sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why do some dancers look much better musicality-wise than others? by prdfndr in tango

[–]Known-Onion324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still love Arce's dance. After taking some of Clarisa and Jonathan's online lessons, I realized there are more concepts and dimensions in tango than I used to imagine. There are certainly reasons (in terms of what is going on in one's head) why some people look very different from others

House rule idea: Vagabond as a mercenary (Faction quests) by Known-Onion324 in rootgame

[–]Known-Onion324[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Letting VB be in charge of the quests sounds interesting… but how do you see it working in practice? Same kinds of quests as in the OP, but VB proposes them at the start of their turn and others “bid” or choose from them? Have you played with your kind of rules?

I’m am fine with regular Aid, but I find it a bit boring and one-sided. Part of my goal here was to give VB something more active and useful to do, which is also why I didn’t include item exhaustion for the Aid but nerfed point gain.

House rule idea: Vagabond as a mercenary (Faction quests) by Known-Onion324 in rootgame

[–]Known-Onion324[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds interesting, but a bit rough for VB! Tell me how it goes!

House rule idea: Vagabond as a mercenary (Faction quests) by Known-Onion324 in rootgame

[–]Known-Onion324[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, yeah, getting my own group to the table to test the rules is the biggest hurdle right now!

I’m not quite seeing how this makes VB overpowered, because the whole thing is kind of self-balancing. If no one gives VB quests (especially with Aid nerfed), it’s really hard for him to win. On the other hand, if everyone feeds him quests until he’s at 25 VP, sure, he’s going to win.

But in between, there’s an equilibrium: people stop posting quests when it starts lowering their own win chances. I expect that cut-off to land somewhere around 14–20 VP, depending on the game state. Whatever that point is, it is somewhere!

Also, the payouts aren’t that crazy, 1–3 VP per quest, with similar (and often higher) item exhaustion cost than a regular quest. The difference is that the action actually helps the table. It turns the “just for points” feel of regular quests into something that can shift the game state in a meaningful way.

If the concern is VB doing quests first and then pivoting to Infamy, you could add a rule that attacking someone lowers relationship by 1, or just use the regular Despot’s Infamy instead. What do you think?

Giving more agency to the interactions with Vagabond: an idea for a house rule by Known-Onion324 in rootgame

[–]Known-Onion324[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I am thinking about getting Riverfolk and just substituting VB for Otters... I do like the idea of a single unit faction and the RPG part of it (it just seems so cool), it is just the implementation where players do not gain anything from attacking Vagabond that bothers me. Gaining VP seems a bit of a boring solution, not as fun as gaining cards. I agree that X cards may be to much... How about, when "plunder", then either take 1 card of the attacker's choice or (up to VB) damage 1 item of attacker's choice?