Variable Goals

[sneaselx]

Going a little farther, what if not only the goals, but the rules themselves would change based on cards you play. Cards would have only one or two types, and generic stats. Instead of effects, maybe they would all have key words? Anyway, some cards would be able to change, say, what cards you use for resources, how you draw cards, where do you put cards to deploy them, and how combat works. This means that every game would be literally a different game entirely. You would never know what game you would end up playing, encouraging you to have a wide variety of cards for any occasion. And if effects could be changed, then effects that change the rules could be changed, thus changing how they affect the rules...

[aardvark]

Going a little farther, what if not only the goals, but the rules themselves would change based on cards you play. Cards would have only one or two types, and generic stats. Instead of effects, maybe they would all have key words? Anyway, some cards would be able to change, say, what cards you use for resources, how you draw cards, where do you put cards to deploy them, and how combat works. This means that every game would be literally a different game entirely. You would never know what game you would end up playing, encouraging you to have a wide variety of cards for any occasion. And if effects could be changed, then effects that change the rules could be changed, thus changing how they affect the rules...

Are you a frigging mind reader?! I had this idea for another game that I'm working on. Something along the lines of a quick play game. That's another topic, tho.

As far as this game goes I think that I'll stick with the "Cards Rule" rule.

Tokimo said:

The two ways I would aim to implement multiple goals would either be:

-with multiple "always up" goals (Magic having four arguably: play a card that wins the game, make your opponent lose, deck your opponent, or demoralize your opponent into conceding). So if you deal 10 damage, destroy their HQ, get 20 resources, or hold the flag for more than 5 turns, you win. Decks would need to be able to maintain passable defenses against all of these or beat the opponent before the opponent wins.

Are those suggestions or simply examples to back your point?

-with a single revealed target. This allows the players to know where the battle lines are, what they need to hold, and what they can get away with sacrificing.

Which would make it more similar to a "regular" game; the primary difference being that this goal can be changed/lost/replaced. Hmmm...

The third way is valid:

-with a single hidden target. The game becomes very much about anticipation, bluffing, and misdirection (control and combo both play like this in Magic though). All else equal I think the metagame here would be very sophisticated and the bias towards good players would be extreme. Low end players / new players wouldn't realize what their opponent was going for until they had already lost. Essentially this plays like the "always up" (because you have to do everything in your power to prevent them from wrecking your HQ in case that's their condition) but I have a bit of an expectation that the goals would end up being easier to achieve making it harder to block.

If you think that it's valid I'm going to try to work around such a goal system then. (It doesn't hurt that it's the way I wanna go in the first place. XP)

Having the goal face up while in play could, perhaps, be a training method? Also maybe I should include the possibility to, during normal play, have a card that under the right circumstances can reveal the opponents goal...

Hold that thought... g2g

[aardvark]

Ok, so here's a possibility looking for feedback.

A game with variable goals depending on what race/color/whatevers you play (or include in your deck).
Something like:
I'm playing a pure planet-hugger deck so my goal is to sabotage a planet-killer company and plant three tree groves.
My opponent is playing a economic-political deck so in order to win s/he would take the the first part of the goal on each card and ignore the rest of the goal card.

So... the eco-political deck might have a goal of:
(Establish three new companies/buy 3000 acres of land) and (Get a candidate elected for governor/rig an election.)

[Tokimo]

Sounds pretty solid.

[Ripplez]

can different races play other races' cards?

if so,dont forget you need to balance the cards for the different races then

[aardvark]

Races are just an example. Falling back to mtg it would be like you the master mage dude being able to cast different colors of magic. Only in order to call upon a certain magic, political group, you would have to fulfill that group's goal. Maybe in addition to one fixed goal. Hmmm...

[OnyxVerde]

It's not a very prevalent game, but i liked the way EVE: The Second Genesis handled alternative win conditions. I'll try and synopsise with the assumption of no prioir knowledge of the game.
EtSG was a space opera ccg, you had a starbase to defend using spacecships, starbase "add-ons" and such which made up your deck. The starbase card was double-sided, one side "normal", the flipside was your upgraded starbase, which (depending on the particular one chosen) conferred certain strategic benefits on it's owner. Each of the four playable races had four different starbasses to choose from.

Usually victory was achieved by amassing enough ships to destroy your opponent's starbase, or by "decking" - depleting all the cards in their deck.

Alternative win conditions were introduced via certain versions of the upgraded starbase - each race had one such alt win condition (e.g 'control three Outer Regions at the beginning of your turn', or 'generate a Starbase Shield value greater than 20' etc - the precise wording escapes me). It kicked in when the starbase card was flipped over, thus ensuring that the additonal victory conditions were visible to everyone.

The particular part i liked though was that the alt win condition was worded "If a player controls three Outer Regions....", which meant that anyone, not just the card owner, could fulfil the criteria and secure the alt win - sort of a double-edged sword...

[malarious]

I dont have the time between lecture chunks to read the whole topic so I will just reply with my thoughts.

Variable goals are a GOOD thing if they meet the following criteria:
1) They can be stopped in standard play.  I shouldnt have to know you have a special goal to stop you.
2) No goal should be notably easier than another.  Have 30 cards in your discard pile vs have 4 allies out.  If one is very easy everyone will create a deck to that focus (or the metagame paper version).

My advice is to Limit it to maybe 1 universal condition and each person has a card to add another goal. It is possible some cards could offer their own take on it (Exodia in Yugioh for instance) as well.  I like the idea of multiple conditions and anytime I make a game it could fit in I try to have it.  Lots of people like to try the "outside the norm" method of winning if they can find one.

[Cyrus]

in my attempts at brainstorming how to make a FPS-based Ccg I had yet to think about having a "Game Mode" deck of 5 or so cards that is shuffled and chosen from at the beginning of each game. Game Modes could determine how the game is going to play out. Deathmatch? Most kills wins. Capture the Flag? Grab your enemies flag and bring it home. Domination? At the beginning of each turn (or perhaps Domination Phase) the player who is in control of the center location gains a point, first to 10 wins.

The game is mostly meant to be played quickly (short games I mean) and is based on a 16-or-so card Unit deck and a 24-or-so card Tactics deck. Players battle best two-out-of-three, switching Game Modes each time.

[aardvark]

Thanks for the info, OnyxVerde, because, as you guessed, I have no prior knowledge of Eve: The Second Genesis. I like the way that sounds, a player specific victory condition in addition to a universal one.

malarious, please explain the following:

1) They can be stopped in standard play.  I shouldnt have to know you have a special goal to stop you.

That sounds like fun, Cyrus. I wanted to try Frag, a FPS boardgame but I don't think it's in print anymore. fooey. It definitely encompasses what I was thinking about. A goal system that the player would have to adapt to. So while one person might like using sniper rifles to earn kills, another player might prefer shotguns to the face and create his deck accordingly.

Let me know if anything comes of it, eh. Sounds like a lotta fun if when you pull it off.

[malarious]

The idea is if there is more than one condition to win either its always present or a person has to bring theirs. If a person brings one with them it should be counterable in standard play. My comment was if a person brought a card to have a new way to win, it should be possible to stop them without needing a special setup.

[Monox D. I-Fly]

(Magic having four arguably: play a card that wins the game, make your opponent lose, deck your opponent, or demoralize your opponent into conceding).

What's the difference between the first one and the second one?