Author Topic: Community Game  (Read 25229 times)


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2010, 06:35:06 pm »
Ripplez, I think a good way to guard against what you're talking about is to have people pitch ideas, instead of just suggesting them. Instead of people defending themselves when their idea is on the chopping block (which can lead to a combative atmosphere) you could have everyone defend their idea up front, by posting a pitch when they first suggest it. The pitch should include why they think it's a good idea, how it fits with the game's themes, and examples of how the idea could be used to expand on the ideas of others. It's also good to include an objective. In the end, it may sound something like this (obviously not an actual suggestion):

Suggestion for New Keyword: GIANT

Objective: Create two levels of combat, one representing ground troops, and the other representing larger that life monsters or vehicles.

Pitch: The GIANT keyword on a creature basically separates it from normal combat. Instead of being lumped in when you count up total power, GIANT creatures are separated. After combat is finished, they will fight each other in the same manner. If you control a GIANT creature at a location where your opponent does not, you can "crush" one ground troop during combat, destroying it.

Theme: This contributes to our theme of high-fantasy by creating a keyword that makes certain large creatures feel especially powerful. It also helps to establish that this world has certain rules to warfare, which we discussed last week.

Synergy: This will play well with UserA's suggestion for a FLYING keyword, which creates another level of combat. We could try to find interesting ways for GIANT and FLYING creatures to interact with each other. It can also make use of UserB's idea that certain locations can only hold certain types of creatures. GIANT creatures cannot go indoors, for example. Lastly, I am somewhat concerned of overlap with the suggestion for making Vehicles a different card type. I think GIANT may cover it in a more efficient way, though I open to suggestions on that point.

Something like this forces your detractors to come up with actual reasons, since you've actually built a case. People saying "that's not a good idea" after you spent time and energy contributing something are NOT the kind of people who would be listened to during the process. It's somewhat up to the people running the project to say "Okay, this person is clearly putting in the effort. I'm not going to let someone else step and say 'no' without an actual discussion taking place". This is basically what I was talking about. You need one person (or a few people) who are good at managing a project like this to make those decisions about what ideas are valid and what aren't. Ideally, the entire project would be made of people like this, and after pitches are made you can just vote. Realistically, it will come down to leadership decision.


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2010, 07:26:28 pm »
so who which of us are working on this project? I think that should come first.


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2010, 10:31:14 am »
so who which of us are working on this project? I think that should come first.

I would like to help (maybe). Everything I suggest should be taken with a huge grain of salt, since I only want to exist as a tertiary developer (if I like the direction).


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #48 on: January 22, 2010, 04:42:45 pm »
I'll be glad to help generate mechanics, playtest, write flavour text etc. Can't throw too many hours at it, but some sure.


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #49 on: January 22, 2010, 04:58:30 pm »
I can do card design and art. I guess I could do rules, etc, but we seem to have enough doing that.


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #50 on: January 22, 2010, 08:03:56 pm »
Yes, that is exactly what I had in mind. Maybe set survival decks based on where the players would be going. (You wouldn't have cards like Crocodile Attack in a desert, and you wouldn't have Dehydration on a lake.)
Maybe crack-the-code is kind of like there is one sequence of alphanumeric characters, and maybe winning missions gives you clues about how the code is set-up? Or maybe like mastermind, but with effects and stuff.

Why didn't I think of that. It's a good idea. The nature deck could be the theme for each set. Good stuff sneaselx.

Crack-the-code is just like 'e said, ala mastermind or Inkognito (anyone played that game?)

Quote from: GnKoichi
have people pitch ideas, instead of just suggesting them.
Sorry, my fault for assuming. When I throw an idea out that I want to see implemented then I make sure to defend. I figured others do the same with what they love.

Since we seem to gravitate back here I'll try to refrain from making new topics for each addition. Except for polls, of course, and this next lil' bit.

What I'd like to do is have everyone who wants to participate post here in the following format. (Keep things from getting cluttered.)

Primary: (your first choice)
Secondary: (a backup if the first option already has a gaggle of people working on it)
Tertiary: (if applicable)

That way we know who's doing what. Now, if 3 or more people decide that they want to do the same thing, I propose that they either (a) choose among themselves who will do what, or (b) post a sample of their idea(s) and let the rest decide. A couple of people for each category should suffice and this way we're not spread out too thin.

europeanmatt, for example, mentioned mechanics, playtest, flavour text, etc.
Instead of spreading his talents over x areas, he could concentrate his skills in developing mechanics.

Tokimo, could be a contract consultant, called in whenever a team needs an outside pov.

etc, etc.

While that's going on, after the poll has closed, I'd like for us to start throwing out ideas for mechanics and/or rules. Oh, and please give us an idea as to how it will work, even if it's painfully obvious a little blurb won't hurt.

If you want a sample, that's too bad. GnKoichi already supplied us with a top-notch example. Go read that one.


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2010, 05:23:38 am »
(Normally I hate double-posting but I felt this deserved it's own new post.)

The results are in!

For those who haven't noticed, the votes have been tallied and winners decided...

The winner for Overtheme is... a tie! (Steampunk & Traditional Fantasy)*

The winner for Primary is... Espionage!

The winner for Secondary is... Character Emphasis!

Good stuff. :)

Now as soon as we settle the tie, mechanics will be thrown into the mix.


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2010, 05:55:32 am »
why do we need to settle the tie? steampunk and fantasy (more magic-based) is not a bad mix. think about it?

towering golems, infused with magic. cybertronic goblins, more gears than flesh. a dark shadow cast over the land by a tower reaching towards the skies pumping hot molten lava upwards to form a new skybound land, supported by the strongest magicks (for a given level of skybound)

so why do we need to setle a tie :S do you hate clockwork dragons? is that it :O


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2010, 06:16:31 am »

That's it. I want to keep this project as simple as possible. If this turns out well, then we can think about adding more things to the mix. Or if someone else wants to take the reins for a second lackey community game in the future, it'll be up to them how to direct. For now, I would very much like to keep this small and see how it goes from there.

As far as mixing Steampunk and Tradition Fantasy, I really have no problem with it. I've ready a story or two that integrated both genres rather nicely. Don't forget, however, that Steampunk is a genre full of possibilities, just as Traditional Fantasy. (Quite underdone as well methinks, but that's neither here nor now.)

Quote from: Ripz
do you hate clockwork dragons?
'Course not. Then again, a clockwork dragon isn't a magical dragon, so really, I should be asking you that question. :P

What's so great about fantasy dragons that you wanna kill of the poor widdle clockwork dragon, who never hurt no one (that didn't need a good hurtin'.), because they didn't have the chance to?

On the other hand... "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 06:19:40 am by aardvark »


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2010, 06:36:41 am »
K-I-S-S? whats the band got to do with anything? :S

and i meant adding the cyber-goblins as a thematic example of how it could work

silly aardvark. you ride the clockwork dragon into the sky. it uses magic to fly and breathe fire  8)

but i understand. and im not the only persn here obv so dont take wat i say as what to do :O

just saying itd be wicked cool


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2010, 07:26:12 am »
Aardvark, when you say the next thing we will work on is mechanics, do you mean the overall rules of the game? Just want to make sure, since mechanics can refer to everything from how the game is setup, played & won to detailed specifics like how Multi-kicker works. Also, how would you like this next step to be handled?


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #56 on: January 24, 2010, 08:09:16 am »
I was gonna say wait for the tie-breaker but I don't see a real reason for that. So, without further ado...

Mechanics and rules, while closely related aren't necessarily  the same thing. While drawing a card is a mechanic, when you draw a card and how many you draw would be considered a rule.

So that's what I'm asking for when I speak of mechanics. The rules I'll leave to the rules committee. Though I think that the ideas that each committee comes up with should be put before the community as a whole before they commit to a particular direction.

Feel free to list the mechanic(s) that you would like to see put into play along with a brief explanation (please no essays) on how it would work.

We can take the example you had earlier about keywords and apply it here as well I think.
Quote from: Mechanics Idea Person
I propose the following:
Mechanic: Card drawing
Function: Draw a card

Short and simple, but of course everybody and their mother knows how to draw a card. That mechanic is pretty much a given.
Quote from: Mechanics Idea Person 2
I'd like to see this:
Mechanic: Card Combine
Function: The ability to fuse two or more cards together into a completely new card. This could be used to create a brand new item, character or whatever else the committee thinks might be appropriate.

I'd throw out more but my brain stopped working a while ago. >.<

As with the themes, we'll collect so many and then put them into a poll to let the people decide. I'd say until Friday (01/29/10) works out fine.


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #57 on: January 24, 2010, 09:09:08 am »
I see. That's an interesting approach.

Alright, well, I'll throw a few ideas out there.

Since we have an espionage game:

Mechanic: Secret
Function: Cards that come into play face down.

Mechanic: Ruse
Function: Cards that come into play face down, but when they are revealed you can either do what the card says or replace it with a card from your hand.

Mechanic: Snoop
Function: Look at one face down card.

Mechanic: Skills
Function: Characters have skills. Certain cards require a skill check to be played. Roll 1d6 and add your character's stat. It must meet or beat the difficulty on the card before you can do what that card says.

And since we have a character-focused game:

Mechanic: Main Character
Function: A single character card that starts in play and remains in play no matter what. It represents your character in the world, and has stats that affect how well you can use certain cards.

Mechanic: Ally
Function: Interesting characters who can join your main character. If they have a stat higher than your main character, you can use them for skill checks instead.

Mechanic: Training
Function: Cards to make your main character better.


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2010, 09:25:37 am »
how difficult is the game supposed to be?
how important is it to be differnt from other mainstream tcgs?
how luckbased?
how fast should a game be, in terms of turn count?
why is there espionage (as in, is this a war-based thing or a personal vendetta? is it suposed to cover all these themes? are there clans?)?

ill edit this with some ideas after some thinking. if you want to give some other guidelines from these or other questions, thatd be appreciated :)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 10:03:28 am by Ripplez »


  • Guest
Re: Community Game
« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2010, 10:00:33 am »
We know it needs to be character-focused, but what will these focused-upon characters do? Are they fighting? Are they code-cracking? Espionage is more of a means to a goal, than a goal itself.

Mechanic: General Theme Proposal:
Both players are building towers. Each player has 2-3 characters. The goal is to build your tower first. However, You characters can be used to invade opponent's towers, guard your tower, or provide building bonuses. Your deck would consist of tower pieces, equipment, training, etc. Tower pieces would be Secret. Tower pieces could provide bonuses, and act as location type things. Guards would be set up in the tower, and traps could be set up in the tower pieces, as well as pieces that are inherently dangerous. The goal would be to put say 10 tower pieces in your tower, but opponent would be able to try to sneak in and destroy pieces, steal equpiment, or assasinate your builders. Flying units could maybe be added that would be able to start at the top of the tower, and move down, instead of entering from the bottom.
Function: Provides an additional idea for the basic action for the game. Would allow espionage and traps easily, and fits the steampunk theme. Problems: May have problems adjusting it for Character-focused. Seems to mesh better with multiple characters.