The Betrayal of the Card

They’re the most important (or only) component in many games: randomisable, concealable, invertible, portable, rotatable, categorisable and packed with information. I’ve yet to design a game which utilises this potential: my mechanics rely solely on the number of cards in a player’s hand.

Why have I allowed this to happen? I mostly work with area control games: if four areas are better than three, the same should be true of cards. In worker placement games, a player’s hand size can determine the areas of the board they can access. My playtesters, however, keep asking me for cards with some “wow” factor.

Instead, I’ve given them decks. A deck is to a card what a cube is to a square: much more complex, but with many characteristics in common. I recently improved a deck by splitting it into sections: some cards are now guaranteed to appear early on. A weak, unloved card is eventually replaced by a stronger version.

That, however, is just one way of looking at it. If we imagine the weak card has simply evolved into the strong one, what are we left with? That’s right, a new project in which players draw whole decks instead of cards: Pokémon, the Copyright Infringement Game.

One thought on “The Betrayal of the Card

Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: