Search Results
6/30/2025, 12:15:38 AM
>>95977043
I don't like the idea of cards with explicit reactions to specific actions; it could end up a little too rigid.
I'd keep it to spending a resource to turn an attack into a feint, and the defender can spend a similar resource to parry/dodge/etc. It's a little more dynamic and tying it to a universal resource makes people wary of spending it frivolously.
Consider a fighting game, we'll call it Shameful Cog. In playtesting, I attack you; you can choose to parry or not, then I can reveal that the attack was fake anyway and your parry was wasted. Okay, that's it, end of interaction. Over time, I see that the solution as a defender is to ALWAYS parry; it's a gamble either way, and best case I avoid damage, worst case I waste a card that can't be used in any other context.
We go back to the drawing board and use a points system of Tension Tokens. These tokens can be used to do a parry, or to power up an attack, among other things. I attack you; you say you're going to declare a parry and spend 5 Tension Tokens for it. It turns out to have been a fake attack. I do the same thing again. And again. Now, I spend 25 Tension Tokens to power up my attack, knowing that you're at a deficit of these tokens. Because you've spent so many, you can't even try to parry it and just eat the damage.
Then in the next playtest session, you just eat all the little damage, but decide to parry all my big attacks. I see this, and sometimes commit a bit of resources to make attacks knowing I can spend mine to make you spend yours, and control when you are able to parry, but now I can't make big attacks as often. So I can decide to rarely feint, and make it a 50/50 on the big attacks I spend stuff on. So on so forth, it makes it more of a mindgame or at least active decision-making whether to feint/parry or even use that same resource to truly commit to an attack (that you might be intending to spend even more on for a wack-ass mixup!)
I don't like the idea of cards with explicit reactions to specific actions; it could end up a little too rigid.
I'd keep it to spending a resource to turn an attack into a feint, and the defender can spend a similar resource to parry/dodge/etc. It's a little more dynamic and tying it to a universal resource makes people wary of spending it frivolously.
Consider a fighting game, we'll call it Shameful Cog. In playtesting, I attack you; you can choose to parry or not, then I can reveal that the attack was fake anyway and your parry was wasted. Okay, that's it, end of interaction. Over time, I see that the solution as a defender is to ALWAYS parry; it's a gamble either way, and best case I avoid damage, worst case I waste a card that can't be used in any other context.
We go back to the drawing board and use a points system of Tension Tokens. These tokens can be used to do a parry, or to power up an attack, among other things. I attack you; you say you're going to declare a parry and spend 5 Tension Tokens for it. It turns out to have been a fake attack. I do the same thing again. And again. Now, I spend 25 Tension Tokens to power up my attack, knowing that you're at a deficit of these tokens. Because you've spent so many, you can't even try to parry it and just eat the damage.
Then in the next playtest session, you just eat all the little damage, but decide to parry all my big attacks. I see this, and sometimes commit a bit of resources to make attacks knowing I can spend mine to make you spend yours, and control when you are able to parry, but now I can't make big attacks as often. So I can decide to rarely feint, and make it a 50/50 on the big attacks I spend stuff on. So on so forth, it makes it more of a mindgame or at least active decision-making whether to feint/parry or even use that same resource to truly commit to an attack (that you might be intending to spend even more on for a wack-ass mixup!)
Page 1