M:TG meets D&D

[ashockney]

Picture a game in which four players journey through a long abandoned keep. Along the way, they encounter vile creatures that must be defeated...the players are forced to work together to smite the vile foes. As you enter the room, you see a powerful wizard, in a circle of power, who jealously guards his secrets. Everyone draws six cards from their deck of 40 magic cards, and rolls initiative. Taking spots around the table, to represent their initiative, with the DM playing the evil wizard. Everyone's monsters/spells/permanents are representative of their actions. Your monsters/spells/permanents are representative of your actions. The DM pulls a whopping 12 cards, and has 45 life in this encounter. Work together...now GO!

Sounds feasible. Anyone ever tried it?

 

[Zappo]

I did, but I was very young and it didn't work quite well. It is more complex than it sounds; it can be done, but I didn't.

 

[sukael]

I haven't... but I have to say, if done properly, that would be quite interesting.

The wizard has a deck full of enchantments and equipments... the warrior has freakin' nasty monsters... the rogue has direct-attack and control cards... the cleric has regeneration, healing, and support cards...

 

[diaglo]

it's been awhile but wasn't Talisman like this?

 

[ashockney]

Exactly!

Encounters could be built to see how they last against "multiple brute" decks. Will a combo of characters always work better. It would be fairly easy to build "levelling" into this system with the use of limits to the number of uncommons or rares you can play in your deck, the number of cards you start with at the beginning of an encounter, and the total number of hit points you have.

What if you fought a wizard using a powerful "zombie" deck to defeat multiple players, or "sligh" or "blue control" with access to more cards, and more life...

Wizards of the Coast has this whole thing wrapped up in their back pocket.

Anyone else? Ever tried something like this?

 

[Krieg]

Anyone ever tried it?

Umm thankfully no.

If I wanted to play a card game, I'd just go ahead and....play a card game.

 

[Berandor]

Umm thankfully no.

If I wanted to play a card game, I'd just go ahead and....play a card game.

That's what I always say with regards to miniatures.

 

[diaglo]

Umm thankfully no.

If I wanted to play a card game, I'd just go ahead and....play a card game.

draw or stud
black jack
bridge
pinocle
hearts
spades...

you name it... i'm a card freak too. but i need money to get me to sit down

 

[azmodean]

As stated it's a bit too "Yuu-gi-oh" for my tastes, you're basically saying that the characters are "card masters", not DnD characters. I can see it being done, but it requires more suspension of disbelief than even a normal RPG.

I can however see a card-based system used in a tabletop RPG. Perhaps you have a deck that regenerates daily, which makes it somewhat similar to the DnD magic system.

Alternatively, you could just issue decks of cards to represent the normal DnD spells/abilities as a way to keep track of them. I am currently shifting my player's inventories to index cards for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that I can now drop a pile of index cards on the table and say, "this is what you find in the room". If research is performed or divinations are cast on an item, I just consult my master item chart and update the card accordingly, though what I really want is a laptop so I can have a more streamlined master item chart, but of course $$$ is an issue.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I prefer my battles to be a kind of Texas Hold 'em, where "bets" deal you damage, and the DM's deck is stacked.

Seriously, cards work as well as a task resolution system as dice, and, in fact, are capable of more variation and interesting combinations. WotC doesn't have this as wrapped up as you might thing -- the CCG isn't copyrightable. Got the idea? Go make the game! If it's good, you might get me buying into it....

"Enough with the d20, where's the Deck of 52 System?!"