Thrilled to be wrapping things up!
Just need to finalize the work on the logo and layout the rules insert and the first game featuring the Duelist System will be completed!

Summarization:
"The Supers - The Good" is a 36 card set, featuring 3 different Super types (Alien, Mutant, Techie), 2 pieces of artwork for each. It will be packaged as 6 card sets w/ rulebook, which is all the game requires to play, and retail for $1 a pack.
Follow up sets include "The Bad", which introduces the "Heroes Dilemma" play style and allows for players to choose to be Heroes or Villains, as well as two lesser fleshed out sets "The Ugly" and "Past & Future Tense".
A rather quick & simple system, its quite fun and easy to design for.

http://www.neoproductions.net/images/Sidekick.JPG - Sidekick, a Tactic card from the game.

Part of the post is to illustrate just how easy this is to design for. A week ago, I posted a concept thread of a "CCG Co-op" based on the Duelist system. The Supers was concieved between then and now, JUST a week later, and I have a finished game, sans the aforementioned rulebook and game logo.
Place an order for the components Monday, should take a week, probably going to be handing out free packs at GenCon and offering packs with orders through Key20.

For more information on the system and my idea, check out http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15778
I'm also very keen on discussing how best to carry out a CCG "Co-op" or such service. I'd encourage the discussion here so everyone can chip in, but will take it to PMs from interested parties if Mods prefer.

Nate, nobody is going to be interested in Co-opping on a game unless they've seen the rules for it and a few sample cards. I recommend you produce these materials and post them to the board.

Suppose should elaborate:
The thread I linked to, aside from some apperant ramblings, contains the gist of the system and the layout of how it is constructed. A "Rulebook" is in the works, yes, and will see the light of day shortly (tonight most likely).
The basic rules, as posted earlier, are quite simply, the one paragraph:

Basic system for the game is as follows:
Each player begins the game with 6 cards: 1 Duelist, 5 Supply Cards.
All cards begin on the playing space face down, the Duelist in front of each player with the 5 supply cards face down and off to the side.
Game begins with a random decision as to who goes first, and both players flip their Duelist over at the same time.
First player flips one of his or her Supply cards. They can either use the card as prescribed by exerting (using for the turn) any number of other Supply Cards or they can exert as many Supply Cards as directed by their Duelist and use an 'attack' listed on the Duelist card. Damage is subtracted from the opponent and then the turn switches over with the opposing player following the same.
Next turn begins, all exerted cards refresh and become usable again. Player flips their second Supply Card and so it repeats until one player has 0 HP.

Co-opping will require that someone take the lead. Someone needs to design a core structure and a sample implementation of that structure. Then that person will be required to do the legwork to choose a printer and provide cost breakdown options for various levels of production. Then there will need to be legal documentation on who owns what -- a boilerplate licensing agreement, plus, probably some non-disclosure agreement as needed.

Then there will need to be (ideally) some communal method of playtest or review for new cards so that all characters from Designer A are not inherently superior to characters designed by Designers B, C, & D.

Then there will need to be some method or schedule for submission of new characters.

Then the agreements will need to specify who will handle the deal with the printing company, who will review the materials as they come back, and how. Will you review everything? Will each printer review their own materials and packaging, etc.?

Co-operative ventures are complicated things and should not be entered into lightly. There should definitely be a fair bit of legal paperwork, research, and design done up front.

daMoose_Neo wrote: The basic rules, as posted earlier, are quite simply, the one paragraph:

Hmmkay:

- Production. Guess what: 1 or 1,000. Take your pick. Between some of my own channels as well as Rapid POD's ability to print playing cards, production would be simple and produceable. Only "limit" is RPOD's presses cut 18 cards to a sheet, meaning it'd probably be a minimum of 3 packs (6 cards to a pack, hence 3 packs to a sheet.).

Final product would consist of:
- "Duelist System" header card attached to a plastic bag. Headers are ordered in bulk, can get a few thousand at a time for around a cent a piece, as well as the bags, which are of nice quality, already use this packaging style for Final Twilight's expansions.
- Rules insert, facing out carrying the individual game's information (Logo, artwork, if its Starter or Booster, Item numbers, etc). This leaves 7 'pages' 2.5x3.5 each for the author to explain their version of the system, setting etc. and provide additional pitches if they want.
- 6 cards, produced with your facings and logos.

Group Playtesting, in my mind and vision, is more of an optional and a handy thing than a neccesity. Each game would be, for all intents and purposes, independant. If you wanted your game to carry YuGiOh style numbers ranging into the tens of thousands, go for it. Again, this is where a design document would outline what could and could not be done with the system. Sheer card removal, life gain, and card "death" would be fairly stupid in the system. Different effects, however, like stacking the cards as a deck vs. laying them out, "Flip" effects, die or coin systems, defensive values etc. are all capable of being carried out by the system.

Gimme a bit, I'll have a pair of play packs and my playtest rules up.

daMoose_Neo wrote: - Production. Guess what: 1 or 1,000. Take your pick. Between some of my own channels as well as Rapid POD's ability to print playing cards, production would be simple and produceable.

He didn't.
Note I didn't mention the laminate coating. The cards are also available without that.
In playtest, a good card stock has held up to the wear and tear these cards are likely to recieve. Its an extra $1.50 for that laminate, and considering the cards won't be shuffled or otherwise abused as much as their counterparts in larger decks, the laminate is more or less a wasted expense. I mean, look at Monopoly: all of the Chance cards, for example, are on a standard, non-coated stock. Those hold up for a good long while.
Given there are 5 cards to a "deck", they won't get as much abuse~

BTW, loading the pack now, with just a playtest Word rulebook and Alien and Mutant packs. Rulebook is a mite friendlier than most, partly because I *hate* writing text-book/how-to like, partly because it was written more for people I know, and partly (now in hindsight, lol) because it gives a little bit of that relaxed but friendly and "excited" atmosphere you get from reading Stan Lee's old Bullpen articles (The odd things you realize when sifting through 60+ years of comics-history for research).

[EDIT] Here be the requested sample game: http://www.neoproductions.net/files/TheSupers.zip
Contains 2 fully playable sets of cards and a rulebook ^_^

Nate, you have a couple of card wording problems (like it's not super obvious as to whether Crushing Blow is +1 when you air airborne or when your opponent is airborne -- I assume when you are airborne, but that's unclear).

Also, you should note in your rules that all attacks (including Basic Attacks) are Melee attacks unless otherwise noted.

If "Rubble" tokens are a vaguely common game mechanic, you should talk about how they get in play and how they are discarded, just so people know what they are. Even one or two sentences should cover this.

Lastly, your rulebook should note that words like "Mutant" or "Alien" in between dashes at the top of the card text is a usability check. This card is playable only by a character with the appropriate type of origin.

That said, you wanted to primarily discuss co-ops and not your game per se. Seeing a game like this, I can't help but think that you should hook up with Greg Porter and simply market this as a customizable do-it yourself game.

See this thread and his Infinite Armies game distribution for ideas on this:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15850

Talk to Louis Porter and get a special license to include lots of his art, cut down to the image frame size, in your distributions.

I bet that's probably easier to do than to build up a card co-op.

I can see why your design is well-suited for a card co-op. However, I think it's almost better suited toward a PDF which allows players to build their own cards from stock art. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Lee Valentine (Veritas Games) suggested I chime in on this thread. I'm working on a player-customizable pdf-based card game (print your own and then sleeve them), with a demo at:

http://www.btrc.net/html/iarmies.html

While it does not fit the exact format of your sample card, the full iA engine (the demo is crippled) will allow complete customization of the card abilities and graphics, and could probably be adapted to any rule- or case-based card design system, which could let a) a co-op producer create cards as fast as they could click a mouse or b) let players create their own "legal" cards for play. The card creation engine could also be modified to explicitly fit any given card format, but that would require work on my part rather than the end user to set up the initial coding for it.

But the main benefit of something like iA is that you put the production in the hands of the end user, so you don't have to print a thousand packs of cards and worry about how you're going to move them.

If a pdf model for the game strays too far from the thread, blame Lee. He pointed me here...;)

Greg Porter
BTRC games

Greg-
Actually, Final Twilight's newest supplement Divergence is more along the lines of your Infinite Armies, allowing players to design cards compatable with the existing Final Twilight line.

Thanks for the chime in, but I'm afraid you're right: it is a touch too far, though not totally removed from the thread. At this point, nearly anyone can produce a PDF CCG; what I have in mind is an in hand, FLGS available game. Production *normally* is an issue, but I've managed to get it to a point that I feel comfortable with what I can move and what I have on hand. Not so with Twilight's original deck release, but the expansions are much easier to manage. I want to offer some of these same channels to a smaller designer to produce their physical games.

Lee -
Thanks for the nit picks ^_^ While not the focus of the thread, I do appreciate them and will impliment them ASAP.

As for working on a project with/akin to Gregs, its not quite the goal. Easier, granted, but not the goal.
I'm working on a way to deliver an indie-based game into the hands of a player via a physical copy. CCG Gamers, in my personal experiance, are more defensive than RPG players, and I *believe* a PDF CCG would experiance more of a 'backlash' (or be ignored more often) than PDF RPGs experiance now. (Greg, maybe you have some different experiances? Love to hear if you have ^_^)
The idea here is for an indie designer to produce their card game and get it physically into other players hands. A universal system helps relieve some of the stress of learning new systems (as many CCG players already regularly play 5/6 games), the low card requirement allows a lower cost to play and is a more enticing impulse purchase, and the co-op of sorts allows basic materials (such as packaging and even rules) to be purchased in bulk by the organizer and sold to the developer at a much reduced rate.

As a final note, you do have a point Greg in that the software would be invaluable for laying out and generating the card images ^_^ I ended up coding my own software for laying out Twilight in VB and considered making it available for Divergence or a co-op if it happened, but really all it is is a code hack I use myself. Finalizing it would require a little too much work and be vastly inefficiant with my coding. Be interested in using your engine though if we could work something out.

Nate,
Go to the site in my message and download the demo. If you like what it can do, we'll see how much work it would take to adapt it to your needs.

As far as the pdf/ccg angle and backlash, I really have no idea. To my knowledge, no one has done anything quite like Infinite Armies before, where complete artistic control of card design is placed in the hands of the end user, and card mechanics are user-selectable within the Infinite Armies rule set (it's a point-based card creation system). I'm hoping the built-in creativity aspect and the fact that you never have to "buy rares" again will be a strong draw. I guess we'll see in a month or two.

Greg
BTRC

Sorry 'bout asking for Greg's intervention. You folks looked like you had some mutual point of interest. Guess I was wrong.

I had thought, that even if you didn't use it for general distribution, you might license Greg's code to pass out to co-op partners so that they could ship you completed PDFs with cards all ready to go.

Nate, as a service to your cause I created the following files:

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/supers_errata.txt

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

I tried your game. At least with the cards written as is, there were almost no strategic options.

For example, your Psi-blast punishes me if I have cards in play but the rules MAKE ME put more cards into play against my will.

Similarly my SEISMIC WAVE punishes you for rubble counters in play, so you may want to NOT put your "The City" card into play.

My version of the game gives a lot more player control of the environment for not many more pages of rules.

Hopefully you'll approve of the changes. If you don't, let me know and I'll delete the files from my site.

The game, as tweaked, plays more like a simplified version of the Versus System with just one character per team.

I tweaked the way that non-Supers get played and revealed. I also tweaked a few other points of game play. The rulebook above represents my tweaks plus your original work. Feel free to ignore it, or to take it to your site and distribute it.

We're trying to get our own mass market CCG out by the end of 2005 (if our art license goes through), so I don't know if I'll participate too much in the co-op directly, but my efforts here are just my way to offer you moral support.

Don't take offense with my nitpicking -- I'm trying to help you get your game in shape to help your dream become a reality.

Best regards.

btrc wrote: I'm hoping the built-in creativity aspect and the fact that you never have to "buy rares" again will be a strong draw.

Lee -

Slick ^_^
Actually, Seismic Wave isn't abused as badly as you believe. Can get big, fast, yes, but typically it doesn't become effective until the third turn or so.
Against another Mutant, damage is automatically reduced by one, against an Alien its a melee attack and so is reduced by one anyway. Techies have the most to fear from it, but have options ranging from becoming Airborne themselves (Mechanical Wings or Power Suit) to reducing damage (Again, Power Suit or Shield). Super Strength can also clear a few early Rubble pieces generated by Seismic Wave, though The City replaces them.
Playing as written, a First turn Seismic Assault with a Second turn The City against an Alien won't produce real damage until the third turn. Techies are, as mentioned, more at danger though they have their own ways about it.

As for the tweaks:
Not sure how much of it I want to adapt. The goal of the game is to wrap up in about 5 turns, which the current setup does admirably. I also intentionally steered clear of a Vs. style "Resource" and use. I do appreciate the look (and the remarks!), but had I wanted to play as such, I'd simply play or recommend Vs. This plays a little faster with a more furious atmosphere (skillful manipulation of the resources you do have, lucky strikes, glancing blows, missed opprotunities). There is, however, a good deal to be absorbed into my format and I'd really like to thank you for the rules.

Many many thanks for the support, however! Making me re-think a few aspects and definetly rework a few more ^_^ Always good to get another eye~

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 ^_^

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

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

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

Will get back with the PT info ^_^

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Eero Tuovinen wrote: 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.

Doug Ruff wrote: 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Nate (and Lee), thanks for the feedback-on-feedback. As it's beeen mentioned in this thread and is publishing related, I'd like to comment on target audience here. Hope that's OK.

Nate, I agree about the tournament/cartoon thing. If you've got a target, it isn't MTG or [insert name of kids cartoon here].

However, there's a substantial (if smaller) pick-up-and play card game market. If the rate at which Atlas are churning out expansions is anything to go by, Atlas appear to be doing very well with Dungeoneer, for example. I'd also look at Button Men as an example of how a game can have a low number of components, yet generate fast, tactical play.

I think that this is the sort of game that will sell to someone because they can take it home and play with their friends. Hence the factory set idea. Now, if you can set things up so that the players all want their own cards so that they can customise their heroes from all of the available powers, then you may sell multiple factory sets and/or expansions to the same play group.

Spoiler list, as promised: http://www.neoproductions.net/spoiler.htm

The factory set really isn't a bad idea and I'm crunching the numbers on it as we speak, certainly feasable from the looks of things.

daMoose_Neo wrote: 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.

Here are my notes on your card list. I won't bother saying that some of these cards look MUCH better than others.


<<Unavoidable>>
this was noted as "Cannot be prevented" in your rules

<<Blaster Weapon – Gadget
-Techie- 1: Deal 2 damage to an Airborne opponent, Ranged. 2: Deal 3 damage to an opposing player, Melee.
>>

A) Put an OR between these options; and
B) Reword it, removing any reference to Airborne opponents --

- Techie -
1: Deal 2 damage at Range; or
2: Deal 3 damage in Melee

<<Charge – Tactic
Pick an opposing player. If your Hit Points are fewer than theirs, they now have Hit Points equal to yours.
>>

All these types of card really need to be explicit:

A) if you can pick when they work or if they happen the instant they are revealed;

B) and they also need to be explicit that they are a single use card



<<Elastic Stretch – Power
-Mutant- Choose an opposing player’s Gadget. You may use its ability this turn.
>>

Again, is this re-usable, do you have to activate it the second it is revealed, etc. My version of the game is MUCH cleaner and clearer on this in that you can leave cards face down and activate them when you want to.

<<Energy Blast – Power
-Mutant- 2: Deal 1 damage to an opposing player, Ranged. +1 to the damage if the player is a Techie, +1 to the damage if the player has a face up Gadget.
>>

Use the phrase "and another" if you mean these bonuses to stack.

<<Flight>>

Usable by Aliens only, who can already fly. And it's unclear how this interacts with the Binding gadget. If Binding pops up after this, does it counter Flight and the Alien's innate Airborne status? If this comes up after Binding does the Alien then ignore Binding?

I'd say this is useless unless I hear more about it.

<<Fire Manipulation – Power
-Mutant- If Ice Manipulation is face up, it loses all abilities.>>

Define "it" -- this card or that card. Does it neutralize your opponent's Ice Manipulation or yours?


<<Ice Manipulation – Power
Choose a face up card that player has: They may not use it on their next turn. >>

See above. Also, how come Fire Manipulation shuts down gadgets and Ice Manipulation shuts down any type of card?

<<Magnetic Manipulation – Power
-Mutant- 3: You may use an opposing player’s Gadget of your choice this turn unless he or she takes 3 damage. Ranged. >>

Unless -- add "unless he chooses to take 3 damage instead".

<<
Power Gauntlets – Gadget
3: Deal 1 damage to an opposing for each face up Power Card they have, Melee. >>

Opponent, not opposing.

<<Power Suit – Gadget
-Techie- 1: Airborne until your next Refresh Step. 2: Deal 1 damage to an opposing player, Ranged. 3: -1 damage to the next attack against you. >>

Make this say, "your Super is Airborne"

Cards like this add more tactical choices because you have to do resource management. More of your cards should be like this.

<<Shared Fate – Tactic
Each player takes 1 damage, Unavoidable.
>>

Is this a one time use tactic? "Cannot be prevented" is the rulebook term for this, not unavoidable.

<<Sidekick – Tactic
When Sidekick is played, choose an opposing player’s face-up Power or Tactic card. Sidekick has that ability. Sidekick may make a Basic Attack each turn.
>>

This is vastly superior to Shapeshift since it can copy any Power OR Tactic. Also, is the Sidekick's attack INSTEAD OF or IN ADDITION TO your attack.

<<Sneak Attack – Tactic
Deal 1 damage to an opposing player, Unavoidable.>>

Why would you use Shared Fate instead of this?

<<Super Speed – Power
When Super Speed is played, you may make a second attack. All attacks cost 1 more to play this turn. Attacks without a cost instead cost 1 to play this turn. >>

This is probably broken. The game already tends to have a first move advantage.

<<Techie – Super, 9 HP
Gadget abilities cost 1 less to play. >>

YOUR Gadget abilities...


<<Whirlwind – Power
When Whirlwind is played, place an opposing player’s face-up card at the bottom of their deck. >>

Say, "of your choice".

<<Wings – Power
-Mutant- Your Super now has Airborne.
>>

Mutants already have two ways to fly, one a power, and one a gadget. This is redundant but not shared by aliens or techies.

Spoiler nit-picks- thanks ^_^
As I said, I think possibly more of your issue is with wording than with play.
"Unavoidable" more recently occured to myself as a short-hand way of marking damage that cannot be prevented or subtracted.

Blaster - Spacing on the card is same as it would be on Power Suit- its pretty clear in layout they are seperate abilities. I'm considering an overhaul on the card anywho, given that Techies are the only user of it.

Charge (and similar) - Can do two things without altering my structure, just notes: A notation that Tactics are played the instant they are flipped or simply note on the cards "This occurs when flipped. Use this ability once."

Flight - Me thinks you're misreading something- Flight is usable by both Alien & Mutant. Course, a notation on Bind that cards may later grant the ability to fly won't hurt anything.

Manipulations - Supposed to be a counteract to each other. Again, a quick notation to the card and tis solved.
As for Ice & Fire, I see it as more of a thematic difference- Fire/intense heat would slag a device or cause it to overheat- you can freeze almost ANYTHING in a block of Ice.
Magnetic is an issue of wording again, easily swapped yes.

Power Gauntlets - "Opposing Player" is what I was probably trying to type

Sidekick - In addition, so yes its quite superior.

Sneak Attack - For the same reasons people use a number of cards in a CGG. IE Shock, Lightning & Incinerate. Aliens could stand to use it the easiest, stocking up on quick one offs Mutants can't block, and even a Techie isn't at as much of a disadvantage. You're limited to one copy per card per draw pile.
If you chose to play that way, you get some quick blows in easy. Its also a thematic card - DJ was psyched about a scene from the latest Superman or Worlds Finest issues where Batman stood toe to toe with Darkseid who beat the shit out of him- Bats looked at him through a bloody swollen eye and said "You let us go, or I'll blow up the planet" - Shared Fate, Bats dies, Darksied dies.
Errata concession: Shared Fate, thematically even, may work out better with an option on itself to place face down instead of instantly.

Regarding Super Speed, for the most part it makes thing expensive enough its no worse than using a larger costing ability instead of two smaller ones.

Whirlwind & Techie - Slight phrasing differences, easily adjusted yes.

Wings - Why not? It may be slightly redundant with Flight, but you've even said theres more thematics to the game. If I want to make my own "Angel" instead of "Archangel", I have that choice~

Regarding a couple of the cards and their redundency, all games have a level of that. With Supers being restricted to one copy per deck, if you want to pull off some effects multiple times, you'll need similar cards. A couple are, as noted with the wings, more thematic, allowing you to create your hero. Do they defy gravity because they're from another world where gravity is weaker or do they take to the sky on wings of feathers or metal? Given a random pack, more options for similar effects means better chances of getting the effect (with or without a drawback). In a factory sealed pack, yes we do run into situations where its pointless to have one card distinctly better than another.

I do thank you for the clarity you added to the rules book, but I have to say portions don't add as much stratagy as it appears, least wise not in as far as DJ and I played. It just added another layer of complexity over what was already established. THAT is why we're not keen on it- theres the extra step, the extra complexity (even though it is fairly slim), but to us its only appearant complexity and gives more of an illusion of tactical measures. The bulk of play still rests in your selections and luck of the draw. Maybe the illusion is more important than the reality~

And please, please please, understand this:Supers is NOT open for co-oping, it is a set of our (Myself and my partners) design. No one will co-op this unless they really really wanted to and we agreed with the suggestion. Think of the co-op offer as more d20- d20 has NO setting to it what so ever, save the magic system. Otherwise, its wildwest, heroes, fantasy, sci-fi, and theres even a modern SRD.
Aside from Supers, I have a pair of Mecha styled games (one that may or may not see print), a monster battling game, DJ has the aforementioned Element, which is a Wizards duel based on the tradtitional 4 elements. Complexity can be added and removed from the individual game at will. Element plays akin to a Rock-Paper-Scissors, with your effectiveness depending not only on your choices but your opponent's choice of elements as well. The Monster battling game will likely see more of that, as well as some more advanced strategies (I know A LOT about the Pokemon systems).

I really gotta break for dinner with the parents- gotta see them once in a while too ^_^

daMoose_Neo wrote: I do thank you for the clarity you added to the rules book, but I have to say portions don't add as much stratagy as it appears, least wise not in as far as DJ and I played. It just added another layer of complexity over what was already established. THAT is why we're not keen on it- theres the extra step, the extra complexity (even though it is fairly slim), but to us its only appearant complexity and gives more of an illusion of tactical measures. The bulk of play still rests in your selections and luck of the draw. Maybe the illusion is more important than the reality~

Element plays akin to a Rock-Paper-Scissors, with your effectiveness depending not only on your choices but your opponent's choice of elements as well.

OK, here's sort of an odd suggestion. Go to the mutant and mark him as, "Add +1 to this character's cost to activate any Gadget effect that has a listed cost of 0 or higher."

Why? Because techies have more complicated gadgets and will use more gadgets than mutants, and you should put the math burden on the guy who is playing few if any of these, not on the guy who is playing many of these all the time. That's just good sense. It's doubly good sense for the "Techie only" gadgets, since otherwise the techie has to subtract points on costs that only he can use anyway.

BTW -- the costs below (the Techie costs to use, effectively), are WAY too low on the blaster weapon. These are the costs the Techie would have paid, as written, in your original draft of the spoiler list.


Then make the costs for Gadgets as follows (from the Techie's perspective, +1 for Mutants, and Aliens can't use 'em):

Blades – Gadget
2: Deal 2 Damage to an opposing player, Melee.

Shield – Gadget
-1 to damage to attacks against you. If you have Super Strength face-up, Shield also has --
“3: Deal 3 damage to opposing player, Ranged.”

Power Gauntlets – Gadget
2: Deal 1 damage to an opposing for each face up Power Card they have, Melee.

Blaster Weapon – Gadget
-Techie-
0: Deal 2 damage to an Airborne opponent, Ranged.
1: Deal 3 damage to an opposing player, Melee.

Power Suit – Gadget
-Techie-
0: Airborne until your next Refresh Step.
1: Deal 1 damage to an opposing player, Ranged.
2: -1 damage to the next attack against you.



An alternate way to deal with this, is to keep the above costs on "Techie Only" gadgets, and increase the costs on the other 3 by 1 point, and then give the Techie the ability:

"Subtract 1 from the cost to activate any Gadget effect except one on a Gadget that is usable only by a Techie."

Again, this is a way to limit redundant and fairly useless math on Techie items. I prefer the former solution however (putting the ability on Mutants) so that Techie players have to do ZERO math since they may play a bunch of gadgets.

Lee,
Hey, this is DJ, Nate's partner with supers/duelist. Sorry for my absence in this discussion, since I had some net issues.

I would like to say I do like SOME of your suggestions for Supers and POSSIBLY duelist. I'll bring some things up to nate today as suggestion.
For instance, what if the cards with no payment cost(instant effect on flip) come into play face down and can THEN be chosen at a later time to use? Would that clear up that issue?

I think what that allows is for a deeper tactical battle, ie CHARGE(life totals are the same). Plus it can clear up your issue with Psi blast.

I don't know if that's what you were going for or not. but Let me know if it hits the nail close at least?

As for Element - You'll have choices of what to flip, when to flip, and also the decks will consist of more cards. Overall, it's geared towards more strategy, less beat down. but I'll start a thread on that.

Any suggestions you've given thus far have been discussed, worked over, sweated upon, and run to death....so we ARE taking what you have to say and attempting to see it work.

Keep em comin!!

mangaocid wrote: For instance, what if the cards with no payment cost(instant effect on flip) come into play face down and can THEN be chosen at a later time to use? Would that clear up that issue?

I don't know if that's what you were going for or not. but Let me know if it hits the nail close at least?

As for Element - You'll have choices of what to flip, when to flip, and also the decks will consist of more cards. Overall, it's geared towards more strategy, less beat down. but I'll start a thread on that.

BTW -- Nate expressed interest, but I can't remember if he responded re: my NDA, etc., but Nate had talked about reviewing my Supers CCG rulebook. It's actually shorter than many other tournament CCG rulebooks, but at 50+ pages with the art and the index removed, it's still a healthy chunk. After you guys stabilize your game a bit, you should go under NDA and look at mine. It's gonna be a mass market game if we ever get our bloody art and character license signed. We're dropping quite a chunk of change on the character license for 2 years, so we're talking a much bigger financial risk than what you and Nate are aiming for, I'm guessing.

My game's worst problem from the standpoint of casual gamers? Complexity. Tournament gamers love it. Casual gamers say "it makes their head explode" even though they can pick it up pretty readily after a couple of games.

Just as I keep aiming at simplifying my game without losing flavor, you probably need to tweak your game up a notch or two on complexity while preserving flavor.

I'll look for the Elements thread, DJ and Nate.

My game lasts around an hour and sometimes has a team of 6 heroes fighting 3 villains, with up to 12+ guest stars intervening now and again. It's got both strategic and tactical play, but it is 180 degrees aimed at the opposite target market you want to hit. People who will like your game will hate mine, I suspect, or more likely, will just be puzzled by mine.

If you re-download the system again you'll find that I've temporarily re-named it (per my warning above), and that I've added quite a few icon types to save some game text on cards, I've added a marginally better Cartouche example, and I've added some other new rules.

Pretty much look at any place with a graphic and read the surrounding text.

DJ seemed to want the ability to reveal any or all Resources simultaneously. I added that option and some other stuff.

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/duelist_rules.pdf

I'll know if I've created you enough design space when you post a quick write-up of the Elements game. But I think you can probably work within the design space I've created to design tons of characters and even new games, all without having to re-write a single word of the rules. That's a sign of a co-opable rulebook that is suitable for licensing.

Well, Nate and I have determined and decided upon a possible new name for "Duelist"...."Pocket Games". As you stated before, it seems to be a pocket game, something to pass the time between other sessions...initially that is the goal for duelist, a pasttime as it were.

Element on the other hand, will be geared towards longer term gaming.

I like the idea of the icons, cuz it does clear some space on the card for less explanation...but I don't know how well it fits in the rulebook, because now we'd have to explain that as well. Our goal is to keep it simple and small so the player can take it with them easily, rules and all. That also helps us keep it inexpensive for us and the player.

I admit, the game is not by any means meant for long playability. It's meant to occupy time, to break up monotony. It's a game geared to A.D.D. infested gamers(like myself).

Nate I'm sure will read this as well...so I surely will know what his opinion on the icons is. really not a bad idea. I will have to actually read the rules later and get back to you on that as well, but I'm not sure a rules change is in the future. We're pretty satisfied as far as the rules go. As you have said before, the cards are what are throwing this system off so much.

We'll see what these minute changes do for the game. Thanks again!

DJ, I just updated the rules (yes, again). I added a game option called "Exchange" which lets you stack situational cards, but which let you occasionally, take one of those situational cards, ditch it, and get a new card.

To make this work, in Supers, you have to let people play with up to 6 cards. There'll still be a limit of 5 in play.

The rules are at:

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/duelist_rules.pdf

For Supers I have a list of proposed cards and changes. They really are designed to leverage the Cartouche system I came up with and the cards features quite a number of additional characters:

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/proposed_cards.txt

Those cards will need severe playtesting, and I fully anticipate costs getting bumped up or down a bit.

Note that I either used the new Exchange mechanic on situational cards OR I altered your initial card mechanics to make sure that few, if any cards, ever end up fully a dud.

Under your original rules, it is entirely possible to have a Deck like this in the game. Say you are playing the Alien and your opponent is playing the Mutant. The Alien's deck is, in order

Radiation Manipulation
Crushing Blow
City
Seismic Wave
Super Strength

The Mutant's deck, in order is:

Bind Device
Flight
Energy Bolt
Blades
Psi-Blast

Let's say that your opponent's first card is Bind Device. Got it.

OK, so you draw Radiation Manipulation. You don't even bother revealing it, because it won't get through your opponent's Damage Reduction. You attack the Mutant but his Damage Reduction bounces your attack. He attacks you, now that you are grounded, for one damage. Alien: 9, Mutant: 8.

You draw crushing blow and sit there. Let's say the Mutant draws Flight. The net result is gonna be Alien: 8, Mutant 8.

You draw the City (with your modified wording). You can't damage the Mutant, so you get no counters, so you don't bother to reveal it. The Mutant blasts you for 3 with an Energy Bolt. Alien: 5, Mutant: 8.

You draw Seismic Wave. You can't hurt the Mutant in Melee, and there are no rubble counters in play. But you add one to play. He zaps you with Energy Bolt. Alien: 2, Mutant: 8

You draw Super Strength. Yeah! You have one Rubble Counter in play. You lob it at your opponent. 1 damage gets through! You get creative and realize that since it won't do damage, activating Seismic Wave is not an attack. You use it to create another Rubble Counter. The Mutant zaps you again with Energy Bolt. Alien: -1, Mutant: 7

This is sort of how my friend felt the other day -- Our game used different cards, but the cards could end up becoming duds so bloody often that nothing he tried could work at all without benefiting me more than him.

I'll try to help, but you guys need to identify any cards I propose and any cards you propose that have a high chance of being situational or going dead.

One thing that may be necessary may be to not have General Damage Reduction, but to have only Melee and Ranged damage Reduction, and to make sure that there's no way to stack two cards worth of damage reduction, or, if there is, then maybe it should be expensive. Neither my rules nor my proposed card list for Supers goes this far, but this is a logical next step if damage isn't getting through. What you don't want to do is mistakenly assume everyone will have damage reduction, because some types of characters won't have it.

Take a look at the tweaked rules and the proposed card list. I'll look at Elements, DJ and Nate.

mangaocid wrote:
I like the idea of the icons, cuz it does clear some space on the card for less explanation...but I don't know how well it fits in the rulebook, because now we'd have to explain that as well.

I can say this much fast at the moment. In your example of the game, yes, it will happen - but how often do you find in a magic game, that you're facing an opponent in which your cards benefit them(elvish champion) or flake out? It's all a matter of what gets drawn in what order...that's always what it's about.

You can build what you think is the perfect deck and it can still fizzle into wimp when you draw bad. I don't take this example as a reason to change anything, it just goes to show why it's important to plan your deck. It can happen, yes, but not always.

As for the rules, I still feel no major change will be made, even as far as cartouches are concerned. We do have a few ideas on some minor things, and some card re-wording, but the rules themself are alright.

mangaocid wrote: As for the rules, I still feel no major change will be made, even as far as cartouches are concerned. We do have a few ideas on some minor things, and some card re-wording, but the rules themself are alright.

mangaocid wrote: I can say this much fast at the moment. In your example of the game, yes, it will happen - but how often do you find in a magic game, that you're facing an opponent in which your cards benefit them(elvish champion) or flake out? It's all a matter of what gets drawn in what order...that's always what it's about.

Nate, DJ:

You guys seem happy with your cards and your system. I'm just wasting your time posting new revisions.

Sorry for my persistence -- the idea sounded fun.

At this point, my rules have almost nothing in common with Supers except those things that are similar to the Vs. system or other card games that we're both familiar with and were influenced by.

Nate wanted cards to feed off face up in random order. Mine allows you to control things. Nate's had 5 cards maximum in your deck. My rules are designed to vary from game to game, and to start with some cards in play for some games.

The one concept that's similar, but slightly more varied in my game is the concept of something to reduce damage. In mine, the types of damage reduction don't stack, among other things, and are more varied than just Airborne and non-Airborne.

Even my terminology is different -- Nate wanted to call things "Supply Cards" I call them the character's Resources. I have "Deflection" instead of "Airborne".

Your rules were about 2 pages. Mine are 7-8 pages and include tons of stuff your rules don't and probably will not (since DJ seems largely happy with your rules).

I deleted the other stuff (since DJ seemed not too interested) and uploaded this:

http://www.veritasgames.net/downloads/quick_fight_rules.pdf

Feel free to borrow from the text if you want to. Give me a line of credit and call it a day if you borrow anything substantial verbatim from the text.

I did like the idea of a small deck duel game, but I just wouldn't implement it almost at all the way you guys would. This is the simplest game I've ever put to paper, as I prefer very complex designs. Anyhow, I wish you the best of luck on product sales. Over and out.

See you on the net.

Supers was a minor success at GenCon 2005. Those that tested it, enjoyed it. I want to thank Greg from BTRC for some feedback that will see light with "The Bad" release this fall, and also believe it or not, Lee from Veritas Games, for giving us feedback during creation. Once again lee, your feedback was great and we can honestly say that a small, quick game was something people wanted.

i'm very curious to see what comes of your game as well , lee, so keep me posted on that!

Later, DJ

Congrats on your success. 

How many copies did you sell?

How many playtesters did you get?

Did Greg stop by and play?  He's a great designer, so he's probably a useful guy to get feedback from.

One GenCon attendee told me that the cartouche style system that I use in Dungeon Fight is what was just unveiled for City of Heroes.  I think they use cartouches to determine what is playable and what isn't.  I think Jyhad was the first game I saw that did something like that.

Well, I sold 5 - 2 deck starter sets and 2 - 36 card box sets. Not bad, cuz I went home with only 1 starter and 1 box left. So I sold pretty good...all of those sales came from sunday also...so had I gotten the opportunity to push more...it could've been even better!

I do have a few people who are going to order it from us because they wanted a couple sets to play with.

Greg did check it out, because Nate and I boothed with the guys here at the Forge. It was great, because he voiced his opinion about certain things that I'll look at and probably revamp a bit.

As far as COH - the cartouche thing works really good for the game because it's based on an MMORPG that has tons of options and ICONS from the game....so it NEEDED it....supers is too simple for that. I do however like it for element...just working on card designs to see HOW far I'll take it.

DJ