Turn-based Battle Game

I often find the most PERTINENT question is: "Is the game FUN???" I have worked on designing several "duel" style games -- and have always shelved the intended work. because it never felt "exciting". Or there was not enough strategy or decision making.

I think by comparing ANYTHING to Magic: the Gathering, one is making a very incorrect comparison. Magic is "unique". It has ALL of the moving parts that make the game compulsive. Competing or wanting to design something that can compare ... is just the wrong road to take.

I am also working on YET another "duel" game... But my practice of design crappy ones, has allowed me to "mature" my palate (like an aged wine). I've spent some time understanding that in order to design a "good" (relative) "duel" game ... it must be MORE than just the sum of its parts (mechanics and components).

Again not being critical -- this is FREE advice (take it or leave it - it all depends up to you...)

Choosing three (3) STATIC characters is not the best idea. A player KNOWS exactly what STRATEGY he can play with those specific three. Instead make it VARIABLE strategy with a deck of FIVE (5) characters, from which each player chooses RANDOMLY THREE (3) from the five to combat. See the difference? Adds more variability, replayability (rounds) and makes it harder to pin-point an EXACT game strategy.

Now I would typically say your game needs "Instant" or "Take-That" cards player can play AT WILL or at specific points. This would be up to you, and maybe just have "reactions" to an attack (like a counter card). But you need something to create BIG MOMENTS. In my duel game (that I'm working on) there is only ONE (1) Warlord per deck (11 cards). And when that card gets played it influences the board dramatically benefiting the owner. So it creates an interesting paradigm where the OPPONENT sees that card as a threat -- and so the whole "I'm going to bang up your Warlord" sets in. And it's variable too (because sometimes it's easier to strike the Warlord, sometimes it's impossible...)

The thing about D10s is that they are HARD to customize. Again take it or leave it (free advice), I would go for CUSTOM D6s. In my game there are no dice -- everything is deterministic. But if I would want some randomness, I would lean towards custom d6s... Also people who HATE dice, will steer clear of your game. The opposite is also TRUE: people who love dice -- like it when there is more than two (2) custom dice. I would say you could be good for up to FIVE (5) or SIX (6) custom dice. And injecting a variable dice mechanic where you mix-it-up with the character (each character has their own SPECIAL die -- managed by color or something like that).

TL;DR ... But that's okay -- welcome to BGDF. Enjoy the discussions!

Update: Your idea of using JRPG as thematics -- is very original! If you could secure some *serious* Manga or Japanese-style artist... I could picture your game doing well.

It seems like everyone is designing DUEL games these days. We just had a SuperHero thread that went stellar with over 3,000 views and more than 120 comments/posts.

So this is not new ... maybe your game might get the same attention!

Cheers.

I referenced this game just a few days ago: Epic PvP. In that game it's a one-on-one duel, but depending on the fantasy race and class each player chooses, they have an exclusive deck of cards to shuffle together and use against their opponent.

I suggest you have a look at that game and see what you can learn from it:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/168770/epic-pvp-fantasy

Not sure how you want to mix cards and dice together to make your idea work - personally I think there would be enough unpredictability built into using the cards you've mentioned in your first post - but it's certainly possible. The fantasy/JRPG theme is accessible and familiar. I'm a fan of the old Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior games myself, and would be interested in seeing how you put it all together and make it work.

Work out the synergy between the cards and the dice, and you'd be in excellent shape.

EDIT
A game I'm familiar with that combines cards and dice - but pretty much went off the deep end, in my opinion - is Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards: Duel at Mount Skullzfyre. I used to enjoy that game a lot, but after the novelty of the ridiculous combinations wore off I found myself coming back only to look at the artwork.

The game is "highly tactical" and is quite luck-dependent. This makes for dramatic moments and plenty of upsets and un/pleasant surprises. Not really my thing, but it does combine cards and dice in an engaging way.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/112686/epic-spell-wars-battle-wizard...

This sounds like an interesting idea, and having a 3-on-3 battle can open up some interesting dynamics. It sounds like you want to include both players' cards in each set, which is a good way to go.

I think that questccg's concern was if players can pick their heroes and their upgrades, then players will find and stick to a favorite combo which hurts replayability.

One way to mix that up was suggested: a tiny bit of deck-building where the player "calls" five heroes and only three show up. Another is to force players to pick different heroes each game.

In a theme that involves mercenaries or mind control, it'd be valid to make players exchange one of their played heroes for one that the opponent played. Of course, your opponent will choose to take the character that you just used to mop the floor with his/her team. But he or she is not obligated to play that hero this time around, denying you the ability to get it back for a while.

You can suggest in the rules, but ultimately it's up to players if they want to keep a persistent roster across sessions or not.

(Edit for grammar)

With customizing a player's "deck" (is this traditional Deck-Construction?) you are saying that each player will have their own strategy -- even if it surrounded around one (1) specific character. Is this correct?

When I think "customizing" I think "CCG". Why? Because you need a LARGE pool of cards to draw and construct your deck with. And that's out of most people's financial budgets. Could be in the $100k range -- and is feasible with a Kickstarter ... so it is possible. But unlikely if you are a first time designer and don't have a large network of supporters.

Sorry I made an assumption based on another "duel" game on the forum which was superheroes and villains. My assumption was you would ONLY have "character" cards and custom dice. I didn't realize each player would also have some kind of "deck"...

But my concerns are still valid. Feel free to share more so I can better understand the components to your game.

Cheers.

Thanks for posting the full instructions, it eliminates a lot of guessing :-)

How many cards are available in each kind of deck, and what is the minimum/maximum number of cards required in an actual deck? Am I correct in assuming a game set includes all of the potential cards for two players? Or is there a CCG element?

My reading of the rules is that the player has access to all of the Ability and Action cards associated with a character, and can pick any combination of them to play on a turn (though, as you note, a character can usually only play one Action or Ability at a time).

If that reading is correct, it is equivalent to printing several different abilities on the character card... except that it gives you a lot more space to write out descriptions and gives you a way to make players commit to a decision at the start of a round. Very clever.

Getting back to the earlier concerns about replayability, moderately experienced players may just gravitate to a favorite set of characters and equipment. As the rules stand now, the main source of variability would be the Field Cards, which sound like (in MtG terms) a set of Sorceries restricted to play after the combat phase.

This might work out just fine, but you might need to nudge players into trying new characters. That could be a gentle nudge like a set of random environment conditions set before play ("Stormy: Flying characters operate 1 Speed slower than normal, and Lightning attacks inflict 1 extra HP of damage")... or it could be the kaiju-to-the-face method I mentioned earlier with character snatching.

Of the "FIELD" Round? I didn't understand the reason for this phase, nor the type of cards used in it. Seems a bit "random".

Can you clarify the purpose of this round???

Seems to me, adding some "variability" to your game would keep the battle mechanic "fresh". I started by proposing five (5) units/characters and doing random select for three (3) to battle. This would make battles less predictable and definitely add more "replayability".

But what you explained in that "Field Round" sounds absolutely preposterous. I didn't make sense before your explanation and it still doesn't make any sense to me after.

With regard to 5 vs 3 units/characters... Your problem is those "customizable" deck that accompany a character. My suggestion is something like Gundam style with maybe a mix with a "small" yet "customizable" TEN (10) card deck. Each character has APs, those determine which and how many of the ten cards you can play.

With real LEAN decks (TEN or under), you could transport five (5) units/characters. That would mean 50 cards, less than Magic's 60!

I know, I know ... I read your rules. I'm just going with OTHER ideas.

And ten (10) cards to a deck (or hand) is for perhaps customizing your unit/character (with 4 cards) and "6" Action/Power Move cards complementing your unit/character.

I definitely see "Dice-Action". And I would use a custom d6: indicates the number of "APs" you have per turn (and is variable). Maybe something like 4-9 APs (on the custom die). And with that you need to make the best combo for your unit/character.

All that I have written ADD "variability". And probably ENHANCE the simple battle mechanics.

I'll just add for @FrankM:

This was sort of what I thought Jedite1000's Superhero game was going to have: a complimentary and customizable small deck of "Action" cards.

I still see no purpose for the FIELD Round... Probably my own lack of understanding. I haven't had an "ahaa" moment about your explanation... So I'm still uncertain about it.

But consider some of what I've written.

Note: The customization (4 cards), I was thinking Left + Right hands for "Weapons" or "Defensive shielding", for the Top a "Helmet" and for Bottom some kind of "Armor". Then you would have SIX (6) Power Moves along with some "basic" attack (standard for all characters).

This to me sounds more realistic card-wise (count) and the setup.

Battlefield cards. In some CCGs like "Chaotic" (was popular for a short while), you choose the "location" you battle in. It offers some kind of conditions/restrictions or bonuses/penalties, etc.

That could add some "variability".

Like "Samurai Dojo": "Players may only attack with one character per turn." Something to do with the Samurai Honor Code where 1 on 1 is the preferred form of encounter.

And of course this will/can add a bunch of "Lore" to your game too. You can think up of more appropriate settings for your battles and obviously the stories that go along with them...

That makes more sense in the "terrain"-oriented sort of direction... Well sorta... LOL!

It's fine in this location ("New Game Ideas")... And thank you for sharing your rulebook (or at least the present rules to your game). I'm sure me, like others, will be able to read through the rulebook ... to get a better understanding about your game.

One question: "As a JRPG, what is the setting?"

Is this like a "Medieval Fantasy" or "Super Futuristic"?

Usually those are the two (2) settings of most Japanese style games. There are also fictional context like "Attack on Titan"... Or Devil Survivor (DS) which is like present day with "Fictional Monsters"... Then there a Gundam-style settings for things like Power Rangers and maybe some early RoboTech where it is all Sci-Fi.

Cheers!

Not giving the player any chance to shape the availability of Generic cards makes it less likely that someone will fall into a rut of playing the same characters and load-out, but one of the nudges I mentioned above might help as well.

The idea of a Battlefield card is that some small number of them are dealt from a special deck of Battlefield cards, and they represent unavoidable rule changes for that game. That would help mix up players' strategies.

If there are hero factions, are there exactly two factions, or do the players pick two from among several? Can a player mix and match heroes from different factions? If so, how would any faction-level special abilities work (player can only use the special ability of the "flag" faction, or each character operates under the special ability of its origin... either can lead to very unusual interactions)?

Just to be clear, not trying to fault your current idea or how you wrote it up... these questions are my way of suggesting some directions you might want to look.

I think the "direct" language we use sometimes gives people (other) the impression we are "telling designers what to do".

And of course that is an incorrect conclusion. Our "direct" language serves as a way of expressing ideas -- you as the designer will or will not choose to follow. But at least you had the chance to mull over the design and see if you could better incorporate "some" ideas or be exposed to other ideas -- again to see how they "might" work with your design.

I think our friend "Super-Tooned" doesn't necessarily understand that we are not telling anyone what they should do. We're just presenting ideas that come to mind based on the input given by the designer (aka You). It's your final "right to veto" anything you may have read, heard or seen... because ultimately it is your design.

But coming to a forum and joining it's ranks -- and asking questions, is in my mind a great way to get feedback about your design(s). So please don't be offended if some of our "posturing" seems direct. It's just simpler to express the ideas and have the designer critique them himself.

Cheers and hope your design comes along!

Custom dice certainly aren't essential (remember in Trouble! how there were special rules for when you rolled a 6?), but they can be much easier for players if you want to do anything more complicated that generate a number from the dice roll.

Besides, if the game takes off, you can have a little side business selling replacement dice, premium dice, etc.

Then you can have SOME "character" only allow you to choose and LINK ONE die... where as some OTHER "characters" allow you to LINK BOTH custom dice.

This also injects some "character" variability.

You can have different BONUS for each "character" one being a +1 Die selection... And you can VARY that SOME MORE:

• Jack has TWO (2) LINKED dice when he ATTACKS. But only ONE (1) when defending.
• Jill has the opposite: 2 LINKED dice when she DEFENDS.
• etc.

Something along those lines. Again I have purposely offered you choices DIFFERENT from Jedite1000 game - because he too uses 5 custom dice and there were different presets.

This Dice-combat idea is "different" from his, offering your game unique flavor.

Cheers.

Some thoughts:

1)
Other than bosses, fights in a classic JRPG serve the role more of letting the player test their build than providing engaging gameplay. This is the reason many of them have you fighting 1000s of fights to level up or before the next part of the story - you need to test your build many times so that you are good with it before going against a boss. That's also why they usually resolve quickly and are not drawn out - you either lose and know your build needs tweaking or you win and can try against more different types of enemy groups.

Bosses are like the final test to see if your tweaking and preparation was correct, while also throwing some new mechanics and challenge at you that you probably haven't seen before.

I'm not sure what a 2-player head to head rendition of those battle mechanics is supposed to be like. You probably don't want it to resolve as quickly, and you probably don't want the fight to be as asynchronous as a boss fight.

Just something to consider as you adapt - you are harkening back to some of those old mechanics, but you may have to take some liberties to support a very different format.

2)
Example games: boss monster, battlecon, sentinels of the multiverse

Boss monster does a really good job at capitalizing on nostalgia for those old games. It proves retro can sell. It also adapts old themes in a new way, by making the player the boss. I think it's a good example of taking something familiar and making it work as a game by modifying it, which is exactly what you are doing.

Battlecon is an excellent 2-player dueling game which adapts not jrpgs but fighting games in as way that feels almost exactly like what it emulates. It's also worth looking into as there is not an awful lot of pre-game customization: Players choose a preset fighter with a preset deck and just have at it. And yet the strategy is quite deep, enabling you to play many times and still get a thrill even in the same matchup. Chess has no variable elements whatsoever and it has persisted, so I'm not sure I agree with questccg that you must have more variability in player loadout to create a fun game.

It also uses an ap/hp type system.

Since you are emulating the jrpg of course, people will expect a lot of flexibility in creating that initial build.

And Sentinels just feels the most like a jrpg boss fight of any non-digital game I've ever played. It's a very good adaptation, even though it doesn't mimic the theme. Again, like battlecon, other than which heroes you bring, there isn't much pregame customization.

3) Consider whether you really need dice when you already have cards. How random are you intending the experience to be? JRPGS certainly have some randomness, but usually the right strategy is close to foolproof. Dice rolls also can slow a game down. It can certainly work, and I play Pathfinder ACG which has a lot of dice rolls in addition to the cards. But the game is essentially "how can I play my cards to give me the best chance at my dice roll". Which is fine - but is that the game YOU are hoping to make? Always make sure your design decisions are supporting the experience you want players to have.

4) Have you started with basic prototypes/playtesting? I find out very quickly how bad my ideas are when I just take my stack of blank cards and a sharpie and start writing some stuff up and attempting a sample turn. This is before even thinking of what I think the right cards would be. I usually find enough issues that I get discouraged and give up :P Until lightning strikes and I feel like I've got the bones of something worth fleshing out.

I like the concept, and good luck!