One of the problems that I found in many card games, especially CCG, is the empty hand syndrome. The principle is simple, you draw 1 card per turn but you can play more than 1 card per turn. Consequence, after a few turn, you end up with no cards in your hand. The game stall and becomes less exciting.
I consider it as a bug and a problem that must be solve, some people consider that it is normal. What do you think?
There are various ways to correct the problems. A partial solution can be used like in "Duel Master", when you get attacked and lose a shield, this shield card goes into your hand giving you a supplement card drawn this turn.
OR
You can use a complete solution like in Emmerlaus where at the end of your turn , you draw up to your maximum number of cards in hands. Which mean that at the end of turn, you always have 5 cards in hand.
Having cards in hand makes the game pretty much interesting. For example, in MTG, me and my friend have made the "Draw 7" rule which was.
-At your discard phase, you may discard 1 card even if you have less than 7 cards.
-If at the draw phase you do not have anymore cards, you draw seven cards.
In this way, around 1 or 2 times during the game you have a chance to draw seven cards. It increase the strategic elements since you have much more sorceries and instant to use to attack or defend yourself against your opponent. It makes the game much more exciting. While if you do not use this rule, there is a standoff and you are simply waiting for the card that will make you win the game. So luck is more involved.
I think that there are a few ways to look at this:
1) Are hands being emptied too quickly because a player has no reason to reserve cards for use later? Or, to look at it from the opposite point of view: are hands filling up due to lack of options or beneficial moves to warrant playing a card?
2) Should the rules restrict card placement to encourage the single best play per turn (ie, 1 card per turn), or allow maximum flexibility for the players to decide how much of their hands to risk (ie, play a ton of cards but leave themselves short handed)
3) Are there enough benefits to retaining cards in your hand to off set the benefits of playing multiple cards (ie, are there defensive or scoring incentives to keep cards in hand)
I think MTG offers players maximum control over their play style, thus encouraging players to build decks suited to their tastes, be it aggressive and heavy on multiple-card use, or more balanced and patient, rewarding keeping cards in hand for more options as needed.
Some games, like Blue Moon by Reiner Knizia, fall somewhere in between. You draw back up to a standard hand size, but aside from some special types of cards (such as Gang cards or Paired cards) you aren't going to play out your entire hand nearly as often as in Magic. It offers flexibility while still providing a few more boundaries.
I guess the bottom line is, when looking at the empty hand issue from a game design standpoint: how much value do you want cards in hand to have, and what sort of pace do you want the game to have?