One Mechanic Review: The Lord of the Rings, The Card Game

I liked LOTR LCG OK, but this was particularly annoying. It could create some tough decision points, but more often it resulted in almost unfair or unduly frustrating situations. Too many "well shit, there's nothing I can do here" moments. The game comes across as unusually punitive, which some folks mistake for "challenging".

This mechanic was the breaking point for me, too. It's stupid, anti-thematic, and only there to make the game "challenging", as Barnes said. It wasn't my only problem with the game, but it was by far the biggest.

Spot on - I hated this mechanic - How much simpler it would have been if blocking meant receiving and dealing damage. Seemed so stupid that I needed to let random elf minstrel take an orc axe to the face so that legolas could shoot it.

Which reminds me, if anyone is interested I do have one LoTR CCG core set + 4 first cycle expacs for trade - LMK

I thought I was going to take a bunch of shit on this one, I'm surprised.

The *product* as an idea is sooooo good too, a perfect use of the LCG release cycle. That's why I'm interested to hear how Warhammer Quest works out.

I didn't have a problem with the game thematically. I think it adheres closer to the books then the movies. A more adult version of a hero, somebody who happens to be at the right place at the right time with the tools to get the job done. Not the movie version where some guy shoots ten orcs in the face while shouting witty banter across the battlefield. So a bunch of red shirts die? You better find a way to keep some of them alive or you are toast. Of course red shirts aren't the only way to go in this game, but it would be silly to argue that the game doesn't incentivize them.

As for being punitive, it is that. After some cards comes out you might just as well pack it in unless the finish line is in sight. But it does generate tension, and some interesting decisions. And starting over is not a big deal in this game, swap out a few cards, shuffle two or three decks, and you're ready for business. Not like say pathfinder where you could be shuffling for ten bloody minutes.

Yeah, that was the other big problem with this game. In addition to this overly restrictive mechanic, there was the whole thing where you literally could find yourself in an unwinnable situation strictly because of the order that the cards came up in. No, it's not a big deal to restart, but I don't feel particularly challenged when I'm looking at the table and thinking "welp, there's not a damn thing I can do because I got these three cards in a row" out of whichever deck.

It's that Ghost Stories thing...where a game is made not difficult, but capriciously impossible. This is a weak design characteristic that I think goes largely under-reported by players who think that a game is "tough" or some kind of ironman ballbuster challenge...when really it's just throwing a random game state at you that may or may not be possible to overcome. You should lose a game with automated opposition like this because you made the wrong choices, squandered resources or couldn't mitigate bad fortune. Not because the game randomly handed you a no-win situation or a series of them.

Well, I don't want you to feel cheated, Gary. So here is your portion of shit...

You are WRONG!

Alright, not wrong but I don't agree that the mechanic was either un-thematic nor deal breaking for me. The Lord of the Rings is all about hope in the face of despair and fighting against impossible odds. So if you're feeling oppressed by the weight of attacks or the lack of powerful members to assist in everything then I think that fits in. It's resource allocation. Is Aragorn more important to the questing this turn or to fighting? Do I need him more on defense or attack. These are tough choices with a cost associated with each.

Yes the game can go belly up in a hurry where you reach a point where there is no coming back. I don't think that is unique to Lord of the Rings though. I see that in Magic and in Hearthstone.

Of course I play the game strictly solo, perhaps that gives me a different perspective.

I forgot to mention - I really dig this format Gary. Great article, great format.

boothwah wrote: I forgot to mention - I really dig this format Gary. Great article, great format.

Agreed. I despise Co-ops in general as they are merely solo puzzles marketed as a game. (whole other philosophical topic about that which I'll leave alone)

But whether I agree or disagree, he states his opinions cogently. I give him props for giving the game as much credit as he does. For me, you literally couldn't pay me to play it to the point where he became fed up with it.

Nails down exactly what bugs me about this game. I love the non-Peter Jackson art, but ain't no way around it: I officially dub thee "Lord of the Red Shirts"!

Michael Barnes wrote: Yeah, that was the other big problem with this game. In addition to this overly restrictive mechanic, there was the whole thing where you literally could find yourself in an unwinnable situation strictly because of the order that the cards came up in. No, it's not a big deal to restart, but I don't feel particularly challenged when I'm looking at the table and thinking "welp, there's not a damn thing I can do because I got these three cards in a row" out of whichever deck.

It's that Ghost Stories thing...where a game is made not difficult, but capriciously impossible. This is a weak design characteristic that I think goes largely under-reported by players who think that a game is "tough" or some kind of ironman ballbuster challenge...when really it's just throwing a random game state at you that may or may not be possible to overcome. You should lose a game with automated opposition like this because you made the wrong choices, squandered resources or couldn't mitigate bad fortune. Not because the game randomly handed you a no-win situation or a series of them.

Thanks for this. It articulates something that has bothered me endlessly about the co-op genre. It's been a long time since I've played most of these games, but I remember hitting a point with Pandemic where my wife and I realized that we had hit a ceiling for how good we were going to get. The only difference was that sometimes the game would randomly be much tougher than others. Essentially the only thing letting us win the game or not was the way the cards fell.

The LotR card game was a big disappointment for me. It's been several years since I played, but I do remember that it felt like at least a third of my games were obviously impossible halfway through.

San Il Defanso wrote:

Michael Barnes wrote: Yeah, that was the other big problem with this game. In addition to this overly restrictive mechanic, there was the whole thing where you literally could find yourself in an unwinnable situation strictly because of the order that the cards came up in. No, it's not a big deal to restart, but I don't feel particularly challenged when I'm looking at the table and thinking "welp, there's not a damn thing I can do because I got these three cards in a row" out of whichever deck.

It's that Ghost Stories thing...where a game is made not difficult, but capriciously impossible. This is a weak design characteristic that I think goes largely under-reported by players who think that a game is "tough" or some kind of ironman ballbuster challenge...when really it's just throwing a random game state at you that may or may not be possible to overcome. You should lose a game with automated opposition like this because you made the wrong choices, squandered resources or couldn't mitigate bad fortune. Not because the game randomly handed you a no-win situation or a series of them.

Thanks for this. It articulates something that has bothered me endlessly about the co-op genre. It's been a long time since I've played most of these games, but I remember hitting a point with Pandemic where my wife and I realized that we had hit a ceiling for how good we were going to get. The only difference was that sometimes the game would randomly be much tougher than others. Essentially the only thing letting us win the game or not was the way the cards fell.

Do you feel the same way about Knizia's LotR or do you feel you have more control over how well you do?

Mr. White wrote:

San Il Defanso wrote:

Michael Barnes wrote: Yeah, that was the other big problem with this game. In addition to this overly restrictive mechanic, there was the whole thing where you literally could find yourself in an unwinnable situation strictly because of the order that the cards came up in. No, it's not a big deal to restart, but I don't feel particularly challenged when I'm looking at the table and thinking "welp, there's not a damn thing I can do because I got these three cards in a row" out of whichever deck.

It's that Ghost Stories thing...where a game is made not difficult, but capriciously impossible. This is a weak design characteristic that I think goes largely under-reported by players who think that a game is "tough" or some kind of ironman ballbuster challenge...when really it's just throwing a random game state at you that may or may not be possible to overcome. You should lose a game with automated opposition like this because you made the wrong choices, squandered resources or couldn't mitigate bad fortune. Not because the game randomly handed you a no-win situation or a series of them.

Thanks for this. It articulates something that has bothered me endlessly about the co-op genre. It's been a long time since I've played most of these games, but I remember hitting a point with Pandemic where my wife and I realized that we had hit a ceiling for how good we were going to get. The only difference was that sometimes the game would randomly be much tougher than others. Essentially the only thing letting us win the game or not was the way the cards fell.

Do you feel the same way about Knizia's LotR or do you feel you have more control over how well you do?

It's really the same thing. If the event chits all come out early you're screwed. We had the hardest time winning or even just reaching the end, until I recently pulled it out after a years long hiatus and we breezed to a win.

Bad news decks have no way to assess game state and produce a coherent response. Pandemic does a little bit with its deal-from-the-bottom and restack-on-top mechanics, but that's the only real success I've seen on this concept. Even it is limited.

D-Day at Omaha Beach does a good job of presenting sufficient bad news everywhere all the time. But that is appropriate to the genre. Don't know how a game like this one could do that.

Lord of the Rings LCG fell flat with me from the first play. Didn't go long enough to discover this issue. I wonder if the mechanics were designed and fitted to the theme, or vice versa. It seems to me you could have implemented the same concept with facets of a single character instead of multiple people.

S.