[BasiCCG] Writing up an open lisence Card Game

[daMoose_Neo]

I'm always doing this aren't I? New CCG stuff, always ^_^
My earlier discussions with Lee Valentine (Veritas) have led to some revisions of my POD card concept. I'm ordering some stock to do some tests on, we'll see what happens there.
In addition to that, I wanted to return to an earlier concept I had of a kind of CCG Co-op, which is what the Supers CG was supposed to represent. This time around, if the stock works, I could produce the cards myself, fairly cheap to boot.
The stock I have coming in is cheap enough that I could produce full 54 card decks for just over a buck. Less than two, including packaging and rules. Thanks to the nature of it, running the stock through a high-res laser printer, and my own software, creating one deck at a time is a breeze and randomizing is as easy as a click of a button. If I can sit down to do the work, I also plan on writing some code to determine rarity over a print run.

What I would like to do is work out an OGL-type card game, a game open to anyone to develop for and flexable enough that folks with their own brilliant card game concepts might be able to get in on the market with less development time and less investment. The lisence itself would involve its own provisions, so it wouldn't be true OGL, but other companies have done similar things so its not improbable that the lisence would be used. One provision would involve myself or another 'authorized' company/person to print any physical product, so as to keep the stocks similar enough, though the other aspects would be fairly standard (X Company owns and maintains the core of the game, offer is a non-exclusive, royalty free lisence to produce sets for the game, etc).

I've the framework, I think, of a game fitting a generic roll, using programming as the inspiration for the name, and some other aspects: Basic Card Game (Or BasiCCG being cute). It borrows mechanically from, of all places, Paper Mario, using just a very basic Attack/Defense for characters/creatures/etc and for a bit of a twist an Accuracy score/roll to determine if the attack actually lands (similar to my combat in Final Twilight).

Characters/creatures, of course they would be included!, would rank between 1 and 10 on Attack and 0 to 10 on Defense. Damage is a simple matter of Attack-Defense. The Accuracy would be a rating for attacks, a d10 roll less than or equal to the target, 0 always misses (so 1-9, or 90% accuracy at best).
Other features for combatants include Ranged and Airborne, to borrow my terms from The Supers. I'd like to use a battlefield grid of some kind, looking at 3 rows deep, in which these features would come in handy: Airborne could attack from anywhere to anywhere (They fly, whos going to stop them?), while Ranged could attack from anywhere to the front line. Holes in the line would make the slot behind it considered "front line" as well for purposes of ranged attacks.
Combat in my mind would be very console RPG-ish, as in I attack, hit or miss, deal damage, yay. You attack, hit or miss, deal damage, etc. Special abilties may allow a retaliatory attack though.

Otherwise, other cards in mind include:
- Actions, the spells of the game, give you cool effects.
- Items, an equipment or other kind of item given to the combatants for various effects.
- Battlefieds, changes the rules of the field kind of like terrain. Idea is one is in play at a time

- Conditions - These, I'd think, would allow for the most customization for designers. Players would reveal their conditions at the start of the game and these would determine how various aspects play out. For example, if you wanted a Pokemon esque match, a Condition might state that only one combatant could be on the frontline and only the combatants on the front line could attack. A Condition card could also include victory conditions, such as killing six of your opponent's combatants to win.
To reduce conflicts, I'd divide Conditions into Personal, such as victory conditions, restrictions upon self, etc. and Universal, such as the aforementioned front row restrictions etc. Conflicting Universal would be settled by something such as a coin flip or other basic decision making method. As most basic games play three rounds as it is, it would then be able to alternate between players then.

Turn orders would be very basic:
- Draw your card
- Play your combatants, items, etc.
- Attack

So, this is where I am. I'm really looking to get some discussion going on card game development here, see what kinds of things other people would like to see in a card game, hopefully spark some interest in supporting an open system for CG development. I'd also like to hear some about the layout thus far, see if anyone has any suggestions.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello,

I think its great you want to create a CCG. Do that first and see if anyone is interested. The problem with basic and generic games is that they are basic and generic. You really need a story and interesting setting to make a CCG attractive. Wizards did that with Magic and its a phenomenon. They combined simple rules, opportunity for complexity, exclusivity, learning curve (ignorance is not bliss), card rarity and great marketing to form an institution. Frankly, nothing will compare to this. Therefore, find a niche that attracts a very fanatical group of gamers.

Using dice with the card game is not desirable; well, that's my opinion. Relying on the external factor of randomness (beyond shuffling) is a smack in the face for the avid CCG player. Card players want to know they can beat their opponents with knowledge and practice. Just like chess and poker, its important for the game to support the player's goal. And that's usually to be the best player.

The card game should be an all-in-one game, easy to carry, set up and have enough variety that seeking out other players is necessary. Since cards are physical objects, their positioning is important. Flipped, turned, covering, exposed, juxtaposed, etc. Use symbols to set the rules for the next card played or for placement.

Cards can be a great aid for RPGs, but as a card game they don't quite form an RPG; and I've looked at all different kinds of card games. Card games are strategic and the role-playing is the social aspect of the game. You could make the game epic in scale and ignore the details of daily life. Leave the rope, torches and rations to the real RPGs. Give me symbiotic armor, legendary weapons and god-like powers. The color is merely that and will not affect game strategy.

Troy

[daMoose_Neo]

I think its great you want to create a CCG.

Wrote and published two, actually. This would be the third commercial endevour. Not to be mean, but I know a lot more than even the tip of the burg you touched and have applied several things to move past that direction.
And second, the advantage with generic games is, well, they're generic~ I could do a generic fantasy set, Bob could do something with transforming robots, George could do something with his cartoon characters~ Aside from that, you are right to a degree that games need story, but you also realize CCG players on the whole don't give a rats backside about the story right? The difference among Magic players between the high-tech Mirroden, the oriental Kamigawa, and what a number of people argue is the more classical Ravnica block is very minor. Story is important in marketing and designer inspiration, thats about it. To boot, individual authors and designers would be able to base their releases on their own story. The exact idea here is to craft a generic system so that someone with the idea and story could see it through~
Die rolling is actually one of the features from my first game, Final Twilight, people actually enjoy. You're right when it comes to Magic, but MtG's hardcore audiance typically won't touch anything else in the first place, so why in the world go after them? Instead, I go after casual gamers. Casual Gamers, as a rule, detest power cards, uber rare cards, and games that cost a small fortune to be good at, because a majority of the time it isn't how good you, as a player, are, its how much that dweeby little kid spent on his deck.
As for the last paragraph, pardon me, but I'm not seeing where it fits...it just reinforces what I was just saying about story & what not simply being a gloss. No remark or statement from me pertained to making a CCG RPG (which I detest the concept of, had that discussion years ago). I just do a lot of my plotting of card game design here as well my RPG design because the Forge is first and foremost a wellspring of innovation, first in design and then in publication, and is also where I know a lot of folks and can get good feedback and discussion~

[jeremycoatney]

I think its great you want to create a CCG.

And second, the advantage with generic games is, well, they're generic~ I could do a generic fantasy set, Bob could do something with transforming robots, George could do something with his cartoon characters~ Aside from that, you are right to a degree that games need story, but you also realize CCG players on the whole don't give a rats backside about the story right? The difference among Magic players between the high-tech Mirroden, the oriental Kamigawa, and what a number of people argue is the more classical Ravnica block is very minor. Story is important in marketing and designer inspiration, thats about it. To boot, individual authors and designers would be able to base their releases on their own story. The exact idea here is to craft a generic system so that someone with the idea and story could see it through~

     I agree, the story has little relevance to the majority of players, in fact most of them don't know a thing about the Magic story lines at all where I live.
     Actually this sounds like an interesting idea to me, I've never heard of anyone doing it before. How would you handle the developement by other parties? If someone introduced their own expansion with catchword abilities (like Trample and Flying in Magic) that aren't in the main version would they need to be amproved and then added to the central rules before the expansion was valid for play? Are there going to be a set of rules for developers of the game that will help with guidelines on this sort of thing?
     Lastly, are you going to include card sub-types or skills/attributes for cards? You know, things that don't do a bloody thing except under specific circumstances specified by other cards or effects? More importantly, if/when you go ahead with this where can people go to get access to the final rules?

[daMoose_Neo]

My Scheme (as that is the appropriate word at this time ^_^) is this:
- Make the Core Rules accessable in much the same way the d20 SRD/OGL content is, so the base core rules will be freely available, and developing for it will be free as well, again like the d20 program.
- Part of the usage of this core rule arrangement again echoes Wizard's d20 program, in that any potential publisher will need to register with me, basic contact information, site, etc. I'm also going to look at legal wording so that I can "restrict" this to publishers (which means I need some quantifiable but not uber restrictive terms to determine who is and who is not a publisher), not just Jimmy looking to be an uber badass.
- Part of the registration would also require that any print releases of the set be ordered through myself, when I can get this printing process worked out, or another person who has a similar arrangement to try and keep the stocks similar. I also imagine for the most effective support I'd offer a web storefront for all developers using the system, Lulu-esque type one-off printing, where a customer could log in and order a deck of Blabby Press's Blah deck, even though Blabby Press didn't actually order a run, just listed it to be printed one at a time. Booster packs I can do the same on.
- Because of the narrow window card games have as opposed to RPGs in the effectiveness of rules interpretation, we will need some kind of verifaction process to ensure the new sets aren't totally off balance. At the most, I don't see wholesale declining of sets, but some kind of tweak will need to be made. If you think about it, the power levels between Bumblebee (one of the weakest Transformers) and Legolas (A strong & capable elf) are vastly different, but could under this system meet face to face in combat. So we need some way to balance the two together AND within their own setting. Condition cards I see as the primary option in that respect. The one potential I see is a kind of GURPS-ish classification: Fantasy, Modern, Sci-fi, to accompany these. Thus, when a Sci-fi character faces off against a Fantasy character, the two are appropriately matched, while facing off against similar characters, IE two Fantasy characters, they are approprietly matched.
A set too distinct to be corrected with a simple balance as such could still see press and release, but potentially altered in a minor way so it can't be used with other sets. And some sets could be designed as such in the first place, just as some d20 material is designed to be its own game instead of interchangeable with generic d20 material.
As far as new additions, similar concept to d20 - material can be designated "Open Source" and usable under anyone developing for the lisence.
Yes, the documentation, like programming documentation, would include a lot of material to aid developers in making sound decisions to help balance. Using a generic 1-10 scale will make things slightly easy, as obviously the lower ranks are more for infantry type cards and the higher ranks are epic level. The mid range would need some serious attention though, as would card such as Actions and Equipment.
Requirements such as you mention would likely be designer implimented, and could indeed be a good control in the aforementioned balancing. Say "Proton Gun" is an attack for a Giant Robot, and its devistating against other robots. In a fantasy setting though, such a weapon may not impact the fleshies in the same way, as robots can be messed with electrically much like we can be messed with biologically. So Proton Gun may carry a note "If Target is a Giant Robot +4 Attack. Otherwise, +2 Attack.". More elegant wording/systemology would be welcome, but thats the gist. So, the lower ranking Bumblebee could still stand against other Transformers and not run rampant over someone like Legolas, who could stand his ground in his own right.

[JustinB]

Have you looked at the Munchkin cardgame series?
It's hardly at this scale of complexity, but they do a ton of different settings and they all work together. You just have to remember that Fantasy and Sci-Fi are flavor text, not "different power levels." It's why Magic cards all work together from different sets.

[jeremycoatney]

     It sounds like this has been thought out pretty well already, I've never played the aforementioned Munchkin card game series, but I think I like your idea better. It allows for a greater degree of complexity, and therefore variety and strategies. Besides, there really isn't anything to stop someone from writing some expansions that ARE written with their setting type used as mere flavor text that are balanced out with everything else anyway.
     I do wonder exactly who you are going to allow to develope the system. Could you give an example of what you consider to be a valid publisher? I consider myself to be a very small self-publisher, but obviously this might not make the grade.
     When you are ready to go to launch the project how will you let people know and how will they contact you?

[daMoose_Neo]

Yea, I have seen munchkin, and in action, it works pretty well at what it does. Its a bit more than flavor though. Munchkin has, thus far, kept things in scale- epic fantasy warriors, super heroes, supernatural menaces, etc. On the whole, they'll use the same power scale, and most of munchkin is tounge-in-cheek as it is so blatantly overpowered cards, or cards that are just goofy, are the norm.
Looking at my scale though, lets say you have an infantryman and you have Legolas- Legolas is going to be quite a bit better than the infantryman. If you look at Bumblebee and Grimlock, Grimlock is, combat wise, more powerful and quite a bit better than Bumblebee. Alright, that scale works - you have a base and you have mid range. In either, Sauron and Unicron could top the scales on the most powerful end. But, what happens when you start mixing it up? Bumblebee, by virtue of being a two story tall robot, is potentially more powerful than Legolas even, while Grimlock is stronger still. Sauron would still present a challenge in his own right, but what good is that against a planetkilling robot?
Using a setting as something more than flavor, to make some basic power assumptions, will go a long way to making sure each set works within itself as well as with others.

As far as publisher distinctions, here is what I DON'T want: people who are PRIMARILY players developing their own cards just so they can be cool. Thats about it. If you're developing a set for wide release and make fair use of the printing options or the single order options, awesome. If you're a kid designing uber-leet cards so you can best your buddies, thats a no-go. Thus, really anyone on the Forge here will have an easy time of it, as I know a lot of folks here and I know the vast majority are not only dedicated players and designers, but they're also self publishers, which is what this arrangement is designed to help. And, even the player issue might be put to bed if a player, or group of players, developed a competant, balanced set they want to share instead of a collection of power cards. Granted, I don't mind the occasional unbalance- its fun in its own way, you get a little bit of excitement, and a bit of a scramble to see who can get their hands on them~ If a set has one or two stand-out power cards, thats all well and good, but if I look and I see a set of twenty cards which are all incredibly powerful, thats bound to be a veto right there.

Tangical: A possibility is to literally use a scale, at this time lets say 0-2 (0 being your average fantasy character, 1 being your average modern character, 2 being a futuristic/sci-fi character). If you have Average Footsoldier (fantasy) going up against Average Military Joe (modern), Joe would get a +1 bonus across the board- better armorment, training, and weaponry. Against a Sci-fi character, The Sci-Fi character would get a +1 bonus against Joe (difference of 2 and 1) and a +2 bonus against Fantasy (difference of 2 and 0). Heroic characters, such as Legolas again, could carry a keyword (such as Epic?) that nullifies these bonuses: so Bumblebee could appropriately wade into an army of elves, while Legolas could still topple him. Grimlock would maintain sufficant strength against the likes of Legloas, but even he would have a fighting chance. Same with Sauron, though I still don't think a disembodied eye, no matter how mystical, could deal with the planet being eaten.

[David Artman]

I hit upon this notion:

...we will need some kind of verification process to ensure the new sets aren't totally off balance.

I suggest you look at the "king" of generic RPG systems, for inspiration: Hero (Champions). Now, I realize you aren't doing a CCG RPG; and that's not why I suggest Hero.

Rather, if you grok how Hero makes "Powers" and characters--using a points build system with a LOT of ways to tweak effects--they you are a long way toward this "balance" of which you speak. If I am not mistaken, in fact, Vampire: the Eternal Struggle's designer has such a "points build" system in place to help him create new cards for expansions.

Without going into granular details, you will basically make every effect, factional alignment, plus, minus, etc into a "cost" that, in turn, dictates what makes the play of that card "fair." In Magic, that cost system would dictate how many colored and colorless lands you need to assign to the card; in V:tES, it dictates the inferiority/superiority of the Discipline(s) and blood or pool cost the card must have; in something like HeroClix, it dictates the point value of the figure.

THEN, you make a database-driven system that allows a card designer to assign effects and limitations to a card, and it kicks out the "cost," whatever that is in your generic system. Thus, if a submitted card is made with the database (and if you've done your job to cost balance all effects and modifiers), it is nearly guaranteed to be "legal" or "balanced."

FURTHER, if you set up the database to store each card as an individual record, someone could "print" a full set of cards from the db by just generating a report, which could be formatted for your print provider from the get-go (PDF, whole 121 card sheet, backings, art, etc). That someone would be YOU, of course, if you are to maintain your position as owner of the IP and sole producer; but you could also REALLY "open" it up and let anyone print any report at any time--full set, subset, their own "test cards," a particular deck they want to try... sky's the limit, if you can make good Queries and Reports.

HTH;
David

[daMoose_Neo]

Tried point based card design at one point. Granted, it was kind of limited in scope...start working some stuff up here and might see that work out a bit better...the database checking is actually a pretty sweet idea, didn't hit on that myself...and I'm halfway decent at coding via VB (which handles databases quite easily as well), so a program w/ print & export functions isn't impossible...hmm...thanks for the train of thought David ^_^