Skip to Content

Assistance Needed

19 replies [Last post]
Kamon
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2009

Hey, all. I'm having some trouble with applying logic (or maybe too much logic) to my theme. The game I'm working on is a deck building game that is a player vs player war game instead of player vs objective. To keep the design open as much as possible, I do not want to limit players to only using one faction. Here's some info:

Players are assigned a Character or Hero like card to represent them.

There are four factions in the game. For example, Red, Blue, Yellow, Green.

Players, using their character, recruit or buy warriors from the existing factions to fight each other with.

My issue: If these factions are their own groups, why would I be able to recruit warriors from each faction to use in battle against my opponents who also have armies consisting of the very factions I've recruited? I can't seem to wrap my head around this. A possible solution would be to dismiss the idea of having factions, but having factions does allow for additional design effects.

Thoughts?

Leeton
Offline
Joined: 04/28/2013
Faction Strengths

If you give each faction strengths and weaknesses you create a reason for needing them to mesh.

All 4 factions could have the same set of cards (villagers, soldiers, merchants - for example). But Red has the best soldiers, while yellow's merchants are superior.

donut2099
donut2099's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014
I'm assuming each faction has

I'm assuming each faction has some advantage uniquely thiers? Perhaps you could have a pool of common soldiers for each faction, but then mercenaries that could be recruited at a higher cost but might be able to confer one of these additional skills or whatever it is that the player is looking for?

Kamon
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2009
Does it make sense for me to

Does it make sense for me to buy Red and you to buy Red, then fight each other? I really think I'm worrying too much about this. Haha.

rene.shible
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
I don't know much about your

I don't know much about your theme, but if the players represented different sides of an internal conflict within a group/army/what-have-you, it could explain why each player has access to the same groups of warriors.

And to expand on what others have responded, each hero/character could have a natural alignment or affinity for certain factions, allowing them to purchase them for cheaper or make use of more of their abilities. Or they're scored differently, or whatever relevant mechanisms may apply to your game.

~R

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
Seems like you've painted

Seems like you've painted yourself into a corner by calling them factions and seeing them as ideologically bound. If you aren't tied to existing IP, come up with a different rationale for the groupings; like schools of combat or such. If you are tied to it, then mercenaries are a simple answer or creating some sort of conceptual split such as those who join player A believe that lavender smells better than rose and those joining player B believe rose the superior odoure.

Kamon
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2009
Corsaire wrote:Seems like

Corsaire wrote:
Seems like you've painted yourself into a corner by calling them factions and seeing them as ideologically bound. If you aren't tied to existing IP, come up with a different rationale for the groupings; like schools of combat or such. If you are tied to it, then mercenaries are a simple answer or creating some sort of conceptual split such as those who join player A believe that lavender smells better than rose and those joining player B believe rose the superior odoure.

I like this idea. So instead of basing the card types off of factions, it would be based off of a style of combat. Hmmm.

donut2099
donut2099's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014
Your kung fu is good. Who is

Your kung fu is good. Who is your master?

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Civil wars happen. Those in

Civil wars happen. Those in the same faction can easily be aligned against each other over other ideals. Heretics. King dies, factions split to support rival heirs-apparent, etc.

Do what Magic the Gathering does? They are a game built on color-coded factions (some factions being inherently multi-colored, too.) Nothing wrong with the logic.

Shoe
Shoe's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/21/2012
check out Ascension...it is a

check out Ascension...it is a deckbuilding game with factions....

also instead of factions, have you considered guilds? A crafters guild that makes stuff, a warrior's guild to be the fighters, a merchant guild that acquires cards ....etc?

Dan Felder
Dan Felder's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/06/2014
Just don't make them

Just don't make them factions. Mechanically divide them in a different way that doesn't come with an associated organizational structure. No one feels weird when blue cards in magic fight other blue cards.

Kamon
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2009
WCanepa wrote:Civil wars

WCanepa wrote:
Civil wars happen. Those in the same faction can easily be aligned against each other over other ideals. Heretics. King dies, factions split to support rival heirs-apparent, etc.

Do what Magic the Gathering does? They are a game built on color-coded factions (some factions being inherently multi-colored, too.) Nothing wrong with the logic.

I believe we've narrowed our theme down to two options, one of which takes place in a post-apocalyptic type scenario where the realm of our game has been shattered. Influential figures emerge and realize the realm is now situated for conquering, so they begin building an army out of the remaining citizens.

Or a theme where players will act as Overlords that were sealed away a thousand years ago during the Great War (or whatever event). Their seal has since been broken (somehow) and they're free to walk the realms. Intent on total domination, the Overlords will stop at nothing to gain control of the realm. They'll have to destroy the opposing overlords in order to do so. Because they're ago powerful, they have the ability to summon powerful monsters to create their armies.

Kamon
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2009
Opinions on the two theme

Opinions on the two theme options?

Mansemat
Mansemat's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2013
What about a "Bully-esque"

What about a "Bully-esque" game where you're a teacher or a random dude in a school who had to pick their dodgeball team (or class) from the different factions of school-peeps (jocks, nerds, cheerleaders, goths and others)

PS Not really feeling the two themes yet. :(

jvallerand
Offline
Joined: 10/12/2013
Mansemat wrote:What about a

Mansemat wrote:
What about a "Bully-esque" game where you're a teacher or a random dude in a school who had to pick their dodgeball team (or class) from the different factions of school-peeps (jocks, nerds, cheerleaders, goths and others)

PS Not really feeling the two themes yet. :(

That would be insanely cool. I'd SO buy that.

*Insert here "take my money now" meme*

McTeddy
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2012
I'm agreeing with the "Don't

I'm agreeing with the "Don't call them factions" idea. If they are Alien Races or just occupations there is no reason why they wouldn't fight one another.

If each player takes control of one faction... then simply call the hired units "Mercenaries" and potentially charge a bit more. If I'm the Blue commander... there is no logical flaw with hiring some traitorous red mercenaries to boost my own strength.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Kamon wrote:Opinions on the

Kamon wrote:
Opinions on the two theme options?

The second could work, with some tweaking. Make it compelling. Conquest alone is not always appealing. Maybe more motivation?

Either way, if you want a warring fantasy setting, maybe make the "factions" based on geographic regions or races? Or both?

The Wyvern Mountains could be home to cyclopes, wyverns, savage marauders, fire snakes, and earth elementals.

Orcs could be tribes of plains-dwelling dinosaur-riders, with fast attacks, ranged attacks, dinosaur mounts.

The Blighted Wastes could be home to foul necromancers, ghouls, tentacle monsters, wild magic effects, etc.

The Freeholds could be a confederacy of humans that build castles, have cavalry and soldiers and traditional fantasy armies.

The Keep of [insert deity name, like the Overlords] could be a monastic order of holy warriors, zealots fueled to action by recent events.

Etc.

Going with the Overlord scenario (too similar to Planeswalkers, if you ask me), you could have a set of up to a dozen overlords to choose from. Or gods? Give them specific personality traits, influencing player deck-building. Maybe certain cards are cheaper/more expensive to add to their decks based on that? Maybe make each overlord/god grant a specific power or two to a player, usable in the game (like add +1 resource thingy, or discard 2 cards to draw 1 card during you X phase, or reveal your hand to your foes and randomly select one card from an opponent- that card is removed from play for X rounds, etc.).

StephenStag
StephenStag's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2014
Hey! Really cool idea! Love

Hey!

Really cool idea! Love it actually. My suggestion is to have your hero's be experts of a specific class and then have lower level units of the class as your pool to pull from! (No pun intended) for example, you can have a hero be a very high level priest and also have a "faction" of monks/clerics/bishops/disciples to work with. Now any player can pull from that faction deck, but the player with the hero priest in hand would "increase" their healing abilities if you will, where the hero of a fighter class would increase their damage out put abilities.

I hope that made sense. I really like your idea here...keep kicking it around

Kamon
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2009
The Overlord idea of powerful

The Overlord idea of powerful beings definitely made me think of Planeswalkers. I would prefer to stray from any sort of theme that is similar to what Magic is doing. I'll most likely scratch that idea.

So I'm left with players being Commanders or Generals, trying to recruit Ally cards, learn Tactics, and control Relics. My initial story for something like this is the idea of a civil war where it would make complete logical sense to be able to pull any Ally from any faction of any race considering everything is meshed together into this realm that's experiencing conflict. This way it would make sense that like races and factions are fighting each other. Maybe I should stop calling them factions. They're actually subtypes and I'd like for them to be broken down into four kinds (two for magic and two for physical damage.:

Mystic - essentially more defensive than normal magic, healers, dangerous when threatened, using "white magic", wizard-ish, etc.

Chaos - more offensive than normal magic, destroyers, possibly more fragile than Mystic, using "black magic", sorcerer, etc.

Unknown - maybe more noble, honorable combat means, soldiers, knight-ish type things.

Unknown - possibly more rogue than the above, more deceitful, stealthy

Kamon
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2009
I was thinking the turn

I was thinking the turn sequence could work like this:

1. Initiative
2. Action
3. Combat
4. Discard
5. Draw

#1 Initiative phase determines who will begin both the Action and Combat phases. The player with Initiative will start each of these rounds.

During #2, the Action phase, you could play Allies, Tactics, and Relics from your hand into play. The player with Initiative begins this. Your area of the table is set up in four different zones: deck, discard, active, and spent. Tactics that aren't Continuous would enter in the spent zone. All other cards enter into the active zone, As Relics are Continuous and Allies are always placed active. These card types provide you with a currency to purchase cards with. At the end of your Action phase, discard any remaining cards from your hand and in your spent zone. At this time, you should only control Relics, Tactics that are Continuous, and Allies.

Play is then passed to the left, allowing each player to play their hands in their own Action phases. Once all players are out of cards and have completed this phase, we move on to the next phase.

#3 Combat phase is going to be a phase where all players will take turns having a combat, just like the Action phase where each player got a chance to play out their cards. Combat will begin with the player with Initiative. I should mention here that Allies have a star called Damage which is used to inflict damage to other players and Allies. This player may attack with his Allies one at a time at any player. For example: I control 3 Allies and I'm playing against 3 opponents. I could attack Ally #1 into Player 1, Ally #2 into Player 2, etc. Each Ally can only attack once. Once it attacks, it moves back into the spent zone, meaning it can no longer take any actions for the turn. To keep players feeling "in the game" and always included, I like the idea of players being able to defend against an Ally attack by choosing an Ally to defend with. Allies can only defend in the active zone, so Allies in the spent zone cannot be used to defend with. Defending does not move them to the spent zone.

Once all players have had a combat phase, we move to phase #4, discard. Everything in play that isn't a Continuous Tactic or Relic is discarded.

The last phase is Draw. Each player draws 5 cards (not up to five).

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut