In the early-game, the Vagabond can keep toe-to-toe in VPs with most of the factions. However, in its current state, the Vagabond is too self-sufficient in every phase of the game, which in turn, further undermines the Vagabond's Relationship mechanic. Ideally, the Vagabond should be weak in the early game, naturally growing more powerful as they collect more items (actions) and foster Allies. To address this issue, Cole implemented the Quests as a way to give the Vagabond “another source of non-player victory points.” The Quests, along with the Vagabond's ability to craft cards, betrays the 2nd major design philosophy. Ironically, the faction that was meant to be most dependent on player-interaction ended up with a core mechanic that has the least interactivity. It's an afterthought at best and just noise at worst. I have personally never been a part of a game where someone's Relationship with the Vagabond was a deciding factor in an important mid- or late-game decision. This mechanic is the core of the Vagabond's design philosophy, and for the other players around they table, they couldn't care less about it. They get another avenue to score, and it's not like the Aid cards when Allied are any better. Even should I reach “Allied” status, the benefits are still mostly for the Vagabond. Whether or not I'm Hostile has no bearing on my turn-to-turn actions - I don't get any points for damaging the Vagabond's items, nor do I suffer any movement penalties - the effects are strictly for the Vagabond alone. In fact, the entire Relationship mechanic is quite one-sided. What should be an important event is made so dull since there's no risk involved on either side: I don't lose the crafting points if an item is taken, and the Vagabond has no risk of being denied. As another faction, I cannot rely on the Vagabond to provide consistent Aid when I do get Aid, I cannot guarantee that the card I get will be useful and furthermore, I cannot refuse the Aid. Even though I get a card, I cannot leverage the Vagabond's Aid into my strategy.
Quest for infamy scoring driver#
For example, the Aid action, supposedly a central part of the Vagabond's design and the driver of their main feature, the Relationships, is incredibly boring. These are actions that require another player, but either have no bearing on the other player, or is done so in a way where the other player has no leverage or counter-actions. However, the Vagabond's lack of common mechanics also breaks this important pattern of action-reaction.īesides Battle and occasionally the Character Card's special ability, most of the Vagabond's remaining mechanics are one-way mechanics. Each action the active player takes must consider the leverage the opposing player has (e.g., Player 1 doesn't just Battle Player 2 willy-nilly because Player 2 fights back). The reason these mechanics create such tightly coupled gameplay is because these are two-way mechanics. Because other factions rely mostly on the central “core mechanics” (controlling clearing, building things, battle, etc.) of Root, they are all intrinsically tied to one another via their common mechanics. What caused the Vagabond's gameplay to fall flat? Personally, I'd chalk it up to the overwhelming presence of one-sided mechanics that constitute the Vagabond's gameplay experience. The trouble was that it’s purpose depended wholly on the other players and the arc of the game.” “The role worked, but it also felt somewhat aimless in the early game.
Cole speaks a bit about the struggles the Vagabond's purely P2P design in a post Kickstarter blog article. By having no intrinsic way to score points, the faction has no urgency or priorities but, by being weak, the faction has no pressure to exert to entice other players to interact with them and give them urgency or priorities. The trouble with those two particular design principles is that they pretty much describe a vicious circle.
0 kommentar(er)
