Expansions - Need em, Skip em, and Why?

Southernman wrote:

Chaz wrote: I don't think I accept BGG ratings as some kind of empirical truth. According to those numbers, Imperial Assault is the twelfth best game ever released. Just because a lot of people there think that Eclipse is the #10 game of all time doesn't stop me from saying it's kinda crap. Let's not even start on the convoluted snooze-fest that's Le Havre (#15) or Caylus (#20).

It's the only source we have for a large data sample. I was using the data of how the expansions rated against each other as these should be roughly the same gamers giving the ratings, but rating game against game will likely be different due to the numbers of people of different gaming genres (euro, AT, wargamer, light hobby gamer, etc...) there.
And you are quite entitled to say you find Eclipse crap (so do I), but the data says we're in a minority.

BGG ratings are problematic. I don't know their exact algorithm, but I know that they have picked up a lot users over the years, and those users tend to only focus on new games. That means that the current hotness will get a lot more ratings than most older games. All other things being equal, I assume that BGG puts more weight on games with a lot of high ratings over a game with fewer high ratings, even if the average is the same. And since people tend to give each game fewer plays, the less obvious problems with a given game might be less apparent. Furthermore, ratings of older games might include a certain amount of hindsight but ratings of newer games might be based on just initial impressions from a single play.

Shellhead wrote:

Southernman wrote:

Chaz wrote: I don't think I accept BGG ratings as some kind of empirical truth. According to those numbers, Imperial Assault is the twelfth best game ever released. Just because a lot of people there think that Eclipse is the #10 game of all time doesn't stop me from saying it's kinda crap. Let's not even start on the convoluted snooze-fest that's Le Havre (#15) or Caylus (#20).

It's the only source we have for a large data sample. I was using the data of how the expansions rated against each other as these should be roughly the same gamers giving the ratings, but rating game against game will likely be different due to the numbers of people of different gaming genres (euro, AT, wargamer, light hobby gamer, etc...) there.
And you are quite entitled to say you find Eclipse crap (so do I), but the data says we're in a minority.

BGG ratings are problematic. I don't know their exact algorithm, but I know that they have picked up a lot users over the years, and those users tend to only focus on new games. That means that the current hotness will get a lot more ratings than most older games. All other things being equal, I assume that BGG puts more weight on games with a lot of high ratings over a game with fewer high ratings, even if the average is the same. And since people tend to give each game fewer plays, the less obvious problems with a given game might be less apparent. Furthermore, ratings of older games might include a certain amount of hindsight but ratings of newer games might be based on just initial impressions from a single play.

Yep, but realists work with what they have.

I haven't paid much attention to this post but it looks like people got angry about expansions...so I'll dive in.

There is a tendency in modern gamers to get really cynical and assume that all expansions, or at least most, were designed ahead of time and separated to get more money for the publisher. Mostly I think that's bullshit, I bet it happens very seldom and mostly because of cost.

Well, there is good reason for this- it is a cultural phenomenon that is trickling down from video gaming, where microtransactions, day one DLC and other per diem content IS deliberately sorted out for post-release retail.

But with tabletop games, I think that probably doesn't happen nearly as much although I bet it still does in development, where the publisher/designer/developer says "hey, we can pull this for an expansion" and I do think that a lot of times it is a cost measure- it's less risky to release a $75 game than a $150, and for the consumer that lower price is much more attractive as a buy-in price.

What happens more often, and I think what people are really railing against, is PLANNED expansion. Like, you buy a game and there's already expansions lined up. Or it is designed specifically as a serial product. And then you're looking at bi annual, quarterly or even MONTHLY expansion purchases. Or you get things like FFG's products where you can literally add 25 cards into every deck in the game and two new characters and call it an expansion (not that that is always bad- witness Cosmic or Talisman). This is all very different than something like the TI3 expansions or Merchants and Marauders, where you got these MINIMALLY RELEASED add-ons that had very significant content.

Thinking of other games that had those big, meaningful expansions...Mare Nostrum, Cyclades, Settlers...

I like expansions that offer BIG changes and incremental complexity. I don't play Supremacy anymore (good god, no) but I loved how that was expanded. The core game is a pretty basic DoaM with a cool stock market mechanic. Each expansion for it was like a module that added more material to that framework. So by the end of it all, you had submarines, unconventional weapons, tanks, espionage, merchants and all kinds of stuff going on. Each module added totally new elements.

The "lots of small expansions in one box" thing, I used to really like it but I've come to feel like those are usually the expansions that feel sort of tacked on...as much as I love Argent, some of the stuff in that should have been in the core box on day one.

All that said, I'm an expansion sucker. If I get interested in a game, I'll get EVERYTHING. I get sort of OCD if I have something that I'm missing expansions for. Oh god, I just realized I never got the last Talisman thing...

Whoa.

First, I only get games that is good on itself. But I like having the choice to pick an expansion if I rrreally like the game. But I'm not the OCD sort.

When I bought my first expansion for D2E and sorted out the components, I thought to myself, "fuck this is the last time I'd ever bought a Descent expansion". There's just so many new components and option. I just can't imagine it with people who own ALL D2E stuff.

I also like more of the same expansion, since I crave variety, and in my opinion this add to a game's immersive feeling. Finally, I believe most of board gaming is about the people you play with. That's why I never really went down the route of replacing or completing games. But again, I do like having the option to do so.

I've cooled down on expansions that aim to do more than add variety to existing play. I have no problem with things like Power Grid or Steam maps, Neuroshima Hex armies, Imperial Settlers factions, and so forth, but I'm not looking to buy stuff to significantly change rules to an existing game. I already feel like too many game suffer from bloat already and adding more doesn't help. Also, if I'm not pleased with a game as it is, I can't see throwing more money at changing the rules some in the hopes I like it better afterwards. Two games I like, Belfort and Ginkgopolis, have expansions I've passed on because I don't see a need to add more rules on top of what's there.

Even when it comes to adding variety, there's only so much more I need. I like Thunderstone a lot, but the amount it gets played means I already have many cards I've never even touched yet. Do I really need more? I get tempted by Flash Point maps but I can't get the damn base game on the table. Do I really need more Power Grid maps to only play once? So other than a few games (mostly from Portal), I've even slowed down on those.

I'd say the last really solid expansion I got, which did more than just add a faction, was Scoundrels of Skullport for Lords of Waterdeep. I liked that it included material to both simply add variety and add rules, and the rules weren't anything drastic. It seemed well thought out and coherent.

I am looking at 2 expansions right now - The Village's "Inn", and "Ship Pack #1" for Eclipse. The latter pretty much just makes the game slightly prettier, which is really nothing more than a vanity expansion, and the other adds two small changes (adds a new resource) and then adds a whole new mechanic, special powers. I think both are not equally valuable, especially since the latter really doesn't add a fucking thing to the game, but I still want it because of what Shellie mentioned - customization.

Not all are created equal, BUT I will say that I know for a fact that the "Day 1 DLC" is absolutely a real thing and endemic in the board game industry. I've talked to several people over the past 2 days about this, and it's ludicrous for people to think that these very professional people don't have a fishbone chart for each product with a timeline for delivery. Some of it is to keep costs down, because the cost of the box might be too much for a consumer to take a chance on with all of the stuff in it, and some of it's more about adding complexity over time to make it more digestible. So, unlike what I was thinking, it's not so much about being a profit-driven move as much as it's a planning and "program lifespan" move. Makes much more sense to me now.

Direct quote from a chat I had with someone who has worked in the business for 15 years. Big company.

Let me ask you something: When a board game design is being discussed, near the end-stage, are things cut from games with the idea that it will be an expansion later, or is it more that once a design is successful, they go back to the drawing board to produce new content? I'm trying to get my arms around the board game product lifecycle, and how expansions became "a thing".

It could go either (or more) way(s). Some things get cut because the cost needed to be X and the game as submitted would cost Y. Others can be produced as submitted. Others can have future expansions pulled out (Boo, unless it is because it would simply make the complete game too huge and costly all at once). There are probably tons of other reasons too.

Legomancer wrote: I'd say the last really solid expansion I got, which did more than just add a faction, was Scoundrels of Skullport for Lords of Waterdeep. I liked that it included material to both simply add variety and add rules, and the rules weren't anything drastic. It seemed well thought out and coherent.

I loved this expansion. The only downside I had with the base game is that it needed something to add a little grit to how the system worked, and corruption did just that. Having a sixth player is nice too, though it makes the game long I think.

Most of my favorite expansions are to Euros. I really love the expansions to Lords of Waterdeep, Catan, Ticket to Ride, etc. Those are the ones that always stay in the box, get put in most games to some extent, or in the case of Catan are familiar enough that I can put them in whenever.

I think this has as much to do with the games being short and simple enough that I can add extra content without breaking the experience. Shorter games also mean that the game can be played more often and with different people. Increasingly I'm not as interested in expansions to long experience games, though that's not ironclad. I really like the Mare Nostrum expansion (which is kind of a long-ish game). Still, that's what has kept me from picking up the Merchants & Marauders or Clash of Cultures expansions. I love those games, but I just don't pllay them that often.

I really like the Cosmic/Wiz-War method as well, because it adds more content without adding a whole lot of mechanical weight. Mostly it's new cards and characters, so both of those games stay close to their original scope while having the increased variety. Duel of Ages II did this too, though it effectively produced all of its expansions in one big pile with the Master Set. But that set doesn't actually have any extra rules. It compels me to play the game more often, because I want to see the other stuff, but I don't feel like there are elements I'm missing out on if I don't, so I'm still satisfied.

The "modules" expansion model isn't my favorite, because it usually means there will be a large percentage of the expansion I never use. It also tends to be used by bigger games that don't get played as often, so there's that. Also not a fan of the "second base game as expansion" model.

I am playing the Shadows of Malice expansion this weekend, and it represents something I've not seen in a board game. Jim Felli seems to be using it as a way not just to add some things to the game itself, but to flesh out the world of Aethos. It's a little like the players are discovering, as the Avatars, that there is more going on in Aethos than they originally thought. It reminds me a little of a fantasy novel series, without being scenario-based or overly specific in its setting. It helps that the game is generally good at being evocative but not suggestive (if that makes sense). Really excited to play it.

Southernman wrote:

Chaz wrote: I don't think I accept BGG ratings as some kind of empirical truth. According to those numbers, Imperial Assault is the twelfth best game ever released. Just because a lot of people there think that Eclipse is the #10 game of all time doesn't stop me from saying it's kinda crap. Let's not even start on the convoluted snooze-fest that's Le Havre (#15) or Caylus (#20).

It's the only source we have for a large data sample. I was using the data of how the expansions rated against each other as these should be roughly the same gamers giving the ratings, but rating game against game will likely be different due to the numbers of people of different gaming genres (euro, AT, wargamer, light hobby gamer, etc...) there.
And you are quite entitled to say you find Eclipse crap (so do I), but the data says we're in a minority.

The main problem with this is I get included in the BGG population most of whom I do not respect or appreciate their views on what makes a good game. The data is therefore suspect for me. I pretty much hate most euros that some desperate fool has persuaded me to play, so I don't rate BGGs system at all. Hence, I can say whatever I want backed up with only personal data points and my view is as valid as the herdmind.

ThirstyMan wrote:

Southernman wrote:

Chaz wrote: I don't think I accept BGG ratings as some kind of empirical truth. According to those numbers, Imperial Assault is the twelfth best game ever released. Just because a lot of people there think that Eclipse is the #10 game of all time doesn't stop me from saying it's kinda crap. Let's not even start on the convoluted snooze-fest that's Le Havre (#15) or Caylus (#20).

It's the only source we have for a large data sample. I was using the data of how the expansions rated against each other as these should be roughly the same gamers giving the ratings, but rating game against game will likely be different due to the numbers of people of different gaming genres (euro, AT, wargamer, light hobby gamer, etc...) there.
And you are quite entitled to say you find Eclipse crap (so do I), but the data says we're in a minority.

The main problem with this is I get included in the BGG population most of whom I do not respect or appreciate their views on what makes a good game. The data is therefore suspect for me. I pretty much hate most euros that some desperate fool has persuaded me to play, so I don't rate BGGs system at all. Hence, I can say whatever I want backed up with only personal data points and my view is as valid as the herdmind.

As I said above I think for the purpose of comparing expansions of the same game or even very similar games then we should be OK, it should be the same or similar taste gamers giving the ratings, and we are talking thousands of ratings so the margin of error should be relatively low - plus I think there are a lot of us euro-hating or AT-centric gamers rating games over there (I do, I use the place as a database and large FAQ site).
But, in the end, we're talking about hobby games and I don't think anyone is going to get too twisted worrying about the integrity of the only large data source we have.

I don't buy expansions unless I rate a game 8+ and have played it 10+ times. Expansions I own:

Arkham Horror - All of them. AH is story based games. More characters and more cards are essential for the number of times I've played AH. I don't use any of the new rules in the expansions except Injuries and if I'm playing a specific expansion (ie Kingsport).

Battlestar Galatica - Just the first 2. New human characters are great, Cylon ship board great, Pegasus fleet board good, CAG and new rules for civ. ships are good. The of the stuff is crap.

Hold the Line - French and Indian War - Good Scenarios I've played them all, I like the added Rangers and Indians

Ti3 - Both expansion - Shattered Empires is essential. It makes the game great. Shards has few good things like the new units Mechs and flag ships. New races are always good.

M&M - One of the best expansion rules ever written. Adds some nice stuff. Nothing is essential but the last 3 times I've played I've added most of the expansion in.

Mansions of Madness - New adventures are essential once you've played through the original adventures.

Legendary - Marvel - Guardian of the Galaxy was essential for me. It's the whole reason I bought the game. It broke my rule for rating a game 8+ and played it 10+ times.

Lord of the Rings - Foes and Friends - Kind of broke my rule for getting expansions but the expansion was cheap and when ever I played the game with WKover we played with Friends and Foes.

Space Empires. Expansion isn't necessary.

I don't own any expansions for Combat Commander. It's rates about a 8+ in my book. If I played it more I'd like to get Pacific and Med.

I don't own Wiz-war or Cosmic Encounter but I think the expansions are great with the new races, spells etc. I don't own Rune Wars, Chaos in the Old World but both expansion seem good.

Can't say much about other expansions.

I just want to take a second to acknowledge that the term "fishbone chart" was used for the very first time in F:AT history in this thread.

Having just picked up Sons of Anarchy, I'm having an expansion dilemma. I need to play this 5 player so I have to decide which expansion to buy. Anyone know anything about its upcoming Luck of The Irish expansion?

Go with the non Grim-Bastards one so you basically can use that card that came with the base game with the other expansion pieces and have an "extra" faction . The Luck of Irish I read a long time ago was I think supposed to have two new factions but nobody knows anything about it really.

Also I had meant to talk more in this thread after making it, but it quickly spiraled beyond my capacity to digest and rationally respond. Maybe at some point I will digest all this information and pose another thought or two among the deluge of responses, didn't stop me from enjoying reading it though.

The biggest questions are:

1. Do I already play the base game a lot?
2. Will this cause me to enjoy the base game appreciably more?

I have to answer yes to both of these questions or I won't bother. A lot of people like to collect stuff.

I grew up bouncing from lifestyle games- Magic, WH40K, then much later Heroscape and Summoner Wars. In these cases, not only do you want it for the reasons above, but it also helps you stay competitive if that's something you care about. There's no analog for that in Euros. I think the FFG LCGs and mini's lines follow a similar path. I've been gifted the base sets of a couple of LCGs- they sit on my shelf without any expansions. I don't have Arena of the Planeswalkers yet, but the promised expansions are part of why I'm cautiously excited for it. That system could get really cool, especially with house rules for incorporating scape units into the mix.

I've definitely gone along with buying more stuff for games I like, but I slowed way down after getting burned with Descent 1e. I was super into it and played it a couple times with my friends. I misjudged their excitement for the game and went and got two or three expansions. Then I found out they didn't like it and I had a ton of plastic just sitting around.

in general I like expansions for card games, like Dominion and Race for the Galaxy, although I slowly grew weary of Dominion. I wrote a Dominion: Hinterlands review on BGG that was lukewarm because I felt they were running out of ideas, and everyone essentially told me that I was stupid and wrong. I find that positive reviews generally get much better responses from people there. I also have yet to play with the 3rd Race for the Galaxy expansion (Brink of War) because it adds a new mechanic that seems finicky and will make it even tougher to teach relatively new people. I've had it since 2009!

When it comes to 7 Wonders I like the base game a ton, and don't like how Leaders just made the game longer. Cities is okay because it doesn't really get in the way, and additional wonders are all fine. But there's still quite a bit of charm to the base game. Which brings me to King of Tokyo and company...

There are some games that are so well put together that I don't like massive changes to how they work. Settlers of Catan, King of Tokyo, and Battlestar Galactica fall here for me. (I also play these intermittently enough that they'd probably fail question 1, and I don't even own the latter two). Cities and Knights is interesting, but it also felt like a bit of a slog. King of New York, although not technically expansion, felt like they took King of Tokyo and bolted some completely unnecessary stuff on top of it and made the game worse (similar to how I feel about Leaders making 7 Wonders a 40 minute game). I can't see an expansion to Hanabi making any sense; I don't even use the multi-colored firework that comes packaged with the game yet. Most games fall into this category for me, or I just don't like the game enough to think about expanding it.

There are some simple games that have expansions or re-imaginings that eclipse the original. Resistance: Avalon is the main one I'm thinking of. Merlin and the Assassin add so much, and the other roles are fun to add as well. (Although I've found recently that I prefer non-Percival/Morgana games quite a bit- it reduces the "I forgot to open my eyes or raise my thumb" factor considerably, and Mordred is more interesting anyway). I enjoy Coup quite a bit; I'm eagerly awaiting the new version that gives you 25 different roles to select from in every game. We'll see if it meets my expectations. In both of these cases I haven't actually bought the game until these newer versions came out.

Sometimes I do break my own rules. After playing just 5 of the 10 scenarios in Tragedy Looper, I bought the first expansion for 20 bucks at GenCon, and I have only played it once since. But the new stuff looks so crazy! I need to play through more of the original stuff so people are ready for the expansion. I bought Evolution and Flight at the same time, after just two plays of Evolution on someone else's copy. I kind of regret it now, as the way Evolution handles expansion content is kind of clunky* and creates a slightly longer teardown time, and I can see getting a lot of play out of just the base game now.

*It probably works fine if you intend to play with the expansion every time. You add the 48ish Flight cards to the deck and then take 40 random ones out before the game starts. But even then those kickstarter bonus cards are kind of poorly implemented.

Few expansions are essential, but I can see why they're made from a business standpoint. A big hit is so much bigger than a sales loser that it makes sense to make more of it even if a relatively small proportion of the base game owners buy the expansion. When you have a mega-hit like Dominion, Pandemic, or Catan, you'd be silly not to capitalize on that. Does Dead of Winter need an expansion? Probably not, but they decided they'd have to make one after its warm reception. Could City of Remnants become even better with some new gang leaders, a 5th player option and other cards? Yeah, probably, but it's not moving nearly as well as some other PHG titles so I'd be surprised if that ever gets made.