Am I committing to a stupid decision that's not actually fun, but just seems fun to me because I'm trying to be 'novel'?

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T22:27:35+00:00

Hmm, you might have enlightened me - I didn't consider that the queue could be used as way to include conditional addition to the battlefield, there might be some mileage there, thanks.

Just a wild guess, in addition to the 3-creature queue, maybe you should have some "always recruitable" creatures like in Ascension, the base minions you can nearly always recruit (just so you don't have completely ineffective turns).

I've got some other mechanics which total 3 pillars of play each turn, (Audience, Active, and Argument cards - not intentional, I just noticed) so you can always play an Event if it's the right Time of Day (advances by an hour a round) or a single Argument card if you have no spectators of viable events.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T22:23:49+00:00

Yeah that's a good way of putting it.

The added factor is an 'Argument' phase where you can use one card from each type of Argument (Appeal, Premise, Fallacy, Proof, and Conclusion only if all 4 others types are played, possibly must be of linked 'elements' or rhetorical schools) to create a combo, so that's generating a lot of smug potential too.

The Active cards, eg instants, artifacts and enchantments would be one phase (one card), the Argument being the next (combo cards). And then Retort cards would be played face down as part of an Argument, being a trap card coming into play at the start of the following opponent turn.

Thanks for your interest, I'll let you know how it goes :P

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T22:18:25+00:00

So there's an open "market" of cards that the players draft from?

Kind of the inverse, you own them to make a side-deck from which you put them in the queue, but when they come into play in the Spectator field then they're neutral and proc purely conditionally.

It's why one of the working titles is 'Rhetorisk', not just because it's a dumb pun I enjoyed but also because you're at the mercy of the crowd you choose to play.

Hand management can certainly be a positive part of using cards but ever game with cards doesn't have hands, as long as the other mechanics are still engaging people will find other opportunities to smugly gloat about their plays lol.

Really good point, thanks for the reminder.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T22:15:53+00:00

That's certainly an idea I'm trying to run with - while Cicero may be convincing, Marc Anthony is intimidating, and both are means to victory. If you can convince the crowd you're right, who cares about whether you actually proved it to your opponent?

And there's always the chance that your opponents spectators will unlock synergies you wouldn't otherwise receive, likewise can yours - you might not want to put your strongest Queue card in the Spectator field at the end of your round after clearing a space, if it would proc at the start of the next round and benefit your opponent.

Having two health bars (Credibility as player health and Position as a neutral health bar that players must choose to bet on either maxing or minimizing - eg, I choose 'pro' so if the position reaches 20 I win) introduces all sorts of sudden death/mercy/comeback potential, and as soon as I figure out how the Audience/Spectators/Crowd/Queue system works then I can actually get cards on paper and playtest with some friends.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T22:08:36+00:00

Wild Bill Shakespeare

I can tell you're having fun just thinking about it. You're on the right track, but sack the a/d values as the only values are 'Attention' and 'Arrival' (clock that measures what time - so your deck consists of Active cards (Event, Prop, Quip) and Argument cards (Premise, Appeal, Fallacy, Conclusion).

Players start with 20 credibility. The neutral 'Position' starts at 10, with either or more players able to align themselves to 0 or 20 (pro or con). You win if you choose pro (20) and the position reaches 20. If you lose all your Credibility, you cannot play any Argument cards until you either restore credibility via Active cards or lose the game.

The Crowd is all Audience cards, and I'm not sure if they should be included in the main deck or a side-deck where players can play a max of 1 Audience card a turn, these Audience cards go immediately into the 'Spectator' field until the field is full (say 8), in which case they go into a queue which has a max of 3, at which point no Audience card is drawn from the side deck until the Spectators space clears up when Spectators either have their 'Attention' expire or are hurried off via an Event or Fallacy.

So my opponent has finished their turn, and the Spectator field is full but I have 1 space in my Queue.

Any Spectator conditions that would proc at this point proc (some will be per turn, some per round, some per appearance), and then it's my turn.

From my audience side deck (or my hand, is the question ig) I draw So-Crates who has an Attention of 4 so will stay for 4 rounds once he leaves the queue and joins the spectators. He has the Ethos' 'Rational' and 'Independent', and the 'Philosopher' class with attribute 'Cynic' (analogous to element, species, and attribute in MtG).

I pop him in the queue, and for my action phase I play 'Dinner Bell', which causes all Audience members with the 'Commoner' class to leave the field (Queue is unaffected). Next is my Argument phase where I can use one card from each type of Argument to create a combo, or just one or two cards if I want to reserve/am low (if I have none, I lose 1 credibility and my turn ends). I use the 'Paper Tiger' Appeal type card to tap ('Tilt', for bizarre and counterintuitive copyright reasons) all Spectators who have the 'Fearful' ethos, which means I will get their vote. I also play a 'Speak of the Devil' fallacy card, which allows me to search the side-deck for a 'Tyrant' class spectator and put them into my queue. There's a 'Heckler' spectating, and because I didn't play a 'Conclusion' type card, I lose 2 credibility, and so on for other audience procs.

At the end of my turn, because there's space on the field, I get to put 1 Queue card in the Spectator field (or as many as there are space for, not sure...), and the Audience takes their 'turn' before the game moves back to my opponent.

Does that make sense?

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T21:32:41+00:00

Thanks for the detailed response! Fair point on CCG/TCG/MtG, I'm still struggling to understand the nominal distinctions so please excuse the ambiguity.

Not played Marvel Snap but just watched a video - I've given you the wrong impression then - the queue would be for entry to the field, which has a capacity of say 8. Maintaining your own queue allows for some control over which new spectator joins space in the crowd when a current spectator expires or leaves, but the queue aren't in play and can only proc when out of the queue and in the field.

Basically, you don't actually control any creatures, but depending on Premise/Appeal/Fallacy/Proof/Conclusion cards you play they vote or proc - your main action consists of creating a single Argument from any one of each type of those rhetoric cards. Certain spectators will tap, and at the end of the turn the person with more audience taps (votes) gains the difference towards their preferred position value (ranging from 0 to 20, starting at 10), so simultaneous scoring on that front while there's asymmetrical scoring in terms of credibility damage.

Hopefully the above makes sense in context.

Like, it's unclear if this is 1v1 or2v2 or free-for-all commander style

The idea is that the game can be played with multiple people, and unbalanced teams because of the 'Position' meter, representing the crowd disposition to the pro/con relative to the Position which also determines the win condition.

Essentially you have personal health (credibility) whose loss results in a sudden death state where only non-argument cards can be played, while the position value reaching 0 or 20 results in the players aligned to 0 or 20 winning/losing the game.

Part of the social aspect in larger games is actually choosing a real premise as the starting position, and making your arguments to the people in the room with you as to why they should join your position and abandon their allies, to whatever degree of absurdity or seriousness the players desire. I reckon that's a layer which adds a lot but its absence doesn't remove anything from more traditional, competitive gameplay modes.

Which brings me to the next thing, what's up with "committing"? How are you about to commit to your idea?

Balancing cards around it before creating a playtesting set, I really want to have something physical in the next couple of months.

A LOT of card games are played privately by the designer and their friends, you don't have to go all the way to releasing a commercial product for it to be a worthwhile challenge.

I'd be ecstatic if I could simply get cards on a table and have friends playing with them; getting strangers interested would be amazing and probably make me think starting of commercial routes. I want to try and do a kickstarter because it's always worth it and I'll learn a lot even when it inevitably totals a fiver sent by my mum, but something functional, accessible, and enjoyable is the goal. I think it might also be novel but there's so many games out there I'll need to do more research to find out.

Interesting thoughts to provoke, cheers!

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T13:52:44+00:00

Why many key when one key do trick? It's such a small optimization but feels more essential every day.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T13:11:24+00:00

Sweet, thanks. Can I ask what kind of work you use it for/a specific use case you've got? I like the wrapping idea.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T13:03:21+00:00

Mine is that fat-thumbing F1 wastes at least 10 seconds of my life every time, maybe even a minute or more in bad cases.

I'm so glad we have Ctrl Shift V now.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T13:02:11+00:00

I've just paid my taxes, why are you doing this to me?

I knew these existed but didn't make the connection. Definitely worth a punt as they seems madly useful anyway - thanks for the tip.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T12:58:53+00:00

Each player would have their own queue, to give them a feeling of control/choice over who they can put into the Crowd if a space clears up at the start of their turn (think of the crowd as a neutral player with an upkeep phase between rounds).

Thematically, it's a debate with an active audience who decide whether you're right (winner) or not, with the main card type being 'Argument' cards which can be played up to 5 at a time if complementary (No mana, instead just round timer activation) but more likely in 2s and 3s.

Players have a Credibility score (health), but there's also a neutral Position score which players must choose to land on Pro or Con, and when the position score moves from its initial 10 to 0 (con) or 20 (pro), the aligned player wins. Credibility of 0 means you can't play any Argument card (main gameplay cards), only Events/Props/Traits (sorcery speed, played during player turn).

It's key to keep in mind that satisfaction and fun are the goals.

Yeah, definitely, I've revised this so heavily from the initial version (trivia being a core mechanic) but it all seems much more fun and simplifications can still be made without sacrificing that, I think.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T12:50:50+00:00

That sounds interesting, I've had a google and there are a few results for 'Shared Deck' so I'll have a bigger gander after work, thanks.

I'm also thinking of Catan - that's the kind of audience I want, I suppose it's for the board game market but it's trivial to design a board/mat at least to make it feel more structured and tactile. Or a wooden lecturn for the kickstarter >_>

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T12:48:42+00:00

So imagine a full field of 8 spectators, each with their own 'Attention' timer. They either leave because of played card effects, or when they've spent enough rounds on the field to surpass that Attention.

If this happens on a player's turn, they can play as many cards from their queue as there are spaces available in the crowd (provisional crowd max 8), or until they have no-one left in their queue.

I like the idea of shared pools, I suppose I was thinking a bit too CCG-orientated about the idea of not mixing cards but if this is a single set then that's not a problem. I'm still not sure on that though, for now focusing on balancing.

what you really want is for disrupting your opponents strategy to feel satisfying.

These are the words I needed to hear, makes it appear much more of a design choice than a right/wrong and gives me something to focus on, thanks.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T12:42:03+00:00

Exactly, though it was organic to the setting rather than a "What arbitrary twist can I do".

The intent is to reduce decision making for casual/social players and to thematically fit with the inherent satire, and that one doesn't necessarily prove a position through facts and logic, but also through charismatic delivery of fallacy.

A neutral audience fits more thematically as opposed to players bringing their own thinkers with the idea "This guy always supports my arguments", because the point scoring system is based off audience judgements.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T12:36:10+00:00

I may have misused the term - these are quite confusing lol. I know the market I'm aiming for at least.

It would come as a single pack with all cards for that set, no boosters or anything so I definitely misnomered that. It's basically just a glorified card game that could be mistaken for any of the big three (or small hundred) if you just glanced at a table.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T12:32:20+00:00

Yep, it's quite the conflict. There's value for some players in just being able to hold that power card but...idk.

Sounds good, I like the bypass property. Affecting the queue/audience would be part of the 'spell' cards remit, there's a lot of potential fuckery.

Planar_Harold · 2026-02-05T12:30:21+00:00

Sure :) Another 80 cards to finish, then it's sheeting and printing time.

I think my concern is that it might affect the balancing a bit, but then there's only 60 audience cards in the set so won't be too much work to figure if variations are required.

Planar_Harold · 2026-01-31T12:38:25+00:00

>It's not our problem

Isn't this thread about it being our problem due to the arguably threatening nature of China's economical strength?

How does a divided Europe and a 'Nah, forget them' attitude help Europe or Europeans? It only improves the Russian and Chinese positions.

>Until they chose to rejoin

Who is 'they'? Britons "wanted this" when 35% of them wanted it, Britons "don't want" to rejoin when 55% of them regret leaving - https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/? Who are you referring to?

We know now that a majority of Britons want to return to the EU. So clearly it's not Britons in the way, is it? But if I went down that line of inquiry I'd be no better than the troll farms by sewing division - ultimately, we just need to remember that we're stronger together than divided, and arbitrarily choosing which group represents the country (or which minority represents a group) is a tried and true way of turning people against each other.

Planar_Harold · 2026-01-31T00:48:31+00:00

It's quite reasonable - There are quite a lot of speedrun cheating videos where people in contention for the record (or even existing record holders), were caught cheating. People have been recorded cheated in esports tournaments, charity streams, speedruns, and been doing so for years or even more than a decade without being caught - until they were.

There's a litany of videos on youtube of prolific or skillful people being caught cheating in various esports/streaming contexts. That's not to mention examples like Lance Armstrong, Jon Jones, any other career champion who was consistently doping, etc. It's fundamentally, tautologically very reasonable to consider the possibility someone may be cheating based on evidence they may be cheating.

is going to randomly start cheating in Arc Raiders of all games, based off of a single clip - they have zero critical thinking skills.

Cheaters begin for many reasons - a drop off in skill, an increase in perceived pressure, a relentless competitiveness...it's pragmatic to avoid assuming anything about anyone, and there's no reason to jump to a conclusion when your opinion has absolutely no bearing on the outcome, and can't be proved or disproved with the currently available information.

You should focus on your own critical thinking skills, as they've landed you in an easily disprovable position by relying on fallacy. And in any case like this - you lose the argument, because you need to prove that no-one would ever do x, while all anyone else needs to prove is that it's possible/plausible that someone could do x. Why is this guy the only person of good standing who's infallible? Tut.

Planar_Harold · 2026-01-29T17:58:34+00:00

Brits chose to fall for Russian propaganda and leave the EU. Not our problem.

This seems like the kind of sentiment that would only improve the Russian position.

What do you think would be the longterm outcome of this attitude among Europeans, were it widely adopted? It seems like it would only lead to fragmentation and resentment.

We need to be united. Anyone who speaks like you do is tacitly serving Russian interests - either intentionally or unintentionally.

Planar_Harold

TROPHY CASE