The Last Homely House
Undying Lands => The Straight Road => Setting Sail => Topic started by: Kralik on January 22, 2011, 11:34:05 AM
-
...because it never actually lived.
Years have been spent wasted on talking arguing over the merits of "PC or no PC? (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/board,40.0.html)" In the end, the result has been lots of talk, little action. To put it another way, all bark, no bite. Supposedly there is a "PC Website" up, but in a year it is still a mess of broken links and bad templates. Emails have been sent to Decipher but no headway has been made. Some people want change and some people don't. Some people still play and others left long ago. And on and on it goes. A notable exception to this is Tbiesty's work on an Unofficial Rulebook, which I hope we can use.
Why has the PC failed?
- Lack of Official Sanction: We are all waiting for that magic day when Decipher says, "Good job, TLHH! We'll be more than happy to hand you the necessary licenses and support a LotR PC!" That day will never come. It came for SWCCG, perhaps, but that was before Decipher was crushed by financial scandal and became a company struggling to survive. The best thing I think we can hope for is that Decipher tolerates this site's existence. Any more would be pushing it.
- Lack of Leadership: Supposedly the committee should have a head, but who has ever agreed on who that head should be? Some people who may have been well qualified have joined TLHH from the outside, but couldn't get a real following because they were new to the community. And... not approved by Decipher.
- Incessant Quibbling: Errata or no errata? X-list or no X-list? Virtual cards or not? Official or not? So it goes.
What needs to be done differently?
I propose that we do not necessarily need a "committee," but that we focus on building the LotR community or players group. We could still use leadership, but in the meantime:
Forget about being "THE" official PC.
We have a little section of the internet here, a platform that we like to use (GCCG) and a few hundred people. Why worry about "controlling" LotR at-large when we can come to some agreements about how we want to play? We can make a set of TLHHouse Rules. If you play a game in real life and you want to go by TLHH Rules -- great! If not -- great! Play the game and enjoy it either way!
I remember when I was first playing LotR, I had no idea about errata. My friends and I played the way we thought we should. And even when we heard about the official X-list (ruining TS with bans on NSttS and HttWC for example), we just ignored it. :P If we establish a TLHH/GCCG players group, my hope is that TLHH members will be happy to play with the house rules. But if a TLHH member plays with a non-TLHH member? Fall back to the official format.
That being said, I think that now that we are hosting GCCG, we have lots of opportunities available to us. We have an official platform for TLHH play! GCCG gives the opportunity to use:
- Custom Formats: We've already seen this with the addition of a much-loved old format, Towers Standard, and a custom format, Pre-Shadows Multipath. I've heard players want to bring back "War of the Ring Standard" -- sets 4-13. We can do it! Changes to the R- or X-list? We can do it! The deck check takes care of the details.
- Errata: Errata is easy in GCCG. Press CTRL+H on a card and you will see its official text.
- Virtual Cards: We can easily add text-based virtual cards, and there may even be a way to have a card's new text overlay the official image so that no images are changed. As SW has done, we could take old cards and make improved, virtual versions. Say, Lightfootedness (V). Players could choose which one they want to play.
- Dream Sets!: Just the same! If we make the cards ourselves and respect copyright, we could add our own dream sets and actually play with them! At the very least, we have a text-based option.
Organization ideas:
I think instead of having a "ruling committee," that it would be better to create small teams to facilitate design and discussion. Then, leave the final decision to the rest of the GCCG players themselves. Notice that when Thran, for example, creates dream cards in the Chamber of Marzabul, he takes feedback from the players and revises his original ideas? This is the process we want to see. I suggest something along the lines of:
- Movie Head: Person to help finalize Movie-Block based decisions (sets 1-10).
- Standard Head: Person to help finalize Standard based decisions (sets 7-19).
- Tournament Director: Person to organize contests and tournaments on GCCG.
- Deck Designer: Person to organize deck building contests and prizes.
- Rules Team: Group of 5-10 players to initiate new discussions on possible rules changes and consider community feedback.
- Dream Team: Group of 5-10 players to design the text of virtual cards and text or custom graphics of dream cards.
But that's just a quick sketch. Why do we need anything set in stone before we start? Start sharing some ideas and let's see what we can do about them!
-
Agreed Kralik. But I would like to state that the reason the "PC website" is a mess of broken links/templates is due to me being incapable of coding and not knowing what to put into it.
You guys don't know how happy I am that Kralik has started "our own PC"! :D
-
Nicely said, Kralik. I too prefer that this be more of a community than a committee (wow, first time I used this word, it looks weird). As far as House Rules are concerned, we can continue Tbiesty's work on an Unofficial Rulebook and make it our House Rules. Notify us when it's free to start topics in The Straight Road (I hope any gay people who might be part of TLHH don't mind the name of the section ;))
-
I don't mind the idea of a players group to moderate tournaments on GCCG and work prize support, but I am still rather against the idea of having a "player's committee."
Don't Bring Me Down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RJPaj97H24)! I'm not really thinking of a committee. It would be helpful a select team of skilled designers to make new cards, but the GCCG players should have the final say.
hrcho: more info on The Straight Road (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/s/straightroad.html).
-
As far as House Rules are concerned, we can continue Tbiesty's work on an Unofficial Rulebook and make it our House Rules.
You mean The Last Homely Houes Rules ;)
-
I think that the main goal here should be to keep active GCCG players that we currently have and find ways to get more former LOTRTCG players to play GCCG.
-
How about just keeping an active community? By the changes and little novelties Kralik has implemented around here, I can tell he's committed to keeping TLHH alive, and I think all we need is some sort of semi-official way of making decisions. Online playing is the future, unless Decipher buys rights to the Hobbit. :D
-
I would volunteer to be on the designer team, if I thought that this is what needed doing now. I love designing cards (which I think pretty much everyone around here knows!) but I honestly don't think we should run headlong into design.
Start with Tbiesty's unoffocial rulebook, expand on it, make erratas, run a database of updated and clarified rules text (like MTG Oracle), run tournaments and play the game. These are the things that need to happen now.
I can't run GCCG (I tried once and failed on my mac) and I don't have a player's group so unfortunately I can't help with the tournament side, which I think is undoubtedly the most important.
But, I know a fair bit about rules, design and development, so I would definitely want to work for the Rules Team. (If we eventually get to VCs or DCs, then of course I will want to help there too! ;) ).
Thranduil
-
I can't run GCCG (I tried once and failed on my mac) and I don't have a player's group so unfortunately I can't help with the tournament side, which I think is undoubtedly the most important.
ket and a few others have succeeded on the Mac -- maybe you can give it another go?
-
I'm in
-
:gp: for laying it all out, Kralik. Agreed on not waiting for Decipher to save the day; we can't force players to like a game if they feel it's gotten stale.
That said, I'm not seeing the distinction that's being made between a committee and a group. Seems that either way, we'd still have a structure where some entity makes final decisions for others--even if it's the Movie Head plus half the GCCG players against the rest of the GCCG players.
Unless this project becomes a repository of ideas? As in, anyone who wants to start a game/tournament can select which rulebook to use and which sets to include. The array of options can get a bit crazy, but that's where the benefits of online integration (automated deck checks, errata that are automatically displayed, etc.) come in.
-
Perhaps it is a fine distinction. When I think of committee, I imagine a small group of people making all of the decisions. While I still think we should have some leadership, I envision the rules/designs teams facilitating discussion and leaving the final decisions to the GCCG players as a whole.
-
I'm in as well.
I don't know much, I can write articles and design a bit of cards, that's all. :(
-
Nun-Hunters Multipath--is that sets 4-14?
I'd like to get a bit more feedback on the general idea and then I'll start some topics in the other subforums to kick things off.
-
Nun-Hunters Multipath--is that sets 4-14?
I'd like to get a bit more feedback on the general idea and then I'll start some topics in the other subforums to kick things off.
I guess that is pre-hunters standard. 4-13. Correct me if I'm wrong
-
Hi everyone, I'm a long time LOTRTCG player, and just happened to stumble on your site.
I love the game and still play with my friends in a format as open as possible: any card and any site from any block without errata.
I've never played online, but I could contribute, anyway...
-
Thanks for joining us!
That open format you speak of... it is a dangerous thing. Have you ever heard of... Fruit Loops? :P
Keep enjoying the game! :)
-
well, i can't contribute much... but i guess making an account in GCCG would be a good start. that's the only way i can contribute for now. hehehe
-
I've experimented a couple of loops, but found them not just boring, but often useless, if the deck you are facing is well-built, with tactics to discard conditions and similar things...
Anyway, I still heaven't read much on this forum, but would it be possible to implement myltiplay with 3 or more players?
Because on the real cards e've ended up playing only like that...
-
Non-Hunters Multipath--is that sets 4-14?
I'd like to get a bit more feedback on the general idea and then I'll start some topics in the other subforums to kick things off.
It's the format my playing group plays. Here's a link to the definition: NHM Format (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,5743.msg62153.html)
Thanks!
-
I went ahead and sticked it for you. You say it is already in GCCG, or was that just when you were hosting the tables? If you send me the rules file, I could look into adding it.
-
I went ahead and sticked it for you. You say it is already in GCCG, or was that just when you were hosting the tables? If you send me the rules file, I could look into adding it.
No problem, I can send the rules file to you.
-
OK, I've started some new threads in the other Straight Road subforums. Check them out and let us know how/if you want to help! :)
-
Incidentally, once there are a few people who want to help on each time, the subforums will be opened to them to start new threads.
-
Perhaps it is a fine distinction. When I think of committee, I imagine a small group of people making all of the decisions. While I still think we should have some leadership, I envision the rules/designs teams facilitating discussion and leaving the final decisions to the GCCG players as a whole.
To my mind, the cause of fragmentation is still there. For example, players adamant about not banning any further cards may not care if they were on the losing side of the vote. I get that a group/committee can't get everyone on the bandwagon. I'm just afraid that if every player has their own batch of decisions they don't like, the end result could be a compromise that no one wants to touch.
Before things really kick off, I'm just wondering what can be done differently this time, such as supporting multiple formats from the start, or coming up with an end goal (e.g. tournament leagues) to move things along.
-
Walking on eggshells...
I think that
a) The focus should be on creating new formats or new sets that are optional and do not interfere with old sets, but
b) Regardless of the choices made, there will always be people who don't like them.
So let's focus on the positive for the time being. I do not think that banning cards or adding errata would be a good start, unless the GCCG community knows fairly unanimously that a card needs work. One example I could give is Lady Redeemed -- even though she is NOT X-ed in Movie, there is an implicit agreement among GCCG players not to use/abuse her (in fact, she is also on the French X-list). In a case where the agreement is obvious, it could be "finalized." But that should only be done with great care.
Or on the positive side: I like using Frodo, Mr. Underhill (P) because I think it is the best Frodo picture. I don't think it's going to bother any players if we started a poll to see if we could add him as legal to any format that supports Reluctant Adventurer.
If a select committee makes all the decisions, players are going to be angry that they didn't have a full say.
If the whole community makes the decisions, players get to have their say. However, if we only make decisions when there is unanimous agreement, we will never get anywhere.
There should probably be a threshold for a percentage of players agreeing to any change before it is implemented. Perhaps something like 75%-80%.
-
There should probably be a threshold for a percentage of players agreeing to any change before it is implemented. Perhaps something like 75%-80%.
About that (before polls start!), we could definitely consider using a supermajority vote on some polls, as opposed to the usual simple majority. The X/R-Lists are a touchy subject--if changes to them should be made tougher, maybe require a 2/3 majority vote or something.
Also, some previous efforts have the vibe of "We'll vote on this once and set it in stone." Again with the X/R-Lists, if people knew they would be reviewed every few months / as new sets came out, maybe they'd stick around and work for what they want.
-
Certainly everything is flexible. Also, I would suggest that if new cards (virtual or otherwise) would cause old cards to be limited, the new cards should be changed rather than mess with the old.
-
I know I don't have much say but as for an extremely unknowledgeable watcher and want to player, I like the idea of not messing with the old much instead create new formats. This would keep people from right of the bat fighting things. In return the new formats can be created in any number of ways. Also I didn't know that Frodo, Reluctant Adventurer wasn't allowed, arghhhh have to start over again lol, plus it is a cool pic!
-
Frodo, Reluctant Adventurer is allowed. Frodo, Mr. Underhill is not.
-wtk
Cool!!! The complexity of it all is madness, this is the kind of game that could take few to get down lol.
-
Update to all: I'm going to give it until this weekend to allow any latecomers and then open up the child boards to those who have volunteered to be able to start new topics.
-
Why has the PC failed?
- Lack of Official Sanction: We are all waiting for that magic day when Decipher says, "Good job, TLHH! We'll be more than happy to hand you the necessary licenses and support a LotR PC!" That day will never come. It came for SWCCG, perhaps, but that was before Decipher was crushed by financial scandal and became a company struggling to survive...
In case you needed a little more evidence that official support from Decipher is not something to expect any time in the near future, I'll share an e-mail I received from Warren Holland (Decipher CEO) the last time I asked him about it.
"I understand your interest and appreciate your desire to help the players. Unfortunately, the barriers to this task are complex. I'm not saying it will never happen, but it's not likely in the next few years.
What was a relatively simple decision years ago in terms of us granting non-exclusive rights to a committee for Star Wars and Star Trek to use of our gameplay and other intellectual property in support of the players (not in commerce), is not the current state of affairs with this property. Our gameplay and intellectual property for LOTR may be used in another product line, so we have no current plans to grant rights to a committee. Sorry.
All the best,
Warren"
I'm reading between the lines here and guessing one of the main reasons is that they want to hold onto LOTR until The Hobbit movies are released (i.e. a few years), to see if they want to invest in a LOTR product line there. So don't expect any help from them for at least the next few years (if ever). Therefore, let's do our best with the "TLHH House Rules", because some things are just not in our control.