|
|
| (72 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''Fan cards''' are unofficial Dominion kingdom cards created by fans of the game for personal use.
| + | Just some guy. I use my talk page as my drafts. If you need to get in touch with me, @spineflu#1868 on discord or [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=6808 dm-ing me on f.ds] is probably faster. |
| | | | |
| − | == Fan Card Creation Guide ==
| |
| − | The Fan Card Creation Guide is an extensive collection of tips and guidelines for fan created cards written by users rinkworks and Aquila. The guide is well respected and often referenced in the design and critique of fan made cards.
| |
| | | | |
| − | The rinkworks guide is reproduced here in its entirety, with edits for clarity & formatting, and additional content from Aquila and spineflu
| + | Projects: |
| | + | * card use-based categorization project |
| | + | ** unification of hub pages with category pages via template transclusion |
| | + | * clean up [[Special:categories]] |
| | | | |
| − | Way, Way TLDR: Playtest your fan cards.
| |
| | | | |
| − | === Introduction === | + | == Use-based categories == |
| − | The first rule about creating custom fan cards for Dominion is that you can ignore every single rule about it if you want to. Dominion is a game. Its purpose is fun. If you've got a card idea that sounds fun, do it. Playtest it. If it remains fun after scrutiny, keep playing with it.
| + | [[:Category:use-based categories]]; left off on [[Guilds]] for this |
| | + | :''Style guide: only leading caps unless:'' |
| | + | :*''single-letter variable.'' |
| | + | :*''abbreviation'' |
| | | | |
| − | Donald X. Vaccarino, the creator of Dominion, on house rules and variants: "I encourage people to play whatever game variants they want, provided they comply with local laws and are agreed upon by all players."
| + | * [[:Category:Terminals]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Non-terminals]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Cantrip]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Peddler (card archetype)]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Conditional non-terminals]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Sifter]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Deck discarder]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Discard for benefit]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Villages]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Throne-like]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Thinner]] - thins the deck in ways other than trashing; island, exilers |
| | + | * [[:Category:Trashers]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Remodelers]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Trash for benefit]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Limited trashers]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:TFB fodder]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Offense]] |
| | + | ** [[:Category:Attack]] |
| | + | *** [[:Category:Junker]] |
| | + | **** [[:Category:Cursers]] |
| | + | *** [[:Category:Handsize attack]] |
| | + | *** [[:Category:Trashing attack]] |
| | + | *** [[:Category:Deck inspection attack]] |
| | + | *** [[:Category:Deck order attack]] |
| | + | *** [[:Category:Turn-worsening attack]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Defense]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Draw]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Duration draw]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Variable draw]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Handsize positive]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Handsize negative]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Handsize neutral]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Virtual coin]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Extra buys]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Gainers]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Treasure gainer]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Opponent interaction]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Opponent beneficial]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Draw-to-X]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Seeker]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Topdecking]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Choice cards]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Cost reducer]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Gain from trash]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Emulator]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Deck inspector]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Likes variety]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Likes slogs]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Variable coin]] - both of the treasure and action variety |
| | + | * [[:Category:One-shot]] - both of the "trash this" and "return to supply" varieties |
| | + | * [[:Category:Disappearing money]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Alt VP]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Alt Treasure]] |
| | + | * [[:Category:Extra turn]] |
| | | | |
| − | However, this guide might help you create balanced cards without falling into as many pitfalls along the way. If you get past all those, you might still have trouble figuring out how to cost your cards. This guide might help you there, too. Additionally, the later sections of the guide discuss issues related to creating artwork for your cards, printing them, and using them.
| + | == Additional Meta categories == |
| − | | + | * Strategy concepts |
| − | Dominion is a very simple, highly flexible game model, and it's very easy to add to. With that flexibility, though, is the potential to make uninteresting ideas. Whilst they may not be flawed, your ideas could get to be disappointing in some way after playing with them for a while. Particularly disappointing if you went through the trouble of getting them printed out.
| + | |
| − | This guide aims to help make your good ideas into great ones before the final send-off to print, big reveal to your friends, etc.; it goes through the design process, identifying where people can take a bad turn, aiming to help refine your card ideas to be just what you want them to be. Whether a single card or a whole bunch of them, or your own expansion, this is going to help.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | One last note: If you're going into fan card creation with the goal of showing Donald X your cards so he can tell you how good they are and that they'll be in the next dominion expansion, don't. With the exception of {{card|Courtyard}}, DXV dislikes card submissions, avoids the Variants & Fan Cards subforum, and gets upset when they're posted in the endless interview thread.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === General Tips === | + | |
| − | ==== Know Your Canon ====
| + | |
| − | Be intimately familiar with all of the official Dominion cards and how to make the best use of them. You don't have to be an expert Dominion player, but you should be an expert at knowing what each card does and when and why you'd want to use it. Okay, so you don't technically have to know ALL the cards, but my point is that there are more design principles behind the published cards than you might think at first glance.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | For example, do you know why {{card|Sea Hag}} discards the top card of your deck instead of just having you plunk the {{card|Curse}} on top? (Answer: So multiple Sea Hags don't completely destroy your next turn.) Do you know why {{card|Tournament}} gives +1 Action? (Answer: So a player with a Tournament in hand but no Province doesn't have to agonize over the uninteresting decision to risk playing Tournament at the expense of another terminal Action in his hand.) Do you know why {{card|Outpost}} won't let you take more than two turns in a row? (Answer: Otherwise you could build a deck that plays an Outpost every turn, shutting out all other players.)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Knowing why the official cards are the way they are will keep you out of the same traps they avoid.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Know Beyond the Canon ====
| + | |
| − | The [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?board=14.0 Secret Histories] and [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5799.0 Endless Interview] both have extremely valuable insights into what has and hasn't worked with official DXV playtesting.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?board=11.0 Variants and Fan Cards subforum] - especially the [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.0 Weekly Design Contest thread] - can be a treasure trove of useful jumping off points and ideas that both work and don't work; a caveat with these is the date they were posted compared to which sets were available as "official" reference at the time - several things that used to be a semi-viable card were suddenly made overpowered in games with {{Project|Capitalism}}, or an official card did them better.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Keep It Simple ====
| + | |
| − | Simplicity is a good thing. You don't want your cards to be any more complicated than they have to be. If you have an idea for a card, try to boil it down as simply as possible without losing the essence of the idea. Note, by the way, that by "simplicity," I'm talking about the concepts you use, not necessarily how complex and careful the the card text has to be to convey those concepts. {{Card|Native Village}} for example, has a wall of text on it, but that's okay since the concept itself is a simple one. Once players learn what it does, they don't have to reread the card text every time just to make sure each use conforms to every nuance.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Swing is a Miss ====
| + | |
| − | Try to recognize cards that will be "swingy" and avoid them, unless adding swinginess to the game is your intention. By "swingy," I mean a card that will tip the balance of the game too much, especially in a random way. In general, you want to reward good strategy, not random luck.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | As an example, suppose you had an attack card that allowed you to take the top card of the deck of the player to your left. You might get lucky and turn up a {{card|Colony}}, resulting in a 20-point swing in your favor — more than the margin of victory for many if not most Dominion games. Or you might get very unlucky and turn up a Curse, resulting in a 2-point swing against you. With such a card, strategic play scarcely matters. The winner is whoever gets luckier with that attack.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Swinginess does exist in the official Dominion cards but on a dramatically smaller scale. {{card|Saboteur}} turning a Colony into a {{card|Province}} is only a 4-point swing. {{card|Swindler}} turning a Province into a {{card|Peddler}} is a defensible edge case. {{card|Thief}} and {{card|Bandit}} only work on treasure: a plentiful, non-scoring resource. Also note that many of those swingy cards have been removed as of the [[Second Edition]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Scale Model ====
| + | |
| − | Make sure your card scales well to multiple players. It's okay if a card plays differently with different numbers of players — many of the official cards do, like {{card|Jester}} and {{card|Pirate Ship}} —but you don't want a card that only works with a certain number and is brokenly weak or brokenly strong otherwise. Note that it is no accident that {{card|Witch}} affects all opponents, while {{card|Tribute}} only affects one. The other way around, and neither Witch nor Tribute would scale properly with different numbers of players.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Avoid Scripted Play ====
| + | |
| − | Try to avoid cards that encourage uninteresting strategies. You probably don't want to disincentivize creative or otherwise interesting play. As a trivial example, let's say you had a [[Duration]] card that prohibited other players from playing action cards while it's in play. This would cause all your opponents' Action cards to be dead cards. How would they defend against this? By not buying action cards and pursuing a money strategy instead. That, in turn, would discourage you from using your new Duration card in the first place, and the game would degenerate into a simple race for money.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | You can't anticipate everything, but if you spend a little time to think about the impact your custom cards will have, you can save yourself a lot of playtesting time.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Fair isn't Balanced ====
| + | |
| − | Just because a card is "fair" doesn't make it "balanced." A card is "fair" if all players have equal opportunity to obtain the card and reap the same benefits from playing it. Fairness is good. But just because a card is fair doesn't make it balanced.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Imagine a [[Treasure]]/[[Victory]] card that costs {{Cost|2}}, is worth {{Cost|10}}, and counts 100{{VP}} at the end of the game. It's fair, as all players have equal opportunities to obtain it. But the optimal strategy, dramatically excluding all others, is to buy only those until the pile is gone. And then it doesn't matter what you do, because the loser of that race can't hope to make up the VP deficit with mere Provinces. The card is, while fair, grotesquely unbalanced.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Balance problems with fan cards are unfortunately going to be more subtle than this. Usually it's going to be a judgment call. If {{card|Minion}}, {{card|Saboteur}}, {{card|Wharf}}, and {{card|Goons}} had been fan cards, I'm pretty sure the reaction from experienced Dominion players would be to decry them as unbalanced. They do walk the edge. But the point is that balance isn't an objective yes or no but a judgment call: if they greatly shape the games they're in (as is also the case with {{card|Gardens}}, {{card|Witch}}, {{card|Ambassador}}, and others), does that influence make the game more or less fun?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | At the other extreme, as Donald X. has said, if you have a card that doesn't change the game at all, what's the point?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Common Pitfalls ===
| + | |
| − | The card ideas in this section come up frequently and are generally considered weak or broken for reasons that are not always obvious. I'll try to list these here and explain the problems with them. Again, though, keep my opening paragraph in mind. Do what you think will be fun, and if it's an idea on this list, so be it. But if you do, it's worth understanding the problems you're liable to face.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== [[Reactions]] ====
| + | |
| − | This section deals specifically with Reaction cards, which due to their ability to be played out-of-turn, warrants a whole section.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Mirror Force =====
| + | |
| − | Consider a reaction that harms the attacker, in particular reflecting the attack.
| + | |
| − | This kind of idea comes up a lot. Sometimes the reaction is that the attack is reflected back on the attacker; at other times, some other form of harm befalls the attacker. Also variable is whether or not the attack still goes through to the reactor or not.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The basic problem with these kinds of reactions is that they make people afraid to play attack cards in the first place. And if they don't want to play attack cards, they don't buy attack cards. And if they don't buy attack cards, you won't have any need for your reaction card, either. The end result is that both the attacks and the reactions are left on the table.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There are more nuanced problems, too. [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=71.0 Here's Donald X. on the subject]:
| + | |
| − | <blockquote>
| + | |
| − | As I usually tell people who want to show me cards, the obvious ideas are obvious to me too, and I had a big head start. For example Richard Garfield suggested 3 cards while he was playtesting Seaside. One was already in a set and has survived; one was already in a set but currently isn't in one although I have an idea for fixing it up. The third card was the reaction that reflects the attack, which I had had suggested so many times that I had already written up an essay on why it doesn't work.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The problem with defenses that attack is that, in 4-player games, there's a 1-to-3 ratio that goes the wrong way relative to the buying decision.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Let's consider 3 cards:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *Point Eater. An attack that makes each other player lose 1 point. There's no Curse card involved; we'll track these points on a scoring track. I'm doing this to keep the analysis simple. | + | |
| − | *Revenge. When another player plays an attack card, reveal this to make them lose 1 point. It doesn't stop the attack. It only works for you once per attack, one way or another.
| + | |
| − | *{{card|Moat}}. As-is.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I am just considering 4-player games here, which is where the problem is at its worst.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I play Point Eater. Each other player is down a point. Or, from my perspective, I'm up a point.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | You Moat my Point Eater. For you, that's worth a point - you were going to lose a point, but now you don't. For me, that's -1/3 points. I make two out of three opponents lose a point, which is roughly 2/3 of a point of a benefit. It's rough because, who knows, maybe two of the players suck and I only care about the other one; if that one Moats I break even and if they don't I'm up a point. But in general, it's not like that; I am more or less still up 2/3 of a point when just one player Moats. So again: The person who decided to buy Moat makes a point here - they would have been down a point but are not - and the person who decided to buy Point Eater is still up 2/3 of a point after the Moat. Both cards still reward their players for buying them.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | You Revenge my Point Eater. For you, that's worth 1/3 of a point - one out of your three opponents lost a point. For me, the entire benefit of my attack is gone - I break even rather than being up a point. The person who decided to buy Revenge just got 1/3 of a point of benefit; the person who bought Point Eater got nothing. Revenge is a weak investment and Point Eater is horrible. Of course if this means no-one buys Point Eaters then Revenge is useless.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | See, it's this 1-to-3 ratio. In the wrong direction.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | We could make Revenge three times as powerful - the attacker loses 3 points. Then playing Revenge is worth a point, like playing Moat. Being on the receiving end means losing 2 points net. Attacking is really unattractive in this situation, while defending is just as good as it is with Moat. It's even worse if, as in this example, Revenge is cumulative. Everyone else Revenges and you end up down 8 points. If everyone had Moated, you would have broken even.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Or, we could make Revenge one third as powerful - the attacker loses 1/3 of a point. Then being on the receiving end is just like having your attack Moated - you are back to getting 2/3 of a point for your attack. Playing Revenge is pointless though - you are only up 1/9 of a point. You could make the rest of the card good enough that this was playable, but you would completely ignore the defensive part when deciding whether or not to buy this.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | So that's the deal. You can't fix the problem by tweaking the cost of Revenge; you still have the bad ratio. The one thing you can do is change the ratio; for example, Revenge could make every opponent lose a point whenever any opponent attacked. Then it's an attack that your opponents have to enable. Which is not necessarily out of the question, but isn't super sexy.</blockquote>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Non-terminal Reactions =====
| + | |
| − | If you create a non-terminal reaction, it's important to think through the ramifications. In particular, consider drawing non-terminal reactions very carefully. The issue is that making reactions non-terminal allows a player to stock up on them and thus pretty much always have one in hand when needed. Imagine adding a Moat-like reaction to {{card|Laboratory}}. You could buy them all up without harm to your deck, render attacks useless on virtually every turn, and still have a strong deck in its own right.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This problem is not insurmountable. The Reaction effect doesn't have to be an "attacks stop dead" effect like Moat has, and/or the Action component doesn't have to be as strong as Laboratory. But if you contemplate a non-terminal Reaction card -- again, especially drawing non-terminals, which do little or no harm to buy en masse -- consider the ramifications to the gameplay if one or more players decide to spam them.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Revealing Multiple Times & Ways to Defuse it =====
| + | |
| − | A subtle but significant rule about Reaction cards is that they can be revealed an unlimited number of times in response to any single event. Many fan Reaction cards aren't designed with this rule in mind. Consider this Reaction card: "When another player plays an attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, +1 Card."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | With such a card, the moment someone plays a single Witch, I can reveal it as many times as I need to to draw my entire deck and discard pile into my hand. The official Reaction cards don't have this problem because they either do not stack (Moat and {{card|Secret Chamber}}, for example, don't do anything the second time that they can't do the first time) or cannot be reused ({{card|Horse Traders}} gets set aside when revealed).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | If you have a Reaction effect that could stack if the card is revealed repeatedly, you can solve this problem either by using the Horse Traders mechanic of having the card set aside and returned to your hand later, or you can require that the card is discarded when revealed.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I'm sure these aren't the only viable solutions, but avoid special-case card text like, "You may only reveal this once per attack." The reason is that then it's hard for other players to account for whether you're revealing the same Reaction card multiple times or different copies of it in succession. This is especially true when you also have Secret Chamber, which could potentially rotate different copies of your other Reaction cards in and out of your hand
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Reactions to things Other Than Attacks =====
| + | |
| − | Let me be clear: This is not a bad idea. There is probably a lot of design space still unexplored for Reactions that react to things other than attacks. The Dominion rules specifically allow for Reaction cards to be able to potentially react to any number of different kinds of events. But a word of caution: If you create a card that reacts to an event that no official Reaction card reacts to, think that through. A bad decision here could severely bog down the game.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | For example, imagine the following card: "When another player plays a Treasure card, you may reveal and discard this card from your hand. If you do, the other player trashes the Treasure card immediately."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Here's the problem: Do you really want all players to have to wait, every single time they play a Treasure card, to see if anybody is going to play this Reaction to it? Without such a card, players will often lay their Treasure cards down all at once, which keeps the game moving quickly. But with such a Reaction card in play, it's strategically disadvantageous to do this, as then the Reactor will be able to make a more informed decision about which Treasure card he'd like to trash with it.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | To date, the existing Reaction cards only react to events that would require that player to do something anyway. When someone plays {{card|Militia}}, there is already a natural pause in the game to wait for the other players to discard down to 3 cards in hand. The natural pause allows for the timely revealing of a Reaction card, like Moat, and not slow the game down any further. Similarly, {{card|Watchtower}} activates when the player holding a Watchtower in hand gains a card -- another moment in the game when the Reactor would be expected to act anyhow.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I'm not suggesting that Reaction cards should ONLY react to events that cause the Reactor to act. But they should probably only react to what are already natural breaks in the game.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== [[Attacks]] ====
| + | |
| − | Attack cards are another frequent avenue of Fan Card creation, which warrants a section specifically for them.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Trashing Attacks =====
| + | |
| − | An example of this is "Every other player trashes the top card of his deck." Donald X. frequently mentions this being a bad idea. The problem is that it's too swingy. One person loses a Curse. The next loses a Province. Unless a very swingy, very random game is what you're going for, you need to correct for this variance somehow. And then, even if you do, such cards usually aren't very fun. Players like to build up their decks. They get frustrated at seeing them regress.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The closest an official card comes to using this idea is {{card|Saboteur}}, which corrects for the variance by allowing the player to gain a replacement card whose cost is determined by the cost of the trashed card. Even with this correction for balance, it's one of the least popular cards in the game.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Stacking Attacks =====
| + | |
| − | "Every other player discards a card" is an example of such a card. By itself, it's fine. But if it gets played multiple times -- which, even in a kingdom without a {{card|Village}} or {{card|Throne Room}}, can happen easily in a 4-player game -- then the game can degenerate into a state where players discard most or all of their hands all the time and can't do anything.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Many of the official Dominion cards are great examples of how to circumvent this problem. Notice that Militia doesn't read "discard two cards" but rather "discard down to 3 cards." {{card|Torturer}} does say "discard two cards" but allows a player to take a Curse instead. Sea Hag has you discard the top card of your deck to prevent five Sea Hags from obliterating your next turn.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{card|Cutpurse}} does hurt in multiples, but its effect is limited to how many {{card|Copper}} you have in your hand. The damage multiple {{card|Bureaucrat}} cards can do is similarly constrained to how many Victory cards you have in your hand, and the "gain a {{card|Silver}}" clause of Bureaucrat cleverly dilutes a Bureaucrat-heavy deck, so that multiple Bureaucrats aren't likely to be played repeatedly throughout a game.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The bottom line is you don't want to have an attack so strong that it can, by itself or stacked, completely ruin the next player's turn. Otherwise you can wind up in a game state where one player is locked out of being able to make any meaningful progress.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Targeting & Political Attacks =====
| + | |
| − | By purposeful design, Dominion doesn't have attacks that target specific players. Many Dominion players appreciate the lack of politics in the game — that is, the inevitable over-the-table negotiations and protests that result whenever a game allows a player to choose a specific opponent to target — and thus may not appreciate a fan card that opens that door. That said, there is not necessarily anything broken about having targeted attacks in Dominion, so if that's what you want to do, go for it.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=80.0 Donald X on the subject]:
| + | |
| − | <blockquote>Dominion always had everyone-but-you-style attacks, and the reason it did was because that's what I do in all my multiplayer games that have attacks (that don't have some more game-specific solution). It was automatic. It did not involve any special calculations or testing for Dominion specifically. And then it worked because of course it works, it had already worked in all those other games.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This comes naturally from making games at all. You make a game. It allows for directed attacks. Who do they attack? Man, you designed it. You must be the one who knows what's going on. They attack you. Of course it also comes from evenings spent whining about who gets the robber, man, Tom's winning, put it on that ore why don't you, wtf, don't trade with Tom, are you nuts, he's winning I tell you, look he's just about to get the longest road.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I don't see any reason you couldn't make a game like Dominion with directed attacks. Some people like spending the evening whining about who not to trade with - it takes all kinds - and there's nothing about "your game state is stored in a deck of cards" that defeats that. I personally don't like those games and so Dominion isn't one of them. But if political games are possible at all then you can also make a political deckbuilding game.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I don't agree with some of the other stuff you said either, but it's not like I want to talk about what exactly is possible on a Dominion card. And what, I'd just as soon have people making up directed attacks for their homemade cards; since I won't be doing those, it stops us from overlapping.</blockquote>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Attacks that offer no benefit =====
| + | |
| − | Like almost everything in this list, this is not a firm rule. But before you create an attack card that ONLY harms other players, consider that of all the official cards, there are only two Attack cards that don't also provide some form of benefit to the player. These are Sea Hag, which is so strong for its cost that any additional benefit would overpower it; and Saboteur, which would be even more unpleasant than it already is if there were any additional incentive to use it. Even attacks as brutal as {{card|Mountebank}}, Witch, Ambassador, and {{card|Ghost Ship}} provide additional benefit to the player. Besides that benefit being necessary to achieve forward movement in the game, they also ensure that, if the attack portion is blocked by Moat, the attacking player hasn't utterly wasted his action.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | All I'm getting at is that if you create an Attack card with no benefit, make sure the decision not to include a benefit was a conscious and considered choice and not just something you overlooked.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Gameshaping ====
| + | |
| − | This section deals with cards that very drastically shape the game they're in. This isn't to say this is bad per se — official cards like {{card|Chapel}}, {{card|Baker}}, and any of the [[Heirloom]] cards do this as well — but these are things to be mindful of when designing a card.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Power Cards & Drawbacks =====
| + | |
| − | This comes up a lot, perhaps more than any other idea on this list. Examples are numerous. Basically you invent a cheap but powerful card and attach a negative {{VP}} penalty to try to balance it. On the surface, this idea presents an intriguing dilemma to the player: Do you take the hit to your score in the hopes that the extra power will enable you to overcome the deficit?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The problem is that there is essentially no way to make such a card balanced. In a kingdom where [[trashing]] is possible, the correct play is probably to buy these cards, reap their benefits, and trash them before the game ends, circumventing the penalty entirely. To balance the card in such a kingdom, the {{VP}} penalty would have to be quite steep, to offset the likelihood that the card will be trashed before the game ends. But if the {{VP}} penalty is steep enough to balance that situation, it will be way too steep in kingdoms without trashing available, as then the VP penalty would be too great to risk.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Many people try to correct this problem by adding a clause to the card such as "This card cannot be trashed" or "If this card is trashed, place it in your discard pile instead of the trash pile." This kind of special-case rule rubs me wrong (there's a section on special-case rules later), though it might be workable in this case. Another workaround people use is "When you buy this card, gain a Curse." Or, since the Curse pile can run out and gained Curse cards can be trashed, the concept of a "curse token" is employed: "When you buy this card, gain X curse tokens." A curse token would be worth -1 {{VP}} at the end of the game, similarly to how Prosperity's Victory Tokens are worth +1 {{VP}} at the end of the game.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Regardless, these solutions still come up short, although they're improvements on the original idea. The problem is that a power card can't be balanced with a fixed {{VP}} cost, for the simple reason that {{VP}} totals vary wildly from game to game, depending on the board. Dominion games can be won with 5 points and lost with 100. The difference between scores can be very small, meaning a -2 {{VP}} penalty could be decisive, or very large, making it insignificant.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | A counterargument to this is that one of the basic strategic principles of Dominion is recognizing that every card is good in some situations and bad in others, so a card that is powerful sometimes and weak at other times is no problem at all. But this kind of card seems to be usually either dominant or suicidal and only rarely in between.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The best solution seems to be to cause a {{VP}} penalty to be incurred upon each USE of the card, rather than merely on the purchase of it. Then the {{VP}} penalty is directly proportional to the benefit you get from using it. In games with heavy-trashing, where the card would be used more often, the penalty is steeper. In no-trashing games, where the card would be used less often, the penalty is smaller.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Seemingly the two best ways to incur a penalty upon use of the card are (1) "Gain X curse tokens," and (2) "Gain a Curse. If you do...." The former incurs an irreversible VP penalty. The latter puts a stop to free power plays when the Curses run out. Both deal damage in proportion to the use you get out of the card.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Trash Picking =====
| + | |
| − | ===== Indefinite Duration =====
| + | |
| − | ===== On Terminality =====
| + | |
| − | ===== Golden Deck =====
| + | |
| − | ===== Un-Dominion ideas =====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Specialized Cards ====
| + | |
| − | ===== Reference Limited Card Types =====
| + | |
| − | Examples of this would include "Gain an attack card", or "If you have at least three duration cards in play", or "You may trash up to 3 Curses", or "+$1 for every dual-typed card in your hand." The problem with these cards is simply that if they show up in kingdoms without any of these types present, the card is useless.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | You can still make such a card work if the card also has behavior that is sometimes worth buying anyway. This is the case with reaction cards such as Moat, Secret Chamber, and Horse Traders. In the absence of Attack cards in the kingdom, these may still be worth having for their other functions.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Another way to solve the problem is for the card itself to force the intended condition. For example, a card that specifically references {{card|Potion}} cards is fine if it carries a Potion-based cost, as then, whenever that card would be present, Potions would be present also. Similarly, "Choose one: Trash any number of Curses from your hand; or every other player gains a Curse" would work, as then you wouldn't need a separate cursing card to be present.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Split piles]], [[Heirlooms]], and out-of-supply cards like {{card|Madman}} are other ways to force this synergy.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Resources Not Available =====
| + | |
| − | This is similar to the above. One example of this kind of card would be something that has "-1 Buy" on it. I actually think that's a really cool idea; the problem is that it's dead in a kingdom with no +Buy cards.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Another example would be {{card|Diadem}}, a card whose behavior is based on having unused actions. Donald X. experimented with Diadem as a regular kingdom card but found it to be a dead card too often, as in many kingdoms there are no sources of extra actions. (But it works fine as a [[Prize]], where it's not taking up a whole kingdom pile.)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Still another example is a repeatedly proposed fan card that does only this: "+1 Card, +1 Action." Normally, this does nothing, as it merely replaces both the card slot and the action it uses up. But the justification for it is that it helps enable {{card|Conspirator}}, it lowers the price of Peddler, it can provide extra cards and actions with {{card|Throne Room}} or {{card|King's Court}}, it provides an extra unique card for {{card|Horn of Plenty}}, and so on. Yes, but the number of kingdoms with any of these cards in it is very small -- and in many of those, other cards will accomplish the same things. On the majority of boards, it's a dead pile.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Accountability =====
| + | |
| − | ===== Census Cards =====
| + | |
| − | ===== Special Case Rules =====
| + | |
| − | ===== the Discard Pile =====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.msg9668#msg9668 General Tips]
| + | |
| − | * [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.msg9668#msg9668 Common Pitfalls]
| + | |
| − | * [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.msg9669#msg9669 Myths About Card Prices]
| + | |
| − | * [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.msg9670#msg9670 Pricing Your Cards]
| + | |
| − | * [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.msg9671#msg9671 Formatting Your Cards]
| + | |
| − | * [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=699.msg9671#msg9671 Printing Your Card]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Fan Card Creation Tools ==
| + | |
| − | *[https://shardofhonor.github.io/dominion-card-generator/index.html Shard Of Honor's card template] - a fork of VioletCLM's card creator with additional functionality added.
| + | |
| − | *[https://shemitz.net/static/dominion3/ VioletCLM's card creator]
| + | |
| − | *[http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16622.0 thread discussing both card creators]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Design Contests ==
| + | |
| − | Design contests for fan cards are run periodically by various users of the message board.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Image:FanArchivist.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Card mock-up for Archivist made by [http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1140683/jsimantov jsimantov of Board Game Geek].]]
| + | |
| − | === Dominion Fan Card Contest ===
| + | |
| − | In October 2011 user Davio organized a fan card creation contest.<ref>Davio, [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=809.0 "Dominion Fan Card Contest"], [[Dominion Strategy Forum]]</ref> As motivation to receive quality entries, Davio offered a modest prize of an Amazon gift card. Davio received 20 entries and allowed the community to vote on the winner. The chosen winner was Archivist, a card designed by rinkworks.<ref>Davio, [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=809.msg13009#msg13009 "Dominion Fan Card Contest"], [[Dominion Strategy Forum]]</ref> The card was an example of a [[Engine#Single_Card_Engines|single card engine]], with the following card text:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Name: Archivist
| + | |
| − | * Type: Action
| + | |
| − | * Cost: {{Cost|5}}
| + | |
| − | * Card Text: +1 Action. Choose one: Draw until you have 6 cards in hand; or +{{Cost|1}} and discard 1 or more cards from your hand.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | To the surprise of the community, Davio had secretly contacted [[dougz]] and the card was playable for a limited time on Isotropic.<ref>Davio, [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=875.0 "Fan Cards On Isotropic"], [[Dominion Strategy Forum]]</ref> This is the only instance of an unofficial Dominion card being playable on the public version of Isotropic.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Mini-Set Design Contest ===
| + | |
| − | As a followup to Davio's contest, rinkworks later launched a far more ambitious design contest. The second contest attempted to create a complete mini-set of cards, with every card in the set being designed, voted on, and fine tuned by members of the community. There was a full subforum dedicated to the contest on the [[Dominion Strategy Forum|forums]].<ref>[http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?board=32.0 "Mini-Set Design Contest Subforum"], [[Dominion Strategy Forum]]</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Weekly Design Contest ===
| + | |
| − | A follow-up contest to rinkwork's Set Design contest, [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=18987.0 the Weekly Design contest] was started by Doom_Shark; it has a rotating judging criteria and its host is whoever won the previous week's contest. It has been running since Sept 2018. Its winners are posted in the [http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19239.0 Weekly Design Hall of Fame].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == References ==
| + | |
| − | {{reflist|2}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Navbox Cards}}
| + | |
| − | [[Category:Card topics]]
| + | |
Just some guy. I use my talk page as my drafts. If you need to get in touch with me, @spineflu#1868 on discord or dm-ing me on f.ds is probably faster.
