Looking for a card game based RPG
Eh...I mean it's interesting, but I really want to play a game where combat is governed by the cards. I feel like I would be unsatisfied when vicious conflict occurred. So the pre-established card combat would be key. The premise is that acrds would be used, so I'd say your reply falls under the "this isn't what you asked for but.." clause. So...eh...it does sounds interesting though...just what I'm looking for. :)
Previous to my last post, they also asked "how would that work?" and didn't answer that part, focusing (entirely!) on thew question of plot.
So, how would it work? That would (obviously) be up to the GM. I do have some experience with a game like this, and it's what prompted me to ask for this type of game. So I'll share what was done before. By all means, there are other ways to do this.
Character advancement is always a theme in RPGs. There's a difference between cards and RPGs, namely like there's a difference between...oh...Heroes of the Storm and Diablo 2. In the former, you rinse and repeat the process of starting from a very base point, and growing from scratch each time. In the latter, you have some sense of growth you'll never lose. Both can be productive to a story. In much the same way a sniper might need to: find cover, remain unseen, spot (or have spotter) mark their target, aim, and take a shot; this can be represented by "starting over". It can also be that warrior picked up, say a magical sword, that gives substantial power. In the case of reset, maybe drawing the card represented that the sword awakened was now ready to provide its magic fully. Maybe it was always in the hand of the warrior, but sword was intelligent and needed to sleep. Drawing it meant the sword had awakened. In the case of full growth, a departure from the rules of the card game is required, but certainly it can be compensated. This, I think, it was makes the RPG element shine in the card games I've mentioned. So I'll detail the growth mechanic heavily, while the reset could really be any number of starting points below that never rise above certain point.
Here's how you show progressive growth.
I'll start with MTG.
Commander. Your character is the commander (or if partnered, two characters). Spells you cast come from the deck. Perhaps at certain milestones, you may have a creature that starts in play, provided they haven't been slain. This creature also retains any auras it accumulates, this can also allow for previous battles, even those won, to have bearing on the future battles. Say your creature (besides your commander) had a few auras...but one was pacify. This could be played out by the GM, by the character being lethargic, being timid, or even being partially paralyzed, maybe even phasing in a and out inopportunely. But nonetheless, as you may know, there are cures for this. A single destruction of the pacify would restore the character. In much the same way this creature (or later in the games plural) could stay out, maybe certain equipment could too. It maintains a tight starting point, you still need to draw cards, but you can also start with more. Would this unbalance the game? Well, if you didn't have the group go up against more advanced foes, sure. You can always balance this through opposing commander decks. Alternatively, if the GM REALLY wants to play a PC (as some GMs do) you can make a horde or encounters deck that will run "itself". Horde rules are casual format, but are supported by WotC (somewhat) even if not actually sanctioned.
Warlord: Saga of the Storm
This one is far more simple to do on RPoL than MTG. In fact, you don't even need a deck. Sure, it makes it's a steep departure from the card game, but the core concepts are still robust enough to play through. In the deckless format, the GM assigns certain obvjectives, sometimes secret sometimes obvious. As those objectives are complete, such as killing a character for instance, or making the opposing formation have only, say, two ranks in their army, then the GM might give out an item found, or possibly a character that was otherwise held hostage. Again, great for NPCs and hirelings so the GM has the chance to RP with the group, as NPCs are the only real chance GMs have to enjoy their own work. With a deck you draw actions, andf potentially characters your character may have co9ntact with. Say maybe you're summoner, you might justify having monster in your deck as summon spell. Really even dwarves, freaks, devs and ANY character are fine to be summons too. I don't reccommend, for this format, to put items in the deck, it often breaks the immersion. Characters should also be scarce, as again, it's an RPG.
If you have no deck, the GM gives you so many action cards you have to either choose from (as a pool) or the GM just gives you the cards you have to play. Maybe bewteen turns the GM will add more choices, but maybe not.
In any case, your warlord is your character. They can be a commander that leads from the front, summons from afar, uses mostly diversion, or is a one man wrecking crew. There is room for people to have leadership and command NPCs, or some to be lone units that act more as peers to other PCs, but have no following of their own.
Now, WoW, one of my favorite card games to RPGs. This one is probably the best. Again, follow the rules for warlord. You have have a deck, or your can have the GM simply feed you cards, either from pool you get to pick, or chosen for you based on RP and other choices your character has made.
Your hero is your character. You can equip items, again, as rewards, either from objectives (kill this character) or not combat help. Maybe you had to negotiate for the goblin rif raf that were peasants poorly treated becausew their often malicious kin, into having homes in a human or dwarf, or what have you, town. MAybe these goblins had no malice, maybe they did. In either either case, the conflict would be between the goblins and the...whatever...and resolving it one way may say, get you an item the goblins gave you, maybe a ring they stole they were going to use to trade for food. If, say, you ran the goblins out of the town, you might get a potion, or even staff from the local temple. The thing is, I imply you have objectives only achieved through battle, they don't have to be though. Certainly RP is a huge part of what makes an RPG. The conversations, the choices made in sake of staying true the character, despite the players knowing better. Items, and especially allies can be represented as rewards for the players. In much the same way as warlord.
Now, what about non-combat? there's still conflict. How do you resolve that? Another system certainly can be used, it doesn't have to be. I would advise something simple. I don't personally know of many simple systems. I use dX, but if the players are used to D&ED, use that, but eschew anything that would prompt or involve combat. Exalted is fine too, especially since many themes overlap already with the above games, granted you havr to reflavor the world, but the core charms and powers, the conflict resolution is fine. You have to pare down the accessible parts of these systems. Many, if not in some cases most, of the system needs to be largely ignored and restricted. Ideally you want something really just to show other skills, powers and traits. Even just having darkvision can change scene. Less is more, IMO. Skills will also play a much bigger roll. Maybe instead of craft, the skill, being basically worthless, you might less players roll craft to make certain items or equipment. Then think about magical crafting. Maybe it would be a A HUGE incentive to magicallky craft and lose "XP" to make a weapon. You might also allow the players to get recipes to be able to make certain items from finding others. This can make for rplo9t hook. "the dragon's blood artifact is needed to make the worldbreaker sword" so the group needs to be on the hutn for a dragon. In thw world, perhaps there's only a few, or perhaps there's thousands. Either way, you can transition the future plot based on the recipes you give.
And this, as far as I'm concerned, is sufficient. Many RP scenes don't need conflict resolution, they;'re just discussions, choices about conflict, strategy and management, moral decisions; but the scenes themselves need no conflict resolution "system" they just need players and NPCs to be able to reach an agreement, or at least compromise. A heroes feast in an inn, is still a great scene. Evcen if it has no affect on the cards. Personally, I'd allow the characters something like a potion, or aura (in MTG) or ongoing ability (in WoW) to represent this, but even if you don't, you can have nice meal, and talk about your history, what motivates you, your family, your reason for doing what it is you all are doing.
So yeah...that's how I have done it. Remember, it doesn't need to last ages in terms of storyline to be a successful campaign. Often, on RPoL, a very very short idea can be years of IRL time. Just something think about. :)
It's up to the GM though. Don't get locked down by any system, including the cards. As long as thr rules are transparent, and the group knows at least as players, the rules, and thr eules don't just change to "challenge" the party, it's all fine.
Many people say you can make any syetm what you want it to be. For D&D, and exalted that's ALOT easier said than done. For cards, it really isn't any different than formats already established. So playtetsing has already been done enough, and if ever in doubt just give the player s slight advantage. It's not gamekilling if the heroes stomp the enemy. There can always be someone worse. It is, howeverm, gamekillingl,k when the whole party dies, unless death is reverible, which TBH, death should be, even if very limited, it should be somethin that can eb reversed. If you so choose you can say wehn a character is "killed" they're just Koed, but to me at least, this seems stupid. It's a lot more sensible to say dreadlord villain won't have scads of investmen tin ressurecting his minions, and that players have maybe a three strikes you're out rule for resurrecting each other. The pro outweighs the cons. The Lazarus effect is nowhere near as pervasive as people who oppose it make it out to be. That's just my opinion though. I always hated that Batman can't truly die, and Joker is never killed. To people who advocate against resurrection, explain that crap to me (this is hyperbole, don't actually, as it's not germane).
