I was just discussing with
rosefox (locked link
here for my reference) that Magic: The Gathering, Fluxx, and Robert's Rules of Order all have a similar gameplay/mechanic. Specifically, the issue is figuring out which cards to play in what order, and then resolving which actually take place first. In Magic you have "first-in-last-out" and fast effects;
(
Read more... )
Comments 15
Reply
Seriously, I consider the game mechanics halfway between Magic and Uno, and I know if/when I have kids I'll be making them play it. It's not nearly as random as it seems on first playing, and it's a good example of how random chance and logic can combine to get the desired results.
Reply
Reply
I've played all three of these (although I'm not experienced at RR); it's interesting to me that it never occurred to me to compare MtG and Fluxx. I like the _idea_ of Fluxx quite a lot...but it feels to me like a game that isn't very well balanced and that (as a result of this and other things) doesn't really live up to its potential.
Reply
My main beef with Fluxx is the randomness of it. People often win by mistake from others' actions. The randomness makes it a good party game though, rather than a strategy game.
Mao, Fluxx, Uno, and RR have similarities that M:tG doesn't share with Mao, IMO. The game mechanic that I enjoy is not actually the manipulation of the rules and deciding which ones to enforce, but instead the fact that the *sequence* or *order* of playing the cards is crucial to the outcome of the situation. RR doesn't have as much of the sequencing as it does decision of which to enforce I guess, so perhaps it's closer to Mao than it is to M:tG.
Reply
I agree re: your assessment of the main problem with Fluxx. It's frustrating that a lot of the time you actually have little or no control over events. I've occasionally considered rules revisions to address this problem, but haven't really experimented with it.
I'm of two minds about the complexity of MtG that comes from the sequence dependency. I guess the short version is that I'd be happier about it if the sequence dependencies were less complicated, or at least expressed compactly on the cards somehow. MtG sometimes requires a lot of specialized knowledge of rules and constraints that are hard to research.
Reply
We play an abridgement of Nomic called N from time to time, which strips out all the complications of Nomic and reduces it to simplest form:
1. The object of N is to win.
2. Play moves in a circle, with each person taking a turn.
3. On a person's turn, they propose a rule. If a majority passes it, it's part of the rules.
It's easy to explain, it's easy to start, and it can rapidly spiral out of control, especially if alcohol is involved.
Reply
I think I would like Nomic more if I were more creative.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment