The Legend of Dev Diary: The Diary Begins

Oh cool so DM stlye playing is a potential possibility! That would be an awesome thing to see in the game. Is PvP "Hero vs Hero" a possibility as well. That would make Multiplayer that much more diverse and interesting.

 

Woo! New card! Draw power is potent in every game, so expect to see this card in any deck it can actually be played in. I suspect it may be a 'classless' equipment, due to Superb Tactics being the source, but I could be wrong. Yay for speculation! Also, it is interesting to see a non-item, non-monster source for a card.

 

I had a quick question after Dev. Diary #6 that maybe someone more knowledgable can handle for me--are our decks (decks! I didn't even consider all three! Shows what I know) made up entirely of equipped card suites, or are some individual cards sprinkled in? Also, how many things can we equip? This latest post has me even more excited to get my hands on this game, but I want to be accurate for my daydreaming.

 

I looked, and I could only find these quotes:

We do not know how an "Ogre deck's card" could get into our deck yet. It could easily be that Stunning Bash (the card in question) is just available in lots of card suites, like the Hypothetical Thudding Mace of Awesomeness. And being told that "equipment isn't all there [is] in the game" does not imply that non-equipment pieces will be immune to the idea of card suites.

That is, specifically, information with which we have been tantalized, and for which we wait.

Anyway, here's my reaction to the diary:

So they've officially gone the "yes, these are drawback cards, now you're gonna have to strategize" route. There is discussion in the comments, and within the post itself for that matter, on whether the game is ruined for all time by introducing the limits and handicaps of card suites and drawbacks. (I'm exaggerating.) I go back to what I said before: it's a different game this way, and that gives the game a reason to exist. The analogy to mana colour in Magic is probably a good one, because of course Magic players are used to playing within the limits. Rules make the game. (Lack of rules makes Calvinball.)

Also, I saw the comment that argued "by putting limits on the deck-builder, you've made it less of a card game." Interesting thought. It is, of course, assuming card games only have One True Ruleset: my response then is to copy and paste my last paragraph. But if this ruleset truly is far outside the norm, then this is a good thing for the mission statement: "chunkier" equipment like this is closer to what you get in tabletop gaming. The more aspects that actually feel like they belong in a tabletop RPG, the more tabletop fans will like it.

 

I think this is very likely the case.

I'll just pipe up and say that the card suite/drawback thing sounds perfectly fine to me. I'm sure it'll continue to congeal into something solid and fun as Blue Manchu (and eventually all of us) play and tweak it.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. As long as there are options to make decks with zero drawbacks--which appears to be the case--or to choose to go higher risk/greater reward, I think this option actually gives players more (or at the very least, different and interesting) strategic choices. Imagine in MtG being able to lower the casting cost of one card at the cost of raising the cost of another--that 0-mana counterspell would rock when you needed it, but at a price you have to make the decision to pay later. Or maybe at the same time, I'm looking at you Force of Will.

 

A comment from Jon below the post, pertaining to drawback cards: "There is indeed a special rule that says that they must be played. There’s also at least one other special rule associated with those black cards that I will get to in a later diary."

This leads to the question of what, exactly, the special rule(s) is/are. We know the round sequence is as follows from diary 2:

1. Start-of-round effects.
2. Draw.
3. Each player takes a turn. Either play a card from one character's hand or pass.
4. Repeat step 3 until both players have passed in succession.
5. Discard.
6. Go to a new round.

Alright, so, suppose in step 2 that your character Unlucky Sam gets 2 drawbacks, while Awesome Jane and Scintillating Bob each get 2 normal cards. Now how does the forced play work in step 3? Will it be "Unlucky Sam must play drawback 1," "my opponent makes a normal play to kill Scintillating Bob, probably because of the dumb name," "Unlucky Sam must play drawback 2," "my opponent kills Awesome Jane, and I couldn't do a thing about it"? Probably not, since that goes beyond "you have to play them" and into "you have to ignore everything an intelligent player would do and play these drawbacks."

I wager drawbacks will just sit there and pollute a specific character's hand, waiting for you to turn attention to that character. Then, I see two options:

A). You cannot "pass" if you are still holding a drawback. This rule forces you to play drawbacks sometime before the round ends, but it's up to you to choose when.
B). You can do anything you want, but if you select a character with a drawback, then you must play a drawback. This rule allows you a way out: you may refuse to have a drawback-infested character act whatsoever, focusing only on other characters, and then discard safely at step 5.

Which would you prefer: A, B, or otherwise?

 

Oh wow--HAVING to play a drawback at a given time adds a very interesting dimension to their flaws, because they force the game flow in specific (and presumably unwelcome!) directions, a decision potentially outside of the player's hands. Option A you mentioned could possibly provide for more flexibility than B, so as a player I think I'd prefer A--unless of course, passing on a character for a round would actually hurt you less than the drawback.

Either way, deck thinning like Inspirational Thinking, tutors, or deck manipulation cards take on an even greater importance to try to avoid the "old maids" in your decklist, or to get them out of the way when they would hurt the least.

 

I'm not sure if it could work this way. Wouldn't you just always play all your character's Block and Armor cards first and then play Dropped Guard?

I think part of the point is that it "whammies" you. Let's say you're holding on to a Pinning Spear Toss, waiting for the right moment to play it, but then you draw Fumble and are immediately forced to play it and discard Spear Toss. This forces you to play defensively this turn, probably by using your basic move card to skitter away with your tail between your legs. Them's the breaks, and is one of the risks of playing a deck with Drawbacks.

 

Yay! That will improve the experience. Giving the "must play" command to cards with clear benefits would make it a more rounded game mechanic: there is just a subset of events in the game which the player cannot control.

Speaking of things the player doesn't control, are you going to talk about environmental effects and/or traps and/or anything like that sometime?

 

There is of course a another couple of options - you just can't discard drawbacks - A with that option feels too free and able to be played around, B with that option feels quite good - other characters can see he is about to stumble and try to save him, but he will stumble as his first action this turn.

 

Are you ready to iterate?? They sure are!

http://www.cardhunter.com/2011/09/dev-diary-7-iterative-development/

. . . Okay, I don't know what sort of game show host I was trying to channel there. Regardless, I am amused by the idea of dramatically throwing "organization" and "discipline" to the wind. It sounds like the approach becomes similar to a personal, non-committee work process. That hypothetical line directed at Tess could have been something I said at any point in any creative project: "hey self, keep working on the [current goal] and try to address the list of improvements . . . "

My view on the logo:



This looks like interior art for any of a number of 80's or 90's fantasy publications. It has charm.

 

That right there is the correct argument. The "details" and the "whole" have to go together. And as you can probably guess, I recently had some disagreements about game design that influenced my phrasing when talking to you. Thank you, I feel better.

Actually . . . not "any" art work. I realized that with the modules having a reduced palette, their cover art (which otherwise is the same style as everything else) is an inch closer to the sketchy and monochromatic discarded logo. If they wanted, they could deliberately go with two styles: lush "cartoony" full color, and sketchy "cheap printout" monochromatic.