Talk:Expandable card game

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not much on this

@BOZ, @Guinness323, @Leitmotiv, @Mindmatrix, @Masem: Here is the article I promised to write a while back about what I think we probably should call expandable card games (LCGs are perhaps more common but technically limited to FFGs games only, and the term customizable card games is often used a synonym to collectible card games). Anyway, I have exhausted reliable sources I could find. Feel free to expand - otherwise I'll publish this in a little while in the current format. Side note: we should create Category:Expandable card games...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things that would be good to find sources for

Here are things I tried and failed at finding sources for:

Miller's claim that LCGs have less metagame than CCGs is likely dated, as he wrote it before the advent of the FFGs era LCGs. I could not find any RS discussing LCGs metagame, however.
Travis made a fair point that LCGs feature more coop mechanic than CCGs, on average, at least. I wanted to add that they are also more likely to be multiplayer games, but I could not find any RS for that, again.
I removed from our CCG article OR claiming that LCGs that stated that in LCGs "players select a pre-made deck that comes with the game or through expansions but will start the game using only a subset of these cards. As the game proceeds, the player will add, remove, and swap cards with those from the selected deck not in play, commonly representing character growth, equipment gains, or other "permanent" changes, hence the "living" factor in these games." I could not find any RS for this, and anyway, Android: Netrunner was an LCG and obviously it had no such feature. Now, I know other games do have it, but I am not aware they are known under any specific name (arguably, they should be). On the final note here, such a definition of course encompasses a bunch of modern board games, including Pathfinder Adventure Card Game ([1]), which are a hybrid deckbuilder. More on relationship between LCGs and deckbuilders would be good to write, again, if RS can be found...

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that compared to collectible card games, expandable card games focus more on storytelling and cooperation? Source: https://www.playthepast.org/?p=6913 and its subsequent parts linked in the article as refs
- ALT1: ... that expandable card games are sometimes known as "living card games", but the latter term, while popular, is trademarked by a single company, preventing its use by competitors? Source: http://www.pairofdiceparadise.com/expandable-card-games-ecg-trademarks-patents-3-of-3-a167.php
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Genocide in the Hebrew Bible

Created by Piotrus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 519 past nominations.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I think there is an issue with the article, which is that going by the most of the sources in the article and the hook source, the WP:COMMONTERM appears to be "living card game", and therefore that should be the title of the article and the boldlink. For related reasons I think ALT1 is actually the more interesting hook, though it would benefit from rephrasing to make it punchier. I'm keen to hear other opinions. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloventt and Z1720: This has been discussed a bit by card game editors, I also pinged them at Talk:Expandable_card_game#Not_much_on_this. It is not clear what is common term, and while LCG is a common term, as explained in the article, it is trademarked by one company, and could be considered not neutral - prioritizing that one company over others. I'd be happy to see this discussed on talk, but nobody seems to care, and I don't feel like deciding by myself to use a term specific to one company over what appears to be a perfectly fine and more neutral (not trademarked) term. As for the "punchier" wording, feel free to suggest an ALT1a and I can "adopt" it if it seems ok to me, so you could accept it... otherwise I am sorry, I don't know what your idea of "punchier" is. PS. Please WP:ECHO me when replying, if my response is needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus and Cloventt: What else needs to be done here?--Laun chba ller 14:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I already replied extensively, with a ping. Maybe a new reviewer is needed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to fix this because as I said initially I think it is something of a fundamental issue with the article. Happy for another reviewer to weigh in on it. In terms of a punchier hook, something like "... that 'expandable card games' is a generic alternative for the trademarked term 'living card games'?"David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cloventt: I'd be fine with that hook. Would you be ok with the article getting featured using it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I’d rather leave it to another reviewer to decide. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]