Zombie CCG: What I Want, pt 5

Apparently, I have Google’s top result when people search for “Zombie CCG.”
Because my initial ideas were sound, and I don’t see any reason I
wouldn’t firmly grasp this sliver of internet relevance, I’m continuing
that project.

Story & Flavor

CCGs are inimical to storytelling because they are—by definition—random, and stories are structured. CCGs do better at evoking atmosphere. That said, a game without any evocative nature is just pushing cards with numbers around a table. Games are fun because events happen; Putting 3 tokens onto to a card that is put into a discard pile whenever it has 3 or more tokens on it isn’t fun; Lighting Bolting a Putrefax is fun.

On the other hand, the ability of a game to reflect real world objects (or objects very similar to real-world objects) has to be balanced by simplicity. Sure, buildings can be damaged, people can be injured or infected, guns can run out of ammo, but how much time and effort should a game spend trying to track all of these status effects? Not only does it take time and rules, but it also requires non-card elements.

Trying to get the mechanics so that players feel like they're controlling survivors barely escaping from zombie hordes without bogging down the game in (exploitable) mechanics is one the key objectives I have. Whenever a player uses a gun, it should feel like they're blasting zombies apart and like they're expending a diminishing resource. Whenever they go to a new location, there should be a moment of tension: will there be enough food, medicine, and weapons...or will there only be more zombies?

The Wrap-Up

Every game is a craps-shoot. I don't know if I can make engaging gameplay that feels like a desperate run for you life versus hordes of undead that's also merely a larger chapter in a tome and usually leaves both (or more!) players laughing. I think if I leave that as my four-point mission statement I can't fuck more than four things or so up.

Zombie CCG: What I Want, pt 4

Apparently, I have Google’s top result when people search for “Zombie CCG.”
Because my initial ideas were sound, and I don’t see any reason I
wouldn’t firmly grasp this sliver of internet relevance, I’m continuing
that project.

Variety/Simplicity

A CCG’s ability to play through a deck multiple times in different ways and to house surprising card interactions stand as one of it’s major merits. Knowing that something different and unexpected can happen is the spark of any game. However, everyone who’s played Magic hasn't been land screwed,or drawn an early game card when they needed a late game card. The randomness can be entertaining, or disappointing. No one wants to lose a game because they drew eight lands straight; it’s not fun or interactive. It’s not even a test of skill; its just an inevitable slog of successive turns of hope followed by dashed hope.

In addition, complexity creep is a problem for a lot of CCGs. Simple rules that rely on cards to develop them mean that players are pulling rules instead of cards from their packs(again, Star Trek CCG). God forbid they want certain play style and can’t find a relevant rules card. Depending on implementation, even getting those rules into effect may force them to forgo alternative, more beneficial play options. On the other hand, no one really wants to play through a 50 page rule book for a game. Magic has an extensive game rules PDF, but its quick-start guide is a giant, fold-out page that’s easily accessible and understandable. A CCG should be that simple to start playing, but come with significant nuance to allow added rules to be “plugged in” organically.

That simple rule base can hurt nuanced play, as well as the versatility of some cards. Having a rule system that keeps order and can cut in game actions/effects both ways is a hard balance to find.

Finally, I’d like to talk about purity. Purity, for the present context, is the play of the game without setting up actions outside of the play area. A game’s premise is affects tone, and playing within that premise is the lure of many players. While to some degree, all CCGs are about card advantage and resource management, those are necessary evils to play a game in a card-based medium and building up from earlier stages to later stages of the game creates a feeling of progression.

Fostering consistency, simplicity, and purity without harming versatility or exploration is hard. I don't really think I'm talented enough to balance these points; I don't think the best CCG on the market right now does that, but again, I'm entitled to my fantastical goals.

Zombie CCG: What I Want, pt 3

Apparently, I have Google’s top result when people search for “Zombie CCG.”
Because my initial ideas were sound, and I don’t see any reason I
wouldn’t firmly grasp this sliver of internet relevance, I’m continuing
that project.



Interaction/Quick Play

Interaction is more than simply responding to another player’s actions; it’s the ability of game elements to have effects on one another and for a player to react to another player’s ability to make an instant, winning play. No one wants to play a game where one card will essentially win you that game instantly. At that point the game becomes about playing that card. A card that builds the game in a direction of victory will spur more action by interacting. In addition, the utilization of differing victory conditions means that one or both players can win, as a player can keep playing after victory is achieved, just to stymie their opponent. The win/lose model is simple, but not necessary.



On the other hand, long complicated games with no point aren't fun either. Even if forward momentum is hard to stop, it can still get set back. Putting the game into overtime where only one player is left, the game can get long. Without power cards(see the post on "Equivocal"), the same thing can happen.



Games that take a long time to play are, logically, not played much. Games with a quick turnaround time can be played far more and can provide (over a period of time) a more even probability curve. Battletech isn’t great for many, many, reasons, but the two that combine like a roach-flavored snow-cone  and melted-rubber topping are randomness and time. One unlikely critical hit in the early came can lead to a long, slow game which promises the faint chance of hope in the form of a reciprocated shot, but doesn’t deliver. Ever.



That is not fun. One idea-if victory conditions can be played as other cards, is that they have a rider--in the case of my Zombie game, this is the classic “twist” at the end--where the player who isn’t winning can play a particular type of card(s) to counter or diminish the victory card’s win. Discarding win/lose isn't about not having winners and losers, it's about scaling victory and loss. Competition should be efficient and nuanced, not necessarily quick or widgety.



Tomorrow: Fun stuff.

Zombie CCG: What I Want, pt 2

Apparently, I have Google’s top result when people search for “Zombie CCG.”
Because my initial ideas were sound, and I don’t see any reason I
wouldn’t firmly grasp this sliver of internet relevance, I’m continuing
that project.

Options/Denial


A player should have options. Two of the most important options are hope and potence (most commonly represented by drawing cards and playing cards, respectively). Hope is the anticipation of a reversal of a game's current unfavorable state. Potence is the ability to act to affect the game's state. These two may sound similar. In fact, potence must be felt to have hope. If a deck has a solution to the threat an opponent poses, then there is hope each time a card is drawn that that card will be that answer (or at least a part of it). Whether that card has the impact on the game state that the player anticipates is another issue entirely; potence. A stalemate condition may have both players without potence, but both may still draw cards which can break the stalemate.

This means that on the one hand, the ability to blunt an established foe’s moves is important, but implies the ability of both players to do so, allowing a winning player to shut down a losing player's chances of a reversal. Changing card effects to reflect game status could avoid these effects being used as part of a ‘win more’ strategy. Victory conditions that praise imbalance and allow a lagging player to pull back a sprinting one by attacking weaknesses which emerge upon nearly victory are also good for this. A system whereby advancement brings risk--karma--would also serve to provide fuel to a player who’s falling behind, or calculated risk for a player to shoot ahead.

Those approaches risk two quickly advancing players short-changing each other, which can cause long games, as each side approaches completion, but can’t quite finish. A less dramatic alternative is to simply have a net Karma; only one player at a time has it, and if the other player gains karma, the other player loses it instead, perhaps utilizing a shifting pool, where a player can’t gain/lose karma unless another player loses/gains karma.

Despite giving lagging players a chance to catch up, the game should make moving forward hard to stop. Using alternative win conditions could give players a “moving target” in terms of being permanently stymied by a stalemate. Instead of trying A and being consistently shut down, a player can pick a victory condition that's much closer to Not A.

Ideally, I'd like to balance versatility of defense with versatility of offense; things should happen in a game, but just what kind of things should happen is a discussion for tomorrow.

Zombie CCG: What I Want, pt 1

Apparently, I have Google’s top result when people search for “Zombie CCG.”
Because my initial ideas were sound, and I don’t see any reason I
wouldn’t firmly grasp this sliver of internet relevance, I’m continuing
that project.

Finding the parameters for a game is the most important part of making it work. I've played games with exceptional depth in terms of representing a universe I was already familiar with, but exceptional shittiness in terms of how that game played (Star Trek). I've played games with very sound rules and elements that explored every facet of a game played with cards, but had a threadbare attachment to their theme (it's actually a very popular game). Both games appeal to me equally, but they both fall short of balancing flavor with gameplay. Balances between all the things a game can be and all the things it should never be are the heart of making CCGs good.

I just want to note that I've designed shit for CCGs. I have no experience in the industry. I've never designed a game, published a story, or even pitched a skit (oh wait, I did, but we don't talk about/remember that). I have two You Tube videos. One is a music video I made in six hours on Window's default video editing software featuring an array of friends and set to Piebald's “Karate Chops for Everyone But Us” and it brings a tear to my eye every time I watch it. The other is six seconds of live footage of my friend Terry playing with a house dog that crawled into his shirt and licks him in the face.

Everyone loves the dog video.

My point is that if I speak authoritatively about this, it's because you don't want to read a long-winded (oh, and it will be long-winded) analysis of CCGs where every paragraph has an "I think" or a "from what I've seen" in front of it. It's shit writing to do that (I think), and instead of that I'm going to write like I know what I'm doing and you're going to give me feedback in the comments section because I don't.

Customizable/Equivocal

It's right in the name. Look, Munchkin is great, but it's not mine. I don't feel ownership for my game of Munchkin. Now, look, losing a Magic game (or ten Magic games in a row) with your deck that has your name on it and is yours sucks more than losing a game of rummy, but it's still worth it to play your way.You make the choices, you make the calls, and eventually, you make the decisions that work for you. It increases investment and that increases enjoyment.

However, having dead-end game elements doesn't give me options. It gives me faux-options. Have you ever seen Viashino Skeleton? It's a 2/1 for four mana. But don't worry, if one toughness isn't enough, you can regenerate it by paying half of its cost in another color and discarding a card. This thing doesn't do anything you want to do well well. Poor cards and good cards might be a necessity, but there's no reason for god-awful or ridiculous cards. The value of the cards a player selects for his deck should be based on the other cards he's playing and the victory he's trying to achieve, there shouldn’t be stillborn cards when a player opens a pack.

I know this is a tall, perhaps unreasonable, order as I say it, “For any given victory condition a deck aims for, there should not be a single card or a sliver of cards necessary to reasonably achieve that victory condition.” Some of this gets into my 'variety' point later, but for right now, let's just say that if every archetype that has two staples, and there are hundreds of cards to choose from, then you need several competing archetypes to make your cards useful. There are three ways to change these parameters: diversify the cards capable of carrying an archetype, diversify the archetypes by varying win conditions, and narrowing the card pool. Ideally, you could implement all three (though the third one is most tricky, since you have people owning cards[presumably by buying them], then you declare them off limits). My main approach, equivocation, addresses the first. If all cards have a similar level of utility, then you have quite a bit of variety.

The conflict comes from keeping those cards equivocal without them feeling 'samey.' What's the point of creating a deck if you can throw any forty (fifty. whatever) cards together to make a deck? What's the point of a card that only works in four archetypes instead of six? Not only does equivocation hurt customizablility, but it faces scaling issues that make it a bitch to actually implement (which kinda works out because those scaling issues do make everything distinct again, but let's not pretend we can't make a heap of generic cards of various effectiveness levels. I have played a lot of CCGs and speak from personal experience when I tell you that shit happens).

The second point, that of diversifying archetypes by varying win conditions, is pretty compelling. Sadly, a variety of attack options can lead to degeneracy, which leads me to my next points of balance...tomorrow.