PDA

View Full Version : Roughing Out a Card-Based RPG System



Nepenthe
2012-07-25, 12:49 AM
This began with a simple idea for a playing card mechanic. The mechanic then inspired a setting, which informed more mechanics. Now I have enough of a start that it would seem a waste not to make a good go of it.

For flavor: Another restless night in Fortuna City. A gutter lined with broken bottles and shattered dreams guides me to my rest. I turn the corner and at last arrive; here is Sadie's Bar.
The cackling hiss of old neon whispers sweet nothings in my ears.
“Here will you find respite.”
I trace each illuminated character in mind. The final 'R' winks out and I am lost adrift in a sea of uncertainty until, with a miracle of electric rebirth, it springs once more into existence. I pound my request for entrance on the door. A small window slides open to reveal a lone, Cyclopian eye. I let the bouncer see my face. He studies every line of sorrow and every wrinkle of regret. In that moment he knows me more intimately than any other soul in Fortuna.
The heavy door groans open so I step inside. My ears are assaulted by a wretched tinkling from the jazz pianist in the corner. The minotaur behind the bar watches warily as he puts cloth to glass and twists. But tonight I bear no desire for drink. My destination is the card table where an old goat in a green visor deftly shuffles and waits for fresh victims. Who am I to deny him? We nod each to the other as I take a seat.
Mayor Randall may pretend to govern Fortuna City, but we know who's really in charge. This city is ruled by Lady Luck, and tonight... I feel lucky.
The setting is Pulp-noir with fantasy elements -- most notably the inclusion of races like Satyrs, Minotaurs and Ogres. When I started researching card-based games, nearly all of them were Western themed, so I wanted to steer away from that. The game takes place entirely within Fortuna City. New people show up from time to time, but no one ever leaves. There's no obvious barrier. People within Fortuna just lose all desire for anything outside. Most residents of Fortuna City carry a deck of cards as a good luck charm, but certain mystical individuals called Gamblers can use these cards to manipulate the world around them.

Some very basic mechanics:
Resolution:
Tests are resolved using a standard deck of 52 cards. Aces are always low except for determining who has a better hand. Face cards are always worth 10.

Basic test:
Player draws three cards. If the total value of these cards is less than the value of the player's appropriate skill + Modifiers, the attempt succeeds. Otherwise the attempt fails. Regardless of the success or failure of the attempt, if the three cards drawn form a hand of Queen-high or better, the player receives a special bonus based on the value of the hand.

Opposed test:
Aggressor draws three cards. If the value of these three cards is less than the aggressor's appropriate skill + Modifiers his attempt succeeds. Otherwise his attempt fails and the opposed test is over. If the attack succeeds the defender has a chance to negate. Defender draws three cards. If the value of these three cards is less than the defenders appropriate skill + Modifiers, compare the defender's hand to the aggressor's. Whoever has the better hand is victorious. If the defender fails his attempt, he is unable to defend and the aggressor is victorious. As with a basic test, if either the aggressor or defender makes a hand of Queen-high or better, that party receives a special bonus.

Conflict:
Conflicts represent complex disputes that involve more than two individuals or are too nuanced to be resolved by an opposed test. Gun fights, car chases and interrogations are all examples of conflicts. Player and Non-Player Characters bid their Edge in a series of hands until one character takes all the Edge or until all characters remaining in the conflict agree that the conflict is settled.
First, a turn order is established. Everyone involved in the conflict draws a single card and adds its value to the relevant skill (usually Agility for physical conflicts or Mettle for intellectual conflicts) to determine his Initiative Score. All characters involved in the conflict must ante a certain amount of Edge and choose which skill they would like to use for the current round. Then each character in turn, beginning with the character with the highest Initiative Score and descending, may choose to either stay or raise the ante. When all characters have either matched the ante or folded, three cards are dealt to each character.
Bidding follows, beginning with the character with the highest Initiative Score as before. He may risk any or all of his remaining Edge. Characters may check, call, raise or fold as in poker. The characters who haven't folded by the end of the bidding reveal their hands and the character with the highest hand that is under his chosen skill takes all the Edge in the pot. The players then describe the actions of their characters' which led them to gain or lose their Edge. A character reduced to 0 Edge is helpless and at the mercy of the opposing side in the conflict. Play continues in this manner with the character with the next highest Initiative Score acting first in the following round until the conflict is settled.
Beyond that, I'm thinking the system will be skill-based (i.e. no attributes) and use something similar to aspects in the FATE system (The bonus for making a hand could be something like adding or removing an aspect).
Equipment will probably be fairly abstract. Just a +1 or so to a relevant skill. No fancy wealth system or anything. I love what Mouse Guard did in that regard.

Where I'm having issues:
Character creation. I need to crunch some numbers and figure out what values work well for skills and how to reliably generate these values. Maybe just a flat point buy?

Magic. I want this to be distinct from just a "Magic Skill" check. I also want it to be risky and unreliable. Right now I'm thinking of something that requires building a specific hand (straight, flush, etc.) to cast. But then there's the question of how spells should even work. Since there's no hit points, direct damage would be pretty useless. And just changing aspects seems lame if everyone can do that anyway. I guess I could make it so all PC's are Gamblers. Hmm...

I'm going to stop there for now. Thoughts?

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-25, 01:23 AM
My real problem is your bidding system is the real salient point here, and the stuff with the playing cards is nothing that couldn't be accomplished with normal dice mechanics. Is there any good reason to be using cards instead of dice except to just be different? I can also imagine a system where bids replace the dice entirely, with the loser being whichever side folds first.



On aspects: The thing about aspects is, they do whatever the player and the DM agree that they do. It doesn't really matter what the aspect written down is, what matters is how creative the player and the DM are in interpreting the nature of the aspect to twist it to mean whatever they want. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. At tables where the players and the DM are quick to get into arguments, Aspects can exacerbate this problem tenfold. You really need a very strong atmosphere of mutual cooperation to make it work.

Now, just asking, do you mean FATE 2 aspects, or FATE 3 aspects? The difference is in FATE 2, aspects can be invoked without spending fate points (you just check the box next to the aspect) and they refresh every so often. In FATE 3, you get fate points for free every so often, and invoking costs 1 fate point.

The reason why FATE 3 games use temporary aspects so much more often than FATE 2 (and a lesson you should learn if you're going to use temporary aspects as rewards in your own system) is that FATE 2 aspects represent an increase in power while FATE 3 aspects really don't. FATE 3 aspects give you more opportunities to spend points to get bonuses; FATE 2 aspects give you a one-off bonus without having to spend anything.

Cespenar
2012-07-25, 01:36 AM
Magic. I want this to be distinct from just a "Magic Skill" check. I also want it to be risky and unreliable. Right now I'm thinking of something that requires building a specific hand (straight, flush, etc.) to cast. But then there's the question of how spells should even work. Since there's no hit points, direct damage would be pretty useless. And just changing aspects seems lame if everyone can do that anyway. I guess I could make it so all PC's are Gamblers. Hmm...

I'm going to stop there for now. Thoughts?

Pretty cool ideas overall, to start.

As a magic skill, you could consider Luck. It's main deal would be to affect cards or rules in a given test or conflict. At lower skills, Luck can make you redraw a card, or swap one with your opponent. To use them, you would need a regular "pair", for example. At medium skill levels, it could force a shuffle and restart the conflict, or raise/lower the stakes. To use them, you would need a three of a kind, or something like that. At higher levels, you could declare extra bids within a test or conflict for extreme outcomes (e.g, the player says "If I draw an Ace of Clubs in this conflict, I autowin this round", or "if I get a flush, I autoempty a target's Edge").

Stuff like that, perhaps?

Nepenthe
2012-07-25, 02:49 AM
My real problem is your bidding system is the real salient point here, and the stuff with the playing cards is nothing that couldn't be accomplished with normal dice mechanics. Is there any good reason to be using cards instead of dice except to just be different? I can also imagine a system where bids replace the dice entirely, with the loser being whichever side folds first.
Isn't being different enough of a reason? But seriously, I've always had a thing for cards. Even when I was a little kid I loved to play with cards. I'd practice magic tricks and try to invent new card games (most of which were heavily house-ruled "war"). It just never occurred to me to mix cards with roleplaying until a couple days ago, and now I just can't shake the idea. I did some research and found a few games like Dust Devils, Aces 'N' Eights, and vs. outlaws (all of which I want to try now), but nothing seemed to have quite the vibe I'm looking for.

The bidding system definitely needs ironing out, I'll admit. The biggest issue for me right now is that it does nothing to encourage teamwork.




On aspects: The thing about aspects is, they do whatever the player and the DM agree that they do. It doesn't really matter what the aspect written down is, what matters is how creative the player and the DM are in interpreting the nature of the aspect to twist it to mean whatever they want. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. At tables where the players and the DM are quick to get into arguments, Aspects can exacerbate this problem tenfold. You really need a very strong atmosphere of mutual cooperation to make it work.

Now, just asking, do you mean FATE 2 aspects, or FATE 3 aspects? The difference is in FATE 2, aspects can be invoked without spending fate points (you just check the box next to the aspect) and they refresh every so often. In FATE 3, you get fate points for free every so often, and invoking costs 1 fate point.

The reason why FATE 3 games use temporary aspects so much more often than FATE 2 (and a lesson you should learn if you're going to use temporary aspects as rewards in your own system) is that FATE 2 aspects represent an increase in power while FATE 3 aspects really don't. FATE 3 aspects give you more opportunities to spend points to get bonuses; FATE 2 aspects give you a one-off bonus without having to spend anything.
You got me. My only experience with FATE is Dresden Files which I only played once. Sounds more like FATE 3 though. I'm going for a cooperative storytelling experience, but I definitely see your point about Player/Dealer arguments. The other issue is how to determine relative power of aspects. I can basically break them down into one-time use (only invoked once), temporary (can be invoked multiple times until the aspect is removed), and permanent (can never be removed), but being permanent doesn't necessarily mean better.


Pretty cool ideas overall, to start.

As a magic skill, you could consider Luck. It's main deal would be to affect cards or rules in a given test or conflict. At lower skills, Luck can make you redraw a card, or swap one with your opponent. To use them, you would need a regular "pair", for example. At medium skill levels, it could force a shuffle and restart the conflict, or raise/lower the stakes. To use them, you would need a three of a kind, or something like that. At higher levels, you could declare extra bids within a test or conflict for extreme outcomes (e.g, the player says "If I draw an Ace of Clubs in this conflict, I autowin this round", or "if I get a flush, I autoempty a target's Edge").

Stuff like that, perhaps?
Thanks. You actually hit on something I hadn't mentioned yet. I was tentatively calling them "Cheats." Basically, the ability to redraw or swap a card--things like that. Now that you mention it though, that would work great for the low-level magic stuff.

Siegel
2012-07-25, 03:57 AM
Have you looked at

Beats and Quarters

and

Primetime Adventures

(and Freemarket)

as being some of the Major Card based Systems? This might help you.

dsmiles
2012-07-25, 04:20 AM
Have you looked at

Beats and Quarters

and

Primetime Adventures

(and Freemarket)

as being some of the Major Card based Systems? This might help you.Also, I believe there is another, Western-based one. Deadlands? Is that the one I'm thinking of that uses a poker-hand based combat resolution mechanic?

Is there any good reason to be using cards instead of dice except to just be different? If a certain company coughWyrdGamescough were to make, for instance, Malifaux: The RPG, and it didn't use a card-based task resoultion mechanic, it just wouldn't be Malifaux. For some games, it's about the flavor of the game.

Of course, with Malifaux, it's not a matter of bidding, but of flipping a card with a high enough numerical value, with the correct suit (and about cheating fate using what's in your hand, rather than what you flip out of the deck).

Jus' sayin'.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-25, 04:27 AM
You got me. My only experience with FATE is Dresden Files which I only played once. Sounds more like FATE 3 though. I'm going for a cooperative storytelling experience, but I definitely see your point about Player/Dealer arguments. The other issue is how to determine relative power of aspects. I can basically break them down into one-time use (only invoked once), temporary (can be invoked multiple times until the aspect is removed), and permanent (can never be removed), but being permanent doesn't necessarily mean better.

The Dresden Files is a FATE 3 game, yes. I've never played that game myself, but I do play my own homebrewed FATE-based systems all the time (a mixture of mechanics from both 2 and 3).

As for power, you can always do what the Dresden Files does: Temporary aspects are the same as permanent aspects except for how long they stick around (whether they fade away at the end of the scene or at the end of an adventure), however the first time a new aspect is invoked(/compelled) is free.

Anyway, here's how I would do a diceless/cardless bidding system (I know you're set on using cards, but I'm still gonna put up my ideas for reference):

All checks are opposed skill checks, the skills for the "attacker" and "defender" being set by the action taken. (Inanimate objects and situations can have skill ranks just like a character can, if you need to make a static test.) Each skill is compared, and the higher skill wins.

The character who loses the check may "bid" a number of Edge points to bring their skill up, one point per Edge point bid, until they've matched the winner's skill. The winner may then bid their own skill up even higher, if they wish, and so on and so forth. This may continue until one character decides to fold and let the other character succeed, or one character no longer has any Edge to bid. Whoever bid up their skill the highest is the final winner of the check.

The winner of the check loses any Edge that they bid, but the loser does not. This is important because it adds an element of bluffing to the basic task resolution mechanic. You naturally want to spend higher and higher on a really important roll, but you can also just keep spending and trick your opponent into thinking it's important (so they also want to bid to stop you), then fold at the last second and make them waste a ton of Edge on something ultimately unimportant. But if they catch on and decide to fold first, they can make you waste Edge instead!

Zombimode
2012-07-25, 08:19 AM
Also, I believe there is another, Western-based one. Deadlands? Is that the one I'm thinking of that uses a poker-hand based combat resolution mechanic?

Not quite, but close.
Deadlands is in essence a Savage Worlds setting, of course with quite some new crunch attached to it.

I'm not an expert on Deadlands (just started playing some months ago), but there are several mechanics involving cards. The most universal is combat initiative: every combatant get a random card. Initiative order is then determined based on card value: higher cards allow to act earlier.
There is an Edge allowing you to draw two cards and using the better one.

There is also a "poker wizard" who can play a gamble with unknown powers to get extra mana points (or whatever they are called).

I'm sure there are other more specialized mechanics involving cards.

The main task resolution mechanic is still (exploding) dice.

Siegel
2012-07-25, 10:16 AM
original Deadlands had a lot more Card stuff in it's mechanics.

erikun
2012-07-25, 11:55 PM
The median card from any one suit is a 7. Counting facecards as 10 might lower the average a bit, although you're still looking at an average closer to 7 than to 5.

This means that your average draw will total out to 20, with 30 max and 3 minimum. Given that you're making a draw-under skill system, this means that for any skill under 20 ranks, the character will be failing over half the time.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and might make sense in certain settings. But you probably want to be aware of the statistical effect, and perhaps look into it a bit more to determine the exact probabilities (I'm estimating all through this post) to see what ranks you want to be handing out to characters.

Nepenthe
2012-07-26, 02:10 AM
I've never even heard of Beats and Quarters. Thanks, I'll look into it. And I've heard lots of good things about Freemarket, but I didn't realize it used cards. Might check that out too. I did look at Deadlands (original) a bit, but it seemed kind of sloppy and disjointed. I'm just judging based on what mechanics I can glean from reviews though. I don't have the to resources to buy all these books.

I also estimated the average draw to be about 20, but I'm terrible at statistics so it's good to have that confirmed. Granularity is a big concern nagging at the back of my brain. Again, I need to crunch some numbers to see how big of an issue it's going to be. It might not even be an issue at all. I'm planning to write a simple computer program to help me figure out these probabilities as soon as I get some free time.

I really appreciate everyone's comments. What do you all think of the setting?

Arbane
2012-07-26, 01:12 PM
Besides Deadlands Classic, there's also Castle Falkenstein and Marvel SAGA that use card systems. (SAGA uses a custom deck -it has 5 suits, IIRC.) There's probably others, but those are the ones I know of.

Draz74
2012-07-26, 07:19 PM
This thread -- or at least its title -- have set my brain to working on a rules-light RPG system where task resolution is all determined by cards, rather than by dice. Hrmmmmm.

These would not be standard playing cards, mind you, but would be a little more like M:tG cards. Things like "Fireball" and "Sneak Attack" and "Staff of the Magi." Then "building a character" would consist merely of picking a set of cards (I'm thinking ten of them) that becomes your "personal deck" that you draw from, anytime you want to try something that isn't guaranteed to succeed.

Anyone's interest piqued by this?

erikun
2012-07-26, 07:49 PM
This thread -- or at least its title -- have set my brain to working on a rules-light RPG system where task resolution is all determined by cards, rather than by dice. Hrmmmmm.

These would not be standard playing cards, mind you, but would be a little more like M:tG cards. Things like "Fireball" and "Sneak Attack" and "Staff of the Magi." Then "building a character" would consist merely of picking a set of cards (I'm thinking ten of them) that becomes your "personal deck" that you draw from, anytime you want to try something that isn't guaranteed to succeed.

Anyone's interest piqued by this?
I've had thoughts along this line, or at least being capable of building a "deck" of character abilities. Probably the easiest would be to simply have the cards represent spells or special abilities a character possesses, with the rules simply printed on the card. Kind of like Dragon Storm or what I imagine Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is like.

You could even "tap" them or turn them over for limited-use or once-use cards.

I don't think they'd work for what you are describing, though. If the cards are supposed to represent abilities, then how would drawing them work for determining success?

Totally Guy
2012-07-27, 04:19 PM
Then "building a character" would consist merely of picking a set of cards (I'm thinking ten of them) that becomes your "personal deck" that you draw from, anytime you want to try something that isn't guaranteed to succeed.

I had a similar thought after playing the deck building game Eminent Domain.

You get a deck with cards that'd have abilities printed on them and a symbol of what other abilities the card can increase the effect of.

All the cards would have a "move" described on it and a symbol. You could use the move of "fireball" or "power attack" to carry out that action in the game and you'd play down a number of cards with the fighting symbol on for level of effect. Additional levels would increase your hand size and allow you to add cards to the deck.

The symbols on the cards might be:
Fighting
Dungeoneering
Utilise/Acquire Item
Social
Recovery

Nepenthe
2012-07-27, 09:49 PM
For anyone who's interested, I simulated 90,000 draws (way more than I needed, I'm sure, but the program I wrote supports arbitrarily large numbers) with the rules I outlined above (three cards, aces = 1, face cards = 10) and shuffling after each draw.

Results Spoilered:


Under Number Percent
----- ------ -------
30 87695 97.439
29 85852 95.391
28 83615 92.906
27 80560 89.511
26 77027 85.586
25 72764 80.849
24 67956 75.507
23 62335 69.261
22 56122 62.358
21 48939 54.377
20 42995 47.772
19 37008 41.120
18 31368 34.853
17 25831 28.701
16 20809 23.121
15 16293 18.103
14 12285 13.650
13 8922 9.913
12 6447 7.163
11 4674 5.193
10 3227 3.586
09 2116 2.351
08 1285 1.428
07 685 0.761
06 330 0.367
05 126 0.140
04 20 0.022


This definitely helps me get an idea of where skill levels need to be. I just have to decide how difficult I want the system to be over all. Another thing that became immediately apparent is that all skill increases are not created equal. E.g. going from 13 to 14 only increases chances of success by 4%, whereas going from 21 to 22 helps the odds by twice that. It's not really a problem; I'll just make levels cost more after a certain point. I actually like the diminishing returns as skills approach thirty.