Advent of Wyrms doesn’t push any boundaries but I had fun

 Advent of the Wyrms was one of the games that made me want to revisit the Decktet. It’s a soliatire game that was released in 2020 so it gave me a way to see what people have been doing with the Decktet more recently. For a certain definition of recent. I suppose.

The theme is that you are trying to prevent the revival of world destroying dragons. Wyrms are one of the six suits of the Decktet and this game revolves around that suit. Oh and you use the extended deck so 45 cards.

To win the game, you need to place four sets of three ascending cards. Each set needs to share a common suit. Remember, most of the cards have more than one suit. You can be working on up to five sets.

Shuffle the deck and deal out a hand of four cards. If you get a Wyrm card, shuffle it back in and deal out a new card. A turn is play a card/discard a card, then draw a card.

If you draw a card that includes the Wyrm, you have to discard a card that matches its rank, matches one of its other suits, the suit-free Excuse card or two cards from the top of the deck (which is the worst option) You discard the Wyrm card too.

If you make four sets before you run out of cards, you win. If you don’t, you lose.

I can’t help but compare Advent of Wyrms to Adaman, one of the first, if not the first, solitaire games for the Decktet. Both games definitely feel games originally designed for traditional cards adopted for the Decktet. 

Adaman is more intricate and I think it’s more difficult. I have managed to win Advent of the Wyrms and I haven’t won Adaman yet. I feel safe saying it’s the deeper game.

On the other hand, Advent of the Wyrms is a more fluid game with a definite tempo of play. It’s definitely simpler but that also makes it easier to 

just get a game rolling. Advent of Wyrms is, at least for me, more fun.

Mind you, I don’t think Advent of Wyrms really pushes what you can do with the Decktet. Not it has to. Innovation is not a requirement for quality.

Advent of the Wyrms is a fun game but more of one I’ll probably use to warm up before playing another Decktet game than on its own.

http://wiki.decktet.com/game:advent-of-the-wyrms

I won’t spoil Fire Force but, trust me, it’s far weirder than it looks

Thanks to Bundle of Holding, I have read through the entirety of the Fire Force manga by Atsushi Ohkubi. My initial impression of it was My Hero Academia as fire fighters. Which isn’t remotely accurate but I love me some My Hero Academia so that was enough to get me on board.

Of course, in this case, the fire fighters in question almost all have pyrokinetic powers and fight fire monsters called infernals. In world that should be a whole lot more dystopian than it appears to be on the surface.

Around two hundred and fifty years earlier, there was a cataclysm that nearly destroyed the world. The Empire of Tokyo has risen up from the almost literal ashes. However, the world is haunted by spontaneous human combustion, which doesn’t bit turn people into dead ashes but infernals which are rampaging fiery beasts.

Fire Soldiers, most of whom have some kind of pyrokinetic powers, are a special division whose purpose is to put infernals down. A very important element of their job is that these are innocent people who they have to kill. Each squad even has clergy to administer last rites after or during the battle.

Killing infernals isn’t presented as a moral quandary per se. Eldritch fiery abominations killing people is an issue society has to address. However, it is presented as a moral burden. It has to be done but it is horrible.

Our hero is Shinra, a young fire soldier with the power to generate fire from his feet. This gives him the ability to fly, super speed, an unbelievable kick and a distaste for shoes. And I intentionally do mean our hero since being a hero is Shinra’s goal in life. 

Which would make him sound like a simple, naive character. However, he is a grounded by childhood tragedies that just get worse the more we learn about him. In fact, one of his greatest feats is being a functional, caring person after all he’s been through.

(As long as I’m talking about characters, I’ll address the elephant in the room, Tamaki, a fire soldier who is cursed to fall out of her clothes. It’s kept PG but seriously? To give Atsushi Ohkubo some credit, it is treated as a serious condition and something Tamaki has to struggle with socially and emotionally. On the other hand, her nemesis is a guy who passes out every time he sees her in her underwear and it’s treated as comedy. That’s trying to have your cake and eat it too. Yeah, it’s a problematic.)

Fire Force doesn’t have a monster-of-the-week formula. Instead, it is clearly big story arc pretty much from the beginning. And, without giving away any spoilers, boy do the plot twists keep hitting.

Now, I pretty much assume that all Shonen works are going to have major turning points where the status quo is not going to be coming back. If the words Jujutsu Kaisen and Shibuya Incident don’t make any sense to you, trust me, they are a darn good example of this. But Fire Force just keeps having them. 

The series keeps on having points where I told myself ‘ah, this is where everything changes’ And everything does change. But then we’d get another point where everything changes. Again, I want to avoid spoilers but near the end, I became convinced that if Atsushi Ohkubo and Grant Morrison ever met, it would destroy the universe.

I also want to note that many elements of Fire Force that I wrote off as only existing because of the rule of cool or silly fun end up having profound in-universe justifications. And from the aforementioned Jujutsu Kaisen to Jojo’s Bizarre Adventures, I’m used to in-universe explorations and explanations of weird powers. Fire Force still takes it to places most creators rarely go.

If I had only read one or two volumes, Fire Force wouldn’t have had much impact. But being able to read the whole series to the end made me appreciate what a crazy, mad fever dream it is.

Adaman is a good but not to my taste

 When I decided that I needed to revisit the Decktet with a focus on solitaire games, I knew that my starting place was going to be Adaman, It is one of the earliest Decktet games, developed by the same guy who developed the Decktet itself, P.D. Magnus. Now, I had played it before, about twelve years ago. On the one hand, I remembered almost nothing about the game. On the other hand, I did remember playing it, which is still something.

The Decktet is broken down into two groups, the basic deck, which uses ranks like conventional deck of cards; and the extended deck, which has Tarot-like trumps. The deck has six suits but most of the cards have more than one suit on them, All of the cards have Tarot-like artwork, not unlike what you might expect if Pamala Smith had been possessed by Sir John Tennial while he was on a laudanum bender. Adaman, at least as it was originally designed, only uses the basic deck. The cards are also broken down into subcategories, indicated by the artwork. Your goal in Adaman is to discard/score/claim the eleven personage cards, ie, the cards that have 'people' on them.

The theme of Adaman is that you are one of the heirs to the throne and are building up power via palace intrigue. Gameplay takes place in three rows that can only be five cards long. The bottom row is resources, which functions as your hand. The middle row is the market and the top row is the palace. 

Shuffle up the basic cards. Deal out five to the market. Then deal out five to the resource row. However, if you deal a personage to the resource card, you move it to the palace row and deal a replacement card. So, the market can have any card in it. Resources cannot have any personages. The palace can only be personages.

Gameplay goes as follows. You discard cards from resources to claim cards from the market or palace. The discarded cards have to equal or be more than the rank of the claimed card and each card has to share suit with the claimed card. If you claim a personage, add it to your scoring pile. If it's any other card, put it in the resource row. Deal out cards to fill in any gaps in the market or resources and keep going.

You win if you score all eleven personages. You lose if you have to add a sixth card to the palace or you run out of moves.

All right. I would honestly describe Adaman as "just okay', at least for me. Mechanically, it definitely works. In fact, I'm finding it to actually be a tough game to beat. The royal cards, which are rank ten and have only one suit, are particularly tricky and help make the game interesting. However, there wasn't anything that really made the game sparkle for me. It doesn't have a hook, at least not for me. Adaman feels like a solitaire game for a regular deck of cards that has been adjusted for the Decktet. (In fact, that game may be Portraits)

There is a caveat. If you view Adaman as an introduction to the Decktet and a way to familiarize yourself with the cards, Adaman does an excellent job of doing that. It gets you used to the idea of a card having more than one suit and which cards are which. Another one of the early Decktet games, Bharg, was a two-player rummy game that felt like it had a similar goal and Adaman does it better. It forces you to examine the cards more closely and it makes use of the artwork. I feel no need to go back to Bharg while I still like there's some fun left in Adaman.

Now, on the third hand, I decided to revisit the Decktet because I've been playing a lot of Mysticana games. And the direct comparison to Adaman is Nine Perils, which also functions as an introduction to the core concepts of the deck. And that is a game I go back to a lot. In fact, I usually play a game of it as a warm-up before playing other Mysticana games.  Adaman doesn't have that kind of umph.

Adaman represents, more than some other Decktet games, using the game system like a regular deck of cards. Which isn't a bad thing. The standard deck of cards has to be one of the most, if not the most, successful gaming system in history. (Now someone will argue with me using dice as a counterexample) 

Adaman is a solid, good game but it's not why I like the Decktet. 

One Card Mazes is back on Kickstarter for a third season

 One Card Mazes is currently running their third Kickstarter for a third set of their puzzles. Well, I got to do my part to get the word out.

Each One Card Maze (so far) is a maze that fits on both sides of a card. They aren't designed to be written on but to be followed with your mind's eye. There are two ways to manipulate the maze. Arrows leading off the edge that let you flip the card to the other side and spins that let you change the orientation of the card. There are doors on the mazes that you can only pass through if the card is oriented correctly. (You see, the doors are arrows and you can only pass through ones that are pointing up)

My first exposure to One Card Mazes was through a design contest. Well, they've come a long way since then. I was concerned when I first saw them that the core mechanics would be too simple. Instead, over the course of a whole bunch of mazes, I have come to the conclusion that the core mechanics are super accessible, allowing room for mazes that at least I struggle with lol

However, they built on that formula in the second season by adding bosses, who you have to defeat. As well as fledgling mazes so people like me could have mazes they could solve in only a couple of days.

The third season, well, they just keep on stepping it up .

One of the two sets of cards will be an interconnected maze. Cards will have connections from one card to another. The other set of cards is going to take the jump from being puzzles to being a two to four player game. I think they’ll be able to played as a regular mazes too.

How will it all work? i have no idea. I am really curious, though. One Card Mazes keeps exceeding my expectations. Seriously, making a game where you have to mentally follow along is surprisingly hard and they've done a bang up job of it.

Oh, there's also a stand alone, in hand game about Cthulhu on the Kickstarter. Palm Island was a transformative experience for me so I'm excited about that as well. 

I usually keep at least one or two One Card Mazes in my bag or wallet. They've come in handy to keep my sanity. When we had a flat tire, One Card Mazes helped me make the hours go by. I'm on board for their latest Kickstarter and doing my small part to spread the word.

And if you're reading this years after the fact, hunt them down. They're good.

The Decktet’s vast potential

For years, I have said that if you were to only make one PnP project, it should be the Decktet. And, to be honest, I haven't changed my mind yet about that. It is one of the versatile one-and-done projects I can think of.

The Decktet is a game system that consists of a deck of 45 cards with six suits. The clever bit, and this is honestly clever, is that almost all of the cards are mulit-suited.

I have seen decks that add extra suits and ranks. The Decktet, having the cards be more than one suit? That I hadn't seen before and I'm not sure I have seen it since. Added to that, the deck is divided between 36 basic cards and nine extended cards. And eight of those extended cards are triple suited while the last one has no suits at all. 

And the Decktet has some crazy artwork, which I would describe as Tarot-adjacent, cartoony  and grotesque. It's definitely memorable.

A game system is just a concept without actual games. And the Decktet has some that I quite enjoy. The three that really stick with me are Magnate, a resource management game; Emu Ranchers, a Lost Cities variant that I like more than Lost Cities in some ways; and Jacynth, a Carcassonne-style tile laying game. All three very different games and, if they were all there were, the Decktet would still be worth it.

As I wrote that list out, I realized that those three games are like a snapshot of a slightly earlier time in gaming, a time when German Family games had more of the market share. And, frankly, when I first got into designer board games. So I might be a little biased.

I have been looking back at the Decktet because I have been actively exploring the Mysticana game system. To the point where half my blogs for the spring might be about it. It's a very different approach, only three suits that are interlocking and module expansions. Its also much more solitaire focused, which plays more to my current gaming.

I have only lightly looked into the Decktet's solitaire options and, quite frankly, I wasn't interested in what I saw. However, that was before I had any real interest in solitaire gaming. I really need to go back and take a second look. 

While Decktet games are still being developed, its heyday seems clearly in the past. And I think that is really because here isn't a company driving its development. Sadly, that’s a real thing. Support makes a difference.

That said, the Decktet remains a very versatile gaming system with a game library worth exploring and plenty of untapped potential.

In Curse of Dragons, Mysticana ups its game

Curse of Dragons was actually the second Mysticana game I learned because I was part of its playtest forum. But approaching it again after learning Cave of Djinns, Wild Magic and Harbingers, I have a different perspective.

Mysticana is a game system that is designed to use small expansions to create new games. This is a tried and true formula. I mean, chips + cards

= poker. The basic Mysticana deck consists of six ranks in three suits and the suits have a rock-paper-scissors relationship. And, to be honest, I have been surprised and happy with what Mysticana has offered. 

Every Mysticana expansion/game has consisted of six cards so far. In Curse of Dragons, those six cards are five dragons and a reference card that I’ve found quite helpful. Each dragon has three bits of mechanical info on it: its difficulty ranking, its hoard/attack effect and the card sequence you need to make to defeat it.

You fight three dragons in every game. While it can be random, the fact that they have a difficulty rating means you can curate how tough you want your game to be. After you select your dragons, you draw a hand of three. One of those cards immediately goes to the hoard. More on the hoard later.

You have four actions you can take. Draw a card. If the value of your hand is fifteen or bigger, you bust. More on that later. Summon: if you have at least three of a suit, you can deploy one of those cards for free. Rescue, if you have at least three of a suit, you can discard one to get pull a card from the hoard that’s a weaker element.

And deploy. Deploy is the main action of the game. You play cards next to dragons to build up a pattern to defeat them. (And they all have specific requirements) The cards must be in ascending or descending order. And you have to discard their value or greater to place them. But you do get to do a bonus action, depending on their suit. Water lets you add a card from the discard pile to the dragons. Fire lets you discard cards beside one dragon. Wood lets you rearrange all the cards of a single rank.

Remember how I’d get back to hoard? The hoard is a separate stack that is how the game puts the hurt on you. When you bust, each dragon gets to use its hoard effect, forcing you to add a card from your hand to the hoard. The hoard being fifteen or higher automatically makes you lose.

From my perspective, since I’m not quite sure what order Mysticana games came out, Curse of Dragons represents a jump in both depth and complexity. It is meaningfully more difficult than, for example, Cave of Djinns, which I think was the first solitaire expansion. 

There is a lot going on, given its small scale. Four different types of actions, plus three types of bonus actions. The decision tree starts to build up as you play. Gameplay isn’t complicated but there’s a lot to keep track of in a fifteen minute game.

The hoard definitely adds good tension to the game. Managing the hoard can be more important than managing the dragons because it’s the game losing condition. The hoard is your AI opponent playing by its own rules.

Curse of Dragon is fun and interesting. At least for me, it’s a tough game to beat but I enjoy trying. I don’t know what the end goal of the Mysticana system is but Curse of Dragons indicates ambitious plans.

A super hero game should not be bland

The pros and cons of Super Dice Heroes overlap a fair bit. On the one hand, it is a free PnP, low ink and very easy to teach. On the other hand, the theming is painfully thin and it is one of the most simple and basic examples I’ve seen of its particular niche.

Super Dice Heroes is a one page Roll and Write where the board is broken down into six mini-set collection games. Making pairs, filling in grids, have a column all of the same die pip. That sort of the thing.

Everyone will need a pawn of some sort to keep track of which is the six areas their hero is in. They need to also randomly determine which of six super powers they have, which are dice manipulation abilities that can be used three times per game.

At the start of each turn, four dice get rolled. There is a space to write down the rolls, which helps you track the turns and is useful if you’re playing with a large group. You can either move, using a die to move to a new area, or help, fill in one of the blanks in the area where you’re at.

In addition to points, you can also earn wild dice and bystanders in the mini games. Wild dice are virtual, one-use dice that can be any pip and bystanders are worth five points each at the end. Each area also has three robot minions which can be destroyed by a die of any pip for a point, a consolation prize for bad rolls.

Ten rounds, most points wins.

I would say that Super Dice Heroes is a solid grade C game. The mechanics all work and there are some nice touches. However, the game absolutely fails to shine.

The game’s biggest concession to its theme is a an outline with a cape in the middle of the board. Yes, the idea is to draw your own hero but it’s uninspiring. Superheroes aren’t plain and this is so plain.

And I have played a lot of games that are basically a group of mini-games. Super Dice Heroes may be the most basic, most simple I’ve seen. The mini-games all work but I’ve seen them all before and there’s nothing that makes them stand out.

As a couple of counter examples, the Clever series is completely abstract but the mini-games have lot of interlocking bonuses connecting them. The game interacts with itself. And Rolling Realms is dripping with theme, with the mini-games inspired by other games. Meta, yes, but engaging.

The most interesting touch in Super Dice Heroes is the use of a pawn. Having movement be a factor is something I’m not used to seeing.

But Super Dice Heroes’ best selling points are being free and low ink. And there is a lot out there that fits that same description. 

It may see some play for me as a brain fog game. It has some real potential for me there. And I can see it as a real option as a budget game for a large group, like a class or a youth group. But I can’t recommend it for most folks.

With that said, it was revamped into Super Dice Heroes Saga, a multi-part campaign. Which seems to have never been finished. (And I don’t care about that since there’s enough for me to play. The Ballad of Halo Jones is a classic and Alan Moore will never finish it) And to Super dice Heroes credit, I will be testing its big brother.

Has solitaire become more of a thing?

I have noticed that Solitaire seems like is becoming more and more a part of the mission statement when it comes to game design. It feels like there games more and more often have solitaire options or are just plain solitaire.

Now, my gaming focus has been for the past number of years on Print and Play and Roll and Write. I also follow playtesting, be in the form of formal playtest trials or design contests. So my view might be totally askew.

I have read that it is easier to get playtesters if you have a solitaire option, which just makes sense. I have no problem trying out a prototype that might have all kinds of issues. I am not going to ask my wife to do the same.

However, I have also read one game designer (it was Krzysztof Matusik) write that they think that having a good solo mode in a Roll and Write was important. (That does deserve the caveat that I strongly suspect that Roll and Writes in particular have developed in a direction that favors solitaire play. More on that later) Button Shy seems to be doing very well with their Simply Solo series and are offering more solitaire games in general. And the solitaire game A Gentle Rain has gotten and continues to get more mainstream attention than I think a solitaire game would have gotten ten years ago.

It is my uneducated, unsubstantiated assumption that this trend, if it actually exists, is directly related to Covid. I am not a sociologist or a market analyst so my opinion is worth a grain of salt at best. Still, I think we have not yet begun to understand or appreciate the effect of the pandemic on the world.

And I think its also safe for me to say that Roll and Writes were particularly affected. They are the easiest and most accessible form of PnP games to make. For many of them, you just need to print out a page per player. No need to make cards or tiles or pawns. And you can put those pages in file protectors and use dry erase makers so you can keep on using the same sheet.

More than that, Roll and Writes lend themselves to multi-player solitaire games in the style of Take It Easy. Everyone has their own play sheet but shares the die rolls. Which made them perfect for playing over zoom or other kinds of video conferencing.

Yes, you can play a vast number of games online in a wide variety of ways. But being able to manually play a game, the tactile experience of writing something down, clearly has its own appeal.

I definitely saw the number of prototypes for Roll and Writes, particularly ones that used the Take It Easy style of play, explode during the pandemic. And the numbers have remained strong. More than one game publisher, Postmark Games and Hammerdice as two of the more obvious examples, use them as a major part of their business plan.

So, I feel confident in saying that some sections of the hobby have moved to a more solitaire friendly direction. And, it feels like I see one as a option for the number of players in a lot of games at stores.

Is this a real thing? I don't know. Is it a bad thing or a good thing? Pretty sure its just a thing, neither good or bad. 

I was going to find a Mysticana game I didn’t like

One of the first questions I asked myself when I first looked at Mysticana was ‘Is there going to be a trick taking game?’ Because I feel like that is one of the baseline genres a game system using cards is contractually obligated to tackle.

Of course, one of the base games is a trick taking game, Sorcerers’ Showdown.

 

As one of the base games, Sorcerers’ Showdown doesn’t use any expansions. You just use the regular eighteen-card deck. I also have to add the caveat that I taught to myself using the fan-made solitaire variant. 

Shuffle up the deck. Discard two cards, sight unseen. Then deal out eight cards to each player (Did I mention it’s a two-player game?) The players then discard two cards each and start the game with a hand of six cards. You’ll be playing six tricks.

One player leads. The other one must follow suit if they can. If the suits are the same, higher rank wins. Otherwise, stronger suit wins. One rule I couldn’t find was, after the first round, how to determine who leads.

If one player wins every trick in a round, they win. Otherwise, you go on to the next round. Only this time, you discard four cards. Eventually, if no one wins before then, you’ll be down to a hand of one card and someone has to win.

Um…

I have a number of issues with Sorcerers’ Showdown. 

While there was a time when I wasn’t sure if a two-player trick taking game was even a viable idea. And Haggis changed my mind. In 2010. But Sorcerers’ Showdown is no Haggis. (Okay, Haggid is a climbing game but they are very closely related concepts)

The actual individual play is so simple that I think it ends up being too simple. Far worse, the fact that, if someone doesn’t win every single trick, it renders the entire round meaningless. I know I played the solitaire varient but I think playing it two-player would have been more frustrating.

And I feel like there could have been simple solutions. Like stealing from Pico 2’s playbook, playing two rounds with swapping hands on the second round and whoever wins the most total tricks wins. 

And I think the Mysticana deck could make for a good trick taking or climbing game. Like an expansion that adds conditions or determines which suit is trump for example. But Sorcerers’ Showdown isn’t that game.

I am very glad I played other Mysticana games like Cave of Djiins and Wild Magic before I played this. Because Sorcerers’s Showdown would have put me off the system.

Is the Rage deck the Omni-deck?

 As I blitz my way through the solitaire options  of Mysticana, I have been looking at the wider world of game systems. Specifically game systems designed to either build on or 'replace' a regular deck of cards.

And what immediately comes clear is that that is a vast topic. Someone, someone who is a better scholar than me, could devote a long running blog on just the subject of card-based game systems.

There are plenty variations on the standard deck of cards. The 52 card French deck probably is the global standard (Note that I don't feel confident to say that it is for sure) However, there are other regional variations that are still in use and production.  I've always assumed that was why the version of Euchre that I've been taught only uses 24 cards but I don't even know that for certain. 

But designers have been trying to intentionally come up with alternatives. There have been more than one deck than just adds another suit, for instance. But the real test is if you can play a game that you want to play with the alternative that you can't play with a regular 52-card deck.

It is interesting when a game system develops accidentally, even though I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case for the regular deck of cards.

Rage was published in 1983. It has six suits, ranked 0 to 15. It is basically the conventional deck blown up in every direction. And it's an Oh Hell variant that is also expanded, including special cards.

And when I first got into board gaming, I definitely saw it referenced a lot. And not because of the game itself but the possibilities it had as a gaming system.

Gamers listed 188 (and growing) different games that you could play with a Rage deck. That number is actually low since you can functionally play any game that uses a traditional deck of cards with a Rage deck. Game designers were known to buy Rage decks in bulk as prototype parts.

https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/1907/games-playable-with-rage-deck-not-the-ccg-please-a

So I made sure to get a copy. And promptly did nothing with it.

The Rage deck has vast mechanical possibilities. For instance, I could easily play Lost Cities with a Rage deck, However, I would lose the vibrant pictures and the easy visual clarity of the handshake cards. Elements that aren't mechanically necessary but add to the enjoyment and engagement.

As I've discussed more than once, theming isn't just about making things pretty. Theming can create a visual shorthand that enhances the accessibility and engagement of a game. Theming can help you process a game easier. And the Rage deck is entirely abstract.

(Not that I'm knocking abstract. Sticheln is one of my favorite trick taking games and it is also entirely abstract. The sheer sadism of the game carries it without the need for theme)

Rage seems to have lost some of its luster. I haven't seen it discussed as a game library in one small box in a long time, although people do keep adding to the list. It also seems to be less available than it used to be but I doubt that that has anything to do with its role as a game system.

As I have become more DIY in my gaming in recent years, I wonder if I would do more with a Rage deck now. However, the game systems I have explored, like the Decktet or the Pairs deck or Mysticana, step farther away from the model of the standard deck of cards.

Game systems can be versatile tools. They can be powerful tools. Just look at the cultural impact of traditional playing cards. But they have their limits as well.