DC Deck-Building Game: Rebirth

Today's review is of the 2019 release, DC Deck-Building Game: Rebirth. For 1-4 players, it takes 45-90 minutes.

Overview

Like all games in the DC Deck-Building Game line, Rebirth is a deck-builder where you all start with the same 10-card hand, drawing 5 to play each turn (which give you some combination of power and movement) and discarding used cards. You add cards by 'purchasing' them from the lineup (putting them in your discard pile) as the game progresses to strengthen future choices (once empty, a new draw pile is formed from the shuffled discard pile; the linked game review explains more). 

But Rebirth differs from most DC:DBG expansions in three important ways:

1) it has locations and your character must move between them to achieve objectives (and buy cards),

2) it can be played as a cooperative experience,

3) it is scenario-based, with eight options, and can be played as a campaign (where information from prior games is retained and used in future ones).

Do you and your friends have what it takes to win each scenario?

Review

This felt like The DC Deck-Building Game meets Marvel United. It was busy, but I liked it—perhaps better than the normal game. Cooperative is fun, and I liked how here you do not buy villains but attack them when they are in the lineup; a more intuitive concept than the original (where you can buy heroes and villains alike for your deck). It would have benefitted from a game board to guide card placement, and I cannot speak to all scenarios (I played only the first), but I enjoyed what I experienced. Recommended.

Rating: A

The Mandalorian and Grogu

Shortly after season 3 of The Mandalorian television series and paraphrasing the opening crawl (found here):

Though the Empire has fallen (this is set after Return of the Jedi), Imperial warlords remain scattered throughout the galaxy. As the fledgling New Republic works to secure systems, they have enlisted the help of the Mandalorian and his young apprentice Grogu to hunt down these criminals in the Outer Rim. 

Here, Mando and Grogu get their hardest mission yet: tracking an elusive warlord whose whereabouts are known by the Hutts. But to get their cooperation, Mando has to do them a favor . . . and can the Hutts be trusted?

There was a lot I enjoyed about this film. I love the time period, it was fun seeing more of the Hutts (and some characters that appeared in previous series or films), the effects were good, some of the characters/moments were amusing, and the overall message was outstanding. Mando summarizes with this line:

The old protect the young. Then the young protect the old. This is the way.

That theme of sacrificing for the good of others is powerful.

I didn't love everything. It was scarier/darker in places than I expected (lots of monsters; beware if your kids are watching). The delivery was quite linear with no side-stories or sub-plots; it had points where it plodded along as a result. It didn't do much to close out the overall story of the title characters, which seemed bizarre. But my main complaint: this felt like two episodes of the television show stitched together, with a climax about halfway followed by a long dead period as the next storyline built up. 

Ultimately, this movie felt like they starting planning a fourth season of the television show, then abandoned that and decided to make a movie instead. I think it would have been better (and more powerful) as a mini-season. If you're a Mando fan, watch this, but you can wait until it hits Disney+.

Rating: B

How (Not) to be Secular (James K.A. Smith)

In 2007, Philosopher Charles Taylor published A Secular Age, “a book that offers a genealogy of the secular and an archaeology of our angst.” It looks at where we are and how we got here. And his approach is “not concerned with what people believe as much as with what is believable.”

In 2014, Theologian James K.A. Smith published How (Not) to be Secular, which is "a book about a book—a small field guide to a much larger scholarly tome." It takes Taylor's magisterial 900-page work and boils it down to a 133-page guide.

In 2026, amateur blogger John Mark McLean published this post, which is a 3-page summary of the book that summarizes Taylor. (I dare you to summarize my summary of Smith's summary of Taylor.)

---------

We live in a secular age. But what is that? Taylor defines three kinds of secular.

Secular₁: in classical/medieval times, temporal or earthly things (which presupposes a sacred/secular divide).

Secular₂: “a nonsectarian, neutral, and areligious space or standpoint.” (Which presupposes such a stance is possible.) Here, people grow disenchanted with religion, believing it to be irrational and divisive, and argue it is possible to “be governed by universal, neutral rationality.”

Secular₃: Here, “religious belief or belief in God is understood to be one option among others, and thus contestable (and contested). At issue here is a shift in ‘conditions of belief.’”

He believes we inhabit a Secular₃ age that masquerades as a Secular₂ age. It claims neutrality and poses as a natural shift away from religion that brings a positive benefit. Being secular is “not just unbelief,” however. “The emergence of the secular is also bound up with the production of a new option—the possibility of exclusive humanism as a viable social imaginary—a way of constructing meaning and significance without any reference to the divine or transcendence.” Our underlying framework has changed. So what happened?

In medieval times, Taylor argues its social imaginary contained three things:

1. “The natural world was constituted as a cosmos that functioned . . . as a sign that pointed beyond itself, to what was more than nature.”
2. “Society itself was understood as something grounded in a higher reality; earthly kingdoms were grounded in a heavenly kingdom.”
3. “People lived in an enchanted world, a world ‘charged’ with presences, that was open and vulnerable, not closed and self-sufficient.”

Over centuries, there was a shift (due to a host of factors, including the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Reformation). In modernity, he sees five elements:

1. “Disenchantment and the ‘Buffered’ Modern Self.” Things have natural causes/explanations, it’s more about our mind and interpretation, and we are insulated/isolated.
2. “Living Social.” Individuals “are the locus of meaning . . . [so] disbelief no longer has social consequences.”
3. “The carnival is over: ‘Lowering the Bar’ for Flourishing.” Instead of “trying to maintain an equilibrium between the demands of creaturely life and the expectations for eternal life,” the modern age says “you can stop being burdened by what eternity/salvation demands and simply frame ultimate flourishing within this world.”
4. “The Fullness of Time.” There used to be the notion that “time is transcended by ‘higher’ time” which is “not merely chronological or linear.” But here, “nothing ‘higher’ impinges on our calendars—only the tick-tock of chronos, and the self-imposed burdens of our ‘projects.’”
5. “From Cosmos to Universe.” “The shift from cosmos to universe—from ‘creation’ to ‘nature’—makes it possible to now imagine meaning and significance as contained within the universe itself, and autonomous, independent ‘meaning’ that is unhooked from any sort of transcendent narrative.”

And the tide kept turning. He talks about other shifts, including a “fourfold process of ‘immanentization.’”

• A shift away from “a sense of obligation ‘beyond’ human flourishing” [Christians say “thy will be done” of God] to “a new emphasis: providence is primarily about ordering this world for mutual benefit, particularly economic benefit.”
• A shift away from needing grace to “we can figure this out without assistance.”
• A shift away from God’s inscrutability/mysterious ways to “mystery can no longer be tolerated.”
• A shift away from the idea that God is transforming us (making all things new!). “We lose the sense that humanity’s end transcends its current configurations . . .”

He also sees a shift in politics to a “modern moral order” which “amounts to an ordering of society for mutual benefit” but is “unhooked from the specifics of Christian doctrines and tethered to a more generic deistic god,” making it “independent of any specific—and hence contestable—claims about . . . God.” “The ultimate and transcendent are retained but marginalized and made increasingly irrelevant.” This “is a kind of secularization of Christian universalism.”

He sees the shift in religion, too. To a view that God is impersonal and inactive.

What do these shifts mean in aggregate? It has changed “what we take for granted.”

Aside: we all live with “an unchallenged framework” that “becomes part of the background that governs our being-in-the-world.” And that “our ‘take’ is not something reasoned to as much as it is something we reason from.” All of us live with basic orientations that (no matter how seemingly ‘neutral’) are value-laden. What do you consider uncontestable (or uncritically accept)? That is a clue to your framework. Nobody is intellectually independent; we all serve some authority, even if we don’t recognize it.

Where are we today? The shifts mentioned above have produced a different imaginary (what Taylor calls “exclusive humanism”). And yet “Our secular age is [not] an age of disbelief; it’s an age of believing otherwise. We can’t tolerate living in a world without meaning. So if the transcendence that previously gave significance to the world is lost, we need a new account of meaning—a new ‘imaginary’ that enables us to imagine a meaningful life within this now self-sufficient universe of gas and fire.” And while some “assume that this is just ‘the way things are,’ in fact what we take for granted is contingent and contestable.” And we all contest it, in our own way, as we sense something has been lost. “’We moderns’ are not entirely comfortable with modernity.”

So we live in a time “where ‘the secular’ and ‘the religious’ haunt each other in a mutual dance of displacement and decentering.” Indeed, “our age is haunted. On the one hand, we live under a brass heaven, ensconced in immanence. We live in the twilight of both gods and idols. But their ghosts have refused to depart, and every once in a while we might be surprised to find ourselves tempted by belief, by intimations of transcendence . . . on the other hand, even as faith endures in our secular age, believing doesn’t come easy. Faith is fraught; confession is haunted by an inescapable sense of its contestability. We don’t believe instead of doubting; we believe while doubting. We’re all Thomas now.”

What is the result of this mutual haunting? A “nova effect”—“an explosion of options for finding (or creating) ‘significance’” because “all sorts of people find themselves caught” in “’cross-pressures’—pushed by the immanence of disenchantment on one side, but also pushed by a sense of significance and transcendence on another side, even if it might be a lost transcendence.” This book’s ultimate argument “is that most of live in this cross-pressured space, where both our agnosticism and our devotion are mutually haunted and haunting.” We have “doubt and longing, faith and questioning.”

Where to from here? How should the Christian respond? Perhaps not by focusing on evidence or data (which in a sense concedes the game and points to human reason as the highest ideal) “but rather to offer an alternative story that offers a more robust, complex understanding of the Christian faith”. Ultimately “the appeal is to a ‘sense,’ a feel for things.” “It is not demonstrable except insofar as it offers a better account of our experience.”

---------

Smith's book is great; I assume Taylor's is, too. A highly useful guide to understanding our times. Recommended.

Rating: A

The Lost Tales of Sir Galahad (Various)

In Howard Pyle's The Story of the Grail and the Passing of Arthur, the author mentions that Sir Galahad had many adventures "of which no account hath been given" before he achieved the Grail. Rejoice . . . for account hath now been given! In this collection from Rabbit Room Press, 25 authors provide as many stories of what happened in that time, claiming discovery of "a hidden trove of medieval manuscripts" that finally shed light on Galahad's adventures.

Listed as for children (aged 8 and up), I was unexpectedly pleased with this volume. The authors do a good job maintaining the spirit of classic Arthurian tales while infusing a more accurate (yet softly-spoken) Christian message in them. (Many of the original tales show a distorted/works-based view of the Gospel, in my opinion.) There is okay humor and fun cultural references, too (mostly geared towards juveniles, but some gems only adults will catch). Recommended.

Rating: A

Excalibur

Today's review is of the 2026 release, Excalibur. For 2-8 players, it takes 20 minutes.

Overview

In this party game, your goal is to become king of Avalon by possessing the legendary Excalibur sword when the game ends. But you must be cunning . . . for thieves and other characters abound who also yearn for the blade. Do you have what it takes?

Excalibur is a chip-based game. Two of the game's three swords—Excalibur and the Cursed Blade—are set aside at the start. Other chips are randomly chosen and added to the initial pool to equal the number of players, all are shuffled and secretly handed out (so each player has one to start), then each player draws chips from any region (there are three) in Avalon so that all players start with four chips. The game begins.

The three regions of Avalon; image from here

One player starts with the crown. All players secretly choose one of their chips, hold them in their hand, then reveal them simultaneously. The starting player goes first and the chips are resolved in clockwise order. Each chip has a role and ability on it; generally, these allow you to draw chips (from Avalon), steal (from other players), swap (with chips in Avalon or other players' hands), and so on. The game comes with a reference card that clarifies each role.

example chips; image from here

the rules and role references; image from here

As chips are used, they are trashed. Once all players have resolved their chips in a round, the crown passes clockwise, players draw back up to four chips, and the next round starts. Play continues until one or two regions in Avalon are empty; then the player with Excalibur wins, the player with the Cursed Sword loses, and the player with the Squire's Sword shares the win *only* if they are adjacent to the player with Excalibur.

Review

This is a fun and fast party game. Almost like hot potato inverted; you want to end up with the sword when the music stops. Chances are, you'll be able to figure out who has it at some point in the game, and chaos ensues as each player scrambles to get it. The chips have some fun abilities on them, and enable players to steal, swap, or even put the sword back in the middle. As you can keep shuffling your chips, even players who steal from you might not get what they want . . . it reminded me of the "where's the baseball" game at Camden Yards, where the ball is hidden under one crab and you try to track it as it is whirled around the screen with other crabs. The Arthurian theme is just pasted on (unfortunately), but this is still a winner.

Rating: A

Replayability (GDJ 6)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray

It's been almost six years (!) since my last game design journal post. But my dream of making a game some day remains, and 'never stop starting'. Today's post looks at replayability, with a simple thesis:

A good game has high replayability.

Okay . . . so what is replayability? A starting point: a replayable tabletop game is "a game that is enjoyable even after many plays." What makes a game enjoyable? As I explore here and here, that is based on some mixture of meaningful choices, chance, and challenge. Through that lens, I would define a replayable tabletop game as "a game that consistently presents players of all skill and familiarity levels with an engaging and enjoyable challenge." 

Why does replayability matter? It is perhaps easiest to describe this through looking at the antithesis. A non-replayable game is one easily solved—where there is one obvious path/strategy to victory, and once a player gains enough familiarity with the game, must choose that path/strategy if they care about winning. In short, a non-replayable game does not present a challenge after many plays, leaving players bored and looking for other options.

All games can be solved to some degree (veterans of a game will have an idea of which strategies are more effective), but in good games, the decision tree doesn't narrow much: there is enough 1) balance, 2) variation, and/or 3) skill required in execution that even veterans will have meaningful choices to make and view it as a challenge. I think it comes down to those three factors, which I explore more below.

Balance. By this I mean that the game is fundamentally sound and well-designed; there is no superior strategy built in (knowingly or unwittingly) by the designers that would narrow the decision tree from the outset. If a given strategy is more likely to succeed, it must be harder to implement. A silly example of a perfectly-balanced game: rock-paper-scissors. 

Variation. Many games use variation to boost replayability. Here are a few ways designers do this:

- modular boards (changing game board itself)

- unique player abilities (by being assigned a character, for example)

- different win conditions or objectives, randomly chosen before each game

- different ways to earn points

- common chance elements (shuffling decks, rolling dice)

- introducing expansions to add elements (and, in cases of Collectible Card Games, rotating older expansions out of legality, forcing players to use new cards)

Skill in execution. Think chess. There is no variation in setup or chance elements in that game—just pure skill. And it has remained a popular tabletop game for centuries. Just because you know how the pieces move doesn't mean you can play well . . . every board state requires a tremendous degree of analysis. You could argue that this is a subset of the variation category . . . but I think it merits separate contemplation, as the variation is caused solely by the movements each participant chooses.

Are there any other categories to consider for replayability?

If you love games, think about which ones have proven replayable for you and why. Or which ones have been 'solved' and left untouched as a result.

Building a Godly Home

This past weekend was an annual men's retreat. As is my custom, I summarize and post the talks below. The speakers this year were Bob, Geoff, Kendall, Wayne, and Edward, all speaking on aspects of what it means to build a Godly home.

Session 1: God creates the home

When we think about building anything, you need to know what materials you have. God tells us this in Scripture. In this talk, we look at three things that were true before the fall of man.

1. A call to radical optimism
• In Genesis 1:28, God commands man to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and have dominion. How can we possibly achieve this?
• Look at Genesis 1:27. God creates man in his own image, and it goes on to use a singular pronoun (created ‘him’) followed by a plural (created ‘them’). We are individuals within a plurality; God’s design for our home [or sphere of influence] is as an individual plus being with others in community.
• We should thus have a radical optimism on what we can build.
2. A call to humble realism
• Consider Genesis 2:19-20. There was Adam and all the animals . . . and no suitable helper for him. Before the fall, by design, we need help! We cannot do it on our own.
• It is easy for us to begrudge each other and grow weary of the other’s persistent imperfections, but remember that the people you are building with are image-bearers and need help. We also need to be humble enough to accept help—to embrace our own need.
3. We are utterly compatible
• See Genesis 2:18, 21-23. Woman was taken from man. Made in the same place, out of the same stuff, for the same purpose. Adam calls Eve “bone of my bone.”
• It is tempting to view man and woman as entirely different. Instead, appreciate and celebrate the compatible person God gave you. Look to unity of purpose, and not what divides.

Session 2: Sin wrecks the home

How did the fall of man affect building a Godly home?

We were created with a purpose and obligation to serve God. We were never intended to be free agents, but with our whole being, we were to consecrate all that we do as an offering to God, demonstrating we are not our own. We consecrate ourselves primarily through listening and doing what God says, and not considering alternatives to what God tells us. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3 and Matthew 4:4). This should be a joyful obedience . . . but man fell (see Genesis 3).

After the fall, our consecrated purpose and obligation continues (see Hebrews 11:4 about Abel). But we are now evil (and God remains holy). Sin crouches at our door and wants to rule us (Genesis 4:6-7). What hope do we have?

In order for God to dwell in our midst (which is the essence of truly building a Godly home), Man needs to be consecrated—set apart for God as sinless, or holy through purging of evil and putting off sin. And that is only possible in Jesus. Paul tells us that through our union with Christ, we have died to sin and raised with him to new life (see Colossians 2:12-14).

Through Jesus, God is accomplishing his goal of building a Godly home. We are sinless through the work of Christ, and God's Spirit now indwells us, sanctifying us from inside out. God is dwelling in our midst now, and will be building a permanent, more glorious home yet in the future (Revelation 21:3). In this present life, we are to make all our actions as consecrated actions, doing all things in His name (Colossians 3:17, 23-24) and through His strength (John 15:5). And it is through the Spirit that we can break the bond of sin (Romans 8:1-9).

Yet as we continue to struggle with our sinful nature (Romans 7:19-25), we recognize we are in a spiritual battle., where we need to "put off " the sinful, selfish nature and at the same time "put on" the new nature being re-created in us by God's Spirit working in us. This leads to seven practical steps we should take:

1. We must choose: will we worship God or worship ourselves?
2. Commit to live by God’s word, not our own sense of right and wrong
3. Realize the spiritual battle (within and around us) and decide what to do about it
4. Recognize our need for forgiveness and boldly approach our Savior for it
5. Commit to repent and live differently (Colossians 3:5)
6. Be bold, courageous, and lead speaking truth. Don’t give up, knowing God is working in and through you. He will complete what He starts (Philippians 1:6)!

Session 3: God redeems the home

Though man fell (see previous session), God had a plan to redeem him.

In Genesis 17:1-8, God establishes a covenant with Abraham (God always acts first), promising blessing and multiplying and to be his God. Though we rejected God . . . He didn’t reject us. He rescues us from our burdens (see Exodus 6:7), adopts us (Ephesians 1:3-5), and is with us now (Matthew 28:20) and will dwell with us forever (Revelation 21:3). He wants to be with us!

Have you ever taken count of your blessings? We are blessed in so many ways . . . and yet we have darkness and struggles. Idols dominate relationships. There is evil, death, and hardship. And yet . . . we are in Christ.

Jesus uses hard things to grow and help us. He is sovereign even over the darkness in our life. We are promised trials, but it is to bring about God’s good purpose (see 1 Corinthians 4:11-13, James 1:2-4, 1 Peter 1:6-7). “God wastes no pain.”

Jesus wants to be our God, and for us to be His people. He gifts/equips us (2 Timothy 1:6-7) and sanctifies us (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). He prays for us to be one with Him and the Father (John 17:20-23). Because of the redemption we have in Christ . . . the darkness will not overcome.

Session 4: We have a mission

The Christian life is not about yourself. We are commanded to go and make disciples (in and outside of your home). Consider how Jesus did so.

Read Matthew 10:1-7. Jesus appoints disciples and immediately sends them out to proclaim the kingdom of heaven, heal the sick, and more. That Jesus sends them out before being fully mature shows that their effectiveness (and ours) depends on the Spirit, not our competence, and indicates that we should not wait until we feel we are ready before we obey. (Indeed, one way to grow and fight our self-centeredness is to help others—see Philippians 2:3-8.) In doing this, the disciples learned 1) that they needed help (both God’s strength and each other) and 2) avoided hubris.

How did Jesus tell them to do things? To behave in a way that doesn’t impede the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 or 10:24).

What are we to do? To be just, kind, and walk humbly with God (see Micah 6:8). To visit the needy and keep unstained from the world (see James 1:27).

What is our motive? Love, without which we are nothing (see 1 Corinthians 13:1-7). Love involves doing good things and laying down our life for others, and when we do so, we are doing so for Jesus (see John 15:13-14, 1 John 3:16, and Matthew 25:31-40).

Our call is to outward mission. Our motivation is love, which we can model because he first loved us (1 John 4:19). When the journey gets hard, here are four meditational aids to help us remember that we are loved.

1. Be reminded of the creator/creation intimacy (see Psalm 139). We are known! The Creator knows me well and calls me his child.
2. Think seriously about how sin severs that relationship (see Psalm 32:3-5) and not being right with others can hinder our prayers (see 1 Peter 3:7). We need the greater affection of being with Jesus to take over to overcome our sin.
3. Reflect on examples (real or fictional) where people lay down their life for others. These stories can be flawed but powerful and pack an emotional punch, pointing us to what Christ did for us and demands of us (John 15:12-13). We should meditate on the perfect and real sacrifice of Christ until it moves us at least as much—the Lord’s Supper is for that purpose.
4. Remember a sense of belonging and our end (see Matthew 25:21)—entering the joy of our Maker!

Session 5: Building like a man

God created the home. Sin wrecked the home. God redeemed the home. We have a mission. So how do we build a Godly home? There are five pillars to consider, using 1 Corinthians 16:13-14 as the text.

1. Diligent Watchfulness
• Whatever flows out of our hearts flows into our homes. We are called to watch two things: our hearts (Proverbs 4:23) and for the enemy (1 Peter 5:8).
2. Firmness in the Faith
• Cultivate a hunger for the truth of God (Proverbs 23:23)
• Where does our time/attention go? Is it on knowing Christ and making Him known?
3. Courageous Masculinity
• We are called to be bold like the righteous (Proverbs 28:1). How can we? It is given to us/declared of us in Christ. We must therefore strive for bold, fearless action, avoiding fear, passivity, pride, and anger.
4. Active Strength
• To be strong, we need to recognize our innate weakness and sense of need (2 Timothy 2:1), modeling humble reliance on the grace of God.
5. All-encompassing Love
• Let all we do be done in love (1 Corinthians 13)
• “A Godly man must be all of love or all he does is all for naught.”
• “Love is biblical faith worked out in proper order.”