D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)

[Tony Vargas]

Well, I have some CRAZY ideas. How about a game where each character is a deck of cards ... Of course this COULD be reminiscent of 4e...

The first time I played 4e, I half-sarcastically put my character on index cards. Stats & skills on a card, a card for each power & item, etc...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The first time I played 4e, I half-sarcastically put my character on index cards. Stats & skills on a card, a card for each power & item, etc...

Yeah, it definitely wasn't kidding about having a very 'card-like' presentation. The devs talked about the Euro-game style presentation of elements and styling at the time. It didn't, obviously, verge over into card-game like MECHANICS though. But why not just take it that extra step? I mean, it COULD be done. The game would be almost completely different mechanically, I would expect, but then again there are some intermediate points. You could still have a d20 mechanic in there as well, though I would find that a bit 'busy' in some sense.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, isn't this exactly the approach taken in FFG's 3rd edition of the Warhammer RPG (R.I.P.)?

 

[MoutonRustique]

A thing that could work with a fairly 4e "base" would be a system of cards for powers and cards for "weight" of effect.

You'd have to choose both the effect and the "weight" you want to give it - this would allow for "defense" from opponents (and for players against opponents' attacks).

humm... This would probably be better with a 13th Age base : scenes are TotM, you state offensive, defensive moves (or some that are a combination), you give them a success weight - the opposing group does the same, and then you resolve them, creating a narrative along the way.

For groups looking to have a "D&D-based" game of improv, with some "game mechanics" thrown in, this format would probably be pretty awesome.

The mechanics of the game would probably give something like a bluffing game - trying to outwit your "opponent": have them use their high effect and weight cards at inopportune times while hoping for a weak defense against your own high effect cards.

But yeah, we're pretty far from the "d20 paradigm".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A thing that could work with a fairly 4e "base" would be a system of cards for powers and cards for "weight" of effect.

You'd have to choose both the effect and the "weight" you want to give it - this would allow for "defense" from opponents (and for players against opponents' attacks).

humm... This would probably be better with a 13th Age base : scenes are TotM, you state offensive, defensive moves (or some that are a combination), you give them a success weight - the opposing group does the same, and then you resolve them, creating a narrative along the way.

For groups looking to have a "D&D-based" game of improv, with some "game mechanics" thrown in, this format would probably be pretty awesome.

The mechanics of the game would probably give something like a bluffing game - trying to outwit your "opponent": have them use their high effect and weight cards at inopportune times while hoping for a weak defense against your own high effect cards.

But yeah, we're pretty far from the "d20 paradigm".

Problem with 13a is lack of really unified class mechanics. There's a pretty consistent basic structure, but 'powers' are sort of grafted almost willy-nilly onto classes and use a whole variety of different mechanisms to govern their usage. Honestly I would consider 13a to be closer to 3e than 4e. I think TotM is a concept that probably plays more naturally than tactical wargame in a card-based paradigm though, so such a game might be more reminiscent of 13a than 4e in some respects. The archetypes stuff could also inform card-based build structures in a nifty way.

Overall I think your view of it could definitely be a good approach. I'm not sure about the 'weight' thing, how would you do that? Also, would it really be necessary? I mean cards could in effect provide an offense and defense number (at least standard use cards, there could also be interrupts and whatnot that work in other ways). Maybe a given card is sort of 'double ended' like a few oddball magic cards. One half is an attack/defense, and the other half is some other related function, maybe useful in non-combat situations or to produce some other non-damaging effect (IE a Telekinesis power might be useful as an attack, tossing opponents about the battlefield, and as a way of leaping great distances or lifting people/things, etc).

I'd also think that various cards could operate synergistically. This could produce 'combo' effects or 'build up' to a big finale, etc. It would obviously also reinforce specific themes. Some cards could be things like basic tactics, 'take cover', 'flank', 'charge', etc. Alternatively maybe each character declares a basic tactic, say in reverse initiative order, and lays out a card, face down to go with it, then play proceeds from highest to lowest order, something like that. So charging would be a tactic, but not a card. Different classes might have a specific unique tactic, or one(s) that they are better at (rogues sneak around doing stabby stabby for example).

 

[Igwilly]

I don’t know whose idea it is, but it’s awesome! I would totally play (and buy) that!
I’ll be honest: I like D&D’s style. With that I’m thinking more about the feel and tone than real mechanics.
But the market has its good share of D&D-clones. Although 4e doesn’t have a clone, cloning it wouldn’t be that great since it’s a lot of work, and will have more or less the same mistakes – so it should have a change.
Anyway, I’m just saying D&D-like games need to have something that sets them apart from the other games; something (more or less) unique. That would be a cool way to set the game as different and innovative – at least for D&D-clones.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, it would be DIFFERENT, for sure. My guess is there has been SOME work in this area in the past, though how much and how similar I don't know. It just seems like too obvious an idea to have been invented on a forum post in 2016! It would perhaps be interesting to get a look at what people have come up with, though sometimes its nice to just do your own thing first, and THEN see how other designs can inform yours, otherwise you may lose your unique spin on it.

So, an outline emerges in my mind in which there IS some heritage of 4e in terms of presentation, but also in terms of themes and some of the overall emphasis on discrete encounters as the building blocks of adventure. So, play would progress in terms of encounters, cards are played only during encounters. These could be combats or 'challenges'. In the former case powers are relevant, and in the later 'utilities' (which can encompass rituals and anything else that isn't generally part of the attack and defense format of a combat encounter). 'combat' may also be a bit more broad, any action-heavy sequence of time-critical nature could fall under that definition. Combat powers CAN be used, in certain ways, outside combat, and utilities can work IN combat, but this will require some definition of the parameters.

An encounter will consist of 1 or more 'rounds' in which cards are played. The players describe the various actions being taken in terms of the play of the cards, building a narrative. Skills can be basically signifiers of character ability, as can ability scores, simply improving the effectiveness of the powers/utilities they relate to (So a guy with 'Nature' is able to get a better effect when he plays 'Forage' than a guy without it, etc). Likewise various attacks are related to an ability, or maybe a skill in some cases, which can give them an improved effect.

Frankly, an encounter COULD simply be resolved by a single play of cards. That would put the emphasis on the overall adventure, card resource management, strategy, plot, etc. You could have multiple rounds per encounter as well, creating a greater tactical emphasis and more elaborate encounter narratives.

You'd have to work out how items would work. They could be cards as well. There COULD be encounter, daily, and at-will power cards of course, etc. I suspect you'd find some of those concepts might not translate so well, but who knows?

 

[MoutonRustique]

[sblock]Problem with 13a is lack of really unified class mechanics. There's a pretty consistent basic structure, but 'powers' are sort of grafted almost willy-nilly onto classes and use a whole variety of different mechanisms to govern their usage. Honestly I would consider 13a to be closer to 3e than 4e. I think TotM is a concept that probably plays more naturally than tactical wargame in a card-based paradigm though, so such a game might be more reminiscent of 13a than 4e in some respects. The archetypes stuff could also inform card-based build structures in a nifty way.

Overall I think your view of it could definitely be a good approach. I'm not sure about the 'weight' thing, how would you do that? Also, would it really be necessary? I mean cards could in effect provide an offense and defense number (at least standard use cards, there could also be interrupts and whatnot that work in other ways). Maybe a given card is sort of 'double ended' like a few oddball magic cards. One half is an attack/defense, and the other half is some other related function, maybe useful in non-combat situations or to produce some other non-damaging effect (IE a Telekinesis power might be useful as an attack, tossing opponents about the battlefield, and as a way of leaping great distances or lifting people/things, etc).

I'd also think that various cards could operate synergistically. This could produce 'combo' effects or 'build up' to a big finale, etc. It would obviously also reinforce specific themes. Some cards could be things like basic tactics, 'take cover', 'flank', 'charge', etc. Alternatively maybe each character declares a basic tactic, say in reverse initiative order, and lays out a card, face down to go with it, then play proceeds from highest to lowest order, something like that. So charging would be a tactic, but not a card. Different classes might have a specific unique tactic, or one(s) that they are better at (rogues sneak around doing stabby stabby for example).[/sblock]

I thought of 13th Age mostly because of [mooks] - they're the kind of mechanic that ~ already work in the "figure out the narrative from the mechanical result" that I was envisioning. Other than that, yeah, hadn't really thought it through.

The "weight" idea is basically "how much do I want this to succeed". It's easier with an example:
- let's say you have 4 power cards in your hand and 4 "weight" cards in your hand (numbered 1-4, because I'm exotic that way)
- you play your first power card and you want it to work, but you've still got plans: you play that card plus the "3 weight" card
- the next one you play, would surely be nice, but you don't care all that much so play it with the "1 weight" card
- the third is your big comeback in case things are looking grim - BAM! the "4 weight" card
- the last is a bit of a hail-mary : a passable effect with a "2 weight" card
Your opponent:
- played (in order) a card with 2, 4, 3 and 1 weight cards attached
So:
- the first, third and forth take "full" effect for you, while the second takes the "lesser" effect (or no effect - we're not that far along the design )

The goal is to have both an effect and a bit of random as to whether it will work as hoped - sort of like the d20 in regular play. It's not something required by any stretch, but I liked the idea.

Your last paragraph seems like it would offer a similar result.

This seems like a cool "little" project - I'll participate more in a couple of days

I'm seeing a 2 deck game - one for powers and another for "weight". Each power card has a "victory/stalemate/disappointment" effect. You play 4 rounds. At the end of each round, you reveal the power card of the previous round - but not the weight card - and also the weight card of the round before that (if any). So that, as you play, you get a sense of what's happening - it's not just one big reveal.
OR....
At the end of a round, you choose a card the player to your right must reveal.

Yeah, there are ideas here - fun!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm seeing a 2 deck game - one for powers and another for "weight". Each power card has a "victory/stalemate/disappointment" effect. You play 4 rounds. At the end of each round, you reveal the power card of the previous round - but not the weight card - and also the weight card of the round before that (if any). So that, as you play, you get a sense of what's happening - it's not just one big reveal.
OR....
At the end of a round, you choose a card the player to your right must reveal.

Yeah, there are ideas here - fun!

I'd try to find a way to make it a single deck. Maybe weight cards are sort of like 'land' in M:tG, they just make up a certain portion of your deck. If you get some high ones in your hand, great, otherwise, not so great. Maybe cards could have both a weight and an effect, so you could spend them for their weight, with another effect card, or keep them because you like their effect. Perhaps the most potent cards also have the highest weights on them, so its a tough choice how you use them.

EDIT: Another option might be to not require a weight, but you could have cards act as boosters to other cards. This could be part of the stack (IE like M:tG's stack). You play a card, the opponent counters, you add a booster to your effect, he does something else, etc.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I'd try to find a way to make it a single deck. Maybe weight cards are sort of like 'land' in M:tG, they just make up a certain portion of your deck. If you get some high ones in your hand, great, otherwise, not so great. Maybe cards could have both a weight and an effect, so you could spend them for their weight, with another effect card, or keep them because you like their effect. Perhaps the most potent cards also have the highest weights on them, so its a tough choice how you use them.

EDIT: Another option might be to not require a weight, but you could have cards act as boosters to other cards. This could be part of the stack (IE like M:tG's stack). You play a card, the opponent counters, you add a booster to your effect, he does something else, etc.

I really like the idea of the cards also having a weight - so you play two cards: one as effect, and one as weight (I really have to find a better word). That would work with a one deck game...

But I'm still holding on to the idea of two decks for now - there's a picture starting to form in my head (and there are 2 different card types in it )
- 20 power cards and 20 weight cards (numbered 1 to 20)
- you draw 5 cards of each type
- you play 4 rounds
- you shuffle back [encounter] and [at-will] power cards into the deck after every round
- you shuffle back your weight cards after every round
- you're only allowed one [encounter] type card per round (if you play 2, the second one is void)

Not sure this would really work (pretty high variance) - but you get a "d20" of sorts, an AED thingy.

Now all that's left is creating 20 cards for every class! Pfft! Easy peasy!