Expansion remorse: What makes an expansion good?

So this Batman kickstarter got me thinking: I had 3 options: either go with just the basegame, everything or nothing. And as I went trough my collection in my head I got a little remorseful of all the expansions I bought over the years.

Usually I buy expansion of the games I really like. And I can be quite the completionist. But most of the time I found that expansions took away from the basegame, instead of add to it. I guess it is a realization that less is more.

Games like Tide of Iron: I loved the tiny scenario's but the expansions made it so bloaty that I really wish they even cut the basegame in half. Kickstarter games even more so, the expansions to for example Blood Rage add so little except for more of the same and that at a premium price. So did Last Night on Earth.

I found that utilitarian expansions that add more players usually are the ones that end up getting played the most. Cosmic Encounter with the first 3 or 4 expansions had been played to death by our group.

Twilight Imperium added some really good things in there expansions but also a lot of extra stuff that didn't even seem to be playtested, you just got your own sandbox to figure out what you would like. 4th edition did take the best bits of this and ran with it, I hope.

So in the end I did end up pledging for the basegame of Batman. Seeing the expansions just seemed like a bad value proposition for me.

So what expansions did you regret buying? Any thoughts on what makes a good expansion?

I've thought about this a bit. While of course, it depends on the game. It also depends on the player and their expectations.

Some like more of the same with only a slight variance (Cosmic Encounter for the most part comes to mind), and others expect it to create an entirely new game (conflict heavy 2 player game that people mewl about needing a solo variant, for example).

Games like Gorechosen would only need new fighters, while games like Wiz-War only needs new magic cards.

That seems pretty obvious and basic, but doing much else to those games would make them very different games.

But that doesn't always work either, because the expansion to Lord of Waterdeep utterly killed the game for me. And it didn't change the gameplay too drastically. Especially if you took out anything that had to do with corruption.
Yet I still couldn't stand it.

I think the expansions for Arkham Horror killed my interest in the game as well. But that likely had more to do with overload than quality of design. Those are the only expansions I can think of that I regret.

I very much think it needs to be judged on a case by case basis. But in the case of the Batman KS, I would abstain from them. Not only is the game itself an unknown quality, but when you add in expansion material, it's just asking for a train wreck of disappointment that is more likely to happen than satisfaction. Don't let FOMO dictate such a purchase.

Like buying a base game, the mantra of "try before you buy" if possible should be noted.

99.9% of expansions suck.

However, I don't include "additional scenarios" to be expansions. So with things like Combat Commander, ASL, train games, race games and others. If it is something that gives you different maps, different settings, different goals but maintains the current rules then I'm all for those things.

The only legit expansions that are ok are ones that add "more of what's already there". More aliens in Cosmic. More "encounter cards". Wider variety of treasure cards that sort of thing. Again not changing the game but giving you more of it. Those increase replay, not that anybody replays anything so why is this even a legit concern amongst the vast unwashed sea of gamerdom.

All other expansions suck and are a waste of time. Some are necessary, meaning that they fix a problem in the game, but they still suck because mistakes that big shouldn't make it to a final product. Of course this maybe another thing of the past as games don't live long enough to get fixed anymore. Why correct your fuck ups when you can spend just as much time putting out a new shitty half assed excuse for a game?

Good question. I think the answer varies a lot depending on the game. It might actually be easier to say what makes a bad expansion!

Some thoughts:

1) Expansions that restore the game to its original design: It's common for games to be cut into a base game and an expansion for marketing reasons (The cut game is simpler, cheaper to produce, has wider appeal, etc.). The expansion that brings back the cut content tend to be great: Seafarers of Catan and Scoundrels of Skullport are both good examples. Automobile is just an ok game because it's missing an expansion that doesn't exist, for example.

2) Expansions that add "more content": This one is tricky. I believe that expansions that are more content are poor unless the game doesn't need that content very much! The reason is that if a game needs more "content", adding it only pushes the ball down the road, the issue that made the game need more content will still be there. Why are the Cosmic expansions so good? Because the game heavily benefits from variety and interesting combinations and each addition (alien) is interesting on its own.

3) Additional scenarios: Only worthwhile if you have already cleared the previous scenarios. I think the vast majority of these expansions go unplayed and we're all a bit too quick to buy them.

4) Small tricky expansions: There are a bunch of one-rule, one-component expansions that give a lot with very lttle. These tend to be all worth owning, even if they seem "overpriced" because they have little in the way of cardboard.

I still do a fair number of "more of the same" expansions. Neuroshima Hex armies, Steam maps, Time Stories missions. These are fine and I don't have much issue with them.

I don't buy too many "whole new module" expansions anymore largely because I don't buy the games that get them much these days and when I do, I'm usually pleased (or disappointed) with the base game. I love Ginkgopolis and have felt no impulse to get the expansion; it's unneeded. The Grizzled has an expansion that isn't necessary. I bought the El Grande big box just to have a copy of El Grande and all the expansion bullshits it comes with haven't been touched. There have been few expansions of this sort that I've felt improved the base game.

Terraforming Mars is probably the expandiest game I own at the moment. You can tell they can't wait to dump more into it. So far the maps are fine and Venus Next is okay but inessential. It changes the base game, but not significantly.

I'm no longer in the market for the big convoluted Euros which already have so many gears and levers that no one will care of three more are added.

And I'm certainly out of the market of games in which an expansion will "fix" or "complete" a base game (unless, as Erik said, it's content that was originally there but edited out for the original...and even then there's probably a good reason it was edited out.)

I usually like expansions that add content that isn't game-altering content. For example, my latest fling with Star Trek Ascendancy has three expansions, all of them newer races from the ST universe (Cardassians, Ferengi, Borg.) The first two are fine. You can slot them in wherever you like in place of or alongside the original three factions. The Borg, OTOH, changes the way the game is played. You not only have to contend with other players, but now you have to contended with an often-overwhelming neutral element that could hamstring your entire game through no fault of your own. I think it's interesting and I'll probably pick it up at some point to try it out, but I'm far more interested in the recently announced Vulcan and Andalorian factions because they don't alter the way the game is played at an essential level. They're just more factions, like Erik was referencing when talking about adding aliens to Cosmic Encounter. If I enjoy the game, it's because I enjoy the original rules and I'm not particularly interested in stuff that veers too far from them. New maps, new factions, new missions. Sure. Whatever. Bring them on.

As a slight exception, I liked most of the Arkham Horror expansions (Kingsport was poor), but that was a situation in which too much content bogged down the game. You can, of course, only play with one or two AH expansions to give each game an individual theme or feel, but even then I think the system suffered from too much bookkeeping and became less adventure game than mechanical exercise.

I generally like expansions that give you "more of the same" while maybe introducing 1 or 2 mechanics. But those mechanics have to be worthwhile! As for what makes me purchase, I have to be a) really into the base game and b) relatively confident that the expansion material will see the table.

Some good and bad expansions in my opinion:
Spartacus: most of it is great. You increase player count, get new market cards and equipment. The downside is that some of the new characters have less than great powers.
Epic Spell Wars: a very mixed bag. Having new spell cards is great; the new mechanics introduced are universally pointless.
Theseus: All of it is worth getting; I do fear that the Hunters faction is overpowered. They are super deadly and I'm not sure I've ever seen them lose.
Neuroshima Hex: I don't even have all of the factions for this, my favorite game. We don't really play it any more, and I did buy one or two armies that got played... maybe once? They are cool but I can't say that more than one or two came close to the greatness of the base game.
CMON games: I think we know how CMON "expansions" go... :/
Wiz-War and Cosmic Encounter: yes yes yes * 1000. Now, I have only purchased Cosmic expansions that add players. I could easily see some of the other expansions being needless bloat but I don't know.
Descent 1st edition: more monsters and scenarios are great, but eventually there were so many "status" effects, it just got too heavy.

Even though I don’t care for TI3, its big expansion was one of the best ever. It serves almost as a 3.5 version of the game, and it came along at a time when the base game had been up for a while- meaning that not only did it rejuvenate the base game, it also contained crucial revisions and updates that improved play overall. And it was modular- you could add what you wanted and ignore what you didn’t like.

Mare Nostrum’s Mythology expansion is also one of the best. Again, it came out a year or two after the base game so it rekindled it while offering an “advanced game” that rewarded long time players.

Compare those with the Kickstarter shit, where either a sprawling, sloppy, and rangy design is parceled out into “optional”purchases (despite creating gaps in the design) or where everything is designed and tested concurrently- before the designers have a chance to see how the game and its content and mechanics are received. Of course, when you’ve already been paid for it, where is the incentive to improve or revitalize your product.

I had a couple of the Conan expansions. Literally a figure or figures in a plastic tray, stuck in a box. No scenarios, rules, or guidance as to how to use them. I would expect the same from Batman.

Only one kind of expansion will ever be purchased and retained by me: More of the same/ extension of the same.

For example, Heroscape expansions don’t change the game, they simply extend options. Elder Sign expansions (not Gates) extend the game without fundamentally changing it.

I don’t buy “ fix it “ expansions. If the game needs fixing, it doesn’t get bought.

I'll cut against the grain and say I love expansions. Though I'd be willing to admit that good expansion hit rate is definitely not that high.

I like them too, but only if they don’t try to “reshape” the game. If I like and play a game enough to want to expand it, I don’t want it changed into a structurally new game; if I want that I’ll just buy a new game.

I like expansions that do at least one of the following:

1. Add to the potential player count. (Cosmic Encounter)
2. Add variety without drastically changing the game. (Arkham Horror)
3. Fix problems with the base game, though ideally the base game should have been playtested enough to avoid those problems in the first place. (Various FFG games from several years ago)

I dislike expansions that do at least one of the following:

1. Power creep, where expansion material is more powerful than the base game. (most CCGs)
2. Add scenarios with limited replay value. (Arkham Horror LCG)
3. Add a grab bag of new elements that can all be added or left out on an individual basis. This may sound good, but it delays the start of each game until there has been a discussion and agreement of which optional elements to add in or leave out. (Battlestar Galactica)

I like expansions that let you play the same game in an enhanced or different way. New maps for Power Grid are always cool, but I think my favourite expansion of all time is the 5-6 player expansion for Settlers of Catan. How many times were you five in a room and couldn’t play it?

Worst expansions are the ones that add new rules to an already complicated game. The horses in Agricola has to be the worst one but I really started hating the expansions for Race to the Galaxy cuz they always added new rules

There was a time when I loved expansions, but gaming funds was limited. There's one important thing for me on expansions.

They have to integrate with the base game smoothly. I somewhat dislikes expansions with modules that you have to choose on what to include and what not. I almost didn't get Pandemic on the Brink because of this. And even now the other variants are not played.

I avoided altogether the 1st ed Battlelore dwarf/goblin expansions because back then you can only deploy two units from the expansion once you're done with the scenarios. Even FFG's late dwarf & goblin army expansions are not really good, integration wise. In the end the only expansion I got was Call to Arms and Creatures. Creatures were particularly great, quadrupling the number of creatures (five times if you count the other spider).

I don't mind if it adds new stuff that are quite different, like Agricola's Farmers of the Moor. Unfortunately, integration is not as good, as the designer seems to ditch occupation in favor of minor improvements.

With Talisman, it's more of the same with Reaper, which is totally painless to integrate.

My game with the most expansion is Descent, because I just love how expansion adds both variation and new content. The modular nature makes integration a snap (although set up and organizing stuff become a pain). Even then, I don't own them all. I have the Heir of Blood campaign book, a big box, and all 6 lieutenants from the base game. The lieutenants suck because I don't like the new cards, but I want the minis.

With the BoB, I own all the three boxes (Screaming Eagles, Ghost Panzer and Texas Arrows), because the expansion provide me with the new counters for Screaming Eagles. Missed the scenario expansion because it was way too expensive.

I really regret missing the expansion for Cuba, because I heard it's great, and I love me some Cuba. It was my first Euro and we played the heck out of it.

Sevej wrote: There was a time when I loved expansions, but gaming funds was limited. There's one important thing for me on expansions.

They have to integrate with the base game smoothly. I somewhat dislikes expansions with modules that you have to choose on what to include and what not. I almost didn't get Pandemic on the Brink because of this. And even now the other variants are not played.

Ah yes. I liked Imperial Settlers, but the first faction expansion killed it for me. Not only a new race with cards and rules for it, but cards for the existing ones as well. So to fully use it, you had to pick your race, design your deck for it, and then undo the mess if Atlanteans weren't being played. An easy set up now turned into deck construction before you could play. Or you only play with the Atlanteans cards and hope to god they're balanced out by themselves without the other cards.I just chucked the whole thing at that point.