Ideas on a non turn based card game?

In this way, the time an action takes could be measured as a game resource, not in real time. This could be a way to model a timed event without the game being a dexterity game. Not that there's anything wrong with dexterity games, although I find they often can have a snag when both players do something "at the same time". I like Brawl for instance, and as a kid I played a lot of Spit, Speed, and Egyption Rat Screw.

But in a bigger game, a timed element might be wanted, but not the dexterity element. Maybe that could be accomplished with relative time measure.

- Seth

As an example, say for each 'round' of action, each player gets 10 little wooden action cubes. This is basically budgeted action points. As you take actions, you pay the appropriate amount of cubes. if you run out that means you don't have time to do more. If you start an action that uses more cubes than you have, then those cubes you had are 'invested', and next round when you refresh your cubes you can 'finish' that action.

Any thoughts?

Not a bad idea.

however I want to bring something reminicent of 2d fighting games elements into my game.

However my friend said that he himself liked the "laid back appeal" of table top games

so should i go for a more laid back approach (turn based/less reactionary?)

Interesting idea seems a little complicated though, i'll try to make it simple as possible but thanks who knows maybe i'll use it.

You're help is appreciated.

Thanks all of ya

Like say you're playing Tennis... maybe when the ball is hit to you you basically have a second or two to react, move, and play the ball. Sop lets say you can take 4 actions in that time, where an action might be step left, step right, switch grip (backhand to forehand), or swing.

So you get 4 Action cubes each time the ball is hit at you, representing the time you have to play the ball. Maybe you switch grips, move 2 steps, and swing... each costing 1 cube. next time the ball comes you get 4 cubes again, and this time you don't have to move as far, so you switch grips back and move 1 step (2 cubes so far), then with your remaining 2 cubes you play a special move, a Smash, which costs 2 but sends the ball over faster so the opponent only gets 3 cubes that time. But they return the ball. giving you 4 more cubes, but it's a good shot... you have to spend 3 actions running across the court and you're still not quite there so you do another special move, a Dive, which allows you to play the ball from farther away, but leaves you on the ground where it'll take you an action to get back up.

That game isn't too interesting as is, but maybe if there were a way to aim at a certain part of the court, and then a random factor to see if you hit it or miss and by how much.

Anyway, you see what I mean? That would be very different than fast and furious cardplay... like this example:

Cards show your half of the court with the net near the top. They also depict a ball and the course it's taking. At the beginning of the game there's a 20 second sand timer which is right in the middle. One player starts by playing a Serve card showing the ball going over the net at a certain angle and starting the timer. You must play a card from your hand which matches the entry angle of the ball, and returns it. Some of your cards might make your opponent's shot go out of bounds, scoring you the point (in which case you start over). Some will send the ball into the net. Some will send the ball back over the net. When you play one of thses you flip the time over. The timer will have an indicator (color) on each end so you can tell them apart. You keep playing cards and switching the timer until someone is either forced to play the ball into the net, out of bounds, or until someone's time runs out (all the sand is down).

The interesting part about forcing plays might be that instead of playing cards from your hand, maybe you have 3 face up stacks to choose from, so your opponent can see what you might ba able to do.

In any case this example uses real time as a limiter in what yyou can do. If you take longer than your opponent for each play, you will eventually lose.

- Seth

Hmm... as an addendum, if your faceup stack doesn't have a legal play, maybe you also have a facedown stack that you can start to flip oe card at a time, but you must take the first legal play you find there.

Thanks for responding.

But from what i can tell (maybe i'm wrong)

that isn't reactionary at all unless you mean "story wise" it's reactionary as in how the pieces supposedly react to one another.

You have a very good idea but i don't think it's a fit at least as far as my game goes but correct me if i'm making a mistake:

My game is about positioning and using your options to the best of your ability, if it costs more to use these actions then they would come to play less often.

On the other hand, it would add a level of depth but i really don't think there will be a need for anything more than 1 action at a time and I'm also considering on having mana/energy/stamina cost associated with moves so that would effectively be a cost to use on it's own.

Just to be clear what i understand from your idea is that when someone does a action the other simply names his actions but his actions have a cost to them in the way of the cubes I really don't see where a player's reaction time comes into play as far as the cubes go (edit: I didn't see the timer portion at first .. now i understand).

Maybe i'm reading it wrong, >.< hope you can clarify.

edit: Your timer idea is good and would be great for my game but at the same time the old idea i had (2 seconds per each square it must travel) makes it so the time is varied and also the play field makes the hour glass required not only to have multiple marks so you know how much time has passed (a mark indicating every 2 seconds) it also would need to be really big since my playing field is so big. I was thinking of having a device that beeps or lights up a little bulb every 2 seconds and keeps track of how many times it does this but it seemed a little too complicated and i'm tryign to keep the game as simplistic as possible and have depth without unneccesary or tedious mechanics

In my 2 examples, one relied on the player being physically quick, actually moving cards quickly from one place to another in addition to thinking quickly. The other did not rely on physically being faster than your opponent, but modeled the reaction time of, let's say the character in the game thatt he player controls.
Imagine if you could slow time to a standstill and have all the time you wanted to react to something. It would be sort of like that.

In Dungeon and Dragons things happen like
The dragon breaths at you, take 16 damage. Your turn, what do you do?
Hmm, well I could drink a healing potion so the dragon won't kill me with his next attack, or I could attack the dragon with my staff, or I could try to cast a spell right now... but there's a chance for failure since I'm in combat. I might need the potion later... aw screw it, I'll turn my tail and run!

Obviously in real time the character would be eaten by then. The point is you get time to think about what you want to do, but you can only do what makes sense in game time- in D&D that would mean the player could run from the dragon some amount based on their Speed stat. They could have done any of those other things mentioned, but not more than one of them because there's only so much time that passes during their turn.

I hope that clears it up. I'm not sure that's the direction you want to go with your game, but it's a possiblity. Your friend said he'd prefer this kind of thing to frantic cardplay, right?

- Seth

now i understand.

That's really good.

I'll consider it but honestly i was thinking of the 2d fighting game experience.

In 2d fighting games reaction time is a factor.

I also came up with another system of "traveling distance"

you could have the action card the same size as a square on the grid and then you flip it over let go of the action card and keep doing that until it reaches the opposing character and the person has as much time to react as it what it takes for the action card to overlap their character.

In case i'm unclear, what i mean by flipping it is take the bottom end of it and flip it up (if it was face down it would now be face up) then let go of it completely then grab it again and keep flipping and letting it go until it reaches the distance.

But do you guys think adding the reactionary element is a good idea?

I find 2d fighting games to be really great but what do you guys think?

Note: The reason i have the rule of letting it go is so there won't be any fighting over flipping it over "too fast" and such.