In reverse order of your post, Roshirai . . . For Maze of the Mind, I keep wondering about the "Orange can mean deck manipulation" side. You listed a number of "special effects," but can you think of any useful situation for reacting to another player's deck? Perhaps something that prevents the opponent's next drawn card: "Ah, you attacked me with melee, so I block it with Shield Block and then draw a card! . . . Or, whoa, I guess I don't get to draw a card, because you just reacted to my reaction. You jerk." Possible, but it doesn't sound very fun to me. Any other speculation? (Color effect used because I could.) Thinking about blocking in general, I noted "Block Any" is pretty darn expansive. "Any," and 2/3 of the time in this case. When I first saw that, I wondered how wise it was. "Pretty basic but useful"? Yeah, looks like blocking enemy attacks is easy, and the main cost to you is the opportunity cost of not drawing other cards you might have used. Again, it's interesting to me that "Any" means either material or magical attacks. No special properties of, say, Arcing Zap that keep your metal shield from blocking it. This suggests a low total number of themed attacks and vulnerabilities: why make a "block anything except silver weapons" quality when you could just hand your werewolf a "Block Any" shield and it would do fine?
Great speculation, as always Roshirai. I would suggest you consider the thematic intent of "Maze of the Mind". What kind of reaction might it be? What kind of card might trigger something called that?
Elemental vulnerabilities and resistances... yep, they are in the game. What kind of fantasy RPG wouldn't have fire elementals that are resistant to fire?
That's an excellent summary, Roshirai! You left very little for me to add. But that hasn't particularly stopped me before! Ahem, one box at the bottom of Shield Block indicates type and success -- the box on the left, where damage would be on an Attacking card. Thus left box = type and strength of effect, where strength may be a absolute value (damage or healing) or an indication of probability (reactions and possibly others). Maybe a Dastardly Curse of Instant Death kills the target but has only 50% chance of success -- similarly useful for the more prosaically named Turn Undead. Maze of the Mind has two boxes: the box on the right is where range sits on the other cards we've seen. Does it have a limited radius of effect, or is this box used for different purposes on reaction cards? (Perhaps for number of uses, which Shield Block doesn't have.) Right now I believe that the star icon simply means Maze of the Mind reacts to Magical attacks. (Remember, we saw a similar icon indicating magic on the old card renders.) You point out that the updated color rules indicate a "special effects" card, but not being red, white, or purple would seem to rule out status effects on either owner or instigator. All kinds of card manipulation effects or things "that don't fit into the above" are still open for guessing though. I assume there is also an as yet unseen icon for a Parry card type that blocks only Weapon attacks. After all, you can use your Flaming Sword to stop a Kobold Miner's pickaxe pretty easily; it's a quite different feat to stop an Arcing Zap without a shield. (Edit: I just realized Jon said not too long ago that he would talk about both Block and Armor cards, so my question on whether Armor cards are still in is moot.) I will also hazard a guess that if Armor cards still exist as such -- they might not be part of the reworked system -- then they have the same color, i.e. Green = Damage Protection. Because it occurs to me that one could would define Armor differently from Block: where Blocking cards negate an attack at a probability representing a character's ability/inability to react, Armor cards instead offer a damage reduction that you are wearing constantly. Consider this image: These are the old version of the cards, obviously, but Jon very thoughtfully provided an entire dev diary explaining the old version of the cards. Thanks, Jon! Look at the Chop card first: we know from the diary that in the box listing " 5 / 3 " the 5 refers to speed and the 3 refers to damage. Now look at Defiant Armor and see that it also has a speed and a "negative" damage. Parry on the other hand has a speed rating but no damage modifier. It definitely suggests that in the old version they had two parallel systems of reacting to incoming attacks. So until Jon or another guest blogger explains otherwise, why not believe Armor cards are still around? My speculation runneth over!
Look how many posts came up while I was typing. Not quite the same as fire elementals, but in Flagstaff: Chapter Three the ice and fire demons combined their realms into the Twin Caves of Excessive Humidity. Jon seems to be steering us away from deck manipulation for Maze of the Mind. Combined with my speculation that it reacts to magic, how about a card that changes the target of a magic spell? It causes the caster to become confused and target his or her own teammate(s). That could explain why it would need a range number in the right-hand box, since the character wearing the Puppeteer's Headband has to have a target in sight in order to influence the "puppet" to cast a spell at it.
I think Maze of the Mind reacts to... reactions, no wait... could it be movement or teleportation? The Headband's other cards allows the character to move other people. I think it'd make sense thematically for the remaining card to prevent movement instead.
Well, if so, I wonder where you will go from here. What sort of block ratios can we expect? If the basic type can do 4/6, it implies that superior cards will do 5/6, 6/6, and then that's that. It's easy to guess that other cards which don't grant "Block Any," but instead block just some specific type like "Fire," will be at or near perfect 6/6 values, otherwise they would be less valuable than a basic shield. It makes sense for a Fire Elemental's inherent fire resistance to be perfect, sure. Anything weaker and I can see myself playing with very few non-"Block Any" blocking cards--unless I know I'm up against, say, dragonbreath. Edited P.S.: when I write this stuff, is it clear I'm not grousing? I'm not grousing, just thinking. I've never even looked "grousing" up in a dictionary. Edited P.P.S.: I have now looked "grousing" up in a dictionary.
I think you're thinking about this at too micro a level. Because cards like Shield Block are always going to be found within card suites, it's OK if there's not a huge amount of variation within that particular card class. The variation would instead come from the individual pieces of equipment. Imagine a world with only three flavors of Shield Block. You could still have pieces of equipment that have varying numbers of each type of Block, pieces that mix and match the different flavors together, pieces that mix the best flavor of Block with some particularly hazardous Drawbacks, and so on. You could probably create a couple dozen shield card suites just with the three basic Blocks and some other non-Block cards. Thus, since we all know that there's likely going to be more than three types of Shield Block in the final game, I wouldn't worry too much about there not being any space left to go design-wise.
Just a quick bit of feedback: When I look at the die icon with three spots showing, I think, "Three -- that's half of six, so it's a 50% chance." I know you explained otherwise, that the three is the inclusive lower threshold and represents a 4/6 chance. And yet... I've played computer RPGs for my fantasy gaming and thus I've never had to roll my own dice; the mental training just isn't there. I'm sure that I can adjust with time, but I want to ask whether you guys have had a design discussion about using the converse symbolization, in this case four pips representing a roll of 1, 2, 3, or 4 on a six-sided die. With that nomenclature the higher numbers are the better odds up to a perfect 6/6, and more obviously inclusive to any "new" players lacking in dice-rolling experience. The part of my mind that always argues with myself immediately points out that my plan is contrary to the retro vibe of the game and to the normal procedure in d20 type games where rolling higher gets the "good" result. So whatever you decide I can accept, I just feel it needs to be said. P.S. When written out, as in "roll a 3 or better," I'm just fine with it. It's the icon that confuses my brain. I think it's because the pictorial representation strongly translates to "three" rather than "three or greater."
This is an interesting point. We talked about this a lot before settling on a system. I think you hit on what was the deciding factor for us - most RPGs use a system where you have to roll a number of higher to succeed at a task. Also, I think people expect rolling high numbers to be better. So, if you roll a 6, you'd expect to be doing well. One thing that might help is just putting a little "+" symbol next to the die icon. That might imply that you have to roll this number or higher to succeed.
Yes, I believe that would help quite a lot. As I continued to think about it through the day, I even considered a similar solution, but I was using the numeral '3' instead of finding a way to keep the pictorial icon (not as well versed in graphic design, I suppose). For me, a die showing three is nothing more nor less than a three, and in this case I also need another layer of interpretation about what "three" means in the game rules. It would make it easier/faster/more obvious to process if an additional symbol is included to convey the extra information. Echoing Sir Knight: if you have space, please go for it!
Roshirai makes it impossible for me to add input to the conversation cause he covers everything I would want to say =(
skip_intro has a point: as I said earlier, part of my problem is that this is not a mechanic that I've really had to deal with in my previous gaming. (When I did, the authors wrote out the long form or used numerals to convey the threshhold, not pictographs.) I feel just taking part in this discussion has helped to train my brain to see more than the pips on the die. With that in mind, I would also suggest/request that the design team make sure there are several of these die-rolling cards in the starter deck(s) and even feature a couple of them in the tutorial/earliest levels. (Edit: I think that already would be the case, just from how block cards are used, but it doesn't hurt to ask!) Then everyone will have practical experience at reading and using these cards, and hopefully experience is the best teacher. P.S. On a related note, do you have a die-throwing animation set up? It's a great opportunity to evoke the faux-tactile boardgame environment and enhance the player "reaction" to game events even when the computer makes an automatic move. This too helps with the learning experience. Edit: P.P.S. Even if die-rolling cards are introduced early, I would still feel more comfortable with my '+' symbol, please.
Oh, so it's YOUR plus symbol now, eh? You're looking forward to, what, the plus design silhouetted against a mushroom background? Or maybe an asterisk symbol (next to the plus symbol (next to the die symbol)) connecting to a notice that reads "Copyright 2011 mightymushroom"? You heard him, Jon. Solidarity among the mushrooms and all that.
That actually sounds pretty cool I think some people would even pay for having cooler looking dice when they roll.
There's a previous discussion in another thread about dice rolling animation(s). I'm in the "nice once, but would turn it off quickly" camp on this.
I have to respectfully choose the other camp. The concern that particulary worried people in that discussion was repetitiveness. Well, it's an indie game. There won't be a million different animations or particle effects, and you'll see repeats whatever happens. I say accept it for what it is. Would you rather have a display with no animations at all, just some numbers changing on a spreadsheet? 'Cause the game is not on the screen, it's the experience of the game that's on the screen. As long as the game flows well and has a consistent art direction, I think players will be happy. To bring my argument back to the card analysis topic, I have to say my bigger concern is multiplayer. If both players see dice being rolled (as would happen in a real-life game), then the blocking card is at least partially revealed even when the card doesn't come into play. Does (should?) the design call for Reaction cards to be revealed when they could activate, or only when they actually play?
