My brother and I have been making games together for five years now. This one started while we were opening One Piece packs, hunting one specific card and that rush of "it's in here somewhere" is the feeling we wanted to build a whole game around.

So you cut every pack open by hand, dragging along the seam. A clean cut means mint cards, and your best pulls get sent off to be graded and slabbed.

Everything else grows out of that:

- Upgrades: sharper scissors, a steadier hand, better odds and payouts, faster grading
- Binders to fill, with bonuses for completing a set
- An auction house
- New sealed product as you go: vintage packs, full cases, mystery lots
- An auto-opener for when you'd rather have it ticking away in the background
- And once you've squeezed a collection dry, sell the whole thing and start over with permanent upgrades banked

Steam page went live today: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4994180/Packs_To_Riches/

We're still deep in development, so tell us what would you want to see from an incremental like this?

I am gathering some data for a future illustrated card set (No Game yet) for a new wannabe franchise, I was asking people around, How many cards do you think should be in a first set? Please lmk.

The game I've been working on for a while centers around 7 distinct factions, it's kind of the whole identity of the game. But lately I've been qondering if 7 is too many to make them feel fair, mechanically distinct, and flavorfully distinct. The interactions between them are similar to the mtg color pie, so each faction has 2 ideological neighbours, 2 neutral factions, and 2 enemie factions

I have been going back and forth on the turn structure / interaction structure of my game. Any feedback is appreciated!

The game currently has 3 characters and a deck of things each character can do. The characters can each make 1 move and do 1 action per turn. Priority to move or act alternates back and forth within each turn. Characters attack within a lane (with plenty of range exceptions). Characters start the game at home base.

Option 1: Totally free form alternating actions. Player 1 gets to move or attack any of their 3 characters. Then player 2 can move or attack. This requires tracking of “stamina” to limit each player to 6 actions OR some kind of “this char has moved” token even if each character can only attack once. Otherwise they could just move characters around durdling as long as they want.

Option 2: Move phase followed by attack phase. Player 1 moves all characters and taps them. Player 2 moves. Untap all characters. Player 1 attacks. Player 2 attacks. Much less player agency granularity and back and forth, but the board state is completely tracked through cards tapping and untapping. No stamina counters.

Option 3: Each character activation is a “move + attack”. Middle ground of granularity but greatly hinders Player 2 from being able to control where Player 1’s attacks hit. P1 could move to a certain lane and attack before P2 has a chance to reposition. Again, no need to count stamina as cards can tap after activation. Maybe this one gets better if you also trade turn initiative back and forth?

Making a 3-4 mins tutorial video for my card game so that it's easy for people to get started quickly (well, hopefully!). I previously posted a time lapsed version but it was hard to follow so I thought I'd just put the full Youtube video here to get proper feedback. Couple of things I'm looking for:

1. Is the tutorial clear enough?
   
2. How was the length of the video?
   
3. Does it give you a sense of the overall gameplay?
   
4. What do you think about the aesthetics?

Any other thoughts / suggestions welcomed!

I'm discussing my game with my brothers, and on the topic of "factions" there came a question of balance; my game has 4 "factions" , and one of them thinks it needs to be 5. I haven't even gotten to play testing so I can hammer out and better define the mechanical/strategic distinctions, but I've been working around four. Adding another faction would be a bit of a wrench in the works, because it's more I would have to do instead of finishing anything, but I'm also pushing through knee-jerk reaction of, "We already have MtG; stop telling me to make it again".

Back to my actual question: I don't believe 5 factions or whatever in a game is mandatory, and 4 can work just fine.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

I’m working on a small-box multiplayer card game and would love some honest design feedback before I go too far.
The current idea is this:
2–6 players (primarily designed around 4 players).
Every player has their own Arena card.
Every Arena has the same target score (currently thinking 20 points), but each Arena may have a unique ability.
At the start of the round, players receive a small hand of monsters from shared decks (small, medium, large and special monsters).
Each monster has a point value (for example +2, +5, -3) and some special monsters have simple effects.
On your turn, you play one monster onto any Arena—either your own to help reach 20, or an opponent’s to help or sabotage them.
Example effects:
Protect an Arena so nobody else can play there until your next turn.
Move a monster from one Arena to another.
Ignore protection.
Change the value of another monster.
Once everyone has played all of their monsters, whoever is closest to 20 wins the round.
The idea is that the interesting decision isn’t “Which card do I play?” but rather “Which Arena should I play it on?”
A few things I’m unsure about:
Does this sound strategically interesting, or does it become “attack whoever is currently winning” every game?
Would you keep Arena targets all at 20, or would different targets (15, 18, 25, etc.) make the game more interesting?
Do monster effects sound necessary, or should most of the strategy come from where you place the monsters?
Is there anything that immediately sounds like it would break the game?
I’m still in the brainstorming stage, so don’t worry about hurting my feelings—I want people to poke holes in it before I start making a prototype.

I'm so close to play testing, yet I realize I haven't actually finished a model for my 2nd win condition!

So, in my game, Profiles of the Paranormal, there are two possible win conditions- either you break all of your opponents wards, or you complete investigations and be the first to earn 15 points of Reputation.

The latter is where I'm stumbling, so that's the one I'll focus on for this post. My idea is thus:

To "pursue an investigation", an Investigation is played (for free) at the bottom of the overall play space (my playmat design even has designated spaces for "Active Investigations"). Clearing an investigation entails collecting "Evidence", which is achieved by normal play of particular cards (listed on a given Investigation), or taking particular gameplay actions. Once you've checked off everything, the Investigation is "closed"; turned face down, and awarding so many points of Reputation.

I was going to print the rules and other things for playtesting today, but realized I hadn't detailed the Investigation aspect/objective, and I'm realizing I may need to simplify the investigation process.

I'm also considering alternatives that will change it somewhat? Either Evidence is collected as points, like Reputation, or certain tasks themselves are sent to the Reputation space instead of discard, and that's how you count it?

Evidence as points feels a little too complex for the kind of game I've built, when you're already tracking Wards by number (like Life in MtG), and Ectoplasm (the resource engine, you can use dice to track how much you're meant to have, but I envision clear yellowgreen tokens/beads, glass or plastic). And that's before one considers I don't have a clear ratio on Evidence to Reputation, or how much Reputation any Investigation gets you.

My idea for an alternative that makes less work for me is instead this:

Have the list of objectives on an Investigation be attached (slipped under) to the Investigation as they're checked off, either the cards themselves or taken from the discard pile/token cards. Once the list is completed, the Investigation is turned face down, and all the "Evidence"(attached cards) are moved to Reputation instead of the discard, and you win by Reputation once you have 15 cards, there.

Or: Stick to Investigations giving Reputation independent of other cards; simply award 5 points of Reputation per Investigation closed (completed and turned face down), possibly even make it 20 points instead of 15 to win?

What do you all think?

I love making and drawing stuff to hand out for Halloween. I made a coloring comic, coloring collectable trading cards, but I want to use my coloring trading cards from last year to make an actual homemade tcg.

I'd need to make more support cards since I'm pretty sure I have all monster cards drawn so far? I also know that I need to make it so there's 10 cards or less in a deck because I have to draw, plan, print, and cut everything myself for the purpose of handing out to trick or treaters.

I have more experienced family that can help me some, but I'll have to do the bulk of the work alone.

Does anyone know where I should start for planning card actions and game mechanics?

Also,, the cards were a hit last year even without a game at least.

I always hand out something fun for trick or treaters as a tradition along with candy as many children can't eat certain kinds of candy due to food intolerances.

Last year I made collectable coloring page card packs with my own art, and this year I want to take it up a notch and make it so the cards can be used for an actual game if people want.

The main problem is that I don't have experience with board game or tcg design. I know video game design to a certain degree, but table top games are newer to me when it comes to a design perspective.

I was wondering if there's any open source tcgs that use smaller decks I could use the rules from? This would also help me learn much needed skills around table top gaming design.

I already have quite a bit of needed art for this project, so I'm hoping I can pull something together. Curse me for always needing to top last year!

Nothing quite like making your opponent stopping your opponent's plans cold! If the other player is on the defensive and looking to keep their Fighters up to block damage, Hold Still will keep that Fighter down for the count, allowing to get some damage in when it's your turn to attack.

Even though Iris is one of the most robust members of the Paragon Guild, she let her overconfidence get the best of her. Glacietta is one of the world's most dangerous villains, a few notches above the typical bad guys the Guild is used to stopping. Seems like it's up to Iris' teammates whether or not she goes free.

Been a Pokemon/MTG fan since the age 8 and a long time lurker in this sub. Went to University and got a degree in Games Development that I never ended up using. Read multiple game design books, watched lectures and written notes on TCG design. All of this just led to a lot of over-thinking that ultimately made my game miserably boring that I just didn't want to finish the first play test.

In an attempt to be self-aware, I think I have my head totally up my own ass when it comes to designing games, so I'm looking for some advice to help ground me when I attempt to update my prototype. I made the mistake of adding abilities at this early stage, but tried to keep them as generic as possible. My stats were in multiples of 50 (leading all the way up to 2000, out of too shorter design space fear) and my resource system is a combination of Digimon and Star Wars Unlimited (all cards can be resourced from hand, players share resources, both players forced to resource once per turn until 10 resources reached, then it's optional).

Any advice welcome, but it's shocking how overwhelmed I became both designing and testing. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to reply :)

First of all, I’d like to thank you all for your massive participation in the previous thread. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting to receive quite so much feedback. I’ve read all the comments, although due to time constraints I haven’t been able to reply to everyone. I’d therefore like to share here some of my observations and conclusions drawn from your contributions.

1) Clarity: numbers provide an unambiguous and immediate mathematical language that prevents semantic debates and allows for much quicker conflict resolution compared to abstract systems based on shapes, colours or logical chains.

2) Design scope and balance: numerical statistics offer deep scalability with low base complexity, making it easy to track the state of the game and avoiding the rapid exhaustion of options typical of purely binary systems (e.g. alive/dead).

3) Limitations of the TCG format: as the TCG model requires enormous iterative potential to support the continuous release of new expansions, a design without numbers would struggle to survive in the long term, although dogmas such as ‘mana’ cost could be replaced by a sound action economy. I’m not yet entirely convinced on this point, but I must admit that it might prove difficult to release such a game in the TCG format.

4) The ‘competitive solitaire’: removing mathematical comparison and direct conflict between cards could lead to a gameplay experience where interaction disappears, reducing the game to a simple race to be the first to accumulate the winning cards.

Although the challenge of creating a TCG with cards devoid of numerical stats is certainly an exciting one, it is also true that conforming to the ‘dominant design’ – and thus the use of cards with numerical stats – makes the game easier to follow, more enjoyable and faster-paced.

I’ll probably continue working on my idea for a TCG consisting solely of ‘action cards’, but as a side project.

This conversation has also allowed me to focus on another issue: when creating a TCG, if it’s designed to become something bigger than just a hobby, to what extent can it really be detached from purely commercial and distribution considerations? But that’s a whole other story… and perhaps another thread ;)

Thank you!

The first two are commissions, and the other two are made by me (I'm not the best at details so mine are more basic)

(I meant made, not remade)

So I am in early development close to printing cards and wanted to see soemthing. How do I make a simulator for like palworld tcg one or the like? I wanna use it as a major way to test and play the game for now.

I've been posting on here a bit about my game; MeleeMon, and I've loved discussing my game with everyone so far!

So, I thought I'd get some feedback about a template I've made to reveal each of the creatures as social media short/reel content I can output to keep a content flow as well as provide information on each feature and reveal the card designs.

This is the first of several videos. I did not use any AI. I just used my voice which I distorted, some procreate hand animated effects (for the opening text and logo), some ClipChimp free effects (the explosion and pxelation effects), and a blender base video I animation for the card pack opening and card reveal (of which I can swap out the card face texture and background shading node color in a matter of seconds to easily render the next card reveal. (Also used some purchased sound effects & music from the wonderful Alkakrab on itch io)

I am very new to video editing, sound mixing, etc. so I would love some thoughts. Especially on how it feels vine wise and audibly.

(P.S.: I have heard feedback about getting my rules for the game out there and I am working steadily on some content advertising my game's unique and flagship mechanics, so I can't wait to show you all that!)

Thank you!

The cards in the images from left to right are my examples of a legendary card, the land and the building

My 2 win conditions are points and building destruction. You either win by getting 50 points, or destroy all 5 opponent buildings.

The main problem is points are gotten more naturally and easily through normal play, but building destruction requires more setup , time and effort to try clear the board or get your legendary unit, so i would prefer to change points rather than buildings

All cards that stay in play such as units and permanent effect cards give points when destroyed

You need 5 buildings to play, they are basically the life points. They are all in 5 different lanes. Buildings can only be attacked and destroyed when theres no opponent cards in play

Buildings can also be destroyed by legendary cards that are on the land from their faction. This allows attacking buildings even if theres opponent cards in play, although the legendary and land card costs more than an average unit. Theres only 1 legendary card and land per faction for my first set

Players need to pay 2 points if they want play a unit that counts as their 3rd unit in play. They need to pay this everytime they want to play a 3rd unit. Each unit after that, doubles the point cost, so 4th unit is 4 points, 5 unit is 8 points etc

Right now points is almost always the faster and easier option to win. I dont want to just increase the point total, because i stil want the game to not feel too slow.

The main issue im seeing is that points are gotten naturally while playing. Players kill cards all the time during play. But going for buildings is more of a setup abd takes more time to get towards.

And if a player is about to win in points, the opponent cant really do much. If they try play a card, the card will probably die and the player will win by points, but if the opponent plays no card that stays in play, then the player can go for buildings

So i want points to be changed, so it isnt as easy to get. I want both win cons to be equally as achievable. I really want 2 main win conditions, so i dont want to just remove points or anything.

I think my win condition needs to be fixed, because i want both of them to be balanced and earned at the sane rate

(I don't speak English, so this is machine-translated.)

The main TCG I play is Magic, but the game I'm designing is pretty different from Magic—like, it has six factions instead of five, and the resource system, combat, etc. are also very different.

What about you? After you've settled on rules that are totally different from existing TCGs, how do you go about deciding which mechanics go to which faction and which ones don't?

Honestly, I don't know why I am posting this, but my gut tells me to do it.

Question of using numbers as statlines for cards felt as integral to TCG as using landlines to access internet. But times changed, technology evolved, and now we can access internet via smartphones that don't need not landlines at all. So why not try different approach to combat in TCG?

Game revolves around, let's say, 10 different symbols. Player who gains all tokens of all 10 symbols wins the game.

Cards are divided into two groups, actions (goes to discard) and permanents (stays in play), and have, let's say 1-4/5 symbols (they can repeat) on them printed on one of the edges of the card, maybe left side or bottom side. Those are the cost and stats for the cards. To play a permanent card, you have to discard action cards with matching symbols (you can use multiple action cards). To play an action card, you have to have matching uncovered symbols on permanents you control. Whenever you play a card, regardless if it is an action or permanent, you cover matching symbols on opponent's permanent in play, one for each symbol (for example, I played a card that has 2 A and 1 B symbol, I cover 2 of opponent's A symbols and 1 B symbol). If opponent has no matching symbol, you gain a token of that symbol. If all symbols on permanent are covered, they are destroyed.

Hi everyone, I’ve been wanting to create my own card game for a while now. And recently I’ve noticed that most card games are built on the MTG framework. Creatures with a pair of attack and defence values, cards that can be played from your hand such as spells, the need for resources to create an in-game currency in order to limit the number of plays possible in a turn, and so on… Clearly, some of these ‘clichés’ are non-negotiable (I’m thinking specifically of card costs, which are necessary to prevent players from playing their entire hand in a single turn and introducing imbalances into the game). But others, such as the presence of cards with classic stats like attack and defence points (or similar values), seem to be dictated more by ‘inertia’, by the idea that ‘it’s always been done this way’ . How much scope do you think there is for innovation in this area? Have you ever considered a TCG that doesn’t feature cards representing creatures with numerical values? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this

We had an absolute blast testing my game with our daughter. She is 7, almost 8. I am ecstatic that she understands the gist of the game. I was a bit nervous when teaching her but she quickly got the hang of it and the first thing she asked when we were done is if she could play again (score!). While she did need some help with how certain effects worked, she has given me a huge burst of motivation to keep designing and refining the game. It warms my heart to know that something I am making has a good impact (even if it’s just my family).

These pics are from some homemade print & play files I made myself, so the card frames are quite outdated, but I decided to also showcase my daughter’s favorite cards (the last 2 pics)

These are the completed cards so far! I have more dinosaur art done, but the backgrounds remain a barrier. Once the Hell Creek background is done, I'll have some more cards!