CCG - RPG hybrid system

[k2lu]

Hello, all. First post, just getting some ideas down for consideration. I've been poking around with the idea of a CCG - RPG hybrid because, well, I like playing CCGs, and I like role playing, and I think that there can be a significant overlap in that each deck a person makes in a CCG has a different feel to it, and a lot of people (myself included) build 'theme' decks that have cards that all support a central theme - lightning, defense, control, and so on. And really, building a deck of cards isn't so different from building a character - you need to have a goal before you can put things together, consideration is taken between individual elements, and the metagame is a large concern in specific choices. So I started putting thought into what to do.

I sat down and thought 'what do I enjoy about card games'. I like the actual process of building a deck. I like the hidden information of my hand. I like the randomness and chance being partly down to my deck design instead of a die roll. I like gaining more options every turn, and I like the way that simple parts become a much more interactive whole.

And I sat down and thought 'what do I enjoy about RPGs'. I like roleplaying, and giving that character a personality and style. I like accomplishing goals. I like having a reason to move from one point to another. I like building characters. I like being part of a team that works together.

Then, the things I don't like about CCGs. I don't like that not matter how flavorful a card is, it basically comes down to numbers. I don't like the purely competitive aspect. I don't like the lack of persistence between games.

And what I don't like about most RPGs. I don't like that in most games, the GM has infinite power and is only restricted by his own sense of 'fair play'. I don't like how complicated character building can get, when most systems tend to just come down to combat and whatever two or three out-of-combat skills the GM has decided are important in his game.

So, I'm working on a system that is:
   Simple. I want the central focus on character building to be the deck, but not the only focus.
   Fair. I want to limit GM power so that, while the adversaries are still a match for the PCs, they don't get the infinite power behind them to get them out of danger. Eliminating dice, and some of the randomness, helps as well.
   Exciting. Hidden information helps a lot here in card games. Since this is a system concern, rather than a setting concern, I need to make it fun to play.

Here's what I have so far-

First, the CCG elements:

Each player has a 60 card deck. They build the deck themselves from their own card pool. Cards have several attributes. First, the card types - physical, skill, and spell. Physical cards range from attacks to parrying to combat stances. Skill cards are mostly for out-of-combat conflict resolution, but all have at least some minor effect and also include the best 'counter' cards and the highest Chance Number (I'll explain later). Spell cards are magical effects such as healing, blasting, and counterspelling. Cards are restricted by a Character's Skill and Action Points - a character may not use a card with a higher skill requirement than he has, and each character has only a certain number of Action Points in a given turn (Starting at 2, going up as the character buys advancements). The GM has a 'Mishaps' deck, also 60 cards, with abilities like "Monsters go first this turn regardless of initiative order" or "Add another monster to the battle".

Then, the RPG elements:

Each player also has a character sheet. In designing a character, the player chooses a Major talent, a Minor talent, a trait, and a race. The Major talent is what the character is best at - one character might take 'Swashbuckler'. It determines starting HP, Hand Size, and other abilities. The Minor talent gives one or two abilities from a second class. The talents also gives a character an Advancement Scheme, which determines what skills they can raise and how many XP each advance costs (The minor talent typically gives one or two skills, the Major between eight and ten). A trait has a positive and a negative side. One such trait might be 'Heavy Handed', where a character is slower and more vulnerable to Counter Actions but does more damage on a hit. The race bit is fairly obvious - you pick a race, get a few abilities (mostly static) from it. Obviously equipment and the like are also important. The character's decklist is also noted on the sheet. Changing cards in your deck requires downtime

Conflict Resolution - Combat:

Each side draws cards equal to their hand size. The GM draws cards from a 'Mishaps' deck equal to the number of players. Each character (and monster) has an initiative score. The top card of each deck is revealed, and the 'Chance Number' printed on the bottom is added to the initiative score to determine the order turns are taken. The revealed card is put into the player's discard pile. Everyone then takes turns, going down the initiative ladder. Players draw a card, then have a certain amount of Action Points. They spend those to play cards from their hand. Cards do damage, heal, you know the drill. The GM plays Mishaps to add a bit of randomness - from making players miss attacks to the enemies summoning reinforcements and the like. The GM may use as many Mishaps as he wishes per turn, but only draws one at the beginning of each round - the players can run him out of cards quite quickly. If a player runs out of cards in their deck, their character is 'exhausted' and cannot act for the rest of combat - even if he has cards in hand. If the GM's deck runs dry, the enemies are defeated in a suitibly spectacular way. Hands and discard piles are reshuffled into decks when the characters are out of combat and have a few minutes to rest.

Of note is also Armor and Aura. Armor reduces damage from physical attacks, Aura reduces damage from magical attacks. Armor is a lot easier to get, but physical attacks are also easier to power up.

Conflict Resolution - Non-Combat:

The acting character draws cards up to his hand size plus or minus the difficulty of the task (A good lock might be at -1 or -2, so a character would draw fewer cards). If the character has the appropriate card to respond to the task (Disarm a lock or trap, a Dodge to avoid a trap, etc.) he succeeds. If not, he fails. Some tasks can be retried (Like the lock example, in most cases), discarding the hand and drawing a new one. The task will list how long it takes per attempt, and the consequences of failure. The DM does not usually draw Mishaps for Non-Combat situations, but it is one possible consequence of failure.

Explanation of some Design decisions:

Cards are balanced using Action Points and Chance Number. Skill just gives the baseline for how much a card of a given level can do. Cards that cost zero action points are very weak for their skill. Cards that cost a three or more (since characters start with two, and action points is the hardest stat to raise) are going to be very powerful. Part of it comes down to a tradeoff between cards as resource and actions as resource. Do you want to do nine damage with three cards and three AP, or one card and three AP? If you have a huge hand, the first means your actions are more versitile - you can fit in those three cards around other attacks to eat up all your action points. If you're topdecking, you want the best card you can get on the draw, and that means the one that costs 3 AP.

Chance number works similarly - the higher chance numbers tend to go on the weakest cards and cards that are about speed. If you've only got cards that eat up a lot of AP and hit the enemy like a bag full of trucks, you're going to see a lot of them get pitched for initiative, and you'll end up going towards the bottom of the initiative ladder.

The GM having a deck is a way to get him more involved with the game in a tactical sense. It also somewhat limits his power - while it's impossible to completely control the power of someone who creates the scenarios of play, it's more important to limit things in the scope of a single conflict. It means the players know more what to expect from a battle - some GMs I've had don't like to get rid of their NPCs, and so they hang onto them and always come up with some way to get them out of combat. When their ability to do so is limited by the cards they draw, rather than entirely by their whim, it comes down to outplaying him rather than being 'allowed' to off the baddie.

I apologize for the length of the post. I just tried to get my ideas for the system down without going too far into specifics, but I do so love reading my own text, lol.

[whiteknife]

I can't comment on the specifics, but I do think this is a great idea. I also like how you started by identifying what you want out of things- that's always an excellent way to start.

Personally, I've thought a lot about integrating CCGs and RPGs myself, so let me ask you some of the questions that I've been struggling with, so that you might think of how you're going to answer them.

You say you dislike complex character creation, which I think a  lot of people do. However, with a 60 card deck for each player and the potential to switch it around somewhat (I assume), how are you going to keep that simple? Same goes for the GM.

Keep it up though. I think you've got the seed of a great idea there.

[MacLeod]

It is really based on what cards will actually make up the deck... if the game is designed with a lot of multiples for a deck and you only customize, say, 20 cards... that is pretty simple. Plus, I think one could go in the MtG direction and have required Resource cards that create a constant source of power for special attacks or perhaps for attack/defense boosting.
I also think that the GM's mishap deck would end up being a pretty generic, static thing... Of course, boosters would come along and you could add/replace things from the deck... but that would be optional.

I would buy in to such a system... as long as it wasn't a Collectible. That aspect breeds a very bad sort of competitiveness amongst folks... as it comes down to who has the most money as opposed to actual strategic building. Not that future expansion/boosters wouldn't be bad. But they can't be random. Just straight sets of new cards to add the pool.
What would make more sense is a huge initial stock of cards. You'd have to allow each card the ability to do multiple things. The Chance rating could also be used for movement, for instance. You could sacrifice the card and gain a number of Movement points equal to the Chance rating. Perhaps a lot of split cards, so you could use it for Attack and Defense... that would negate the need for a lots of different cards... Of course, you would have super special cards that focus on either Attack or Defense. In addition, you could make it so that you can only have two copies of Common Cards in a deck and only one copy of Special Cards.

I have question though... If the GM draws mishaps instead of monster attacks... How do the monsters damage the PCs? Perhaps if the PCs attack fails, he is automatically damaged?
Static numbers would work but you would need a randomization factor outside of the cards. For instance, an Attack card would form the Base Attack Score, then you would either have to draw a card and apply the Chance rating or roll a die.

[k2lu]

You say you dislike complex character creation, which I think a  lot of people do. However, with a 60 card deck for each player and the potential to switch it around somewhat (I assume), how are you going to keep that simple? Same goes for the GM.

Well, building a deck isn't that complicated. I'd intend to have prebuilt decks for the typical archetypes, as well. A character sheet actually helps drive deck building, too - if you have, say, +2 to damage when using a 'fire spell' card, you'll gravitate towards those cards.

Keep it up though. I think you've got the seed of a great idea there.

Thanks!

It is really based on what cards will actually make up the deck... if the game is designed with a lot of multiples for a deck and you only customize, say, 20 cards... that is pretty simple. Plus, I think one could go in the MtG direction and have required Resource cards that create a constant source of power for special attacks or perhaps for attack/defense boosting.

Well, the cards themselves are static - one might be 'Melee Physical, 2 AP, 4 damage'. Static bonuses and some special attacks come from choice of Talents at character creation. However, Stance cards will end up being the 'constant source of power' that you talk about, albeit that you can only have one at a time. Purely from a roleplaying perspective, it doesn't make much sense that a character would have to start from square one at the beginning of each battle.

I'm not sure about how many multiples are proper in a deck. I want to make it random enough to make sure the players can't totally rely on a single card, but not so random that the character lacks cohesion or that you have to really stretch to get enough cards to fit a theme. At the moment, I'm thinking 4-5, though I've considered just making it a per-card basis as another balancing statistic on cards - basic attacks as unlimited, critical hits as one-off in a deck, etc.

I also think that the GM's mishap deck would end up being a pretty generic, static thing... Of course, boosters would come along and you could add/replace things from the deck... but that would be optional.

Well, that depends. If you have a GM that only runs games of a given genre, it's unlikely he'd change much in his deck, just as a player with a favorite archetype would be unlikely to deviate from it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - the GM's mishap deck, much like how he sets up the plot of the game, help determine the tone of the game.

I would buy in to such a system... as long as it wasn't a Collectible. That aspect breeds a very bad sort of competitiveness amongst folks... as it comes down to who has the most money as opposed to actual strategic building. Not that future expansion/boosters wouldn't be bad. But they can't be random. Just straight sets of new cards to add the pool.

You know, that is a complaint I've gotten before, and I'm not sure how to handle it. I like the randomness and the metagame fun of opening a pack and not knowing what's inside. On the other hand, because I am not made of money, I often just buy exactly the cards I want to get the deck I want to have. Also, you have the idea that the characters are working together, so one character with a lot of money put into his deck is not necessarily a bad thing for the group, at least no more than any other form of min-maxing. But, again, it would be frustrating if I want to make a wizard-type and end up with a lot of great cards for a swordsman.

What would make more sense is a huge initial stock of cards. You'd have to allow each card the ability to do multiple things. The Chance rating could also be used for movement, for instance. You could sacrifice the card and gain a number of Movement points equal to the Chance rating. Perhaps a lot of split cards, so you could use it for Attack and Defense... that would negate the need for a lots of different cards... Of course, you would have super special cards that focus on either Attack or Defense. In addition, you could make it so that you can only have two copies of Common Cards in a deck and only one copy of Special Cards.

I haven't put much thought into movement, at the moment. I've been working from the idea that I could totally eliminate the battlemat, as the need for one is a common complaint about some games. However, that's not a bad idea. Since it already has one aspect that relates to speed (initiative), another along the same lines makes a lot of sense. If I decide to put tactical movement into the game, that may be the way I go. Thank you for the idea!

I have question though... If the GM draws mishaps instead of monster attacks... How do the monsters damage the PCs? Perhaps if the PCs attack fails, he is automatically damaged?

Well, at the moment, monsters have static abilities, and an individual pool of AP, and the abilities eat up that AP. The GM mishaps are one-half of the diceless randomization.

Static numbers would work but you would need a randomization factor outside of the cards. For instance, an Attack card would form the Base Attack Score, then you would either have to draw a card and apply the Chance rating or roll a die.

I'm not sure that a randomness outside of the cards is needed. There's a lot of it inherent in the simple shuffling and drawing of cards. What, after all, is the difference between missing an attack in a d20 game and not drawing the right card in a card game? Both are failures. Essentially, the cards in their hand are the things the character has an opportunity to succeed at in a given turn, and that outside of a Mishap, cannot really fail at.

Thank you for the comments!

[MacLeod]

I guess it depends on what sort of resolution system you are going for... Is each attack a hit, or is there an opportunity for the attack to miss? Do combatants reduce damage based on some form of resistance? Without additional randomization, you could be knowingly playing a card that isn't actually going to deal damage. Some enemies might be immune to damage for a good portion of the match while the PCs are waiting to draw their superwhackattack cards. Perhaps doubling up would be useful? Combining two cards of similar power/ability in order to gain a greater effect, it would be considered a single action so damage reduction could only apply once. Call it chaining cards or something.

So, if stances are controlled by cards... and you are going to use stances as resources. Are you expecting a deck to have quite a few stances, then? How important would these be? For instance without a stance, would many cards would be useless... or just half as effective?

[random tangent]
I often daydream how cool it would be to have a card-based fantasy RPG... I thought it would be cool for the GM to have multiple decks to draw from, like a treasure deck, a trap deck, en event deck, an enemy deck, etc... Sort of like a reeaally card centric version of DragonStrike without the map.

[k2lu]

I guess it depends on what sort of resolution system you are going for... Is each attack a hit, or is there an opportunity for the attack to miss?

Each attack is a hit. The only opportunity for a miss would be if the GM used a mishap and/or the possibility of an enemy having a counter-action.

Do combatants reduce damage based on some form of resistance?

Yes. Physical damage is reduced by armor, which is relatively easy to get, but easier to get through and easier to pump for higher damage. Spell damage is reduced by Aura, which is somewhat more difficult to get, but spells don't increase in damage as easily.

Without additional randomization, you could be knowingly playing a card that isn't actually going to deal damage. Some enemies might be immune to damage for a good portion of the match while the PCs are waiting to draw their superwhackattack cards. Perhaps doubling up would be useful? Combining two cards of similar power/ability in order to gain a greater effect, it would be considered a single action so damage reduction could only apply once. Call it chaining cards or something.

It is possible that an enemy would be immune to a PC's attack. If the PC only has weak attacks in his deck, there just isn't much they can do. There are situations in every game where a PC is largely unable to contribute, like a melee fighter against flying enemies, or a spellcaster that is facing an enemy completely immune to magic. Hopefully, the PC will have thought to include a few utility cards.

So, if stances are controlled by cards... and you are going to use stances as resources. Are you expecting a deck to have quite a few stances, then? How important would these be? For instance without a stance, would many cards would be useless... or just half as effective?

Well, stances are just bonuses. One stance might let you draw an extra card every turn, or give you an additional counter action. They'll be useful, but not so required that you're useless without it.

[random tangent]
I often daydream how cool it would be to have a card-based fantasy RPG... I thought it would be cool for the GM to have multiple decks to draw from, like a treasure deck, a trap deck, en event deck, an enemy deck, etc... Sort of like a reeaally card centric version of DragonStrike without the map.

Same here. After I get the basic rules completed to my satisfaction, I might see just how far I can get with a GM-less system. I think a random dungeon would be easy enough. Maybe a 'raid deck' like the WoW cardgame has.

[whiteknife]

So, clarifying, do you intend on making a bunch of cards and then let people pick from them, or are you going to have a bunch of rules on card making and then have people make their own? I could see advantages and disadvantages of both.

[MacLeod]

It would be interesting to be able to make cards of one's own... but filling out 60 cards would be a pain in the ass. Outside of that, rigid structure would be required to avoid super unstoppable cards.
Then again, creating the cards for use in the game would be a professional production of sorts... I think the overall cost of which could be lowered. Having a huge spot for art seems to be pretty popular but it really doesn't add anything to the game. More often than not, I am sitting there playing MtG waiting idly for my turn when I happen to stop thinking about strategy and look at the art... then think, "Wow, that is pretty goofy lookin' dude." That's it. I think themed backgrounds based on card types would be better. Attack/Defense cards would have text printed on a background of lightly colored swords and shields, for instance.

@k2lu: Sorry about the damage resistance question, that whole Armor/Aura thing totally slipped my mind. >_<
So how will equipment work? Is that the sort of thing you would include as cards... or are they equipped like normal items?
You know what could be a neat idea for this... is to have a subtype of attack cards designed specifically for a group of weapons that initiate special effects. Another subtype would be Slayer cards, or something similar... like a version of the D&D Ranger's Favored Enemy. Air Anchor would temporarily remove a flying creatures 'Fly' ability, stuff like that.

It seems crazy to me that someone hasn't tried to publish a game like this already. Perhaps printing cards is really just too expensive...? I would imagine a game like this would have a rule book no bigger than 100 pages. The stat blocks for monsters could be easily whittled down to D&D 4E size (regardless of my feelings about that game, the stat blocks are extremely easy to work with).

[k2lu]

So, clarifying, do you intend on making a bunch of cards and then let people pick from them, or are you going to have a bunch of rules on card making and then have people make their own? I could see advantages and disadvantages of both.

I intend for the cards to be already extant. It's simpler than making people design their own.

It would be interesting to be able to make cards of one's own... but filling out 60 cards would be a pain in the ass. Outside of that, rigid structure would be required to avoid super unstoppable cards.
Then again, creating the cards for use in the game would be a professional production of sorts... I think the overall cost of which could be lowered. Having a huge spot for art seems to be pretty popular but it really doesn't add anything to the game. More often than not, I am sitting there playing MtG waiting idly for my turn when I happen to stop thinking about strategy and look at the art... then think, "Wow, that is pretty goofy lookin' dude." That's it. I think themed backgrounds based on card types would be better. Attack/Defense cards would have text printed on a background of lightly colored swords and shields, for instance.

Well, not using art on the cards would greatly ease production. Design of the cards themselves are going to be one of the last steps, though, naturally.

@k2lu: Sorry about the damage resistance question, that whole Armor/Aura thing totally slipped my mind. >_<
So how will equipment work? Is that the sort of thing you would include as cards... or are they equipped like normal items?

Equipped like normal items. Weapons and armor provide static bonuses. I actually have a pretty decent list worked up for weapons that I'm happy with. However, there is some interaction card-wise - some magical or otherwise special weapons might have special effects that work off of Chance Numbers, or let you trade cards for extra damage.

You know what could be a neat idea for this... is to have a subtype of attack cards designed specifically for a group of weapons that initiate special effects. Another subtype would be Slayer cards, or something similar... like a version of the D&D Ranger's Favored Enemy. Air Anchor would temporarily remove a flying creatures 'Fly' ability, stuff like that.

Not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all. Might have to wait until the basic attack/spell/skill cards are done.

It seems crazy to me that someone hasn't tried to publish a game like this already. Perhaps printing cards is really just too expensive...? I would imagine a game like this would have a rule book no bigger than 100 pages. The stat blocks for monsters could be easily whittled down to D&D 4E size (regardless of my feelings about that game, the stat blocks are extremely easy to work with).

The stat blocks can be made extremely small, trust me. They can easily fit on a card, for example. And the rulebook could be quite small, as you say. More than enough room to include a list of all the cards, some examples of play, things like that.

[MacLeod]

Seems like you have a pretty solid collection of ideas pulled together. Are you thinking about going professional with this idea, or just tinkering around with fun ideas? I wouldn't judge you either way... I've written out rule systems just to get an idea down, knowing it would never blossom into a full-fledged game.

[k2lu]

Seems like you have a pretty solid collection of ideas pulled together. Are you thinking about going professional with this idea, or just tinkering around with fun ideas? I wouldn't judge you either way... I've written out rule systems just to get an idea down, knowing it would never blossom into a full-fledged game.

At the moment, tinkering. But I don't discount the idea of going professional with it. It's just a bit premature to decide at this juncture.

[MacLeod]

Agreed. Most people just seem to want to talk about game ideas as opposed to publishing them.
Feel free to slide any more ideas by us! I'll be around to bounce ideas off, at any rate.

[Vulpinoid]

See also this thread.

I'd write out all the stuff again, but it's probably just quicker to point you in the direction of previous threads.

V

[Daniel B]

Wizards of the Coast tried something not quite the same, but similar. Instead of a character sheet, there were several character cards you could choose from. Each character had a special ability, and a modifier to hand size and starting health. This was in the dark ages before MTG spread like wildfire, but the idea never really caught on.

Similarly, they tried again in the online version, with avatars.

That said, I love the idea of an actual character sheet, as opposed to just some pregenerated character, because the pregenerated character feels like just another card.

[MacLeod]

Indeed. Making just another card game won't cut it... I need a full-fledged RPG with card game mechanics.
Sort of like a PnP version of Baten Kaitos.