Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hoggypare]

You're welcome.  And yes, the 10ebbor10's battlefield design (6x8) along with my modification (6x11 but is more realistic!) would take up alot of space, but still doesn't take up as much space as some games do!  Your choice though.  Just don't forget to be flexible.

By the way, what do you think about mods being expansions, and the idea of a glacial embark (only relevant if you change your mind upon the battlefield design.)?

The space isn't that big a deal, I had that in mind also, but main point is a design. I have a project (at least in mind) for 30-40 cards as for now that I believe would work well with each other. Problem is I know adding a such gamechanging mechanics would need a complete overthinking. it might work, but I prefer my own design. i don't think it is necessarily better or anything, just different, but I feel comfortable with it.

Dwarven player starts with an 'embark site' card in addition to his hand. Of course we may make different ones with different effects for different biomes. There might be even special biome-locked cards for 'evil' player. Idea is good, but first we need a playable game, and there is a lot of work to do for me yet.

This makes me think of making the card game digital.

Cannot do. I am totally incompetent when it comes to coding. Instead you'll eventually get some pdf. files so you may print it ant try out when it is complete.

I figure one of the major limits with going deeper is that it is dangerous.

Maybe every turn there are event cards with layers written on them. If you breached that layer the event affects you.

I played a game that had similar mechanics - LOTR CCG, and honestly didn't like it so much. Although maybe some really powerful 'evil' player's cards will be locked unless 'dwarven' player achieved certain progress (cards on field or something along those lines). You know to make hell break loose steadily, progressively but still unevitable and FUN. 

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

1)Dwarven player starts with an 'embark site' card in addition to his hand. Of course we may make different ones with different effects for different biomes. There might be even special biome-locked cards for 'evil' player. Idea is good, but first we need a playable game, and there is a lot of work to do for me yet.

This makes me think of making the card game digital.

2)Cannot do. I am totally incompetent when it comes to coding. Instead you'll eventually get some pdf. files so you may print it ant try out when it is complete.

3)

I figure one of the major limits with going deeper is that it is dangerous.

Maybe every turn there are event cards with layers written on them. If you breached that layer the event affects you.

I played a game that had similar mechanics - LOTR CCG, and honestly didn't like it so much. Although maybe some really powerful 'evil' player's cards will be locked unless 'dwarven' player achieved certain progress (cards on field or something along those lines). You know to make hell break loose steadily, progressively but still unevitable and FUN. 

1)  The embark cards could be in a separate deck, where you combine embark cards that are advantageous to each deck, shuffle it, and use the top card.  The place might help the dwarf player, or the events player.  (think something like planechase from MTG.)
2)  It does not have to be you.  You could get someone else to do the programming.  I would be willing when/if I manage to get a compiler.  (curse you dial-up!)
3)  Just because it didn't work for that game, does not mean that it will not work for this one.  You could add a 'dig' card that gives you a 'space' counter (used up by buildings) as well as a mineral or ore (determined by dice throw or something else).  When you have used a card like that enough, you reach a new layer, which allows the 'events' player to use more cards (GCS attack, Aquifer, etc.), and give the 'dwarves' player access to new infrastructure cards (Magma, Adamantine, etc.).  Example below, change as you wish:

Code: [Select]

[]Surface (1)
[]Soil (3)
[]Stone (6)
[]1st Cavern (3)
[]2nd Cavern (2)
[]3rd Cavern (3)
[]Magma Sea (4)
[]HFS (Infinite)

[Hoggypare]

To me it feels overcomplicated. Complexity is good, but you want to strike the balance, to not let the game become less playable. I think my idea is yet on the verge, and you propose a mechanic that sure - gives more opportunities, but makes game harder. So no, I'll stick to my idea in this case.

However the things you propose would be great as a board game. There the complex resource counting wouldn't break the game. Also placing buildings/dwarves and finding resources is there an essence of the game. I can definetely see it working.

as for 2) I want to make it physical anyway, also for my own use. Later if there will be demand, and people willing to convert it, sure.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

However the things you propose would be great as a board game.

There is a thought.  What if the card game was cross-compatible with a board game?  On the cards could be a "where this is commonly located" or some such that could make it that way.  It would have no bearing upon the card game, but would allow the cards to be used with the board game.  Just a thought.

as for 2) I want to make it physical anyway, also for my own use. Later if there will be demand, and people willing to convert it, sure.

That sounds reasonable.

[Hoggypare]

Problem is space this time. Cards must have - visible symbols of produced/required resources, name, traits, drawing, special effect text (sometimes will get lenghty) and should have flavour text. They should be esthetically pleasant so drawing should take approximately 2/5 of the card text 2/5, rest 1/5 + frames. I don't know if I always find place to incorporate additional things. What is more, I would need to know the exact rules of that boardgame.

But... In the age of computerized graphics, multiple layers and stuff, later on if I finish my game I can adjust some cards to a boardgame. As long as someone else makes the game itself and my name as co-author is on cards... I would never say no.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

I could begin work on it.  School will be an obstacle, but I should find time to work on it.

[theTrueMikeBrown]

I have been working on a card game for a few years now. If you do not have a graphic program, I would recommend Gimp as a free one that is fairly easy to learn and moderately powerful. Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Also, when you get rules written up, I would be happy to look them over for consistency. (if you have never been to BoardGameGeek.com, there are a lot of people over there making board and card games, so that could be a super source of people who would be willing to help you polish it and play-test it.)

One gotcha that caught me was playtesting the game only with people who were present when I was playing (basically I was at every event where the game was played) This allowed a lot of things into the rules that were confusing to new players (since I was always there to explain them). Once I had people who had never played with me look over the rules and try to play the confusing things popped into visibility.

Good luck! A lot of people would like a DF card game. Keep posting your updates and I am sure that the forum will help you maintain your energy.

[Hoggypare]

@theTrueMikeBrown
Thanks for the kind words
Actually I know Gimp and I was using it for some time, though the graphics will be hand-drawn. There are several reasons - first I prefer the traditional looks over digital, second drawing with pen&pencil is way more fun to me - and I'll be honest - I'm making the game for fun. 
Also I am aware, that some people might not find my slightly cartoony style not fitting, so I will also provide card templates without the illustrations for request.

The advice concerning BoardGameGeek.com might proove very useful. Thanks, when my project will be shaped enough I might seek some help there.

As for rules and playtesting. I am now in stage of creating some raw cards (basically papersheets with written stats, names and effects) for playtesting with friend. Only after that I can decide the most basic rules (eg. how many card you should get in hand at start). Then perhaps I will release test version here on forums so people can check out and provide feedback.

[Rexfelum]

I heartily encourage this endeavor.  Some thoughts:

Balancing the two players - You're developing more and more ways for the dwarves to win, and this is good.  Having "the 'evil' player runs out of cards" be a victory condition is terribly unsatisfying, not to mention impractical if deck composition ever changes (i.e., you make a single expansion).  Think of some other game with clearly different sides, like Netrunner: the "evil" player in there owned the victory conditions.  That is, the Corporation player put Agenda cards into play, and both players wanted to score those cards in order to win.  What if your "hazards of the world" player somehow controlled dwarven victory conditions?  Either, say, by dispensing the goodies themselves ("upright masterwork adamantine sword"), or by having attempts to kill the dwarves grant "victory points" if the dwarves survive them?

Keeping the feel of DF - I hope "making a fortress" is central to dwarf play.  The "layers" idea struck a chord with me: yes, it would require re-thinking the game, but it fundamentally enforces gameplay around "digging a fortress in the earth."  But I also see that layers could be annoying if players have to memorize the pattern (instead of having a computer game track it).  You've spoken about your card layout plan: could you go into further detail on how the player "makes a fortress" in your scheme?

--Rexfelum

[Hoggypare]

I heartily encourage this endeavor.  Some thoughts:

Balancing the two players - You're developing more and more ways for the dwarves to win, and this is good.  Having "the 'evil' player runs out of cards" be a victory condition is terribly unsatisfying, not to mention impractical if deck composition ever changes (i.e., you make a single expansion).  Think of some other game with clearly different sides, like Netrunner: the "evil" player in there owned the victory conditions.  That is, the Corporation player put Agenda cards into play, and both players wanted to score those cards in order to win.  What if your "hazards of the world" player somehow controlled dwarven victory conditions?  Either, say, by dispensing the goodies themselves ("upright masterwork adamantine sword"), or by having attempts to kill the dwarves grant "victory points" if the dwarves survive them?

Yes, I know it is unsatysfying but it may happen eventually and I have to find a solution for that state. Although main goal for dwarves will be acquring wealth factor (or something called similarly). Eg. you may produce some artifacts, deploy some nobles or build some buildings that are not resource efficient (costing much more than providing) but they give those wealth points that count towards winning the game.
Your idea seems interesting although I have one concern with it. There is a problem, how to make the evil player provide constant challege for fortress, so the both players can equally play and enjoy the game. This would greatly discourage 'evil' player from taking actions that may fail. I fear the game could become somewhat passive.
But you actually gave me some insipiration. There can be another victory condition. Dwarven player may call 'final resolve' (or there will be such card) that lets the 'evil' player for more actions for limited time, after surviving that dwarves win.

Keeping the feel of DF - I hope "making a fortress" is central to dwarf play.  The "layers" idea struck a chord with me: yes, it would require re-thinking the game, but it fundamentally enforces gameplay around "digging a fortress in the earth."  But I also see that layers could be annoying if players have to memorize the pattern (instead of having a computer game track it).  You've spoken about your card layout plan: could you go into further detail on how the player "makes a fortress" in your scheme?

It is essential, but I can't make exact tabletop copy of DF. Eg. I can't make herbalist specific card, because his role in DF is rather limited most of the times. Therefore I merged both similar jobs that involve collecting stuff on the surface - plant gathering and tree cutting - into one card 'Forestry and foraging' (name subject to change). But back to fortress building. There will be trait system in addition to resources. Main aspect of fortress design is of course balancing resources and defences but traits add some complexity to it. They determine the type of a card (dwarf/structure/place/event) its positioning (underground/surface) and other things. They determine relations with either player's or opponet's cards. Some cards may eg. target structures only, or may be played only if card with some trait is already in play. Some special effects of cards will add bonuses to cards with certain traits.
I hope that explains it, if not you're free to ask what is yet unclear - I'll happily answer.

[Rexfelum]

Your idea seems interesting although I have one concern with it. There is a problem, how to make the evil player provide constant challege for fortress, so the both players can equally play and enjoy the game. This would greatly discourage 'evil' player from taking actions that may fail. I fear the game could become somewhat passive.

My answer to this would be, mostly, to repeat myself: the idea is the "evil" player is inherently involved in win conditions.  The only way a game of Netrunner is "passive" is if one player literally does not play.  "Discouraging actions that may fail?"  Exactly: it's called making strategic decisions about how you act next.

Of course, the idea might not translate directly (or helpfully) to what you're doing.  For a guess . . . say "evil" has some siege cards (I dunno, trolls and goblin squads and stuff).  These cards allow "evil" to conquer the "dwarves"--obvious, right?  But put text like "3 victory points" or somesuch on a siege card, and a "dwarf" player who survives the siege is pushed 3 points closer to victory.

There will be trait system in addition to resources. Main aspect of fortress design is of course balancing resources and defences but traits add some complexity to it. They determine the type of a card (dwarf/structure/place/event) its positioning (underground/surface) and other things. They determine relations with either player's or opponet's cards. Some cards may eg. target structures only, or may be played only if card with some trait is already in play. Some special effects of cards will add bonuses to cards with certain traits.

Okay, that's pretty standard (meaning: players will understand it) and I'm sure it could be implemented well.  Best of luck.

--Rexfelum

[10ebbor10]

But... In the age of computerized graphics, multiple layers and stuff, later on if I finish my game I can adjust some cards to a boardgame. As long as someone else makes the game itself and my name as co-author is on cards... I would never say no.

I might want to help a bit with a boardgame too.

[Hoggypare]

My answer to this would be, mostly, to repeat myself: the idea is the "evil" player is inherently involved in win conditions.  The only way a game of Netrunner is "passive" is if one player literally does not play.  "Discouraging actions that may fail?"  Exactly: it's called making strategic decisions about how you act next.

Of course, the idea might not translate directly (or helpfully) to what you're doing.  For a guess . . . say "evil" has some siege cards (I dunno, trolls and goblin squads and stuff).  These cards allow "evil" to conquer the "dwarves"--obvious, right?  But put text like "3 victory points" or somesuch on a siege card, and a "dwarf" player who survives the siege is pushed 3 points closer to victory.

I honestly don't know how it works in Netrunner, and probably really well - I am just not sure about this one. And as I said I want the 'evil' player to provide constant challenge and try to make life of the dwarven player harder whenever he can. If his actions would have such a factor, he might get passive because - "hmm, I might not better play this goblin thief card because if they can defend they'll be closer to victory". Also 'evil' player may play cards only if he is sure he can make a devastating combo. This may make the game less enjoyable for both players. Dwarven player should have constant challenge they can (barely) survive, and 'evil' one should get to 'play' the game every turn.
I want strategic layer to involve the choice 'which' card to play not 'should I play a card at all'?
Also I am not really fond of counting victory points, I prefer if you can tell directly from the cards in play if you are winning or not.
It is a case of this very game, and honestly I can't tell for sure if it would be a problem before some playtesting. I don't know maybe then I will look into victory points again, but only if above examples wouldn't occur or current victory conditions wouldn't be enough.

I might want to help a bit with a boardgame too.

Contact Zanzetkuken The Great, he said he would be interested in doing one.

[theTrueMikeBrown]

@Hoggypare

I think that what Rexfelum is saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that the evil player has many options open to them, and that they get to pick the one each turn that is the most likely to be effective - not that they have the option to not do anything if they don't think that anything would be effective at all.

Perhaps a way to accomplish this would be to give the evil player a hand of event cards. Each turn they pick the event card that they want to play and draw a new event card from the deck. Then the 'kobold thief' attack (or whatever weak attack that they draw) would gum up their hand until they play it, but would not actually force them to play it if they preferred to keep it in their hand. Perhaps as the game progresses, the evil player would be able to play multiple attacks per turn (maybe one attack per artifact that the good player has or something like that)

[Rexfelum]

Yes, exactly.  The "evil" player would, of course, have better and worse cards, and after that it's a matter of play balance to keep it fun.

If players need encouragement not to be "passive," there are options.  For instance: suppose hand size is small and card draw is large.  This is what Card Hunter plans to do (to an extreme): draw two cards per turn, discard down to two at the end.  Pretty "active" play there.

But I believe that Hoggypare understands all this and has a different sort of vision.  Hopefully these suggestions are helpful.

--Rexfelum