So today I’m just going to be a bugbear, just an absolute gremlin about a mechanic that I think is great, and which I understand other people aren’t into, and which I will die before changing. The nice thing about designing games non-commercially is that, while I do want people to have fun playing my games, there is no force in Heaven, Hell, or anywhere inbetween that could make me care less about whether something will help a game sell or not. I love a good design constraint, but “that mechanic is not currently popular” is not a good design constraint.
So, spoiler alert, the mechanic is different cardbacks in a card game. As implemented in my design, Cowl & Mask.
Now, in this two-player game, each player has the same 7 cards, each of which has one of three cardbacks; Ranks 1 and 7 share a cardback, Ranks 2 & 6 share a different cardback, and Ranks 3-5 share the last cardback. Cards are played rank-face down into seven head-to-head lanes, so that you give your opponent a clue as to what card is in which lane, but some deduction on their part is still required. Thematically, the game is a courtly ritual/dance where there are three Cowls that the seven figures wear, but until they turn around or take off their cowls, you cannot see which of the seven Masks they have on.
On the WIP BGG thread for this game, I was once advised to do away with different cardbacks as a mechanic and while I didn’t respond, what I would have said was; that’s the whole point of the game, dude. That is what makes it Cowl & Mask. I didn’t tack on this mechanic as a frill, it is baked into the game’s foundation. Like, I understand kill your darlings, but also, fuck you, I don’t have to, and more importantly, from an independent designer’s standpoint my goal isn’t to make something more like the mainstream in order for it to be accessible, it’s to explore. This game is a process of discovery, not a product of marketability.
Anyway, the tone of this post is what you get when I actually write it ON Monday, when I’m tired and resentful, here’s the mechanic itself:
Different Cardbacks
While cardgames typically have one face for presenting information and the other face is uniform so as to hide what’s on the informational face, this design assumption can be subverted in order to create a new design opportunity: partial information. Cards played face-down are all, in a very general sense, bluffs; you’ve concealed the information on the cardfront, and the context in which you play (when you play it, how much rides on it, what you say as you play it) is a statement, and imparts something you wish the other player(s) to believe. When the cards have different cardbacks, an additional layer is added to the bluff; the opponents have partial information, but you as the player still decided when to provide them with this information, and more context means more ramifications. It allows for slightly more informed decisions on both sides’ part, and an additional layer of decision-making and strategy. To call this a mechanic is, to be honest, somewhat ill-fitting; it’s a component feature, and can in fact be a part of a number of different mechanics. Having different card backs means that you can have, essentially, multiple sub-decks in a card game. You could have minidecks of different resources (all cards with an Ore cardback will be Ore, all cards with a Lumber cardback will be Lumber) that nonetheless have different compositions of cards with different specific features (all Ore cards are Ore, but they might be iron, copper, or tin ore), and you can have card use and card play that cares about one face (tap any ore card) or the other (discard 3 tin ore). You can mix cards with different backs together, for a deck that gives the player’s a clue about what’s coming up. Honestly, it’s just a subversion of the norm that I think is rife with possibilities. Go explore it damn it!
Wow good post Fin no need to edit this one just power bomb that publish button. See ya next time!
So, spoiler alert, the mechanic is different cardbacks in a card game. As implemented in my design, Cowl & Mask.
Now, in this two-player game, each player has the same 7 cards, each of which has one of three cardbacks; Ranks 1 and 7 share a cardback, Ranks 2 & 6 share a different cardback, and Ranks 3-5 share the last cardback. Cards are played rank-face down into seven head-to-head lanes, so that you give your opponent a clue as to what card is in which lane, but some deduction on their part is still required. Thematically, the game is a courtly ritual/dance where there are three Cowls that the seven figures wear, but until they turn around or take off their cowls, you cannot see which of the seven Masks they have on.
On the WIP BGG thread for this game, I was once advised to do away with different cardbacks as a mechanic and while I didn’t respond, what I would have said was; that’s the whole point of the game, dude. That is what makes it Cowl & Mask. I didn’t tack on this mechanic as a frill, it is baked into the game’s foundation. Like, I understand kill your darlings, but also, fuck you, I don’t have to, and more importantly, from an independent designer’s standpoint my goal isn’t to make something more like the mainstream in order for it to be accessible, it’s to explore. This game is a process of discovery, not a product of marketability.
Anyway, the tone of this post is what you get when I actually write it ON Monday, when I’m tired and resentful, here’s the mechanic itself:
Different Cardbacks
While cardgames typically have one face for presenting information and the other face is uniform so as to hide what’s on the informational face, this design assumption can be subverted in order to create a new design opportunity: partial information. Cards played face-down are all, in a very general sense, bluffs; you’ve concealed the information on the cardfront, and the context in which you play (when you play it, how much rides on it, what you say as you play it) is a statement, and imparts something you wish the other player(s) to believe. When the cards have different cardbacks, an additional layer is added to the bluff; the opponents have partial information, but you as the player still decided when to provide them with this information, and more context means more ramifications. It allows for slightly more informed decisions on both sides’ part, and an additional layer of decision-making and strategy. To call this a mechanic is, to be honest, somewhat ill-fitting; it’s a component feature, and can in fact be a part of a number of different mechanics. Having different card backs means that you can have, essentially, multiple sub-decks in a card game. You could have minidecks of different resources (all cards with an Ore cardback will be Ore, all cards with a Lumber cardback will be Lumber) that nonetheless have different compositions of cards with different specific features (all Ore cards are Ore, but they might be iron, copper, or tin ore), and you can have card use and card play that cares about one face (tap any ore card) or the other (discard 3 tin ore). You can mix cards with different backs together, for a deck that gives the player’s a clue about what’s coming up. Honestly, it’s just a subversion of the norm that I think is rife with possibilities. Go explore it damn it!
Wow good post Fin no need to edit this one just power bomb that publish button. See ya next time!
Comments
Post a Comment