Re: Oh no! Not the Succubus Club!

Peter D Bakija <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> The point about Succubus Club (that most people seem to be making
> here--certainly Derek and myself) is that it makes the game less fun. It
> might not make the game less fun in casual play (it doesn't, really--in
> casual play, it can be very entertaining), but in competetive play, it can
> be very disruptive and unbalancing. The thing about competetive play that
> most people find fun is the balance and challenge (otherwise, you might as
> well play casual games). When this balance is disrupted and compromised,
> people like to see it get fixed.

Going by the rule of thumb that I see used in this newsgroup often,
will the Succubus Club's omission from the scene make more strategies
viable or will it make less strategies viable? I fail to see how it
will do anything other than restrict the number of strategies that are
viable. Currently a number of social engineering vectors allow for
some (rather poor) strategies.

AFAIK, lemme see what objections I can raise against SC:

Succubus Club adds a more random element to the game (people, OMG!)
than some are comfortable with. It is more blatant than the temporary
alliances that often form in games, but is of the same nature. The
game was designed to include a certain amount of player collusion (as
evidenced by the Succubus Club). Will removing SC reduce the amount of
collusive intentions? No.

Will games be more predictable? Yes. (which is really what Derek and
Peter are trying to highlight)

SC is a way to codify collusion. Will removing SC make collusion less
accepted? Maybe. At that point you'd have to look at the entire game
and start making judgements about certain cards or even MECHANICS and
how they contribute to collusion. So saying that is a bit insane.

Many decks (including the generic wall) can be beaten with collusion.
Will removing SC fix this? No.

Maybe other people object to having to relate to people when playing
as a gameplay element. That sounds like a social disfunction rather
than a concrete reason to remove SC. Will removing SC remove the need
to have players? No.

Lemme know where I misstepped.