Yep, this tread's quite slowed down sadly. I think I'll see if I can make something workable soon; exams are coming up though, so those might take priority...

I guess the discussion pretty much died down. Too bad, the idea seemed interesting to explore.

I guess debating on which of the multitude of directions to go leads to nowhere until some playable version actually appears. I could create some decks for the rule set I described or some other but I fear that it being a multiplayer game would mean it will never be actually played. An online version would help, but would require a sizeable amount of coding and a dedicated server.

All in all, an interesting concept but, sadly, practical issues mean it probably won't see the light of day.

Yep, yep yep.

I'm willing to work on both of these tracks. That's why I suggested the other two archetypes in the first place - the abstract poker-deck style and the victory cards. I think they would be closer to your original vision.

So let's do some design in that direction.

The big category you want to include are toys and rules. You generally describe both of those as short-term persistent effects. You also seem to like the idea of modifiers that can attach to toys and rules. Everything else has run into immediate conflict, so let's pare it back to those two basic types for right now - independent toy/rule cards and dependent modifier cards. Let's call them 'noun' and 'adjective' cards. These broad categories can be broken down thematically and mechanically later.

These two concepts would suggest a third type - verb cards. These would be cards that had some high-level effect that interact with and depend on the nouns. In your previous designs you proposed Challenges. These seem a bit contentious and optional even in your own suggestions. I feel like Challenges fit this broad mold. They shape the overall nature of what's going on, set an end and means, and you tie nouns to them to contextualize them. Game Changers also fit here. They have a dynamic effect on their own.

I think the reason this category has been so contentious is that this is where games would differentiate themselves. Your first big design decision would probably be whether to include any kind of verb cards at all. Noun and adjective cards fit your original vision - they're simple and they mostly exist to be shuffled around by rules or other cards. Challenges and Game Changers, on the other hand, exist on a higher level and build a specific ruleset by their very nature.

I think there are three ways to go within this framework. First, only include nouns and adjectives. The way nouns and adjectives are played, moved, drawn, and discharged are entirely up to local rulesets. That would be more like the playing cards I talked about. Second, try to build generic verb cards that can fit into a variety of larger structures. This is definitely the trickiest approach, but with some careful design it could maybe work. Third, keep nouns and adjectives basic but let verb cards go wild. Basically, let verbs define how the game works - how you get and spend cards, how you win. Basically, use verb cards to cumulatively build a ruleset. This would probably involve designers building sets of verb cards that mostly used the common set of nouns and adjectives. You would have Challenge cards, but they wouldn't be an inherent part of the game. They would just be persistent verbs that let you attach nouns to them. You would have Game Changers, but they would just be verbs that affected the general game state. I feel like you've been oscillating between the second and third models here. You've suggested things like Challenge and Game Changer cards, but they're not integral categories like Toy and Rule (noun) cards are. They're game specific, except for a handful that might be able to be cut down into generic versions.

The way to mitigate the chaos of the third approach would probably be curated sets. Basically, designers would build lists of verb cards that constitute a game type. This may involve making new verb cards, listing existing verb cards that work, or a combination of the two. Then other designers could put verb cards together for sets they like, which may be added to the original set or become their own spinoff. This would create a way for players and designers to figure out what cards they wanted to include in a given game without having to put together lists of individual cards. You could even just put together a whitelist of sets for a given game and let players throw in whatever they want to use.

Is this more what you were aiming for? Also, I agree. It wouldn't be a bad idea to fork off a new thread and pursue both design models separately.

Just got back from vacation!

TuathEicse,
This is why I didn't want to go with a specific set of rules and wanted to focus more on a system for the cards themselves. There will never be a game we can make that will even remotely work for more than one player if the rules aren't EXTREMELY flexible or subject to change completely from game to game. This is also why I suggested a grid instead of slots, because in my book 5-6 slots isn't even remotely enough slots for some game ideas I would like to try with these cards. I know most people don't agree with me, but I also know most of you don't agree with each other either.

I understand you guys are trying to put some limits on this to prevent it from spiraling out of control with cards that all break each other and teases that end up more random than the internet, but if you put too many limits like win and loss conditions you defeat the purpose of what I am trying to achieve. The exact rules here should be their own rule sheets with cards that can be used for far more things than a game that only a fraction of people enjoy.

I use a lot of toys in my games and teases, and I know that many other people use very few. I am also aware that lots of people use edging and chastity which are things I almost never use in any slideshow. The point is everyone is different and use nailing and gluing a ton of rules to the floor will limit the people who will even touch the game much less use it on a regular basis. I know I sound like a demanding broken record and I really am sorry but every time everyone throws out a rule I keep nodding or cringing heavily and see others doing the same in reply posts.

I know it is asking a lot because its incredibly difficult to make a system that everyone likes, but unlike a typical video game people's sexual interests are generally very different AND very specific. My card idea is not going to make a nice easy put together game that everyone can enjoy with everyone else because that is borderline impossible due to everyone's differing interests. This game is unlikely to even be playable even with people from this forum unless you have very similar interests because teases are vastly different just like our user base. As it stands I figure at least one or two extremely popular rule sets will emerge that most everyone enjoys but that will take time and creativity that can't be put into use until we have a functioning base game. Take CTI as a perfect example, all of us here have used it at one time or another, but I'm also fairly certain that over half of us have removed multiple cards from the base set and changed or ignored about as many base rules. Some of the best CTI tease sets (supplemental and standalone) existed because we had a format to build on and work with. I am trying to make cards that do that for multiple people, lifestyle length teases, and various sexual games.

With all of this in this in mind I'm going to make one last suggestion since we all are on different pages and are not going to make any meaningful progress while that remains true. I suggest we break this into two new threads. One will follow the TCG line of reasoning that has sprung from my idea that many people seem to be fond of. The other will try to start my idea from scratch and try to build something more akin to CTI playing cards that will more resemble my idea while hopefully avoiding many of the pitfalls we've had with CTI1 in the past. Does anyone agree with this line of thought?

TLDR: I really can't sum this up very well but the previous paragraph still applies if you're not willing to read the rest.

I won't exactly complain about the idea of bespoke software, but I am no coder. I won't be much help outside of the game design side of things. On the plus side, if no one can program something better we do have a Plan B ready. And speaking of game design, I think the next element to think about is victory. How do you win a game, and what does that mean?

Krell, you suggested forcing your opponent to orgasm or give in to win the game. Two things concern me about that. First, judging from the range of CTI cards and rules I've seen, people operate across a huge range of 'resistance' levels. One player may run a two-hour tease hovering around a 15-20 average stroke rate and holding multiple edges, while another player may run forty-minute teases with an average stroke rate of 5-10 and spending half the time in Chastity. If those two players face off against each other, no difference in strategic skill is going to overcome the massive difference in resistance levels. The low-resistance player will be forced to yield before the high-resistance player begins to get into things, and both will probably have an unsatisfying experience.

Second, if the 'loser' is the one to reach the edge or even orgasm, what does winning really entail? You could introduce Punishment-style cards, allow the winner to orgasm in their own manner, etc. but it's hard to escape the idea that the game's structure naturally pushes the loser toward a pleasant state and the winner toward an interrupted experience (the game ending before they 'get anywhere').

You could solve this by adding a separate reward, like I said, but if we have to introduce a reward separate from victory itself there's no real reason not to just have a more game-friendly victory condition and hand out rewards based on that. Thinking on this for a bit, I see a few different possibilities:

[i][b]Life Points/Victory Point total:[/b][/i] The first player to exhaust his opponent's defense, or to accumulate enough points, wins. These are basically equivalent in a two-player game. This tends to be the default victory condition for most games, but it's the default for a reason - it's easy to understand and easy to balance.

[i][b]Upper Hand:[/b][/i] When certain cards are played or certain conditions are met, one player will gain advantage and the other will lose it. The Upper Hand might go from +2 in Player 1's favor to +1 in Player 2's favor, for example - a change of three points. When one player has some amount of Upper Hand, they win. This is a tweak on life/victory points I haven't really seen before. It would throw an interesting wrench into the old system, and it seems thematic for this game. It may end up prolonging games if players get into a stalemate. That could be a positive, though? I don't know. It's an untested mechanic and it would require some playtesting to get a feel for it.

[i][b]Time/Turn Limit:[/b][/i] The player who accumulates the most points before the game ends wins. This would let you set a specific block of time, like in CTI, but it would make the game less responsive to players' individual limits. Not sure whether that ends up as a net positive or net negative. Definitely pushes things in the direction of a tight, strategic board game model rather than a chaotic card battle. This could be combined with other victory conditions. Actually, combining this and the Upper Hand condition might be interesting.

[i][b]Bank Total Value:[/b][/i] Some cards allow you to 'bank' a card from your hand or the field. More powerful cards are worth more in the bank, so it's always a tradeoff between playing a powerful card or getting a bunch of points from it. The first player to accumulate some value in their bank wins.

[i][b]Bank Effects:[/b][/i] This would be a sort of hybrid between a 5/6 and a 2. Cards have an effect when played and a separate effect when banked. When one player banks some maximum number of cards, the game ends. Both players' banked effects apply. I was thinking that some effects might require multiple parts - you would have to accumulate three cards with the three parts of 'Orgasm' to cum properly, for example, but a single Edge card would let you edge. Maybe it would just be multiple colors of stars, and the outcome would depend on how many different colors you banked. I'm a little vague on exactly how this would be implemented, but it feels like it could work.

That would determine how a player wins, but what does winning mean? This could be something the players agree on beforehand, it could depend on something that happens in the game (like banking cards, or 'buying' an outcome somehow), it could depend on some sort of metagame like the Lifestyle bank of my original draft, or it could even be a random draw from a separate deck. This can be put off a bit while we focus on deciding the victory conditions, but it's something to think about along the way.

What do you guys think? I like the Upper Hand or Bank Effects models, maybe with a turn limit, but that's mostly because they're novel. I could ultimately go with pretty much anything on this list. Or something else, if anyone has any ideas.

EDIT: Just thought of something that might be interesting. You could combine Life Points and Upper Hand to simulate something like Krell's original 'cry uncle' idea. When one player accumulates some maximum Stimulation, the game ends. Whoever has the Upper Hand when the game ends wins. That would be an interesting sort of juggling match, and it would be a more organic sort of turn limit. It would also give cardmakers multiple types of values to play with without adding a lot of complexity, which is generally good. I would probably call this the 'Stimulation' model.

I would implement such a game as a pure browser game (always wanted to do smth in that direction) this way you have no problem with p2p and you can easily manage the "collective card"-game part.
Broker:
I had a similar problem when implementing the stream lobby...
I solved it by creating an api using this web sever.
But if you go that way you will need to have a Host-Client architecture in your programm.

[quote="TuathEicse"]All right, everybody should see this. I took a look at MapTool and unfortunately it looks like it wouldn't really work. However, looking through the RPTools forums I found this: http://www.lackeyccg.com/ It's a really powerful generic CCG platform. It's been dead development-wise for a while, but the current featureset should be able to handle anything we need. I'm actually a little pissed I've never run across this software before.[/quote]

Argh... It's soooo ugly :/, but if it works...? I'm thinking hard about how to possibly do the card distribution: like normal CTI cards or do you have to earn 'em?
I'll see what I can put together, although it won't be too quick because it's test-week next week :( and I'm not so sure about multiplayer (maybe p2p, but I'll need a connection broker)

All right, everybody should see this. I took a look at MapTool and unfortunately it looks like it wouldn't really work. However, looking through the RPTools forums I found this: http://www.lackeyccg.com/ It's a really powerful generic CCG platform. It's been dead development-wise for a while, but the current featureset should be able to handle anything we need. I'm actually a little pissed I've never run across this software before.

EDIT: Also, so far we have two votes for a 5/6 and one vote for a 2. I wouldn't mind hearing from a few more folks, but at the moment it looks like we should move forward with a more tease-style 5/6 and possibly include lifestyle effects as an extra. I can work with that, especially now that we have the right software tool for running the games.

I would prefer system nr. 6 :>