New here with a game idea!

Hello Mike, and welcome to BGDF. :)

Regarding your game idea: at first blush, yeah it sounds like a lot of cards. And it seems like the game ballooned from your initial idea into something nearly three times the size of the original.

But a game isn't just the components. What other details can you share about your game? What do players do with those cards? Are all of them used in a single session? Do you need a large quantity of content so your game stays fresh from one game session to the next (like Trivial Pursuit or Cards Against Humanity? Are there instead multiples of a smaller subset of cards, like the above-mentioned Dominion?

There are lots of reasons to have so many cards, and not all of them are bad. :)

Regarding artwork, I don't recommend spending much money on it yet, while it's still early in the design process. However, there are a number of places to pick up no-cost artwork to start adding visuals to your game. Maybe Game Icons or the Noun Project can help you:

game-icons.net

thenounproject.com

Hope this info is useful. :)

Yeah, if it's an Apples to Apples or Cards Against Humanity style game, I'd assume it doesn't matter how many cards there are. Since you were very specific about 121 cards x3, I'm guessing it's not that. Since 121 is 11x11, I'm curious if there's a cross-product of stuff in there somewhere..

Anyway, let us know some details!

(hint: Nobody will steal your idea. We all have more ideas than we know what to do with already!)

As for the tokens, if you don't need the tokens (e.g. a pencil and paper do just as well), I'd suggest not adding the tokens. Then you could ship this in a card box (a large card box) and not worry about figuring out where to put the tokens, having the players worry about losing the tokens, having to put a "kids under 3 may try to eat this game!" warning, etc.

What happens if a Judge is "biased"??? And will always vote for one Player over the other?? This could happen...

My suggestion is that you should "encourage" players to make the "most reasonable" scoring "course". What do I mean by this? Well because you have more cards than necessary, the idea would be to get the HIGHEST score based on what dish you prepare. But at the same time, you don't want to use all of your "highest" because the goal is to preserve some of the higher scoring cards for future rounds of play.

To further explain, I think you should incorporate a "Scoring System". It can be really simple like just adding (+x) cards... Or "roll 4d6s" to get a score, the closest player to it is the winner. If there is a tie, the player with the least amount of cards used is the winner.

Anyhow something like that to have "clear rules" to who is the winner each and every round.

Cheers!

You should be able to design the game with 100 cards + duplicates. What I mean is LESS than 100 original pieces of artwork, because of some of them are repetitive.

3 types x 33 cards/per type = 99 cards. That could be more reasonable.

OR if you want MORE "cards" then think about having an "expansion" down-the-line...? You could do "themed" expansions like "Sports" or "Italian", etc.

I'm pretty certain you can get the game down to LESS than 100 cards! Mensian was right, 100 cards should be the topmost quantity especially when it's your first game and you are relatively unknown as a designer.

All this has to do with PRICING too. The more cards, the higher the cost to make artwork and production prices also go up too.

Best of luck(?!) with your game...

As a Master Chef addict, I really like this idea. Could this be the kind of game where - instead of having lots of pre-made cards - the players write down adjectives on slips of paper. Mix them up and...you never know what combinations you can get.

This might take away the commercial potential of the game, but...you might have created a game to be played in family gatherings and ESL classrooms across the world... :)

You do realize that all Reality Television is "scripted", right??? In other words it's FAKE television just like sit-coms and the like... Master Chef is no different. Have you seen the kids version of the show??? Do you mean to tell me all those kids cook better than the majority of "housewives" around the world???

Think about it... It's FAKE, scripted. A form of entertainment where some of the important parts of "storytelling" are used to form an episode...

This is a different category than Real Housewives and all that, but those aren't all fake either. Or at least, they're non-scripted. I'm sure the drama is 90% done-on-purpose-to-get-more-airtime.

I know it's not UNO. But I still think 100 cards is a LOT for a "combination"-type game. So if a game like "Gin Rummy" can pull enough possibilities for play using 52 only cards some for sequences others for multiples...

I think it's safe to assume that 33 cards per type x 3 types = 99 cards should be enough to play the game. And that could of course include multiples of some cards too...

It's no Apples-To-Apples...! Apples-To-Apples is a "comparison" game. In this Foody game, you create PERMUTATIONS. The number of combinations is many times GREATER than the card count. Whereas in Apples-To-Apples, the cards you can play are all individual cards REQUIRING more cards to play the game.

PERMUTATIONS means you can have "more" sequences that are possible than a card game like Apples-To-Apples.

The typical card game that comes to mind is "Gin Rummy". It's done with only 52 cards. Doing it with 99 cards probably allows you to DOUBLE the amount of players and have perhaps allowing a 2 to 4 player game.

Sorry it was an aside... Back to the OP!

Some of my IDEAS... considering I re-read that you have 3 courses for the competition: appetizer, entree and desert.

ON EACH DISH CARD, divide it into THREE (3) Sections with:

A> Top: Total # of points for Appetizer (funny, real or interesting)
B> Middle: Total # of points for Entree (again the same)
C> Bottom: Total # of points for Dessert (the same)

You get "3" DISH cards for the ROUND which is comprised of three "courses".

ON EACH Ingredient/Adjective CARD, offer UP TWO (2) possible points: one positive ("+") and one negative ("-"). You get SIX (6), three of each and you need to figure out how you are going to use THOSE cards during ALL 3 rounds...

You won't NEED "art"... You do this for "Adjectives", "Ingredients" and "Dishes". Like others have suggested, maybe all you need is ICONS.

If you make it that you can KEEP cards in your hand or discard them at the end of the round, the idea is that you cannot have more than nine (9) cards in your hand. That's a LOT.

This ADDS A LOT to STRATEGY! Why? Because some cards are worth MORE points used in another "course" of the meal... The player CLOSEST to his DISH'S SCORE is the winner.

It's just 33x33x33.

However, permutations aren't all that interesting.. (as I noted in my big comment at the top). The game needs something that focuses the choices and gives the judges a criterion to judge by.

I can't even begin to compute the possibilities... It's too difficult of a problem. If every "dish" card has 3 "courses" and each "preparation" card has 2 "values"... And there are 40 "dish" cards and 60 "preparation" cards... And you choose 3 "dish" cards followed by 6 "preparation" cards.

How many outcomes are possible... I don't know!

Like I said, forget the "Judge" and replace with a "simple" but "elegant" scoring mechanic:

A> Each "dish" is worth "x" points (which varies per "course").

B> You have six (6) preparation cards to manage 3 "courses".

C> Each preparation card has a "+" value and a "-" value.

D> Player closest to their "dish points" is the winner in each of the three (3) "course" rounds.

Play again for repeatability ... Is it like best 2 out of 3... or something like that... Or play to 20 Victory Points! (Based on the three "courses" you have to select and how close you score...) Could be cumulative, each player keeps score of their total... First to 20 VPs wins... Could be more VPs like 30 ... playtesting will help balance this part of the game!

If it's a Party Game, it allows for up to TEN (10) players to play the game concurrently. Sound like enough for a Party Game! No?!

It's simultaneous play, each player chooses their "dish" (1: for Appetizer, 2: for Entree and 3: for Dessert) Face-down and play for each 3 piles as many or as little "preparation" cards necessary.

Then you reveal one (1) Player at a time and compute the scores and proximity to each "dish" Total Points to determine the amount of VPs awarded. A winner's bonus can also be awarded for winning the best of the three (3) "courses". After that round is over and everyone is scored... Play over until the VP total is reached...

A *totally* subjective game is just going to be a mess. And a totally subjective game that's not anonymous makes no sense at all to me.

Also, you don't want to publish a game that can be replaced by a pad of paper and a pencil, and just having people write down the name of a quirky dish. Why would I BUY this game?

The appropriateness of the collocations is how I think the designer has suggested things be judged - with "Crumbly lettuce", for example, scoring less well than "crumbly cheese". I think the criteria is clear enough, whilst not precluding the subjectivity that would (should?) be characteristic of the game. Having cards which unambiguously belong and don't belong together would avoid feuding friends getting hot under the collar, but it would also remove quite a lot of nuance. The 'right' choice probably depends on the target audience. I'm seeing a sort of after-dinner charades type context.

I completely agree with your final point. And to me, this looks like a concept that lends itself particularly well to a pen and paper game.

That's not to say it can't be commercial. Pictionary does well and I'd also put that in the category of a game-with-cards that would be better off as a pen-paper party game. Chameleon is another. The concept is good. The physical contents of the box are not very important. I play Chameleon (or a game with that essence) with my students, based on what I read from the blurb on the box.