Playing Cards

[hajtos]

If we are planning a rework of the ground rules, I think I have cum up with a reasonable system based on some of the popular trading card games, mostly by Magic: The Gathering.

The goal: make your opponent cum through various acts you perform on him. The loser gets a ruined orgasm while the winner can get a full one however he wishes.

sexiness: this would be your 'mana' for using other cards. Each card other than character cards would have a cost in sexiness to play it.

Types of cards and what they do:
Acts - these are your 'monsters'. At the end of your turn each currently working act allows you to perform something on your opponent. Examples: give 30 strokes, fuck 10 times with an object, finger for 10s.

Character - these are your 'lands' and also act like GIC cards. Each character card generates sexiness each turn while also forcing you(the one who played it) to obey its commands. The moment you stop obeying the command, you no longer receive its sexiness. Examples: put on a dress, do 5 push-up at the start of your turn, crawl on all fours around the room during the game.

Seal - cards that allow you to counter your opponent's acts. They could be limited to types of acts, for example a chastity cage could only block a penis-related act. A seal can only block one act at a time. You would decide what to counter the moment you're about to be on the receiving end.

Attachments - these cards modify other cards' behavior but stay in the game. Examples: double the amount of an act, negate a character card's effect while still receiving half of its sexiness. Items that would stay in place like handcuffs, nipple clamps or a butt plug could be a subset of attachments.

Effects - these cards would take place immediately and be discarded upon use. Examples: discard selected opponent's act/seal/attachment/character, draw 3 cards, look at the opponent's hand.

The amount of cards at the beginning, number of drawn per turn etc. are things to balance once the core elements of the rules are established, if this idea catches on.

A few additions I thought about but wasn't sure:
- For many card games as the duel progresses, the table is filled with hordes of monsters and attachments. That would mean a lot of effects in play and many acts being done at the end of each turn. To avoid this, permanents could require a small upkeep cost in sexiness in addition to its playing cost. Since the amount of character cards you can follow at the same time is limited, it would limit the amount of cards you can have deployed at once.
- Another card type, Meta, could be added that would not impact the game itself but provide effects outside the game. For example, an additional punishment for the loser, keeping an item attachment in use for a few hours after the game.
- As before, there is a problem of one player having acts in his deck that the other doesn't want to do. Seals and effects could help to defend from such an act, but the player would still be disadvantaged due to having to focus on it. One solution besides the ones I mentioned in previous posts was that a player can veto an act or item card played against him but the other player can then choose any other act/item from his deck(not hand, the whole deck) that wouldn't be vetoed as well and play that instead.

I hope the rules are not too complicated, especially to keep track of while in sexy times. I think these rules can allow for many different kinks and playstyles while still being fairly generic. What do you guys think?

PS: I know it has little in common with the original concept but the notion of consequences and challenges never really appealed to me.

[Krell]

That still suffers the same problem I just described. It doesn't work for everyone or have high level of customization I'm looking for. I want base cards to start, not a fully made game. A good example is your dislike of Challenge and Consequence type cards. For me I find them almost crucial where others may not, but by making them a type of card rather than an entire ruleset built with them in mind you create something that can be used by everyone simply by adding more or leaving them out entirely from your given idea.

People like us will always come up with great game ideas given a little time and I want to see those ideas eventually. For now however I just want the layout for base cards. I've been thinking that some of the categories need to be refined more anyways.

[Rothaon]

Hmmmmm... I though about these cards which are pretty self explanatory:

- Who: Who does it.
- What: What to do (the challenge itself)
- When: How much time it has to do it.
- How: What has to be used to do it
- Modifiers: To modify any of the other cards.
- Game changers: As a wildcard class.

If you want to set who does the challenge (eg: you choose cards and send the challenge you made to the one on your left) you can drop the Who class. If you don't want to set it just don't use them.

You could have easy challenges and then people modifies them to make them harder. Or viceversa, hard challenges you have to make easier.


Not sure if it's what you want but I think that it allows more customization.

[Simon]

So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that you want a framework for cards to be made on? Supposedly categorized by the things you've laid out, but I don't see why not to use normal CTI cards for this. (The other design look awesome, though maybe a bit too flashy for my taste.)

Say if you want cards to be universally usable we already have CTI with it's categories, and custom categories if you'd like to add them (just make a card with a different title?). It's a weakness in 0313's Teaseviewer to only use predefined card types (nothing we can't fix ), but this option is already present in something like CTIToolsBox.

If you want a different game entirely, based on this other categorization you've been laying out, I don't really see the purpose. Or is it you just don't agree with the current CTI categorization?

I'm not trying to call you out or cut you down, but I'd like to assist. It's just a little unclear to me still what your desired endgoal is.

P.s. an online card table, sounds very fun and interesting.

[Inside7shadows]

Another method to prevent hoards of cards us just to set a hard cap (e.g. maximum of 3). A pokemon bench is limited to 6, right? Neopets is 4, and I recall MLP having some sort of limit.

Has anyone been able to verify if Maptools is an inadequate environment for an online card game?

[TuathEicse]

Sorry for the delay, my computer's power cord died and I had to pick up a new one.

You definitely have a very different vision than I got from your original post. Let's clarify some design goals.

You want for players to be able to build their own game rules using the same fundamental components. That means you're really looking to build something along the lines of a poker deck - the cards are just somewhat abstract placeholders for the game rules to shuffle around. However, you have also mentioned cards that have explicit rules printed on them - rules like 'your opponent can spank you at the end of every turn'.

These feel like fundamentally opposed goals to me. I do a lot of board, card, and role-playing game design and juxtaposing these ideas is setting off all sorts of warning bells. I feel like you could have a few different very cool things here, but all of them exist either at the abstract, poker-card side of the spectrum or the crunchy, structured-rules side of the spectrum. To clarify, let me describe a couple of directions I could see this concept going.

1) Universal Game Component Deck

Cards are functionally minimalist. There's a Handcuffs card, a Ruin card, a Spanking card, a x2 card, a +3 card. No rules, just game elements. You could go further and assemble those elements onto a traditional deck. For example, you might have the 'Three of Toys - Handcuffs' with a +2 modifier and a 3 token value. What do those things mean? When do you use each piece of information? How do you get and spend cards? That's up to the game designers.

This satisfies the goal of making a shared toolset for making sexy games, allowing everyone to play the game they like. It has a few downsides, though. There's a functional upper limit on complexity for games like this, because the players have to hold all the game's complexity in their head. They have to remember, for example, that you can play a 'set' with a Punishment, Toy or Rule, and some cards used as their token value to define durations. Or that you can attach a Toy card to your opponent's Rule bank to put into play for you to use. This isn't a design flaw, it's just a limitation of the genre.

2) Trading/Living/Collectible Card Game

Most of the game's rules are printed on the cards, and they work together in a prescribed fashion. This would be like a Magic: The Gathering or Pokemon TCG. This is more the direction my cards were taking the game in, partly because I naturally build that way and partly because it just has more meat to work with design-wise.

The complexity upper-bound is a lot higher here. You can have quite a few cards in play at once with interacting effects, and cardmakers can build relatively intricate individual cards because they only have to design for a single ruleset. I'm not sure this approach is as problematic as you think. CTI has a huge problem with cards interacting and persisting because cards don't persist after coming into play. That is the single element that makes games like Magic: The Gathering work - you can look at the table and reference all the rules that currently apply. CTI, in my mind, is somewhat crippled because it's missing that, and you see that manifest in all the 'can't remember what effects you're under' and 'clear all the rules, start over' cards people have made.

However, the customizable nature is different. Cards are only really good for a limited array of rulesets. All the creativity and modification is done by making cards, like with CTI. This puts a huge number of options in the hands of card creators, and players can create relatively customized games through card selection, but to really build a new game you'll have to build a cardset.

3) Punishment/Reward cards

This is probably the most out-there concept I had when considering your suggestions, but it may be your best chance to achieve your abstract design goals. Cut out the Challenge and Game-Changer types. Just include Toy, Rule, Modifier, and Consequence. Use them as 'chips' or currency for other games. Whatever sort of challenge or game happens, the winner would get to play cards on their opponent. For example, you might play a round of poker and bet card types - ante up a Consequence, and during the game players might raise Toys, Rules, etc. The winner of the poker game could then play whatever cards were bet. Alternately, if cards had a points value you could bet chips on the game and then spend them playing cards.

This would give you a framework for playing effects on your partner, bringing toys, specific acts, rewards, and punishments into play based on whatever games or struggles you deem appropriate. Maybe you could even maintain currency or point totals over time, allowing a player to build up cards and points over multiple wins and then play them whenever they wanted to. Gaining cards and points could then be integrated into any activity or game you wanted to include in the system.

EDIT: You could also do a deckbuilding-style draft. Basically, deal some number of cards out of the deck faceup. These are the cards available for purchase at their listed cost. Players can buy cards to put into their deck, and whenever a card is purchased you replace it from the deck. Alternately, players could be allowed to purchase whatever cards they want. Or you could let players draw every day, or after every game, or when they did a chore, or whatever. Then let them play cards for their cost. Or a number of cards per day. Or whatever.

Which of these sounds good to you? I'll also reach out to the community here - is anyone super-interested in any of these concepts other than Krell? Alternately, does anyone have any suggestions to improve these design archetypes?

[Simon]

2) Trading/Living/Collectible Card Game | +

Most of the game's rules are printed on the cards, and they work together in a prescribed fashion. This would be like a Magic: The Gathering or Pokemon TCG. This is more the direction my cards were taking the game in, partly because I naturally build that way and partly because it just has more meat to work with design-wise.

The complexity upper-bound is a lot higher here. You can have quite a few cards in play at once with interacting effects, and cardmakers can build relatively intricate individual cards because they only have to design for a single ruleset. I'm not sure this approach is as problematic as you think. CTI has a huge problem with cards interacting and persisting because cards don't persist after coming into play. That is the single element that makes games like Magic: The Gathering work - you can look at the table and reference all the rules that currently apply. CTI, in my mind, is somewhat crippled because it's missing that, and you see that manifest in all the 'can't remember what effects you're under' and 'clear all the rules, start over' cards people have made.

However, the customizable nature is different. Cards are only really good for a limited array of rulesets. All the creativity and modification is done by making cards, like with CTI. This puts a huge number of options in the hands of card creators, and players can create relatively customized games through card selection, but to really build a new game you'll have to build a cardset.

I'll also reach out to the community here | +

is anyone super-interested in any of these concepts other than Krell? Alternately, does anyone have any suggestions to improve these design archetypes?

I'm particularly intrested in a collectible game, I think a CTI-themed 'Magic' can be really cool and fun. Although I highly doubt this is what Krell had in mind.

[0131]

2) Trading/Living/Collectible Card Game

Would be realy cool as a browser game but is see many obstacles to make it atlest a bit serious.

[Krell]

Sorry everyone for my absence. Been really busy and about to go out of town. Thank you all again for your interest and help.

As for what has been said so far I think TuathEicse's #2 option will probably work out best for the reasons stated despite it being a harder to design idea. It simply covers the most bases without feeling completely aimless which is probably way more important. Perhaps if we went with a playing field of # by # size with cards that can either be placed stand alone or have required cards played off of them? There's obviously more to consider that I don't have time to think about this moment, but this would allow for the greatest flexibility while having a dedicated structure that we can use.

EDIT:
As to the earlier why not CTI cards, I wouldn't mind them except for the photos are inconvenient. They eat up a lot of card space and often enough have images that some people just don't care for.

I'll message more when I have the time.

[TuathEicse]

Well, I'm seeing a solid consensus for a CCG. Nifty.

I think there are two things to figure out next. First, we need to figure out how card effects translate into real-life acts. I've thought of a few models for this, ranging from highly delayed to ongoing and immediate.

1. Buildup and transfer:
Players duel against each other to accumulate 'effect' cards. Effect cards can be played outside of duels to force or allow sex acts. Toys, teasing, edging, whatever. When the duel ends, all of the winner's accumulated effect cards move into their effect hand. They can use cards from their effect hand any time on themselves or their opponent.

2. Buildup and discharge:
Players duel to accumulate effect cards. When the duel ends, the winner immediately uses their accumulated effect cards on themselves or their opponent. Alternately, the winner uses all the accumulated effect cards no matter who played them.

3. Buildup and periodic discharge:
Players play duels with 'rounds' of several turns. During each round, players play cards and try to remove their opponent's cards. When each round ends, players can use the effects of all the cards they have in play. This may clear some or all cards from play.

4. Buildup and deliberate discharge:
During a duel, each player accumulates cards in play and tries to remove or block their opponent's cards. Players can use the effects of some or all of the cards they have in play. This may require playing a specific card, accumulating a set, or spending some sort of currency. Using cards does not end the duel, and players can use cards any time they meet the correct conditions.

5. Ongoing periodic effects:
During a duel, players play cards with ongoing effects. Every set number of turns, all active effects apply.

6. Ongoing constant effects:
During a duel, players play cards with immediate or ongoing effects. Immediate effects apply as soon as the card is played. Ongoing effects apply after each turn.

Basically, a model closer to 1 is going to feature a lot of gameplay for a 'pot' of effects that apply at the end of the game or afterward. Models closer to 6 interrupt gameplay more often, making the game itself more of a tease and putting less focus on out-of-game involvement. Krell's original model is somewhere between 5 and 6. Hajtos' concept is pretty much a Model 2, playing a round to have some effect at the end.

This also brings up the other high-level design element we need to consider. Krell originally had this idea as something to play in real life with their significant other. You could actually use physical cards for this, which sounds cool to me. My own partner says that sounds interesting, so I'm more than happy to develop for that model. On the other hand, a lot of people seem interested in a game they can play online with other community members or strangers. That would work for a much wider group of people. Any of these models would work for in-person play, but there are some additional constraints on online play.

Low-number models like 1 and 2 would be relatively simple - you play a match and then get cards that you can use for yourself or force on your opponent. This would be a cooperative online D/S model, similar to a forum game - you play matches to win permission to cum, or to receive restrictions and instructions. If we use an ongoing bank of effect cards, like with Model 1 (Buildup and transfer), it may be a good idea to implement tracking on the forum for players' banks. Personally I lean toward one of these. So far I like Model 2 (Buildup and discharge) with a shared pot best, but that's probably a personal preference.

High-number models like 5 and 6 would be more like a CTI tease. You would be stroking, teasing, punishing, etc. as the game went on. These would be pretty tricky because of the level of multitasking. As cards accumulate you would have the perennial CTI problem of complex effects in real time (half of the reason CTI 2 exists, basically). This would be an even bigger problem because players would be trying to make strategic decisions while also tracking and performing all the active cards. I think it could be done, though.

Some of these models may be able to coexist. I can definitely see a few playstyles being valid options with the same cardset, and probably more I haven't considered yet. But we should probably pick one to aim for and figure out what alternate playstyles might work as the game develops.

Thoughts?