An Argument for a Restricted List in Thrones 2.0

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás (known as George Santayana in English)

**

Many Thrones players from the 1.0 game reminisce nostalgically about the game, and how 2.0 just isn’t quite “there yet.” For newer players whose Thrones experience began with 2.0, hearing old-timers’ talk of the glory days can evoke a sense of annoyance. If 1.0 was so great, why did the game need a reset? Certainly, a review of past 1.0 favorites like Ghaston Grey and Hatchling’s Feast suggest that 1.0’s most popular cards were at a minimum overpowered, and arguably game-breaking in a way that necessitated a reboot. From my vantage point, the final year of 1.0 was both the best gaming experience I’ve had with any TCG, and one in which it was difficult for new players to enter given the large cardpool. The environment was heavily curated with a Restricted List, but the cost of entry for new players was steep. So, what does this have to do with today? As the introductory quote from George Santayana observes, history has a lot to teach us.

An expanded use of the Restricted List (RL) would strengthen the competitive environment, add greater variety to deckbuilding and improve the overall community experience. To some extent, 1.0 players’ collective memory of the 1.0 game is skewed. People forget that early in 1.0, many of the same questions and issues we face today were challenges. The situation in 2012 isn’t so different from today. Ultimately, FFG implemented and then later expanded the RL, transforming Thrones into the game we loved by the end of 1.0.

What we can learn from the previous edition of the game.
Many of the issues the current Thrones LCG faces are similar to issues we faced long ago. In fact, as I reread an article I posted to CardGameDB in 2012, I’m struck by similarities more than differences. The environment then had much of the high-variance card interactions we see now. Like in 2012, powerful effects rather than challenge-phase mechanics of claim and unopposed generally determined a game’s outcome.

To be sure, personal preferences and playstyle vary dramatically in every card game. However, typically the best experiences most people have with Thrones are not one-sided blowouts. The games that focus on challenges tend to be most memorable and enjoyable. By that, I do not mean the “Challenge Phase” triggers like Flea Bottom or Last of the Giants into Jaqen. Nor do I mean the massive NW builders boards or any large number of in-play characters that rely more on counting STR properly than the tactical order of the challenges. As much fun as swing-y effects can be, the fundamentals of this game are about three distinct challenges. The more the core game centers around military, intrigue and power, the more fun the game typically is for both players.

Two key points in my 2012 article, which successfully pushed for an expanded use of the RL, seem relevant today:

(1) We were at a crossroads in the game. By 2012, FFG had tried to curate the game through design, as well as selective errata and card bans. While at the time FFG had employed a very short RL, it became increasingly clear that a limited use of the RL was not creating the fun, interactive environment most players wanted.

(2) Like today, there was much disagreement on the path forward. Evident from the responses to my 2012 article, there was much disagreement about the direction FFG should take the game. Many of the reactions to an expanded RL were negative. A cursory review of the several Thrones Facebook pages today suggests the same level of opposition to even the most minor use of a RL.

Ultimately, FFG decided to expand its use of the restricted list in 2012, with more than 40 cards on the joust RL, or about 3-4 per cycle/expansion on average. If FFG implemented the same approach today, roughly 30 cards would be added to a restricted list (presumably the top 3-4 strongest in each faction plus a few neutrals). That represents a significant change to the competitive environment, and a major mix-up that would add variety.

Why would a RL add variety?
Based on online conversations, there seem to be two primary reasons for opposing a RL: (1) the belief (in my opinion, erroneously) that the design process, rather than post-design intervention, is a better way to curate the environment; and (2) a fundamental misunderstanding about how a RL actually works.

Many players believe that printing future cards is the best way to address balance issues and add variety. Unfortunately, design-based solutions fall short for two reasons: (1) design-based fixes take 6-12 months to be implemented due to the schedule of design, manufacturing and printing, and (2) design-based solutions often miss by under-compensating (the solution doesn’t work) or overcompensating (creating new problems). To put it directly, if design frequently creates the problems, why should we expect design to be a consistent solution? History has shown that we should not expect that designers (and playtesters) are perfect. To use a garden as a metaphor for our competitive environment, curating the environment with card design is a bit like planting new seeds in an attempt to overgrow existing weeds. In the long run, a strong new plant may overtake the weeds, but not before the weeds do a lot of harm to the garden.

One common objection to a RL is that restricting options would further limit variety and deck building, but that is wrong. Those of you who know me or have collaborated with me on deckbuilding know that I am extremely (perhaps even aggressively) opposed to theorycrafting. I believe in using empirical data to drive decision making. The RL is a good case in point -- as a concept, it’s hard to see how the RL works. In practice, and as evidenced in Thrones 1.0 as well as some of FFG’s other LCG properties, an expanded RL that is constantly changing and evolving adds a lot to the variety of the competitive environment.

A good analogy to the RL list is that of a high-speed car race. Not all vehicles have the ability to travel the same speed limit. If we view getting to the final destination as a race, then typically the fastest car will win the race. Of course, the terrain matters -- a curvy road may require a car with better handling, and off-road terrain may require special tires. But generally, faster cars do better. However, if we limit the speed of the car, for example by limiting the size of the engine or the car itself (like formula 1 racing does), we accomplish two things. First, we push the focus back on the fundamentals of the race. That is, skill of driver and ability to maneuver versus opponents matter much more. Second, and perhaps where the analogy of the formula 1 race breaks down, a RL allows the slower cars to become competitive. A deck that cannot run all the “best cards” for any given situation must select from among some “good, but not the best” cards. We saw this happen repeatedly in 1.0 as FFG curated the competitive experience throughout the year.

The major point to understand is that a RL is not simply a tool to be used to stop broken combos. Certainly, it can be used that way, and often was in 1.0. The “Hyper Viper” decks or the problematic Flea Bottom combos can be frustrating, and a RL helps with those. However, the argument for an expanded use of the RL is an argument in favor of greater deck variety and a higher quality competitive environment. For example, if forced to choose between Flea Bottom and Dracarys, I must decide, “do I run a deck focused more on burn and character control, or a deck focused more on recursion? If 1.0 is a guide, we would see more of both styles of deck, and the cards in each deck would be different, resulting in greater card variety. Imagine a Targ mercenary deck without dragons, or a burn deck without the Flea Bottom + Second Sons combo. Weaker decks to be sure, but competitive if the same approach is applied to all other factions, and much more fun if the RL is curated to push decks toward interactive gameplay.

How this can work in 2.0.
The lessons of 1.0 teach us that a RL can add greater variety and refocus the game on fundamentals, which in turn increases enthusiasm for the game. However, not everyone will enjoy this approach. There were, as one might expect, many 1.0 players who became frustrated by FFG’s decisions to restrict their ability to play cards they loved together. Similarly, in 2.0 I would expect that Targaryen players may find it frustrating if FFG were to restrict the ability to play Flea Bottom + Dracarys in the same deck. Tyrell players may be disappointed if FFG restricts the ability to play Mace and Hightower together. Martell players may dislike the idea of restricting Last of the Giants and Varys, so that they cannot be played together. The list goes on.

The question we need to collectively ask ourselves is what type of game do we want to play? Do we want to play a game that is inherently high-variance, in which winning is largely dependent on seeing the right combination of cards? Or do we want this game to be one of skill, where I win or lose based on my ability to outplay and outthink the opponent?

If we decide to move this direction, much of the debate will be in the details. In concept, it’s easy to institute a RL. Much of the disagreement will occur in reaction to the cards listed. My personal preference would be to restrict cards that turn the focus away from the core mechanics of plot phase interactions, challenges and resource (gold and card) management. That isn’t to say we should dumb the game down. Quite the opposite. By restricting 3-4 cards in each faction, we’ll push deck builders to think more creatively and players to think more tactically during the game.

In hindsight, I think many players will agree that Lannister’s sustained dominance in early 2.0 was unhealthy for the game, or at least that Lanni-Dragon decks were a bit too ubiquitous. As we recount the past two years, we might also establish a general consensus that faction X remained dominant for too long, or card combination Y was too meta-defining for a competitive season. Hindsight is 20-20. We have an opportunity now to improve the competitive game, which will in turn improve the community experience. We should let history be our guide.