Skip to Content

CHARISMA and diplomacy

10 replies [Last post]
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

So one of the other attributes in my game is CHARISMA: each Avatar has his own level of charisma.

Now what I was thinking is that the charisma level could be used for diplomatic resolution of combat (territories). So basically you could have a card entitled "Peace Treaty" which resolves combat.

Aside from this, I have no other uses for CHARISMA.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Cooperative play

questccg wrote:
Aside from this, I have no other uses for CHARISMA.

Another possibility is cooperative play (for three or more players). Having a certain CHARISMA could allow you to forge an ALLIANCE with another player.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Charisma and corruption

questccg wrote:
Aside from this, I have no other uses for CHARISMA.

I am thinking that CHARISMA (CHR) could be used in a negative way: to get away from CORRUPTION. What I mean by this, is the higher your charisma, the more tolerant the opponents are to your corruption.

Basically the ante per turn is 3 chips. That's for leaders with a CHR = 1 to 3. Leaders with a CHR = 4 to 6, are more charismatic and more corrupt and therefore they only pay 2 chips. Leaders with a CHR = 7 to 9 are the most charismatic and the most corrupt. They only need to pay 1 chip per turn...

Yamahako
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2010
If that's the only use you

If that's the only use you have for Charisma, rather than find a mechanic to force on it - have you considered removing it? It may be integral to the design, and if so you can't, but I'm of the opinion that you should remove as many mechanics as possible to keep your game lean and mean.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Need to have FOUR attributes/skills

Yamahako wrote:
If that's the only use you have for Charisma, rather than find a mechanic to force on it - have you considered removing it?

Well see the thing is that I need four (4) attributes/skills for the design to work. What the 4th attribute is... Well that's to be determined. But it must be a characteristic of an Avatar (god-like being). I also have planned for INSTANT cards that can alter the game.

I REALLY wanted to use CHARISMA for negotiations/diplomacy. But after doing some research, well there isn't many forms of diplomatic actions: Wars, Peace, Alliances, Embargos, and Trade.

Currently there is no territory so embargos and trade are out. This leaves me with three (3) types of actions: Wars, Peace and Alliances.

Diplomacy is a very interesting aspect. Take "Alliances" for example. You could negotiate an alliance with another player say for 2 chips per turn... Or you could decide to negotiate peace, by dividing a pot. The thing is, it doesn't need CARDS to happen, it just happens during play (you try to make other arrangement other than always war).

Yamahako
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2010
questccg wrote:Yamahako

questccg wrote:
Yamahako wrote:
If that's the only use you have for Charisma, rather than find a mechanic to force on it - have you considered removing it?

Well see the thing is that I need four (4) attributes/skills for the design to work. What the 4th attribute is... Well that's to be determined. But it must be a characteristic of an Avatar (god-like being). I also have planned for INSTANT cards that can alter the game.

I REALLY wanted to use CHARISMA for negotiations/diplomacy. But after doing some research, well there isn't many forms of diplomatic actions: Wars, Peace, Alliances, Embargos, and Trade.

Currently there is no territory so embargos and trade are out. This leaves me with three (3) types of actions: Wars, Peace and Alliances.

Diplomacy is a very interesting aspect. Take "Alliances" for example. You could negotiate an alliance with another player say for 2 chips per turn... Or you could decide to negotiate peace, by dividing a pot. The thing is, it doesn't need CARDS to happen, it just happens during play (you try to make other arrangement other than always war).

Well, Charisma affecting the cards could be a good thing then. I agree that something like Diplomacy (alliances etc.) is better left to the hands of the players - as that creates an interesting dynamics and there's no strong reason to get in between the players and the rules for that.

But the other question is WHY do you need 4 attributes? I get the wanting to spend 20 points total over the 4 attributes. But could you achieve the same effect by allowing 15 points over 3 attributes?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Still needs some ironing out...

Yamahako wrote:
But the other question is WHY do you need 4 attributes? I get the wanting to spend 20 points total over the 4 attributes. But could you achieve the same effect by allowing 15 points over 3 attributes?

Well I am using a four (4) card system as the "resources" for the game. Instead of using Mana like MtG, I am using 4 pooled cards which allow you to determine how much of each "resource" (or skill) you have.

My skills are POWER (the maximum number of creatures you can control), WEALTH (the amount of income you earn per turn), KNOWLEDGE (arcane knowledge used to play certain INSTANT cards or creatures) and CHARISMA (T.B.D.)

The two (2) skills of KNOWLEDGE and CHARISMA are up for debate. I know I need a stat to control what INSTANT cards can be played and well that could explain the use of the other skills. Charisma can be used to attract more powerful creatures (type of creature). Let's say an army of Pegasi will not fight for you unless you have a CHR = 7 (as an example). A Red Dragon would only fight for you if you are very wise KWL = 7 (another example).

Yamahako
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2010
questccg wrote:Yamahako

questccg wrote:
Yamahako wrote:
But the other question is WHY do you need 4 attributes? I get the wanting to spend 20 points total over the 4 attributes. But could you achieve the same effect by allowing 15 points over 3 attributes?

Well I am using a four (4) card system as the "resources" for the game. Instead of using Mana like MtG, I am using 4 pooled cards which allow you to determine how much of each "resource" (or skill) you have.

My skills are POWER (the maximum number of creatures you can control), WEALTH (the amount of income you earn per turn), KNOWLEDGE (arcane knowledge used to play certain INSTANT cards or creatures) and CHARISMA (T.B.D.)

The two (2) skills of KNOWLEDGE and CHARISMA are up for debate. I know I need a stat to control what INSTANT cards can be played and well that could explain the use of the other skills. Charisma can be used to attract more powerful creatures (type of creature). Let's say an army of Pegasi will not fight for you unless you have a CHR = 7 (as an example). A Red Dragon would only fight for you if you are very wise KWL = 7 (another example).

That makes sense, but it still seems like you're trying to force two stats into the design space for one mechanic (playing cards). Is "4" the amount because of a certain type of ratio you're trying to achieve with different types of cards/resources (in which case it doesn't need to be Charisma specifically - just something that can have a thematic mechanic created for it), or is "4" the amount because that's how many you came up with and are trying to flesh it out? I often come up with a [set] of things I want to include in a game, and then make things needlessly complicated by trying to force that [set] to remain unchanged - when I'm better off just dropping an item. I can understand a problem like "3 resources doesn't create enough tension for resource management so I need to add one to make it a compelling choice to pick one over another." But if the problem is "I like having 4 attributes, so I need to find a way for the 4th one to interact with the game" is USUALLY leading the game down a bad path - to needless complexity.

This is just some advice from someone who does the wrong thing too often :-) please don't take it too negatively.

If you need more design space for the attribute, you could make Charisma something that enhances certain cards or abilities. So rather than do something on its own, it powers up other cards that usually work off of other attributes.

For example (this is assuming this is related to your other game posts as well).

Dragon - cost 4
Attribute: Power
Flying, Strength: 3
CHA 6: +1 strength

So this creature would want a high POWER score - and if you have a high Charisma, then it also is a more powerful card.

Unicorn - cost 3
Attribute: Knowledge
Melee, Strength: 2
CHA 7: -1 cost

This card would be based off of a Knowledge score, but with a high Charisma you can buy them for less chips.

This is just an idea - but might give you some mileage out of a Charisma stat.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Your ideas are very interesting

So I have four (4) skills/attributes because of the possibilities: each card has an Avatar with 4 skills. Now with a little math, if you put together four (4) Avatars you get: 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 possibilities.

So 256 distinct possibilities to define your resource pool. That's FANTASTIC. Four (4) cards and so many different combinations! Obviously some of them will be useless (because of the 20 point limit). Still that makes for some very FLEXIBLE and INTERESTING strategy.

BTW I like your ideas - they are very interesting. The last time I "designed" a dual/combat oriented card game, well the battle part was rather dull.

I really want to design the sort of game that you put chips down on the table... and then you put MORE. Epic battles filled with strategy, bluffing and intimidation.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maximizing the combinations

questccg wrote:
Obviously some of them will be useless (because of the 20 point limit).

I am thinking that each Avatar's skills can total to a maximum of 20 points ALSO (maybe 25... not sure). But I think if I want more of the combinations (out of 256) to work, then I need to lower the skills per Avatar.

Not sure about the math but if an Avatar has HIGH WEALTH (like 8 or 9) then he will most likely be very poor in one of the other three (3) skills. So maybe his PWR = 3, KNW = 4 and CHA = 4. Making him weak in the other attributes, however allowing more combinations to work...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How your ante is distributed

questccg wrote:
Basically the ante per turn is 3 chips.

Rather than diminishing the ante (3 chips), it is more advantageous to control (or make more flexible) how you can pay.

For example: if your CHA = 1 to 3, you must place 1 chip in each pot (for a total of 3 chips). If your CHA = 4 to 6, you can place your chips in 2 of 3 pots (still 3 chips). And if your CHA = 7 to 9, you can place your chips in 1 of 3 pots (again still 3 chips).

What this does is allow you to put more chips in pots you are CONTROLLING rather than giving money for nothing to your opponent.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut