On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: > Do we really need a finite deck? No. Do we really need hand limits? > No, although there's nothing wrong with the occasional automatic > reduction to prevent a player's resources from spiraling out of > control. Do we really need a confusing variety of resources to > prevent the game from feeling repetitive? No. But for some reason, > if we don't have those things, then they just aren't cards.
The current implementation doesn't have a finite deck, just a set of probabilities for distributing powers. That's a lesson from last time. The main aspect of making them "cards" and not "powers" is that people want them to be tradable, so they are assets, currencies, or things. Might as well call them cards. And once you've got a few basic powers, as I said, every person wants to add one. If each player just added one card they like, well that's a lot of cards. It's a game of "well, everyone *else's* favorite cards/powers are confusing, but mine aren't!" My first and second proto were all mechanics, only 2-3 card types defined. The primary comments were "add more cards" or "here's another idea for a card". -G.
