Adam Skinner
United States
Seven Hills
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that there is a strong argument now for the chapter packs to have their own id here on BGG. AGOT is no longer a "CCG", where you buy random boosters. It's more akin to Heroscape, Descent, or Blue Moon in that you buy distinct expansion packs.

Each pack should have it's own GAMEID. It might also be prudent to change the name to "A Game of Thrones LCG" or "A Game of Thrones LCG - Core Set".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Penner
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I fully agree with the name change, but as there are other games with new names that haven't been changed here (i.e. Pirates of the Spanish Main), so I don't see this happening.

As far as the chapter packs having their own entries, I don't think that each one would change the game enough to warrant it separately. Would I could see was each of the core base sets that are supposed to come out with each new "block", but even that would be a stretch.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason -
United States
Unspecified
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As for possible precedent that supports each chapter pack getting its own entry, look at Runebound. Expansion packs for that --which contain 30 cards and nothing more I believe-- each have their own entry in the BGG database.

That said, I'm not sure I'd want to see each AGoT chapter pack getting its own entry. That seems to spread around information excessively.

I agree that the entry for A Game of Thrones CCG should be renamed to ...LCG as its primary name and ...CCG as an alternate name. (I had already edited its description field to say that the game is no longer a traditional CCG and briefly describe the LCG format, but I don't think that as effectively captures one eye as a change to its name would.) For chapter packs, perhaps each cycle of chapter packs could get its own game entry. A cycle will likely have some overarching themes that would lend themselves to combined descriptions and reviews.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think at the LCG point, the game requires a reclassification ala Runebound (and with the expansions AT THAT POINT). Everything else prior should be lumped together under the CCG banner.

PERHAPS the "War Of The Five Kings" Chapter pack should be the first set to have their own entry (as opposed to the upcoming "A Time Of Ravens" Chapter Packs), as is represents the first departure from a CCG to a LCG format, which is significant. I think giving each release WITHIN a chapter pack might be overkill, but to lump all the Chapter packs into their own entry (like Heroscape series) would be definitely be reasonable if not downright desirable.

Just my thoughts.

-TF
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Saint Joseph
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
I would do all the things I have ever dreamed of doing. I would love to become a professional whistler.I'm pretty amazing at it now, but I wanna get, like, even better. Make my living out of it.
badge
Bffffttt, Pffffttt, Buuuuurtt........
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The chapter packs should be separate entities in the database. Most information will be here. Like Blue Moon or Heroscape, the current database rules would mean the chapter packs are individually tradable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
mbmb
Seperating expansions is a good idea for the sake of having ratings seperate, and keeping track of releases.

However, in most cases, I don't think expansions need a whole page to themselves. In fact, I feel giving them a whole page to themselves can create a variety of problems.

A selection of such Problems

- Keeping up to date. Games in a series should be linked to each-other, either directly in each games' information block, or indirectly by having each game link to a BGGwiki article with an ever-updating list. The problem with this is maintaining this information for every new release.

- Relating to the above, if a user is subscribed to a game's page, they won't recieve notice when an expansion is released if it's simply added to the database and the page they're subscribed to is not updated.

- Recording plays. It's perfectly acceptable for me to play an Iron Throne deck against your Ice and Fire Deck, or for me to use a custom deck containing a mix of all sets (within the current rotation or otherwise), but what did I play? Iron Throne? Ice and Fire? No, I played "a Game of Thrones CCG".

- Message boards. If the sets are seperate entities, there might not be a suitable place for general discussion of the game as a whole.

- Confusion caused by BGG's flawed search engine. Take a look at what comes up when searching for HeroScape - the search isn't organized by date of release, nor by "most hits" or "relevance", so the actual base set is quite difficult to find. In fact, that game appears to have multiple core sets, which make the search results even less helpful. At least one of the things cluttering up the results is an entry for a single promo mini. Searching for "settlers" returns different results than searching for "catan", and the most important game is buried in the search results - even if you searched for it by it's entire name!

I feel that games like Magic: The Gathering and a Game of Thrones CCG benefit greatly from the "living game" label. The expansions aren't really seperate from the game, although the game can be played as though they were.

I think that, until a better system is developed for expansion entries, BGG should aim for fewer entries, especially from collectable games that could be considered "living games".

As for renaming the entry, I don't really care. BGG has some naming conventions in place (#s 6&7 are the most relevant), but the change is really minor so I personally wouldn't care.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The core set (LCG) should be listed separately from the CCG. They are different games - different game systems sharing a common rules set.
The CCG cards are not going forward into the lCG, and players may end up in different camps.

I don't think each chapter pack needs it's own listing.

Although, a BGG feature that allowed game expansions to be listed as a sublist within the game listing would be good (stand alone expansions would rate their own entry).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Graham Smallwood
United States
Santa Ana
California
flag msg tools
badge
TWO Equals in an "if" statement!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joedogboy wrote:
The core set (LCG) should be listed separately from the CCG. They are different games - different game systems sharing a common rules set.
The CCG cards are not going forward into the lCG, and players may end up in different camps.

I don't think each chapter pack needs it's own listing.

Although, a BGG feature that allowed game expansions to be listed as a sublist within the game listing would be good (stand alone expansions would rate their own entry).


I used to play the CCG a few years ago, and I just got to play the new LCG last night. It is an entirely different game. The CCG and the LCG absolutely need to be separated in to different game entries since they share some mechanics and that's it. It's like saying each of the Ticket To Ride games should be combined in to one entry because they share mechanics. This is a stand alone board game with cards as the main component. NOT a CCG. The CCG is cool, but a totally different game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason -
United States
Unspecified
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Graham, I know second hand that the CCG has evolved some since its first days. But the current CCG leading into this Core Set is pretty much the same game. With the Core Set they added one additional mechanic, plus you have the rolls that were already introduced for multiplayer of the CCG, but nothing significantly different.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.