometimes just leave out expansions even though I own them and they’re actually ok - sometimes they just make it longer, not more fun. I’ve played quite a few CCGs and they’re certainly more resilient than board games but they also burnout too - the text box gets more and more full and the cards get more and more convoluted (either that or you go the way of magic and introduce keywords). You notice this more if you miss the early cards and can’t get them anymore, you can get stuck with later complex cards without the simpler early cards that make things sing. This isn’t necessarily big new mechanics like you’re talking about though, they suffer from the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ as well as the big changes too, so I think the simple mechanics are relevant to this debate, not just the biggies. At the end of the day, there’s only so much juice to be squeezed out of a rule set.
2 Likes
All of the things mentioned in the topic title are things that strike me as design space they can market as brand new and unique, and then cost conservatively so it never breaks competitive balance in a game with a for-sea-turtles rotation plan. Sync is viable but doesn’t threaten balance with its barely usable backside- but you buy the box and hey, it’s got a flip identity, that’s cool, none of my other identities, flip, wow! I should buy another box!
6 per deck will add something new, but either none of those cards will be good, or even worse, some of them will be and they’ll fit into rather linear basic strategies that are easy to test but not as fun or challenging to play as a deck that doesn’t draw a hand crammed with duplicates.
And alliances are just the worst. They’re 0 influence cards that reduce the deckbuilding skilltests by restricting the number of ways you’re allowed to build the deck. The only cases where the mechanic could be good is when the restriction allows them to print something too powerful for them to print without a restriction, but on the cards we’ve seen so far that hasn’t really been the case. Alliances mainly feel new so you keep buying Mumbad Datapacks, and feel like “ooh, I can make a deck that builds around X”, which is a 1 time experience and is also inevitable and more fascinating anyway when it’s your own idea to build around X and not the developer’s, holding your hand to help you cross the street. I doubt the developers intended Always Be Running cutlery Quetzal, but the deck is fascinating. If some HB/NBN alliance card makes someone able to build an HB FA deck that is 4 cards different from what they tested in future future league, I’m less excited.
But again, alliances are new, and easy to balance and keep watered down, so they get a smiley sticker.
But no, I’m definitely not worried about complexity. That level of complexity is fine. They all pale in comparison to the complexity of learning how to play a core set deck versus a core set deck without breaking any rules. I am worried that the purpose of a lot of these new mechanics seem to be more for pack sales and exciting deckbuilding under the kitchentable instead of a skill intensive, emergent Worlds 2016 meta though.
1 Like
To be fair, I don’t think the FFG design team’s goal has ever been a skill intensive, emergent Worlds meta. This isn’t a slight to the design team, but I think our evidence so far points to the prioritization of fun and dynamism, rather than that of competitive balance and depth.
2 Likes