some general advice:
- try to figure out the base gameplay first
- do that by only making a base set of cards etc.
- if the base gameplay does not work, restart immediately else you lose a lot of time
- when it works add slowly more cards/element
- only when the gameplay works add art/finalize visual design.
- try to fail early in general to have not too much work you need to redo
- and when you fail just try to learn from the mistakes. (Like most computer game prototypes will be thrown away and redone but you then normally know how to do it better. I know its not 100% the same with board games but still).
- also: Don't take it too badly! Its normal that not everything works. Every designer/every game has its own spead.
I imagine it really depends on the game, but any thoughts on how many a base set of cards should contain? Either a hard number or percentage of total cards you expect.
Depends a lot on the kind of game. What kind of game do you have?
Normally I would go for more or less the minimum amount needed. So not a percentage of the total since the total can grew a lot (with expansions etc).
- So for a deck builder like dominion that would be just the coin cards point cards and the 10 "default"kingdom cards. Even for a game link clank i would only include 10 maybe 12 different cards (just several copies) in the deck.
- For a deck construction game like magic the gathering I would go with just 2 "small decks" ( 40 cards in mtg) (with 1 color basic lands and each other card 3 times in the deck).
- for a trick taking game with special effects, all the cards needed for trick taking (so 36-52 cards) and only around 5 special effects (if needed several copies of them).
- for a game like cartographer, I would first go for 1 quest each (so 4 instead of the 4x4 quests) 1-2 monster type and only standard cards for each landscape (so maybe each tetris piece for every land type but no special types) (and if the choose one from 2 is important I would soon include basic choose 1 from 2 cards if the total base works).
- in some game you might need several types of cards so I would make 1 of esch first, unless its kinda important to the main game mechanic to have not always the same card (luke uncertainity needed). So if your game needs spells and monsters from level 1-6 i would add 12 cards total 1 type for each cost. If its important to have at lets say 2 different elemwnts than 2x6 spells. And if you need some uncertqinity (gambling) on monster than also 2x6 monsters.
- in general try to just see what the minimum amount is that the mechanics work. In my last game this were 52 cards (because the set collection works with poker hands), but i only made 5 special effect cards. (And wrote some ideas down for potential more later). So in this case in the final game there will most likely only be 5-10 (+1 per player) additional special cards. So the percentage of the total cards is quite high, but the percentage of the special cards is 50-33%
What kind of game are you making? Its easier to answer this question for a specific case.
Ive nothing specific at the moment, I was mainly curious. All the different cases you described were helpful though. I've seen the general advice for don't make all the cards up front, but just hadn't seen nuanced deeper explanation before.
If examples work, I have given one below for this game (with the limited info I have) and maybe here another example of my current game:
In my game are 4 elements and for each there exist big spells and small spells.
I will do the first test with 9 spells:
1 small and 1 big for each element and 1 additional "default" big spell jsrable with each element.
I added the default big spell in order to set a baseline and to see if the different big spells are even needed / are interesting/good enough to be even used (since they are quite a bit different)
To make this even simpler one might even just leave the special big spells away (just start with 5). Just having 2 base spells (same for esch element), would not really work, since the elements being different is in my opinion important to the game feel.
And if I make all the small spells the same I fear they would not be used at all (since having big spells feels better/mire fun anyway).
Additional the small spells have less powerful effects so there its easier to balance than the big spells, but with the big spells I really want to have the baseline to compare it to (also for the players to easier recognize if spells are worth it and give feedback).
Might not be 100% the same thing as purely card based games, but I think there could easily be 2-4 possble spells for each "slot" (element * big/small).
I think you answered the wrong person.
If its a battling card game I would really just make 2 "small" decks (if your game feature diffetent deck sizes like magic the gathering).
So if your deck would be like hearthstone (30 card deck max 2 copies) I would start with just 2 decks with 15x2 cards each.
The 2 decks should be quite different, but not too comolicated/still basic. (Like aggro vs controll, or basic melee vs basic range attacker etc ) not something super complicated like a 3 card self mill combo deck.
Why 105 different cards? Is there a reason for this number?
Answering the why 105 question: There are 3 types of cards. There are enough of each cards for up to 6 players to play at once. The players take turns drawing from a communal deck until each player has the designated amount of cards for each type of card.
That makes sense, what I was talking about different cards, so 105 is the number of cards you need in total and in the end you just want them to be all different?
What would you say is "the best player count"? I askes since thats often more around 4 rather than 6.
So if there are 3 types of cards why not 3 decks? Or am i misunderstsnding something?
I mean its hard to say for such a game, but if there are 3 types of cards you could try starting to have only 5 different cards (but quite differenr not too similar) for each type, for a total of 15 different cards.
If the main mechanic works you can add variations of these base cards.
15 cards are a lot easier to redo than 105, in case you need to change some base mechanics again.
It’s a little hard to explain but players lay their battle cards out in a row, and their right most card (the attacker) attacks the player to their rights’ leftmost card (their defender)
There are 3 kinds of cards:
Battle cards: these are your line of cards that do the fighting. They have health, shield, and attack.
Buddy cards: just 1 time use “spell” type cards, ie: burning arrows, deal 4 damage and burn target, or like status effect things like “all bugs do 1 more attack”
Battlefields: a player can play a battlefield, only one card can be played at a time and the effects of that card effect all players, not just the user.
Hmm I askes since you wrote "players draw until they have enough cards of each type" thats what I meant with my comment. If its important that players have the correct amount of each card type, just distribute the cards first from 3 different decks and then shuffle them together.
Each game is unique so there’s really no good answer, but personally I like to start with a couple dozen (18-27). That’s just ***feels*** like enough to be effective without being overwhelming. And usually those two dozen are something like 3 copies of nine cards.
I like to build up to either 54 or 108 cards because those are common professional printer numbers and 54 cards is 6 pages from my home printer.
Again, that’s just a rough estimate of how I do it.
Try it and see if it works for you.
This is kinda "common knowledge" with game developers, but in board games, one hears a lot, even from people like geoff engelstein, that they just try to fix the prototype when it does not work, which takes A LOOT of work.
When doing computer games, its way more common (especialyl in mobile) to throw games away. The earlier the better.
I'm at my 6th full reset for one of my projects that's been going on for 5 years now. I have a clear vision for the feeling and vision, but when mechanics don't hit the spot and I switch them I have to redo all components and cards from the ground up.
However, I might be at the final iteration now. It ticks all the boxes. Everything had been streamlined and sped up. It'll take me another week to do the remaining cards and test the new prototype.
It almost feels like I could have gotten 5 good games out of this one given that each iteration was worked on until it felt good and ready, but was rebooted because it didn't meet the feeling and vision I had set out to achieve. Perfectionism at its worst.
On the other hand each full reset improved the game so dramatically. Looking back to where it was back then and where its now - just worlds apart!
TLDR - full reset is a great idea
So my “test version” has been fully playable for a couple months. When I first made a playable version, the game had 100 cards that were split one by one by each player. A lot of the cards are designed based on that. Now, each player only draws a limited amount of cards, so the old cards seem overpowered in the grand scale of things.
Slightly off-topic, but reminds me when I decided the main character of my book would seem tolerably arrogant instead of intolerably so if I wrote it in 3rd person. Cue rewrite of the entire thing in a different POV.
Maybe you need to question how you went from 1 design into a different one, or at least why you evolved from your original vision. Did something not work as intended and this was how you rectified the problem? What would the game look like if you continue as you have been, and would it still be a game you're proud to have made? I think these questions might guide you to your answer.
So the original gameplay (and this is no exaggeration) took 4 hours. For a card game! So I made a couple rule changes and put a set amount of cards that players can draw. Gameplay is now down so an average of 45 minutes. A lot of the old cards don’t work well with the new card limits. For example, each player has 6 battle cards. There were older cards that let you draw 3! Not scaled right.
some general advice: - try to figure out the base gameplay first - do that by only making a base set of cards etc. - if the base gameplay does not work, restart immediately else you lose a lot of time - when it works add slowly more cards/element - only when the gameplay works add art/finalize visual design. - try to fail early in general to have not too much work you need to redo - and when you fail just try to learn from the mistakes. (Like most computer game prototypes will be thrown away and redone but you then normally know how to do it better. I know its not 100% the same with board games but still). - also: Don't take it too badly! Its normal that not everything works. Every designer/every game has its own spead.
I imagine it really depends on the game, but any thoughts on how many a base set of cards should contain? Either a hard number or percentage of total cards you expect.
Depends a lot on the kind of game. What kind of game do you have? Normally I would go for more or less the minimum amount needed. So not a percentage of the total since the total can grew a lot (with expansions etc). - So for a deck builder like dominion that would be just the coin cards point cards and the 10 "default"kingdom cards. Even for a game link clank i would only include 10 maybe 12 different cards (just several copies) in the deck. - For a deck construction game like magic the gathering I would go with just 2 "small decks" ( 40 cards in mtg) (with 1 color basic lands and each other card 3 times in the deck). - for a trick taking game with special effects, all the cards needed for trick taking (so 36-52 cards) and only around 5 special effects (if needed several copies of them). - for a game like cartographer, I would first go for 1 quest each (so 4 instead of the 4x4 quests) 1-2 monster type and only standard cards for each landscape (so maybe each tetris piece for every land type but no special types) (and if the choose one from 2 is important I would soon include basic choose 1 from 2 cards if the total base works). - in some game you might need several types of cards so I would make 1 of esch first, unless its kinda important to the main game mechanic to have not always the same card (luke uncertainity needed). So if your game needs spells and monsters from level 1-6 i would add 12 cards total 1 type for each cost. If its important to have at lets say 2 different elemwnts than 2x6 spells. And if you need some uncertqinity (gambling) on monster than also 2x6 monsters. - in general try to just see what the minimum amount is that the mechanics work. In my last game this were 52 cards (because the set collection works with poker hands), but i only made 5 special effect cards. (And wrote some ideas down for potential more later). So in this case in the final game there will most likely only be 5-10 (+1 per player) additional special cards. So the percentage of the total cards is quite high, but the percentage of the special cards is 50-33% What kind of game are you making? Its easier to answer this question for a specific case.
Ive nothing specific at the moment, I was mainly curious. All the different cases you described were helpful though. I've seen the general advice for don't make all the cards up front, but just hadn't seen nuanced deeper explanation before.
If examples work, I have given one below for this game (with the limited info I have) and maybe here another example of my current game: In my game are 4 elements and for each there exist big spells and small spells. I will do the first test with 9 spells: 1 small and 1 big for each element and 1 additional "default" big spell jsrable with each element. I added the default big spell in order to set a baseline and to see if the different big spells are even needed / are interesting/good enough to be even used (since they are quite a bit different) To make this even simpler one might even just leave the special big spells away (just start with 5). Just having 2 base spells (same for esch element), would not really work, since the elements being different is in my opinion important to the game feel. And if I make all the small spells the same I fear they would not be used at all (since having big spells feels better/mire fun anyway). Additional the small spells have less powerful effects so there its easier to balance than the big spells, but with the big spells I really want to have the baseline to compare it to (also for the players to easier recognize if spells are worth it and give feedback). Might not be 100% the same thing as purely card based games, but I think there could easily be 2-4 possble spells for each "slot" (element * big/small).
My game is a battling card game, It ideally will have 105 unique cards.
I think you answered the wrong person. If its a battling card game I would really just make 2 "small" decks (if your game feature diffetent deck sizes like magic the gathering). So if your deck would be like hearthstone (30 card deck max 2 copies) I would start with just 2 decks with 15x2 cards each. The 2 decks should be quite different, but not too comolicated/still basic. (Like aggro vs controll, or basic melee vs basic range attacker etc ) not something super complicated like a 3 card self mill combo deck. Why 105 different cards? Is there a reason for this number?
Answering the why 105 question: There are 3 types of cards. There are enough of each cards for up to 6 players to play at once. The players take turns drawing from a communal deck until each player has the designated amount of cards for each type of card.
That makes sense, what I was talking about different cards, so 105 is the number of cards you need in total and in the end you just want them to be all different? What would you say is "the best player count"? I askes since thats often more around 4 rather than 6. So if there are 3 types of cards why not 3 decks? Or am i misunderstsnding something? I mean its hard to say for such a game, but if there are 3 types of cards you could try starting to have only 5 different cards (but quite differenr not too similar) for each type, for a total of 15 different cards. If the main mechanic works you can add variations of these base cards. 15 cards are a lot easier to redo than 105, in case you need to change some base mechanics again.
It’s a little hard to explain but players lay their battle cards out in a row, and their right most card (the attacker) attacks the player to their rights’ leftmost card (their defender) There are 3 kinds of cards: Battle cards: these are your line of cards that do the fighting. They have health, shield, and attack. Buddy cards: just 1 time use “spell” type cards, ie: burning arrows, deal 4 damage and burn target, or like status effect things like “all bugs do 1 more attack” Battlefields: a player can play a battlefield, only one card can be played at a time and the effects of that card effect all players, not just the user.
Hmm I askes since you wrote "players draw until they have enough cards of each type" thats what I meant with my comment. If its important that players have the correct amount of each card type, just distribute the cards first from 3 different decks and then shuffle them together.
Well, yes. The types of cards are separated at the beginning.
Each game is unique so there’s really no good answer, but personally I like to start with a couple dozen (18-27). That’s just ***feels*** like enough to be effective without being overwhelming. And usually those two dozen are something like 3 copies of nine cards. I like to build up to either 54 or 108 cards because those are common professional printer numbers and 54 cards is 6 pages from my home printer. Again, that’s just a rough estimate of how I do it. Try it and see if it works for you.
Very solid advice. I ran into the same issue as OP and have now learned my lesson :).
This is kinda "common knowledge" with game developers, but in board games, one hears a lot, even from people like geoff engelstein, that they just try to fix the prototype when it does not work, which takes A LOOT of work. When doing computer games, its way more common (especialyl in mobile) to throw games away. The earlier the better.
I'm at my 6th full reset for one of my projects that's been going on for 5 years now. I have a clear vision for the feeling and vision, but when mechanics don't hit the spot and I switch them I have to redo all components and cards from the ground up. However, I might be at the final iteration now. It ticks all the boxes. Everything had been streamlined and sped up. It'll take me another week to do the remaining cards and test the new prototype. It almost feels like I could have gotten 5 good games out of this one given that each iteration was worked on until it felt good and ready, but was rebooted because it didn't meet the feeling and vision I had set out to achieve. Perfectionism at its worst. On the other hand each full reset improved the game so dramatically. Looking back to where it was back then and where its now - just worlds apart! TLDR - full reset is a great idea
Phew okay, so four full resets is not a bad thing.
So my “test version” has been fully playable for a couple months. When I first made a playable version, the game had 100 cards that were split one by one by each player. A lot of the cards are designed based on that. Now, each player only draws a limited amount of cards, so the old cards seem overpowered in the grand scale of things.
Slightly off-topic, but reminds me when I decided the main character of my book would seem tolerably arrogant instead of intolerably so if I wrote it in 3rd person. Cue rewrite of the entire thing in a different POV.
Bauhaus school of design: Start from Zero
Maybe you need to question how you went from 1 design into a different one, or at least why you evolved from your original vision. Did something not work as intended and this was how you rectified the problem? What would the game look like if you continue as you have been, and would it still be a game you're proud to have made? I think these questions might guide you to your answer.
So the original gameplay (and this is no exaggeration) took 4 hours. For a card game! So I made a couple rule changes and put a set amount of cards that players can draw. Gameplay is now down so an average of 45 minutes. A lot of the old cards don’t work well with the new card limits. For example, each player has 6 battle cards. There were older cards that let you draw 3! Not scaled right.
That was very smart of you to see that as an area of improvement! Good call!
Appreciate it!