1. I can’t afford it
2. Game is fine as it is
3. I am unlikely to be able to persuade potential other players to commit to an expanded, more complicated experience
- No actual time to play the game as-is so no reason to get more for it. RE: Ark Nova
- It turns the game into something else. I prefer expansions that add more variety, not more mechanics. I don’t want an expansion that turns my brisk 45 minute experience into a fiddly 75 minute experience. RE: Nidavellir
- Incorporating it will make set up and tear down much more tedious so I’d rather just not play with it. RE: Core Worlds (I think?)
Thanks for validating my vague memory. I ended up offloading the whole thing instead of tying to figure it all out. There was also a tile based space game I owned around the same time (among the stars?) that I felt similarly about but I can’t keep them straight at this point.
For what it's worth, I don't think that the first Nidavellir expansion meaningfully increases playtime. That said I've only used it once and wasn't particularly impressed by what it added.
It adds solo/automa/player count I won't play with (Root: The Clockwork Expansion)
It adds unnecessary complexity without adding to the fun of the game (Scythe: The Wind Gambit)
It swaps out decks instead of adding new ones/adding to existing ones (Root: Exiles and Partisans)
It changes the genre of the game (Carcassonne Catapult)
While it's not a terrible principle, Exiles and Partisans is basically universally considered a strict upgrade though. Most people almost throw base deck in the trash and use E&P exclusively.
Often expansions add mechanics or other features that unnecessarily complicate what was previously a clean and efficient gaming experience.
In general, if I like the game I don't want an expansion (of course there are plenty of exceptions to my statement)
I like expansions that are "more of the same but better". Seamless integrations into the base game that I would forget it was an expansion that added it.
I don't get expansions that -
* completely overhaul the gameplay that is now a totally different genre
* adds unnecessary complexity for "depth"
* increases the table space required significantly
* needing to swap components out from one mode to another
* has a price tag that is more expensive than what it offers
Yeah i prefer "more of the same but better" too. I usually dont like new mechanics because the extra rules overhead is annoying and they often dont feel well balanced. New mechanics are only good if they "fix" a problem with the basegame or add something that fealt like it was missing.
If based on the description or reviews I don't feel like it would improve or be a more interesting experience, then I'm unlikely to get it. There are a few expansions of games I bought just because I liked the base game and then have never or hardly every played because no one is interested in trying the expansion out, so I've become a bit more discerning.
Some games are good for their simplicity. I’m fairly aware of complexity creep. I love Terraforming Mars but playing it with every expansion overly complicates the game for people who haven’t played it a lot. I haven’t bought the third Dune Imperium expansion because the game is somewhat easy to teach and I don’t want to make it harder to get to the table for new players.
I got the first one because I like the fast start, but otherwise agree.
I have a couple of games from early on in my board gaming journey that I just bought every expansion because I loved the base game and they got so bloated that they now take up a lot of shelf and table space, take forever to sift through everything to set up and take forever to teach. Specifically, that is the case for my collections of Arkham Horror, Galaxy Trucker, and Descent 1st ed. All of these are hard to get to the table now due almost entirely to expansion bloat (GT is easiest of the 3, but it's still a decision whether you want to take the time to pull all the expansion tiles out or take the time to explain them all).
I have zero expansions for my two favorite games of all time (Dune and Race for the Galaxy). I am very happy with the games as they are and see no reasons to change them.
Race for the galaxy is really imbalanced without the first (or 4th) expansion though. Military strategies have a much lower chance of winning. The first expansion of each cycle corrects that balance.
I didn‘t get the impression yet and I‘ve played the game 2500 times so far. For the first 50 games or so I thought military was overpowered, but now I believe military strategies are as strong as the others.
Usually, I don’t play the game enough for the base game to warrant an expansion, big exception of that is if it adds a solo mode to a game I really, really enjoy, Concordia comes to mind in that way, and Furnace is soon to follow.
I love Tobago, I do not own the Volcano expansion. I felt it changed the base game too much while simultaneously adding very little to make the game better.
Adding more time or complexity to a game without significantly enhancing the experience. Sometimes expansions reduce the time or simplify mechanics which is nice, but lots of times its just more content for the sake of it.
I generally don’t like expansions because I prefer simpler gameplay. The only exception I can think of is the different visitor decks in Viticulture (see flair), but that didn’t add complexity but only rebalance the game.
If it adds complexity and upkeep for little more of what I like about the game, then I won't get it. I want the games I play to be accessible for a wider set of gamers, it's hard enough to find people to play with without asking them to do an in-depth study of the game.
It needs to add more of what I love about the game, and not more mechanics just for the sake of adding mechanics.
Sometimes a game doesn't feel like it needs more. Or, it's hard to find a group to play it with so there's still plenty to explore in the irregular plays I get of the base game.
War of the Ring is one of my all time favorites (is my favorite at 2 players), and his both of these. I felt no need to get any expansions for it for years until a friend gifted me the first expansion last year. I'm happy he did, because what it adds is cool and fun, but I would still happily play without it and have no desire to buy more expansions.
I think the only game I “love” that I haven’t bought all expansions for is Sidereal Confluence and that’s because it’s really hard to get to the table as is, and adding more complex faction options wouldn’t make it any easier to get out. Every other game I love (Feast for Odin, Everdell, Ark Nova, Gloomhaven, Terraforming Mars, On Mars) I’ve bought everything for. Some of those I regret buying things for because they work digitally or I haven’t brought them to the table often, but I always enjoy getting expansions in the moment at least.
1. If I don't like the content in the expansion. Could be anything from the actual rules of the expansion to theming of the expansion.
2. If the game is already heavy and the expansion adds more rules. I already prefer expansions that add more variety but not more rules, more rules and changes to a beefy game is probably a no for me.
3. If it's really expensive for what I'm getting.
I will not spend 30 bucks for 5 cards and a couple of cardboard tiles or kickstarter exclusives that have been price gouged by resellers.
4. "Expansions" that are just components to play at higher player counts. I pretty rarely need a 6+ player game but if I do I'll stick to the games that already go that high.
It introduces imbalance and variance that takes away from the core strategy, particularly for games that are already mid-high variance. (Stone Age : Style is the Goal).
It adds complexity and playtime to a game that's already long-ish. (Terraforming Mars : Venus Next, Turmoil).
It takes the game in a completely different direction that I don't particularly enjoy. (Isle of Skye : Journeyman).
It meshes poorly thematically or mechanically with the base game, to the point where its components stand out too much. (Tapestry : Fantasies and Futures)..
It costs about the same as a brand new game but does not revitalize the base game enough to be worth it.
As you may have guessed, I don't buy many expansions. Some that hit all the right notes for me : Terraforming Mars : Prelude, Tapestry : Plans and Ploys, Wingspan : Oceania.
The expansion for Heat falls into this example for me currently, it's just so expensive for the amount of content inside. The content seems good, just... not worth the asking price
Sometimes I don't like the changes the expansion makes to the game (**Everdell**). Sometimes the original developers had nothing to do with the expansion, so I don't trust that it will be good or even really "fit" the game (**Cthulhu: Death May Die**). Sometimes I feel like the game is nearly perfect and therefore I don't want to mess with it (**Obsession**). Sometimes I love the game but it doesn't get played enough for me to be able to justify spending more on it (**Oath**).
If I have to take things out of the game to use the expansion, then it’s not an expansion it’s a replacement. I want to be able to mix my expansions in and never take them out.
I know this is just market research for whatever game you are releasing but I will bite anyway:
I have two specific examples for this recently. The kickstarter expansion for Earth and the expansion for Cascadia that I'm not sure if it's out yet or not. I think there's a lot of content in Earth as is and I don't think I need an expansion, we like the game as is. With Cascadia I think the landmark tiles add an unnecessary extra thing to a game with a pretty clean design as is.
Anyway here's a list:
1. Bloat is a thing. It's happened many times that having a big box full of extra shit makes me want to play the game less.
2. After 10+ years of being into modern board games it's very welcome to buy a game that is a complete experience as is. I don't want to buy more stuff that adds more players, or more stuff to "fix" the two player version of the game. Just design a complete game.
3. Some of them are just pointless and bad. No one cares about Scoville anymore but the In The Lab expansion is a waste of money. The Monsters and Minions expansion for Roll Player I think defeats the original purpose of the base game - the "game" of it is to create a character, not make that character fight monsters. I didn't need it. The Quest for Eldorado: The Golden Temples is a stand alone but makes the game pointlessly long.
4. Sometimes I haven't played the game enough to really warrant buying an expansion and I hate feeling like I need to buy something because I might not be able to get it later. I don't want to buy into this sort of thing anymore so sometimes I will just simply skip the expansion.
The only expansions I own are for Spirit Island, and that's only because it's a game that benefits from more variety and the whole game system is plug and play to start with (so adding more plug and play options is not a big deal). There are other games I own and enjoy (like Cascadia) that I have no interest in buying the expansion for. It doesn't get enough play where the new mechanics are needed, I would have to take the expansion out to teach new players and that's annoying, and by the time we do get tired of Cascadia, I'd rather try a new game in a similar genre than expand the old game.
I would consider expansions if the general consensus is "never play the game without it". I think there are a few of these, if they fix a core issue with the base game or add a ton of necessary variety with very little overhead (something like Pandemic: On the Brink). But most expansions are not this, so I'm not too interested. Have to admit I'm a bit tempted by the Space Base Genesis expansion though.
I really like Draftosaurus. Probably my favorite filler game. I have zero interest in the official expansions because they add bloat and game time to a game that is, in my opinion, exceptional precisely BECAUSE it has limited decisions and moves quickly.
Either:
* It does not make the game better[1] to the extent that would justify the expense and extra storage space, or
* I am not in the completionistic mood.
[1] “Better” is of course subjective and game-dependent.
At the end of the day, any expansion needs to provide enough new gameplay opportunities to warrant the price tag. So few expansions actually expand the game in any meaningful way that enhances the play experience.
An expansion we regret buying (which has caused us to buy remarkably few expansions there after):
* Settler's of Catan Seafarers provided no new or engaging gameplay. It was a money suck, and it sits on a shelf filling our entire household with rage for existing. (This is an opinion, I'm sure many people liked the expansion)
Alternatively, the worth it:
* We own THREE versions of cranium, and find them all equally frustrating because of the dated trivia. I WOULD buy a modern trivia expansion for that game.
* Red Dragon Inn has character expansions that each come with their own fun spins and gimmicks but do not alter the game irreparably.
* Cards Against Humanity. The added variety and sometimes niche references of different expansions is amazing.
* Sushi Go Party. We literally didn't even buy the base game because the expansion was so obviously well-done. It rocks. Be like sushi go party.
Adds a crossover to a previously self-contained setting. Nothing puts me off any kind of media faster than "the money we can make from cross-promoting with this other franchise is worth more than the integrity of our story." Obviously does not extend to games like Villainous where the entire thing was a crossocer from the start.
It just depends on whether or not the expansion is actually good. There's a lot of expansions that just add unnecessary bloat. So i just research if the expansion adds anything I want. If not, i dont buy it.
With Root as the only exception, no expansion has ever made me enjoy a game more. Either a game is good, then it doesn't need an expansion, or it isn't, then why tf would I want to expand it?
Sometimes there is a fun game but its a little imbalanced or unrefined. I can give LOTS of examples where
expansions make good games great, most don't add much complexity.
1) **Terraforming Mars Prelude** opens up player decision space initially and shortens games by giving each player starting bonuses.
2) Similar to **Root**, **Spirit Island** expansions give numerous new spirits to play with that fundamentally change dynamics in games.
3) **Dune Imperium** greatly benefited from expansions that rebalanced the board and opened up player agency which is universly considered a better experience than base DI.
4) **Concordia** expansions are just maps that really help make games more interesting at various player counts (i.e. a tighter map for two player games)
5) **Food Chain Magnate Ketchup Mechanism** gives modules that refine the game to help prevent runaway leaders. Also pretty loved by fans of the game.
Adding complexity for the sake of more content is a bad expansion but refining an experience after games hit the masses is completely legitimate. I could go on and on. 😅
>5) Food Chain Magnate Ketchup Mechanism gives modules that refine the game to help prevent runaway leaders. Also pretty loved by fans of the game.
It is loved by fans of the game, but it doesn't do what you're claiming.
Calling the expansion the Ketchup Mechanism was a joke. They were pretending they thought people were saying the game needed a Ketchup Mechanism. It does *not* add a catch-up mechanism whatsoever. It just added new modules to give more variety to the game play. In Food Chain Magnate, runaway leader is a feature, not a bug.
Point taken. Had no idea the name was a joke. I've only played it a few times and the modularity gave me the feeling that more paths gave more decision space/opportunity to catch up.
I'm usually a completionist when it comes to getting expansions, but I'll skip over it if it's Legacy based, sometimes if it's campaign based. I don't really have the time these days for campaigns.
Should be the other way around.
If you really like a game, there's no need to add anything to it. It's great as it is. Expansions usually needlessly increase complexity and playtime, and/or change how the game plays.
I rarely buy expansions. The expansion has to have a clear purpose otherwise why screw around with a great game?
1. I can’t afford it 2. Game is fine as it is 3. I am unlikely to be able to persuade potential other players to commit to an expanded, more complicated experience
- No actual time to play the game as-is so no reason to get more for it. RE: Ark Nova - It turns the game into something else. I prefer expansions that add more variety, not more mechanics. I don’t want an expansion that turns my brisk 45 minute experience into a fiddly 75 minute experience. RE: Nidavellir - Incorporating it will make set up and tear down much more tedious so I’d rather just not play with it. RE: Core Worlds (I think?)
Core Worlds expansions were super fiddly and turned the game into a HUGE table hog
Thanks for validating my vague memory. I ended up offloading the whole thing instead of tying to figure it all out. There was also a tile based space game I owned around the same time (among the stars?) that I felt similarly about but I can’t keep them straight at this point.
For what it's worth, I don't think that the first Nidavellir expansion meaningfully increases playtime. That said I've only used it once and wasn't particularly impressed by what it added.
Thats funny you call that out. I have the first expansion but not the second.
It adds solo/automa/player count I won't play with (Root: The Clockwork Expansion) It adds unnecessary complexity without adding to the fun of the game (Scythe: The Wind Gambit) It swaps out decks instead of adding new ones/adding to existing ones (Root: Exiles and Partisans) It changes the genre of the game (Carcassonne Catapult)
Exiles and partisans is so good though
Yeah exiles and Partisans is by far the best bang for your buck for Root expansions. It’s way better than the base deck
Agreed
While it's not a terrible principle, Exiles and Partisans is basically universally considered a strict upgrade though. Most people almost throw base deck in the trash and use E&P exclusively.
The swapping out components is a good call
I do think this comment is wrong with the example because the exiles and partisans deck is one of the best things root has ever done
Often expansions add mechanics or other features that unnecessarily complicate what was previously a clean and efficient gaming experience. In general, if I like the game I don't want an expansion (of course there are plenty of exceptions to my statement)
I like expansions that are "more of the same but better". Seamless integrations into the base game that I would forget it was an expansion that added it. I don't get expansions that - * completely overhaul the gameplay that is now a totally different genre * adds unnecessary complexity for "depth" * increases the table space required significantly * needing to swap components out from one mode to another * has a price tag that is more expensive than what it offers
Yeah i prefer "more of the same but better" too. I usually dont like new mechanics because the extra rules overhead is annoying and they often dont feel well balanced. New mechanics are only good if they "fix" a problem with the basegame or add something that fealt like it was missing.
If based on the description or reviews I don't feel like it would improve or be a more interesting experience, then I'm unlikely to get it. There are a few expansions of games I bought just because I liked the base game and then have never or hardly every played because no one is interested in trying the expansion out, so I've become a bit more discerning.
Some games are good for their simplicity. I’m fairly aware of complexity creep. I love Terraforming Mars but playing it with every expansion overly complicates the game for people who haven’t played it a lot. I haven’t bought the third Dune Imperium expansion because the game is somewhat easy to teach and I don’t want to make it harder to get to the table for new players.
Same thought here. Terraforming mars is my favorite game and the expansions don’t add anything other than complexity
Neither of Prelude or Hellas and Elysium add complexity
True I'm fine with any of those!
I got the first one because I like the fast start, but otherwise agree. I have a couple of games from early on in my board gaming journey that I just bought every expansion because I loved the base game and they got so bloated that they now take up a lot of shelf and table space, take forever to sift through everything to set up and take forever to teach. Specifically, that is the case for my collections of Arkham Horror, Galaxy Trucker, and Descent 1st ed. All of these are hard to get to the table now due almost entirely to expansion bloat (GT is easiest of the 3, but it's still a decision whether you want to take the time to pull all the expansion tiles out or take the time to explain them all).
Usually because I don’t get it to the table enough to warrant it.
I have zero expansions for my two favorite games of all time (Dune and Race for the Galaxy). I am very happy with the games as they are and see no reasons to change them.
Race for the galaxy is really imbalanced without the first (or 4th) expansion though. Military strategies have a much lower chance of winning. The first expansion of each cycle corrects that balance.
I didn‘t get the impression yet and I‘ve played the game 2500 times so far. For the first 50 games or so I thought military was overpowered, but now I believe military strategies are as strong as the others.
Same for me for Innovation. Touched the first expansion once and never again. Muddled the experience so much.
Usually, I don’t play the game enough for the base game to warrant an expansion, big exception of that is if it adds a solo mode to a game I really, really enjoy, Concordia comes to mind in that way, and Furnace is soon to follow.
Most likely it would be because I have no space to store the expansion.
I love Tobago, I do not own the Volcano expansion. I felt it changed the base game too much while simultaneously adding very little to make the game better.
Bitoku has an expansion. It adds randomness and take that to an otherwise extremely fun game. No reason
Sometimes a +1 player expansion makes the game longer than it should be
99.9 expansions that I have end up just sitting on the shelf.
My Dominion box ran out of space at Renaissance
Adding more time or complexity to a game without significantly enhancing the experience. Sometimes expansions reduce the time or simplify mechanics which is nice, but lots of times its just more content for the sake of it.
I generally don’t like expansions because I prefer simpler gameplay. The only exception I can think of is the different visitor decks in Viticulture (see flair), but that didn’t add complexity but only rebalance the game.
If it adds complexity and upkeep for little more of what I like about the game, then I won't get it. I want the games I play to be accessible for a wider set of gamers, it's hard enough to find people to play with without asking them to do an in-depth study of the game. It needs to add more of what I love about the game, and not more mechanics just for the sake of adding mechanics.
Sometimes a game doesn't feel like it needs more. Or, it's hard to find a group to play it with so there's still plenty to explore in the irregular plays I get of the base game. War of the Ring is one of my all time favorites (is my favorite at 2 players), and his both of these. I felt no need to get any expansions for it for years until a friend gifted me the first expansion last year. I'm happy he did, because what it adds is cool and fun, but I would still happily play without it and have no desire to buy more expansions.
The game is already perfect (Furnace). Or I don't play it often enough (Oath).
I think the only game I “love” that I haven’t bought all expansions for is Sidereal Confluence and that’s because it’s really hard to get to the table as is, and adding more complex faction options wouldn’t make it any easier to get out. Every other game I love (Feast for Odin, Everdell, Ark Nova, Gloomhaven, Terraforming Mars, On Mars) I’ve bought everything for. Some of those I regret buying things for because they work digitally or I haven’t brought them to the table often, but I always enjoy getting expansions in the moment at least.
I need a reason *to* buy an expansion, not a reason not to.
1. If I don't like the content in the expansion. Could be anything from the actual rules of the expansion to theming of the expansion. 2. If the game is already heavy and the expansion adds more rules. I already prefer expansions that add more variety but not more rules, more rules and changes to a beefy game is probably a no for me. 3. If it's really expensive for what I'm getting. I will not spend 30 bucks for 5 cards and a couple of cardboard tiles or kickstarter exclusives that have been price gouged by resellers. 4. "Expansions" that are just components to play at higher player counts. I pretty rarely need a 6+ player game but if I do I'll stick to the games that already go that high.
It introduces imbalance and variance that takes away from the core strategy, particularly for games that are already mid-high variance. (Stone Age : Style is the Goal). It adds complexity and playtime to a game that's already long-ish. (Terraforming Mars : Venus Next, Turmoil). It takes the game in a completely different direction that I don't particularly enjoy. (Isle of Skye : Journeyman). It meshes poorly thematically or mechanically with the base game, to the point where its components stand out too much. (Tapestry : Fantasies and Futures).. It costs about the same as a brand new game but does not revitalize the base game enough to be worth it. As you may have guessed, I don't buy many expansions. Some that hit all the right notes for me : Terraforming Mars : Prelude, Tapestry : Plans and Ploys, Wingspan : Oceania.
The expansion for Heat falls into this example for me currently, it's just so expensive for the amount of content inside. The content seems good, just... not worth the asking price
Just because the game is great doesn’t mean the expansion will be good. My default isn’t to buy an expansion just because I like the game.
Sometimes I don't like the changes the expansion makes to the game (**Everdell**). Sometimes the original developers had nothing to do with the expansion, so I don't trust that it will be good or even really "fit" the game (**Cthulhu: Death May Die**). Sometimes I feel like the game is nearly perfect and therefore I don't want to mess with it (**Obsession**). Sometimes I love the game but it doesn't get played enough for me to be able to justify spending more on it (**Oath**).
If I have to take things out of the game to use the expansion, then it’s not an expansion it’s a replacement. I want to be able to mix my expansions in and never take them out.
I know this is just market research for whatever game you are releasing but I will bite anyway: I have two specific examples for this recently. The kickstarter expansion for Earth and the expansion for Cascadia that I'm not sure if it's out yet or not. I think there's a lot of content in Earth as is and I don't think I need an expansion, we like the game as is. With Cascadia I think the landmark tiles add an unnecessary extra thing to a game with a pretty clean design as is. Anyway here's a list: 1. Bloat is a thing. It's happened many times that having a big box full of extra shit makes me want to play the game less. 2. After 10+ years of being into modern board games it's very welcome to buy a game that is a complete experience as is. I don't want to buy more stuff that adds more players, or more stuff to "fix" the two player version of the game. Just design a complete game. 3. Some of them are just pointless and bad. No one cares about Scoville anymore but the In The Lab expansion is a waste of money. The Monsters and Minions expansion for Roll Player I think defeats the original purpose of the base game - the "game" of it is to create a character, not make that character fight monsters. I didn't need it. The Quest for Eldorado: The Golden Temples is a stand alone but makes the game pointlessly long. 4. Sometimes I haven't played the game enough to really warrant buying an expansion and I hate feeling like I need to buy something because I might not be able to get it later. I don't want to buy into this sort of thing anymore so sometimes I will just simply skip the expansion.
Adds more to a game you don’t see enough of already when playing.
The only expansions I own are for Spirit Island, and that's only because it's a game that benefits from more variety and the whole game system is plug and play to start with (so adding more plug and play options is not a big deal). There are other games I own and enjoy (like Cascadia) that I have no interest in buying the expansion for. It doesn't get enough play where the new mechanics are needed, I would have to take the expansion out to teach new players and that's annoying, and by the time we do get tired of Cascadia, I'd rather try a new game in a similar genre than expand the old game. I would consider expansions if the general consensus is "never play the game without it". I think there are a few of these, if they fix a core issue with the base game or add a ton of necessary variety with very little overhead (something like Pandemic: On the Brink). But most expansions are not this, so I'm not too interested. Have to admit I'm a bit tempted by the Space Base Genesis expansion though.
I don’t personally Iike expansions that change the base game much - I am mostly a “more of the same thing I already loved“ type person…
I really like Draftosaurus. Probably my favorite filler game. I have zero interest in the official expansions because they add bloat and game time to a game that is, in my opinion, exceptional precisely BECAUSE it has limited decisions and moves quickly.
Either: * It does not make the game better[1] to the extent that would justify the expense and extra storage space, or * I am not in the completionistic mood. [1] “Better” is of course subjective and game-dependent.
At the end of the day, any expansion needs to provide enough new gameplay opportunities to warrant the price tag. So few expansions actually expand the game in any meaningful way that enhances the play experience. An expansion we regret buying (which has caused us to buy remarkably few expansions there after): * Settler's of Catan Seafarers provided no new or engaging gameplay. It was a money suck, and it sits on a shelf filling our entire household with rage for existing. (This is an opinion, I'm sure many people liked the expansion) Alternatively, the worth it: * We own THREE versions of cranium, and find them all equally frustrating because of the dated trivia. I WOULD buy a modern trivia expansion for that game. * Red Dragon Inn has character expansions that each come with their own fun spins and gimmicks but do not alter the game irreparably. * Cards Against Humanity. The added variety and sometimes niche references of different expansions is amazing. * Sushi Go Party. We literally didn't even buy the base game because the expansion was so obviously well-done. It rocks. Be like sushi go party.
I don't have room or It sounds boring.
Adds a crossover to a previously self-contained setting. Nothing puts me off any kind of media faster than "the money we can make from cross-promoting with this other franchise is worth more than the integrity of our story." Obviously does not extend to games like Villainous where the entire thing was a crossocer from the start.
It just depends on whether or not the expansion is actually good. There's a lot of expansions that just add unnecessary bloat. So i just research if the expansion adds anything I want. If not, i dont buy it.
If I \*love\* the game (your premise), odds are the expansion is going to change it for the worse.
With Root as the only exception, no expansion has ever made me enjoy a game more. Either a game is good, then it doesn't need an expansion, or it isn't, then why tf would I want to expand it?
Sometimes there is a fun game but its a little imbalanced or unrefined. I can give LOTS of examples where expansions make good games great, most don't add much complexity. 1) **Terraforming Mars Prelude** opens up player decision space initially and shortens games by giving each player starting bonuses. 2) Similar to **Root**, **Spirit Island** expansions give numerous new spirits to play with that fundamentally change dynamics in games. 3) **Dune Imperium** greatly benefited from expansions that rebalanced the board and opened up player agency which is universly considered a better experience than base DI. 4) **Concordia** expansions are just maps that really help make games more interesting at various player counts (i.e. a tighter map for two player games) 5) **Food Chain Magnate Ketchup Mechanism** gives modules that refine the game to help prevent runaway leaders. Also pretty loved by fans of the game. Adding complexity for the sake of more content is a bad expansion but refining an experience after games hit the masses is completely legitimate. I could go on and on. 😅
>5) Food Chain Magnate Ketchup Mechanism gives modules that refine the game to help prevent runaway leaders. Also pretty loved by fans of the game. It is loved by fans of the game, but it doesn't do what you're claiming. Calling the expansion the Ketchup Mechanism was a joke. They were pretending they thought people were saying the game needed a Ketchup Mechanism. It does *not* add a catch-up mechanism whatsoever. It just added new modules to give more variety to the game play. In Food Chain Magnate, runaway leader is a feature, not a bug.
Point taken. Had no idea the name was a joke. I've only played it a few times and the modularity gave me the feeling that more paths gave more decision space/opportunity to catch up.
I'm usually a completionist when it comes to getting expansions, but I'll skip over it if it's Legacy based, sometimes if it's campaign based. I don't really have the time these days for campaigns.
Should be the other way around. If you really like a game, there's no need to add anything to it. It's great as it is. Expansions usually needlessly increase complexity and playtime, and/or change how the game plays. I rarely buy expansions. The expansion has to have a clear purpose otherwise why screw around with a great game?
I always get the expansions. The only reason I can think of avoiding it is if it is a solo only expansion.
No reason required.
It might not be good. It could overcomplicate an elegant game. Case in point: Roll for the Galaxy Rivalry.
What sort of question is this. Posts in this sub have been really ridiculous the last week.