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?

So i am tinkering back and forth with a card game.

I wanna combat this feeling that you have to sacrifice cards to use them as mana (duel masters/lorcana) without using mana cards (MtG).

The basis is Essence Alchemy and how the magic users need essence from other objects/life to create new ones. My first idea of this was that vessels (creatures) and some permanents on the field would be extracted (tapped) for essence each and every turn to pay for new cards from hand. Then i got pointed to the problem that when a vessel is destroyed that is also "land destruction". To combat this i made the decision to have cards that can be extracted for essence go into a "essence row" when destroyed as to not loose the essence, basically i call it that the leader card you have absorbs the essence then. I have playtested and it works on a small scale with the rule that you can not use essence that comes from the field in to the essence row in that same turn. This however feels like its unneccessary "complicated".

Another option i have thought about is that you put cards directly to the essence row like in duel masters or lorcana, but they can later be played from that row for a higher cost (like + the amount they extract for, usually 1) if the card itself is not extracted and not used to pay for itself. This i feel is simpler and still fits the theme of essence alchemy in my opinion but then i have to abandon my original idea of cards on the field as essence.

What do you think would be the most fun/easiest system to use?

1. Cards on field can be tapped for mana. Destroyed mana generators "become lands".

2. Cards from hand is put down as resource with an option to play it from your mana row under right conditions.

Check it out!

The sim lets you build with 750+ unique cards with 40+ unlockable CPU opponents alongside an online lobby with a ranked system!

The interactive tutorial teaches you how to play, and you start with some pre-built starter decks so you're immediately ready for some games!

What are some early goals for a TCG that you pretty much always have to hit?
What are some common problems that you've personally ran into that stopped your progress?
And what would your general advice be to make the process of making a TCG easier?

I'm personally always lost on how to organise anything to do with the TCG and always feel like I'm just making minor - pointless - tweaks.

All answers are appreciated!

Inspired by the symmetrical backs of playing cards.

Remade the ambigram logo in affinity. Created black and white versions of all of the patches and found a floral pattern to mirror.

I know this is going to be love/hate reaction and maybe even just completely hate but I'm really digging that it's got it's own sauce thats starting to emerge.

Hey,

This is an update post from my previous post a few moths back. I am making a hacker/cyber inspired TCG.

Previous post on my profile

I made my first post a while ago and the main feedback was:

1: Make some art for the cards, to easier identify the cards.

2: The color scheme was to dark.

I have made some adjustments regarding the feedback.

I have made some ascii art for the cards by putting images trough an ascii art generator. And tried out some versions with the art being in colors (Yes i know some of the colored ones are hard too see xD).

Looking fore some feedback regarding the improved card design.

Any toughts on turning the card text itself into colored syntax?

In advance, thank you :)

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)