Skip to Content
 

Number of cards in deck

5 replies [Last post]
Fri, 04/10/2015 - 23:44
Old But Fun
Offline
Joined: 02/03/2015

I have finished my current game idea, but am wondering whether my arbitrary selection of the number of cards (198) is excessive since they make a tall pile and are difficult to shuffle prior to the start of the game.

I assumed the game would play best with about 6-8 players though it is certainly possible to play with 4-6, and maybe 9 or 10. To win, a player must be the first to accumulate a complete set of 8 cards (each of a different category). There are also "chance" cards, positive and negative. The game also includes dice and money. It is basically a board game without the board.

I decided to include 18 cards for each of 11 categories; hence the 198 cards. I've made a prototype deck with the small blank cards available on-line. I have rubber-cemented "art" onto the cards. Shuffling is definitely difficult, partly because of the small size of the cards and the rubber-cemented edges that "catch." Plus, all the cards are in one tall pile from which the players draw.

I had no particular reason to have 18 cards in each of the 11 categories except I want each player to have a good chance of picking a card he/she needs from the pile in the event there are 8-10 players. Is there some generic guidance on how many cards should be available for "X" number of players in a game?

Thanks for any input!

Top
Sat, 04/11/2015 - 02:08
#1
Tbone
Tbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2013
That Is A Lot

I would begin to ask yourself... "will the player be immersed into the game enough where they won't mind the clunkiness of the deck size?" I would have you also ask yourself... "is this the most efficient way of showing these attributes?"

I would start by allowing each card to hold two different kinds of "suits" this would essentially cut the dexk in half. Still thats eight cards but SO much easier to manipulate.

If this isn't congruent to your design then is it possible to split the deck around the table? It seems tedious to have nine players picking from the center of the table. Apples to Apples (if I'm allowed to even use this game for any game design comparison) allows for multiple decks around the table so players can disperse them to where its most convenient.

If this still is not enough reducing the amount of suits would have to be your out come next. 11... maybe 8? 7?

In order to fully grasp whats going on you also have to further explain what a "Category", "Complete Set", "Chance Card", and "Money" with their intended use in the game.

Top
Sat, 04/11/2015 - 11:11
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Good point TBone

Tbone wrote:
...In order to fully grasp whats going on you also have to further explain what a "Category", "Complete Set", "Chance Card", and "Money" with their intended use in the game.

TBone makes a good point. Like I would use this type of setup:

  • 12 Categories
  • 10 Cards/category
  • Total = 120 cards
  • So 2 decks of 60 cards

The conclusion is the important part: 2 decks of 60 cards can be easily shuffled and cards can be drawn from either deck (if you like).

Again this is not knowing what your game is all about - This is just a good distribution of cards...

Cheers

Update: You can probably push up the card count if you have like 15 cards per category and 10 Categories = 150 cards. 75 cards per deck is still easy to shuffle...

Alternatively you could have 10 Categories and 12 cards = 120 cards if you like the 60 card count per deck.

Update 2: You don't even need to count the cards per deck. Just divide them using approximation and then shuffle each deck...!

Top
Sat, 04/11/2015 - 12:35
#3
Old But Fun
Offline
Joined: 02/03/2015
Thanks to both of you for your comments and suggestions.

I hadn't thought of splitting the deck though I could definitely cut back on the number of cards per category. As I said, 18 was just arbitrary to try to ensure that enough of the "right" cards would be available to all players. I think that splitting the deck would probably be a great option, especially if there were a lot of players. It also occurred to me that there could be a suggestion in the instructions of the number of cards in each category to play with based on the number of players (e.g., 18 for 9 or 10 players; 16 for 8, etc.), though that would require players to organize the cards by category either right after playing a game, or right before.

Anyway, you have given me food for thought. Thanks! Any other insight in this regard is welcome.

Top
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 13:30
#4
Old But Fun
Offline
Joined: 02/03/2015
Update

I played a game yesterday--me and 4 "fake" hands, so 5 players. I ended up using 91 of the 198 cards by the time someone won the game. So, if there were 9 or 10 playing, would we have used most of the 198 cards? Again, I am looking at the options. I think splitting the deck might work although if on a player's turn one of the negative "chance" cards is on top of the pile, the player MUST pick that card (there are other options for picking a card that a player may not use if the negative card is showing). If there were 2 piles, would it be clunky to require that the player choose from THAT pile instead of the one that doesn't have the negative "chance" card?

My game is called Sexual Fantasies. I know, rather provocative. However, it is innocent and non-touch feely, nothing threatening. Eight of the categories represent part of creating a Sexual Fantasy: Love Interest (M or F), Setting, Activity, Food, Drinks, Occupation, Transportation, Music/Song. Then there are the negative Taboo cards and the positive Secrets cards. The winner is the first to create a complete Sexual Fantasy, accumulating cards for all 8 categories, AND financing it (hence the money). The dice determines how much money a player gets.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Top
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 17:35
#5
MattPlays
Offline
Joined: 04/12/2015
How long does the game take

How long does the game take to play, and does the amount of people drastically affect it? Requiring players to collect a smaller set will use less cards and be a shorter game (and make it cheaper to produce. Depending on your target market that might be better, people will be more inclined to play a shorter enjoyable game again than finish slogging through a longer one.

A game I'm working on at the moment, I've made some of the dice rolls easier so the game finishes quicker, I don't want to risk it getting boring.

Not saying your is of course, just some thoughts

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut