Hey guys.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how cards (whether CCG or non-collectible) can be most effectively integrated into roleplaying games. I want to know whether you guys appreciate using custom cards, and what your take on their effectiveness/uses is.

I've got a specific game idea in mind, and what I'm looking for is:
a.) whether cards would be effective in this case.
b.) your opinions on card-based mechanics in RPGs in general.
c.) Links to any threads that I should read up on, in regards to card-based mechanics.

Anyways, the game idea is still in early stages. Basically, I want a game that's set in deep jungle warfare. I want this to be against the backdrop of interplanetary conquest - They're fighting across a primarily jungle world.

The soldiers of {Insert name of galactic empire here] were raised in slave camps/worlds, and they've been conscripted as the {empire's} slaves.
If they do their time, gain their status points, then they get pardoned and freed.

I'm thinking players control squads. Each squad consists of the Cards that are in play on that character's side. Just like any "creature" or "soldier" in a CCG (except these wouldn't be collectible... more on that later.)

Players narrate their squad through a GM-narrated world. Successes allow you to draw cards.
Anyways, the cards are troopers, "bases", tools, etc.

Successes earn troopers "status points". These are check marks on their to-do lists for being pardoned. I haven't figured this part out mechanically yet, but for the moment lets say putting a penny on a card gives it a +1 bonus to troop morale, because they are more successful.
However, as soon as they earn enough points, they are pardoned: shipped out, without a care to their comrades.

So, that's my game idea.
I'm thinking maybe there are a total of 60-70 cards in total, and players form a deck of 30?
So there is customizability....
But at the same time it definately isn't a CCG.

I love how the mechanic implies that the guy one point away from being shipped off is obviously the guy who you'll choose to have slapped down by a random sniper's bullet, rather than any of your grittier, more useful soldiers.  "He was just a week away from retirement!"

I think you've got a good sense of how to model the state of your squad by putting cards down on the table.  I think there is a lot more that you can do by thinking about all the other things that cards do at the same time:  what does it mean to have only a few cards in your hand?  what does it mean to have a lot?  what does it mean to draw a card?  what does it mean to play a card?  what does it mean when you start running out of cards in your deck entirely?  is there a difference between discarding cards and removing them from the game entirely?  if so, which happens in which circumstance?  are some cards only appropriate to some circumstances, and just cluttering up your hand otherwise?  can you combine cards on the table in some way?  and so on, and so on.

If you can't tell, I'm actually quite enamored of the possibilities of card systems.  I think they merit a good careful look.

Wow, thanks for the positive feedback.
You asked a lot of questions that I hadn't even begun to think about yet.

For example: I have the in-play mechanisms, as well as the drawing mechanisms. But I totally had nothing going for the discard/in hand mechanisms at all.

But, here's an idea. If you think there are better ways to utilize card mechanics, please jump in: this is just off the top of my head.
Some cards are limited in usefulness - especially in certain scenarios. The Rottweiler Tank (a deadly tank to be sure) is only of use in specific times. Same with Timmy the Communications Specialist.
So, if a card is picked up, it's brought to your hand. A card can be played whenever it makes sense to splice it into the storyline.
You get a +1 bonus for each card in your hand. Call this the Reserves Bonus, I suppose. This bonus represents that Timmy the Communications Specialist is helping out at base camp, doing their chores so they don't have to (which is definately a morale bonus. haha.), and being their for support.

Once a card is played, however, it can't just be returned to your hand. But I would make some cards that did return stuff to your hand. (Withdraw Troops - Return two soldier cards to hand.), (Dinner Bell - Return as many soldiers are desired to your hand), (Retrieve Resources - Return any card to your hand.)

When you are out "in the world", you take any amount of cards that are in play with you.
Thus, you want to have in play no more than what you'll use - because if they just sit around at base camp (but aren't in your hand) then you get no use, and no Reserve Bonus.

Combine cards:
I'm thinking that there might be equipment upgrades?

For example, Sergeant Mkoll (for those of you who know WH40K fiction) might come with Light Armour, Grenades, and a Lasgun.

However, I might draw a Markton Elite Sniper Rifle. Sergeant Mkoll might be my best choice for it, and I'd slip it on him - like enchant creatures or more recently equipment, in Magic: The Gathering.

Hi, Joe.

My own game With Great Power... uses multiple decks of standard playing cards for resolution. I gave lots of thought to the ways that cards and roleplay interact. My question is: What makes this an RPG? As I'm interpreting your description, the imaginary game world is influenced only by the color text on the cards, not by the imaginations of the players. How do the players put their own unique creative investment into the game?

In WGP..., I addressed this problem by *not* having specific cards link to any specific thing in the imagined game world. The way that cards interact (such as, when one card is higher than another) a certain type of event occurs in the game world (such as victory.) The details of how that event manifests in the game world are tailored by the players at that moment. Having a few easily-achievable categories of results gives players the choice of which option to take--they are rarely limited by not having the "right" card.

Hmm... Micheal, good question.

At this point, what I envisioned was this: The cards are basically the character sheet: the bonuses, the characters, and the equipment. It's like handing a player several pregenerated character sheets.

The roleplaying and the interaction is entirely the characters.

(I do, however, really like the ideas you suggested.)

However, you brought up another good point: Does multiple decks work well? In WIth Great Power, how does that fare?

I was thinking seperating Trooper, Equipment, and Other? Is that effective? I'm thinking: Likely, no,.

Also, the different warring factions would each have a deck. Thus each player would be playing a different list of cards.

Joe, with regard to Michael's comment...

Michael wrote:
My own game With Great Power... uses multiple decks of standard playing cards for resolution. I gave lots of thought to the ways that cards and roleplay interact. My question is: What makes this an RPG? As I'm interpreting your description, the imaginary game world is influenced only by the color text on the cards, not by the imaginations of the players. How do the players put their own unique creative investment into the game?

Here's a specific suggestion on the "roleplaying game vs. card game with narration tacked on" question. First, to remind you of Michael Miller's comment:

Michael wrote: What makes this an RPG? As I'm interpreting your description, the imaginary game world is influenced only by the color text on the cards, not by the imaginations of the players. How do the players put their own unique creative investment into the game? In WGP..., I addressed this problem by *not* having specific cards link to any specific thing in the imagined game world....

Maybe a minor character is represented by just one card representing their role in the squad -- "Combat Infantry Training" or "Communications Specialist Training" or even "Class Clown" for the guy who never seems to do anything useful but that everybody likes -- whereas a major character is a combination of a half-dozen or more.

How about going with the two decks, but assigning a cost to each of the stackable cards so that players get to buy whatever enhancements they want for their PCs?
Perhaps with status points?

You could even add a cost to each character card, this would help ensure deck balance.

This would also provide plenty of opportunity for collectibility!

I'll trade you a berserker rage for that Nabusian energy rifle...

Cheers,
J

Joe wrote:
How about going with the two decks, but assigning a cost to each of the stackable cards so that players get to buy whatever enhancements they want for their PCs?
Perhaps with status points?

You could even add a cost to each character card, this would help ensure deck balance.

This would also provide plenty of opportunity for collectibility!

I'll trade you a berserker rage for that Nabusian energy rifle...

Cheers,
J

joepub wrote: where is the chance for characterization? It seems less like roleplaying if you don't get to decide what kinds of behaviors your troopers have.... I was thinking cards [that] you use the cards you draw as pregenerated characters with which to ROLEPLAY.

joepub wrote: the cards were supposed to represent "resources" being shipped into the planet. So, if we go based on your suggestion of "stackable" characters, we need two different decks -
One for Resources coming in, one for Group development.

And restrictions can be good for roleplaying, too: maybe, on your own, you'd never even have thought that hero-guy would start going crazy, but now you have the card, and it'd be so easy to play it on him, but what does that say about the story you're creating? This is where the interplay between the strategy and the fiction can become surprisingly powerful.

As a practical game-design issue, creating two disconnected sets of resources that don't convert easily into each other but which both affect character effectiveness creates lots of opportunities for broken places in the rules that players can munchkin abusively.