Card "Abilities": What to do INSTEAD???

My idea is to have "circles" with a stat: Power, Skill or Magic. When a card defeats an opponent, that cards earns a BONUS for the corresponding stat. Each time that card defeats another opponent, he can gain from 1 to 5 extra bonus for that stat.

So instead of "Brotherhood", The Fighter ("John Brutus") would have 4 "+" (Power) circles. This would mean that his "Power" can vary between 2 and 10 (6 +/- 4) depending if he is on the defensive or the offensive.

Maybe I need to alter the "movement" to be another Step in the Basic Turn. Something like:

3> On your turn, you may decide to move ONE (1) card into an open adjacent position. (And state rules for "open" and "adjacent") This is OPTIONAL.

Adjacent = N, S, E and W.
Open = connecting to a card, swap defeated card position (if present).

Although this GREATLY simplifies the design. It leaves room for more strategy ... And it is very "visual" also. You can use a colored dry erase marker to just highlite the number of kills for each unit.

I'm working on designing a NEW "prototype" with this new system of Bonuses/Penalties ... I'm still thinking about HOW I can "improve" upon this system to make it more varied.

I am also open to NEW suggestions too... If you have an idea, feel free to share it. Whatever is suggested, I will consider and see if it would work with the existing design or not. In order to evaluate how I may be able to "integrate" the idea into the existing game.

So feel free to comment!

I will see if I can ADAPT the idea to "How the game is to be played". So what I was suggesting as a bonus each time a card defeats another card, I'm now thinking that the method of play should depend on decision trees.

It's going to take some *serious* testing to see if this will work properly on a game that ONLY lasts twelve (12) rounds.

But there are definitely some INTERESTING possible outcomes that might work with the current "calculator". That's something that I would like to keep intact: the nature of the computations remain the SAME. The mechanic is neat (maybe a bit complicated) and the online tool has been developed to HELP with how calculations work. It's fundamentally so simple, all you do is choose the two (2) cards and the score adjustment is computed for you.

I'm just going to try an example for the first card. And see how that works out (design-wise). That will be enough for tonight. Tomorrow is another day... And I can explore further the design and principles that I have set forth tonight.

There are only three (3) cards that remain to be EDITED with their own Decision Trees. Then I will need to Print & Cut all the cards for a new prototype. I already know that the old prototype will be useless... Now that I am pursuing another type of mechanic.

I think that one other alternative exists. And instead of using the Trees to control the "Attack/Defend/Move" Actions, I could make each card configurable/"personalizable". What I mean, is that instead of Actions, they could be like Bonus Stats. So you could transform the existing cards into different bonuses/penalties according to where you are at in the Tree.

This is yet another possibility... I first need to playtest the "Action" version and see how it is. If it's COOL... Then I won't need to TRY AGAIN with another EDIT of all the cards.

I've spent the better part of day editing the cards. That and playing some Ultima 5 ... in MS-DOS. I realize that I NEVER finished that game and it was one of my favorite games that I have played (All-Time). I'm not so sure about how the game ends... But I remember some stuff from the game... Finally got myself a Frigate to move around with a Skiff. Having those from pirate raiders was a bit LUCKY. Anyhow ...

Back to working on the prototype! Cheers.

I know the "Decision Tree" looks SIMILAR and that's 100% correct. The idea is that on a TURN, the player can "choose" THREE (3) BONUSES from among ALL the cards in his control (in the play area).

So following this example:

1> The player would have ONE (1) "Skill" Bonus.

2> Next he would have to choose between TWO (2) "Power" Bonuses or ONE (1) "Magic" Bonus.

3> After the decision, he could additionally have ONE (1) other "Skill" Bonus (which amounts to 2 "Skill" Bonuses).

4> Ending with an additional ONE (1) "Power" Bonus.

In point #4 if the player chooses PATH #1, he would get THREE (3) "Power" Bonuses IF he reaches the END of the Tree. Assume he took the "Top path", we would get (again if he chose then entire tree):

Power = 6 +/- 3 (3 or 9)
Skill = 2 +/- 2 (0 or 4)
Magic = 1 +/- 0 (1)

So 3/0/1 or 9/4/1 are the two versions (IF the entire path is selected).

Is this more understandable??? I think it's a bit more OBVIOUS and would lead to LESS AP since you are "personalizing" your card STATS.

I hope this explanation is CLEARER now!

Because you do so voluntarily. What I mean Card #1 might have 2 modifiers and Card #2 might only have 1. The longer your card "survives" in the Keep, the chance is that it MIGHT be "stronger". But again you might give ALL 3 of the modifiers to Card #3 (for example).

As I explained you CHOOSE which "Card" and which modifiers you want to use. Every time you "choose" a modifier, you use a RED dry erase marker to indicate that "stat" has been chosen.

The "online calculator" allows you to "plug-in" values and play with the stats. It's a GREAT way NOT to do any MATH. Just choose cards, plug-in modifiers and see the results. Test this out with a few combinations, done!

I agree. Especially since the COMBAT "math" is tricky to compute... But with the TOOLS that I have developed, it's much simpler to use them to the fullest of their ability.

No this is NOT for the Magic crowd. If I've learned anything from visiting my local Magic Store ... Is that Magic Players ONLY play Magic. That's the reality of it. They may have deeper pockets ... But the plain fact is that you will not get them to play OTHER games.

However the Board Game crowd that attends the local Magic Store one night a week is a COMPLETELY different story. They enjoy playing ALL kinds of games from short introductory games that last 30 minutes to heavier and meatier games that last an hour or two.

Another thing that I learned is that the two crowds do NOT intermix. Board Game players don't play Magic and the Magic players don't play Board Games. And just to be FAIR, I'm talking specifically about WHEN they are at the local Magic Store. Some Magic players may enjoy playing Board Games too... But at the store, they are usually involved in Magic matches.

I've also learned through my own experiences over the years ... That "collectible" card games are DOOMED to failure. My first attempt Quest Adventure Cards(tm) was a total failure. It was my FIRST game too. I was a novice (or noob) that had no real experience designing games. But aside from that there are inherent factors that lead to poor outcomes (when it comes to CCGs):

1> High Learning Curve: most games like Magic cannot be learned in a few minutes. You need to invest time (and money) and LEARN all there is about the cards and abilities to BUILD a deck and see how it performs.

2> Attention Spans: if you give a player a set of cards to play a game, depending on the size of the deck, he/she may be able to learn the cards and actually play the game. The key is CARD COUNT. After some experimentation, I have found that 10-12 cards is the limit for this.

3> Analysis-Paralysis: the other problem with CCGs is that constructing a Deck (over 40+ cards) is an analysis NIGHTMARE. Board Gamers want to read/learn the rules and then play a game that last 30-120 minutes. They don't want to sit there analyzing every card and see if there are synergies with the other cards that they might use.

And therefore the game that I am designing is for 13+ Year olds maybe Pokemon players looking for something a bit more MATURE but less time (and money) involving.

But CCGs will NEVER make it on the market because of these constraints and factors. I am therefore, with the understanding about WHY CCGs fail, trying to DESIGN a game that is "Customizable" but at the same time SIMPLE (12 Card Micro Decks) and presents the "construction" in an ORDERED and DEFINED manner. I don't want to get into all the details ... but my formula is something like this:

A> Play the game with the standard 12 Card Micro Deck and EXPERIENCE the game. It's COOL and FUN. It's also relatively SIMPLE but yet VERY hard to master (as it is modeled around Chess).

B> "Customization" of 12 cards is rather simple and there are PRE-DEFINED rules for HOW you can do it. Again SIMPLE rules a player can learn.

C> Try a customization, have some FUN. See what OTHER cards are available for EVEN MORE "customization".

And then I have a CCG Player who learns within the matter of an hour or less ... How to PLAY and how to CUSTOMIZE! A couple games is all that it takes and the Deck-Construction is JUST as simple too. If after TWO (2) games you don't like... Well I won't force anyone to continue playing a game not meant for them.

BUT if after two (2) games you ENJOY IT... I have a player who will be able to fully customize his/her experience and be a fan of the game.

So that's my PLAN: I'm trying to build a BETTER mouse trap. And all with very SIMPLE rules and a way to introduce NEW players to the game and the novel "customization".

It is definitely target for Pokemon players who enjoy COLLECTING cards and it's for people who enjoy playing Card Games and are willing to sit around for a couple games to "feel-out" the game and see if it INTERESTS them.

Cheers!

Not so surprising, the Decision Trees add a LAYER of "complexity". As this is my first playtest using them, I am "unsure" about how to play each card and the different "outcomes" using/not using the Trees.

It's a bit "difficult". That's the NEGATIVE side of things.

However, since the decks are relatively small (only 12 cards), it would be possible to examine each card and determine their behavior with the modifiers. It gives you something to THINK about.

It's a bit "difficult'. That's the POSITIVE side of things.

Let me explain. So it can be "un-obvious" to the first time player HOW to use and WHEN to use the modifiers. But in terms of BALANCE, the idea is for the game to have SUFFICIENT "meat on the bone" to encourage players in experimenting with the game... I mean if it's TOO SIMPLE, nobody will want to PLAY the game ... because it's obviously not enough of a challenge.

There are some interesting DECISIONS to be made: do you MAX your modifiers on a turn or do you wait before a "path decision" needs to be made... Which cards should you use the modifiers? Interesting questions.

I will need to become MORE familiar with my 12 card Micro Deck to determine how each card should be "modified" (what are the options and which are the obvious paths to choose)...

More playing is required... I am OPTIMISTIC that this design just took a big LEAP forwards (in terms of strategy). But it's figuring out what are the BEST "strategies" with those modifiers that need to be analyzed further.

This is my FIRST time and there are interesting dynamics which make me wonder: "What is the BEST possible outcome for each card?"

To Be Determined...

Note #1: I feel like three (3) modifiers per turn is TOO much. I will continue playtesting with only ONE (1) per turn. That means in total you will get 12 modifiers... Not sure, may need to up this to two (2) per turn... TBD.

Note #2: One (1) modifier per turn seems relatively low on the "impact" level. But the good side is that it does not lead to AP. Three from the get-go was just TOO overwhelming, its like: "Do I use a modifier on my turn and if so HOW MANY???" That means 12 modifiers per game (which feels a bit low).

I may make this a player CHOICE: 1, 2 or 3 modifiers per turn. I'm not sure just yet!

Since one of the "aspects" of the game is the very dominant Area Control mechanic, I was thinking that the Decision Trees could be used as a REWARD system. But not just for the kill... Something like this:

1> One card is the primary focus of the attack and scoring is tallied as normal.

2> Other cards in SUPPORT allow the "earning" of bonus rewards for their implication in the battle. Each card "in-support" earns one (1) modifier. The more the support, the more rewards obtained!

This would fundamentally NOT change the game very much from the "core" experience... I would just make SOME cards stronger because of the Area Control mechanic.

It's easy to demonstrate and see in-play. But it's a bit hard to explain to someone who has never seen the game be played. To try to explain it goes something like this:

If there is a position on the board called (X, Y) which is empty and there are "Z" cards that could ATTACK any card which is played into this position, then "Z" would be the REWARD earn by the card that kills the card played into that position.

This would mean that the SIMPLEST "attack" (stand-alone) would earn "1" REWARD (at minimum). IDK ... I need to playtest this tomorrow. It might be feasible and require no changes to the cards themselves.

Let you all know my progress tomorrow...!

There are certain cards which has been "designated" as being UNIQUE. This basically just meant that you would only be allowed to place ONE (1) of these in your Micro Deck (of 12 cards). You are not allow multiples of that card.

So far, it was just a figurative "Symbol".

But what if instead of an obscure "Symbol", I placed a circular icon with a number inside: the amount of "Control Points" (CPs) offered by this card!

The value could be from 1 to 9 ... Since they are "unique" you can't try to use multiples of a card to earn too much CPs...

This might work well... Because in the Standard Deck there are five (5) cards which are "unique" and therefore 5 cards which could have CPs.

Something like: 2, 2, 3, 3 and 4 = 14 CPs in the Standard Deck!

This seems like a reasonable number of points ... "Expansion" cards are ALL about controlling your Deck further. Future cards can have more CPs and allow you to fully "customize" your Deck (to see HOW you could put these points to good use).

I mean that's the IDEA behind a CCG: more cards = more options. It could also mean different "play styles" too. But for the moment, I won't think too much about that and focus on a "core" that is SOLID and FUN to play.

I really LIKE this idea, since it allows the "core" game to behave as it was designed ... AND THEN have a bonus form of "Control Points" to allocate to the other cards as you see fit!

Pretty simple too... Of course it means that I need to EDIT and CUT more cards! Ugh. I dislike having to do that too often. It takes a couple of hours to Print & Cut the cards for a 4 Multiplayer game.

Will definitely get a MOVE on the EDITs now... We can skip the playtest because I know, that there would be INSUFFICIENT modifiers because most cards only battle ONCE, maybe twice in a game (and that's a rare happening).

I have printed out two (2) copies of the game ... And will playtest tomorrow evening! Was a long day, had a lot of stuff to do... Even found time to respond to Madison who was waiting for feedback.

I wish I could share with all of you the AWESOME "artwork" ... But it will have to wait to the Kickstarter for a "partial reveal"! I'm not sure if even the KS page will reveal ALL the cards... TBD.

But I'm pretty certain this "REWARD" system will be a much improved version of all my attempts to "improve" Abilities. Unfortunately I've lost the COOL names like "Brotherhood", "Magical Barrier" and "Just Cause" to name a few...! But the Decision Trees offer up "mystery" when you see them: you're not certain how they work but you understand it looks to be related to the stats on the card...

And voila... You've ALMOST understood everything you need to know about the NEW "Abilities". Maybe an explanation of the "syntax" would help too!

Regards.

Well it's not too bad:

1> One player avoided losing too many points early on.

2> Another player waiting a turn to attack just so he can max out his "bonuses" (for the attack on the next turn).

Previously this was pointless (waiting). Now it can make a serious "score" difference to wait a turn to boost you card. But remember this opens the door for your opponent to do the same. So you've got to a bit lucky too! (LOL)

I am half way (7th round) through the game. And there is a 10 point score difference. Not too much since there were only 2 attacks so far!

Will continue to play and see how the game ends (second half).

Cheers.

How to TRACK "Modifiers". Let's say a card/unit could benefit from +2 Power. Sounds reasonable, right? And then I could have some COOL "Ability" name like "Frenzy". The problem is TRACKING those +2 Power points. Where do you ADD them??? There was no ROOM on the cards and if there was it would need to be a fairly large space to write it down.

Now with the Decision Trees, all you need is a Red Dry Erase Marker and simply draw a "Filled Round Circle" on the stats and it's OBVIOUS about the BONUS. So it is now trackable: you can actually see WHAT bonuses you have plus also the CHOICE in which ones you prefer (according to your game instincts).

About 30 minutes... It's rather quick because there are LESS cards.

Yes. My assumption is that a 4 Multi-player game "might" take 60 minutes. But the 2 Player duels are faster. And yes, I am happy with the time taken for duels.

And to compare, I would say "Carcassonne" (CAR) which takes between 30 to 45 minutes to play and is BEST played with 2 Players. It's a tile laying game, so is "Monster Keep" (MK). CAR has workers; MK has Decision Trees. The Area Control mechanic reminds me of "Tic-Tac-Toe" and the Attack Patterns are similar to "Chess" (but different).

That sums up the game in a "nutshell"...