Rules Committee

[BigBadHarve]

Any chance we could get a copy of your House Rules to peruse, BBH?  We should all probablly use the same resources for the Meta Rules, and the Basic Rules should be from Image, which I believe was the last basic rules update, and go from there.  Any thoughts or objections?

I'm quite happy to post them again for perusal. Some people here already know them reasonably well. They're a mix of clarifying existing rules and a bunch of new stuff.

The two main things we did in developing them was to go back to basics and play all cards as written, and then decide from there which errata truly needed to stand. The 2nd being to apply all rules as a blanket rule rather than card-specific.

The goal was to eliminate the need for a meta-rule document by having all necessary rules be clearly accessible and referenced. Beyond that, the text on the cards defines the games.

For example: The duration Meta Rule (Which, coincidentally, I was going to suggest we address first as a committee) - No printed duration and OPD = remainder of game. No printed duration and non-OPD = remainder of battle. We also added 'until a specific action or circumstance takes place' as a valid 'printed duration.' (IE: Until KO'd etc.)

We applied this as a blanket to keep it consistent and intuitive to gameplay. Changing the way a whole variety of cards are played without creating exceptions.

I'll dig up and post the document a little later with all of our key adjustments.

I like Nostalgic's idea of an identifying system. Overpower 3.0, (once being discussed, confirmed and agreed to by most) becoming the standard of play would be a good, good thing.   

-BBH

[Demacus]

The duration rule is a big one that I'm more then happy to focus on early.  The KC specials being one of the main reasons, since Leader and Mole Man's are not stamped OPD, but Grunge's is, but if you look at the three of them side by side, Grunge's special acts the same as Leader and Mole Man's with the ADDED effect of making opponents attacks against Grunge's team -2.  Granted, the way all three KC's ultimately affect the game field are the same, Grunge also has that nasty I.A. which helps him eat hits and survive, while Mole Man and Leader's I.A.'s both give them the -2 bonus that Grunge's special gives, making them both weaker options, and less likely to be used as a KC special from a battlesite (unless, of course, they are the only options, which with Grunge being from a different universe, they wouldn't be in competition with his OPD KC anyway.)  The point being, Grunge's Special is stronger then Leader or Mole Man's, and would be a greater boon if played by a different character then either of the original 2, who's specials are only AS STRONG if played on themselves only.  That is enough of a distinction to make Grunge's KC OPD, and leave the other two as they are, but NOT to limit Leader and Mole Man's specials to be battle lasting.  My 2 cents on that rule, given this particular case.

[Palatinus]

At this point I think what is needed is a plan.

We need:

1.  A structure for the committee
2.  Members
3.  Format for discussions and whether these will be public or private or a combination
4.  A place for the discussions on the forum (This is easy as I can set this up to meet the needs once these are determined.)
5.  Anything I am forgetting

[gameplan.exe]

I like Nostalgic's idea of an identifying system. Overpower 3.0, (once being discussed, confirmed and agreed to by most) becoming the standard of play would be a good, good thing.   

-BBH

I concur. Obviously, we can all acknowledge the Official rules for what they are, but since the majority of us are playing eachother, it seems like making a standardized set of updated rules that we, as Forum Members, are agreeing to follow, can only be a good thing. Then, once we have them clearly defined, it'd be a simple thing for any newcomer to visit our posted rules section, clearly marking out how we arrived at Overpower 3.0 and defining it for them there as well.

[Nostalgic]

I like Nostalgic's idea of an identifying system. Overpower 3.0, (once being discussed, confirmed and agreed to by most) becoming the standard of play would be a good, good thing.   

-BBH

I concur. Obviously, we can all acknowledge the Official rules for what they are, but since the majority of us are playing eachother, it seems like making a standardized set of updated rules that we, as Forum Members, are agreeing to follow, can only be a good thing. Then, once we have them clearly defined, it'd be a simple thing for any newcomer to visit our posted rules section, clearly marking out how we arrived at Overpower 3.0 and defining it for them there as well.

To piggy back on that I would add that since we are really just making the game more accessible and intuitive for newcomers it really should be a good thing. In fact,that may be one of the fundamental tenants of what we're setting out to do.  The fewer metas and non card text exceptions to the rule the better. 

[Demacus]

At this point I think what is needed is a plan.

We need:

1.  A structure for the committee
2.  Members
3.  Format for discussions and whether these will be public or private or a combination
4.  A place for the discussions on the forum (This is easy as I can set this up to meet the needs once these are determined.)
5.  Anything I am forgetting

1) I'm not wrapping my head around a structure for the committee, but that doesn't mean I'm against one, just unclear on what, exactly, that means.
2) As far as committee members, I think BBH is a clear and concise choice to be a member.  Bread, and Ncann are also solid choices for this committee.
3) I'm not bias to or for having the discussions public or private (though experience has shown me that the less mouths involved, the easier it is to think and accomplish goals)
4) A place would be helpful.  I don't think Confrence calling is needed, but a chat-room type lobby where we can meet at pre-determined times to hash out the details would be cool.
5) If there's anything you are forgetting, then I can't think of it either.  Feedback folks?

[Palatinus]

At this point I think what is needed is a plan.

We need:

1.  A structure for the committee
2.  Members
3.  Format for discussions and whether these will be public or private or a combination
4.  A place for the discussions on the forum (This is easy as I can set this up to meet the needs once these are determined.)
5.  Anything I am forgetting

1) I'm not wrapping my head around a structure for the committee, but that doesn't mean I'm against one, just unclear on what, exactly, that means.
2) As far as committee members, I think BBH is a clear and concise choice to be a member.  Bread, and Ncann are also solid choices for this committee.
3) I'm not bias to or for having the discussions public or private (though experience has shown me that the less mouths involved, the easier it is to think and accomplish goals)
4) A place would be helpful.  I don't think Confrence calling is needed, but a chat-room type lobby where we can meet at pre-determined times to hash out the details would be cool.
5) If there's anything you are forgetting, then I can't think of it either.  Feedback folks?

1.  For a structure that would just mean defining the committee as an entity.  So basically if it is a group of equal participants or if there are specific roles for people or if there is a leader or anything along those lines.
2.  I would like to also add Jack as another obvious choice.  Also I would suggest Onslaught if he were still hanging around here.
3.  My suggestion for how the discussions would be held would be to have submissions to be considered be submitted publicly while primary discussion on topics be private before being submitted to the public for approval/vote/notification.
4.  Some kind of instant messaging might be helpful but I would suggest that most discussions get done in forum format to preserve the discussions and allow for a more flexible schedule.

[Nostalgic]

1.  For a structure that would just mean defining the committee as an entity.  So basically if it is a group of equal participants or if there are specific roles for people or if there is a leader or anything along those lines.
2.  I would like to also add Jack as another obvious choice.  Also I would suggest Onslaught if he were still hanging around here.
3.  My suggestion for how the discussions would be held would be to have submissions to be considered be submitted publicly while primary discussion on topics be private before being submitted to the public for approval/vote/notification.
4.  Some kind of instant messaging might be helpful but I would suggest that most discussions get done in forum format to preserve the discussions and allow for a more flexible schedule.

I don't get your emphasis on Onslaught being in on the details of this as he as been downright hostile to just about all suggestions of rules changes. 

Since he treats the rules, metas, and such as unalterable biblical text I only see him shooting things down and saying leave things as they are.

Link to BBH's rules reforms and the big O's reactions.
http://www.beenhereandthere.com/SMF/index.php?topic=195.0

A few other things. . .

How big is do you guys think this committee should be?

I'd suggest Bamf! and me be apart of it.

I think the discussion should be partially private and partially public.

[Jack]

Don't I do too much already? bamf! will speak on my behave.

[Nostalgic]

Don't I do too much already? bamf! will speak on my behave.

LOL! Truer words were never spoken. Almost want to sig this. 

[Demacus]

As long as Jack's voice is present. lol

So we have BBH, Jack/Bamf!, Nostalgic, Ncann, Bread, and Onslaught(?).

Not saying he shouldn't be a part of it, but Nostalgic does have a point about him being very anti everything that wasn't officially sanctioned and officially decided more then 12 years ago when then game died.  I just don't know if he would be overly constructive of this project. So that's a 5 man committee as it currently stands.  Anyone else?

As far as the structural ideas of the committee, that should be left up to those on the committee to decide how they would like to proceed, I think.

[Nate Grey]

As long as Jack's voice is present. lol

So we have BBH, Jack/Bamf!, Nostalgic, Ncann, Bread, and Onslaught(?).

That appears to be a great rules committee to me.  Plus I must agree with Nostalgic's view concerning Onslaught based on past history in these forums.

Oh, and the Overpower play modes is a brilliant idea!

[gameplan.exe]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, here, but I have to agree with the sentiment that Onslaught and a rules reform don't seem to mesh well. I'm not even sure he'd be a willing participant, let alone a constructive one...

Anyway, I am quite excited by the prospect of simplifying this game. My oldest daughter is about to turn 7 and I'm about to get her past the "War with Power Cards" phase of teaching this game. I'd love to get some of these things hammered out / defined for posterity 

[Palatinus]

I think what's important to remember is that this idea of a rules committee is meant to make the game more accessible which means that it can't go too far into changes and needs to be more focused on clarity.  I think that while there will be people who will obstinately refuse to see any change this is something to reflect on as a counter-balance to too much change.  I know these kinds of people will never be truly satisfied, but the best chance to convince people like that is to do things in a way that really makes things better so that when challenged with the new versus old you can point out that yes, it isn't exactly as things were written all those years ago, but the game is still the same game it was intended to be.

I think making the rules fulfill their original intention should be the first step.  As far as things like BBH's house rules that actually change things, or homemade cards that add things, those kinds of things should be treated as a separate matter.  One approach might be to handle things the way Magic is done.  You have your core rule-set and then you have your variants.  This gives you a base game that everyone can be familiar with and comfortable with but it also allows you to have variety so that game play doesn't get stale.

[BigBadHarve]

Much as I love my house rule set, and would be thrilled to have a more widespread adoption of them... I also am heavily in favour of cleaning up just the 'official' rules by removing the gray areas.

When we started to adjust the rules for our House rules, that was the goal - to clean things up. But we also found things that we liked and decided to keep along the way. Such is the way of things.

Removing any mandate of 'making some cards more playable' and beefing up 'weaker' characters, the goal should be, as has been stated, to simplify the game. 

The best way to do that is to remove as much external reference as possible (IE the meta rules). A core rule book and the cards themselves should be ALL that's needed to play and answer questions along the way. Any necessary meta-rule should be incorporated into a standardized rule book for easy reference.

And secondly, to eliminate contradictory and inconsistent rulings to the cards.

But I think we're off to a good start. We should probably make a list of the things we want to address.

The aforementioned Duration rule is a good start.

What other items would you like to address first?

-BBH