Community Game

[Zao]

Neat idea you have here GnKoichi. I like the fact that you have to compete each turn to get a different victory element. Let's say each element (building tower, stealing documents, becoming king or whatever) have different ways to be won: Your deck will need cards adapted to those three victory conditions, as you never know which one will appear often during the game. Or you can push your luck and specialize only in tower-building, hoping that "tower building" cards appear often in the goal deck.

I'm not a fan of shared decks, though. It would always be the same deck every game? Or each players contribute to it, like the site cards in Lord of the Rings? In this game, the site deck balanced the game, as the leading player's sites would never be played. The leader was hindered by his opponents' sites, which were "bad" for him and usually "good"  for them, allowing them to catch up.

One more idea :

Each of those goal cards (obtained accordingly to what GnKoichi said) could have some drawbacks. For example, one of the "stolen documents" cards would increase your chances to be discredited. Another one could lower your hand size limit, etc. Each goal card would be unique, each having different ways to acquire it and different drawbacks.
This means that the closer you are to victory, the harder it is to obtain it. This would make the game more interesting, and would reduce the gap between players. You will also have to think twice before grabbing a goal card. Do you really need this kind of goal card? Can you afford the risk? Should you wait one more turn, in order to have a more solid position?

[GnKoichi]

I think it could be a shared deck that's always the same if there are enough cards in it to keep it interesting (maybe three times the number that would appear in any given game, so five or six times the amount needed to win?). A deck that both players contribute could also be interesting, but for my personal taste I think I would go the other way.

[Zao]

Haha! You posted while I was adding an idea to my previous post.  It seems to happen often to me these days.

Actually, I'd also prefer a similar goal deck for each game. The contributive deck could lead to some... issues.

[GnKoichi]

I like the addition. You could also have goals that help you, but not for that goal. Like a tower card that gives you a charisma bonus. This could help force players to fight over cards that they might not otherwise.

[Ripplez]

not necessarily sneasel. for one hting, a) we do that all the time with sorceries and instants. illicit affair can be represented somethign like http://www.pojo.com/thespoils/cotd/2007/february/28.shtml

(the card image)

unless you meant rules. i dont think itd be that hard to come up with some effect text thatd match :S

also, theres no reason why you cant have cards like barracks worked in somewhere. youd be researching their activities upto the illegal activities, they could still be playing such cards to protect their info

or it might not fit at all. its just an idea

[Tokimo]

Perhaps if you want to add an element of social power it should be becoming mayor instead of king? Airship towers and kings seem to be on totally different magnitudes.

[Zao]

B.. but KINGS are so awesome! I'm sure we can fit this in the theme. Not that I hate mayors, but i always think of a fat man with a moustache when I hear this word. While the word king evokes sexy and majestic beards.

Anyway it's not the most important part of the game. Vocabulary can change anytime.

I admit kings in this setting might seem out of place. But monarchy still rocks.

@GnKoichi : We indeed can do a lot of things with those goal cards. With some imagination, the goal deck will be full of surprises.

[TheBuck]

When we do actually start this thing up we all should give each other our AIM SN or email.

[sneaselx]

My biggest fear is of the community deck. It is a community game based around Lackeyccg, so it doesn't make much sense to make a game that lackey cannot handle, without complicated workarounds. Also, as you said, it waters down each option.
What if we make a four phase game?
First Phase: Players compete to capture the different pieces.
Second Phase: Election- Players compete for votes. (some kind of advantage? Maybe trying to win control over the city, to improve your tower permit powers.)
Third Phase: Tower building- Use your tower pieces in a separate deck, to build the tower.
Fourth Phase: Stock the tower with your documents, try to capture all the documents.

Winner has the most documents at Phase Four.
Each phase would also be a standalone game.

Maybe at the end of each round, you get more points, to spend on new characters. Whoever does best in each round gets more points to spend on characters in the subsequent round.

Oh, and I'm sorry, I don't use AIM or SN, whatever those are.

[aardvark]

@Votes(dependent on tower)
A few things: Too many mechanics in one game can be complicated. If we want a complicated game, that's fine, but will be much harder to pick up. Also, it changes implicit espionage to explicit espionage. Espionage should be decided by card interactions between players, not just playing a card and changing some numbers.

@Merge
Might make all the cards into piece of paper. Not very interesting card design.

My suggestion was not meant as an addition to the tower mechanic and Ripz' idea is of her own making. Mine was meant as an alternative.

I have to agree that a combination of towers, politics and secret documents seems like it would be rather watered down. I think that if everybody wanted to combine them that having 2 of the 3 would work but that a combination of the trio would be more of a mess. Not to mention that I'm asking for simple for this thing. It would definitely complicate things trying to balance the 3 of those into 1 game without a great deal of time. I'd like this done before the end of the year.

I know it's just a word but mayor does sound a lil' outta place, imo. King doesn't quite float my boat either tho, so... heh. If such a mechanic were to be used, perhaps, regent or some other such title. I like regent better. 'Course, that's neither here nor there, nothing concrete has been decided and I'd still like some more major mechanics, along with minor ones, before putting anything up for vote. Don't forget the little things, guys!


another suggestion (not intended as an addition to anything previously mentioned):

Mechanic: The Chase: A rivalry between spies or Spy vs. Spy vs. ?
Explanation: Both players are spies, one loayl to her royal majesty (or whatever fluff the CD-F dept decides) and the other, uh, not. Before starting, the players would decide who is going after who, and how many turns to play. It is the job of the hound to discover and bring the fox into custody along with whatever state secrets the fox has "liberated".

This might involve locations so...
Mechanic: Locations
Explanation: Certain cards would serve as places for a character to travel to and from. From the City Square to the Opera House to the Royal Mansion to the Gallows and back again.

Mechanic: Trust Scale
Explanation: Because agents, whatever form they may take, are unlikely to survive without some form of outside assistance, I propose a trust scale. Players would start at a neutral score of 0 (from -5 to +5) and depending on actions taken they would draw a gain/lose trust card. This is how others might determine them to be trustworthy or not. It could also be used to influence minions, if you become to untrustworthy some of the more upstanding people that work for you might be discarded. On the other hand, if you become a paragon of shining light, the seedier types in your employ might decide that they don't like working for someone on the up-and-up. Discarding doesn't have to be the penalty either, instead they could decide that they want to work for the competition, unless of course that player's trust score is in the same state.

I know I've seen them mentioned but I don't think that I've actually seen them put out as actual mechanics that anyone would like to see, so here goes.

Mechanic: Trap
Explanation: Whether uncovered at a location, through investigation or some other means a trap would spring once your opponent has stepped into it and shower him with some sort of negative effect. ie. discard a card/entire hand, take an Lose Trust card, lose any one character, take damage, etc. etc. A trap doesn't have to be a bear trap, it could be an alarm, a button that opens the cage of the clockwork dragon and so on. I'd like to see what could be done with it there's so many possibilities.

The fox and the hound might not be everyone's cup of tea. It seems it would be more of a defensive game for the fox and depend on how aggressive the hound is. Which is why I suggest a time limit of x turns to be determined beforehand. If the hound has not captured the fox and/or the briefcase full of goodies then the fox wins, otherwise the hound wins.

dang it. I had something else in mind but I forgot what it was. *shrug* I'll think of it later, I hope.

[GnKoichi]

Since the themes vote is closed, I'd like to propose that now is a good time to break into the rules team and the fluff team, so we can start making decisions and moving forwards. It seems like this discussion is naturally moving away from the suggestion process and into debate territory, which is fine, as long as we're ready for it.

[Ripplez]

its easier to make rules when the flavour comes out. id rather the flavour team worked on wat exactly the universe will be liek before we started on rules and mechanics

this isnt a counter to koichis point, just to add to it

[aardvark]

Since the themes vote is closed, I'd like to propose that now is a good time to break into the rules team and the fluff team, so we can start making decisions and moving forwards. It seems like this discussion is naturally moving away from the suggestion process and into debate territory, which is fine, as long as we're ready for it.

I concur.

We have the themes down so Fluff Management can get to work if they so choose and the Rulemongers could get some sort of foundation if they so choose. I say if because we're still going through mechanics and they'll need to work with the Mechanics to some degree. Also, last but definitely not least, the Artists can get started on card templates and the likes.

The groups will be led by those who chose the corresponding area as a primary and/or secondary. Tertiary volunteers are free to help out wherever it may be need assuming they are not already putting their efforts to use elsewhere (like rules, hinthint, winkwink).

Fluff Management
GnKoichi
Zao

The Rulemongers
Ripplez

The Mechanics
TheBuck
aardvark

The Artists
sneaselx
LegendZero


d'accord? d'accord.

[GnKoichi]

Aardvark: What is the separation between Rules & Mechanics?

Zao: We should chat atleast once to do some brainstorming/planning. What's your preferred method? Time available?

Rules/Mechanics Folk: What fluff stuff will help you early on? We can focus our efforts on certain elements if you want some decisions made sooner than others.

[aardvark]

Aardvark: What is the separation between Rules & Mechanics?

I'll go back to my earlier example of card drawing.
The mechanic itself is to draw a card.
The rules are what the player does with the mechanic.

Rules also delve into specifics while mechanics will be more general in nature. For example:
Mechanic: Play a card take an action.
Rule: Play an event only during your turn. Play a response only after your opponent plays a card. Play an instant at any time. Event, Response, Instant, all of these mechanics allow the player to do something after playing a card, the rules specify when and thus classify an event card according to its nature.

I hope that explains what I mean by the difference between mechanics and rules. I admit it is a fine line, but it is there.

*starts singing Thin Line Between Love and Hate by the Persuaders*
*fade out*