PDA

View Full Version : Creating a Card-Based RPG



Adamantrue
2013-01-06, 09:30 PM
I have a lot of friends that enjoy RPGs, but aren't fans of all the work on the technical side. Scouring through a seemingly endless supply of books, keeping track of all the stats, more experienced players can often forget how cumbersome all the work can be if someone isn't suited for it. It takes hours to even make a character, tallying and scoring all the stats, ignoring back-stories and what not.

Then there is the rules systems themselves. It takes a decent amount of time to really learn how to use a simple system like D&D, I'm reminded from time-to-time as I introduce a new Player into a game.

And even a group of experienced gamers can have their game grind to a halt when someone wants to invoke a less common rule. Going with D&D again, it could be something like a more complex spell in the middle of combat that has to be looked up & looked over by the DM, or even a core rule like Grappling at an odd time.

My recent re-acquaintance with M:tG got me thinking about its game design. There are core rules to be sure, but they are minimal and serve as more of a checklist and flowchart than the maze of RPG rules that must be navigated. Anything more complicated has the relevant rules right in front of you, on the card itself, and the size of the card itself mandates a relatively straightforward and simple interpretation and use.

So, I did some cursory Google searches on Card-Based RPGs. While I have seen some good ideas out there, I didn't see anything that struck my fancy. I began to wonder if maybe I was up to the task, to fit the balance I was looking for.

A Rules-Lite RPG based on Cards & a d6, something that made character creation quick & gameplay simple, but still had all the depth of play that could rival even the most Rules-Heavy systems. Something I can play with my grand daughter or my friends, and keep the interest of both.

I'm a couple of weeks into the project now, and it seems promising. I only have about 40 cards "designed" right now (rules text only, no artwork or fancy presentation yet), and in another week or two I can start playtesting the Players' game mechanics while I start on the GM & "Dungeon" cards (which will use the same mechanics but with a different balance & set of rules). But I thought I'd start going over the rules here, get a feel for whether other people would be interested in such a game, as well as maybe get some early crowd-sourced feedback.

I use 3.5 terms in my explanation of the game, as they are the most common terms people would understand. And no, I haven't come up with a name yet. Knocking around ideas with friends, but nothing rings true yet.

*

There are 3 core Ability stats: Mind, Body, and Spirit. Most actions and abilities will key off of one of these three Abilities. Mind represents knowledge and resourcefulness, Body represents physical strength and coordination, and Spirit represents motivation and force of personality. There are other stats (such as movement rate, simplified as "Move" on the card), but these are the three that matter most. These three Stats are represented as modifiers on 3 different Ability Cards, one biased towards each.

I'm offering 3 Races to start: Human, Elf, and Dwarf (I'm not entirely sure about what is the intellectual property of someone else, so I don't want to mess with more yet). Humans are biased towards the Body stat, with some minor inherent defensive traits. Elves are biased towards the Mind stat, and have inherently high perceptive traits ("Perceive" on the Card), but are more vulnerable physically. Dwarves are biased towards the Spirit, with higher defensive and perceptive traits but half as mobile. Each race as its own card.

The stats on the Race Card and the Ability Card are presented as additive, and in quantities an 8-year-old girl can do in her head. The two cards are laid out in front of you in a specific way to line up these rows of stats, and lay the foundation of your character...

*

At 1st level, your entire character will be represented by 40 cards. 4 sets, totaling up to a maximum of 8 cards (arrangement of which I'll explain later) laid out in front of you, plus your Race & Ability bias. 4 cards will be in your Hand, and the rest are in your Deck. You always begin and end each turn (yours, another players, or the GM) with no more or less than 4 cards in your hand, so you draw cards or discard at the end of each turn.

At each level, you add 10 cards to your deck, can have an additional 2 cards and 1 set laid out, and keep an extra card in your hand. My current level limit on the design end is 5th level, because after this point an 80 card deck may get too unwieldy & statistically diluted, and the table could get cluttered (simplicity is a design goal).

The Deck represents a combination of Hit Points & Action Points (see Boosting below concerning the Action Point aspect). As you take damage, you take the appropriate number of cards off the top of your deck & place them in the Discard pile. When there are no more cards in your Deck, you are Dead (I may include rules that postpone death later).

The cards you lay out in front of you represent your Equipment & "Disciplines" (basically at-will or continuous abilities). Some are dependent on each other, and are arranged together, while others are stand-alone. You cannot exceed your level limit in the number of sets you have, or the total number of cards, though you can leave slots empty if desired (a handy for carrying treasure out of a dungeon).

The cards in your Deck represent special actions. These could represent Spells, Feats, ToB style Maneuvers, or cards that manipulate the game mechanics. I haven't decided for sure on whether to limit copies of a card in the deck, and need to take a good look at my options after completing the first drafts of the cards.

*

During your turn, you are allowed to take 2 Actions. These Actions are either to Move, Attack, Change what you have Equipped (generally swapping Weapons), use a Special Ability, or play a card from your Hand that has the Action type.

In response to any Action (yours, an ally, or an opponent), you may play a Reaction.

A core mechanics is called "Boosting". Most Actions you take are based on a d6 + appropriate Stat (usually Mind/Body/Spirit), and are opposed by a similar d6 + Stat, referred to in-game as a "Contest". However, you can modify your roll by Discarding cards from your Hand, on a 1-for-1 basis. For example, if I have a Body stat of +2, and I fire my Crossbow, I roll a d6 and get a result of a 4 (for a total of 6). I need an 8 to hit my opponent, so I can Discard 2 cards from my Hand to Boost my attack to 8.

Boosting will not always be on a 1-for-1 basis, depending on the card. For example, when you use a Shield and Boost your Dodge (effectively Armor Class), you get an equal bonus to your Defense (effectively Damage Reduction). Or with a Heavy Sword, you Boost for Damage on a 2-for-1 basis.

Boosting should be a calculated risk, as you have to beat your opponent (tie goes to Defender), and you lose Cards whether you succeed or fail.

*

Best framework I can lay out now, without going into too many specifics (or getting too wordy before I leave for work). I recognize that many of my initial Cards may need to be tweaked, as the balance of the game may lean in unexpected directions, but I'm not on a specific time-table here. I'm also hoping it could be something people would enjoy, and think may be a good idea.

I also recognize that I may be reinventing the wheel, and my Google-fu is weak. If there is a game out there, or one that is being developed, that is doing what I'm trying to do, please point me in the right direction.

Please share you thoughts...

Frathe
2013-01-06, 10:34 PM
I use 3.5 terms in my explanation of the game, as they are the most common terms people would understand. And no, I haven't come up with a name yet. Knocking around ideas with friends, but nothing rings true yet.

*

Dungeon: The Dragoning. Nah, I'm kidding.



There are 3 core Ability stats: Mind, Body, and Spirit. Most actions and abilities will key off of one of these three Abilities. Mind represents knowledge and resourcefulness, Body represents physical strength and coordination, and Spirit represents motivation and force of personality. There are other stats (such as movement rate, simplified as "Move" on the card), but these are the three that matter most. These three Stats are represented as modifiers on 3 different Ability Cards, one biased towards each.

I'm offering 3 Races to start: Human, Elf, and Dwarf (I'm not entirely sure about what is the intellectual property of someone else, so I don't want to mess with more yet). Humans are biased towards the Body stat, with some minor inherent defensive traits. Elves are biased towards the Mind stat, and have inherently high perceptive traits ("Perceive" on the Card), but are more vulnerable physically. Dwarves are biased towards the Spirit, with higher defensive and perceptive traits but half as mobile. Each race as its own card.

The stats on the Race Card and the Ability Card are presented as additive, and in quantities an 8-year-old girl can do in her head. The two cards are laid out in front of you in a specific way to line up these rows of stats, and lay the foundation of your character...

I don't think you need to reduce everything down to just three stats in a quest to make things simpler. You could split Body into stats similar to Strength/Fortitude (slower but stronger) and Dexterity/Speed (speedy but weaker) and add an equivalent to Charisma, and then you'd be up to five "types," comparable to MTG colors. You could theme a player race after each.



At 1st level, your entire character will be represented by 40 cards. 4 sets of 8 cards total (arrangement of which I'll explain later) laid out in front of you, 4 cards will be in your Hand, and the rest are in your Deck. You always begin and end each turn (yours, another players, or the GM) with no more or less than 4 cards in your hand, so you draw cards or discard at the end of each turn.

At each level, you add 10 cards to your deck, can have an additional 2 cards and 1 set laid out, and keep an extra card in your hand. My current level limit on the design end is 5th level, because after this point an 80 card deck may get too unwieldy & statistically diluted, and the table could get cluttered (simplicity is a design goal).

The Deck represents a combination of Hit Points & Action Points. As you take damage or invest in an action, you take the appropriate number of cards off the top of your deck & place them in the Discard pile. When there are no more cards in your Deck, you are Dead (I may include rules that postpone death later).

Forty seems like way too many cards to have to keep track of for one character, and that increases as you go up levels. Reducing the card count would make things easier on the players, but I don't think capping the level at 5th is a good way to do that.

To me, an obvious way to do things would be to have a single card representing each character as a generic member of their race at first level, and then add special abilities, items, stat bonuses, and whatever else as necessary as they gain levels and find treasure. That way, you have a low base card count.

Also, how does four sets of eight, maybe plus four, equal forty?



The cards you lay out in front of you represent your Equipment & "Disciplines" (basically at-will or continuous abilities). Some are dependent on each other, and are arranged together, while others are stand-alone. You cannot exceed your level limit in the number of sets you have, or the total number of cards, though you can leave slots empty if desired (a handy for carrying treasure out of a dungeon).

The cards in your Deck represent special actions. These could represent Spells, Feats, ToB style Maneuvers, or cards that manipulate the game mechanics. I haven't decided for sure on whether to limit copies of a card in the deck, and need to take a good look at my options after completing the first drafts of the cards.


I'm not sure how the multiple functions of the Deck work (they're both HP and items/feats/etc.). If you lose the card that represents a weapon, do you lose that weapon? How is that explained in game? Do you ever get it back?

If cards function as both HP and Action Points, aren't you very heavily penalized for taking actions? If you use a costly Action, you might as well have been attacked. Maybe you'd be better off tracking those points separately, the same way MtG has life points and mana.



During your turn, you are allowed to take 2 Actions. These Actions are either to Move, Attack, Change what you have Equipped (generally swapping Weapons), use a Special Ability, or play a card from your Hand that has the Action type.

In response to any Action (yours, an ally, or an opponent), you may play a Reaction.

A core mechanics is called "Boosting". Most Actions you take are based on a d6 + appropriate Stat (usually Mind/Body/Spirit), and are opposed by a similar d6 + Stat, referred to in-game as a "Contest". However, you can modify your roll by Discarding cards from your Hand, on a 1-for-1 basis. For example, if I have a Body stat of +2, and I fire my Crossbow, I roll a d6 and get a result of a 4 (for a total of 6). I need an 8 to hit my opponent, so I can Discard 2 cards from my Hand to Boost my attack to 8.

Boosting will not always be on a 1-for-1 basis, depending on the card. For example, when you use a Shield and Boost your Dodge (effectively Armor Class), you get an equal bonus to your Defense (effectively Damage Reduction). Or with a Heavy Sword, you Boost for Damage on a 2-for-1 basis.

Boosting should be a calculated risk, as you have to beat your opponent (tie goes to Defender), and you lose Cards whether you succeed or fail.


Boosting seems too easy to exploit. You can sacrifice any number of cards to win an opposed check? That needs to be either taken out or significantly limited. If you need to win the check, Boosting would always be worth it, and if two people played Boosting "Chicken" they both might end up hemorrhaging cards.

Are "Reactions" their own card type, or is that just a special time you can play Action cards?

ScionoftheVoid
2013-01-07, 08:44 AM
I'll second the concern that fourty cards laid out is a lot. If you watch people playing Magic: the Gathering, or the like, they'll take up a fair bit of space with nowhere near fourty cards. Even stacking them into four piles is going to be unwieldy if you still have to be able to see all eight cards in each stack.

Boosting seems like a slightly odd mechanic. You can't boost too often or you'll run out of cards and die, but if you boost after knowing the target number and your result (as your example suggests) then the defender is always able to counter you unless you roll much better than them (or they have to announce their boost first, in which case the attacker will usually win*). If that's the intent, and it's designed to give players a way to avoid very bad situations (similar to a fate point system), that's fine, but if it's not the intent it might be better to have boosting before rolls are made (and perhaps announced immediately before, so that the defender can't just match your boost after you've announced it).

This seems like an interesting idea, but from what you've said seems rather more complex than you intend. A D&D 3.5 character might have more than fourty things to keep track of technically, but they'll have far less than that that are important even as a caster until mid-levels. That your system starts from there and goes up appears to be a significant flaw for what you're trying to do.

*This would make high-damage enemies incredibly dangerous, making the system's combat very lethal or very drawn-out, if that aspect is embraced or avoided, respectively.

EDIT: @Frathe Your concern about boosting "Chicken" is limited by having to end every turn with four cards in hand - it can do a lot, but outside of unusual circumstances (drawing lots of cards and then doing something probably wouldn't be too common, and drawing lots and then being targeted would be even more rare) it only offers four (or slightly more with appropriate cards for your action) points. That's more than half of the die roll, so it reduces randomness very significantly in all important cases, and therefore heavily favours the PCs (who are going to make a lot more (important) checks than individual opponents are).

Adamantrue
2013-01-07, 08:57 AM
Forty seems like way too many cards to have to keep track of for one character, and that increases as you go up levels. Reducing the card count would make things easier on the players, but I don't think capping the level at 5th is a good way to do that.

To me, an obvious way to do things would be to have a single card representing each character as a generic member of their race at first level, and then add special abilities, items, stat bonuses, and whatever else as necessary as they gain levels and find treasure. That way, you have a low base card count.

Also, how does four sets of eight, maybe plus four, equal forty?
I'll second the concern that fourty cards laid out is a lot. If you watch people playing Magic: the Gathering, or the like, they'll take up a fair bit of space with nowhere near fourty cards. Even stacking them into four piles is going to be unwieldy if you still have to be able to see all eight cards in each stack.

This seems like an interesting idea, but from what you've said seems rather more complex than you intend. A D&D 3.5 character might have more than fourty things to keep track of technically, but they'll have far less than that that are important even as a caster until mid-levels. That your system starts from there and goes up appears to be a significant flaw for what you're trying to do. I think I worded it badly, as I was rushing for work (and now I'm nearly exhausted, so I may be off again). You can have 8 cards total laid out in front of you, in no more that 4 sets. (edit: Plus the 2 that represent the Race & Ability bias)

For example, I could have 1 card representing my Armor, another representing my Shield, a stack of 3 representing my Axe (1), specialization (2), and some sort of magical enhancement (3), and the final card a "Discipline" representing by ability to "inspire fear" (possibly giving my opponent a -2 penalty to attacks & Contests).

That would be 6 cards total (out of an allowed 8) in 4 sets. Combined with the 4 cards I'd have in my hand, and the 2 representing my Race/Abilities, I'd have 28 Cards left in my Deck. 28 may seem like an awful lot of Hit Points for a 1st level Character, but shuffling much less than 30 cards can get a little weird, and numbers may pile up very quickly in this first draft of the game (not at playtesting yet).

You also aren't really dealing with that many cards at a time. In the above example, the 2 representing your Race & Ability Scores are arranged as a single unit, your Axe would be another unit, your Armor a 3rd, Shield 4th, Discipline 5th, and then the cards in your Hand.


I'm not sure how the multiple functions of the Deck work (they're both HP and items/feats/etc.). If you lose the card that represents a weapon, do you lose that weapon? How is that explained in game? Do you ever get it back? I just made a Disarm-based Card (1 shot maneuver), and there are some Weapons that have a "Throw" ability. These usually "Unequip" the Weapon, and either gives possession of the item to the opponent or places it adjacent to the opponent to be picked up later.

It only would end up in the Discard pile if you use it for Boosting or if you take Damage, but its still technically in your possession. Just not easily accessed at that moment.

There are going to be mechanics in place to retrieve cards from your Discard pile, I just haven't typed them out yet, or taken a good look at how they reacts with other cards before I modify them.


If cards function as both HP and Action Points, aren't you very heavily penalized for taking actions? If you use a costly Action, you might as well have been attacked. Maybe you'd be better off tracking those points separately, the same way MtG has life points and mana.

Boosting seems too easy to exploit. You can sacrifice any number of cards to win an opposed check? That needs to be either taken out or significantly limited. If you need to win the check, Boosting would always be worth it, and if two people played Boosting "Chicken" they both might end up hemorrhaging cards.

You can only sacrifice the Cards in your Hand (4 at first level), not all the cards in your Deck, so that would be the first limiter. Some cards will offer alternative or enhanced benefits when Boosting (like the Shield or Heavy Sword examples), and there will be cards specifically meant for Boosting, so there will be a certain amount of a "gambling" element to the process.

I also like the idea of using Hit Points like Action Points in this manner. Your ally gives you a 1-shot enhancement, you need to land this sword blow, so you are willing to tax yourself to make the shot count. There is an element of that which seems very interesting to me as a Player, and may have a lot of potential.


Are "Reactions" their own card type, or is that just a special time you can play Action cards?

As a general rule, most of the cards in your deck, the ones you don't automatically lay out as the game begins, will be Actions Cards or Reaction Cards (horrible names that are hopefully placeholders at the moment). They will be much like Spells or ToB Maneuvers, and a few specific Feats or Skill uses, though the power level will have to be adjusted to match Boosting options.

I have to clarify the rules about having other types of cards in your deck (Gear or Disciplines so far) and how you'd be able to cycle them in to you 4 static piles, but you could include them as well for specialty situations (such as Crafting Magic Weapons, not too handy on the battlefield), and just use them to Boost during encounters.

Have I cleared things up conceptually, or made them more confusing? I swear I'll keep trying to explain until I get it right, when I'm neither exhausted nor rushing about.

BladeTempest
2013-01-07, 11:07 AM
I think I can see where you are going with this. I like the premise. However, card game mechanics are my kryptonite. :C

Adamantrue
2013-01-10, 03:29 PM
So, today I'm cutting out prototype cards I've printed, sleeving them to make proxies (basically putting a card into card protector sleeves, then a slip of paper representing current drafts of cards), and getting ready to make some sample decks.

Very early playtesting & troubleshooting is on the agenda, as well as trying to draw inspiration for cards beyond the approach I have been using.

What are relatively basic roles that seem iconic & common to RPGs? Not as simple as "Warrior, Sneak, Arcane Caster, Divine Caster", but not as specific as "Paladin of Freedom Elven Archer." If I can make it a point to cover those bases, I can also cover a lot of the in-betweens (Spellthief, for example) by mixing & matching cards.

BladeTempest
2013-01-10, 05:03 PM
may the force be with you adamantrue

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-10, 05:14 PM
So, today I'm cutting out prototype cards I've printed, sleeving them to make proxies (basically putting a card into card protector sleeves, then a slip of paper representing current drafts of cards), and getting ready to make some sample decks.

Very early playtesting & troubleshooting is on the agenda, as well as trying to draw inspiration for cards beyond the approach I have been using.

What are relatively basic roles that seem iconic & common to RPGs? Not as simple as "Warrior, Sneak, Arcane Caster, Divine Caster", but not as specific as "Paladin of Freedom Elven Archer." If I can make it a point to cover those bases, I can also cover a lot of the in-betweens (Spellthief, for example) by mixing & matching cards.

If we're talking D&D-esque archetypes:

Holy Warrior
Battle Cleric (slightly different from the above)
The Gish (Half martial/Half arcane, built to mix-and-match in combat)
Barbarian and/or Primal Warrior
Druid
Bard
Unarmed martial artist (monk, brawler, or something to that effect)
Ranged combat (Ranger, Scout, and so forth)
Swashbuckler
Knight

...probably a few others that I just didn't bother to think of.

Eurus
2013-01-10, 05:15 PM
What are relatively basic roles that seem iconic & common to RPGs? Not as simple as "Warrior, Sneak, Arcane Caster, Divine Caster", but not as specific as "Paladin of Freedom Elven Archer." If I can make it a point to cover those bases, I can also cover a lot of the in-betweens (Spellthief, for example) by mixing & matching cards.

Just some random ideas.

Sneaky guys:
Trapsmith
Scoundrel
Assassin
Bard?

Arcane:
Fire Mage
Barrier Mage
Ether Mage (illusions and whatnot)
Necromancer/Summoner

Fighters:
Knight
Thug
Archer
Berserker

Divine:
Warpriest
Blood Priest
White Priest (more traditional healing)
Earthpriest (druid)

Misc:
Scholar
Artificer
Mad Alchemist

Adamantrue
2013-01-11, 11:05 AM
Its interesting to finally put together "Character Skeletons", and seeing how cards can interact that I never intended to have interact.

For example, I tossed together a 1st level Human Monk-style character with a Staff. If I'm very specific with the way I make him, the character can (assuming every attack hits) do an average of 42 on his turn, with a high end of 72, not including playing any cards in his hand. Considering 1st level characters will only have around 30 cards in their deck, it could make the winning Initiative the only important aspect of the fight.

However, a 1st level Dwarven Warrior-Priest style character, with a Shield & a Warhammer can absorb an insane amount of damage. The Human does an average of 2 points of damage through his Defense with each hit (12 damage total), and there are less-than-even chances for him to land each shot in the first place. On the flip side, the Dwarf also has less-than-even chances to hit the Human, and does an average of 10 damage total (14 before Defense).

I would consider these two to be "spikes" in the balance of the game, which should be smoother. I like the idea of the Human Monk being a mobile offensive powerhouse, and the Dwarven Warrior-Priest being well suited to Tanking, but they stand too far out above a less...specific mix of cards.

I may have to remove some of the dice from the equation, and instead introduce smaller numbers. For instance, if you specialize in a Weapon (the higher end of low-level Disciplines you can reach at 1st level), it currently lets you add an extra dice of damage. Perhaps instead a flat +1 or +2 bonus would smooth out some of the spikes a little.

Designing a brand new game is hard, but kinda fun. Much different than normal Homebrew, a more interesting kind of challenge.
Just some random ideas.

Sneaky guys:
Trapsmith
Scoundrel
Assassin
Bard?

Arcane:
Fire Mage
Barrier Mage
Ether Mage (illusions and whatnot)
Necromancer/Summoner

Fighters:
Knight
Thug
Archer
Berserker

Divine:
Warpriest
Blood Priest
White Priest (more traditional healing)
Earthpriest (druid)

Misc:
Scholar
Artificer
Mad Alchemist I don't recognize have of those titles. I can look them up, but if you wouldn't mind saving me some time & giving me a short or abridged description, it'd be a real help.

Deepbluediver
2013-01-11, 12:05 PM
I think there's actually something that might be similar to what you are trying to create: it's a board game called Arkham Horror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkham_Horror).

It's based on the Cthulu mythos instead of D&D, but it sounds a lot like your setup. You might want to check it out just for inspiration for gameplay or how to organize mechanics.


When a friend introduced it to our group, we where able to pick up the rules, choose characters, and play a whole game all in one night.

Adamantrue
2013-01-12, 02:42 PM
Actually, Elder Sign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Sign_%28card_game%29) is going to be a more direct parallel, though that judgment is more on a conceptual level than the actual mechanics and gameplay. From what I can judge of the game from cursory web searches. If you are familiar with Elder Sign, is Arkham Horror different enough that I should do some more in-depth research?

*

My final goal is that you can create a customized character that fills just about any archetype within minutes, that is also portable enough that everything you need fits in a single tuck box (which would also fit your d6 and a dice-style marker for your character under the cards).

The DM would play with 2 different decks, a "Dungeon Deck" (have I mentioned most of my working titles are horrible?), and a "GM Deck". The mechanics of the game work similarly for him, so anyone familiar with the game can fill the role, but the balance is in a different place.

It should be noted that an actual map will be generated by the card backs. I'm considering a 2 inch x 3 inch grid that the DM can lay out at his discretion, but I'm also considering an approach not unlike Tsuro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuro). Regardless, I'm standardizing the grid & markers to 1 inch so people can still use miniatures if they want.

*

So, the first few "character skeletons" I've put together, and the observations I've made.

Human/Body Focus: I went with a Martial Arts style character with a staff, as the race/ability combination allows for the selection of a few more powerful cards that have stricter Prerequisites. This is a mobile damage-dealing machine, making a ton of attacks that each deal reasonable damage, is decent at avoiding damage, and has limited battlefield control through the equivalent of Tripping opponents. It would be a strong recommendation for someone that wants to go Human.
D&D equivalent: Human Monk//Unarmed Swordsage.

Elf/Body Focus: With excellent mobility and access to more tactical cards (Elves are biased towards the Mind), but inherently weaker defenses, I went with a more tactical rogue-ish fighter with supporting functions. He can hide, pick locks, pick pockets, and disarm opponents, does a few attacks with reach or at range that deal respectable damage. Does have better perceptive functions, and can enhance the perceptions of others, so this would be be an excellent member of a team, and as long as the player goes tactical could be tough to even reach 1-on-1.
D&D equivalent: Elven Beguiler//Marshal.

Dwarf/Body Focus: A heavily armored warrior, she boosts allies & uses a fear-like ability to hinder enemies (thanks the the dwarven bias towards the Spirit). As mentioned earlier, a Tanking Dwarf can absorb ridiculous amounts of damage, but her own damage output is limited and her mobility is...just sad. A tough guard to be defending an obstacle, a good Tank and Booster, another excellent member of a team that would be tough to kill 1-on-1.
D&D equivalent: Dwarven Knight//Paladin.

Human/Spirit Focus: I could have made a very similar character to the dwarf, but the subtle differences inspired me to make a somewhat potent damage dealer (not quite the Martial Artist, but not so far behind) with mid-level mobility and defense, but keep the boosting & fear abilities of the dwarf. I actually see it in my mind as a sort of barbaric leader, functional enough for 1-on-1, but can strike an interesting balance in support of a team. The dwarf could achieve a similar build as well.
D&D equivalent: Human Hexblade//Marshal.

Seeing these four have already got me to start tweaking numbers, for less dramatic results in play (and to stop a combo I came across that I felt was too powerful). I should also note that this is what the cards suggested to me, not me deciding what I wanted to play.

But I like the diversity already, as this is from a limited card selection that I fully intend to expand on.

Adamantrue
2013-01-18, 06:28 AM
Little update, for those interested...

Very limited playtesting has me adjusting some of these numbers, slowing down offense a little. However, it has given me inspiration for new Card ideas, and is making for more interesting combinations.

Body is very clearly an offensive stat. All of your Attack options are keyed off of it, and introduces ways for additional Attacks in a Turn, as well as increasing its potency. There aren't currently any ways to damage your opponent that can match what a Body-focused character can do.

Mind was originally envisioned as a Magic-based stat, but it has turned into more of a tactics-based stat. It allows you more control over the battlefield, limiting or expanding options (and nearly always at a cost), including those of your allies, but doesn't have any direct methods of hurting your opponent within its own disciplines. And the flavor of its abilities can be fluffed either as a magical effect or clever tactics.

Spirit eventually emerged as the Magic stat. It has the primary buffing or nerfing abilities, has some alternative offensive options (not as efficient as a Body-based offense, but in some ways more versatile), and will have the easiest access to Healing. Again, these abilities don't necessarily have to be fluffed as Magic, so much as the ability to demoralize opponents, motivate allies, and maybe get lucky once in a while.

*

I'm also introducing a new type of Card, the Beast Cards. The default rules allow you to have 1, and requires its own "stack" (for lack of a better term now), and your selection is limited by your level. You can begin play with one (or more, with the right cards), or your can use a Summoning effect called "The Call" to bring one into play.

You still only get two Action on your turn, but they may be taken either by you or your Beast. In addition, any damage taken by your Beast comes from your Deck (though you may choose to let your Beast die rather than lose cards). Finally, Beasts have their own abilities under your control.

The real challenge with Beast Cards is striking a balance between making them useful and flavorful, without making them overpowered or underpowered. Having played plenty of Conjurers over the years, I'm trying to avoid balance pitfalls, but I don't want to make it a waste of time either.

*

I want to introduce a general recovery mechanic for players, to recover cards between encounters. Something simple, not potent enough to be useful during an encounter, but won't take too long either.

I'm a little torn, though. I kind of enjoy whittling down Players as they explore a dungeon, and the idea of a weakened Party having a smaller creature as a threat isn't something I want to outright deny other GMs.

I'm a little dry on ideas on the matter. I mean, I know I'll come up with one eventually, but if anyone had some opinions and wanted to volunteer an option or two, I wouldn't mind hearing them.

Holocron Coder
2013-01-18, 02:39 PM
I had thought about a card-based RPG before, and one of the ideas I had heard that I really wanted to steal was how they handled HP damage and other effects.

Specifically, there would be "damage cards" (or "x effect cards") that would be handed to players that took damage. The player would then shuffle them into their library. This game worked with the player discarding and redrawing their hand every turn. So if the player ever had more than half of the cards in hand be damage cards (or x effect cards), then they would succumb to their wounds (or the effect x). In a game such as yours, it would just be that they wouldn't be able to discard these cards and once they hit the entire hand as damage, they'd succumb.

Of course this would drastically alter what you have so far, so it's more of a neat idea than a real suggestion, I s'pose.

Jodah
2013-01-18, 03:42 PM
A decent recovery mechanic could be as simple as giving them "fast healing." Let them at either the start or end of the turn put the top 3-4 cards of their discard on the top of their deck (could be switched up as to where they come from and where they go, but I figured it would represent the commonly used abilities being easier to repeatably). On the flip side you could simply have them select 3-4 cards and put them on the bottom, this will allow them to be more potent with fewer cards, but still ensure that they have to wait. Another spin on it would be 2X (where x is level) cards and/or capping it to only when they have more cards in the discard pile than their deck.

The reason I would place it at the beginning or end is so they do it when they can't immediately pick up the cards again. For example, putting three on the top (or under 3 or less) when I have an empty hand would allow them to get the cards for use that turn.

I figure an automated one would make it easier and simpler than one that they have to choose to do instead of an action. It also avoid "unfair" situations where they can't do anything because they have to devote their entire turn to healing every turn.

Also, obviously, if there is a healer in the party they could give them the health back too.

Hope that this helps, just seemed like a decent mechanic to me.