Skip to Content
 

CCG/TCG type of game: Is it OK to add randomness?

13 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

I was juggling with ideas lately, and most, if not, all CCG/TCG type of game only have the stacking of the cards as a source of randomness. I understand the reason why, you want to be able to play anywhere without additional components.

But if the game is to be played digitally, or not be traded, adding some randomness could be doable. There are games like Mage Wars and Mage Wars academy, that have dice roll to determine the damage of a creature. Which allows the possibility of armor stats and armor piercing capabilities.

The advantage, is that it could avoid situations where you know there is no way to win. You can still hope that thing goes into your favor. On the other hand, it might make the game less strategic depending on the level of randomness introduces into the game. It also takes more time to resolve if playing physically.

I am still thinking of using a binomial rolls.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
It depends on the level and type of randomness

My experience with randomness is that it often helps balancing a game. And impossibilities can at least turn into a temporary stalemate if the 0 is involved.

But weird things like 1 soldier surviving 2 tanks and actually destroying both tanks in 1 turn could also be possible.

You might want to test it out, not only for game balance. But also for how the game might feel at the ridiculous situations.

My personal weirdest experience (not a card game but on a board). Was a minigunner being able to destroy an entire squad of heavy juggernaughts, catching them off guard and all on their last health. Given that the situation grew to that moment through strategy by both players.

Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Googled "Magic cards with die rolls"

I googled magic cards with die rolls and got list of magic that require some one to roll a die. So it is certainly possible to include them in a game. There are also a lot of results with magic cards with a card flip.

If you wanted to stay away from dice maybe you could do a reveal the next card in your deck to for randomness resolution.

Good luck with your game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Believe it or not...

I have a TCG (Trading Card Game) which is still very much still in design... I don't know what I am going to do with it. But it uses Polyhedral Dice. I am actually TRYING to determine if the game can be played with ONE SET of polys and that's it.

I'm having some challenges because like you ALREADY know... Making some AI art is fine and dandy (like making Robot Cards) but then like trying to make other art like "Missile Rack" or "Grenade Launcher" or "Particle Cannon", etc. It just doesn't know HOW(?) to do this.

And so even if the POLYs are cool. They are NOT final... Because I cannot make the ancillary cards to go with the game. So that game is BLOCKED and I've got to see what it is that I can do to fix that design (at some point). I'm really NOT sure TBH.

So YEAH I also have a TCG design that USES dice (POLYs to be specific).

But a LOT of work to be done on that DESIGN. I am still UNSURE how I can improve the outcome. And I don't want to use EXTRA dice to track health (for example) and the current design DOES rely on D20s to keep track of health...

Lot of stuff in that design which are UNCERTAIN and has led me to a mental block on that particular design... Like I said a LOT of stuff... The ART for the Robots is cool ... But they extra "assets" are a challenge for me... TBD I don't know what to do with this design.

There was definitely some cool IDEAS... But like I say, ideas are a dime a dozen ... If I cannot bring this design to some kind of CONCLUSION, well then it is pointless and I would rather focus on "Lowest Handing Fruit" which is ATM the "Quest Reboot". Almost everything is done on that front ... Except for ONE (1) Card Type (the "Tax Collector"). I need to NERF the penalty from "-3 VPs" to "-2 VPs"... Minor edit and then that game is ready to be playtested yet again and if all goes well... Then I can PUBLISH that game for SALE on "The Game Crafter" (TGC). And that will be ANOTHER project/product COMPLETED.

Just goes to show you that I too had a DESIGN which was supposed to rely on DICE and was a Trading Card Game (TCG).

In regards to the OP ... I would say YES it is possible to DESIGN a TCG which uses DICE.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe you could use my Dual Dice...

larienna wrote:
I am still thinking of using a binomial rolls.

They have a Binomial (D2) Distribution, a D3 Distribution, a Normal D6 Distribution, a Damage Distribution (0 to 6) with the use of 2DD"B" (which means Face "B" on both dice).

Using the dice requires the rolling of ONE or TWO Dual Dice depending on the goal of the roll.

I'm not recommending the use of more that two (2) dice ... Because they are "specialty" dice ATM which cost a lot to make, ship and sell.

But I'm still looking for a DESIGN that would need some if not all of those distributions.

Cheers!

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
the 2D6 is interesting if you

the 2D6 is interesting if you want a normal distribution.

The problem is that in most CCG, battles are contest between 2 units or group of units.

If you roll against TN, you get into 4 situation according to if both sides hit or not their TN (NN, YN, NY, YY). It could be manageable, but weird. It could be worth exploring. 1 die vs TN is another possibility.

If you use dice + stat, then you can get into impossible situation where a if a monsters have stats too high or low, they cannot win or lose the battle.

This is why I like binomial, because even if it's a 1 die vs 10 die, there is a probability, you roll 0 success with 10 dices. The main problem, is that it requires a lot of dices.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some additional thoughts

larienna wrote:
If you roll against TN, you get into 4 situation according to if both sides hit or not their TN (NN, YN, NY, YY). It could be manageable, but weird. It could be worth exploring. 1 die vs TN is another possibility.

What is TN? And NN, YN, NY, YY... Is it "The Number"? And NN = 0,0 and YN = 1, 0 and NY = 0, 1 and YY = 1, 1 ... Right? Binomial outcomes. The Dual Dice are a bit more "flexible" in that it's 0 or 1 but you SUBTRACT "Face A" - "Face B". Ergo the name "DUAL" Dice (there are two faces per side: A and B).

So if you want Binomial distribution, you simply use the SUBTRACTION operator.

Example: "Face A" - "Face B". so "3" - "2" = 1, "2" - "2" = 0, etc. You still get ONE (1) Result per dice. Much like you were thinking.

larienna wrote:
If you use dice + stat, then you can get into impossible situation where a if a monsters have stats too high or low, they cannot win or lose the battle.

I have been analyzing and determined that "Face A" (which is 1D3) compared to 2x "Face B" (which is a Damage dice: 0 to 6)... This is an INTERESTING distribution... It's a Bell Shaped Curve and therefore the ODDS of "0" & "6" are much lesser (Valleys) than the other value with "3" being the sweet spot with a probability of 29% (almost 1/3rd ... A little off).

To be exact this is what the distribution looks like of 2DD"B":

0: 2.78
1: 11.11
2: 22.22
3: 27.78
4: 22.22
5: 11.11
6: 2.78

This again is with 2DD"B" (2x Face B).

larienna wrote:
This is why I like binomial, because even if it's a 1 die vs 10 die, there is a probability, you roll 0 success with 10 dices. The main problem, is that it requires a lot of dices.

Well if you need roll 0 or 1 for 10 dice, you can roll 5x 2DD"A - B". Which means 5 times 2 Dual Dice where you subtract "Face A" MINUS "Face B" to get Binomial outcomes.

It's interesting IF you need a NORMAL 1 or 2D6. Because that's 1DD"A + B" (for 1 die) the Normal Standard D6 Distribution.

BUT there exists one additional Distribution which is something else which requires a die roll UNDER "10":

1DD"A x B": 1 x 0 = 0; 1 x 1 = 1; 2 x 1 = 2; 2 x 2 = 4; 3 x 2 = 6; 3 x 3 = 9.

So this distribution looks like: 0, 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9.

I could be usable in a context where you need something VARIED. But the probabilities are real STRANGE... So I don't talk about it much TBH.

Anyhow ... The multiplication operator is VERY unpredictable. The distribution looks like this (and I warn you it's chaotic!):

0: 16.67
1: 11.11
2: 22.22
3: 16.67
4: 11.11
6: 16.67
9: 5.56

It's really WEIRD TBH. It's not Factorial even if at first glance it MAY seem like so (but it is NOT!)... I've explained pretty much about the "Dual Dice". If you have questions, let me know!

Cheers.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
One last comment about "Dual Dice"...

There was a COMPARISON feature when rolling 1DD"A / B". This is NOT DIVISION, it is meant to give favor to the Player Rolling the 1DD"A / B" die which result in better outcomes.

It goes something like this:

1DD"A" = 1D3 = 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3. or 33% each outcome.
1DD"B" = 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 which are these outcomes:

0: 16.67
1: 33.33
2: 33.33
3: 16.67

So an "A / B" as a comparison yields similar results but a bit LESS ... It would have been NICE had the distributions been: 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 (but it is 3) So it's not a perfect comparison. I may use the dice in "Archon", once I figure out HOW(?). My current thoughts are like the COMPARISON distribution meaning that on a ROLL "Active Player" gets "Face A" Action Points and "Opponent" get "Face B" (equal or less in terms of APs)

Something like that...

Note #1: Had the distribution been: 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2... Well then the probabilities would be:

0: 16.67
1: 33.33
2: 50

That would have been REALLY NEAT. But unfortunately it is not. So it's a bit AMBIGUOUS with the following distribution:

0: 16.67
1: 33.33
2: 33.33
3: 16.67

Like I said 2DD"B" make for an interesting DAMAGE distribution:

0: 2.78
1: 11.11
2: 22.22
3: 27.78
4: 22.22
5: 11.11
6: 2.78

It's like a NORMALIZED 1D6 roll with non-equal probabilities. Still VERY interesting IMHO.

Let me know what you think!

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
What I mean in my previous

What I mean in my previous post is this:

Example:
Unit A: strength of 5
Unit B: strength of 3.

If each player roll 1D6 under target number(TN), you get 4 different situation

Unit A succeed, Unit B Succeed
Unit A succeed, Unit B Fail
Unit A fail, Unit B Succeed
Unit A fail, Unit B fail

So I have to determine how to handle those situations, especially when both success and fails. Maybe it's just:

SS: Both dies
SF: Unit B dies
FS: Unit A dies
FF: Both units survives.

It could be an interesting outcome. It's worth investigating. I'll have to check the distribution. It's also only 1 die on each side.

Else if I use

D6 + 5 VS D6 + 3: The odds are not always interesting and you can get into impossible ranges, like for example:

D6 + 7 VS D6 + 1: Unit A will always win.

So I don't really need a normal distribution, it's just that the binomial resolution, allows a weak unit to win to a strong one. The rolling mechanism is sleek besides for the large amount of dices.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I understood 100%

larienna wrote:
...Else if I use

D6 + 5 VS D6 + 3: The odds are not always interesting and you can get into impossible ranges, like for example:

D6 + 7 VS D6 + 1: Unit A will always win.

Let me think about it. I understood. I will see what is possible with "Dual" Dice in that the COMPARISON ("Face A" / "Face B") could MAYBE be of value... I fully understand what you mean ... I will ponder and do some more analysis to see if there is any OTHER way to help (and obviously I'll check with what is possible with "Dual" Dice).

I had thought of a SIMILAR scenario... 2DD"Face A" vs. 2DD"Face B" where "Face B" is used by the STRONGER opponent as a BALANCING type effect.

Let me do some more MATH and see what comes of it.

I THINK what you might benefit is from a NORMALIZED D6 versus an EQUALLY PROBABLE Standard 1D6... But I'll work on the ODDs. Give me some time to look this over...

Best.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here is some further analysis and way to PLAY...

Probabilities

2DD"A" = output 2d{1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3}

2: 11.11
3: 22.22
4: 33.34
5: 22.22
6: 11.11

2DD"B" = output 2d{0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3}

0: 2.78
1: 11.11
2: 22.22
3: 27.78
4: 22.22
5: 11.11
6: 2.78

Opponents

STR = 5 vs. STR = 3.

Sample Rolls

Roll 2DD6 each: 6 and 1 (both 11.11% in terms of probabilities)

STR = 5 + 1 = 6

STR = 3 + 6 = 9

STR = 3 WINS.

Roll 2DD6 each: 6 and 5 (again both 11.11% in terms of probabilities)

STR = 5 + 5 = 10

STR = 3 + 6 = 9

STR = 5 WINS.

How does this work???

Well to start each player needs to have 2 "Dual" Dice. If this is a two (2) Player match-up you need 4 Dice.

That's not really a bad deal... The normalize version adds UPPER BOUNDS and LOWER BOUNDS (with identical probabilities). This is good because it means that you have the same odds and they are NOT equally likely. They have their own Normalized Distribution. Because you have this DUALITY (ergo: the name "Dual" Dice), you have a bit more interesting outcomes rather than equally likely 1D6 (with all same odds). This version requires two (2) Dual Dice to be rolled by each opponent. So four (4) dice in total.

But you can see that with ODDS... There is more room to play with normalized values with this method of Distribution.

I find it fascinating TBH. I think this method of ROLLING dice could be of VALUE!

It may seem a bit COMPLICATED at first. But hey, you were looking for a method which is DIFFERENT and more "flexible". To me this means something that will no doubt be more complex than rolling 1D6...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Another set of sample rolls

Probabilities

2DD"A" = output 2d{1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3}

2: 11.11
3: 22.22
4: 33.34
5: 22.22
6: 11.11

2DD"B" = output 2d{0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3}

0: 2.78
1: 11.11
2: 22.22
3: 27.78
4: 22.22
5: 11.11
6: 2.78

Opponents

STR = 5 vs. STR = 3.

Additional Sample Roll

Roll 2DD6: 5 and 2 (both 22.22% in terms of probabilities)

STR = 5 + 2 = 7

STR = 3 + 5 = 8

STR = 3 WINS.

Roll 2DD6: 5 and 4 (again both 22.22% in terms of probabilities)

STR = 5 + 4 = 9

STR = 3 + 5 = 8

STR = 5 WINS.

Again how does this work???

Same as before STR = 5 rolls and adds up "Face B" and STR = 3 rolls and adds up "Face A". Do you see how this normalized set of dice perform WELL TOGETHER???

Anyhow I've specified the AnyDice notation in the event you want to try some rolls and figure out if this is of INTEREST to you (or not). In any event, it's been fun doing the analysis and finding VALID arguments for the use of these specialized dice ...

Regards.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
TBH ... The COMBAT seem to be very promising!

But in many cases, I actually require a 1D3... Which doesn't exist except for a CUSTOM D6 dice with the faces {1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3}. Well TBH I don't want a SINGLE die for this especially when custom when I can have a STANDARD-compatible 1DD6 that does BOTH Normal D6 odds, plus the 1D2 and 1D3 plus some of the EXTRA probabilities and distributions we've been discussing.

Even if this COMBAT is not for you... I'm sure I'll find some use for it EVENTUALLY... I'll keep it in mind, in the event that I need a SIMPLE but a bit more EFFECTIVE of a combat resolution mechanic.

Like I said: "Ideally I would want to have at most 2DD6s per player." And if the game is a DUEL (2-Players) well I will have the dice EXACTLY for that purpose...

TBD how things move forwards... It's hard to AVOCATE for something that is a bit NEBULOUS. Yes we can talk about normalized distributions, other probabilities, and randomness in a Card Game ... But sometimes you need a HOOK or something by which you can SELL the game with.

And obviously this is something that I will work-out when I find a game that matches what my dice are offering. Otherwise it's a bit of a NOVELTY item at best. At this point I am NOT trying to sell the dice. I figure such a SIMPLE and effective combat mechanic could be useful in ANY game put forth (at some point in time).

In any event, if I haven't explained things sufficiently, just ask me some questions and I'll do my best to respond.

Sincerely.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I don't think I want a

I don't think I want a normalized distribution because if I roll vs TN with 2D6 which creates a normal distribution (a la catan), that means that the difference between the units can change according to their values.

For example, if unit STR 2 fight STR 3, the probabilities are way different than STR 7 VS STR 8 even if there is just 1 point of difference in both situations.

So the solution is either use only 1 die (maybe a D10 or D12 for bigger range) , either use a pair of D6 that gives even probabilities between 1 and 12 (I am not sure if such thing exist, I think I have seen this in the past).

I like the idea of having unit stats between 1-10, or 0-9, but the dice value does up to 12.

Hmm! by thinking about it, the binomial distribution on a 2+ for D6 gave a very good probability to hit the same as the unit strength increasing predictability. The fun thing with binomial, is that I could change the TN to 3+ or 4+ if I want more chaos.

If I just roll 1D10 under unit STR, a unit with STR 3 would only get 30% chance to hit, that is very weak, it could lead to a lot of battles in stalemate.


Binary resolution

I think units would have to be way more reliable. Here is another alternative that could fit for a CCG:

Heads or Tail: Each unit has 2 STR value, if you hid HEAD, you get value A, if you hit TAIL, you get value B.

A coin could be used, but also a mark could be put on the cards. You just flip a card and put it at the bottom of the deck. The problem is that with deck building, you could trample with those odds and have unfair head or tails. There is only 2 mitigation method I have found so far:

  • You use your opponent's deck to determine your combat value.
  • Some units have head as a strong value, others uses tail.

So you could design only a deck of TAIL cards, with cards that are stronger with TAIL, but if you use your opponent's deck for resolution, it's less likely to be a problem.

The other downside, is that it change the impact of trampling with your deck of cards. Putting certain cards on the top of your deck could ensure the next battle have max STR.

Also, cards which are duplicates could have different head and tail icons, and maybe even value. That could be more a printing issue since there are more unique cards, not really sure the impact here. Maybe print on demand does not care. Digital cards game really don't care.

It's very convenient mechanically, but the odds will not be 50/50, and a player could take advantage of it. Maybe it's a good thing, it would add even more strategy to the deck building.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut