So here goes a draft. So, I came upon a problem. Suppose I had the following rule (excerpt)
--- RULE DRAFT --- The Gamemastor is an Office. Cards are assets tracked by the Gamemastor. Cards have the following attributes * Type; a string * Rarity; a natural number * Action; text * Condition; text plus other attributes, depending on its Type, as defined by the rules. A Player CAN, by announcement, play a card e owns, whereupon e performs the action specified in the card's Action, and if successful discards that card. --- END --- How could such a rule allow for cards (rare, one would assume) that allow actions at greater power levels? One way to do it is to defer to rules that create card types to explicitly say a player can perform the actions, but that is clunky. Another, and this is the one I don't know if it will work, is to just say something to the effect that “for a Rule to define a card type means, besides, to make it so players CAN perform […]”, but I don't think it will work. What do you think? Context: Edward Murphy via agora-discussion [2023-03-12 13:11]: > juan wrote: > > > Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-03-09 15:12]: > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 5:05 AM juan via agora-discussion > > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > On thing your recent Fingerprints proposal got me wanting to try is > > > pre-planned moves with cards - that is, you have to commit to "these > > > are my next three card plays" ahead of time. That would be really > > > interesting to me (we've done a couple trading card games before, they > > > can be really fun, but we've never done anything other than "play when > > > you want" in terms of play mechanics). > > > > Ok. Here's what I had thought of. It's only in that sense of playing > > matches against each other, but it could be modified because its quite > > flexible. > > > > Cards would be assets. They'd have the following attributes: > > > > * Rarity (some kind of number) > > * Name (a string) > > * Action (a text) > > * Condition (a text) > > * Effect (a text) > > > > A player would have a deck (the cards e owns) and a hand (the cards e's > > able to use). The rate at which one can draw cards from the deck is a way > > to control the flow of the minigame. But not the only one: revealing cards > > (the equivalent of putting them down at the table) is one as well. At > > last, cards could also be discarded, if it was a kind of one-off game. > > > > A match (or something else) would grant or remove tcg-points according to > > the results (tcg-points could be a kind of card with no actions!). At the > > end of the month, a pool of Agoran points would be distributed according > > to the ranking. > > "Points card with no actions" works well for Dominion, along with > starting with a small deck and buying more cards as you go. (Generally > you want to build an efficient buying engine, then use it to buy points > cards; buy points cards too early and you stall your engine, buy them > too late and you can't catch up before someone else triggers endgame.) -- juan
