The White Book S7E19- 243

I listened anyway even though I didn't care, but holy **** that was a lot of nerd talk in props and slops.

Edit: and yes I am implicitly calling you nerds for not staying on topic on a podcast about a card game based on a fantasy novel series, what're you going to do.

And you're calling us out for doing so in the segment at the end of the show that's explicitly for non-AGOT content?

Yup! I have a compulsion to listen to it all, so it was basically just making me suffer for 15 minutes, as punishment for enjoying the rest of the 'cast .

I don't think I'd like to see anyone using dice as a counter gold or power counts.  Having a pile of something is easy to count, and if the dice are knocked over etc, it might be easy to forget what it previously had been set at.  At least with a pile of tokens, you can knock them over and still see how many there are(unless of course you knock them into a pile of unused tokens haha).

I'm cool with using dice for keeping track of STR etc because you can always use the information available to you to recount it since you don't normally keep track of it with tokens, but not for power or gold counts.

So, what you're saying is that, while not everyone can talk about the Night's Watch all the time, there is an entire cast of people who can talk about Lannister all the time?

White Book After Dark

Is anyone else having trouble with the RSS feed? I'm using BeyondPod on Android and the feed has not been showing any new episodes for the past few weeks.

OK Double Danger Zone !!! (Tommy & Kristen) yesss !!!!

Great episode again everyone !

Love the Nate French segment as well. Always good to hear the fun banter between you guys Oh and Greg too

Also love the comic book stuff at the end, P&S is a fun way to get other content onto the show without taking the focus away from the main aGoT theme.

I have read books, watched shows and played games I may never have because of that part of your show, it is a staple that must remain.........Umm like Danger Zone....

OK I did an actual coffee 'spit take' at work when you called me out !  hahaha awesome !

VsZeus 

or Versus Zeus

[vur-suh s]  [zoos]  

 Inferring that when you play against me (vs me) you are playing against a God

is that a bit much...yes

is it a bit egotistical .... perhaps

is it something Glazer now wishes he had done...absolutely !

is it true........... the jury is still out

VsZeus

"God of the Geeks???  I thought you said Greeks !!" 

I actually thought Greg did a superb job of highlighting some of the arguments that come from the more hyper-competitive (regardless of whether he agreed with them or not) that really kept the discussion interesting; does x harm the integrity of the tournament, is y part of the skill we're pitting against one another, etc. Full credit there, because I really appreciated the discussion those points engendered. 

Oh my goodness! Why did I never think of versus!

I thought Greg did a decent job as well. However, as good as the cast was, I believe it fell short in exploring this issue in a balanced way. The cast needed someone who was willing to make a stronger argument for the hyper-competitive approach. I don't know where Greg personally stands on this, but if he's supportive of some of the arguments he briefly touched on, he did a good job of remaining balanced, and in that respect perhaps left the balance of the conversation to tip too far in the opposite direction.

The other podcasters were generally much more supportive of a more casual-friendly and collegiate play style. I'm not sure whether this was simply the result of an intent to agree with some of the ideas raised by Nate, or because those members felt that such topics needed further exploration and thus spent more time on examples and ways that members should be respectful. And while I agree with the vast majority of what was said, the net result gives the listener (at least in my case) the feel that hyper-competitive approaches that might be less forgiving or perhaps less welcoming are in some way inferior. At best, such a conclusion is a gross oversimplification. 

For example, there were no references that I recall to differences in play style pre- vs. post-cut. In my experience, there is a big difference in how players interact at that level. Moreover, in an environment/metagame where net-decking is the norm, one might make the argument that it's important to hold players more accountable for gameplay. If anyone has access to the best decks, then in-game decisions and the ability to avoid mistakes becomes an even more important evaluation for skill. Holding the opponent accountable for mistakes is not about "gotcha moments," but rather an important component to competing. If a less skilled player decides to bring a high-skill-cap, technical/complicated deck to a tournament simply because that deck is expected to be the most competitive, then is it truly fair to expect that player's opponents to correct tactical errors or forgotten triggers? Or perhaps it would have been better for the less skilled player to have brought something a bit simpler that played to her/his strengths, even if it meant the deck was less competitive overall. These are just a couple of examples that could have been raised and further explored. 

I want to emphasize that I found it valuable to hear Nate's perspective on competitive play. I have the utmost respect for Nate, but I also want to point out that his is not the only approach to competitive play. While I won't argue in favor of the MTG approach to competitive play (I've personally seen a lot of lacking common courtesy), I will point out that MTG is highly effective at building a player base and holding large, competitive events that run smoothly. That is not to say the MTG approach is better, but only to point out there are differences that reasonable people can disagree on, and I would have appreciated seeing a bit more of those differences being brought out. Perhaps a perspective from someone who has participated in team-building or hyper-competitive play, that would more strenuously make the case for the other side?

This post is becoming longer than I had intended, but let me end by noting that I think the impact of discussions on this topic that inadequately address both sides has real consequences for our community. Such discussions paint certain players, and even whole groups of players, as being "bad for the game" because such players fail to "live up to our community standards." Such characterizations are unhealthy. After all, we are all people who want to connect with each other. 

Edit: I originally posted my thoughts using a mobile phone. i immediately regretted the condensed version of my post, and decided to rework this on a computer. Sorry it became lengthy!

Hey, Dan, thanks for listening. As an also ran, I'm sorry my particular viewpoint was too far to one side from what you were looking for. A few things impacted our coverage this week:

1. Time- we only had so much time available to record in person and I only have so much time available to edit. As such, we had to cut the discussion short before making it through more than perhaps 2/3rds of the original outline. And that's before any of the other side avenues that we thought of once we started discussing.

2. We've long been a show about friends discussing the game. While we try to have an interesting variety of topics and guests, we are generally going to espouse our own views. Props to Dobbler for being more active than most in playing Devil's Advocate. 

3. Physicality- We took the opportunity to record in person with Nate, and had to go with the hosts that could also be available to record in person. The limitations of my technical setup preclude easily merging Skype (or equivalent) with non-Skype interviewers. 

One thing that I personally find interesting is your parenthetical comment regarding MtG organized play where you acknowledge that you've" personally seen a lot of lacking of common courtesy." What is that common courtesy? Not all players agree on what exactly that is though it's obviously something that is important to you. Our goal here was to start discussing what players feel is a common courtesy to others and on several issues, we happened to overlap in our own views. 

It's a valid point that there's wealth of more strictly tournament structure motivated issues that we didn't make it to, such as pre vs post cut play. We're hoping to have another opportunity to discuss that at further length.

This was a great episode. 

How can I broach the topic of using dice as power & gold counters to other players? I want to come across as constructive rather than nit-picky. Is there anything in the tourney rules that says tokens must be used?

Would love to hear some thoughts on this. 

Thanks!

Great discussion, well done guys!