So I've been kicking this game idea around for a few days, and I'm coming to a point where I need to write my thoughts down and hear feedback on them before I move on in the process. Any contributions, comments, critiques, etc. are greatly appreciated.
Without any further ado, here is the (somewhat unorganized) early design document for Big Guns
Big Guns
3-6 players
Each player is controlling (in an abstract sense) a firearms company that is competing in a volatile marketplace to create the biggest, baddest piece of mechanized death ever.
Each player has a personal deck, a la Dominion. The decks contain three types of cards: Gun Parts, Money, and Interaction. Also in the vein of Dominion, players recycle their decks from their discard piles.
Gun Parts Cards come in six suits, each representing a modular part of the gun (barrel, stock, ammo, etc.)
Players build their guns by drawing from their decks. Money Cards are discarded in conjunction with Gun Parts Cards of a certain suit to gain tokens of that suit. Once enough tokens of one suit have been collected, they can be cashed in for a gun part.
A gun part that requires more tokens will provide more points. Some gun parts also provide non-point bonuses.
The player whose gun has the most points at the end of the game wins.
The Catch
At the beginning of the game, players' personal decks lack sufficient Gun Parts Cards to build a complete gun. Therefore, players must trade their cards, and, being the corporate scum that they are, they don't always play fair. Sellers can bluff, buyers can call the bluff, and it all turns into a giant mess.
Interaction Cards also throw a curveball into the scenario. They allow players to avoid bluffs, steal cards, double their money, etc.
~~~
And that's about it. Thoughts?
You've got the basic idea. The seller tells the group he/she is offering a specific card (Card X, in your words) to trade. Any players who want that card compete with each other to make the best offer (Card(s) Y). However, if the seller bluffs, he picks his buyer and reveals the card he is giving to them (Card Z) is not the one he was offering.
Although the it seems the seller has a huge advantage here, the risks attached to bluffing balance it. Another player can accuse a seller of bluffing. If it turns out the seller is making an honest offer, the accuser suffers a small penalty (haven't fleshed this out yet). However, if the seller was caught bluffing, he suffers major penalties (again, not fleshed out yet).
Hope this helped clarify. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'm still very much in the abstract early phases of this design.