Expansions - Need em, Skip em, and Why?

Thinking about how many games I own, what I'm looking to buy, and the general state of kickstarter games and "add ons" or exclusives that go with them got me thinking about expansions. Anyone who owns more than a handful of games likely has bought a ton of em. I understand why they appeal to fans of games and why publishers put them out on the surface, but thought it would be interesting to get some discussion around if they actually make games better or not and the specific reasons why they do or don't succeed. I think a lot of it falls on the type of expansion, generally "fix" types *cough*Twilight Imperium *cough* are the most successful if they make the intended fix. I also enjoy "add what you want" style like the recent Merchants and Marauders exp (one I need to buy still). Not sure if I am in the minority but I generally dislike adding more players via expansion or just playing on a different map. Also I realize that expansions that some may consider great "fix" expansions can change a game from something someone really enjoys into something different, creating a very polarized reception to the add on. Also I don't consider releases for like X-Wing or Netrunner to be expansions, although I could see why some could, because to me that is built into the game that those options would be added throughout the life of the product.

Adding valuable content without adding unnecessary bloat is a difficult tightrope to walk. Let's discuss who achieves this and who fails at it.

Dune - I've never actually played with them, but reading the rules do absolutely nothing for me at all. Makes the game, which is great, way too different. Perhaps it is most fitting because now just like the books anyone interested in the universe should stick to the original without any follow up stuff.

TI - The first expansion really is a must for me by changing imperial. What people seem to not realize is that its replacement card is almost as important to choose if you want to win - just needs to be done with a bit more strategy and doesn't make you look like a totally idiot if you don't do it. The second expansion I actually could see people skipping, this is coming from a HUGE fan of the game. I love it because I am a TI nut and Flagships and new races alone are enough to hook me, but actually a lot of the content we rarely if ever use.

WK - I enjoyed the game quite a bit more with the expansion, but not enough to regularly play the base game. I'd prolly feel it was a must have if the game got a decent amount of play.

Starcraft - I honestly don't even remember what this adds other than the expansion units from the cpu game. Most memorable thing is that I bought this off bennylava from this site.

Runewars - If you enjoy the game than its just basically more stuff for extra options, nothing groundbreaking since all the really good changes they adopted to the base game in the revised edition. Commanders suck.

DQ - The catacombs is a little weak but it comes with snotlings which is one of my favorite things in the game. Heroes is good mostly. If I didn't keep giving away my copies of DQ to family and friends I would keep one base game ready to play with anyone who had never played and my full set for when playing with veterans.

Arkham - Just too much at this point. Some of the shit is really good and fun and some of it is whatever. Too much to judge as a whole but I'd tell someone that wants to go down that rabbit hole that Dunwich is the best (mostly for injuries and insanity deck trait things), Innsmouth is my favorite off town board.

Sons of Anarchy - Fun but not needed at all.

Spartacus - This breaks my dislike for adding more players rule. I only have the first expansion but the more backstabbing deals going down the better in my book for this game. Would like to get the next exp and primarily for more people.

CitOW - Honestly I swing back and forth on this one but I think currently I say skip it. It makes it a different game then non-exp CitOW and I think I like the more defined roles of the base game better. Unless you consistently have 5 people wanting to play this at once I'd pass.

As mentioned before I am looking to pick up M&M expansion, but I have plenty of other games that despite good buzz just never cared to expand. Such as WizWar, and BB: Team Manager,

I also tend to think that exp work better for Ameritrash or hybrid games better than Euros for whatever reason. I prefer to play Settlers, Agricola, El Grande, etc. without expansions. Those games are perhaps a more tightly put together package from the get go so harder to bolt on a bigger engine or extra guns or some shit like that without screwing with the balance of the game?

I don't think expansions by and large are worth it and sometimes make the game worse. Sure done some fix problems that have become apparent over time but most just add in unnecessary crap.

The best expansions, if you consider them such, are scenario expansions that add new missions, new maps, new campaigns to existing games with little or no rule changes. New scenarios for ASL or Combat Commander, new maps for Power Grid, new tracks for Formula De. New campaigns for things like Imperial Assault.

Sometimes expansions are good if you've played a game so exhaustively that you are getting bored with it. The Lords of Middle Earth expansion to War of the Ring is a good example. It doesn't make anything better but it does make things different. If you've played the game so much that it is becoming predictable then the expansion can make it challenging again. However, to be honest, how many games do you own that you can say that about. Not many if you're like me.

Most other times expansions are just a way to milk a game. They add little or nothing other than more overhead and in some cases make the game worse. BSG is the poster child for this. The base game is great. The additional crap brought by the expNsions is just that.

repoman wrote: Most other times expansions are just a way to milk a game. They add little or nothing other than more overhead and in some cases make the game worse. BSG is the poster child for this. The base game is great. The additional crap brought by the expNsions is just that.

What a crock of shit, when I read the first two sentences in that paragraph I immediately thought of BSG as an example to disprove that statement and then laughed when I saw teh remainder of your paragraph.
BSG adds many of those points you said were OK:
- new rules.
- new maps or content.
- different ways to play the game if you're bored after over-playing the base game.
- make it challenging again and/or change the difficulty.
If you don't like a game then say so but don't peddle bullshit to keep a thread moving.

Hey, good thing we have you to remind us what a crock of shit is, southerman. I almost agreed with Repo's expansion comment. Whew! The feeling that BSG with expansions is worse than the base game is a sentiment that is actually held by quite a few players.

Repo, pls post next time to the peddling bullshit thread.

Expansions can suck, or not. It depends on the game, and what the expansion does for it. I don't think there's a hard-and-fast rule about expansions, but in general, if it messes with the core rules too much, I'm not a fan.

Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. You might sound less foolish.

New rules for the sake of new rules is not ok nor did I say it was. That is what I would refer to as overhead. Nor did I endorse rule changes that fundamentally alter the game which is what I think much of BSG expansions do.

The base game is good. The game with all the expansion material is garbage.

Lords of Middle Earth adds slight tweaks to the game but it's fundamental nature is the same.

Oh, sorry Scissors, I didn't see your comment before I posted. Can one of the moderators please repost this to the Peddlng Bullshit Megathread?

The first game I thought of when I read the OP was BSG. The base game was fantastic and revolutionary and always fun to play. The endless series of expansions while adding one or two good ideas, for the most part seems to be pages and pages of useless rules looking for a place to live. NONE of them make the game better. They do make the game longer and more difficult to play. That said, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Except Repoman, of course.

Yeah, the BSG expansions really do suck. The only thing anyone should be using out of them is the new Cylon fleet rules/board. Fuck _literally_ everything else they added. I think the original design goals get lost when you use anything else.

I don't mind expansions in most cases. If I really enjoy the game, I'm fine with adding more to it in terms of armies/factions (the upcoming Undead army for Battlelore looks teh awesome and the two army packs for the Uthuk and the Daqan added replayability to a game that already had miles of it), cards/options (the expansions for Wiz-War have been universally excellent in this respect), or more players (while I think playing 8 in a CE game is a bit beyond the pale, I do appreciate having the option, if only to try it.)

Da Bid Dabid wrote: Dune - I've never actually played with them, but reading the rules do absolutely nothing for me at all. Makes the game, which is great, way too different. Perhaps it is most fitting because now just like the books anyone interested in the universe should stick to the original without any follow up stuff.

These were tacked on and added nothing but complication, much like the books.

Da Bid Dabid wrote: TI - The first expansion really is a must for me by changing imperial. What people seem to not realize is that its replacement card is almost as important to choose if you want to win - just needs to be done with a bit more strategy and doesn't make you look like a totally idiot if you don't do it. The second expansion I actually could see people skipping, this is coming from a HUGE fan of the game. I love it because I am a TI nut and Flagships and new races alone are enough to hook me, but actually a lot of the content we rarely if ever use.

I think both TI expansions were worthwhile simply for the new races. The fact that the second added representatives and flagships put it over the top for me. We've long been trying to find that sweet spot for emphasizing the Assembly in TI3 games and the reps make it work, IMO.

Da Bid Dabid wrote: WK - I enjoyed the game quite a bit more with the expansion, but not enough to regularly play the base game. I'd prolly feel it was a must have if the game got a decent amount of play.

In my brief experience with the FFG version, I think the expansion added a nice level of depth to it. However, I don't think it's essential.

Da Bid Dabid wrote: Runewars - If you enjoy the game than its just basically more stuff for extra options, nothing groundbreaking since all the really good changes they adopted to the base game in the revised edition. Commanders suck.

I have the original coffin box and, like Battlelore, I appreciated the new units. It's not as good as adding new armies/factions, so even though it served the same function as the Battlelore army packs, I'd say it wasn't quite as good. We've never used the Commander rules.

Da Bid Dabid wrote: Arkham - Just too much at this point. Some of the shit is really good and fun and some of it is whatever. Too much to judge as a whole but I'd tell someone that wants to go down that rabbit hole that Dunwich is the best (mostly for injuries and insanity deck trait things), Innsmouth is my favorite off town board.

Agreed. While I love the variety, playing with everything is a bit of a bookkeeping chore at this point, which is why we don't play it anymore (and my entire collection is up for sale!)

Da Bid Dabid wrote: CitOW - Honestly I swing back and forth on this one but I think currently I say skip it. It makes it a different game then non-exp CitOW and I think I like the more defined roles of the base game better. Unless you consistently have 5 people wanting to play this at once I'd pass.

I loved this expansion, if only for the new power cards for the original 4 gods. Being able to play the best-designed game of the past decade in a largely different fashion made it worthwhile. I also love the way the Horned God plays (and, of course, my all-time favorite army for WHFB and the only one I still own is Skaven...), although I agree that adding a fifth player to the very tight balance of the other four seems to make the experience a little less than it was. I still think it's a great addition.

Da Bid Dabid wrote: As mentioned before I am looking to pick up M&M expansion, but I have plenty of other games that despite good buzz just never cared to expand. Such as WizWar, and BB: Team Manager,

I think the expansions for both of those games are must buys. In a game that's essentially an excuse for excess (Wiz-War), why wouldn't you add more? And, again, BB:TM adds more teams. That's enough for me, even if you don't use magic balls or penalties. We've had excellent games with the Dark Elves and the Khemri.

Some good posts in this thread.

I have a problem because I like expansions but often by the time I get to them I've already played the shit out the game. Which means that it's a game I love, but my play of games usually decreases to a sort of normal low level once I've played 20 times. So that means I'm buying an expansion to a game that'll only hit the table, typically, a couple times a year. Which means I often don't want the extra rules material since I'm playing the base game so rarely!

I wasn't being serious Repo

repoman wrote: Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. You might sound less foolish.

New rules for the sake of new rules is not ok nor did I say it was. That is what I would refer to as overhead. Nor did I endorse rule changes that fundamentally alter the game which is what I think much of BSG expansions do.

The base game is good. The game with all the expansion material is garbage.

Lords of Middle Earth adds slight tweaks to the game but it's fundamental nature is the same.

Oh, sorry Scissors, I didn't see your comment before I posted. Can one of the moderators please repost this to the Peddlng Bullshit Megathread?

Bullshit, the game with the expansions is great.
You said why expansions can be good and then I listed what the BSG expansions bring to the game from your list - I even left out the obvious one of continuing the story arc from the show (though suppose that comes under new content).

But it seems expansions only bring worthwhile additional content/rules/whatever if they are on the Repoman 'Favourite expansion' list - how about pulling your head out of your arse and just say 'I like this one so it is great, I don't like these ones so they are crap' rather than just pretending you have discovered some global undeniable rule.

Da Bid Dabid wrote: Sons of Anarchy - Fun but not needed at all.

Unless you want to play 5 players, in which case it's required. I like how SoA has the Grim Bastards faction card included in the base game such that if you pick up the Cavaleras Club expansion then you have all current factions available to choose from in 5- player games. I really like that GF9 made the SoA expansions small. My biggest gripe with expansions is that often they have 1-2 good, small ideas that they feel the need to add superfluous stuff to until it's 75% of the price of the base game. For example, I feel silly paying as much as I did for the Dunwich Horror expansion primarily for the Injury/Madness decks.

It's a fine line between additions that enrich the base game and additions that completely change how it plays. Then you factor in the facts that expansions are planned before a game is released, along with the intentional withholding of essential gameplay features, and you end up with the situation that I find myself in currently where I look long and hard at larger, more expensive expansions to see if they're worth it. At this point I'm much more likely to pick up a cheaper expansion that comes with more content for the base game with optional rules that can be ignored.

My favorite expansions generally just give me more, without adding much in the way of rules overhead. Examples are new armies for Neuroshima Hex! and new factions for Theseus.
The expansions for the original Descent usually had one or two good things in them, and then some stuff that gradually made the game worse. Road to Legend was the exception, although it did complicate things quite a bit, but what you got was basically a different game.

I'm a fan of expansions that increase player count. I've got one for WizWar, one for Cosmic Encounter and both expansions for Spartacus.

I only own two Survive expansions. I did have the 1st War of the Ring 2nd ed expansion, but the value went up so i sold it. Im not sure it really added a great deal to the game.

My guess is views on expansions will reflect how people deal with games going a bit stale. I tend to sell a game rather than find ways to freshen it up. the only expansions i really like are either ones that add flexibility to the game (survive expansions) or more cards/new factions (Blood Bowl TM or Heuroshima Hex). Anything that adds mechanics tends to be a turn off.