bthquartermaster

Hi Redneckdevil - I recommend picking up the base set and the character add-on deck. Try that with one, two, or three players and see if you like the game before buying anything else. Gamers with a tabletop background have generally loved this game, particularly if they enjoyed other deckbuilders. Gamers with an RPG background (like yourself) have had more mixed reviews. Ok was thinking of bringing my group in which is 3 other people. We love tabletop and mmos and video games all together to try this out. so which do u think i should start off with? Rise of the runelords or skulls and shackles? We have been running RotRL for some time and they are enjoying it but is close to the end. We was actually gonna do S&S after we finished and once i found the books at a cheap price somewhere (i like pdfs but i HAVE to have a physical copy im weird like that lol) so both decks will touch on games we have and will eventually play. also the additional cards...are u talking about the ones that have the iconics or the ones that are for each class? Like i have seen one that had some of the iconics in one deck and seen decks specifically for each individual class (ex. A deck for clerics and a deck for fighters). Thanks for the heads up. Just dont want to repeat my mistake when i first got into tabletop gaming and literally put down well over a grand on books and adventure paths (which im glad i did) but not glad on on the maps and minis and whatnots (stuff i didnt need but spent wayyyy to much on). I greatly prefer rise of the runelords to skull and shackles, but the games are very, very similar - so if the pirate theme appeals to you, go for that. otherwise, rise of the runelords. get this: http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/186930 and maybe this: http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/186931 ...and start with that. Play through the introductory three game sessions (or maybe all of pack 1, included in base set). if you like it, then consider getting the class decks you speak of and additional decks 2-6.

Or in other words, I'm comfortable describing aspects of the game as problems just as I'm comfortable calling a game good or bad, and I think we all can enjoy that latitude. In truth the concept that games can have problems is taken for granted among gamers and game designers. The kingmaker scenario is generally acknowledged to be a gameplay problem, as is player elimination in long games of more than two players. Other generic problems (arbitrary randomness, encouraging AP, uneven player starting conditions) abound even in successful games and regardless of whether you are comfortable with these elements, they're still problematic insofar as they run counter to the gameplay's fun, strategy, fairness, time commitment, etc. Cases in point: Problems are often identified and addressed in subsequent editions of games. Cash and Guns' 2nd edition fixed the loot distribution mechanic (problematic because it slowed the game and involved little player partcipation) by replacing it with a drafting minigame. Game of Thrones' 2nd edition fixed a lot of the problems associated with the different starting conditions by introducing neutral armies to slow certain types of expansion. Expansions and updates are often about solving problems in game content and design. The Netrunner relaunch fixed the tracing mechanic and unbalanced abilities by redesigning tracing from the ground up and siloing powerful abilities within a faction system. Eldritch Horror corrects a lot of the problems of Arkham Horror, not only simplifying the mechanics but also creating more varied objectives. Those varied objectives (called mysteries) were criticized after the game's release, not for their inherent mechanics but because there were so few - a problem which EH's Forsaken Lore expansion corrected by adding several for each scenario. For a simpler and more well-known example, Settlers of Catan solves the problem of randomness in die rolls by replacing them with a deck of cards that better obey the 2d6 bell curve. Competing games often solve one another's problems. You mention LOTR; well, PACG solves the problem of the LOTR's compartmentalization of deck construction and gameplay sessions by integrating deckbuilding into the encounter deck and making player decks persistent session-to-session. Dominion is a great game, but the lack of player interactivity is a legitimate problem that other deckbuilders have since aimed to fix: Trains does so by making players compete for real estate; Arctic Scavengers addresses the problem via a bidding/combat round, etc. House rules are about nothing if not fixing problems. One of the most popular threads for Spartacus at BGG is the "blue dice variant" that fixes the problem of kiting in combat and brings the movement mechanic in line with other gamplay elements. The game is better and more consistent with the variant implemented. Problem solved! In short, many (very good) games do have problems, and more importantly, those problems can be identified and solved. PACG's problems are likewise both evident and solvable. If you'd like to articulate how to solve them I'm all ears, but I don't think further discussion about whether the game is good or bad is interesting or fruitful. One feature that I had hoped to see in Skull and Shackles (and didn't) was some sort of cash mechanism. As it stands, there is no immediate reward for defeating monsters or (most) barriers. Encountering and overcoming monsters and barriers is the very heart of this game, but there is no positive incentive to encounter them. You get nothing for overcoming them (except a few barriers). I think there should be a "loot" reward for defeating monsters and barriers that can then be used to draw random (or even specific) cards from the box in between scenarios. They could also do more to integrate the monsters, barriers, and the players themselves into the locations. Locations should have traits similar to the other cards that provide bonuses and penalties - this keeps the thematic elements more at the forefront of the mind, and reduces some of the dry mechanics that Jackalmonkey doesn't like. To be clear: - I still absolutely love this game - I do not think Obsidian should alter the game mechanics at all in their app implementation of Rise of the Runelords. - I do think Paizo should consider this in (hopefully forthcoming) adventure paths of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. Really hoping we see a set that focuses on the far north regions like Irrisen and the Linnorm King

Hi Redneckdevil - I recommend picking up the base set and the character add-on deck. Try that with one, two, or three players and see if you like the game before buying anything else. Gamers with a tabletop background have generally loved this game, particularly if they enjoyed other deckbuilders. Gamers with an RPG background (like yourself) have had more mixed reviews.

right. *when* in 2015 is what I was hoping to hear.

sure, you can oversimplify PACG to "flip a card, roll the dice." you can oversimplify a worker placement game to "move the meeple, collect a resource" too. or a deckbuilder to "draw a card, play a card, cull your deck." etc. etc. all your critique has really done is identify the core mechanic of an encounter. well done. what it hasn't done is fairly describe the game. it ignores the rich theme of the locations and adventure path (and how they shape each session), the depth of strategy involved in selecting and using your characters skills effectively as a team, and the tough decisions of when to use scarce resources (often blessings, but may be any category of card in short supply in your character's deck). PACG is an extraordinarily UN-repetitive merging of co-operative play, deckbuilding, and persistent character development. There's nothing else like it, and it has been wildly successful. To claim it is in decline is sheer fantasy. The diversity of characters lends itself to near endless replayability, and it has retained its popularity against of a slew of potential thematic rivals (Myth, Descent, Thunderstone to name a few). the majority of the criticism has come from the segment I mentioned earlier: the RPG purists. I can be somewhat sympathetic to their position: anyone expecting something else based on brand history can be forgiven their disappointment when a new product doesn't have the same appeal as the old. But this critique? An extreme minority position, and a gross oversimplification. At best. Those of us that are primarily tabletop players absolutely love the game. I'll be at BGG.con again this year, and won't be surprised to see table after table with both Rise of the Runelords and Skull and Shackles on it.

okay cool - so when? can we narrow down 2015 a little bit now that 2014 is almost over?

I get it. No really, I do. It has the name Pathfinder on it, so it must produce the same sentiment and gameplay as a role playing game would. Nothing else will do. Got it. Never mind the fact that this is the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. Not a roleplaying game. This is a tabletop card game modeled after successful deckbuilder games like Dominion, with the added features of persistent characters, dice based combat, and a fantasy theme. It is a fantastic implementation of that game mechanic. But it is not a roleplaying game. And thus the purists howl. This game has been wildly successful in print, virtually dominating the 2013 BGG.con convention in Dallas. Players can't get enough of the rich theme, balanced player development and combat mechanics, and challenging objectives. PACG has finally brought true character development and campaign gameplay into the tabletop world - and is now poised to do the same for tablets. But instead of praise for that accomplishment, the game is criticized here for its simplified (read, no weeks of GM preparation and setup) gameplay. THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF IT. You don't have to designate a GM. You can play it by yourself if you want. You don't have to deal with unbalanced encounters. You don't have spend twice as much time preparing as playing. The one fair criticism - it has errata in the printed version. Plenty of them. Real problems there, to be sure. Problems that can be corrected in the digital implementation. But to dismiss this game outright for its encounter mechanics is unbelievable to me. In truth, I found more depth here in using the different cards and character abilities to best effect than I found in endless rounds of roll d20, hope-I-crit slugfests. Passing on PACG is denying yourself the best tabletop game of 2013, and I haven't seen much in 2014 to rival it either.

steam, steam, and more steam please. but iOS is fine to start ) and make a fortune hopefully. Especially if you give us the Class Decks as IAP.

What do I want to see? I want to see all the characters from the class decks and the character add-on pack make their way into this game. Even as IAP. I don't care. I don't just want Valeros, Merisiel, and Kyra. I want Sajan, Olenjack, and Arabundi!!!

best thing about this? none of the annoying errata in the printed edition! ...okay, and ease of setup, and multiplayer online, and beautiful design, etc. etc. but especially no more annoying errata

This looks amazing - and should address the three most undesirable things that detract from the awesomeness of tabletop PACG ROTR... - setup time - errata and rules lookups - coordinating other players CAN. NOT. WAIT. IAP? I really don't care. I don't. The game is expensive as heck in print, pretty sure this will be more fun to play and cost significantly less. Plus, with a fixed set, it won't cost as much as most app CCGs I'm sure. Not to mention, the screenshots I'm seeing look amazing in form and interface. So I'll pay for quality like that, even with already having the print edition, because I know i'll pour endless hours into it, and probably for less than a few movie tickets.