Best and Worst Trading Card Game Mechanics

The problem I see with having so many different cards is to make EVERY card useful. When you look at MtG, they balance alot of their cards by what format you play. That's why alot of cards are just.. well, bears and such (A bear is just a vanilla 2/2 creature".

The most annoying "mechanic" about card games is when I have cards and such that just doesn't do anything, or are just plain unplayable. Or when stuff are just "too good".
It's one thing that a card is good, but just unbeatable? No.

I'm myself trying to make a card game, with a resoursce system that is reliable for both players. A game where deck construction still is important, but the essentials aren't really bothered THAT much about your deck. The deck you play with is more like "I like this kind of playstyle, I'll focus on that cuz its FUN and still good."

In short, mechanics that hinders players to do things are the worst. They are degenerate mechanics and makes a degenerate game state and makes the players upset.
Limitations are one thing. Not being able to do anything is just retarded.

Cool article, Hiddius. That seems to be a trick as it would seem most designers are by nature inclined to be Johnnys and avoiding designing only for designer interests is probably my biggest challenge. Back in the day when I travelled around the midwest doing pro-tour qualifiers for Magic, it was me and a bunch of Spikes working together.

So as asking designers for best and worst mechanics is tricky whether thinking as players or designers. I probably bought and played 90% of all new CCGs that came out those first couple of years. As a player then, mechanics like card draw and deck manipulation are my favorites,anything twiddling with the meta-game rocks. As a designer thinking of other players and game feel, I like ramping mechanics like one land per turn that allow a game to mature through the play of it.

What I can't stand is imbalance, particularly moderated by rarity. If two monsters take the same mechanic/cost to bring into play and one that is a rare has a direct and overwhelming advantage (such as one has power 2000 and the other power 1000, with everything else the same.)

Welcome to the internet.

Well what if your deck is only comprised of ALL *bears*. So if you only have bears (vanilla creatures), the idea is how are you going to outsmart your opponent.

Obviously this is not 100% accurate, because there are 15 DISTINCT and different starships with each one having a "Special Ability" (think a bonus like +1 Firepower or +2 Resistance, etc.) So there are abilities for each starship and I have managed to make them all unique.

Part of the strategy is BUYING stronger cards for your deck (Deck-Building Game). So how you play is a reflection of what cards you manage to draw... Meaning the cards you BUY determine what should be your best way to play in order to win the game. If you follow this (and not do whatever you WANT to do), your path to victory should be easier... because you have the correct cards to win in that manner.

It depends on the scenario but usually there are two (2) paths to victory: win by satisfying the OBJECTIVE or win by destroying your opponents. In the second path (destroying) you obviously need to be able to BUY strong offensive cards in the early stages of the game and then use them against your opponent. Obviously it will not help if your opponent is buying strong defensive cards... because the two will offset. These are examples of how to play based on what cards you CAN buy.

I guess this means you are not a "Magic: the Gathering" fan?! Because even though you can build your deck, all the cards get put into one single deck and get shuffled... And then you draw your cards from that deck... It's random however I guess there are probabilities that the cards you want to use will be in the deck... I suppose having doubles or triples of a card are necessary if you want the deck to be less random...

Although I don't play MTG, I still like the concept. Because my interests in tabletop gaming revolve around cards and collectible card games are a part of that, I *like* what the game permits: namely it allows for artists to draw wonderful works of art - another aspect I like about cards.

So this aspect, about cards, is something I really enjoy. I like working with artists to help render my cards/card games. I like being able to work with Graphic Designers to help improve the look of layouts, etc.

In my book, the game's appearance is part of it's charm! :)

The reason why I quit MTG:

The feeling of Great Imbalance:
There are players out there that could beat you in 1 turn. Not so much fun playing then if your side of the table stays empty. The only way to overcome this is to have a starting turn yourself and then lay down the same cards for an instant win. For that, a beginning player needs to buy a lot of cards, or buy the cards online. Pay a lot. And well, flipping a coin has the same effect if you ask me. No need for spending years gathering the cards, if you are lucky.

New players also don't know about the rules which cards are banned or limited etc. So their first impression was mostly: "Bah, stupid game, I quit." I have seen a lot that left after the first day.

Eventually I had some good cards. (Based on Enchantress, enchantments and lure) So it became impossible for my buddy to win against me. After 6 losses in a row he wanted to quit too. A mirror game (both players have the same cards) is not what he wanted. So we quit the game.

In my opinion, a good card game does not have to ban cards or limit them. Nor does it have instant winnings.
A lesson well learned from this game for my own game.

The pictures and stories where cool though. That's the reason why I started the game. And the vanilla version is the best if you ask me.

I always hated the feeling of imbalance in games. This is the reason I never got into Magic in the first place, as well as the blind purchasing. Power creep is such an annoying thing in games. It's one of the reasons I loved Heroscape so much. There was no power creep and there was no blind purchasing. Everything was enjoyable and I knew what I was getting.

This is especially true with TCG as opposed to a game like Heroscape. TCGs have a much bigger volume of cards out there. It's harder to balance hundreds of cards vs. balancing 10 different squadrons/heroes like in HS or even Heroclix. Eventually you'll get a card that is just godlike and you'll need to ban it.

I remember reading somewhere that in deck building games you don't have to worry about balancing cards as much because if a card is overpowered, then everyone will buy it. I think this really only works best in games like dominion though where you all have the power to buy those overpowered cards.

I think Quest, your post is a perfect example of why balancing isn't an issue in many deck building games, because generally everyone has equal access to overpowered cards. In TCGs though that's not true thus banning is essential even if it isn't ideal. It's just hard to balance out hundreds of cards vs. ten minis.

I know several people who just love (I mean real artists themselves!) the design and card artwork. They collect the cards just because of that. And these are people who do not even play the game... It's just something they like to collect, chasing rare cards, etc.

So I find it's something *empowering* in the fact that artists are capable of designing and producing all kinds of pieces of artwork to match their card descriptions.

This reminds me about a time way back, when I was young, that I was trying to collect all 100 cards to the movie E.T. Back then, cards would be sold in boosters at corner stores and they would come with gum. I went to so many different corner stores just to try to own the complete set. I never did get all 100 cards... But I remember going to all kinds of stores with my dad... It was magical!

Anyhow, getting back to MTG, when I was demoing at a local game store, I saw a hardcore MTG gamer come into the store. He didn't buy boosters, what he did was SHOW his IPhone to the clerk and said that was the LIST of cards he wanted to BUY. The clerk took from the back some binders and searched through them to find the cards the customer wanted to buy... Long story short - that changed my view on "collecting". Clearly this customer was buying a CUSTOM deck. How many other games can you do that with? Like zero.

I think one of the OVERALL strengths in MTG is also a COOL factor. So you play Dominion or Ticket To Ride, etc. This isn't something you would ADVERTISE like "Hey, I played Ticket To Ride last night and it was awesome!" I think MTG somehow embraces the fact that it's cool to be a MTG fan/gamer. There is this mystique about the game, some kind of charm, coolness and they keep designing new cards for the game.

In my opinion, I think the *collectible* aspect of the game is what gives the game the most appeal...

This is a old post but I think the future of all games revolves on the use of the mechanism inherent to quantum physics.

What Im saying is about the use of fine-tuned probability and the evolution of this probability in a system (increasing, decreasing or doing another shape).

A good example are the goofspiel variants. To me the "bid" mechanic is essential in any serious card game next to simultaneous play. Bidding represent "the nature of risk" and by this in an abstract sense it represent "the nature of strategy".

The point is avoid the need of a "second-nature" skill to play a game (second-natures are some things like to talk, to swim, to mount on bicycle, to play piano, and so on) what happen in fixed-space-related games as chess, baduk or any other perfect information game by turns.

At the same point is very important to get all the possible strategy deep into a game (if you plan is to create a strategy game more like a social game). In this point card games are wide more open to real strategy than board-space related games... or at least a mix of spatial (vectorial space) and non-spatial game.

As I said quantum mechanics, in a wide range of points, is just what the games are going to acquire by the need of improve the gaming experience and avoid unneeded complexity.

In quantum mechanics you can see the union of the opposite in many points of view: random and determined, position and potential (space/non-space), qualitative and quantitative (specific wave length or geometry of space, by example).

And, maybe, a perfect "game" is something that trascend the point of simple competition between players... or at least take some unpredictability in the competition, something like a contest of creation with votation (as the game design showdown).

Isnt not a meta-hyper-game our game design showdown after all?

P.S.: sry for my english guys, I tried my best

I've been very separated from MTG for a long time because the game got to the point where you might go up against someone with a strategy that was nearly impossible to beat unless you had 1 of a handful of certain cards in the whole MTG library.

My prime example is a commander deck I played against that was full of low-level monsters, but the commander itself was a necromancer that would bring all the low-level monsters back from the graveyard each turn. Yes, there are strategies to beat this, but you'd have to practically design your deck around that one strategy. I see that far too often for my tastes.

So in short, I'd say my vote is Cards That Have Few Defense Capabilities.

My game that I'm working on is slowly turning into a TCG. It allows you to create your own deck but the cards have a pre defined abundance in the deck--compared to MTG where you can have up to four but YOU can chose depending on how many copies you own.

Also... You can only have a certain amount of the pre defined abundance card.

To clear this up... There are six different abundances...
-Abundant: six cards
-Common: five cards
-Base: four cards
-Scarce: three cards
-Rare: two cards
-Monumental: one card

You can only pick two different cards from each abundance category with their alotted abundance--except for the Monumental, these cards are always on the field and there is only ONE Monumental card (exp. I pick the Fallen Star. The Fallen Star is a Rare card so if i chose to put that card in my deck I MUST put two of that card in my deck--no more no less. With this I still can chose one more Rare card to put in my deck since i can pick two of that abundance.)

This way the card is balanced (like it should) by its rarety.

Also there is minimal card draw (unless a card allows you to). You start with a 40 card deck which you then place 18 cards on the field most of which will be face down. Your objective? Get the most points/kills and end the game by killing the enemies Monumental card, all while using a combination of actions (which includes "activating" your "deactivated" or face down cards) and moves to outwitt your opponent.

This helps with the imbalancing issue to an extent where you have an actual army. You have the grunts (Abundant cards) which have exceptonally weak, low proability abilities but with a large number of them can ensure a stable advance, and you have Generals (Rare cards) low in numbers but very powerful (usually).

Hope this helped

Tbone