Character development ideas, or How Many Parts Make a Hero?

It may be premature to start a thread about character development while they are still working out the details, but I don't like to keep posting in the card analysis conversations, either. I hope we can get more info soon, but until then:

The quote above is from Jon in response to a question I had posed as to what degree items would be restricted or open to the various classes, because items = card suites = abilities = role in party. Let me say that it sounds like Blue Manchu has a pretty fun prototype already working, and I encourage you to stick with what works. I'm not saying it couldn't be even more fun, but we're all eager to play and if you do come up with something later there are always expansions.

Now, I haven't played Magic: the Gathering, but after reading Jon's comment I did do some reading on the web. I think the following chart is a reasonable interpolation of the analogy between MtG colors and CH classes:

• White -> Priest. Supportive: healing, party buffs, holy smiting
• Green -> Warrior. Protective: strong attacks, stronger armor, taunts(?)
• Blue -> Rogue. Disruptive: ranged damage, traps, damage over time
• Red -> Wizard. Arcane: elemental magic, enemy de-buffs, randomized effects
• Black -> Barbarian. High Risk/Reward: attack combos, low defense, damage per second

We have in Dev Dairy #6 the "fiery sword" example of how some equipment can utilize cards from more than one of the above categories. And, personally, I like that as an answer: "color bleed" is an organic outgrowth of the item definitions. The individual cards can be regarded as neutral in terms of "MtG color": it is much more the overall sets that create a class personality for CH. I don't believe it will be good to deviate far from each class personality, especially in light of the second half of my speculations.

I realized sometime while thinking/writing my reply that the card suites are flexible enough that class may be only half the story. Characters will be defined by race as well. Dev Diary #3 introduces Dwarves, Elves, and Humans. Diary #8 has the curious hint, "Why do you have a Goblin card in your hand – I don’t know, maybe you ARE a goblin?" To know about character creation in total we need more information on races, so let me officially ask:

Hey Jon, are races in Card Hunter also analogous to Magic's colors or do you use them some other way?

For the rest of my speculations, I'm going to assume the answer is yes, because I like the design space it opens up. Whether I'm correct, I can't say.

• White -> Human. Greater Good: abilities & buffs based on faith, leadership, mutual aid
• Green -> Dwarf. Implacable Might: individual strength, slow advance but never give ground
• Blue -> Elf. Mobility: hit-and-run, backstab, mitigate enemy's strengths
• Red -> Unknown? perhaps elemental or demonic with magic affinity/resistance
• Black -> Goblin. Lethal Trickster: hidden weapons, poisons, opportunistic reactions

Now, for the sake of argument, suppose that races have associated skill and equipment card sets that are just as robust as the class-defined skills and equipment. The card sets are similar but hardly identical in nature. Each character is choice of a Class and a Race: in a three-person party, that's six halves for the player to broadly choose the overall composition/strategies of the decks.

It would be easy to have all five MtG color categories represented in the party, or as few as one. Leaving Magic behind and thinking just in terms of Card Hunter, the five classes and five races form what I would call the ten base sets. Each party can have up to six of the base sets for a broad selection of abilities, but has no more than three of the twenty-five possible combinations so it's hardly an unconstrained choice.

It's also a potentially very flexible system for deck building after your party has already gotten started. Each character can alternate between two roles depending on which half the player chooses to emphasize with equipment in any given battle. More than two roles are possible depending on the design space within each of the base sets, but that goes more to card/item analysis and away from my curent topic.

In theory, we wouldn't need or even desire cross-class or cross-race abilities ("abilities" = "items" + "skills") if we have a chance to pick from an interesting set of combinations. It bears noting, however, that I've only written this whole system and not playtested it.

It's also easily extensible if Blue Manchu wants to add classes or races in the future.

Well, that's the end of my speculation essay about character creation. I now open up the floor to my fellow Card Hunters, and, of course, to the Blue Manchu Crew, to discuss. Were you looking forward to something completely different? Am I just nuts?

P.S. One value in having cross-utilized items and skills is that it economizes the UI and card suite definitions Blue Manchu has to work on. It's okay to start with a good but small item set. I haven't noticed that "collectible" game fans complain very hard about expansion packs, except for their cost, and Jon is trying to find a kindlier business model so that should be okay too.

Edit: P.P.S. If my Speculative Essays* are bothering you, Blue Manchu Crew, just say the word and I'll stop. I know of one author who tells would-be writers, "Don't send manuscripts. I never read in genre; it prevents cross-contamination of ideas."
*(trademark mightymushroom inc.)

 

Interesting thinking (and I'll avoid digressing into my MtG parings here!). I wonder what racial choices will do to character creation--if our equipment dictates our card suites, then presumably there are a bunch of race-specific items out there that add the flavor to each race, which sounds good.

Nevertheless, building on your 5x5 theory of classes and races, I wonder if every race can be every class. If each race can only be some of the classes, do players have to pick their team at the beginning of everything, or do players have the option to pick from every race at the beginning of each adventure? Do I have a representative of each race in my pool of heroes who I can pick at will? Can each of these theoretical racial heroes change classes just by changing gear? This appears to give a very wide possible spectrum of possibilities to players--ranging from "I pick a goblin rogue, human fighter, and elven wizard" at player registration and thats all you get, to "you have a goblin, human, elf, dwarf, and orc--equip them as you see fit"

 

I am rather excited by the idea of our own "stable" of adventurers whom we drag along on campaigns, "raising" them carefully and individually like in a good little pet-raising sim. Erm. Maybe that's a bit beyond where it's really going . . .

Back to the main point, I wouldn't presume the meaning of "Classes in Card Hunter are in many ways analogous to colours in Magic" was specifically "We have five classes." Or, going further, "And those five are copied from Magic." If I told you "Power-ups in my new indie game are analogous to power-ups in Super Mario Bros.," you'd assume I was talking more about the role they serve in the game than their number.

I hope that the races and classes will be whatever works with the "retro RPG" feel for the game. I would have expected Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief, so what to think about the idea of "Barbarian" as a class? It's a specialized variant of something we already have, like with all those other variants such as "Paladin," "Druid," "Warlock," and so on. Or, the contents of this thread.

If they want a bunch of interesting classes, the developers can just keep adding them on beyond the "standard few." And they probably will, because people expect expansions. So, for now, I really don't know what there will be at release.

 

In a similar vein, I was wondering if any specialized variants would exist as a rule, or if variants would just be a matter of deck construction. I.e., you would have a melee class, and then outfit them to act like a warrior, barbarian, paladin, etc. From the information we have so far this seems unlikely, but its an interesting thought.

 

Depends on what you mean. The Heal preview dev diary says that priests won't necessarily have healing spells, which is indicative of a lot of player choice.

 

Oh, good point! Still, I figure if Blue Manchu is working so hard to split the different "flavors" of the classes, this probably won't allow for paladins to turn to barbarians, or wizards to priests. Still, letting a priest go from holy to smiting and back again seems quite realistic.

 

Sir Knight pretty much said what I was going to about the original post: I was assuming that the Magic color pie analogy was an analogy, rather than a straitjacket.

Yeah, we have to think of everything in terms of this now. My guess is perhaps that the Cleric class gets access to a Cleric-only Charm slot, and can thus equip Charm gear that gives them access to "priestly" card suites that may or may not include Heal spells.

I'm thinking that's likely how the classes and races will end up differing: which slots they have available, which unique slots they have access to, what kinds of "starter" card suites those slots get and any restrictions they may or may not have on equipping stuff into slots (no Axes for Priests, and so on). Any talk about "color bleed" between classes is probably limited to the items themselves. Is it cool if a sword gets access to a couple ranged spells? What about a shield that can heal? I imagine these are the sorts of questions that are currently being wrestled with, rather than multi-classing or anything that crazy.

Of course, what does that mean for the Superb Tactics card suite? Is there a Tactics slot? A Brain slot?

 

Roshirai could be right. In addition to the general paperdoll equipment slots, characters could have additional slots for class/race/specialization. Take a look at the Brain Drain preview: it lists its source as "Mentalism," or the Inspirational Thinking preview: its source is "Superb Tactics". Those don't sound like items, they sound like class specializations. In the Heal preview, Jon mentioned a cleric didn't have to be just about heals, it could be focussed on combat or buffs/debuffs. Maybe thats's where specialization "items" come in.

 

Yes, because when D&D tossed out the idea "You know, you could specialize your religious person to be from a specific sect with special rules, like, maybe, not using bladed weapons," it set a rule in stone that no one may defy, ever.

(Except they did just that in Thief II. I'm so happy for them.)

 

I would have called the color chart a template rather than a straitjacket. I admit to dissecting the analogy in terms of, "Magic has five colors and that works pretty well as a division of play types, so why reinvent the wheel?" It's not so much that classes are "copied" from Magic as that you have to divide the possible actions/roles of your fantasy game into different categories in which the various characters specialize, and five is a handy number with a successful precedent. Putting up the conversion chart may have been a step too far -- that does feel a bit like a straitjacket, sorry -- but if I cover the colors with my hand I still like the categories that the five-way division produces; and the five classes are not random, they are the classes I have seen in the blog.

What A Bear calls the 5x5 theory works equally well at 7x3 or 20x20. My point is that races have just as much potential as classes to be a focus for character specialties. It's a break from typical fare where race is a one-time decision, but "retro-styled" is not the same as "hidebound." Card Hunter has already previewed some expansive new ways to run a dungeon crawler.

Speaking of new ideas, I was thinking of skills as unlocking on a tree, with a unique tree for each class and each race to level through. But the "Brain Slot" so clearly fits the idea of equipping card suites that it just might be true. I suppose you couldn't have every skill on the tree active at once, or your deck would just keep growing and growing.

Personally, I don't care for the idea of unique gear slots or some classes missing a slot. It always irked me that some characters got a helmet and others didn't: when people start swinging maces at your head you don't stop to check Ye Olde Rulebooke. I would throw out restrictions defined on the class in favor of restrictions defined on the item, such as Poison Arrows: equip Rogue or Goblin. And I really would mean that any Rogue or any Goblin could have it; I want my character's race to make a difference in the gear they carry and the skills they learn. It may be that there are no axes in the world suited to the "Priestly" style of play, but my Dwarf Priest will still feel more comfortable with one in hand when the Dire Wolves are charging. Each item could be defined as belonging to just one or two of the possible classes and races. I think that gives plenty of specialization without adding special slot rules.

 

Sorry, Knight... It was just an example of a possible equipment restriction, not an expression of an actual opinion on Priest weaponry.

Pretend I said "no Gadgets for Technomancers" or "no Loaded Dice for Mushrooms" instead.

So, two Whiskey Sours into a particularly rainy San Francisco evening, the two ways I can indeed think of to restrict equipment to particular races and classes...

1. Restrict specific items to particular race and class combinations on a case-by-case basis
2. Restrict types of items to particular race and class combinations

These both accomplish the same thing, but I'd probably argue that 2) does it more elegantly. It's far easier to explain to a new player the difference between classes in terms of the latter: "Oh, Priests? They can equip Light Armors, Medium Armors, Shields and Maces. They're also the only class that can equip Charms, which give them access to healing/protection magic." Contrast that with the Priest who can equip most of the Light and Medium Armors in the game, some Shields, at two ultra-rare Swords and at least one Pair of Loaded Dice.

A lot of this speculation depends, of course, on where a character gets the majority of his/her spells from. A Spellbook slot or equivalent? Their staff/wand/focus that takes up a traditional equipment slot? Their "Brain Slot"*?

* My new favorite metaphor. It's not just the bourbon talking.

 

I'm split on this. I always used to be 'class agnostic' when I played old skool D&D, based mainly on an article in Imagine which described how to logically cross train using gold instead of the 1gp = 1xp paradigm. The main thrust was that your thief could pay to gain fighter skills, for example, to enable them to use the better combat table or your barbarian could gain 'spot traps' etc.

This lead to characters not being so hide bound and 'cookie cutter', I think.

However, Roshirai makes the very good point that someone coming into Card Hunter 'cold' would not necessarily get the reasons why your cleric can only wield a Hammer, but would understand a 'class based' system relatively quickly.

 

But Loaded Dice are my Racial Bonus! No Fair!

It seems that we are expecting vastly different levels of gear sharing. Ever since Diary #5 introduced, "These are all Arcane Items, for Wizards of course," I have been speculating on the assumption that most items are heavily pushed to one class or another. In short, the case-by-case already exists and no one but a Wizard gets to wear a Wizard's Ring despite the fact Barbarians have fingers too. (Incidentally, I think the same diary answers your question about where 'spells' come from. There is no book, but the sum total of equipped card suites whether Body or Brain*.)

I would argue that you shouldn't tell a newbie that Priests wear Light & Medium Armors, wield Hammers, and carry Charms. That plan may work for RPG systems full of gear like Chain Mail, Chain Mail +1, Chain Mail +2, in which one answer ("Medium Armor") covers a lot of nearly identical stuff. In contrast, the devs' ability to mix and match any cards into suites suggests that no Card Hunter item needs to be a marginally better clone of the item in front of it. I expect the selection to look more like Chain Mail, Ulric's Chainmail of Warding, Elven Ranger's Mail, Barabarian's Loose & Breezy Chain, etc.

Even in prior RPG's, class-based restrictions are only a general prediction of what you might have. Your actual equipped items are always specific items that you buy/loot and compare to other specific items to find which one is preferable. I say, when the newbie finds a loot drop labelled Ducal Coronet (head): equip Human, then she will see right away which of her three characters can wear it, and just a click to inventory and a mouseover on her current head slot gives the necessary comparison. How much more elegant can you be?

*(c) 2011 Roshirai

 

No need for concern, I just wanted the opportunity to toss out my opinion on the matter. Pool of Radiance, the novel, gave an actual in-world explanation for the banishment on bladed weapons, and that was kinda cool. No one else has bothered, and that's sloppy of them. D&D did it, so it's taken as "right."

I'm fine with it if they must do the call back to tradition. So long as Card Hunter doesn't have trolls that inexplicably regenerate despite a complete lack of mythological precedent, I'll be alright.

Excellent! I've been so ticked when I run across mushrooms with loaded dice. Here I am, trying to slice them up for dinner, and chungk there a die loaded right in the middle.

The Technomancers might wonder why you took their Gadgets away, though.

 

Hard to say. I think it depends a lot on what your definition of "marginally better" is. Even a pretty basic card like Solid Mail could end up in a pretty wide variety of card suites, each of varying strength. How much better is a piece of gear with 3 Solid Mails than a piece of gear with 2 Solid Mails and a Fumble? 3 Solid Mails v. 4 Solid Mails? 3 Solid Mails v. 2 Solid Mails and an ability?

So, if we're calling a "Medium Armor" any Armor card that has one of the game', let's say, 3 Mail cards as part of its suite, that's a pretty huge number of items, all of which share a pretty defining trait: they provide some number of Mail cards for defense. I feel like that would make for a pretty significant range of equipment that can still be easily classified for the purposes of "class requirements".

Wow, this discussion has become really meta, even for us.

 

I think the hard to kill Trolls of D&D were inspired by Three Hearts & Three Lions. Not quite "mythology", but what are myths other than stories...?

 

Without even delving into the issue of a flaming sword giving you a fireball 'spell'. Can BoredFlak the Mage wield it? Or Fingers the Rogue?

 

Well, they sure weren't the ones from The Hobbit.

Speaking of which, I'd rather have Hobbits instead of Halflings in Card Hunter if at all possible. Might not be, but hey.

 

It is very meta, because Jon's revealed next to nothing about items: they are equipped to a paperdoll and they have card suites. Lots of unknowns to speculate and disagree on!
I feel like we might be arguing over two different sections of the big picture. You're talking about commonalities among armor that can be used to create a category, while I'm talking about differences that defy categories. I guess I'm just inventing more wacky and silly items than you.

Hiking Boots

Feet: equip any​

Cards: 3 x Walk​

Text: "These boots were made for walking, and that's just what they'll do."​

vs.

Librarian's Slippers

Feet: equip Wizard​

Cards: 1 x Fireball, 1 x Lightning Bolt, 1 x Acid Rain, 1 x Fungal Rot​

Text: "It is said the Keeper of Scrolls at the Temple of Dread Gollozzon knows more ways to kill a man than any other wizard."​

So what's the margin? The first is a very straightforward item that could be the default for any or every class and race. (Probably it won't be now, 'cause I jinxed it.) The second is chock full of Arcane spells and should go to the class that specializes in Arcane magic.

I reject the premise that all boots are defined by movement cards, all armor items are defined by the number of their armor cards. I'm thinking of armors that have 2 Solid Mails and 2 extra abilities vs. one with 2 Solid Mails and 2 different abilities vs. one with 2 Solid Mails and 2 still different extras vs. something worn in the chest slot that doesn't have armor cards at all.

In D&D and its many successors, you have one default offense: your weapon; and even moreso one basic defense: your armor. Everything you wear is geared toward that THAC0 vs. AC die roll. In Card Hunter the interaction isn't pitting two numbers against each other; we are using card effects and those can be anything at all. I'm hoping that "anything" is the norm rather than the occasional specialty item, and I have issues with generalized class restrictions when potentially every item is a unique artifact.

My version would be pretty wild and it's tricky to competitively balance if there aren't easy points of comparison among items for the same slot. Lots of fun pulling surprise spells out of my slippers, though!

I'm starting to wonder if there are two paperdolls, the Body Doll for physical gear and the Brain Doll for skills and knowledge.

Edit: 'Brain Doll' sounds creepy. How about we stick with a Brain Slot, maybe on the Spirit Doll.

 

If I had my way, no. If Roshirai had his way, no (I think - because mages aren't allowed to use swords, not so sure about rogues).

In Jon's example, the Flaming Sword has 3? x Stab, 1 x Fireball, and maybe 1 x Parry.
Consider the revised card colors. Under these rules, Stab and Fireball are both red Attacks. Overall, this is a very offensive weapon, and the Stabs mean the wielder has to engage in melee to use it fully. According to my 5x5 chart, the sum of the cards is more suited to a Warrior or a Barbarian, never mind that the Fireball is "Arcane."

Your mileage may vary depending on how you define your classes.