User talk:MagiMaster
"I'd like to make a dungeon building deck. Something like 'Play tile cards onto a grid to build your dungeon. Raid other's dungeons for treasure.'"
See NetHack and Rat Trap decks.-Bucky 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"A deck where each round, everyone plays a card face down, then flips it once everyone has played."
My Rock Paper Scissors deck focuses on such rounds. If you would like to contribute, say so on the talk page.-Bucky 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had noticed the Nethack deck before, and after looking at the Rat Trap deck, neither are quite what I had in mind, but both are fairly similar. I was thinking of something where you actually built a board out of the location cards. As for the Rock Paper Scissors deck, it's pretty similar too, but I was thinking of a deck where the whole of every round was played that way. MagiMaster 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rock-Paper-Scissors was originally only Element cards (and duelling was mandatory if a player had at least 3 cards). The Actions and Things were added later.
- That's even more similar to what I had in mind, but still not the same. Currently, I keep imagining something in a fantasy setting. MagiMaster 06:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fire-Water-Earth sound good? Rock-Paper-Scissors is generic for a reason. The challenge is getting other cards in it, too. Maybe allowing an "Element" slot, a "Thing" slot and an "Action" slot would work.-Bucky 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't want anything like that. I was thinking of something more like a regular Dvorak deck using a different turn mechanic. Obviously though, it couldn't just be tacked onto an existing deck. It's easy enough to build a balanced, anti-symetric set of cards (Fire beats Wood and Air and loses to Earth and Water, etc.) but I get bored with those too easily. Also, any set like that (almost) implies that you're collecting points and I don't really want that to be the goal. (Although, I have no idea what other goal I could use.) MagiMaster 06:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- So, you mean just have a regular Thing/Action card system, except simultaneous turns? Well, you could have every player put down a Thing card face down and have everyone flip them over, and do the same for actions. It might get a little confusing having to decide which things take effect. But if this were the system, I don't know how you could use a Thing's action at the same time as regular actions. People would see if you're doing something with a Thing card. So maybe Thing actions take place either before or after regular Actions. But then, can you use a Thing action and a regular Action in the same turn? --Physics 19:11, 25 March 2007 (BST)
- Well, chances are, it'd be more like play either one Thing or one Action, but not both, and Things couldn't have actions on them. Or it might be more like play any two cards. Either way though, it wouldn't quite be a normal deck, just one that's as close as possible. MagiMaster 22:15, 25 March 2007 (BST)
Space Combat deck
"A space combat deck, although more about the ship vs. ship combat than the Master of Orion deck" - there was the Star Quest deck, which had a few nice mechanics to it. --Kevan 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't notice that one. It is fairly close to what I had in mind. I may still have a different enough idea to build a new deck though. (Something using energy, heat, damage, etc. tokens, and having multiple ships.) MagiMaster 14:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can I just say I'm thinking(albeit very little) about creating a ship v ship combat deck based on Star Trek:TNG. I'm mentioning it here so if it does materialise I can link to this and say I didn't copy you. Cheers. --Xahn Borealis 18:36, 22 September 2007 (BST)
- It has now materialised. It's not Star Trek though, it's Halo, specifically, the Halo novels. Why not check it out? Halo: Starside. --Xahn Borealis 12:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's pretty cool. Still pretty different from what I was imagining. BTW, if you feel like copying me (aka, using one of my ideas) feel free. :) MagiMaster 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Dungeon Building Deck
I originally had a whole page of stuff to talk about, but I'll make it less verbose. The idea I have is that players create the rooms of their dungeons from blank cards On these cards, they draw what sides have exits and stuff. And they also list the stuff that is there, such as traps and monsters. The reason for this is that if you just place the stack of traps and monsters, players could tell if it is dangerous. Of course there should be a limit to how many rooms you can add in a turn.
The Thing cards in the deck would be monsters, equipment, traps, treasure, special rooms or environmental features, or whatever. The Actions are maybe spells or something. Perhaps you can have an action that lets you summon a monster from your hand as a friendly monster for your adventurer rather than using the monster as a threat to your opponent. Also an Action that shows you a room even though you haven't been there. Then there could also be the standard actions, like making your opponent discard, or letting you draw, or seeing his cards, etc...
For turns, you would have the standard drawing one card. Then dungeon construction, adding however many rooms are allowed, maybe changing rooms he hasn't visited yet, and adding Things to the dungeon rooms. When you add your Things by writing them on the room, you should move them from your hand to a pile of some sort, and when he moves onto the room you move the cards from the pile onto the room. You would also have an area for your equipment and such that you have. Being limited to one Action per turn sounds reasonable, but one Thing can be a little awkward sometimes. If you can only put one trap in the several rooms you made, in exchange for no enemies, it might be a little unfair. But allowing a player to play every creature in his hand right when a player enters that dead end with the treasure is overkill. I had an idea that you could play as many Things as you want if you place a treasure, but how could you prove you played a treasure? And he would know that the treasure has to be in one if the rooms you placed. Perhaps it can be solved with Actions that let you place several Things, or traps of summon monster or something.
For deciding the winner, maybe the person with the most treasure should win. But then it is just luck. Perhaps the monsters get stronger when you have more treasures, and dying makes it so you have to play one of your treasures in his dungeon. That sounds fair to me, but I don't know really. And I still see a few issues. Do monsters move? It would be hard to keep track of it until you find them, but then again they don't have much reason to move until you come along. And as you said, what would be the incentive to place treasures? You could just keep it in your hand until you have to discard and then hope he gets it next. But I'm already talking too much. I'm really just thinking out loud. Or rather thinking in text. --Physics 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about this: Treasure in your hand must be played if possible, but can be played face-down. Cards besides treasure (such as traps and monsters) can also be played face down, possibly all in the same pile representing a room. When you enter a room, you flip over all cards in that room, including treasure, traps and monsters. Finally, each room can only hold so much stuff.-Bucky
- That solution would probably work. But I'm wondering how much of this would actually be an issue. Playing treasure as soon as you get it would keep them from discarding it. But they might want to save it until they can design the proper traps around it and such, while that rule won't let them prepare. I don't really like adding rules like that, but that might be the only solution to keep players from discarding treasures. Also, looking back, I'm kind of worried about the size of the dungeon. I'm kind of thinking that maybe instead of deciding what will go in what room and then keeping the cards tucked away until the other player gets there isn't a good option. My alternative idea is that you don't add new rooms until the player enters an empty space. Each turn you can add a Thing to a pile, and when the player goes into an empty space, you draw the room on a blank paper, showing which directions have hallways, and you can add as many Things from your pile(traps, enemies, etc...) or just have an empty room. I think this preserves the secrecy of your stuff without letting you bombard him with things. And as for a size limit, perhaps the pile can only have so many cards, and you then have to put cards on the room. --Physics 04:50, 25 March 2007 (BST)
- I was actually thinging of having only one trap/monster/treasure per room and having the card for that represent the room. Then every room connects in every direction if there's another card there. All cards would be played face down, and flipped when a hero walks over it. That way, it'd be a regular deck. The players wouldn't have to make new cards during play if they didn't want to. The main problem with this approach is the treasure.
- The other possibility I was considering was having a set of empty dungeon tiles (instead of making them on the fly) which would be played face up to build the dungeon. Traps/monsters/treasure would be played onto those tiles. In this case, the other players would know something is in the room ahead, but wouldn't know what. I suppose writing what's in the room on the back would fix some of that, but I don't really like the idea of writing on my cards, at least not on a temporary basis. (I'm lazy and don't want to have to keep remaking the cards.) Also, this still doesn't give much incentive to use treasure cards.
- Perhaps there could be a dungeon building phase where everyone is given three treasures and is forced to play them. Then during the main phase, they could continue to expand their dungeon a little. In this case though, the other players would know that the treasure is one of the cards placed in the building phase. (Although some cards might allow you to switch a couple of cards.) Maybe the dungeon would have to be built entirely during the dungeon building phase? (I don't know if I like that idea though.)
- Well, I don't really know. I think at least some of this would require playtesting to work out. MagiMaster 13:57, 25 March 2007 (BST)
- Yeah, I think that is probably the best solution until it can be playtested. No matter how it sounds in theory, it is playing it that matters. Your solution is simple, but elegant. I just like complicated things better though. --Physics 19:11, 25 March 2007 (BST)
- I'm not really fond of overly simple things myself, but sometimes you have to sacrifice detail for playability. That's one of the reasons I like computer games, but then you lose the social aspect of board and card games (so I play both :) ). MagiMaster 22:15, 25 March 2007 (BST)
I just made some examples, feel free to criticize.
- The biggest problem is that these cards make too many assumptions about how the deck would work. For example, I probably wouldn't use specified exits, and I hadn't even thought of how monsters work yet. Also, 'You must immediately play this card when you draw it' is unenforceable. There's got to be a better way to deal with treasure. How does this sound? Every location card has a cornervalue. If your hero defeats that card, you gain that many points. Hmm, but there's got to be a way for you to gain points from your own locations too... MagiMaster 20:45, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Exits: North South East
BM 9:50, 15 April 2007 (PST)
I wasn't really sure about any of this, I just sorta glanced through the discussion and made cards based on what people said they wanted. You said you wanted a board, I added exits so there'd be a board, you said you wanted the treasure card to be played instantly, you got it. Oh well, can't win 'em all, I guess. Your way sounds okay, but how would a player proceed through the dungeon if there was no specified exits, or do you mean that all rooms would be four way? And how would someone "defeat" a room? Unless you mean all treasure rooms would have monsters. That would work, as in, there are 3 monsters guarding a chest, kill them off, steal the treasure, and run. I wouldn't mind that. I'll try fixing the cards. One last thing, are you okay with the example Player and Items? I think they would work okay, but I'm not sure if having the items just drawn and played is such a good idea. BM 9:50, 15 April 2007 (PST)
- I don't really know yet actually. I'm not sure whether each player would have one generic Hero (I'd call it a Hero to differentiate it from the actual players) or have to draw and play Heroes. Both have advantages and disadvantages. As for the item, I don't really know how damage would work yet so I don't really know if the item is good or not. As for the rooms, I figure they'd all be four way to keep things simple. They don't really have to be, but until I get the other stuff worked out, I'd probably assume that much. Also, by defeating the room, I did mean that basically every room would have a monster or trap. A card without a corner value would be one that doesn't require some contest. Hmm... Maybe the Heroes could have skills? Something basic like Strength, Dexterity, Wits? Just a thought... MagiMaster 01:27, 17 April 2007 (BST)
Page protection
For what it's worth, page protection is something that can only be performed by wiki administrators - the template you copied from Wikipedia is just something that administrators can stick onto articles to alert people to the fact that it's already been protected. --Kevan 11:48, 13 April 2007 (BST)
- Yeah, I kinda figured, but it was worth a try. :) MagiMaster 16:11, 13 April 2007 (BST)
