   Card games
  First, I should introduce myself. My name is Charles and I am a senior in high school. I know a bit of programming (not much) but I am mostly interested in game design. Not even considering a career or anything, just as a hobby.Do any of you play Magic: the Gathering? It's a fun game, but I think the complicated rules detract from it. I was thinking about designing a simpler type of card game. I know WotC also designed Duel Masters, which is a vastly simplified version of M:tG, and it's pretty tough to beat its streamlined design. And then there's classics like UNO, bridge, poker... which may not be *collectible* card games but still count as competition. But I thought I would give it a shot anyways.Here's what I have been experimenting with so far:Each card has one of 5 types:rockpaperdynamitescissorsgunrock beats gun and scissors, scissors beats dynamite and paper, etc.each type of card can beat the two types above it(by the way, if you have any other 5-element RPS variant, please tell me! I already know about Spock and Lizard, though)Some sample cards might be:rock - light tankpaper - combat chopperdynamite - rocket infantryscissors - flak troopersgun - sniperHere I am still deciding on how the game is going to be played. One idea is this:1. Decks have 40 cards, you can use whatever number of the same card2. To being the game, shuffle decks3. Each player draws 7 cards4. On the first turn, player 1 plays any card5. Turn 2, player 2 must play a card that beats player 1's card6. Then it's player 1's turn again, and player 1 must beat player 2's card7. During your turn you can discard your hand and draw up to 7 new cards, and you can do this as many times as you want8. If you cannot play a card, you loseNow each card might have a special ability like:paper - spy: look at 3 random cards from a player's handdynamite - emp bomb: discard the top card of your deck. choose a player. that player discards a card from their handRight now though, I am just testing decks with varying amounts of rock, paper, dynamite, scissors, guns, with no special abilities, to see what kinds of special abilities might be interesting. The optimal deck strategy here is to have equal amounts of all 5 types, right?Here's an example game, with fairly ordinary decks. Obviously pure luck is going to decide the winner, with the simplicity of the game so far.Player 1 draws: R P DDD SS (33 in deck)Player 2 draws: RRRR PP G (33 in deck)Player 2 might be less than happy with RRRR. It might be useful to design a card with an ability like: "you may put 2 cards in your hand on the bottom of your deck to draw a card".1: D (hand R P DD SS)2: G (hand RRRR PP)1: R (hand P DD SS)2: P (hand RRRR P)1: D (hand P D SS)Player 2 redraws R PP D SS G (26 in deck)2: S (hand R PP D S G)I toyed with a rule that you could play two rocks in a turn to beat rock, or SS to beat S... but I didn't think it was necessary.Player 1 redraws DDD S GGG (26)1: G (hand DDD S GG)2: P (hand R P D S G)1: D (hand DD S GG)2: S (hand R P D G)1: G (hand DD S G)2: P (hand R D G)1: D (hand D S G)2: G (hand R D)Player 1 redraws R P D SSS G (19)You can see that this is going to back-and-forth, either player's victory hinging on the winds of fate. But here's the interesting part: what would have happened if Player 1 had perfect information about P2's hand? If it turns out that information is a huge advantage, then there is value to cards that let you gain information about the opponent's hand.Let's rewind the game and give P1 cheater-vision.Player 1 draws: R P DDD SS (33 in deck)Player 2 draws: RRRR PP G (33 in deck)Too easy. Nothing beats paper!1: P (R DDD SS)2: @*&#^*&Player 2 redraws R PP D SS G (26 in deck)2: S (R PP D S G)1: R (DDD SS)2: P (R P D S G)1: D (DD SS)2: S (R P D G)Player 1 redraws DDD S GGG (26)1: G (DDD S GG)2: R (P D G)1: D (DD S GG)1: drats, even with cheater-vision history repeats itselfEven though cheater-vision didn't help at all after P2's redraw, it was definitely devastating in the first hand, and it could have decided the game if things went differently. But in conjunction with *other* special card abilities, something like "reveal 3 random cards" could be quite helpful.In any case, tell me what you think. The ultimate goal would be a game that was relatively sophisticated in strategy (for both playing and deck-building) but still simple in rules and easy to physically play (e.g. no excessive shuffling, counters, coin flips). Also I should add that I am aware this is perhaps not the place for a topic like this, as these forums seem more focused on electronic games. So, if you know of any other good game design forums (especially card games) could you direct me to them?Thanks for reading this![Edited by - snarles on December 11, 2007 9:12:07 PM]
  Naturally I was interested in this post since my game is heavily influenced by MTG and trying to find a system that is fun, flexible, and prevents mana-hosing has been tough at best.I may have just missed it b/c I'm tired but I didn't see how a card "beats" another card. Also, being a constant Johnny is Magic, my first thought was packing the deck with a high ratio of "discard 2, draw 1 cards". If the lost pile gets shuffled back in when I run out, I basically just keep drawing until I find what I want (discard 2 for 1 or all of them if I get desperate).Not so keen on rock, paper, scissors, out of place, out of place naming. Just give them colors, numbers whatever to playtest with unless you're going for flavor like MTG.I would never waste a card slot to look at my opponent's hand. Maybe if it were a cantrip to let me draw another card so it was essentially free?   ;  First of all, it's nice to see a fellow M:tG enthusiast! But note that this game is going to be pretty much nothing like M:tG, even if I mentioned it in my post (only because it's an awesome game). This game is more like UNO or War than Magic right now. Since milling is basically the win condition in this rudimentary version of the game, card advantage is a lot less helpful than it is in Magic. I will probably change the win condition to something other than milling, though.Anyways, here's the system (I admit I was a bit cursory in the first post)Rock (R), beats Scissors and Gun, and is beaten by Dynamite and PaperPaper (P), beats Gun and Rock (by passing gun laws? the real mystery is how it beats Rock), and is beaten by Scissors and DynamiteDynamite (D), beats Rock and Paper (blows them up), and is beaten by Scissors and Gun (explained later)Scissors (S), beats Paper and Dynamite (cuts the fuse), and is beaten by Gun and RockGun (G), beats Dynamite and Scissors (by shooting the guy with the scissors?), and is beaten by Rock and PaperIn summary:P, D > R > S, GD, S > P > G, RS, G > D > R, PG, R > S > P, DR, P > G > D, SI swear, it's a lot less confusing than it looks, if you play some rock-paper-dynamite-scissors-gun with your friends to get used to it.So, if I play a Rock-type card, on your turn you must play either a Dynamite card  or a Paper-type. If you don't have those cards in your hand, you have to draw a new hand. Do this more times than your opponent, and you run out of cards and lose!Since you mentioned you were a Johnny, I have to warn you that it will be a while before I can develop any "combos" for this game. But don't think I'm not looking into it!Good luck with your game, anyways. Have you heard of Duel Masters? Basically, you can play spells as either spells or lands, which gets rid of mana-hosing. You might want to look into it for Wizard's simpler take on M:tG.EDIT: If this version of the game is too simplistic, I was also testing a version that involved 3 "cities" and each player trying to capture the cities by beating their opponent's cards in the city. You won by capturing all 3 cities. Cards had abilities like "when this card captures a city, you may draw 2 cards" or "when you play this card, you may discard 2 cards from your hand to move an opponent's top card in any city to the discard pile." Yeah.... I will explain this alternate version of the game later.[Edited by - snarles on December 11, 2007 9:36:31 PM];  I have been playing around with the Scissors/Paper/Rock type mechanics for a while now. I just like to see what I can do with it as a way to pass the time (yup I'm a geek :D).I try not to use actual objects (scissors, paper, stone, spock, etc) and use an abstract notation (A,B,C,D...) and then later attach objects to it if needed.Here is my favourite 5 way system:A -> B and DB -> C and DC -> A and DD -> EE -> A, B and CAs you can see it is lopsided. E beats most things and D only beats E. I find this kind of "just broken" symmetry makes a more appealing system.It is actually quite easy to make a symmetrical version as long as you use an odd number of "things". It is when you start to make non-symmetrical versions that things get complex (also when trying to put actual objects to them also is tricky).Quote:rock beats gun and scissors, scissors beats dynamite and paper, etc.each type of card can beat the two types above itWhen using concrete (rather than abstract) representations, I try to use the mechanics of the game to create the R/P/S system.For instance, if I was to make it a pre gunpowder warfare game, I would use: Pikemen, Archer and Cavalry. But instead of just stating that: Pikemen -> Cavalry -> Archer -> Pikemen, I would create mechanics that allow the pikemen to beat the cavalry and so forth. Like: Pikemen get first strikes, but can't make any manoeuvres in a turn. Archers can use 1 manoeuvre a turn to change the range from close to long or back again, and they can attack at long range but only do a small amount of damage either way. Cavalry can only attack at close range, but they also get a manoeuvre each turn to change the range from close to long or back again.This way, the Pikemen can the first attack anyone at a close range, but since archers can move to long range and attack, archers will beat pikemen. However, cavalry can only attack at close range, but the pikemen will do their damage first and could defeat the cavalry before they even get an attack on the pikemen.Calvary with their manoeuvre can counter any manoeuvre that archers do and so attack them in close (with archers being poor at damage, they will be killed by the cavalries better attacks).So using the rules, we can get a S/P/R system without having to explicitly state it. This makes it easier for players to remember who beats who (rather than having to memorise tables along with the rules) as it emerges form the gameplay. It also allows you to create "Modifier" cards that can change the balance between the types. Just say you have a one off card that give 1 extra manoeuvre in a turn. This might allow your Archers to escape from Cavalry, or allow your Pikemen to catch the Archers.Quote:5. Turn 2, player 2 must play a card that beats player 1's cardI would give them the option of countering the other player's cards. Forcing them to do so takes the game away from the player and places it into the random draw of the deck.Quote:Now each card might have a special ability like:And if a player is forced to play a particular card, then the use of the special abilities is not in the players control.I designed a board game a while ago that used the basic A -> B -> C -> A mechanic (scissors/paper/rock). The rules stated that if a player played an "A" type  then the "B" type would be beaten, but to make the game be in the player's control, I used spatial positioning to determine if the piece was to be removed.The players had to place their pieces on a hexagonal grid, if the attacking piece was next to the defending pieces then the loosing piece would be removed. If they were not next to each other, then there would be no contest and so no winner or looser and the pieces would remain on the board (until a piece was played next to them). Also, the location on the board indicated what piece type (A, B or C) the player had to pick up (there were also special locations where it gave the player a choice as to the type picked up and these were also the goals needed to win the game by having a piece on them - so there was the pay off of trying to defend these locations, or the freedom of being able to choose your next piece when it was most advantageous).You might use a square grid, but using the spatial layout allows players to keep control over the game rather than have it end up as a "luck of the draw".   ;  Thanks for the input! I actually started with a mechanics-based system that created RPS interactions like you described, but I actually decided I could simplify the rules of the game by just plain using "Rock, Paper, Scissors". But then I decided that adding Dynamite and Gun were worthwhile for expanding the strategy. Do you think it will be too difficult to remember the roles of Dynamite and Gun for the players?Anyways, the broken symmetry idea looks interesting and I will be sure to think about giving the players more options. Again, thanks for the advice!Here's another question: what are ways to design a card game so that it can be satisfactorily played in both 2-player and multi-player? I'm having a heck of a time thinking up mechanics that would be good in multiplayer *and* single-player, but not broken in both. For example, "heal 3 life" is way better in multiplayer while "look at an opponent's hand and discard a card from it" is weak in multiplayer but almost broken in a duel.   ;Quote:Thanks for the input! I actually started with a mechanics-based system that created RPS interactions like you described, but I actually decided I could simplify the rules of the game by just plain using "Rock, Paper, Scissors". But then I decided that adding Dynamite and Gun were worthwhile for expanding the strategy. Do you think it will be too difficult to remember the roles of Dynamite and Gun for the players?The problem with this kind of simplification is that you end up abstracting the system and abstracting like this can actually make it harder for the player remember the rules.Think about GUIs. Most dialogue boxes have buttons that read "OK" or "Cancel". So what if we simplified this to colours, that way even people from other countries would be able to use the system.Lets use Green for "Ok", and Blue for "Cancel" (as red would indicate a bad thing).But what if you wanted an "Apply" button rather than just an "OK" button, what if someone forgot what Green or Blue meant?By abstracting something it adds an extra cognitive layer for the player to deal with.Think about two choices: Gun and Paper. Gun could shoot through paper, or Paper could outlaw guns, which is it? You might state one in your game, but not everybody thinks the same way and thy might get confused due to the abstraction of the rules.However, if you made it rule dependant: Say that the Gun fires bullets that can damage objects, and that you can write on paper, then it becomes obvious that the Bullet will damage the paper and writing on paper can't defeat the Gun, so Gun beats paper.So although the system might be mechanically more complex, the cognitive load on the player is actually less complex.If you are developing this on a computer, then rule implementation is handled by the computer and not the player, so you should try to minimise the cognitive load on the player and place it more on the computer (that is what it is there for). If it is played with real cards, then it comes down to a balance between rule complexity and the cognitive load created by the abstractions.Quote:Here's another question: what are ways to design a card game so that it can be satisfactorily played in both 2-player and multi-player? I'm having a heck of a time thinking up mechanics that would be good in multiplayer *and* single-player, but not broken in both. For example, "heal 3 life" is way better in multiplayer while "look at an opponent's hand and discard a card from it" is weak in multiplayer but almost broken in a duel.This is a hard one. When a game is balanced for 2 players, adding in other players means that the number of conflicts rises (and usually dramatically). So if a player can only just defend against 1 opponent in a 2 player game, if you then add in another opponent, then the number of attacks will double and therefore overwhelm the player.What you therefore need is some way to reduce the number of attacks directed at any one player. A simple way is to only allow the player to attack the player to one side of them (and therefore they only have the player to the other side of them to defend against).A better (but much harder to develop) method is to implement rules that act as a negative feedback loop for attackers. Something that means that the more attackers on a single player, the better they can defend.I can see a two part rule here that might do the trick:1) When you attack, you can't use that card again, even for defense, until your turn comes around again.2) Cards used for defense against one opponent can be used again for defence against another opponent, but can still only be used once against any one opponent.Ok, these rules mean that the more you attack, the more vulnerable you will be from any one other opponent, but you should still be able to defend your self against all the opponents.   ;  Heh, that is basically what Magic: the Gathering has, since you tap to attack but not to block. Also, good point on abstraction creating more cognitive load-- I will have to keep that in mind.Anyways, here's another idea I have been kicking around. If you think about it, Poker is an extremely simple game-- you could simplify poker to the point where each player gets a 1-card hand and it would still play fine. 5-card hands and the hold 'em setup only really serve to make the math more complicated, but the core of the game-- bluffing and betting-- can function without these contraptions.Now look at the World Poker Championships. These players all know the math, so for them, Hold 'Em really *is* as simple as 1-card poker. But there still is intense competition, even though from a mathematical standpoint the strategy behind poker is trivial. Simply allowing players to bluff elevates Poker to one of the most competitive games there is! And even if you argue that bluffing doesn't really serve to increase strategic depth-- that maybe it even increases the luck factor in games-- it's undoubtable that bluffing adds emotional excitement to gameplay.So I'm quite interested in incorporating chances for players to bluff in this card game. But can I make the bluffing as sophisticated as it is in Poker, where players can choose to bet varying amounts of money? I'm not sure how I could incorporate a "betting" system gracefully, since I don't like the idea of simply starting players with tokens or points to bet-- I want to take advantage of the   mechanics of Poker without making the game overtly resemble it. Thoughts?   ;Quote:Heh, that is basically what Magic: the Gathering has, since you tap to attack but not to block.Yep. :DQuote:Also, good point on abstraction creating more cognitive load-- I will have to keep that in mind.I use cognitive load as a measure of a games complexity rather than the amount of rules (although more rules usually increase cognitive load anyway).A couple of thing to keep in mind with cognitive load and how much is too much:1) Most people can only keep 7 things (+/- 2) in working memory at any time. At the full 7 this is a high cognitive load. So as a quick rule, only have the player needing to keep around 5 things in memory at any time.Why do you think that 5 and 7 cards are common hand sizes for games?2) Related to the first point (it is more as a result of it), People, when presented with many choice will get locked up if it exceeds those "magic" numbers of 5 and 7. If you give people more than 5 - 7 choices at a time, they will not be able to easily choose and many will just give up their choice (analysis paralysis as it is known). For a light game 3 choices would be good, but for a more serious game then 5 choices would be the limit, for a real hardcore game, 7 choices should be the limit.Quote:Anyways, here's another idea I have been kicking around. If you think about it, Poker is an extremely simple game-- you could simplify poker to the point where each player gets a 1-card hand and it would still play fine. 5-card hands and the hold 'em setup only really serve to make the math more complicated, but the core of the game-- bluffing and betting-- can function without these contraptions.Have a look at this: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1733/rock_paper_scissors__a_method_for_.php. It mainly talks about RPS, but it also goes on to talk about how Signalling and Bluffing (faking a signal) can add to the strategic depth of the game.Quote:So I'm quite interested in incorporating chances for players to bluff in this card game. But can I make the bluffing as sophisticated as it is in Poker, where players can choose to bet varying amounts of money? I'm not sure how I could incorporate a "betting" system gracefully, since I don't like the idea of simply starting players with tokens or points to bet-- I want to take advantage of the mechanics of Poker without making the game overtly resemble it. Thoughts?Betting is a form of Signalling (see the article I linked to above).If you think about it, you don't need money as a currency for betting. the amount of game resource (points, time/turns, cards, etc) all are a form of "Bet". The player is betting that the effort that they put into executing a strategy will reward them (by defeating the enemies strategy).For bluffing to work, there must be some form of hidden information (this might be cards in the hand, cards in play - face down cards that the opponent doesn't know the details of), and something at risk (maybe it is the cards in you hand, or the resources, points, time/turns, etc that the player has put into it).I really recommend reading that article. the whole signalling and separation of the signal and the action is a very good design tool.   ;  Thanks for the link, it was very helpful!Quote:For bluffing to work, there must be some form of hidden information (this might be cards in the hand, cards in play - face down cards that the opponent doesn't know the details of), and something at risk (maybe it is the cards in you hand, or the resources, points, time/turns, etc that the player has put into it).So it's actually quite easy to build bluffing into combat (in fact, that seems to be what most other TCG's do.)How about something like this:1. Over the game, Players build up military forces2. A player may decide to launch an attack with an attacking party. To do so, they must make some sort of sacrifice, like not being able to build up their position that turn (minimum bet)3. There may be a choice of several locations. Some locations are more difficult to attack but also have more rewards (increasing the bet)3. The defending player may form a defending party to prevent the location from being attacked (counter bet)If they don't, the attack succeeds (folding)Another type of folding is sending minimum defenders to stop the attack, a "chump block"4. There may be special cards called 'scouts' that allow the attacking player to 'retreat' after seeing the blocking party, and call off the attack (folding)5. If nobody retreats, the attacker and defender now alternate in playing hidden combat effects from their hands (revealing the poker hands)6. If the attacker wins the battle, the defender incurs heavy losses. Otherwise the attacker incurs heavy losses (the payoff)A crude way of doing this includes having hard-to-play effects like "destroy all defenders." At the same time, if the defender knows the attacker does not possess such effects, it must be optimal to defend with the most powerful forces.   ;  Bluffing is actually a more common mechanic that you might think. Even in games where there is no explicit rules to create bluffing, it can sometimes emerge from the gameplay.Take a simple racing game. You might ahve two vehicals (lets call them go-carts) and one id trying to overtake the other. The first player (the go-cart in front) has to block the second player. The second player can doge to one side and then quickly dodge back. They have just used a bluff.The first dodge bluffs the front player as to the direction that the second player is going to move in. They usually respond by moving in that direction to cut them off. But since the second player's final move was in the other direction, the first player's reaction times means that the second player now has enough time to make their passing move.There were bets: The Second player made a bet that the first player would be fooled by the bluff. If the first player had not responded to the bluff (waited to see if it was a bluff/called the bluff) then the second player will have lost an opertunity to pass the player and as the race is only a finite time/number of laps, this is his "bet": Time.When the first player responded to the second player's "bluff" by trying to counter their initial move, they also had to "Bet". This was their ability to respond to the final move of the second player.So even in a game where there are no explicit rules for betting and bluffing, there can emerge from the gameplay betting and bluffing.   