Skip to Content
 

Realm of Magic (Please give me feedback!)

20 replies [Last post]
cameronc5
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2013

Hey everyone,

So, I have an idea for a game. It's sort of a combination of games, I suppose. Anyway, the idea is this:

Multiple (2 or more) mages would be using a variety of spells in combat with one another. The spells would come in the form of a spell book represented by a deck of cards. (This is very similar to Magic the Gathering, I know.) However, the difference would be that the mages would be fighting on a chessboard like surface. The mages, creature, and other spells or abilities would be represented by tokens on that board. The goal is to kill the other mage.

My thought was that mages and creatures could be "click" tokens, much like hero-clix, or mage-knight, or the like. They'd have four attributes, speed, attack, health, and defense (and possibly range). As they were hit the wheel underneath the token would click, changing these stated attributes. However, the "click" aspect is not necessary. It could be a TCG that relies on tokens and a board, and the card could give you all the information that you would need.

Anyway, this is the jist of the game. It's kind of a combination of Magic the Gathering, Hero-clix, and in some ways Yug-i-oh. Of course there is much more detail that would be involved, such as mana type, spell types, game mechanics, etc.

What do you all think?

Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
If you take the clicks out of

If you take the clicks out of it it sounds very close to Mage Wars, which only has two attributes to track health and magical energy.

http://arcanewonders.com/arcanewonders/games/mage-wars-core-set-detail

abdantas
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2012
I was about to make a joke.

I was about to make a joke. Way to invent a game that's already been released. If you never heard of Mage wars, then this is a great idea, but you should do something to differentiate it

Lofwyr
Offline
Joined: 02/16/2010
The spin of design.

First and most importantly. A good designer should, and does, often find that his own ideas are similar or the same as other available games. Great minds think alike, yes?

Second, keep it positive. This is where everyone, myself included, comes to share knowledge and grow as a designer. Share, critique, assist in growth and developing of what, for many of us, are dreams.

"But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."
-W.B. Yeats

I applaud that you came up with what is already a winning concept! This proves, at the very least, that you are on the right track. At the same time, I share your anguish in seeing that someone else has gotten to it first.

E

Stormyknight1976
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2012
Don't give up.

Try changing the theme or just change the Mages into another archtype.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I was going to say that "mage

I was going to say that "mage wars" and "summoners wars" are actually 2 very similar game to your ideas. Play these games first, see what you do not like and then add your flavor.

Personally, even if I am a strong fan or sorcery, I am not a fan of combining an MTG like system with a tactical board. I did not find "summoners wars" that good. The square grid makes it uninteresting. A hex grid could have been better.

"Mage wars" looks interesting (I looked at a video), but I don't know, it seem really fiddly, it does not play elegantly. That is one thing I liked about "Duel Masters" (CCG similar to magic) is that you can clearly see who can attack who, what are your openings and your defenses.

I even thought myself to improvise some rules using an hex map and Duel masters cards. The feeling I got was not really interesting. Here is a picture of my playtest:

http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/uploads/Mainsite/Main/ProtypePicture/Pict...

So maybe there can be an alternative to a grid system.

cameronc5
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2013
I like the hex idea, I think

I like the hex idea, I think it adds more versatility.

Anyway, perhaps I should go more in depth with my line of thinking. I think Mage Wars is probably pretty similar, but it's not the exact same.

Firstly, I do want the game to be a TCG of sorts. With a drawn library and a limited hand.

Secondly, I had some thoughts for the Mages themselves and the mechanic that would dictate them. My thought was this, that there will be classes of mages, and one's class will dictate's one's card pool.

There will be three tiers of spells (or cards) that a mage can cast.

The first tier is basic mage spells. These are cards that are fundamental to any mage. Think magic missile from D&D. These cards don't necessarily have to be a part of a mage's library, but there is nothing barring them from being in there.

The second tier is more specialized. There are five specializations in this tier, "Summoner", "Wizard", "Geomancer", "Enchanter", and "Scavenger." The names are extremely tentative. The player must pick at least one of the specializations.

Summoners summon creatures.
Wizards cast direct damage spells.
Geomancers cast spells that control or shape the board.
Enchanters cast spells that enhance themselves or other creatures.
Scavengers cast spells that de-hance others.

The third tier is the most specialized, but also will have the mot powerful spell options.

For instance...

Summoners can specialize in necromancy, cabalism, humanoid, beastial, or spirit summoning.
Wizards can specialize in fire, air, lightning, water, or nature.
Geomancers in Lava, Earth, Water (still thinking of two others)
Enchanters in object enchantment, illusion, self enchantment (still thinking of two others)
Scavangers in... (we're still working on this.)

So, a mage can pick to specialize in two tiers. Either they can go all the way for a third tier and unlock the potential powerful spells in that tier. Or they can specialize in two tier two levels.

In terms of mana, I was thinking that a mage's specialization would specify the way mana works for them. For instance, a Summoner may start of with a good amount of mana, but have a slow regeneration rate. Where as a wizard may not start off with much mana, but have a quick regeneration rate.

Oh, and each spell would cost mana.

Anyway, that's the very rough outline.

Does that differentiate?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quick note: Do not mix spell

Quick note: Do not mix spell casters that only summon and only direct attack together. That greatly changes the possible area of effects. The reasons why MTG works is because cards stay on the board and that is only possible with summon.

So if you use summon, use summon for everybody. If you use direct attack only, then everybody whould do direct attack only. Take a look at this article for more details about the area of effect.

http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/index.php?n=DesignArticle.Article20090610...

cameronc5
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2013
I read the article, and I

I read the article, and I understand what you're saying.

However, none of the Mages will be distinctly summoner or direct damage. Every mage will have access to the Tier 1 or Basic spells. These spells are basic spells from every "school" (or Tier 2 and 3). Specializing in certain tiers will give mages access to bigger and better types of spells. So a wizard will have access to more varied and stronger direct damage spells than a summoner would.

This is seen in magic with the different colors. For instance, "Green" spells tend to be about big creatures, where are "Red" tend to be more direct damage.

So there will be no distinctly "direct damage" with "summoner" everyone will have access to all of the types of spells, just no the strongest.

Does that make sense?

TwentyPercent
Offline
Joined: 12/25/2012
RE: I read the article, and I

Hey Cameron

If I'm understanding your game correctly, it seems like it's something like a hybrid of Mage Wars and MTG. It's like Mage Wars in that your character will be a physical piece and that you will be moving around a combat grid. It's also like Mage Wars in that as you gain experience you will be gaining access to new spells to be added to your deck (Mage Wars has access to new units, spells, artifacts, etc as you travel around the world).

It's like MTG in that your spells are split into various levels of tiers (colors and card types, ie creatures, equipment, sorceries), allowing for a significantly more in-depth and focused deck, as opposed to Mage Wars, which is pretty basic and very few combat mechanics.

I used to play a lot of MTG and own Mage Wars. They are both fun in their own way, but it's tough to think of them combined. It's an interesting idea, but would like to know more details of your concept game. Maybe you can give more specific details and ask more specific questions for better feedback.

Cheers,
20%

cameronc5
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2013
Ya, maybe I haven't been

Ya, maybe I haven't been clear enough, let me re-explain.

The game will center around multiple mages that are battling. Similar to MTG, each player will have a pre-constructed deck. In that deck a player may have Tier 1 (or basic spells), and either spells from two Tier 2 specialities, or spells from a Tier 2 and a Tier 3 that is linked to that Tier 2.

For instance. Let's say I want to craft a deck, and in particular I want my deck to be a Necromancer deck. My deck is allowed to contain Tier 1 Spells (Basic), Tier 2 spells from the Summoner speciality, and Tier 3 spells from the Necromancer speciality. I am not allowed to have spells from any other Tier 2 or Tier 3 specialities in my deck.

In addition to this being a card game, there will be a hexagon board involved. The two opposing mages will be represented by their respective pieces and start on opposite sides. The goal is to the kill the other mage. Creature spells, and spells that affect the board will be represented by tokens, game pieces, etc.

Additionally the specialization that a player chooses for his deck also determines the attribute of his or her mage. The attribute include, speed, basic attack damage, range, defense, hit points, mana and mana regeneration rate. My idea is to have this all represented on the "clicker" token.

Speed is how far their movement can take them.

Basic attack is just regular attack damage that is possible in lieu of casting a spell.

Range is how far away they can attack from.

Defense is how much damage they can prevent.

Hit points are obvious.

Mana is a little more complicated. Every mage starts off with mana (which is used to cast spells) and mana regeneration (or the amount of mana regenerated every turn). A Necromancer Mage, for example, starts with a medium amount of mana (still working on the numbers) with a medium mana regeneration rate. In order to cast spells mana must be spent. So it is possible to cast a huge creature spell (or the like) right off the bat, however depending on the mana regeneration rate it may take awhile for a mage to cast another spell.

Creatures have similar attributes that vary.

Turns will be very fluid, the beginning of a turn is the regeneration of mana, drawing a card, and taking care of any upkeep. After that the mage himself can do any combination of two things out of three, he may cast a spell, attack, or move. So a turn may be him moving and then moving again. Or it may be moving and casting a spell, or it may be moving and attacking. However, this only counts for the mage himself. His creatures have similar options, they can do any combination of 2 out of three things (though most probably cannot cast spells.)

Anyway, this is the idea. I hope that is more clear. What problems do you see with this? Is it too complicated? Is there too much going on?

TwentyPercent
Offline
Joined: 12/25/2012
RE: Ya, maybe I haven't been

That does clear it up some. So the players will be dueling it out on a table-top battle grid with pre-constructed characters (similar to D&D). What makes the characters unique, however, is the deck itself, not the token used for the character or the battle grid, but merely the deck. The battle-grid is simply a tool to give the combat a physical setting and make it similar to a battlefield, as opposed to just playing a card game (which does very little to mimic a battlefield).

Then it seems to me like this almost like MTG meets table-top D&D, minus the role-playing. A game is simply one duel between mages, right? It seems interesting, as the one aspect I like about MTG is the deck construction (that's why I like limited and cannot tolerate constructed) and what I like about D&D is the table-top representation of combat to give a strong sense of combat between players (or players vs DM, essentially).

There's going to be one issue, though, with the issue, that I see. In a RPG, players typically aren't limited to certain actions by randomness. In D&D, Final Fantasy, Mario RPG, Mage Wars (all types of RPG's), the characters' actions are based on their level, their construction, and their environment (none of which are random). In your game, the players' actions are limited to the cards they have drawn (randomly drawn from a constructed deck). If you are a necromancer and want to explode a corpse of an enemy minion next to the opposing mage, but can't because you don't have the card for it, that could be very frustrating. Maybe I'm over-thinking this, though, b/c that's basically how every MTG game ends (if only I had drawn 1 of my 4 Jace the Mind Sculptors, I would have won). The difference between your game and a card game, though, is you are also making it a RPG, and RPG's tend to be based around choices and steer clear of randomness (other than the typical random chance to miss or get a critical hit). Maybe there's an unwritten rule about mixing the two; maybe not. I'm just trying to think out loud to spark ideas and comments from others.

Otherwise, I like MTG... I like D&D... I like wizards... they could be fun combined.

abdantas
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2012
it'd be interesting if the

it'd be interesting if the spell/energy casting was restricted by space. so a tile beside a river of lava or a campfire could make it so you could draw more fire mana that turn. smae thing with ground and air and all that. Could be an interesting idea to consider instead of having a buunch of energy cards like in magic.

cameronc5
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2013
Yes, you have understood what

Yes, you have understood what I'm getting at very well.

The randomness of a critical hit or miss have been taken out, and replaced by the probability of a card draw. If you have a creature that can hit another, it will, barring some sort of counter spell, etc. Same with spells.

It's like MTG, meets D&D, meets Warhammer.

In terms of character construction, there really won't be any. The deck style that one chooses decides the attributes of a mage. One Necromancer will have the exact same hitpoints, mana, speed, attack, range, mana regenration, etc. as another (Barring spells that enhance these attributes).

cameronc5
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2013
Mana

Mana will not be a resourced to be harvest via cards like magic. Rather mana will be innate in the mage and they will gain a certain amount of mana regeneration each turn. Now a mage that is a geomancer may get a mana regernation boost or just overall mana boost by being next to a geological tile on the board, or if they are a Tier 3 Geomancer (they have picked Lava, Air, Earth, etc) then they would get an even bigger boost by being next to those geological tiles.

abdantas
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2012
That's not exactly what I was

That's not exactly what I was saying. I was saying like, a warlock casting a fire spell, could be able to do it at a lower cost if he does it from a tile that has fire properties to it.

cameronc5
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2013
Right, that makes sense. I

Right, that makes sense. I think that is along the lines of what I was saying. That's also what makes Geomancers (those who can manipulate the board) a viable option.

I suppose I need to start thinking up some cards.

However, I need some help thinking up some more 3rd Tier Magic Schools, as well as names.

So far it's

1. Summoner
a. Creatures - Bigger bestial types
b. Humanoids - Have more potential for variety (archers, mages, etc.)
c. Necormancers - Many smaller summons (skeletons, zombies, etc.)
d. Spirit (like Demons/Angels) - Biggest strongest creatures
e. Cabalist (golems) - Can change depending on the environment (most adaptable)

2. Wizard (Direct Damage)
a. Fire - Direct damage with some damage over time aspects
b. Water - Direct damage, but also has mana boost options
c. Lightning - Most direct damage
d. Earth - Direct damage with some defensive aspects
e. Nature - More damage over time kind of spells

3. Geomancer (Board Control)
a. Lava - Damaging board control
b. Earth - Defenseive board control
c. Water - Mana enhancing board control
d. ?Air
e. ?

4. Enchanter (Enhancing creatures or selves)
a. Illusion - Distractions, etc.
b. Weapon enchantment - Enhancing the attack capabilites of self, others, or creatures
c. Self enhancement - Spells that increase the mage overall, speed, attack, range, etc.
d. ?
e. ?

5. Scavanger? (De-hancing others).
a. ?
b. ?
c. ?
d. ?
e. ?

JustActCasual
JustActCasual's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2012
.

It seems like you could just make the Scavenger into Tier 3s for Enchanter - Maybe "Hexes" and "Parasite"?

Right now I'm not sure why you need Tier 2: it seems like all the interesting spells would be in Tier 3, leaving little design space. If you want the ability to customize it seems cooler to have each player choose 2 Tier 3s (kind of like Smash Up if you've seen that game) "What are you playing? I'm a Terramancer/Spiritulist" "I'm a Weaponeer/Illusionist!" You're already controlling the spell power through your mana mechanic: why stand in the way of player creativity? Each of these pairings has a strong strategy: Terramancer/Spiritulist bottlenecks you with defensive measures on the ground and then hurls a huge creature at you; Weaponeer/Illusionist is roguelike, keeping you on your toes until she slips the last knife in your liver. These play very differently than Necromancer/Terramancer (build up a critical mass of undead behind strong walls, then release the flood) or Weaponeer/Spiritulist (The Timmy combination ;) ). You could also make this a primary/secondary class distinction: maybe spells in your primary school always cost one less mana.

Wizard seems bad as the only discipline without permanent effects. Maybe you could port the Lightning specialty to the empty geomancer slot, and amp up the humanoid ranged attacks. A lot of the wizard specialties already seem redundant with Geomancers. I'm also not seeing why you would ever want Creatures over Spirits. Maybe change humanoids to something like "cultists" and give them medium ranged direct damage while changing the Creatures to Beasts and giving them all the medium melee. This also strengthens golems as flexible/varietal.

PS. If you're using cards and a hex grid, why not just use hex cards on the board rather than clix? You could write out the clix stats along each edge of the card and then use a token marker to show which was relevant. This would massively reduce costs: you could easily make this game on Game Crafter. If you want to do it like Smash Up you could do it as tiles with a bag draw mechanism (like puzzle strike or Quarriors): this would cut down on a lot of shuffling downtime during setup and throughout, as well as providing smaller pieces for the board. Using tiles would also make flip cards easy as you don't have to worry about telegraphing draws.

PPS. This is how I see the specialty breakdown. I changed the names so it could work in "a A/B" form and had more variety in naming conventions:

1. Summoners (Creatures)
a. Primal - Midrange melee (minotaurs, gryphons, centaurs, rocs)
b. Cultist - Small to mid artillery (taskmages, archers, kamikaze, etc.)
c. Necromancer - Swarm melee summons (skeletons, zombies, bats, etc.)
d. Monger - Biggest strongest creatures: for a price (like Demons/Angels/Ents)
e. Totem - Adaptable/flexible but less pure power per cost (golems, constructs)

2. Geomancers (Board Control)
a. Fireheart - Lingering damage effects (lava pool, frying pan/fire choices)
b. Terracraft - Defensive obstacles (walls, roots, traps, etc.)
c. Hydrologist - Mana/action manipulation (recharge nodes, taxing, stun)
d. Windwalker - Moves enemies (teleports, knockback, knockdown, unsummon)
e. Teslon - Direct damage lightning/energy (single use AoEs)

3. Enchanters (Enhancing creatures or selves)
a. Wisp - Illusions, distractions, stealth, trickery etc. (invisbility, spam decoys, self teleport)
b. Weaponeer - Enhances the attack capabilites of self, others, or creatures
c. Ego - Spells that increase the mage overall, speed, defense, healing, range, etc.
d. Hexen - Spells that weaken opponents and their spells (hostile polymorph, dehances)
e. Parasite - Spells that sap power from opponents and their spells while adding to yours (leeching, mind control)

I would totally want to buy that game.

TwentyPercent
Offline
Joined: 12/25/2012
JustActCasual wrote:It seems

JustActCasual wrote:
It seems like you could just make the Scavenger into Tier 3s for Enchanter - Maybe "Hexes" and "Parasite"?

Right now I'm not sure why you need Tier 2: it seems like all the interesting spells would be in Tier 3, leaving little design space. If you want the ability to customize it seems cooler to have each player choose 2 Tier 3s (kind of like Smash Up if you've seen that game) "What are you playing? I'm a Terramancer/Spiritulist" "I'm a Weaponeer/Illusionist!" You're already controlling the spell power through your mana mechanic: why stand in the way of player creativity? Each of these pairings has a strong strategy: Terramancer/Spiritulist slows you down with defensive measures on the ground and then hurls a huge creature at you; Weaponeer/Illusionist is roguelike, keeping you on your toes until she slips the last knife in your liver. These play very differently than Necromancer/Terramancer (build up a critical mass of undead behind strong walls, then release the flood) or Weaponeer/Spiritulist (The Timmy combination ;) ). You could also make this a primary/secondary class distinction: maybe spells in your primary school always cost one less mana.

Wizard seems bad as the only discipline without permanent effects. Maybe you could port the Lightning specialty to the empty geomancer slot, and amp up the humanoid ranged attacks. A lot of the wizard specialties already seem redundant with Geomancers. I'm also not seeing why you would ever want Creatures over Spirits. Maybe change humanoids to something like "cultists" and give them medium ranged direct damage while changing the Creatures to Beasts and giving them all the medium melee. This also strengthens golems as flexible/varietal.

PS. If you're using cards and a hex grid, why not just use hex cards on the board rather than clix? You could write out the clix stats along each edge of the card and then use a token marker to show which was relevant. This would massively reduce costs: you could easily make this game on Game Crafter. If you want to do it like Smash Up you could do it as tiles with a bag draw mechanism (like puzzle strike or Quarriors): this would cut down on a lot of shuffling downtime during setup and throughout, as well as providing smaller pieces for the board. Using tiles would also make flip cards easy as you don't have to worry about telegraphing draws.

I would totally want to buy that game.

I agree the above. Don't stretch your design too thin. It's easier (and less frustrating) to build upon a working mechanic than to over design and fix one that doesn't execute well. Also, the duel focus is a good idea, just b/c it will allow way more variability for players.

cameronc5
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2013
Wow, really love the

Wow, really love the simplification and more allowance of creativity!

I think I'll keep the three "schools" that you have (Summoner/Geomancer/Enchanter). And I may rethink some of the names for the specialities, but over all I think this add's a great finishing touch to the initial thought.

I'm thinking, too, of keeping the "basic" and "school" spells, but not forcing someone to pick a Tier 2. Rather, anyone who picks a speciality from the enchanting school also has access to spells that are only available to enchanters, etc. This way a Parasite still may be able to cast a quick creature spell (or put one in his library) or maybe make a small wall if needs to.

Does that make sense?

As for the tokens and cards. My thought was to put all the information that would be needed on the card, that way it could be used as a token, or even a small object could be used to represent it. The clicker-token would really be more for immersion and ease. It's not necessary, but can be helpful, and looks good!

Thank you for the feedback! If you have anything else, let me know!

As for tiles, I was thinking of something Settler's of Catan-ish. Hex tiles that can be removed or replaced (though I want them to be smaller). This gives the Geomancers the option of representing their spells on the tiles easily.

TwentyPercent
Offline
Joined: 12/25/2012
I'm not exactly sure what all

I'm not exactly sure what all your Tier 1 spells are going to be. You said they will be generic spells, but you could just have a generic school of magic (as one of your Tier 3 schools, essentially removing the tiers altogether and each deck must choose two of the schools).

You could call the generic sub-school of magic "Arcane" or "Mundane", and it could include spells that features abilities from all the other schools, but they wouldn't be quite as good as any particular school (which I believe was your intent).

I see that being beneficial in two ways: players don't have quite as many possible spells to choose from to make their deck (ie 2x sub-schools and the generic spells), and it would also produce another school of magic to make spells from. That would allow each player the same opportunity, but they must choose it as opposed to having a second focused school of magic. (As I think I stated earlier, players like to be forced to make decisions; the anxiety of seeing their choices play out makes the game more fun).

Anyways, it's just a thought. Good luck!
20%

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut