Card-Based Resolution

[Jay]

I was aware of Changeling 1st Ed... I am a predominantly WoD / Storyteller player/gm.. however, from my experience the "system" of Changeling 1st Ed had more to do with it than the cards.. what is your impression? Game or Cards?

That and perhaps the combination of dice and cards kinda adds "another" layer to things, as opposed to simplifying them?

[Vaxalon]

Everway didn't use its collectible cards for mechanics.

[M. J. Young]

Drawing from some of the interesting aspects of CCGs... I thought players might like to "build" decks to suit their characters.. ie: as a thief, I might want more tumbles and sneeks etc... but as a mercenary brawler I just want to SMASH! ;)

It's not a bad idea, but it is a difficult one. I hope I can elucidate a complicated problem inherent in it.

CCGs tend to be very gamist, to the point that some attribute the rise of the popularity of narrativist play to the exodus of gamist players into the CCG ranks. (That's not demonstrable, and I don't agree.) This is because such play is often both strategic and tactical--both deck building and card play are important in winning.

In CCG design, cards have to be carefully considered so as not to "unbalance" play.

The problem you face in a design as you're proposing isn't that it wouldn't work, but that you would have to put a lot of consideration into preventing one strategy from being clearly dominant. It's fine to say that one player likes to smash things while another prefers tumbles and sneaks, but if one approach consistently works better players are going to discover that and take that course to the exclusion of the others.

There are two "simpler" ways of handling this problem.

One is to make all the cards mechanically identical, with the difference being strictly color. Thus a parry and a tumble would have the same mechanical effect, a thrust and a backstab also, with no real difference in how they worked mechanically but different descriptives in play.

The other is to carefully balance each category of character type so that they were particular strong against each other. A fighter type is powerful against a thief, a thief against a priest, a priest against a wizard, a wizard against a fighter, or some similar arrangement.

Even with this, if it's not a requirement that players restrict themselves to cards that fit their character concept, you'll get best cards and best card play combinations emerging, probably in unanticipated ways.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

[Jay]

Thanks M.J....

You raise some very interesting and valid points that I have in fact been grappling with.... and I believe you have related some solutions I have been pondering...

I am going to propose my idea and would like very much for your (and others thoughts):

1. My premise is that the "actions" that the cards describe... "Thrust", "Tumble", "Left-Angled Parry" etc... are suppose to "facilitate" the narration of a combat scene.. meaning that "rewards" (XP, advancement whatever...) might be more tied to the "story" that the cards help create, rather than on simple results.

As such, my first thought was to have most cards mechanically the same. So I very much was glad to read your suggested solution of the same nature... it "validates" my own thoughts I suppose ;) So thanks!

In truth, there may only be 6 "True" attacks, and 6 "True" Defenses, and 6 "True" dodges, for a total of only 18 "True" actions. But there may be a greater number of descriptive "flavours" (Canuck alert).

2. Class balance... this might not work "for me" as I wasn't planning on classes.. I actually dislike class based systems.. I prefer attribution based.. meaning.. everyone in the game has the "potential" to use magic for example.. its just a matter of training, talent, etc.... there is no "mage" class, or "fighter" class... but thats just my preferences leaking into the system ;)

3. Gamist, strategy and tactics... I suppose if you eliminated all of the narrative facilitate crap ;) it could boil down to a simple gamist game... if thats how someone wants to play, then I cannot exactly stop that... other than to stick to my "facilitation" mantra ;)

But I think that strategy and tactics are part of the appeal to cards... it adds an extra element to pure randomness I think... which is very true to combat in many respects... there is alot of subtle strategy and tactics in a duel.. why not try to add the same "feel" to the system?

I look forward to your comments!

[Jay]

Oh.. on another note.. I didn't think that the game would be fully "player" built decks.. I think as with chargen, these things need to be negotiated with your gm to make sure the deck suits your character as appropriate... why would you have a ninja death deck if you are a scotish highlander and spent your entire life in the highlands and don't even know what a ninja is?

[M. J. Young]

Oh.. on another note.. I didn't think that the game would be fully "player" built decks.. I think as with chargen, these things need to be negotiated with your gm to make sure the deck suits your character as appropriate... why would you have a ninja death deck if you are a scotish highlander and spent your entire life in the highlands and don't even know what a ninja is?

One answer might be that those are the only cards you have.

That's more a distribution matter--how do people get the cards in the first place? Are there three thousand cards in the box, with the most popular moves triplicated? Do people buy small starting decks and booster packs trying to get the cards they want? Do you sell Scottish Highlander decks, Ninja Death decks, and so on? You clearly want some customization of characters based on deck construction, but giving the players access to the appropriate cards is a technical problem. (It's probably one of the obstacles to special card based systems--you find you must limit the kinds of cards you use to what you can reasonably distribute.)

The limitation to six types of each of three categories of cards, varied by color outside that, sounds workable. I'm torn between thinking that it's too complex and that it's too simple, so it must be about right.

The reason I think it's too complex is that somehow you would have to indicate on each card how it interacts against the play of any other card, including perhaps itself. Of course, you don't have to do this if in addition to the "color" of the variant there is an identifier (like suit and number) which tells you how to resolve it from the chart--if Attack 3 is played against Dodge 5, this is the outcome. That simplifies your cards, and maybe your resolution, but it also makes the mechanics a bit more transparent, in which case you're going to have to put a lot more work into working out the balance between the eighteen cards. (Opaque mechanics tend to keep more players guessing longer, and so keep the mechanisms from becoming routine. I personally think this is one reason for the popularity of dice pools--no one can easily work out what the odds really are, but they still feel like they're getting better or worse as the numbers change.) So if you've got only eighteen "real" values, and you can tell by looking at the card which it is, the system may become too transparent and too simple.

But it depends still on the details.

If you're approaching the point where you're getting down to details, you might want to start something in Game Design. Let me know if you do, though, because I don't usually follow many threads there.

--M. J. Young

[calebros]

You can try it with the (now extinct) highlander card game.

A friend of mine attempted it, but he didn't carry the thing to the end.

[Doug Ruff]

Hi,

First post, so please be gentle with me...

Although it's nice to have custom decks for duelling, magic etc. the risk is that you can get locked into a single style of play - for example, if all your cards relate to swordfighting, it's hard to translate this into magic use or persuading an NPC.

However, you can get quite a lot of mileage out of a standard playing deck, and it's a lot cheaper too.

Some useful mechanics:

* Use court cards to represent special character attributes; for example, a sneaky character may have one or two court cards assigned to 'backstab' or 'escape', whereas a barbarian could have the same cards assigned to 'frenzy'

* Limit the value of a point card to the characters skill level in a particular activity.  For example, if my persuasion skill is 5, and I play a '9' card, it still only counts for 5.

* allow bonuses if you play a particular suit for a particular activity. Dragonlance 5th Age rules allow for this, to give an example

Anyway, I'm looking forward to following this discussion group.

- Tetsuki

[Vaxalon]

At a housecon at Clinton's house a LONG time ago I debuted a trading-based system for generating attributes in Amber.  Each suit was one attribute, everyone starts off even, with a whole deck of 52 cards, and people trade cards with each other in order to get improvements to their abilities.

The face cards were things like pattern imprint, trump deck, etc.