Card game RPG (Not an RPG card game)

[FlintlockMan]

I'm (as my post count and join date would indicate) new to The Forge, though I've done a little looking over the archives and what not. I'm also had no experience in Pen and Paper Rpgs (most of my experience with role playing games are with video games and systemless Forum Rpgs (i.e. no mechanics). I'm attempting to find some guys to play an actual RPG with in real life, but I haven't had much luck since I'm only in high school and I can't look around much.

This was really just a small idea that's been running around in my head. Essentially, this system is meant to allow the yu-gi-oh (the anime/manga, not the card game itself) style of play; 'I believe in the heart of the cards' and what not (BTW, if anyone here works at WOTC, please don't kill me ). There are four main attributes each character has; Flair, Luck, Resources and Belief, each has a base of 5 and you start with about 15 points to add accross the board. There are also a number of traits that points may also be spent on.

The game system works like this. You're attemping to reduce your opponent from X life (normally 100, though house rules may change this) via attacking your opponent with creatures (or dealing damage with spells) and they may block using their own creatures. Creatures have an attack and defense. Attack determines damage, defense determines how much damage they can take before they die, hand, discard pile, deck, yadda yadda yadda. There are also spells you may play that can change gameplay, or you may prepare spells by putting them on the field face down. Only one creature a turn, one spell a cycle (time between start of your turn and the start of your next turn) and you can only reveal a face down card once a cycle. Creatures may only be played during your turn. Start with 7 cards, draw one at the start of each turn. If 60 turns pass without a victor, its a draw. Mechanically, you start the game with seven 6-sided die(?) in the pool. Each die represents a 'play' or possible card. There are three 'categories' of play; creature, spell and preparations. When you play a creature or spell, or prepare a card for casting, roll a die. If you're playing/preparing a creature, its total attack + defense is equal to the roll minus 1 times your character's luck with a cap of 3 times your resources, or;

(Attack+Defense=(Roll-1)xLuck where Attack+Defense cannot be higher than 5xResource)

Points may be removed from this to give creatures abilities, e.g. PC with 10 Luck rolls a 6, gets a creature with 50 total. They remove 20 from that to make the creature unable to be blocked, and create a 20/10.

Spells come in 4 flavours; Projectiles (Targetted stuff e.g. throwing fire ball at opponent's face), Global changes (Stuff that changes the nature of the duel e.g. Lets say a rain card that reduces power), Descriptives (Stuff that adds details to other cards, e.g. Card that adds attack power by giving the creature an increase in size) and Misc (Obviously stuff that fits into none of the categories, e.g. a win condition).

Whenever a play has a 1 for a role (as cliche as it is), the role fails and you 'fail to find' a card of the prescribed type. The die you just used is turned into 'filler'; something completely unuseable in the forseeable battle.

There's a number of other mechanics I thought of, but that's the basic premise and I don't really have time for much more tonight. Its meant to be affected by role play; i.e. you can't do something if you can't figure out a card that would allow you to do that and previously 'unimportant' things like creature type can be used later. As said, I'll explain more tommorow. Sorry if it sounds rushed/nonsensical, I didn't think it out that well.

[whiteknife]

Cool idea! I've toyed around with the idea of a card game RPG many times in the past, and although I never got anything that I would consider remotely publishable, I did make a couple versions that were playable at least.

So, are you going to be making your own cards, or using an existing game and adding on RPG elements? Either one could work, and there're advantages and disadvantages to both: if you made your own you'd get exactly what you want, but its harder to balance, more work, and lower budget (although google image search is your friend here for art, as long as you don't mind "borrowing" images without permission. On the other hand you could do an existing card game, but then it might be hard to make it into an RPG and of course actual card games cost money.

Anyways, good luck! I'd be interested to here more. And welcome to the Forge!

P.S. Nitpick: yu-gi-oh is made by upperdeck, wizards makes Magic: the gathering, along with other various card games that less people care about.

[FlintlockMan]

The players themselves are meant to make up their cards; they're not meant to be particularly serious or anything, but adding superfluous elements may come back to bite you in the ass, for example...

Player X: Making a Creature play
Player X rolls a 6 with 12 luck and 8 surpluss.
Player X's character: Yes, I drew that new creature I got today. Let's test this baby out. I play THE GIANT PETROL CAN MONSTER
Giant Petrol Can monster is a 32/16 with no abilities.

Later

Player X is on 30 with only the Giant Petrol Can Monster

Player Y is on 10 with a Decrepid Zombie (14/8) and 1 set card (a booster spell that increases stats a total of 9)

Player Y's character: Okay, I'm on the ropes, that giant petrol can monster is too powerful for me, lets see if there's anything I can do... Wait a minute

Player Y: Making a roll for making shit up (making shit up is based off your flair, the score should be decided by the GM depending what it is)

Player Y roles a 6 with 9 Flair

Player Y's Character: YES, I SEE IT! I play BODY OF FIRE!

And so on. I'll explain the other mechanics when I have time.

[Vulpinoid]

This strikes me as simply being a step removed.

Like reading film critiques, but never going to the movies or hiring a video/DVD.

Or reading books about art but never actually seeing a painting.

Why create a game that emulates the play of cards, when you can just play the cards?

Why not just create a set of rules that allows players to create their own cards (balanced within the setting), then give them some blank templates that they can write their new card ideas on?

And if you were to come up with a system that lets players design cards, I'd actually encourage the use of superfluous details. These add flavour to the game and can often help to tie it in with a setting.

Just some thoughts...

V

[Callan S.]

That'd strike me as a really caustic comment on roleplay culture, to make a game that merely emulates playing a game rather than actually playing it...mind you, hackmaster basically went there.


Hi FlintlockMan,

Would you say that playing body of fire/whatever is done in the TV shows as a surprise twist of a larger story? Without that larger context it's kind of just fireworks, but not that firework-ey since its being said in words rather than actual graphics or RL physical objects?

[FlintlockMan]

Bleh... Haven't been focusing on writing the post, so I almost missed a post.

@Vulpinoid

Why emulate? For the same reason we only RP heroes/watch heroes on TV as opposed to seeing them fight crime in the real world; the world doesn't work the way it does in fiction. In the real world, you rarely get huge fads that every man and his dog are into AND last for any length of time. TCGs don't allow for special reactions (e.g. the Petrol Can and Body of Flame scenario). Its pretty rare that you'll get that really needed card you just added to your deck at exactly the right time (without being allowed to stack your deck). Many card games are very expensive hobbies since good cards can cost a pretty penny (mainly MTG), and of course, its pretty hard to add supernatural elements or an overarcing plot in real life... Unless you have some really weird house rules.

BTW, apparently superfluous details are meant to be able to influence the 'making shit up' mechanic (not sure of what it should actually be called ... Gambit possibly?) as well as when used as combo pieces once you've played them (explained later).

@Callan

As I said with Vulpinoid, its meant to allow people to play the 'idealized' version of a card game. In the same way that most other 'gimmick' premises (i.e. Crush gear, Beyblade, etc) have an animated series that involves the characters having long 'battles' with at least some strategy involved, whilst in real life take around a minute with absolutely none, the physical card games are distinctly different to the idea of them put up on the screen.

The weird plays in the animes are used to create tension by presenting a situation that is impossible to get out of using conventional stuff, then allowing the character to triumph using unconventional tactics. 'Thinking outside the box' to put it politely, 'Making stupid shit up' to put it dysphemically(?). I had the idea for an RP that allowed you to do this sort of thing without causing a degeneration into chaos (I never said the idea was good or well thought out; I only had it a few days ago).

@Nobody in particular

I'd like to get most of the mechanics out before I give up on this, so I guess I'll continue.
---

The 'Gambit' (Tentative) Mechanic: Remember when (in yu-gi-oh, obviously), Yugi puts his dragon knight guy on the turtle catapult and uses it to destroy that castle and crushing everything underneath it? If you haven't, its pretty much that. This mechanic is meant to allow things like that, and more. The sort of thing where you pull crap out that could possibly make sense if you divorce it from the concept of the game, and apply some twisted logic to it. Whether it be by combining different set pieces you control, or (like the petrol can example) using your own stuff to destroy/counter your opponents tactics. Flair level combine with die rolls are the way this is worked out (the number to be acheived should be decided by a GM depending what's being attempted; sometimes it'll be a no brainer 0, sometimes it'll be a complete failure of logic). Gambits may only be attempted using already revealed(cards that have been face up on the field for more than a turn)/named cards; no creation of cards straight for situations.

Combos: Kinda like the Precedent of a gambit. Combos only used named cards, but require no roll (as they've occurred before). Similarly to precedent in the real world, Combos only work if the situation is similar. There's no such thing as an anti-combo; if you fail a gambit roll, it means your character failed to connect the dots.

Named Cards: If you play a card, that card exists, obviously. Perhaps, if it didn't work for you, you put it back into your pool of cards, but often, you keep it in your deck, at least until you get something better. It then becomes a named card. Each deck may have a maximum of 30 named cards. Named cards may be used in gambits the turn they're played. NOTE: Having named cards in your deck doesn't give you a better chance of 'drawing' them. You still need to score equal to or better than its previous score used.

Signature Cards: After a while, if you keep using a certain card, you're PC becomes associated with it. Whenever you draw a card (not including your starting hand), you may roll to see if you draw your signature card. This requires a 6, but the roll does not affect your actual hand. Only 1 signature card per PC, but over time, that card may change. Signature cards must have at least 4 uses underneath their belts.

I don't think I've said all the mechanics, or fleshed them all out, but its too late, and my mind feels numb. Sorry.

[Callan S.]

I don't know what dysphemic means, but it's certainly faux thinking outside the box. It's just pretend lateral thinking.

What I was saying is this stuff only works in the context of a greater story. For example in a movie, hero guy is getting beaten up while the girl is about to be raped. And were all like "OMG, hero guy!!1! Beat them! Don't let her be raped! OMFG!" and then he pulls off this move and it busts ass and were like "OMG yes, that'd beat their asses!!!!1!! YES!"

But you know why we think that? It's not because it necessarily makes sense or is logical. It's because were all so damn invested in the girl not being raped we will believe in any damn excuse for it not to happen! We will engage is super duper suspension of disbelief, if it means she avoids rape. Because if you start to think about it clinically, you start having to stomich that she's just have been raped, with no mercy and no greater good that stopped it. And we don't want to accept something like that! Inside ourselves we shout out at a moral level that should not happen - and when that special move occurs we grasp onto that as the reason why it would not. THAT's why it works in the movies!

Now strip out that moral context - the hero's being beaten up and...he's just being beaten up. They're not even gunna kill him. Do we believe his special move works?

That's what you've got here with body of fire - special move with no moral context to initiate a suspension of disbelief. You might say that's up to the GM to write the uber story - but really everybody already owns a game where it's up to the GM in this particular way.

That's as I understand the issues of design. Hope I'm not just dropping this on you, as it actually seems to be (from my perspective) a wider problem in game design, where people go "Oh yeah, and then we shot the monkey cannon and backflipped onto the flying whale and it was awwwwwesome!" and I really think are you guys just working yourselves up so you can say it worked? I mean, my god, if it stopped the poor blind girl being killed, that's an awesome way to save that girl! But without some moral context, it's just colour and movement. No, it is not awesome. If you can actually do a backflip in RL, I'm impressed - but that you just talked the backflip talk in game - no, not awesome.

A bit ranty at the end. But useful bits in it, I'd say, all the same.

[FlintlockMan]

Yeah, now that I've had a few days to look at it, its kinda a flawed idea. I didn't really think about it that much in the beginning, too busy thinking about the sort of thing that could be done with the system; the stuff that's meant to be the icing on the cake.

[otspiii]

I actually think this could be a pretty amazing mechanic, but by itself it's a pretty weak system.  I wouldn't scrap it completely, I'd look for what else it needs to be complete.  Everything Callan said about moral context is correct, but that doesn't mean your system is doomed.  It just means you need to add moral context to the game.  The battles in shows like Yugioh are never just out-of-context battles, they're always tied into some out of game struggle between the two characters. 

I think the card battle could work really well as the capstone to a brief story.  Each session of play begins with a brief, almost ritualized, situation/story the player(s?) are introduced to and have to involve themselves in.  The characters find things they want to protect, moral/philosophical theories they want to defend, rivalries they want to resolve.  A quick DitV-type situation building framework could work well.  As the situation peaks in energy the climax, or card game, occurs.  The actions and stances you took earlier in the story become currency for granting you the upper hand in this battle, or by taking actions that mirror your own views you are granted bonuses.  The card game isn't a competition in a vacuum, it's a metaphor for your character's beliefs and your opponent's beliefs clashing for dominance.

All that would open up all sorts of other hard-to-resolve issues, of course.  How do you determine if an action is/isn't in line with the stances you took?  Would it have a GM?  How many players would it be designed for, and how do you keep them all busy?  How would you have to change your stats to incorporate non-cards play?  I have no clue off the top of my head, but I think it's worth still thinking about.  I love the idea of a bullshitting the rules roll.

[whiteknife]

Now that I understand (or at least now that i think i understand) generally what you're going for, I'm going to say that it's a pretty cool idea.

Also, as a counterpoint to all the people saying that such things on matter in terms of the moral consequences and story significance, I'm going to say that this isn't necessarily the case. I mean, actual CCGs are plenty of fun even without any shred of this present, so why can't your RPG be the same way? It might even be more fun since ideally your mechanics would allow for luck and last minute out-of-the-box thinking without relying on mastery of obscure rules situations and luck of the draw like in an actual CCG. Not to say that you can't have context to the battles, or that such a thing wouldn't be good (I think that it would definitely make things even funner), but I'm just saying that you should remember that a system such as this can definitely be fun in and of itself.

[sam]

I watched some yu-gi-oh once, and this sounds like a fun send-up of the structure of the TV drama juxtaposed against the real-life card game where such coolness can't happen.

Consider: bonuses for stupid melodramatic monologue right before you Make Shit Up.

Consider: bidding war. Some sort of out-bidding at game outset, where you get to set ridiculous stakes for the "game". Like

"As you know, when I win the Demon Gate will be opened and the Greatest Giant Evil Ever will stalk the earth!"
"Ah perhaps, but consider this: tell yo mama I'll be by at eight!"

Or something.





Seriously folks, moral context? What? This game is clearly about flaming cadaver zombies.

[whiteknife]

Seriously folks, moral context? What? This game is clearly about flaming cadaver zombies.

This is exactly what my above post was trying to get at, only put much more succinctly.

[otspiii]

I'm not sure if moral context are the best words for it.  I think context might be better, by itself.

You're replicating a card game as a RPG.  By changing the genre of game you encounter new strengths and weaknesses you must take advantage of/compensate for in order to really make the system the best it can be.  Another way of looking at it is to say that your desires for why playing this game will be fun should determine all the rules for the game.  It sounds like one of the reasons you think the game will be fun, and the main reason this is a RPG and not a card game, is because it encourages creative and awesome bullshitting.  The thing about creativity and awesomeness is that they only mean anything when constrained by pre-existing limitations.  If you can say absolutely anything then no matter what you say, it will be meaningless.  Something is awesome when it's unexpected, but still within the realm of possibility.  If you're playing in a serious realism-themed WWII spy game and the final boss turns out to be a dinosaur with laser beams for eyes it's not awesome, it's just stupid, since it's completely outside the realm of possibility.  However, it has to test the limits of possibility, which is impossible if there are no limits of possibility.  Maximum awesomeness is achieved when you don't expect what's coming until it happens, but the moment it does you slap your forehead because OF COURSE, WHY DIDN'T I SEE THIS COMING?

If the game isn't about anything and is just a battle between arbitrary cards there can't be creative awesomeness because there are no limits of possibility to test.  However, if the game is about your ability to trust your friends vs your opponent's strength drawn from solitude and your cards combine their power to unleash a magnificent teamwork attack as a metaphor for the power of friendship that can, if well done, be awesome.  If they get a small mechanical bonus for mirroring your beliefs all the better.  It doesn't necessarily have to be moral, you just have to be fighting for a reason.  Once you have a reason, a context, your descriptions can mirror it.  Without context your describing a baddass zombie kung-fu Jesus on fire or whatever isn't awesome because of the game; if you and your friends were just sitting around in a circle taking turns saying the most badass things you could think of it'd be exactly the same level of awesome.

It's not to say that you can't have fun or awesomeness without context.  Card games completely without are fun, and awesome feats of strategy or occurrences of luck, but the big strength of RPGs is context.  If you're making a RPG you really might as well take advantage of it.

Also, as far as luck of the draw goes you're really just replacing it with luck of the roll.  The flavor is slightly different, but it's still basically the same thing.

[JoyWriter]

If you can say absolutely anything then no matter what you say, it will be meaningless.

A friend of mine gives the lie to that statement, as I can always "win" his freeforms by busting out some ridiculous choreography or inventing some new creature. The trick in his case is to make it both unexpected and slick, in his estimation, like a knee-skidding dual-sword spin or a piranha-hyena! I could say anything, but because what I said joins up a new set of ideas in his head, it's awesome. I imagine it like this; however wide the limits of possibility, you will always think they are a little smaller than they are, just because of the limits to what you can imagine. But if one of the other players starts going "beautiful mind" and inventing patterns you never thought of, well that's exciting; you've just expanded your imagination.

The whole "dinosaurs with lazers for eyes" thing is not awesome in general, because we did it when we were 8. But many people are not that creative, or have gone of in different directions with their imagination. So even in a game like this, you can still have a lot of fun just inventing rules to justify your actions.