TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [936]  1 ... 33 34 35 36 37
38

TV Tropes Trading Card Game:

 926 Black Humor, Wed, 8th Aug '12 11:12:36 AM from Zombie City
  1. We can't remove Inf. entirely since it's possible to create a situation where nobody can fulfill any Ending Arc in their deck. It's best that players have something to do in that situation rather than just wait for a deck-out.
  2. Hmm... maybe. I'd like a little more detail on this.
  3. Yeah, sure.
  4. Ah, that's a point. Maybe only permanents, then? Flavorwise, physical objects (settings, characters) shouldn't "belong" to either writer, but specific tropes should.

edited 8th Aug '12 11:12:51 AM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
 927 Seldon, Thu, 9th Aug '12 4:31:27 AM from Germany
  1. You're right, I overlooked this.
  2. Basically, I want to remove the numbers from character traits. Characters will have a maximum number of traits. A characterization adds one trait (in rare cases more than one) to a character. They can still require other traits to be in place like explained on the wiki page. Traits are divided into classes like "role" or "gender". Characters may only have one trait of each class at a time, so you can't play a role:hero on a character with role:villain without the help of additional tropes (e.g. Heel-Face Turn). The classes should be as abstract as possible, as few as possible and defined before the card design process, while the number of traits may increase with new "expansion packs". Character cards may also come with traits. An example would be the Big Bad which has already one trait slot occupied by role:villain. Of course, characterizations can have additional effects on the character or the game.
  1. Ok. Permanents are settings, characters and phlebotina, right?

edited 9th Aug '12 8:24:02 AM by Seldon

 928 Black Humor, Fri, 10th Aug '12 6:34:10 PM from Zombie City
2. I'm a little concerned that'll leave us unable to judge some sorts of situations. A clown is scary, and Cthulu is also scary, but they're not the same AMOUNT of scary.
4. Yes.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Well, we don't have to create situations that make a distinction necessary.

I want to get rid of the numbers because of two things: 1. numbers are harder to keep track of than properties, 2. higher levels of granularity reduce the number of possible card combos. Compare those three effect requirements: "Target a character...", "Target a scary character...", "Target a character with scary > 5...". Which one would be the most useful?

Look at Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh (how it is played today). In my opinion, Magic did many things right in the design process, while the latter jumped the shark already, but YMMV. Magic cards usually have few restrictions: They require Mana out of 5 possible colors and may name a few card types for their targets ("target artifact", "a black creature", etc.). Yu-Gi-Oh, on the other hand, introduced so-called archetypes a few years ago, bascially cards which share some words in their name (and, this has to be said, they already had over 20 types and 7 attributes to work with). This renders many cards only useful in dedicated decks, plus the strategies are more or less predefined.

 930 Black Humor, Sat, 11th Aug '12 2:07:54 PM from Zombie City
I want to get rid of the numbers because of two things: 1. numbers are harder to keep track of than properties, 2. higher levels of granularity reduce the number of possible card combos. Compare those three effect requirements: "Target a character...", "Target a scary character...", "Target a character with scary > 5...". Which one would be the most useful?

To a player, obviously the first one, but that's not saying anything about which would be most useful to a game designer. Each of those has its place in the right situation.

Look at Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh (how it is played today). In my opinion, Magic did many things right in the design process, while the latter jumped the shark already, but YMMV. Magic cards usually have few restrictions: They require Mana out of 5 possible colors and may name a few card types for their targets ("target artifact", "a black creature", etc.). Yu-Gi-Oh, on the other hand, introduced so-called archetypes a few years ago, bascially cards which share some words in their name (and, this has to be said, they already had over 20 types and 7 attributes to work with). This renders many cards only useful in dedicated decks, plus the strategies are more or less predefined.

Magic does this all the time, though.

edited 11th Aug '12 2:08:30 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
That's right, yet you can assume that every creature in Magic has reasonable values for power, toughness and mana cost. Colors aside, every card in the search results could be easily added to your deck. Most Characters or Characterizations in TV Tropes TCG won't provide values > 0 for all stats. Assuming that the number of possible traits (age, gender, combat, love, scariness, funniness, ...) will be huge, decks making use of traits have to be dedicated to them. An action deck, for example, requires many combat characters. Plus, you can't know which traits your opponent focuses on, so "Put target character with funny < 3 on the bus" would be useless in your action deck with and without numbers (that's the reason why I also wanted to introduce trait classes). I don't know how you'd design Arcs, but I assume they are specific in terms of required tropes/traits/etc. to complete them. Drawing the necessary cards is hard enough, but if you need two "combat + 2" cards for an Arc or Trope that requires "combat 4", this could take forever.

Now as I'm thinking about it, there is another solution: Replacing "draw 1 card each turn" with "draw cards until you have a total of X each turn".

 932 Black Humor, Mon, 13th Aug '12 2:05:14 PM from Zombie City
THAT'S a point.

But, now I think about it, I think we can do a flavorful solution to it; since the point of the game is to keep influence over the story, ideally most of the cards you should be interacting with each turn should be your own cards, (and thus stat requirements shouldn't be a problem within your own deck). Think of it more like a race than a battle.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Alright. We have to wait for test plays to see how this works out.

Do you have an idea how influence is allocated by now?

 934 Black Humor, Wed, 15th Aug '12 7:13:17 PM from Zombie City
Unfortunately not, sorry.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
 935 gekkolexicon, Wed, 28th Nov '12 11:01:03 AM from montreal, quebec
gekko the lexicon
Do you guys need any help?
  • asks some bizare philosophical question that somehow can be tied to a piece of fiction*
We need help actually getting anything done, if that counts.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 936
 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37
38


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy