Carcassonne Advanced Strategy Guide

[O.M.S.]

The Bible has a several chapters and two parts (The Old Testament and The New Testament), which (especially parts) can be printed (studied ...) separately.
Why not Harper's bible (of Carcassonne)?

[Joff]

As Matt already knows, I too would like to see more content in CAR, but the fact is that it is already too large for some websites and some of the additions suggested would actually deviate from CAR's intended purpose (which is a translation of the official 3rd edition rules). I do like the idea of a companion volume, but this needs to be discussed a bit first.

[Novelty]

The bible is static.  No new stuff is being added to it (that I know of).  Carcassonne is different.  The rules change (get expanded, etc.) every so often and thus, everything requires an update.

I'd suggest a maximum of no more than 2 pages of strategy for beginners (aka "Carcassonne for Dummies"?) in there to round out the CAR (if that's a must), because obviously, the strategy depends very strongly on which tiles are in play, and may also change in the future when new expansions are added.

I'd much prefer if the CAR is restricted to the rules and that the Strategy section be a separate document altogether.  Perhaps OMS's idea could still be utilised - the Harper Bible could have the CAR as Book 1, the Strategy guide as Book 2, etc.

[mjharper]

Not wishing to keep up the Bible comparison (it's a little irreverent and accords me a dubious position), I will just add that the both parts of the Bible are (almost) always published together.

One thing at the back of my mind as we discuss expanding the CAR (another one of those multi-thread topics which are popular at the moment) is that it should become a 'guide', rather than merely a set of rules. Strategy, variants, house rules and other user-created material seems to me to be part of the 'Completely Annotated' part—I suppose you could say that the footnotes provide abstract rules clarifications, while strategy would provide practical ways of applying the rules, and things like house rules would provide practical ways of adapting the rules. So although I see the CAR developing maybe three sections—rules, user, and appendices (stuff like the tile reference) I don't see these parts as being entirely separate. All of them add depth to the rules.

A issue I see arising with splitting these things into multiple files is content quantity and quality. As a supplement to the current CAR, we might choose to include simply the best strategy, the most popular variants, and so on, and it might take up only a few pages. As a separate document, my feeling is that there would be a lot of temptation to add more content, perhaps with a view to being 'comprehensive', and that might lower the overall standards. The website here and the Variant Registry might serve that purpose better.

One other issue is that I think the actual circulation of a second document would be lower. Incorporating the best user material into the CAR would be the best way to have it reach the most people, because people download the CAR when it is updated. A second document would have to be downloaded separately—would involve a separate act of volition on the part of the user—and that would automatically decrease circulation. But the same user who wouldn't download a separate document might well find themselves browsing the additional material in the file they did download…

So, my suggestion would be to expand the CAR to encompass this sort of material, even if the hardcore among us would pass over some/most/all of it. If and when that material itself expands to warrant a second volume, we can split it off then. But to start out trying to make a second volume from scratch just doesn't seem the best way forward to me, in any sense.

Finally, I want to mention one other thing which has occurred to me through the Bible comparison—my relation to the CAR. Obviously, it's my baby, and I'm protective of it. The contributions of the people on this forum and on BGG have helped enormously in making it what it is, but I still (naturally) reserve the right to reject suggestions which don't fit into my vision for it—for example, corrections to the text of rules which I think should be footnotes. However, saying that all of the things being discussed here should be kept within the CAR in no way means in any way that I want to receive credit for them. My role, should the CAR be expanded in this way, would be that of an editor: maintaining an overview, a vision, and keeping the text up-to-date. I'd be taking a step back, and that's fine by me.

I'm thrilled at the idea of more user content, because it will make the CAR stronger, which is the most important thing as far as I'm concerned. But I also think that including it in the current document is the best way to introduce people…

[O.M.S.]

The bible is static.  No new stuff is being added to it (that I know of).  Carcassonne is different.  The rules change (get expanded, etc.) every so often and thus, everything requires an update.

I think that Bible was 2000 years ago (very approximatey) different too, several upgrades or updates, some expansion; something was incorporated something depreciated.
What will be in 2000 years with Harper's bible. Will it be static or dynamic? If somebody is who will be able to stated 

[Joff]

I think that Bible was 2000 years ago (very approximatey) different too, several upgrades or updates, some expansion; something was incorporated something depreciated.

Not wishing to keep up the Bible comparison (it's a little irreverent and accords me a dubious position), I will just add that the both parts of the Bible are (almost) always published together.

Firstly, (and you knew it would have be me, Matt ) we're all entitled to our Bible opinions, but we're not here to talk about our religious viewpoints (you can email me if you want to discuss religious opinions, lol )! We're here to talk about the wonderful game of Carcassonne and the future of CAR

One other issue is that I think the actual circulation of a second document would be lower. Incorporating the best user material into the CAR would be the best way to have it reach the most people, because people download the CAR when it is updated. A second document would have to be downloaded separately—would involve a separate act of volition on the part of the user—and that would automatically decrease circulation. But the same user who wouldn't download a separate document might well find themselves browsing the additional material in the file they did download…

This is a valid point, Matt, and I have to agree with you. I prefer the idea of working them in with CAR.

As a supplement to the current CAR, we might choose to include simply the best strategy, the most popular variants, and so on, and it might take up only a few pages. As a separate document, my feeling is that there would be a lot of temptation to add more content, perhaps with a view to being 'comprehensive', and that might lower the overall standards.

When I was thinking about a variants guide, it soon became a millstone with deciding what variants to include. There are so many!!! My feeling was to only include those which do not require a great deal of setup, play really well and are just plain good! This is the same with a strategy guide (the obvious one being David Peterson's). The reason for this topic now is why I am not persuing a seperate guide, but rather offer my assistance for the CAR and CC where I can.

The website here and the Variant Registry might serve that purpose better.

I strongly agree. The more unusual variants are best suited to the Variant Registry.

Finally, I want to mention one other thing which has occurred to me through the Bible comparison—my relation to the CAR. Obviously, it's my baby, and I'm protective of it.

This is a VERY important point. It is Matt's work, and he should be in full control of that document.

[mjharper]

I think that Bible was 2000 years ago (very approximatey) different too, several upgrades or updates, some expansion; something was incorporated something depreciated.

Not wishing to keep up the Bible comparison (it's a little irreverent and accords me a dubious position), I will just add that the both parts of the Bible are (almost) always published together.

Firstly, (and you knew it would have be me, Matt ) we're all entitled to our Bible opinions, but we're not here to talk about our religious viewpoints (you can email me if you want to discuss religious opinions, lol )! We're here to talk about the wonderful game of Carcassonne and the future of CAR

I hope I indicated that I thought the comparison was inappropriate—it doesn't really work as an analogy, and is rather tasteless as well…

Finally, I want to mention one other thing which has occurred to me through the Bible comparison—my relation to the CAR. Obviously, it's my baby, and I'm protective of it.

This is a VERY important point. It is Matt's work, and he should be in full contol of that document.

Just to clear up another potential misunderstanding, I meant here that the discussion had made me think about authorship, and how I might be being perceived. I was not drawing a parallel…

Hint to everyone involved: I would prefer it if we could nip the whole 'Harper's Bible' in the bud right now…

And if that leaves everyone—except Joff—a little unsure as to my religious views, then all is as it should be. I completely agree that this isn't the place for such discussions.

Moving right along…

[mjharper]

Thanks for your comments, Joff. I totally understand the difficulty in compiling a variant's guide. That's partly why the current CAR only contain the 'official' selection—because I didn't have to select anything at all! (I mean, they could be included on a completely different basis).

And although it's true that the CAR is my document, I'm trying to actively involve people in it in a way that hasn't been the case before. That's why I'm pleased to be having this discussion about what everybody wants, and where everyone sees it going. One side effect of the CarcassonneCentral site is that there is a much more vocal community than before. And that's a good thing.

[Joff]

...but we're not here to talk about our religious viewpoints (you can email me if you want to discuss religious opinions, lol )!

By the way everyone, that actually wasn't a 'green light' to start emailing me lots of opinions  

I hope I indicated that I thought the comparison was inappropriate—it doesn't really work as an analogy, and is rather tasteless as well…

I understood what you meant, Matt. There is no misunderstanding from me

[Scott]

David's strategy guide is good stuff; I'd never seen it before. The only thing that could be considered to need improvement is expanding the focus to include more/all of the expansions.

I agree with Matt regarding the Incorporated/Deprecated guide being too academic. My own personal feeling is that it's not really relevant, because the preceding text of the rules for each expansion contains everything already. A strategy guide would be a good replacement for it.

Variants, on the other hand, are numerous enough that we could probably have more than one volume of them if we included every single one. Trying to select the "best" ones would be a tough job. I think the best way to proceed with this is carry on with the individual docs for individual variants. They can always be combined later on, or maybe not. Maybe they stay separate and get attached to their respective entry in the Variant Registry. Matt could include a blurb in the CAR pointing people there to let them know what is available.

[mjharper]

Sounds like a good plan, Scott.

Maybe "best" wasn't the, er, best word; perhaps I should have said something like 'most popular among CC members' or something like that.

We can keep kicking the ball around for a bit yet, as I need to get the revised CAR to a certain point before we need to make a final decision.

[Joff]

Perhaps the 'best' variants are the ones that don't require complicated setups (eg: making extra tiles (I am thinking specifically about Frédéric Renaud’s Families, which is a fantastic idea, and one of the 'best', but requires extra tiles making to work)). Ones that utilise the already existing game, perhaps with an extra follower, seem easier to implement.

[Novelty]

Perhaps the 'best' variants are the ones that don't require complicated setups (eg: making extra tiles (I am thinking specifically about Frédéric Renaud’s Families, which is a fantastic idea, and one of the 'best', but requires extra tiles making to work)). Ones that utilise the already existing game, perhaps with an extra follower, seem easier to implement.

I'd second that.

[Scott]

I like the idea of including variants that are the most accessible to everyone (ie. don't require making tiles). There are some really neat looking fan-made expansions out there, but making tiles isn't for everyone.

[mjharper]

None of the variants currently included in the CAR require making tiles 

Seriously, though, that's a good way of filtering variants for inclusion.