Talk:Mario RPG CCG set

General Discussion

So the idea with this deck is to put in all the detail left out of the Mario Bros. deck and to put it in a format more capable of dealing with it. A CCG should have much more card interaction than a normal deck though, so many of the cards will need major changes. Also, the victory condition is going to need some discussion. To keep the two decks separate, I think the victory condition should be different between the two. Since the other deck came first, I think it'd be best to decide on it's victory condition first, then work out a different one for this deck. MagiMaster 19:38, 23 April 2007 (BST)

Oh yeah. Since a CCG typically has much more complex rules and card interactions, the card text should be kept... well, I can't think of the right word, but you get the idea. (Right?) MagiMaster 19:53, 23 April 2007 (BST)

Deeper? More... Detailed? Whatever. Also, I think your old idea of having the X cards you have to have out to win. Maybe they would come after you beat a boss or something, and then you'd have to beat the most bosses to win, and then when they're all gone, either the person with the most Plot Items wins, or you'd have to defeat other people bosses, or a combination. Finally, would enemies be able to attack enemies, and Vice Versa with heroes? --BM 23:16, 23 April 2007 (BST)

I don't know yet, but don't make too many cards before we work out the game system. For example, Super Hammer might not make sense as written if there is no Jump Check (which I figure there won't be).

I fixed Super Hammer and added a few new cards. Also, I think the Heroes should be called Partners, like all cards from Thoreau to Lakilester. And, on the subject of damage, I would suggest that damage is cumulative because

• A That's how some CCGs, not to mention all RPGs work.
• B I've never played M:TG, and wouldn't know if that system would work out all too well.

Finally, you never answered my question on enemies being able to attack enemies and the like. --BM 02:34, 24 April 2007 (BST)

I don't mind cumulative damage, but just to point out, M:TG (aka Magic: the Gathering) is the largest, longest running CCG ever. If there's a lesson to be learned about CCGs, they've already learned it (well, nearly so). As far as Heroes goes, I meant for cards like Mario, Peach and Goombella to be heroes. As for enemy vs. enemy, I don't know yet. It depends on other descisions. Designing a game is a lot of work and shouldn't be rushed. MagiMaster 02:43, 24 April 2007 (BST)

Okay, so Heroes means Heroes and Partners. As in all Playable characters. I think you've made it pretty clear, thanks. Oh, and congrats on the highlighted status. It's probably because of the popularity for Mario games and the fact that CCG's usually get more attention etc. --BM 15:28, 24 April 2007 (BST)

I don't feel right going back and making Pixls Heroes, should I just make them regular Things? That's what I'll go do now. --BM 15:43, 24 April 2007 (BST)

Why did you make Boo's Sheet Equipment but keep Stopwatch an Action. They are, after all, both items. Shouldn't you put Boo's Sheet back? --BM 23:22, 26 April 2007 (BST)

Boo's Sheet affects one Hero card and has a lasting effect, so it might as well be played onto that Hero. That fulfills the definition of Equipment (except it might or might not say Hero only). On the other hand, Stopwatch affects all of the opponent's Enemies and only lasts one turn, so it's an Action. When you say something is Thing or Action, it has nothing to do with what it is in the original game. It only depends on how it's used in this game. MagiMaster 05:20, 27 April 2007 (BST)

Okay, I was just under the impression that equipment wouldn't be something that just went away. You really don't describe it too well, but I guess that's all you can say without getting into specifics. --BM 17:51, 28 April 2007 (BST)

Well, first, you understand the mechanical distinction between Actions and Things, right? Equipment is just a Thing that can only be played onto a Hero or Enemy. Boo's sheet can go away, but it doesn't immediately, so it's a Thing. (Actually, there's nothing on the card saying how counters are removed.) MagiMaster 21:44, 28 April 2007 (BST)

HP and DEF Mechanics

Thinking about it, I think I'd prefer some new HP/DEF mechanic. Both of those have been done. Does anyone have any ideas what else we could do? (I'm imagining something involving dice, but that may be too slow to be playable. The key to a system like this is how quickly it can be played.) MagiMaster 00:18, 25 April 2007 (BST)

I honestly like this system best, but if I really thought about it, I would have 'Jumps' system. This (not as good as the current) system would have each card having a number of Jumps before death and maybe we would have specific things happening after 'n' Jumps, like a Koopa going into a continuous damage spree unless sufficiently damaged. Like I said, HP + DEF works out much better than anything I could come up with, but I attempted to help, and things happened. --BM 04:57, 26 April 2007 (BST)

In any case, there's another question to be asked here. Should we have Health counters or Damage counters. It's a small difference, but it's an important one. For example, when healing, do you add Health counters or remove Damage counters? You could have more Health counters than HP, but you can't have less than 0 Damage counters. MagiMaster 22:17, 28 April 2007 (BST)

Damage Counters. If only for the fact that I don't want HP going over the limit. --BM 16:38, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Alright. Damage Counters it is then. (I was pretty much thinking the same thing myself.) MagiMaster 23:32, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Resources

I think that having some form of resource management can give a CCG much more depth without necessarily making it too complex. I know of several CCGs that do this (and Wikipedia agrees with me, for the most part). The question is, what's a good resource for a Mario CCG? Also, I found this interesting page on CCG design. MagiMaster 19:45, 25 April 2007 (BST)

I very much agree with you about the resources thing, but you posted it in General Discussion, too. Also, that site you posted is actually a site for a downloadable CCG making and playing program. That's why he had that section, so people don't overload his site with terrible CCG's. --BM 16:52, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Colors

I colored all of the (new) cards according to their types, but I'm not sure I got it quite right. For one thing, the gold/yellow for the Heroes makes the title a little hard to read. Anyway, just for reference, here's the types and colors.

880000

Action

880066

Response

000088

Thing

000000

Enemy

FFD700

Hero

006688

Equipment

008800

Location

I say, make the Heroes FF0000, darken the Equipment, and make response a little bluer. That makes.

FF0000

Hero

004466

Equipment

662244

Response

--BM 16:08, 28 April 2007 (BST)

Well, I was trying to avoid using two shades of one color. Also, I can't see much difference between your colors for Equipment/Responses and mine. They're just slightly darker. MagiMaster 21:44, 28 April 2007 (BST)

I though that they should be darker so people don't blind themselves in the middle of a game. It's rather difficult to draw without vision. =D --BM 02:51, 29 April 2007 (BST)

I suppose. I do agree that the golden color for the Heroes is too light for white text, but I can't find a good, darker yellow/gold color. Feel free to change these then. MagiMaster 08:10, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Why not just have it a brighter red then Actions? Seriously, what's the first thing you think of when you hear "Hero of Mario Games?" Then, what color do you think of when you hear Mario? Bright red. I think a nice bright red color will work very well. --BM 15:57, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Well, like I said, the main reason was that I didn't want different types having different shades of the same color. That, and red is an Action color and Heroes are Things. (Also, Mario may be the main Hero, but he isn't the only one. :) ) I suppose we need a third vote on this one. MagiMaster 23:32, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Randomness - Resolved

We should decide on one form of randomness in the game. There's no reason to make the players dig out a coin and a die. One or the other will be enough. MagiMaster 22:00, 28 April 2007 (BST)

I've already made at least one card that requires a die over a coin, I think. I'm to lazy to check. If not, use a coin. --BM 02:53, 29 April 2007 (BST)

I agree that we should use a coin for this deck. It has enough to deal with already. MagiMaster 08:10, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Sure. Now, this is our first resolved topic here. Or is it? You decide. --BM 15:59, 29 April 2007 (BST)

I suppose so. MagiMaster 23:32, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Victory Condition

Right now, this is just a list of possible Victory Conditions. Once the list is made, we can narrow it down and vote for a final decision.

• Collect plot coupons
• Defeat the other players
  • Beat up the players
  • Beat up the enemies controlled by the other players
• Victory cards
  • Each hero has a victory point, need several to win
  • Each hero has a victory condition, need one to win
  • Non-hero victory points
  • Non-hero goal cards
  • Plot coupon cards
  • Single victory card

Possible Abbreviations

Since this deck has the potential for passing 100 cards, it'd be best to abbreviate common mechanics. It looks like the following three will certainly be needed.

• HP - This hasn't been defined yet
• DEF - This hasn't been defined yet
• ATK - Action: Deal target n damage.

Most likely, the first two will be abbreviated further as HP/DEF in the corner value. MagiMaster 02:39, 24 April 2007 (BST)

That's exactly what I was doing in my cards. Well, I named the ATK's, so it would be more like Action: Jump: Deal target n damage. Also wiki's use 3 apostrophes for bold and 2 for Italics --BM 02:46, 24 April 2007 (BST)

Ack... Yeah, I know that. I just keep forgetting. Anyway, when I say ATK as an abbreviation, what I meant was:

2/0

Goomba

Enemy

ATK: 1

---

This is still an example.

IMO, attacks don't need to be named. It's flavor text, but it's in the middle of the card and I find it a bit distracting. The Pokemon CCG does it though, so it's not without precedent. MagiMaster 02:55, 24 April 2007 (BST)

RPG's and CCG's alike always have a few attacks that do more then just -1 on someone. I, for one, like those attacks, and am excited to use them. And the naming of the attacks is for people to go "Hey, I remember the Goombella's Headbonk, I should use it. It'll be much better then her stupid Tattle." and it allows people to "Goombella HEADBONK ATTACK!!!!" But, I see why you'd want to remove it, and so, if you tell me to, I will. --BM 15:34, 24 April 2007 (BST)

Well, it'd be something like this:

• ATK: 1
• ATK: 3
• ATK: 1, target's controller must discard a card at random.

Things like Tattle wouldn't be attacks. They'd just be actions. As for the naming, let's see if anyone else has anything to say about it. MagiMaster 17:49, 24 April 2007 (BST)

I'll keep the naming until we get more people. Also, should I advertise this on my website? It's not all that popular, but my friends would see it. Also, I don't like using ATK on the card as something other points. I'd prefer Attack: Example: 2, enemy is now hurt. --BM 01:06, 25 April 2007 (BST)

Advertise all you want. It's your site. Anyway, 'Attack: 2' or maybe 'Attack: Headbonk - 1' is fine, but try not to put too much flavor text in the middle of the card. It just makes things confusing. If there's flavor text mixed in with the normal text, it might get hard to tell what is a game mechanic and what isn't. For example, you might have an attack that mentions poison in the flavor text but doesn't actually inflict the poisoned condition on the victim (assuming such a condition existed). One rule of fiction is 'let the reader's/player's imagination work for you,' so you don't have to spell out everything. MagiMaster 01:18, 25 April 2007 (BST)

I simplified all my cards. They now mostly say "Action: Headbonk: 1 Damage." I decided against advertising because I don't trust most of the people to do really read the rules or actually go on at all. --BM 05:11, 26 April 2007 (BST)

A note on conditions like flying. There are two types of conditions, active and passive. Active conditions are things like Poisoned. These are typically abbreviations for text like 'Remove one Health Counter from this card at the beginning of each round.' Passive conditions are things like Flying. By themselves, they don't actually do anything, but other cards can reference them. This could be considered an abbreviation for something like 'This card counts as Flying.' Any conditions of either type that exist in the game need to be defined somewhere for simplicity's sake. MagiMaster 05:46, 27 April 2007 (BST)

The "Action:" wording was itself an arbitrary design decision, back in the day - I'd be tempted to just have the mechanics written as "Headbonk: 1 damage", and to say that "bold verb followed by colon" always means "instead of playing an action, you may do this". --Kevan 16:19, 28 April 2007 (BST)

I like the way this man thinks. I'd wait for MagiMaster to approve, but he probably will. Though, we already sort of moved on from that. --BM 17:48, 28 April 2007 (BST)

Fine by me. It's a reasonable compromise. It also allows non-attack actions to be named. The only thing is, now we have to think of a name for every action. :D MagiMaster 21:44, 28 April 2007 (BST)

Thing 2? Hmm, this is hard, I have no idea... =D Anyway, thanks, this deck has now not only added a new highlighted projects, but a new rule too. I think it's time for the important contributions dance! --BM 02:40, 29 April 2007 (BST)

I was just thinking, will it be too confusing if the corner value means different things for different kinds of cards? For example, at the moment, the corner value for Heroes/Enemies is their HP and DEF, but the corner value for Actions/Responses should be their FP cost. If it'll be confusing for them to mean different things, the best thing to do would be to make the corner value always be the FP cost (which some Heroes/Enemies might have anyway) and move the HP and DEF into the card text. MagiMaster 10:23, 29 April 2007 (BST)

How many letters can you fit in there?

I think that looks okay. If you can get past the stretchyness of the Flavor text, that is. It might work, but on cards with longer titles, we just have to remember to put in longtitle= a bit more often. What do you say? --BM 16:08, 29 April 2007 (BST)

FP:88

Some Actiony Thing

Type

I'm card text.

Card by BM

I don't think there should be any letters in the corner value. It should just be numbers. MagiMaster 23:32, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Quote: MagiMaster 21:44, 28 April 2007 (BST) The only thing is, now we have to think of a name for every action. :D

No we don't. He said that bold verb followed by colon meant action replacement. So, if we want to put Yabba-Dabba DOO: we can. Or, you could use Action:, but I like my way better. --BM 16:12, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Well, I meant that if we can replace Action with any verb, then we should replace all of them. MagiMaster 23:32, 29 April 2007 (BST)

CCG Decks

While we're building this, we should be thinking about the decks that will be made from it. For example, how big should those decks be? A common number for Dvorak CCG decks seems to be 40, which is reasonable. M:TG uses 60, but they have tens of thousands of cards to choose from. Any other opinions on this?

Thoughts About CCG Design

These are just my thoughts. If you disagree with them, feel free to change/delete/expand them.

• No two cards should be exactly alike
• Cards shouldn't refer to specific other cards
• Cards should interact with other cards
• There should be at least three cards for every game mechanic (in various combinations)
• The rules can be as complex as they need to be as long as the game can proceed at a reasonable pace
• The lower limit on deck size and upper limit on number of copies in a deck are important
• Some form of resource management is probably needed

I'd say about 1/2 of the entire set should be used for a deck, possibly lowered down. Also, I think we shouldn't have too many copies of a card, except for Response cards, in which the limit should be endless. What do you mean by resouce management? I don't quite get it. --BM 00:33, 27 April 2007 (BST)

Half the set will be way too big for the minimum deck size. I'd say 40 cards unless the set gets to maybe 150-200, then I'd say about 50. By resource management, I mean there should be some resource (other than health) that must be managed to be successful. In many fantasy games, this would be mana. In some games, it'd be money. Some games abstract this out and have military/scientific/etc. resources. None of these are a particularly good fit for a Mario game though. Generally speaking, there are various things that allow the players to gain more resources every turn, which they then spend to bring out cards or use the more powerful card abilities. I think having resources is important because it's both a strong balancing factor and a strong source of card interactions. MagiMaster 05:20, 27 April 2007 (BST)

Well. in Paper Mario, that's FP, but I don't think that's very good because A) We go by the games and every attack but 2 use up FP, but use so little it's a laugh, B) We change it and the few attacks that do take up FP just aren't used, or, C) We change it, and the immense amount of attacks and their cost makes the game rather unfun. Thanks for the explanation, when you said "other then HP" it clicked together. Maybe *thinks...* we could have FP, but, their would be few attacks, but high cost. Then, we would have reaction cards filling it. Or, we would have Audience Members, the more reactions/high level attacks you pull off, the more people you get. And the Audience could be used to fill up your HP, (like Hooktail, enemies would do it at the cost of members) or power up stronger attacks (Heroes, only with a certain number, though) and you could use them to fire tomatoes and such at the other player. And about the deck size, it's not getting any bigger. I meant 50% in the case of we're the only people working on it and it doesn't get very big. If we do get to, say 100, wouldn't 50 be a logical choice? Enough to build a deck that has a very specific strategy, but not so much that the only ones you're leaving out are the Goomba and the Mistakes. But, if we do get to, 150/200 we definitely want less than 50%. It really depends on how many people see the deck on highlighted projects, click to see why it's so popular, and start adding cards. --BM 16:02, 28 April 2007 (BST)

I meant MAX: 50 MIN: Probably 40. --BM 16:14, 28 April 2007 (BST)

There's no reason the have a maximum deck size. If you've ever played a CCG, you know that you want your deck as small as possible. For example, in M:tG, if I could have a 7 card deck, I could win every time. The thing is, you want to control how often a player can get a specific hand. Having a minimum deck size and a maximum number of each card does that. Maximum deck size doesn't.

As for the resources, FP is probably a good one. First though, there's no way we can take the FP values from an existing game. It just won't work. Second, resources make the game more fun and interesting. B won't happen, because FP should be higher for more powerful attacks. That way, you'll have to plan ahead and the strong attacks won't be usable constantly. C won't happen for the same reason. It requires the FP costs to be balanced, but that's an issue for the designers, not the players. Audience would make an interesting resource. We could use both at the cost of more complexity, but I think it'd be more fun too. Having two resources allows more interesting combinations. For example, should you spend some FP on this attack that doesn't do much damage but gains some Audience? Unless someone else has better ideas, I'd say we should use both. If not both though, FP sounds good. MagiMaster 21:44, 28 April 2007 (BST)

I support Magimaster's ability to prove me wrong. I also support having both at the cost of some simplicity. It's cost of simplicity, not complexity because you gain complexness to game mechanics, not lose them. And why not no maximum deck size, as you've seen before, I've never played M:TG, but have played multiple other CCG's and think that a larger amount can benefit. Let's say you did have to play a 7 card deck. Yes, there's a 1 in 7 chance that you'll get a good card, but there's a, say, 20 in 50 chance that your opponent draws a card that eliminates one of your vital cards, and a 10 in 50 chance they'll get a bunch of strong monsters that will beat yours. Not that that has to do with anything. I can't wait to see how you make me wrong this time. --BM 02:49, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Well, if you have a 7 card deck, and you have a 7 card hand, then you have a 100% chance of getting exactly the cards you want. The same goes if you have a 60 card deck with 53 copies of a 'Draw a card' card (assuming you can play them that fast). If you are limited to 4 of each card, then the chances of drawing your best hand will be less with more cards in the deck. What CCGs have you played where more cards is a benefit?

Oh yeah, I said at the cost of more complexity, meaning at the cost of increasing complexity, assuming that was a bad thing by itself. MagiMaster 10:09, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Anyway, since we agree, then there will be two resources for this game: FP and Audience. FP should be easy to get and spend and Audience should be something the player is reluctant to spend. I think nearly every Thing-ability should cost FP, but it should be easy to get enough FP to use them often. So then, the question is how are resources gained? It seems like Audience would be gained through using special moves and the like, but what about FP? Well, I'll just list the ideas I have for the moment (not mutually exclusive). MagiMaster 08:10, 29 April 2007 (BST)

• Gain 1 FP per round. Many abilities and most Responses would cost 1 FP.
• Have cards that give FP per round. Most abilites would cost over 1 FP.
• Have cards that give one time FP boosts. This would probably require that the players start with some FP and the abilities would need to be cheap.

And just because, here's ideas for Audience (also not mutually exclusive):

• Certain special moves raise Audience in addition to their other effects.
• Audience enables some abilities without actually spending it (i.e. 'this requires 5 Audience to play')
• Audience can be spent on some very powerful/special cards/abilities (e.g. Earthquake or Chomp)
• Audience can be spent to bring out powerful enemies
• Audience may be required to bring out powerful Heroes

I like the

• Have cards that give one time FP boosts. This would probably require that the players start with some FP and the abilities would need to be cheap.

idea. I also like ideas number 1,3,4 (some-what) and 5 for Audience. I don't understand why you'd need a bunch of Audience to do an attack. And, I don't think many enemies would come out with a big Audience. Your powerful Heroes thing gave me an idea who's name rhymes with Hawk Rawk. Also, since the Audience rocks that hard, I'll throw in some ideas

• There is an actual Thing card for Audience that is only played when a ton of Audience members are around with attacks like: Banana Peel, and Mushroom Throw. or (one won't work with the other.)
• We have a whole bunch of Response cards that say

Self-Destruct

Response

Destroy half the Audience

Card by BM

Amazee Dayzee

Response

Put 2 counters on this card. Every turn, remove one. The Audience is asleep, They are still in the Audience, but cannot play any response cards involving Audience. When all counters are gone, the effect wears off.

Card by BM

• We stop making ideas so that the game can still run without Audience members.

--BM 16:31, 29 April 2007 (BST)

I was assuming that Audience would be a per-player resource. As for cards like Banana Peel, I'd say make them normal Actions like 'This cannot be played unless you have at least 4 Audience. Return target Hero or Enemy to its owner's hand.' Probably, there should more than one of the above when it comes to FP. For example, you start with a decent amount of FP and automatically regain 1 per turn, but you tend to spend it faster than that and cards generally only give one time boosts. MagiMaster 23:32, 29 April 2007 (BST)