The Supers CCG - Duelist 1st!

[Veritas Games]

More choices for a game which is still really simple is important.

Sorry, Nate, but your original version of the game has almost no tactical options.  Why?  There are almost no choices.  You just activate whatever is in front of you, and you have NO choice about whether a card you stacked automatically gets played.

The biggest option: choosing which 6 cards you play, which you lose out on if you buy this as a pre-constructed pack.

I think your core concept is viable.  It's interesting to have two supers go man-to-man against each other.  Definitely a good option for co-op game design.  However, to go co-op, the game has to have replay value.  You don't want to play once or twice every time you spend $2.

Choices about resource management and revelation that I have recommended move the game from almost no tactics to a little bit of tactical play.

Not sure how much of it I want to adapt.

Quite up to you, sir.  I won't lose any sleep if you don't use my suggestions, since it's your game.  I'm just trying to participate in the thread and get others interested, 'cause this is the 2nd time you've started such a thread and almost nobody has responded.  I think it's an interesting idea (to form a game co-op) an I support it.

Keep one thing in mind -- you can play by the rules I wrote and still pretty much play the way you prefer, by just automatically taking every opportunity to add a Resource and flip it face up.  The reverse is not true.  I can't take your simpler rules and get the tactical options I want.  That's why I re-wrote the game with tactical options which were just that -- options, since you can always revert to your preferred method of play.

The goal of the game is to wrap up in about 5 turns, which the current setup does admirably.

Why?  What is gained?  The game is over in the blink of an eye anyway.

A typical game, even the way I wrote it up, will probably play through in under 5 minutes.  I personally see almost no reason to make a game that has any re-play value at all take less than 5 minutes to play.  For the game to have any replay value it simply must have some in-play options that aren't inherently obvious.

Some of the rules I added are needed just to answer core questions (about Copying, for instant).  As is, it was unclear whether Shapeshift fizzles when there's no power in play to copy, whether you pick what you want later, etc.

I need to update the rules a little more -- I forgot that simultaneous elimination of opponents is basically possible (courtesy of Radiation manipulation).  Your rules didn't address that, and my version didn't either.  Oops.  And I need to address what happens when you copy cards of an opponent who gets KO'd in multiplayer play (to make it clear that your copies stay copied).  I'll upload this fixes in a minute.

I'd strongly recommend you field test both sets of rules and go with whatever has the most replay value.

Lee -
Actually, Seismic Wave isn't abused as badly as you believe.

It interacts really poorly with 2 cities in play.  Combined with the Radiation Manipulation and after you and your opponent have each taken a turn it's highly possible to add 1 counter for the seismic wave itself and 2 more if it does damage (if two cities are in play).  If your opponent attacks you and you have Radiation Manipulation, then you add 2 more for the cities for the damaging attack. Then you add 2 more for the damage off the Radiation Manipulation.  That's 7 counters being added between your turn and mine.

There are hundreds of ways this could play out, but in general, I found that with two cities and the radiation card in play that the thing just builds up counters at a silly rate.  If your opponent copies your seismic wave it adds even more counters into play.

I think if you play my version you'll find that the game lasts 8-10 turns and has substantially more  tactical options.

Your game, sir.

Regardless, I wish you luck on the co-op, and you can free to use anything I offered up in your own production of the game.

[daMoose_Neo]

I might be wrong but I do detect a *little* 'tude...I do want to say, I honestly do appreciate the assist and am going through your proposals. I promise, I'm not just being courtious and giving you lip service ^_^

Theres also a touch of miscommunication me thinks on one part: The system being co-opted is NOT the Supers, but the "Duelist System" in general. Its like a d20 type arrangement: d20 is NOT Dungeons and Dragons, its d20, D&D happens to be the 'shining example' of the system. My co-designer on this has a Magic-like game with its own rules on card-playing and strategy options.
Packing is *not* intended to be preconstructed, but a more traditional random assortment with considerations for like the Alien, who cannot use Gadgets.

I'll do two things: A) Post some test results on both designs, B) Post a 'spoiler' list of the initial set. My mix may have been a bad choice, grabbing what I could, but my arrangement does work out.

[Veritas Games]

I might be wrong but I do detect a *little* 'tude...

Nah, my blood pressure is pretty low on this, Nate.  Sorry if it seems otherwise.  If I were hostile, I wouldn't have put in work and tried to drag Greg into the discussion.

Like I said, I won't have time to participate much in the long run, so I'm just trying to give you some feedback and hoping that someone else will chime in.

I think it's a shame that you tried this thread twice and got no responses but me and Greg.

I just tried your original Supers game, and the tactics were VERY limited, since there were no choice about playing cards.  I've rarely seen any customizable card game where you had to play every card you drew, even if it was bad for you.  I think that's bad for the game.  The rest of the rules weren't so much rules changes as they were plugging in holes -- your game raised lots of questions with no ready answers, such as "If there's no Power card in play and Shapeshift comes up, does it fizzle or can you save it for later?"  And, "if the Alien damages the Mutant, and both started at 1 HP, does the Mutant lose, or is it a draw because the Mutant has Radiation Manipulation?  What's the timing?"


So, I think you have about an 90% great idea for a game, with 10% of bad.  The 10% bad needs to be carved out in my opinion.  Your mileage may vary.  And it may just be a taste issue -- my taste in games may differ from yours.

I am a bit confused as to how much of your Supers game is the "Duelist" system.

You'll probably need to excerpt the parts of the rules the compose the core Duelist system and have a system reference document saying, "you'll need these core elements to call this a 'Duelist System Game'."

My co-designer on this has a Magic-like game with its own rules on card-playing and strategy options.

I'm sort of baffled.  I presumed there would be a fairly core set of rules, with just a few alternate rules for each implementation.

I'll do two things: A) Post some test results on both designs, B) Post a 'spoiler' list of the initial set. My mix may have been a bad choice, grabbing what I could, but my arrangement does work out.

Cool.  If my modifications fail, then they fail.  Like I said, just trying to chime in.  Even if you don't like my change in revelations and resource management, look to the other rules I added, since they fill in holes in the rules.

Take care, Nate.



Your mix wasn't bad at all, at least not with my variant, since you could choose not to reveal a given card.  Both decks seemed to have a good mix of cards.  They were just the kind of cards that you wouldn't necessarily want to reveal against THAT specific opponent.  But you might well reveal those against other opponents.

Like I said, I think that overall, you've made good progress.

FYI -- your Final Twilight website still has broken links for all the free character downloads.

[daMoose_Neo]

Re: Twilight - Argh!

Re: Core Rules
Yup, there are a set of core rules, mostly regarding the structure and packaging. Beyond that, its a pretty open-ended system.
"Element", as is known by the working title, is set up using the traditional four elements. Cards recieve modifiers based on your opponent- Fire recieves a reduction to damage against water attacks, but will deal more when dealing with a wind element.
The Supers is Duelist for the most part in the arrangement (Core character in play at start, 5 card "Supply" deck, flip to play), but the genre (Super Heroes) affects many more portions. Supers has, well, Supers, Gadgets, Powers, Tactics and Places while the monster-battling system Genetisys has the Genome and Advanced Forms, Manuevers (Attacks), Items, and Conditions.
As to needing a "Core" document, thats already an accepted part of the design, mentioned it a couple times earlier. Twould have the core rules, as well as additional material on adapting other mechanics or features for use in the Duelist System.

Will say, after some tinkering around, not so sure about using the revelation mechanics as a whole, but a similar ability works as the character ability for the Mystic Super-card for one of the next sets. Good chunk of the 'rules' though do patch some of my holes, so thanks for catching those ^_^

As for discussion: can't say I'm all *too* surprised. Greg, you and myself are about the only regulars with any kind of sustained interested in the CCG market. Most the CG types are breeze-in, breeze-out posters. Figured hammer out some particulars here, as the Forge is a LOT more level headed than elsewhere, and then take it over to RPG.Net to try for some more development and probably pick up some interested parties.
Will get back with the PT info ^_^

[Veritas Games]

Will say, after some tinkering around, not so sure about using the revelation mechanics as a whole

What is it that you specifically dislike about it?  As I said, your method of play is a subset of that rule -- you just affirmaively choose to always add a Resource and Reveal it.

My method also cleans up some questions about copying cards, etc., that otherwise need substantive answers missing from your rules.

Good chunk of the 'rules' though do patch some of my holes, so thanks for catching those

Cool.  Like I said, feel free to filch them if you want.  I'm trying to help you out, not interfere, Nate.

Most the CG types are breeze-in, breeze-out posters.

I think you are better off giving time to your CCG how-to guide or developing your system, than to trying to build a co-op.  The co-op will be MUCH easier to sell people on once you have a decent distribution flow of your Supers game and others based on the core rules, Nate.

Will get back with the PT info ^_^

PT?  Playtest?

Don't forget about your Final Twilight links.  All links to the sample characters and one or two sample locations were all toast.  

I frequent your site, because of the up-and-coming indy designers, I hope you make something of yourself, Nate.  Both of us are also kindred spirits in the sense that we want to produce customizable card games without spending a million dollars doing so.  I'm glad to see that Greg's on-board with making his own CCG.  Greg's one of my favorite designers -- I think he's wildly underrated in the gaming industry.

Have a good day.

[Veritas Games]

Nate, if you want to be able to edit the rules, I ported it from my page layout program to MS Word.  I'm visually impaired, so it could contain errors.

The file is at:

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/supers_rules.doc

[Doug Ruff]

Hi Nate,

I've been meaning to post to this thread before, but I had a birthday, and then I went on a business trip, and ... you know. Suffice to say that I've been following this with great interest.

Thanks also for sticking your neck out and publishing some actual play sets of cards, this helps a lot with understanding what you're aiming for here.

I hope the following serves as some useful feedback:

- I'm very keen on the basic setup for distribution, and especially the way in which no shuffling=longer card life=less production costs. However, how easy is it for the cards to get worn or stained through use? Because that's going to make it hard to play the game if it's based on random selection of powers. It's a lot easier to tell which card is which from any marks on their backs, if all the card backs are showing.

- It's already been mentioned, but I think there's a problem with long-term playability as the game stands. This is largely down to lack of strategic options: at any given moment, it's relatively easy to decide what to do next. This is also where the lack of cards starts to hurt: after the first game, you know exactly what's coming, even if you don't know what order it will arrive. This eliminates one of the major considerations in other strategic CCGs, which is do I rush or do I bide my time?

- Personally, I'd like to see this dealt with by adding more complexity and allowing for either more turns or more detailed turns. For example, I'd like to see more cards with a choice of actions, more defensive cards, maybe even some alternative pacing. What gets added is less important than whether something gets added or not.

- Although the rubble idea is cool, it has serious consequences for the metagame. If your opponent doesn't have a deck that uses rubble, this puts him at a severe disadvantage. This is less of a problem with 60-card random decks than it is for 6-card fixed decks: the same applies for cards which "hose" a particular power (such as the Bind Device). Having one worthless card out of six is a real problem (although this is mitigated by being able to use it a a resource for the other cards... but this requires more cards that require multiple support cards to activate.)

- One major rules question. How many attacks can I make in a turn? As many as I have resource cards to fuel, and a Basic Attack? As many as I have resources for, or a Basic Attack? Or just one attack per turn? Does the Sidekick give me an extra Basic Attack on top of the above?

Hope this is useful and not too annoying - especially as some of the stuff I'm asking for may not be what you want for the game yourself. If it's too far off the track, then maybe we can talk more about the actual distribution and logistics instead.

Regards,

Doug

[daMoose_Neo]

Hehe -

I was hoping for more of a logistics discussion, but may as well strike while the iron is hot:

- Game is 36 cards, packaged in 6 card packs, randomized, *not* fixed. I tossed some up so folks could check it out.
With a couple packs, its not all that difficult to swap cards out between matches, like Magic players do for sideboards.

- In terms of long-term playability, I have to admit this is *not* a goal. I'm kind of operating on extremes of the bar here - Twilight games easily last 45 minutes or so, especially if the players are locked on defeating each other - I recall one event, the final match (one round only!) lasted two and a half hours. Given that the "sweet spot" of CCGs is 15-20 minutes or less, and most casual Magic games as of late (least wise around here) play as quickly as a version of Supers can, thats A LOT of time.
Basically, Supers (and the system concept in general, though proper design can delay the game) is a beatdown game. Its not neccesarily about whos the better stratagist as it is a fury of luck + muscle. Over the course of several games, easily played back to back, victory can sway, its not as though there is one clear and decisive choice.

This is also true of one other field: game *size*. As noted, this first set is 36 cards, with at least two expansions of 18 hot on its heels after release. Sets will be small, I personally prefer that (Hell, I release 9 card series of Twilight at a time!). Supers will run its course a lot faster than most games, and to me thats fine. Duelist System games in general are going to be geared to be short run series, playable and replayable. This isn't an investment in the future, its a game. Collectable to a degree, but not an investment.

- In product terms, yea, that is a drawback that the cards can be more easily damaged or marked. Normal wear, they won't suffer worse than standard games, but in terms of marking by something else (surface stains, liquid spills etc), they will suffer a little worse. Thems the breaks, sadly.
Supers does employ a stack/draw pile, whereas the standard Duelist system doesn't. For its mechanics, it worked out better that way. Course, the cards are more easily stacked when you've got 5 cards you're dealing with.

And finally: one attack, dats it. If you have additional abilities (Such as Power Suit allows like 3 different options: Gain Airborne, Attack, Prevent damage), you may activate those at any time as well.
BTW, prevention exists in the form of Shield, the aforementioned Power Suit, three cards that grant Airborne, as well as whats coming up in The Bad & The Ugly sets.
Spoiler list will be posted post-haste, should help illuminate some more.

[Eero Tuovinen]

For the record, I don't know why it seems that hard to grasp Nate's design goals. I didn't even read any of his rules stuff, and I grabbed the idea of short matches, simple decks instantly. What I'm trying to say is that the game design principle looks solid - I could imagine making a good game out of that. A game doesn't necessarily need tactical width, you see; gamble and the strategy of building your deck are quite enough. When you can analyze the opposing deck, the game is already almost over, which seems like quite a good thing for a certain kind of gamer.

Perhaps I should download the example stuff and confirm that I'm actually understanding what he's doing ;)

As for the co-op idea: I must have missed the post where the whole deal was laid out coherently, or otherwise it's still brewing. Nothing wrong with a CCG co-op in principle, even if I don't know enough about the printing realities of CCGs to know if the savings are worth the hassle. Is there any numbers?

[daMoose_Neo]

Eero - Nope, didn't miss a beat, tis still brewing. Looking for feedback on the concept in general, as noted in the first thread I posted, but this thread seems to have become an entanglement of System, Supers and Co-op production. Not that I mind it, its all good discussion, just I may split a place or two (or request that "Co-op" discussion move to the Co-op thread).

Proposal, in my mind, at the moment, is this:
- d20-style "lisence" to use the base system, modified to suit your particular needs (VERY modular system)
- Access to bulk-printed materials (such as packaging, rules inserts etc)
- You, yourself, can print through Ken's RapidPOD for the same rates, I'm not billing that as a "Feature" in as much as you could print less because, odds are, I myself will have runs going through as well other publishers
- Other offer to this all is, as I'm going to be doing stuff promoting the Duelist System and my titles in general, you can hop on a bandwagon with A) System recognition and B) Co-op like Advertising capabilities, such as an ad featuring 5 of the systems, not only to show them off as individuals but also illustrate the variety of genres and possible play styles.
- Distribution dealings as well. Granted, someone already here won't have a great need for that, but if I can present say 5 new packs for  the Duelist System to Jason Valore over at Key20, its alot easier than 5 new publishers going to any distributor they can with their lisenced system.

[Doug Ruff]

For the record, I don't know why it seems that hard to grasp Nate's design goals.

It isn't. But because the Duelist system is being put forward as a co-op venture, it's not enough for prospective partners to understand the goals, they've got to agree with them too.

A game doesn't necessarily need tactical width, you see; gamble and the strategy of building your deck are quite enough. When you can analyze the opposing deck, the game is already almost over, which seems like quite a good thing for a certain kind of gamer.

Agreed, but if the basic unit of sale is going to be 12 cards (6 cards for each player) then there is no deck building strategy available. I think this is important: the 12-card game has to deliver enough punch to encourage players to come back and buy more sets.

Question for Nate: if the distribution is random, how do you ensure that the game is playable from a basic purchase of 12 cards? I can imagine some combinations of cards that would not be playable (location cards, plus power duplicators and hosers, but very few powers). Yeah, players could keep hitting each other with Basic Attacks, but that isn't going to be fun.

Suggestion for Nate: If the base set is only 36 cards, why not sell the game as a "factory set" non-collectable game? If the 36 cards can be split into 6 sets of 6, and you have multiplayer rules, that's a 2-6 player game, fast and fun, all in one box.

[Veritas Games]

However, how easy is it for the cards to get worn or stained through use? Because that's going to make it hard to play the game if it's based on random selection of powers. It's a lot easier to tell which card is which from any marks on their backs, if all the card backs are showing.

Try card sleeves.

Although the rubble idea is cool, it has serious consequences for the metagame. If your opponent doesn't have a deck that uses rubble, this puts him at a severe disadvantage.

Not so long as the cards are balanced.  For example, if the cost of Seismic Wave was "X" and X" was any number up to the number of rubble pieces in play then it wouldn't be horrible, particularly if you change the City the way I suggested in my alternate rules (one rubble for ALL copies of the City, and in my errata I suggest that the City only add one piece of rubble no matter how many different types of damage are dealt in one turn).

One major rules question. How many attacks can I make in a turn?

The rules say ONE.

Does the Sidekick give me an extra Basic Attack on top of the above?

Told you this was confusing, Nate.  It's the way you wrote the card that's causing the confusion.

[Veritas Games]

In terms of long-term playability, I have to admit this is *not* a goal.

It should be.  Games with little or no replay value get bad reviews, and are not the kind of things that others will want to invest in, either directly or in the form of joining a co-op.

You don't want a game that lasts more than 5 turns.  You don't care about long-term playability.  Start caring or your co-op is dead on arrival.  Sad, but true, Nate.

Given that the "sweet spot" of CCGs is 15-20 minutes or less, and most casual Magic games as of late (least wise around here) play as quickly as a version of Supers can, thats A LOT of time.

Only some CCGs have that time limit.  Others have much longer (Middle Earth the Wizards, Jyhad, etc.).

I'd say if a typical game is under an hour then the game is suitable for tournament play.  Magic is played in hour matches of 3 games.

Its not neccesarily about whos the better stratagist as it is a fury of luck + muscle.

Then it's not much of a game.  It's merely a diversion -- like doodling.

My wife played, and she thought that my rules were better than the default rules because I added options and some tactics.  She also thought that the game would primarily appeal to parents of young children to help them learn to count.  That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of my wife.

Realize that almost all CCGs that survive at any level above subsistence have:

a) a tournament infrastructure and a more complex game; or

b) have a less complicated game and a 30 minute per weekday cartoon tied into the game

Over the course of several games, easily played back to back, victory can sway

Yes, Nate, but because of LUCK!!  Not skill.  Therein lies the problem.  The order in which cards pop up in the samples is HUGELY important, and entirely a matter of luck.

its not as though there is one clear and decisive choice.

Generally, within each game, there is.

Duelist System games in general are going to be geared to be short run series, playable and replayable.

Repeat that -- "replayable".  For a game to have replay value it has to be based on strategy and tactics more than luck.

Two of us have chimed in saying that the game is low on strategy and tactics and suffers some from the replay standpoint.  And I changed the rules not only to fill in rules holes, but to add a tiny bit of tactical play.  You were against it.  Doug also asked some of the same questions (like the Sidekick) that I asked about -- that's a sign of a card wording problem.

You've got a pretty neat core idea -- one super against another with a fairly deterministic set of cards.  That's novel.

You need to add real choices, resource management, etc. into the mix, Nate.

I disagree that having a limited number of cards necessarily is what is weakening the strategy of the game.  However, I do think that, no matter how many cards you have in play, you should have options, and inobvious options at that.

A "Supers" match could consist of playing a match of 3 games with 3 different "decks".  That will take care of the "knowing what is coming" part.  It will not take care of the "few options internal to a game" problem.

If you don't make some of these changes, Nate, then I'm guessing you likely won't develop interest in a co-op.

Keep in mind that Doug and I are friendly to your cause and we're saying some similar things.

[Veritas Games]

Updated my version of the Supers rules to include how to handle cards which are copying other cards.  I have Sidekick, you have Shapeshift, I have Seismic wave.  Your Shapeshift is copying my Seismic Wave.  My Sidekick copies your Shapeshift.  What happens to my Sidekick?  The rules now say.

[daMoose_Neo]

Lee-
You're kind of preaching the choir when it comes to what makes a game long lasting and enduiring. I've already come to the acceptance that I don't have the resources to launch either Cartoon Network's next big hit OR start forking out quarter-million dollar prizes for players. Hence, these things aren't a goal.
Its just like coming here believing that every attempt at an RPG should seek to be on level with GURPS or D&D- we can't for the most part, so its not a goal. I'm not aiming for the next Magic, I'm looking at the first Supers.

That aforementioned sweet spot isn't the "time limit", but what players are willing to play. Tournament times are going to be different than casual games, and two player casual games are over in a matter of minutes (unless you're playing against my Bounce deck. Then its an hour).

I posted the playtest information over in Actual Play- will concede, some cards need rewording, which they can and will see. However, the game plays out quite nicely, even with the card edits. The City, for example, is changed slightly so that whenever YOU deal damage, you get a Rubble piece. This slowed the card down enough it didn't get insane (At one point we had 11 rubble pieces). DJ, my partner on the project, isn't that keen on your suggestions either, primarily because Supers isn't intended to be all that tactical- its beatdown, pure and simple.

Doug-
Supers is a "Duelist System Game", but that doesn't mean that all Duelist games will play exactly the same. Just like not all d20 games play identically to d20. Designers are free to add or alter the rules, as Lee has done, to add whatever atmosphere or style to the game. It would appear Supers doesn't have the stratagy or tactical options either of you prefer- thats cool. Another Duelist game, or one of your own, can change that.

Doug, Lee -
Both of you have some good ideas and have been helpful.
Doug- not a bad idea on a factory set. One trouble is it partially defeats the distribution idea and impulse purchase, but could boost overall sales.

Final point- If we want to discuss the method of production, the Duelist System core concepts and the co-op idea in general, lets take it over to the first thread so as to avoid confusing Duelist with Supers. Otherwise, this is almost better suited to an indie-design thread at this point.