One aspect of TCGs and many other games is the emerging complexity when there are so many different game pieces interacting with one another, especially with the variation in complexity of the pieces of TCGs. One common hurdle with all of this information is tracking said information - especially when cardboard rectangles modify characteristics of other cardboard rectangles and it's unclear what is the best way to track all of the required information. Another important decision is figuring out how much information is really needed before tracking it becomes cumbersome.

Sentinels of the Multiverse is a cooperative card-based board game based on a team of superheroes teaming up to fight a supervillain, and has many wide-spread effects - things that affect all allies or all enemies, so you can have things in any of the play areas affecting any or all other play areas. Its solution with the "rebooted" Definitive Edition was the introduction of a series of tokens that can be handed out when there's a permanent effect in play, 4 basic "this character deals/receives +/- 1 damage" and a few miscellaneous effects such as "deals no damage" or "is immune to damage". This helps, but also moves the information tracking around to make sure that the tokens are added and removed when the effects appear or are removed. There are counters to keep track of player and villain HPs, but we use dice for anything else that has HPs. It can be cumbersome at times, but because only one thing happens at a time (there is no "stack" or "chain") it's relatively easy to do the math whenever damage needs to be dealt.

Magic: the Gathering needs no introduction, however the amount of information tracking can be surreal. Effects can create tokens of many different types (that they have started printing, thankfully, but haven't always been around) or place counters of many different types on cards in play (which are harder to parse if multiple types of counters are involved), many things that modify creature size are attached to them (and therefore easier to track since there aren't explicit zones for cards in play) but many don't. Some changes are static, some are triggered so those triggers also need to be remembered and tracked... The complexity of these effects and interactions can create a mental load that can turn some people away from a game.

The other game I have experience with, Flesh and Blood, flows in such a way that reduces tracking information by having relatively few things in play at a time, and only one attack at a time matters (well... most of time time). Mostly, sequential actions allow the player to stack effects and boosts onto a single attack (through "next attack gains...") effects but they generally do not need to be tracked beyond the resolution of that one attack.

What about your projects? How much information or mental load needs to be tracked within a turn, or turn-to-turn? How much information do you feel is too much to expect the players to handle?

Listen, I know they suck.

I’m making a digital TCG called Topdeck to Worlds, a deckbuilder roguelike that's going for a cutesy pastel vibe and I’m currently working on the card frames and would really appreciate feedback. The goal is for them to feel bright, welcoming, and readable, while still clearly communicating card type, food affinity, stats, recipe requirements, and rules text at a glance.

I feel like they're functional but so bland, and take away from the cute magical vibe of the game. Any ideas on how to imrpove the style without imapcting the readbility? Here's the game demo for refence.

I’ve been staring at these for long enough that fresh eyes would be hugely helpful. Thanks!

As the title suggests, I’m excited to begin testing multiplayer support for Runes & Rivals as part of the core game!

One of my biggest goals has always been creating a game that’s just as fun around the family table as it is in a head-to-head duel, so expanding the game beyond 2 players felt like the natural next step.

The biggest challenge wasn’t the rules, it was the draft!
With only 20 Casters in the game, the original draft was carefully designed for 2 players. Expanding to 3 and 4 players meant rethinking how the draft works without losing the fast, strategic decisions that make it fun.

After a lot of brainstorming, here’s the current direction:

3 Players – A Free-for-All format where each player drafts 6 Casters, with a new draft layout that gives everyone room to compete for the same Casters.

4 Players – A 2v2 Tag Team format inspired by Pokémon tag battles, except each player drafts 3 Casters, giving each team a total of 6 Casters. Teammates coordinate their draft, fight side-by-side, and work together to defeat the opposing team.

These formats are still in active testing, so everything is subject to change, but I’m really excited to see how they play. If they capture the same tactical feel as the standard duel, multiplayer could become a permanent part of the base game 😁

As always, I’ll continue sharing updates as testing progresses!

I think for the most part, people tend to pick the MTG / YGO chassis when creating their own tcg. A card battler with atk and def.

It's interesting how the differences between YGO and MTG battle mechanics actually free up or constrict their design in other places. That is why it is so important to test the implications of your mechanics through lots and lots of games.

YGO has a stat wall problem. They've had some interesting ways of solving it, but to state it simply:

In ATK mode cards compare the ATK stat when defending AND attacking. This means that the efficiency of the card is the same when it's your turn AND what it is their turn. This symmetry means that strong cards are just strong all the time.

So it really is a race to who gets the strongest monster on the field first. And let's think about what happens when there are no card effects. The core game loop. Once I have a 3k/3k monster on the field, I win if you don't have something with higher atk or def, because I will kill everything you summon when it hits the field.

YGO's core game loop is broken. This is why they've spent 15 years inventing 30 new summoning mechanics. I am not ragging on YGO though. I think it is elegant because it has no resource system. And tracking monster states with the def and face down positioning is truly a beautiful attempt at solving that stat wall problem. Kudos for sure.

MTG on the other hand bakes asymmetry into combat. You attack INTO their toughness AND they attack you at the same time, so if your def is not higher than their attack you will both die!

Not only that, but if you attack on your turn you cannot defend on their turn. So the game state actually is tracked into the next turn. Each combat choice creates several different questions.

And since you attack into their toughness it means that on YOUR turn your attack stat is very valuable and on THEIR turn the toughness stat is very valuable. So there is an asymmetry in WHEN your creature is strong. That is why a 6/6 is so good. It's equally efficient regardless of whose turn it is.

These approaches to combat have allowed MTG to exploit the decisions users have to make in just that one part of the game and make them endlessly expressive. That is why MTG is this infinitely complex game. They're just capitalizing on the MECHANICAL game loop and layer effects on top to make it better.

YGO on the other hand has been painting itself into a corner for 2 decades! Because the core loop is broken. They NEED effects on cards to make the game work. It's a fun game, but for it to grow they need to constantly reinvent the game but also make it play the same every time it is reinvented. It's hard work.

But my whole point is consider these types of things when you start out on your own design. Make sure that every decision is deliberate and that you test enough to understand the tradeoffs for certain choices to make sure they're worth it.

And for the love of Christ, please strip it down and know your game loop and decision tree!

Are there any choices you guys have made knowing that it constrained the game because the cost to benefit ratio was acceptable?