Creating a "luckless" CCG possible?

[axman]

Recently I came up with a new CCG idea that would combine elements of both a CCG and bored games.  In doing so the game would also strive to eliminate "luck" as a factor in play.  It would allow you the ability to choose your starting hand as well as what cards you draw.  Additionally the combat system would be based on stats only, therefore no dice rolls would ever be required.  Would making a game based 100% on skill chase away potential fans in the CCG market? 

I mentioned this idea to a random stranger online, who responded with "If you can choose your starting hand and the cards your draw, what fun is that?"   I just want to make sure that "luck" isn't a necessary aspect of a CCG before I go ahead with my plans.  Thanks for any suggestions. 

[europeanmatt]

in my opinion, allowing players to choose their opening hand would seriously affect replay value against  any given deck - players would quickly zero-in on the best hand with which to start. the random part of CCGs makes the challenge of adapting to a changing board position and the potential cards your opponent holds or might draw very exciting.

but top marks for thinking outside of the box. Please press on with your design and report your findings! You can't make a good burger without butchering a sacred cow.

[axman]

True.  The idea behind a luckless CCG is it would force people to think retroactively.  (kind of like chess).   My CCG game uses a bored, and assigns cards "ranges".   Not sure if that would modify the result at all. 

[davidkramer]

i cast my vote as no however... I don't think u should be able to choose ur opening hand but what i would like to see is this. i understand luck plays a huge part in things and that's good keeps things exciting. but the one thing i would like to see in magic change is that you have one library that only has all non land cards. then another library that has all land cards. same rules would apply with lands such as only four of each but you draw seven cards and one land each turn. spells that ramp will grab from your land library. I just believe this would create a truly fair game each time. the dumbest thing is to lose with mana issues. I think then it would be all strategy and never having to worry about drawing lands. and since both players are given one land each turn it's fair. only issue i could truly see being a problem is with all mill cards. but i know magic will not change it's rules. but if u invented a game like magic with the not worried about mana screwed idea. i think it would do even better than magic. I know personally i've won a lot of matches to opponents that got mana screwed and i've lost a lot to my hand being mana screwed. just an idea

[axman]

i cast my vote as no however... I don't think u should be able to choose ur opening hand but what i would like to see is this. i understand luck plays a huge part in things and that's good keeps things exciting. but the one thing i would like to see in magic change is that you have one library that only has all non land cards. then another library that has all land cards. same rules would apply with lands such as only four of each but you draw seven cards and one land each turn. spells that ramp will grab from your land library. I just believe this would create a truly fair game each time. the dumbest thing is to lose with mana issues. I think then it would be all strategy and never having to worry about drawing lands. and since both players are given one land each turn it's fair. only issue i could truly see being a problem is with all mill cards. but i know magic will not change it's rules. but if u invented a game like magic with the not worried about mana screwed idea. i think it would do even better than magic. I know personally i've won a lot of matches to opponents that got mana screwed and i've lost a lot to my hand being mana screwed. just an idea

True.  That is one of the most frustrating aspects of MTG  (I myself have played for roughly 11 years).   Unfortunately that suggestion doesn't help my idea.  My theoretical game idea employes a very unique resource.  Each player starts with exactly the same number of resources, and resources are not automatically created at the beginning of each turn; rather, certain units have a "production" value.  At the beginning  of your turn your resources are "replenished" by a value equal to the total production value of all of your units. 

Since we where talking about MTG... lets put this in magic terms.
Instead of drawing lands in magic, you would start the game with a set amount of mana in your mana pool (and your mana pool would not empty after every phase).  Certain creatures/enchantments would have "during your upkeep, add (1,2,3,4,ect.) mana to your mana pool".  Although mana units would not be as powerful as non-mana units, they would be required to ensure you have the ability to play spells and creatures later in the game.   

This is basically the concept I've adapted for my game design.  Though I haven't even written up an instruction booklet yet :p

[reelhotgames]

I say no only because "luck" as it were is one of the  most intriguing aspect of most card games - it is what makes poker so infuriatingly amazing a game, knowing you have the best hand, knowing you are a 98% favorite to win the hand and then having an opponent 1 out on the river - terrible, and also what makes the game so addictivly playable - and I think CCG's share that notion.

That desperate need for the right card at the right time, the feeling that hits when it works, the loss when it doesn't. Building a deck to the best of your ability and having it hit perfectly, having fun when you make something that by all logic should not work and yet it does.

Those are what make great CCG's in my op-ed... Cheers

[Tokimo]

I think you could absolutely do this. The game would become very control centric to beat combo though. It would be interesting because it would have a metagame where decks were able to play 4-10 different ways. If you could do this with Magic you'd see decks go VERY heavy control to remove threats before your opponent's combo can go off. The game would end up playing through card advantage (hello anything that makes you discard). I have an idea of what a good first hand in magic might end up looking like: Lightning Bolt, Spell Pierce, Volcanic Island, and two-four more lands and zero-two more spells (largely threat removal until you could get enough land down to start cascading or drawing).

At the same time, Go, Othello, Chess, Checkers, these are all fully deterministic and still fun to play. So I don't think the random elements are required for fun.

As an aside about magic: Magic would be a fundamentally better game if you had a land and spell library (minimum 24 for land, minimum 36 for spell) and you could choose which libraries to draw/discard from every time you had to draw/discard. You would choose your initial hand as "3 lands, 4 spells" or "1 land, 6 spells" to start. As a matter of fact... I think we should start playing this better game called land-library magic... I've more or less quit magic because my last half dozen games suffered from drawing too many/too few lands in mono colored decks and having nothing to cast while drawing mountains/discarding cards because I only had two mountains.

[Ripplez]

this isnt a totally new idea, people have been trying to create luckless tcgs for some time now including me. not to detract from your idea but instead, take heart that its something other ppl do believe is possible

the mana system you described is the wyvern style system dragoon mentiond by dragoon in his dark journeys topic. it could work

ill say no it wont immediately take off, not because of the idea but because people wont understnd your game idea as being worth playable without trying it, which would be a barrier since they dont think its worth it to begin with. like your stranger said, most people associate luck with card games because of how most mainstream card games work. and indeed they wouldnt be wrong, most mainstream games, if made deterministic in ths fashion, would fail utterly. if your going to make a luckless tcg, your goal would be to make a system that would support such a concept

ill give an example - like tokimo said, in the starting of magic, you could stack all your discard and counterspells in the starting hand, along with an appropriate amount of lands would destroy your opponent pretty much immediately. even if it could be played around, that would be an unfair amount of advantage in the beginning that your opponent cant really do anything about
however, the main point of the game is that it isnt magic, its its own game. say for example, that the wyvern style resource system is coupled with cards having (pay 2 to put this card in your hand). suddenly the game flow changes. it certainly wont be the same and looking at it still shows signs of being broken, but it is different from what itd be without such rules changes

might sound obvious but my point is that you dont know whether or not theres a collection of rules thatll balance out your game idea. my main advice is to prove your game idea is worth it; since your going off the beaten track, youll haver to learn WHY alot of games do not deviate from draw-randomness

[axman]

True.  At the moment; however, there is only four types of cards in my game.  Units (which are like your creatures in magic), buildings, barracks (an advanced building), and upgrades.  I *may* add spells, yet I first have to gage if this would complicate the game too much, as spells would require a second resource to be developed.   

I also understand fully why most CCG include a degree of randomness. The "fear" is that if everyone was able to start with the best hand, there would be no creativity in the decks designs.  Everyone would play the same "best cards" persay.  Therefore I'd have to design the game with a "every card has a weakness" philosophy in mind. 

[aardvark]

Yes.

Luck, chance, whatever you wanna call it is a part of mainstream crap ccgs. That doesn't mean that a game based on strategies and tactics would fail. (Well it might, herd mentality and all that rot.)

One of the things that I'm not sure people take into account is that while you can see your hand (unless I'm mistaken) you can't see your opponent's hand. So, although, you may think the game is going to be a piece of cake with your favorite killer combo you may end up gasping for air under that person's superior play.

Whenever I see ccgs that support "luckless" play (there are a few out there GIYF) the first thing that comes to mind is chess. The random portion does not (imo) add a great deal to a game, it is just another mechanic, that's all.

An idea that I like would be something along the lines of semi-random. Something along the lines of having a player draw the top 10 cards, choosing a 5 card hand and then shuffling the rest of them back into the deck (or the top 5 of each deck assuming there is more than one)

Did your idea include just the mechanics or did that come along with a story? Curious because I know that I have stories that have grown out of mechanics (most of them actually) and mechanics that have grown out of the game's story/background.

Also, the way that Dominion works inspired me to make this (y'know assuming that someone else didn't think of it already >.<) You would create a full deck of x cards but you would only use say half of the deck. Shuffling the deck and drawing the top 20 of a 40 card deck, 30 of 60, so on, so forth. I'm sure that would have it yeas and nays but I like it and that's all that matters really.

While the Wyvern reference is relevant, I prefer a StarCraft analogy (or any crts for that matter) for what you are suggesting. You have units capable of gathering or generating resources, units that will carry out orders on the battlefield, units (ie buildings) that will provide some sort of support to the player (as yet unrevealed, do tell s'il vous plait) and upgrades. (stim pack anyone?) 'Course that's just me.

I very much like the idea of a non-random ccg, or at least a ccg where drawing a random card is not the main way to acquire new resources. Personally, I think that it's the lack of motivation and perhaps attention that helps destroy these promising projects.

And that, is my two cents... for now.

[Cyrus]

couple questions and random thoughts:
1. would you have to stack your deck the same way every game, or can you re-order it every match?
2. how big is a deck going to be? putting a 60 card deck in 'perfect' order would be really time consuming, and incredibly hard. a 20 or 30 card deck, however, may be more managable.
3. I honestly think if designed well this could totally work, although maybe a lot of people wouldn't "get it" straight off the bat. As long as you're trying to make a million dollars though, I say go for it. The design well thing basically means that you have to design no card that is inherently better than others, just better in different situations. Gonna be tough, lol, but good luck!

[axman]

couple questions and random thoughts:
1. would you have to stack your deck the same way every game, or can you re-order it every match?
2. how big is a deck going to be? putting a 60 card deck in 'perfect' order would be really time consuming, and incredibly hard. a 20 or 30 card deck, however, may be more managable.
3. I honestly think if designed well this could totally work, although maybe a lot of people wouldn't "get it" straight off the bat. As long as you're trying to make a million dollars though, I say go for it. The design well thing basically means that you have to design no card that is inherently better than others, just better in different situations. Gonna be tough, lol, but good luck!

To answer your questions:
1) Unlike traditional CCG, a "match" in my game involves only a single, 50 minute long game.  The winner of this game wins the "match".   Indeed the win condition of the game is much more inline to that of collectable miniature game (such as mechwarrior) then a traditional CCG.  In my theoretical game idea, you don't actually stack the deck.  Rather you choose what cards you wish to draw.  Also the game calls for a constant hand size of 6.  At the beginning of your turn, you "draw" any number of cards until your total hand size becomes 6.  The "theory" is to encourage retroactive thinking and play style, aka drawing cards to counter what your opponent just played (and vise versa).   

2) Each deck would contain at least 30 cards, and no more then 45 cards. 

[Tokimo]

I'm excited about this.

[axman]

I'm excited about this.

I'll be posting an instruction booklet shortly  

[Ripplez]

make sure you doublechecked your mechanics. it is very easy to make a mistake that ruins the game flow somewhere down the line. not to be a downer but this is very important, please double check your stuff. your game should deserve nothing less

"One of the things that I'm not sure people take into account is that while you can see your hand (unless I'm mistaken) you can't see your opponent's hand. So, although, you may think the game is going to be a piece of cake with your favorite killer combo you may end up gasping for air under that person's superior play." - this is true but it is not as big an effect. the problem with nondeterministic drawing is that it makes the game play out in one fashion. the fact that this is unknown to both sides doesnt change this. ill ilustrate it better here -

suppose A has alot of counters and destruction stacked early and B has mana production for the early game. B means to play his cards but A destroys/negates them all. this is a rough thematic thought experiment but the general idea is that B is hosed from the get-go. however, consider if A had counters and destruction and B had weenie creatures(small, cheap creatures to swarm). A means to counter but B mad rushes everything down

in a luck-draw system, the key differences in how the decks work are there but there is the random opportunity to have a counter to your opponents cards in your hand, as long as it was placed somewhere in your deck list. with a preeplanned draw, you will never draw your counter if you hadnt planned ahead. in such a system, the opening hands will largely determine the early game, to the point that guessing wrong (which if you played fighting games, youd realise that such things are invariably, no matter HOW awesome you are at it, educated guesses) will severely cripple you with no chance for a comeback, because you couldnt draw the card you needed. the differences in the decks are amplified by a preplanned system because youd need a god read to completely mitigate what the opponent could do to you and failure to do so prety much wrecks your game

under axmans system, where the deck is open and any card is available to the option pool, this doesnt apply..... not directly. there will still be a degree of amplification of deck differences, how much depends on his system. if i played weenie rush against your counters, every time you countered my creatures, i can draw and throw out more. unless your counters/destruction was multi-targetting, my drawing + early lead will make your deck hard by design. under a m:tg deck, i might not draw every creature i could throw out, making it actualy a form of balance for the slower deck, by stemming the tide of things i can fling out. similarly, a counter-based deck rarely draws counters every single turn for this reason. draw luck works both ways

the fact that matchs consist of only one round doesnt help if what i said comes to pass. then the deck differences wont have time to be mitigated by side-decking or even player adaptation. remember, strategic thinking is fine but you can only play cards that you actually put in your deck

again, sorry to sound dismissve, to you, aardvark or anyone else in the topic. i dont mean to be and these are just my opinions after thinking about it. i just dont want you to get hurt getting hyped over a game and making an instruction booklet and all and having someone crush your dreams by exploiting the game. given that this is practicaly what i aim to do when i playtest or even build normal decks, youd come to hate ppl like me, who will look at your system for flaws. not to be mean, i just find spading enjoyable. but not everyone will be as nice, as caring or as respectful as me, so its best to try and spot the weaknesses BEFORE you set the rules in stone, not after. make sample cards, envision what the game will actually play like. dont fall into the trap that your players will play the game your way, players can be exceedingly annoying that way. you might think the game will be a 50 min strategy mind game with duelling personalities and each person provides a subtle counterpoint to their and their opponents tactics. the actual game might play as two people trying to summon the most cost effective monster in the deck. this is just general advice but take care. way too often people got burned at the last step because they didnt respect how wild rules can actually be. trying to make something new just makes it that much easier to get burnt


if youd like, im sure people would like to hear more about the games system. i personally would like to know more about the buildings, baracks and upgrades and their differences. youv mentioned the units but not the other three

what is the actual focus of the game? will it be heavy on the combat? and what exactly is the win condition