|
I hope it's okay for me to link some rules for a deckbuilder I'm working on in here for critique/blatant omissions without having contributed too much to this thread yet! It can be quite overwhelming when I'm just starting designing stuff  Deck Builder Stuff
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Kashuno posted:I hope it's okay for me to link some rules for a deckbuilder I'm working on in here for critique/blatant omissions without having contributed too much to this thread yet! It can be quite overwhelming when I'm just starting designing stuff New stuff is always encouraged here! As are new posters, as this thread is always hurting for attention, haha. So far your notes are looking good, seems like you’ve got a solid idea and are headed in a decent direction.  I’m a little confused though, are weapons, monsters, resources, and quests all part of a player’s deck? So you can play a resource card form your hand to upgrade an equipped weapon, then use that weapon to play and defeat a monster card from your hand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:New stuff is always encouraged here! As are new posters, as this thread is always hurting for attention, haha. So far your notes are looking good, seems like you’ve got a solid idea and are headed in a decent direction. I knew I was forgetting to clarify something! Weapons are always available to you and are kept face up separate from your player deck. Resources, Quest tickets, and Monsters that you've defeated are part of your player deck. There will be two distinct areas on the board; there will be a resource area where you can buy resources, and a monster area where you can see the monsters currently available to hunt. The basic play process might go something like this.
The advantage of having multiple weapons would be that if you have multiple quest tickets in hand, you will be able to hunt multiple monsters that turn (all quest tickets will give +1 action), whereas focusing on upgrading a single weapon will allow you to hunt stronger monsters which grant more gold and HR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Everyone is making giant monster killing, parts selling games. the thread \/ Harvey Mantaco fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:Everyone is making giant monster killing, parts selling games. I'd actually be really interested in seeing other games that have this same kind of idea if you could refer me to any! e; or is that referencing this thread since it was discussed just before I posted :P
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:I knew I was forgetting to clarify something! Weapons are always available to you and are kept face up separate from your player deck. Resources, Quest tickets, and Monsters that you've defeated are part of your player deck. There will be two distinct areas on the board; there will be a resource area where you can buy resources, and a monster area where you can see the monsters currently available to hunt. The basic play process might go something like this. Ahh, that makes more sense! Do you have different deckbuilding strategies in mind? And yeah, there's been a big influx of monster hunter-inspired card games in this thread lately, not entirely sure why. Probably just because it's a good series of games that has some unique potential in board games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
So I think I managed to address a fair number of issues with the previous version of Monster Harvester with this rewrite:quote:GAME OBJECTIVE I removed 'Inspiration' and made it so that Bone was the crafting resource and that crafted items were more persistent. There's also no income system anymore, so the only reason to trigger a new night is either to use Eat Marrow again or a Trophy Ability (such as the free Attack / free Hunt). I might change that so there's more motivation to go from Night to Night, but for now I don't quite have a reason too. Kashuno posted:I hope it's okay for me to link some rules for a deckbuilder I'm working on in here for critique/blatant omissions without having contributed too much to this thread yet! It can be quite overwhelming when I'm just starting designing stuff So my commentary would mostly be terminology is a little confusing after a cursory read through. My primary example of this would be what are Actions used for (you mentioned one of the started cards gives +2 and QUEST TICKETS give +1. How does this interact with the weapon usage limit? Or are those an action as well? The wording just has me a little confused.) Harvey Mantaco posted:Everyone is making giant monster killing, parts selling games. Traditional Games > Board Game Design Workshop: Monster Hunter Edition Interesting. Sounds like a good solution. My worry with that kind of system would be that if your options disappear as your officers die it could get death spirally?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Ahh, that makes more sense! Do you have different deckbuilding strategies in mind? And yeah, there's been a big influx of monster hunter-inspired card games in this thread lately, not entirely sure why. Probably just because it's a good series of games that has some unique potential in board games. My thoughts for different strategies is along the lines of. You can focus on having one weapon type that just does tons of damage and is upgraded a lot, allowing you to hunt higher HR monsters to reach the endgame faster, focusing on using your resources to upgrade as quickly as possible and making sure you always have a quick way to get a necessary quest ticket from your discard to your deck without waiting to reshuffle, or you could consider having multiple weapons that are all a bit lower and focus on using your resources to gain as many quest tickets as possible to keep that engine going. You could also focus on having a lot of resources while selling your monsters off quickly in order to have actions worth doing on every turn(and there will definitely be some resources that mess with your opponent) or save your monsters for sale when you really need it, ultimately ending up with less likelihood of drawing action but having an easy way to get the solution to whatever problem you face Since the game will have cards leaving your deck frequently (monsters being sold are discard, resources used in upgrading are discarded, maybe resources used for quest tickets are discarded as well?) I don't want people to feel locked into a particular strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Made some big improvements (I think) to the cards in my fighting card game. Playtesting it tonight, will report back when I do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:My worry with that kind of system would be that if your options disappear as your officers die it could get death spirally? Possibly. I am trying to think of ways to deal with that. One option would be just to make it a bigger game, like have a board or something with armies on it, or have a draft every turn. I dunno. I just want this theme and I want to deal with officers in such a way that you are picking up abilities and stripping abilities from others based on future leverage. Might be better to have a way to kill the leader without killing his officers first?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
That's probably best - it sounds like you're describing a resource denial mechanic if I'm understanding correctly (with the officers being the 'resource'). While resource denial as a mechanic can be divisive, I'm personally okay with/a fan of it. But you've gotta be careful and it should probably be a cost that isn't also the win condition as otherwise it will probably be death spirally. If you make it so that the goal is killing the leader, but you're encouraged to pick off officers to deny key abilities that could interrupt your plan, that could probably work. It seems like a neat idea if you can get the flow right. I'm excited to hear this! Hope your testing goes well and looking forward to hearing about the changes. This sounds interesting. Could you perhaps give a better idea of what a disruptive resource would look like - that sounds like a really neat application that I can't quite envision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Possibly. I am trying to think of ways to deal with that. One option would be just to make it a bigger game, like have a board or something with armies on it, or have a draft every turn. I dunno. I just want this theme and I want to deal with officers in such a way that you are picking up abilities and stripping abilities from others based on future leverage. You could also make it so most things generally just temporarily take an officer out of commission, to make things a little less snowbally and allow for comebacks. It's been forever since I read Rot3K but it seems like it would fit in with the theme pretty well, I remember plenty of episodes of commanders getting chased off to hide and lick their wounds for a while before rejoining the war later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Might be better to have a way to kill the leader without killing his officers first? Could be interesting: without knowing too much about your game system, there could be a conservative way to win (defeat all the officers, then the leader) and a risky one (ignore the threat of the the officers and rush the leader). I guess like trading vs going face in Hearthstone. E: the above suggestion (temporarily disabling officers) looks interesting as well
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Something along the lines of "This resource baits a monster to attack another player. If they can't defeat it do X"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
How about You draft X officers at the beginning of the game, where X is the number of players. The rest go into a deck that becomes market row. For absolutely free, during your turn, you may replace one officer in your charge with one from the market row, and the officer you displace goes into the market row discard pile. That's how you plan. Officers can be exhausted, dispatched to a location, or killed. In any of these 3 cases, they cannot be used to defend your leader. Your leader can however defend himself, making your total HP of sorts for the game =X+1. Officers are killed when they find themselves under attack but unable to defend themselves. This would probably happen in the case that like, they go to take a location and are defeated by overwhelming forces, where you run out of army but the enemy still has army at that location. In the case of a draw at a battle, both officers would be dispatched, then exhausted upon return for 1 turn of recovery, but if they are dispatched and lose, then the winning opponent gets to choose what to do to that officer, which I don't know what it would be yet, but one option could be to kill them outright. I would also want ownership of a location to DO something. This is starting to sound like a game that will require chits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:My thoughts for different strategies is along the lines of. You can focus on having one weapon type that just does tons of damage and is upgraded a lot, allowing you to hunt higher HR monsters to reach the endgame faster, focusing on using your resources to upgrade as quickly as possible and making sure you always have a quick way to get a necessary quest ticket from your discard to your deck without waiting to reshuffle, or you could consider having multiple weapons that are all a bit lower and focus on using your resources to gain as many quest tickets as possible to keep that engine going. You could also focus on having a lot of resources while selling your monsters off quickly in order to have actions worth doing on every turn(and there will definitely be some resources that mess with your opponent) or save your monsters for sale when you really need it, ultimately ending up with less likelihood of drawing action but having an easy way to get the solution to whatever problem you face You've got a really solid base for a game! Monster hunting is a great genre and I'd love to see more games using that concept. I think you should expand on some ideas because reading them was a little confusing. What exactly is an action and how are resources gained? As I read it, you could attack with the weapon multiple times because that might be an action. Are resources something you purchase or do you also gain them from killing monsters? Also, I'm a little unsure how weapon upgrading works. What does forging do exactly? Can you upgrade a weapon multiple times or just once? If you haven't already, you should also think about how to communicate that a weapon is upgraded to a player. If I have multiple weapons, each at a different upgrade and forge level, it's going to be hard to keep track of everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Chip McFuck posted:You've got a really solid base for a game! Monster hunting is a great genre and I'd love to see more games using that concept. I'll definitely have to clean things up, a lot of it ended up being sprinkled around in pieces and changed that there is definitely some clarity issues. To answer the questions currently. An action is any of the following: Buy(purchase a resource), Forge/Upgrade(Weapon creation or upgrading), or playing one of the resource cards in their hand for whatever that effect is. A player can hunt once for every weapon they have, provided they have the actions to do so. To do a hunt, you need to play a Quest Ticket resource, but right now those all grant additional actions. Resources are purchased by "selling" the monsters you have hunted for gold, or you can gain additional resource cards killing a monster with a weapon type they are weak to. You can upgrade weapons multiple times, which will replace it with a different card, and forging allows you to create additional weapons (say you want both a sword and a lance, for example)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Ok, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying! I guess part of my confusion came from my own word associations. Generally, I think of forging as a process that improves an already existing weapon, so when I read your description for forging I took it to mean that the weapon is modified to have multiple types (i.e. sword has 'cut', I forge it to give it both 'cut' and 'pierce') rather than just purchasing a new weapon. I know that's not the dictionary definition of forging, but maybe I've been playing too many RPGs lately. A question on how hunting works: Hunting with a weapon is an action and I need a Quest Ticket to initiate it. So on my turn, I play a quest ticket which gives me plus one action, which I then use to kill the creature with my weapon. Is my turn now over or does playing the quest ticket mean I automatically attack and then I get the additional action? It seems kind of weird to have to spend an action to kill something if I already have a quest ticket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
You can hunt once per turn with each weapon you have provided you have quest tickets to do so. So for example if you had 3 weapons but 5 quest tickets somehow, you could still only hunt 3 times as each weapon is only usable once per turn. The quest ticket gives the ability to hunt. The only actions are: Buy, Forge/Upgrade, or playing a resource card. Hunting a monster is a separate thing that triggers from playing a quest ticket. I'm still toying around with maybe the quest tickets don't give an extra action (i.e. without building up extra actions you can't hunt and do other stuff the same time)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
I think we're on the same page, I was just confused by the wording in your last post:Kashuno posted:A player can hunt once for every weapon they have, provided they have the actions to do so. I read that as meaning hunting was it's own action, separate from the quest tickets or anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Chip McFuck posted:I think we're on the same page, I was just confused by the wording in your last post: ah gotcha, yeah my phrasing was definitely bad there I'm starting to get worried about feature/mechanic bloat, but as probably the last part of my "screwing with the basic mechanics" list, I was looking to make weapons feel unique without just being numbers on a card that sometimes give bonus resources from hunts. I have considered both adding special abilities to different weapon types that get stronger over upgrades, or having each upgrade to a weapon pull from a deck of different weapons that give different abilities. For example, upgrade a level 1 sword to a level 2 sword means you draw a random level 2 sword card and that sword has an ability you won't find on a level 2 bow or something like that. I'm not sure if that is going to start really overcomplicating things/make it have way too many cards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
My current haunted hotel game is a deck builder that uses colored cards to represent ability scores. I'm thinking of a reworked system using colored chips in a bag, instead. Does anyone know of a good source of used / cheap clay poker chips, or some other thing that will give me a good amount of three different colors of chips?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
You could get some plastic poker chips from a place like Chip cave for 6 cents a piece, which I think will be your cheapest option. Clay poker chips seem expensive for just a game prototype, but the cheapest I've found was this listing: 78 clay poker chips. If you wanted new clay chips, this place sells them in 25 piece bundles for $6.99. What prompted the change from cards to chips? Chip McFuck fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
I agree that until you are ready to to go forward with the chips idea you shouldn't bother investing in clay chips. If you change your mind again that is not a worthwhile investment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Definitely test just using little colored bits of paper or something until you’re sure the system will work well. Functionally the same (if more than a little less satisfying to play with and hold), cheaper, and you don't gotta wait for shipping!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Chip McFuck posted:You could get some plastic poker chips from a place like Chip cave for 6 cents a piece, which I think will be your cheapest option. Clay poker chips seem expensive for just a game prototype, but the cheapest I've found was this listing: 78 clay poker chips. If you wanted new clay chips, this place sells them in 25 piece bundles for $6.99. I've really come to hate constant shuffling in deck-builders, and I think moving to chips will be more fun, and less taxing for the amount of shuffling, drawing, and dealing players will be doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:I'm starting to get worried about feature/mechanic bloat, but as probably the last part of my "screwing with the basic mechanics" list, I was looking to make weapons feel unique without just being numbers on a card that sometimes give bonus resources from hunts. I have considered both adding special abilities to different weapon types that get stronger over upgrades, or having each upgrade to a weapon pull from a deck of different weapons that give different abilities. For example, upgrade a level 1 sword to a level 2 sword means you draw a random level 2 sword card and that sword has an ability you won't find on a level 2 bow or something like that. I'm not sure if that is going to start really overcomplicating things/make it have way too many cards. I think It would be a lot more useful to build a basic prototype and play it by yourself before you commit to giving weapon abilities. While it's cool to think about all these abilities, you might find that the game is over too quickly before all these super sweet upgrades you spent a lot of time and energy on actually matter. It sounds like you're unsure of what role the upgrades have and that is the worst time to force a mechanic because you'll start obsessing over it without realizing your game might not even need it. I've done that plenty of times. Play your game and write tons of notes on what is working and what isn't. Maybe you find yourself wanting more card draw, so you assign that to a weapon, or you find you want the ability to trade/swap resources from your hand and the trade row, etc., etc., but you won't know until you've tried it out. Don't stop thinking about them, just put that idea on the back burner for now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
While I can see the fun in having nice feelies (clay chips), I gotta agree with the sentiment of using the cheapest/easiest viable option for a prototype. And I'm going to continue to be a broken record by saying that Chip's advice is solid - I'm very deeply in the school of design a minimum viable prototype asap and iterate iterate iterate. In Monster Harvester news I actually did a solo play test right after my last post about it but wanted to sit on discussing it until I'd had time to ruminate on it. Unsurprisingly, the core game play loop is... really basic. That's probably the first thing I'll overhaul when I do the next iteration. Right now its just do math, beat monster, manage resources (more math) to beat monster, repeat. I have no opposition to it being as math-y as it is, but I think the major method of interacting with the game needs to be more involved. I've got an idea for how to do that, but its going to require an almost total redesign so I'm not in any huge rush to do so until I have a little more testing completed. That said, the game was relatively engaging in a problem solving way - for the solo play I set arbitrary objectives (3 nights, drive everything extinct, then count points) and failed at it. It may not be possible to achieve the extinction goal in that time frame, or I just didn't play optimally. I'll try and give it a multiplayer play test soon and share where that leads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
How deep down into the numbers do people get when they are designing games? I'm making cards for the deckbuilder idea I floated now and I've got a variety of tables in my doc breaking down gold cost vs resource value, counts of each type of resource card, resource cost broken down by weapon type by level and avg gold value of items and their resource values. I like numbers and tables, and to me it makes sense to really drill down into the numbers before testing. Is that logical?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:How deep down into the numbers do people get when they are designing games? I'm making cards for the deckbuilder idea I floated now and I've got a variety of tables in my doc breaking down gold cost vs resource value, counts of each type of resource card, resource cost broken down by weapon type by level and avg gold value of items and their resource values. I like numbers and tables, and to me it makes sense to really drill down into the numbers before testing. Is that logical? It's probably not the best thing to do, at least until your game has progressed pretty far and you're happy with how it's playing. You'll end up wasting a bunch of time tweaking stuff that you're just going to throw away later. Until you've got a pretty solid design, you're probably better off just throwing together a handful of ultra-crappy cards and testing. This is hard to do, though. I like making spreadsheets, and I also like doing card layouts - so I often end up doing both those things way too early (and thus wasting a bunch of time when I throw it all away again).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:How deep down into the numbers do people get when they are designing games? I'm making cards for the deckbuilder idea I floated now and I've got a variety of tables in my doc breaking down gold cost vs resource value, counts of each type of resource card, resource cost broken down by weapon type by level and avg gold value of items and their resource values. I like numbers and tables, and to me it makes sense to really drill down into the numbers before testing. Is that logical? Yeah, what jmzero said. Just make up cards and see if the general design works, then you can start figuring out what's badly balanced as you playtest. The worst offenders usually make themselves known really fast, but it depends on how many cards you're dealing with. The best kinds of tables, at least in my experience, are the ones that mention how often you play the cards or focus on them rather than the numbers on the cards themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Yeah that's definitely the case. I like to have the numbers there just to see how things break down so I know what the situation is, but it's not a guiding factor for me quite yet. This game is slowly evolving from a deck builder into more of a resource managing card game (Almost feels more like a hand builder than a deck builder right now) than I had expected as I put the pieces together but I'm not entirely opposed to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
jmzero posted:It's probably not the best thing to do, at least until your game has progressed pretty far and you're happy with how it's playing. You'll end up wasting a bunch of time tweaking stuff that you're just going to throw away later. I agree with this. A simple mechanical change might mean that you have to redo the cards anyway, and there goes your hours of tweaking and statistical analysis that you've put into the last batch. Getting core mechanics down is now my current MO, while having a handful of general ideas that I take notes on during play sessions and refine with each iteration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
I had an idea the other day, and mocked up some simple rules. The idea was for something called "Dear Diary", with idea of recreating the magical realism of a high school anime/visual novel/light novel. The premise of the game is that the players are all the least popular kids at a private high school. One day, all four receive a magical diary, where the things they record within it come true. Gameplay is drafting based. Players have three cards in front of them drawn from a central deck, and their progress is represented by pawns in four tracks: Love / Academics / Athletics / Coolness The cards are divided into these four suits, with each card allowing players to move a certain number (-1, +1, or +2) in a certain track - sometimes combinations of those. Some cards, in addition to moving pawns on the tracks, also have an effect, such as allowing a player to discard and redraw a card in their current hand. Each suit also has a "disaster", which greatly reduces their pawn's track progress in that suit. There's a fifth suit called event cards, which have universal effects on the gamestate, but do not move player pawns directly. Players look at their hand of three cards. Everyone locks in a choice to play, there's a countdown, players reveal and add the card to their diary that is growing in front of them. The player with the "prefect badge" token (which rotates, like a dealer button) activates first, and it goes around in clockwise order. Players then pass the package of cards to the left, they draw a new card to replace the played card, and that starts a new round. The tracks have 15 spots on them. The first player to get 10 in any two tracks, or a single 15 is the winner. The strategy would be similar to other drafting games: taking desirable cards from your opponents, while still managing your own progress. I threw the idea of "disaster" cards in there to give a little element of danger. It's easy to imagine that disasters would keep building up in hands, and certain card effects and events would also force disasters to be played. Apart from general critiques, my main question is whether or not anything similar to this exists. Drafting + progress track seems like a pretty obvious combination, having done the design document.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
dhamster posted:Made some big improvements (I think) to the cards in my fighting card game. Playtesting it tonight, will report back when I do. Well, I promised an update but never got around to posting anything. I made a big change to my layout: instead of representing range as a number and describing special interactions like "safe on block" or "hits ground only" via text, I broke the game board into ground and air spaces, and represented range/on block stuff with icons: Old scheme:  New scheme:  Old/new throws:  Key:  It still needs some more testing--in the last iteration I represented "miss" as open shapes and unsafe hits as red triangles, and people were having a hard time with a bright red triangle denoting a viable range, however risky on block. I also put in a little marker to represent your character's position on the board, per a playtester's request. Still, I think the icons are a step in the right direction, and they really helped me cut down on the word count. It also helped me put character abilities on cards without cramming them full of text:  After giving each character their own set of attack cards and implementing this iconography, even the most complicated character (Marv) was playable without many issues. So I'm excited about the game's progress, but I am going to try and move forward in the following ways: 1. Continue to work on making the gameplay more legible. Reduce word count on combat cards where possible. 2. Balance the characters: they should be fun to play and have viable options against each other. Will require a lot more playtesting. 3. Eventually get rid of the placeholder layout in favor of something nicer. 4. Maybe add a couple more characters. There are five right now, not including the baseline guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Holidays are over and I'm back on this jam. Went to a board game developers meetup last night and played a few games that are much further along in production than mine, and got some good ideas about playtesting, game flow, and design in general. Reworking some mechanics for MH but I think it's for the better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Random mechanic idea: I wonder how the opposite of a deckbuilder would work. Deckwhittler? Deckthinner? Basically instead of starting with a small deck and adding more and more cards to it, starting with a big deck and then removing cards from it as the game goes on to refine what it does. Not sure if this would be interesting in trying to make sure your deck does what it needs to do as it gets smaller and smaller, or if it would just feel lovely as you lose more and more options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
The old Star Wars CCG kind of did that. Various locations were put out on the board, and if you had sole control of a location you could drain cards out of the opponent's deck. Winning battle did something like that as well, I think. If you used a card without being forced to drain it, you could eventually recycle it back into your deck. A player would lose when they run out of cards. I could be explaining parts of that wrong, I never really figured out how that game worked. The ebb and flow of your deck was really interesting though, and fit well with the concept of "the force" being important in the game.
dhamster fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Random mechanic idea: I wonder how the opposite of a deckbuilder would work. Deckwhittler? Deckthinner? Basically instead of starting with a small deck and adding more and more cards to it, starting with a big deck and then removing cards from it as the game goes on to refine what it does. Not sure if this would be interesting in trying to make sure your deck does what it needs to do as it gets smaller and smaller, or if it would just feel lovely as you lose more and more options. A handbuilder. I've toyed with the idea a lot but it seems so hard to make a mechanic where you win while giving yourself less resources
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Random mechanic idea: I wonder how the opposite of a deckbuilder would work. Deckwhittler? Deckthinner? Basically instead of starting with a small deck and adding more and more cards to it, starting with a big deck and then removing cards from it as the game goes on to refine what it does. Not sure if this would be interesting in trying to make sure your deck does what it needs to do as it gets smaller and smaller, or if it would just feel lovely as you lose more and more options. ...bullshit? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:36
|
|
