Skip to main content

Mechanic Monday: Out of Mana Returns, as Foretold

Hello and welcome back to Out of Mana, a limited run of Mechanic Mondays where I take a look at Magic: The Gathering abilities and postulate a way that mechanic could form the basis of its own game (or serve a larger role as a central mechanic anyhow) despite not having played Magic since high school.  There’s been a lot more, uh, armed insurrection since my last post, so, you know.  Not entirely sure this one’s going to be the well-reasoned erudite entry into the canon that I hoped for at the end of my last entry.  But at least it’s inspired by a more recent ability? And so hopefully it’s a more mature mechanical basis on which to build?

Circumventing Hand Size with Partially Purchased Actions

In GREEM, you have a default of one and a half actions per turn.  Cards half an action to prepare (play face-down from hand to tableau), half an action to complete (activate a face-down card from your tableau), or a full action to rush (activate a card directly from your hand).  You start with a maximum of three cards in your hand, but may have up to five cards in your tableau.

In case it wasn’t obvious, this is based off of Foretell, which I think is a TERRIFIC mechanic, I’m ALWAYS a fan of face-down cards waiting to be activated, and it feels like if Exile manipulation were formalized and simplified, because my primitive brain still thinks of exiled as “perma-killed”, instead of the liminal extradimensional space that it has become in the modern Magic meta.  Foretell is also uniquely under the player’s control, unlike Exile, and I love that it circumvents hand size, while also acting as an investment for a future action.  Breaking up hand and breaking up card cost; two incredible efficiency engines.  So I thought, hey, how about an engine builder that comes down to how much you want to space out or speed up your investments.  And maybe it could even have a deckbuilding element (like Magic) with stronger or weaker  cards contributing to penalties or benefits to your starting action pool (like the Chains handicaps from Keyforge).  Cool eh?

Well, til next week!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

TTRPG Tuesday: Three Means Of Resolving

Hi it’s another TTRPG Tuesday! First of the year.  Let’s get right into it. Saw a challenge on Twitter to make some resolution mechanics.  I can do those! Here we go: Hand to Hand The player performing the action and the person running the game or otherwise opposing the action both put their dominant fists toward one another, bounce them three times to get a rhythm, and reveal a number with their fingers, 0-5.  Sum the two numbers, and if the number is greater than 5, subtract six, so that the final number is always between 0 and 5.  On a 0, the action fails catastrophically, on a 1-2 it fails, 3-4 it succeeds, on a 5 it succeeds spectacularly.  The player taking the action starts the game with all five fingers up on their non-dominant hand; after an attempt, they may lower fingers on that hand to add to the sum of the attempt. Ex. Alice attempts to seduce Cat’s character over to the coup conspirators.  They put their dominant hands together (right for Alice, left for Cat) and thro
Post a Comment
Read more

TTRPG Tuesday: Minimum Viable Product for WWDW?

Hello and welcome back to TTRPG Tuesday! I’ve put together a barebones introductory document for We Won, Didn’t We? and, well, I think it speaks for itself.  Check it out HERE ! This introduces the skeleton of the game, as well as walking through the steps; I’d say next up is a rudimentary character sheet, and maybe I can bring this to a Playtest Zero session and see what folks think of character creation within one of the starting Bulbs.  I’ve opened the doc up for comments, so if you have thoughts dear reader, fire away.  Brain fried, go read the doc, til next time!
Post a Comment
Read more

TTRPG Tuesday: Beliefs as Roles

  Hello from high above the Rockies, as I make my way back to Chicago from Big Bad Con 2023.     This was my first con in five years, and only my second ever.     I had a better time at it than I did at GenCon, which I understand derives largely from this being an industry con vs a consumer show.     I made a modest number of purchases but it was easy to stick to the constraints of my limited luggage space, which was fine; shopping and new releases were not the attraction here.     Gaming, panels, and (as I soon learned) networking were. This con was certainly less overwhelming and I think my expectations were clearer and my FOMO much lighter, but I’ll readily admit that I had a lot to learn.    I misunderstood or made mistakes regarding almost every event I signed up for, including happy accidents like sitting in on the wrong panel only to learn a ton, or expecting a mending workshop to be about fixing one’s writing when the application was rather more literal, which was a fascinat
Post a Comment
Read more