What would you have done differently?

Community
21

For me (as rules team member) there were a few areas that disappointed me

1 - templating - initially it was weak but did majorly improve, but some still slipped through (looking at you Nathan Shane my first ever ruling)

2 - marketing - it’s a unique ip so needed more

Just one comment I’d like to make, DT and RT worked well together, however once a card was shipped the intent did not matter we have very clear guidelines to work with inside the RT, that if RAW the intent doesn’t actually come into it

2 Likes
23

To be frank, having it run under another company.

Don’t get me wrong, the people at AEG are usually very devoted, very friendly, just some of the geekiest fun people around.

However, they’ve also proven time and again to be completely incompetent when it comes to running a business. I’ve been playing Alderac games since high school and I’ve seen them make the same mistakes again and again and again. They get hugely successful properties, usually award winners, and some they even managed to keep going for several years, though the same problems have always plagued every game.

There’s always design issues. While I’m not saying DT specifically had it, but there’s always designer bias. People get attached to certain factions, certain strategies, styles, whatever and they inevitably push it and usually the designers favs tend to become the strongest. And to be fair, they do make very complex games that are easy to get out of balance, however, having been in PT or knowing PT folks, there were always issues identified in test that were allowed to make it out that would inevitably become the flavor of the month until it was nerfed or what have you. Or as we saw with DT, issues would arise but they would be brushed aside because ‘the environment was changing soon’, and while true, it didn’t change the fact that for months at a time we saw specific decks dominating events.

Poor distribution, poor marketing. AEG gets a -lot -of support from volunteers and unfortunately, it shows, because timelines get missed, products don’t get shipped, communication breaks down, things don’t get updated or disseminated. Every. Game. DT in particular has had an awful track record on the web page, sometimes product info would show up on distributor’s sites weeks before we’d see it on AEG’s site. (Glaring example: they still don’t list anything for Blood Moon Rising beyond the title atm)

Too cozy with fans. Particularly in Warlord and L5R, one of Alderacs cardinal sins was getting too involved with the fans and actively recruiting them into the company. While not horrible on principle, in practice it opened the door for a lot of shenanigans, leaving company work in the hands of people absolutely not experienced and/or without the necessary skills to do what was needed professionally, but ‘they were friends’ so things were allowed to slide, again, allowing the quality of the games and even their forums to decline, and this went for design, story, marketing, brand direction, community management, community PR, etc. A lot of the issues near the end lives of a lot of their games, particularly L5R and Warlord, can be laid squarely at the feet of designers and brand managers who were former fans that were ‘so’ devoted and got into the company’s good graces then proceeded to royally flub things. Again not saying that DT suffered this, frankly it seems more like DT’s license ran out and Pinnacle decided to not renew it with Alderac, but that’s complete supposition.

Ultimately though, I think the biggest issue that has plagued the company for pretty much a decade+ at this point is an inability to learn from their biggest mistakes, which are all of the above. Every. Single. Successful. Game. There were periods of success and things went well but they always suffered from one or all of these issues at one time or another, sometimes -years- at a time or the entire game’s life. Understandably, the company had a lot of turnover but there never once seems to have been any sort of pass down or design bibles kept on hand to dole out ‘thou shalt nots’, so we see repeated issues again and again whether its design issues like introducing too much speed, templating issues, overpowered cards, silverbullet meta, or lack of support, etc, or just nut and bolt issues like problems with distributors, artists, printers, etc. AEG has burnt a -lot- of bridges with a -lot- of people, both fans, customers, and business partners alike and it’s really sad and frustrating because they have had this magical knack for tripping into hugely successful ideas and then drive them into the ground.

So yeah, AEG’s problems are just -legion-. It’s probably honestly better that they spun off L5R to someone else and why Pinnacle didn’t renew the license (assuming that is why DT:Reloaded is being sent to boot hill once again), but then even spinning off isn’t any assurance if any of you know what happened with Warlord post-AEG (it was not pretty).

I do want to say that for DT at least didn’t have a lot of these issues to the extreme that some of their past properties did, it really felt like they were on better footing in a lot of aspects so a lot of these criticisms aren’t explicitly at DT:R and it’s team, but, seriously, decades and these same issues have cropped up in every game, time and time again. I’m particularly sad to see them moving toward ‘knock off’ properties like that obvious game of thrones send up, or just the ultra generic properties they’re moving toward.

Still, I have to thank them for the fond memories and the peeks into some interesting worlds. There is a reason I stuck with them for all these many years and its because, as I said, they had a knack for tripping into some really amazing stuff and they’ve been staffed with some of the most amazing people, unfortunately, I can’t deny the serial issues I’ve noted above.

So, yeah. Would’ve fixed all this if I could.

6 Likes
24

That is an extensive catalog of sins. Before this devolves into a ‘bash AEG’ thread or “I come to bury Caesar, not praise him”, I’d like to steer this into a more positive direction. My dept. chair once said:

“If you bring me a problem, then also bring me a SOLUTION. Otherwise, it’s just bitchin’”

Subsequent posts should focus on the “What to do different” THANK YOU!

1 Like
25

with a new remake of the Magnificent Seven coming out with a all star cast it seems odd that they would cancel the only Western card game …

3 Likes
26

It’s already been said, but I agree with the rulebook being the biggest problem for me. In my group I’m the one that always gets stuck reading rules and teaching others how to play. Well it’s hard to teach others how to play when you are struggling to grasp the rules yourself. It really turned off my group from the game. I still stuck with it and was able to convince one of my buddies to play on occasion. It truly is a game that you have to sit down and play a few times in a relatively short amount of time in order to grasp the rules. Playing 1 or 2 games every couple of months doesn’t lend to a good experience, with other players often forgetting the rules between plays.

3 Likes
27

back in the day AEG had bounty hunters that would run demos in stores a teach people how to play (that wasn’t really a thing with doomtown) now some of those people where lazy and just wanted free stuff but when done right would have brought a lot of people into the game

3 Likes
28

yeah, as I said, not really trying to bash AEG, but at the same time, I have to be honest in what I’ve seen over the years.

As I said though, I don’t feel like DT:R suffered them as much as other properties. Design seemed, in generally, pretty good aside from some short time outliers.

I do kind of feel like Gadgets got the short end of the stick. Classic had issues with them too. The costs just generally don’t match the pay off and you can see that in how many cards Morgan got that actively worked around or negated costs of inventing and/or using experimental gadgets. I think how gadget cards worked in general just needed to be re-examined.

Also feel like a few drifters were too useful, drifters let designers go outside of standard faction design for weird and interesting things but I feel like there as an over reliance on them, to the point they shaped entire deck types. And I’m not a fan of any drifter that is basically a win condition. For me I feel like drifters should have largely been relegated to filler, filling spots when you needed another stud, another shaman, etc.

And as others have said, consistency in advertising, site updates, templating, and an active recruitment promo program like Bounty Hunters etc would have gone a long way to help prop up the game and excitement for it.

3 Likes
29

I feel like gadgets finally got a groove going near the end of the game.

Yagn’s? Oh my yes.

A Slight Modification? Oh yes…this is what gadgets needed. Something unique that gave a reason to play them.

I was really looking forward to where else they would go.

1 Like
30

I think it’s when it was realized that booting a dude, most often with influence, was a huge cost. If you invented a gadget every turn, you were essentially starting 1 dude less, but still paying the mad scientists initial cost, and upkeep, and the cost of the gadget, and often the cost of using the gadgets ability. Also, the cost of significant deck construction restrictions, because if you failed a skill pull you had a booted dude, out the cost of the gadget, and the cost of a card from hand that had no benefits and major costs. That is why self failing gadgets are terrible.

Now we have a gadget that unboots the MS after inventing, a sidekick that increases skill and unboots the MS, 2 deeds that unboots the MS, a Home that unboots the MS, a MS that unboots dudes, a gadget that unboots the MS repeatedly, an reaction that can protect a MS from cards like pistol whip, unprepared and point blank… and many more.
Comparably the first few sets were a very dark time for gadgets. Faith and fear started turning things around, but slowly.

4 Likes
31

I agree Jay those really hurt MS, but I still think the most powerful gadget came out in core, that of Force Field

1 Like
32

Force Field has probably been the MVP of more games than any other gadget, but it failed early on due to a few issues:

  1. Gadgets other than that one were weak, and it’s almost impossible to justify playing gadgets just for Force Fields.
  2. Mad Science Dudes were just a bit more expensive for the trait, turning off splashing them in.
  3. Force Fields are great, but without a lot of cash, they just don’t do enough. Enter more cards with ghost rock for abilities during Shootouts.
  4. Unprepared. That card was just so prevalent as to discourage gadgets.

Which, yes, really is basically what Jay was saying. I saw the value in FF early on, but making it work was another story…

33

Before I start posting this, I’m giving a disclaimer:
I’m going to say this one time. I’m not pointing fingers. I’m not blaming. If you take my comments personally, I’m sorry. If you retaliate, by making some snide comment, I wont hold my tongue.

1.) There were design mandates made that effectively relegated play styles to second tier.

Aboms = No printed Influence. This was a design mandate.

And it relegated what could have been a fairly awesome home, and playstyle to second tier. It was never going to be able to keep up with 108, or Morgan with that problem.

This should not have happened. Sure, give them less influence to compensate for the home, but lacking legitimate influence meant that they had to work twice as hard to stay in a game.

2.) The Fingers in ears, it’s not a problem position taken on Slide for months.
Yes. It was, and to an extent, still is, a problem.

Slide should not have happened after the 3rd or 4th set. Once the game started to get plenty of cards, there should have been no reason that Slide was a dominant style.

3.) Not addressing Gadgets AT ALL in the reboot of the game, was a massive failing. At this point, gadgets are playable, and competitive, because of band aids. Not because the gameplay of gadgets is in an acceptable place. This includes experimental’s early / mid life, where it was just absolutely a terrible idea to use those gadgets competitively.

I have about 20 different ways that Gadgets could have been changed. Any of them would have been a move towards a skill type that didn’t just suck.

4.) The Cost Structure associated with 108. Seriously, that was a terrible decision. Cheap, influence, 6 starting dudes, no upkeep? Really? Who didn’t see this becoming a problem?

5.) The game had woeful advertising. There was just no backing from AEG to actually market the game.

6.) Origins 2016 should have been handled completely different.

I don’t think that there was any one failing that was the catastrophic tipping point. It was death by a thousand cuts.

1 Like
34

Most experimental gadgets are trash, and it really pains me to see them that way (major exception being R & D Ranch, love that card). Adding discarding the MS as a potential cost if you included any clubs is WAY to much, because if it backfired it was often a game losing event. Build clubless? Where are you getting your cheating resolution, your spot removal? You lose all actions good for gadgets and shootouts.

Kung Fu was also one of those additions that I’m not sure changed doomtown for the better. Playing shootout actions from the discard pile, bouncing your dudes into shootouts at their dudes out, raising your bullets multiple times, and lowering their bullets and value multiple times. It is massive control over shootouts, as well as the factions other traits built into their dudes. Later they gained extra starting income, much higher rates of winning lowball, and extra stud in shootout. 108, as a fact, has soured some people to doomtown.

Miracles. Winning is far better than not losing, and miracles are about not losing. Coupled by extraordinarily higher gr costs, booting costs, discarding spell costs, and lower skill dudes. Miracles are plagued by so many of their spells having self failing pulls and often limited game impact. Many blessed dudes lacked influence. Finally, a high skilled blessed dude gets made, she even has influence, and she is low value and prohibitively expensive to start with. It often feels like hucksters and shamans just have it better.

Some cards introduce a possible combination that would be very good, except that it is a once or rare occurrence, or forces unusual values for a faction. Marion xp1 could use a melee weapon, but, nun chucks are kung fu dudes only, stokers is designed for casters, furies are designed for skilled dudes, Evanor designed for blessed dudes, Gaels Guile and rapier? Really, that’s what Marion xp is supposed to have?
Mystical Gadgets for 4R seemed so promising. And there is some potential, don’t get me wrong. (Tyx xp with a holy wheel gun :slight_smile: ) But so many of them are too clunky. There are exactly 4 mystical gadgets so far, including Diable en Boite which fails all other mystical gadgets. Clown carriage which moves the dude into a shootout only while unbooted, and playing it boots the inventor. It can be traded, and used to drag a bunch of clowns into a shootout at once, (most have values too low to succeed at inventing the carriage), OR, surprise play an abomination from hand into shootout. Tried it, found it clunky. So than you have a 4 stud 0 influence who aces a dude when played, and Holy wheel guns…

2 Likes
35

My bet for failing is also on the rulebook. I’m a pervert who just love to read rulebooks of games I never intend to play. Just to see the mechanism and stuff. So I consider myself a black belt master of interpreting rules. However DT:R was a hard piece to chew even for me. It only clicked after reading the book multiple times and then playing out the example mini game included in the other booklet. Even then I had to watch some OCTGN games available on YouTube to fully understand what is going on. I was as stubborn as Pedro so at the end I got it but I guess a less dedicated dude would quit much earlier on this rough path.

Of course the less appealing theme (this is no AGoT or SW), lack of marketing and little to no effort from AEG to do things right (like the cover panel issue) also contributed to the doom.

36

For the people I talked to at my local shop, their biggest problem was that most games were essentially the same.
They play a couple of deeds, their opponent plays a couple of deeds, one player starts sitting the other players deeds, and they have a shootout over it, play a couple of shootout actions with their generic 2 studs, and then see who was luckiest with the 9/10 cards they drew.

Apart from maybe Legendary Holster, they didn’t feel like there were any “power” cards.

They also had problems putting together starting line ups with enough influence without hitting too much upkeep.

37

The generic shootout thing was discussed a lot at the beginning, and scared a lot of players off. Part of the problem was this “focus on the shootout” push that was going on, when in fact the game was just as much about movement and territory control as classic was. It was a miscommunication on an epic scale.

The shootout is nothing more than a mechanism by which the player could affect the board state in a significant way.

1 Like
38

I gave one answer before , but this one is longer ( also I posted it on FB group):
There are many things I would change.

First of all: Core Set and following it expansions shouldn’t be as imbalanced as DTR initially was ( 4th ring and decks that used hexes were winning majority of tournaments).

Secondly I think that two additional factions were introduced too early and shouldn’t be introduced at the same time.

Speaking of new factions I have a huge complain about 108, I HATE hung fu mechanics. It is clunky, time consuming, the rules of the game don’t allow you to put techniques on seperate discard face up, so both players could be aware at all times what player piloting Kung Fu deck has at their disposal. Clunky and time consuming mechanics should be avoided at all costs. The game proven to be too be too complex for players evven without Kung FU.

Experimental tech and (potentially) similar concepts should be avoided, unless cards supporting it are released, in this scenario e.g. home that allows you to add up to 6 clubs to your deck, those clubs would not trigger on pull for experimental gadget ability., or few action cards that do not trigger experimental gadgets (Keyword : Experimental action).

Factions should be more focused, “everybody” complains about LD, their MS and Blessed are far away from tier one decks.

And finally rulebook should be covering much more than the one written for DTR was, there should be glossary of terms e.g. what exactly “join” / “leave” the shootout means, possibly time structures as some people had problems with understanding how long effects last.

Additional comment in response to the Davido’s comment above. I do understand that trolls and people who are offensive to others aren’t good for any comunity, but why aren’t we allowed to express our negative thoughts or constructive criticism about the game? It looks like it is only allowed if you are one of the mods or IRL friend of mods. Silencing negative comments will destroy any attempt at building ACTIVE community IMO.

4 Likes
39

It’s not about the negativity of the comments, it’s about how they’re worded. You’ll notice that this thread is full of em. Nothing is a direct attack though. The idea is that we don’t want the conversation to just devolve into a bunch of just insulting posts with no actual discussion.

David’s post is essentially - “If you didn’t like x? Why?”

We don’t have any intention of squashing negative comments unless they’re straight up toxic. (We haven’t removed any non-spam posts in nearly a year. If a posts vanishes or is edited it is due to the user, not us. Only 1 warning has ever been issued out of nearly 100 user-reported posts. We do not actively censor our community.)

I also happen to agree with you on the 108 and KF. I loved KF, it was fun to play. But only for the side of the table pulling insane combos. Having combos played against you with no reprieve is just tedious. It’s a Negative Play Experience. I didn’t play much Mad Science so I can’t talk much on the gadgets, but I agree that none of the themes in LD really felt fleshed out. I mainly splashed LD dudes in other decks.

1 Like
40

It is also bad for tournament play, it is extreamly hard to track cards that are in your and even more your opponent’s discard pile, it is time consuming and we all know that too many games already go to time.

What’s more, complex mechanics like this is hard to digest for casuals and even if they understand the pure mechanics well, tracking the combos conditions and cards in discard pile are things that are extreamy hard for less experienced players ( or those who cannot play often enough).

1 Like
41

@Gazette_Andy had that experience when I played Kung Fu. He hadn’t spent much time with the mechanic itself. When it came out he had a hard time wrapping his head around it, and it turned him off. And because I was so enamored with the mechanic at the time he rarely wanted to play. You’ll notice the release of that box is about the time web activity tanked and discussions thinned out. As fun as IOUF was, it was not good for the game. I think shaman were fine, but KF was devastating.