Deck Construction: singleton vs multiple copies and deck size

[Typherion]

Recently I've been thinking about deck construction for a card game I'm working on. After some thinking, I'm leaning towards singleton decks - players will only be able to put a single copy of a card in their decks.

Decks will consist of only 30 cards, with no multiple copies.
Players will start the game with 5 or 6 cards in hand.
Each player will draw roughly 1 card each during their turn.

This idea is based on several factors:

Firstly, I want the game to play out in a way that makes dramatic sense. It's boring when the same cards are used against each other over and over. This is why animated card game tv series almost never have their characters use the same cards multiple times in a match. Yet for some reason, the actual card games those tv series are based on almost always allow players to use multiple copies in their decks.

Secondly, the high variation in gameplay created by singleton restrictions is becoming more popular. Some people find it more fun, and greater variation likely means greater replayability. Players will be able to play the same decks against each other many more times before moving on to different decks because each match is more likely to be different.

The game I'm making doesn't use rarity. I guess rarity is one of the main reasons to allow players to use multiple copies - so they have to spend more to get playsets of rare cards. But if cards are distributed as a complete set (like with Living Card Games), then there is no reason to chase rares.

The decks used by many games might be much bigger than they need to be. If you allow 3 copies of each card, then a player can use up 30 card slots with only 10 card choices. Perhaps this is why most games have decks of 50-60 cards - it lets players make more card choices. However, a singleton system would let players make 30 choices with 30 cards, possibly removing the need for large decks.

Now that I think of it, the only potential upsides of allowing multiple copies are:

• to allow greater deck consistency; players can be more confident the deck will do its job; and
  
• to allow greater flexibility in deck construction; you might use only 1 or 2 copies of some cards, but a full playset of others

Questions
Do you think a 30 card deck of singleton cards would work?

Why do most card games allow players to use multiple copies of cards?

Why do they have decks of 50-60 cards when players might usually only see rougly 15-20 of them?

[Kevashim]

1) a 30 card singleton deck could work.

2) Because MtG.

3) Because MtG.

More seriously though, in most games a single core set or expansion will have some designed in archetypes/major strategies which the cards are based around. Providing players with these in-built strategies generally requires a number of cards to support it. Allowing multiple copies of a card means less unique cards are needed for a particular strategy so you can either get away with making less unique cards in a set or you can include a larger variety of strategies.

[Trevor]

Multiple copies of the same card are important because people want to build with cards that work together to have a crafted strategy. Having multiple instances of the same card help that. If you didn't allow that, you would need to make a bunch of similar cards, and that's just redundant and defeats the purpose of limit. You do want a limit because without a limit, there is far less randomness.

Regarding your 3rd question, its important to have randomness so games aren't predictable and you don't know what's coming. But you can't have it be too random or else a deck will just not have much synergy.

[Typherion]

Synergy is an interesting point. Different cards can fulfill the same general role as each other without playing exactly the same. For example, if your deck needs 5 removal cards, it doesn't really matter if those cards are the same or different as long as that general need is met.

I think the differences between similar cards that serve the same role could still have an impact on the game without stopping players from building consistent strategies. The way your different removal cards work might lead to different decisions being made during the game while still allowing your deck to pursue its overall strategy.

Combo decks that rely on drawing highly specific cards would be more difficult to play, but I think players could still easily make aggro, control and tempo decks.

I guess it comes down to whether the variation in gameplay that comes with singleton restrictions is worth the possible decrease to the ability to create decks with strong strategies.

[r0cknes]

I personally like having multiple copies, but if your game has a well developed theme then you could easily pull off the single copy model. What I mean is you could have multiple character cards with very similar effects, because the theme is so rich that it would be more enjoyable to the player to play all of his favorite characters from his deck that happen to do similar things.So unless you plan on writing a Novel along with your card game I would stick to multiple copies.

Also, your game mechanics would dictate whether it could work as well. For example, The euro game "7 Wonders" is a abstract game that is very card based. It does have some carbon copy cards, but frankly it could get away from doing that very easily. The mechanics are what allow the game to "get away" with it.

[Trevor]

More copies of the same card make for richer strategy.

With all cards being 1-ofs, that's a lot more for people to remember.

[Dragoon]

I agree with Trevor on this one. Allowing multiple copies removes a lot of 'functional reprints' (Cards that act, breathe, and do exactly the same as another card, but don't have the same name.)

To answer your questions:
1. It might work, it might be fun. But I think decks will become more similar to other players. (He plays card X, so he will also play card Y)

2. See above. Also, it allows for more different decks using the same strategy. (Example: Burn. Some people will use a full playset of a burn spell, while others might be use different ones. They will both burn you to death)

3. For the sake of randomness. It makes sure that most games don't pan out the same and adds versitality. Also, it provides protection against 'decking' yourself. (Can't draw a card, you lose)

[Typherion]

More copies of the same card make for richer strategy.

With all cards being 1-ofs, that's a lot more for people to remember.

I think it's true that multiple copies allows players to make stronger strategies during deckbuilding. But I think having multiple different but similar cards could encourage more tactical gameplay without taking much away from strategy.

If your opponent has 2 copies of the same threat card and you have 2 copies of the same answer card, then the decision is simple and repetetive. But if your opponent has 2 different threats and you have 2 different answers, then you have to try to get optimal value out of the differences in your cards, creating more options and varied gameplay.

Also, part of the reason I'm leaning towards a singleton restriction is because it allows you to reduce the size of decks while still allowing for lots of card choices. Many 50-60 card decks already play around 30 different cards - they just use multiple copies to make a bigger deck.

I agree with Trevor on this one. Allowing multiple copies removes a lot of 'functional reprints' (Cards that act, breathe, and do exactly the same as another card, but don't have the same name.)

To answer your questions:
1. It might work, it might be fun. But I think decks will become more similar to other players. (He plays card X, so he will also play card Y)

2. See above. Also, it allows for more different decks using the same strategy. (Example: Burn. Some people will use a full playset of a burn spell, while others might be use different ones. They will both burn you to death)

3. For the sake of randomness. It makes sure that most games don't pan out the same and adds versitality. Also, it provides protection against 'decking' yourself. (Can't draw a card, you lose)

I think it's possible to make many different cards capable of fulfilling the same role in a strategy without making them functional reprints. In the worst case, players would have to use the 3 best cards for a specific job rather than just 3 copies of a single card.

I think I've only ever decked myself once playing a card game. Also, the odds of getting a specific 1-of card from a 30 card deck will be the same as getting a 2-of card from a 60 card deck. The 50-60 card deck just seems to me like it's just taken for granted. Maybe it's outdated.

Interestingly, I just noticed that Yugioh has started holding limited tournaments where players make 30 card decks, and most of the cards in a deck seem to be 1-ofs, yet those playing it say it's a much more skill-testing format.

[Wisp]

That's probably because yu-gi-oh is a wildly unbalanced game and the limited cardpool means that people have to play with the shit cards nobody ever uses.