We're discussing this in San Antonio, and Ben had a comment:
I think one reason I feel compelled to get the FFG expansions is that many/most of them also function as bug-fixes for the original game, with replacement cards, etc.I agree, which makes me cautious with FFG. Why should I support buggy games? Even if they fix a game, the fix may not be something you like (look at the badwill generated by 2nd edition of Runebound.
I'm sympathetic to the fact that these 'big' games are hard to playtest with a few groups. Groupthink matters a lot. Even some of the classic Euros don't get balance just right (A zillion plays of Puerto Rico later, most people would flip the costs of the University and Factory, among others). But sometimes glaring errors get through. Imperial Strategy in TI:3? The ports with A Game of Thrones? (To be fair, that one took me several games to really appreciate, but I believe I noted it after game 3 or 4). Balance issues in War of the Ring?
Since FFG games mainly fall into the 'experience' category, the expansions are probably easier to do than Euros. Just add cards can work very well. But many of these games already trudge along at 3+ hours. "More" isn't better.
Even Cosmic Encounter, my personal gateway drug into gaming, collapses if you play with all the expansions ... and most of the just add a few powers to the potential game (so they don't even appear). But add moons, reverse cones, system effects, flares, etc and they each add a chunk of time to the game. I can't think of many expansions that consistently reduce (or leave unchanged) the game time. Part of the reason is that the people who want the game usually would mind stretching it a bit longer. More pragmatically, whose going to pay $20 for a box that says "Through away the following components from your base game--" Given that, I'm willing to state the rule "Expansions add to game length." If that's true, then board games must have a limit to expansions. (I discussed that with CCGs earlier).
Now, Runebound and Munchkin (and the B-Movie series) are probably out proving me wrong, but these expansions don't add many (any?) rules, just card experience. I suppose that's an exception. [For all I know, the games do add rules, but maybe only one an expansion and it's usually just a definition or two and then a slew of cards exploiting it].
Anyway, even with my fears about expansion, I'm almost certainly springing for the War of the Ring expansion, and I may eventually get the Game of Thrones expansion(s). And I have high hopes for some of their new catalog.
I was annoyed with Runebound as well...but I threw them the upgrade price for 2nd edition and don't mind having done it. As you can see from the reviews of Runebound 1st, the game did have a lot of fans. Sure it had problems, but they clearly were getting good enough feedback to make them think it was a releaseable game, and after a broader group saw it and had complaints they fixed them rather than ignoring them or getting defensive. And they offered a reasonable upgrade price. I'd rather have spent $75 for Runebound 2nd than $50 for Runebound 1st.
Fundimentally I like supporting FFG because they would be, by far, my favorite game company if I was still in college. High chrome, cool themes, long games, lots of flavor, and always both cards and dice. Do I actually play their games? No. I've never played my copy of GoT, WaR, Rune 2nd, etc. But, I've got boys who'll be 8 eventually. :) And I spend a lot more money each year on RPGs that I'm never going to play. In both cases I get enough enjoyment out of seeing the game on the shelf to justify the cost. TI3 is out of luck though...the box is just too damn big.
* Agreed to the trade with a guy who lived in California (I was in Madison) via USENET. Guy happened to be visiting Madison a few weeks later so he said he'd just bring the game and email me when he got to town to arrange an exchange. Guy gets to Madison and stops by my house...before emailing me? Turns out, he was my roommate's brother. Freaky.
Evidently, two of those people include designer Andreas Seyfarth and developer Stefan Bruck. In an interview, Seyfarth stated that the only change they'd make in the original design would be to flip the costs of those two buildings. This seems like a good change and I'd love to play with a group that wanted to try it someday.
Well, I doubt the Eon designers intended for the game to be played that way, at least not consistently. Back when the game debuted, there were much fewer gaming choices, and expansions were valued because they could turn one game into many, by just using different combinations of expansions. Unfortunately, most groups (certainly the one I played with) thought the object was to cram the most expansions possible into one session, resulting in mass confusion, high chaos, and extremely long games. But that ain't the way it has to be. By the way, Cosmic was one of the first games to feature expansions and was certainly the first to have multiple expansions (and even today, how many games can you think of that have had as many as nine expansions created for it?).
Larry, that's unAmerican.
Actually, Cosmic was overburdened by the (pretty typical) play style of multiple powers. We almost never played with Moons, Lucre or Reverse stuff anyway. But the basic idea holds.