The Direction of the Football Card Game

[Solecismic]

Where I am right now:

I've designed a card game based on Front Office Football. I think it's a lot of fun - I'd definitely buy it myself if it were out on the market.

I've gone through the Kickstarter preliminaries, and am ready to submit the project to their editors to begin the funding process. Because printing a card game is rather expensive, funding takes the place of a long pre-ordering period.

Testing, however, has revealed a serious issue: the game takes a long time. As designed now, a game could easily take four hours. More if you're learning the game mechanism.

I've fine-tuned the design to address this issue. I've color-coded some card elements to make the look-ups easier. I've reduced the ratings to what I feel is absolutely necessary to maintain statistical integrity.

However, it's still not perfect. I have two directions I could take:

Direction A (where the design is today):

There are 68 basic offensive cards and 32 basic defensive cards (16 with the 34 alignment, 16 with the 43). There are two sets of these cards (home and visitor).

You construct "game plans" from the basic play cards, plus nine play cards specific to each team. Each team also has five cards full of team-specific ratings.

There are 32 teams, 14 total cards per team. Four of those teams are sold with the game, the other 28 are sold separately.

The positive: you have the ability to simulate using any team in the league. The separate play cards add different strengths and weaknesses.

The negative: you have to look at the team cards for a basic rating, then the play cards for adjustments. You're making 4-5 adjustments before you access the charts for a play result. From a production perspective, I have to choose a division for the basic set. Right now, that looks like the NFC North.

Direction B (the alternative):

There are two teams, each with about 70 offensive play cards and 20 defensive play cards. There are no team ratings cards. The offensive play card shows a rating for the play and the defensive play card has adjustments to the rating.

Both teams are different - the rules will illustrate how. It's possible, for example, that one team will be called the "blue" team and will be based on Chicago. And one team will be called the "red" team and will be based on Atlanta. Or they could be based on any two teams that provide a decent, balanced matchup.

Over time, expansions could be printed: a "green" team based on you-know-who that has a terrific passing attack, but an attacking defense that struggles with big plays. Each expansion would be a deck of 90 cards.

The positive: it's a more streamlined playing experience. A shorter game, probably a better game.

The negative: you don't have 32 teams. Too many cards to make production practical. That would be almost 3,000 cards every year, printed at a very nice quality. So you'd just have a few teams. Red and blue would have to be rather generic to make it a replay-able game.

What I'm asking:

I'm still trying to figure out how to combine these ideas, but nothing terrific comes to mind. I'm leaning toward sticking with A and making one or two more refinements to the look-up process.

If you had to choose between Directions A or B, which would you choose?

[AlexB]

I think you should base the game on Direction A, but you need to find a way to half the playing time at least.

When i was a kid I bought a football (soccer) board game similar to Direction B and it got old quickly, little replay value and no single player value.

The simulation aspect of A would appeal to a broader audience, and provide single player interest, but four hours would be a killer for me personally, and I imagine any other working adult of any age. Probably most students too.

If you do go down this route you are competing against Statis Pro, and although I haven't played that for 15 years plus, I seem to remember that being a 90 minute game? 60-90 minutes sounds to me like a realistic time for a simulation game, with an upper limit of 2 hours. Direction B would have to be even quicker than this if it's more a head-head, more generic game.

[Draghetto]

Hi Jim, here's my feedback based on the ifo you provided

My first suggestion is that I'd try not to make a game that is not too similar to the recently released "1st and Goal".
Did you know the game? That is in the middle between your 2 solution since it comes with 1 basic division and 7 expansion (Design A) but it does not have any team specific rating (Design B).
It is a dice game since it instead of using lookup chart it uses dices to simulate the results, the card tells you which dice to throw depending on the offensive/defensive card played


Direction A (where the design is today):
There are 68 basic offensive cards and 32 basic defensive cards (16 with the 34 alignment, 16 with the 43). There are two sets of these cards (home and visitor).
You construct "game plans" from the basic play cards, plus nine play cards specific to each team. Each team also has five cards full of team-specific ratings.
There are 32 teams, 14 total cards per team. Four of those teams are sold with the game, the other 28 are sold separately.
The positive: you have the ability to simulate using any team in the league. The separate play cards add different strengths and weaknesses.
The negative: you have to look at the team cards for a basic rating, then the play cards for adjustments. You're making 4-5 adjustments before you access the charts for a play result. From a production perspective, I have to choose a division for the basic set. Right now, that looks like the NFC North.

I like the idea of having already 7 division projected as expansion from a selling point of view but i am really worried that the game could become too long due to all those extra adjustments and lookup.
From this solution I like the fact that there are customization possible (you choose your defense for example) and there aren't many different offensive cards, 90 different for each team is too much for me.


Direction B (the alternative):
There are two teams, each with about 70 offensive play cards and 20 defensive play cards. There are no team ratings cards. The offensive play card shows a rating for the play and the defensive play card has adjustments to the rating.
Both teams are different - the rules will illustrate how. It's possible, for example, that one team will be called the "blue" team and will be based on Chicago. And one team will be called the "red" team and will be based on Atlanta. Or they could be based on any two teams that provide a decent, balanced matchup.
Over time, expansions could be printed: a "green" team based on you-know-who that has a terrific passing attack, but an attacking defense that struggles with big plays. Each expansion would be a deck of 90 cards.
The positive: it's a more streamlined playing experience. A shorter game, probably a better game.
The negative: you don't have 32 teams. Too many cards to make production practical. That would be almost 3,000 cards every year, printed at a very nice quality. So you'd just have a few teams. Red and blue would have to be rather generic to make it a replay-able game.

With this solution you lost the "addictive" aspect of the football fans, that want to have all 32 teams since it wants to play any game he likes. Moreover to me 90 offensive cards slightly different for each team is too much and at the end i don't know how much variance you could put in so many cards for new teams, it is better to stay with solution A but i'd get some ideas from this.

Here's a possible idea that mixes both solution, give it a tought maybe could be helpful

As I said i really like the basic idea of your first proposal and i think the division idea really works, but at the same time the team rating cards makes it too long for me. You could take the basic play cards as they are, or maybe reduce them a little bit since you could add them in the expansion

You have 70 common play cards that can be used in the base game, each team has a pre-defined set of 50 that the player can use, plus the 5 team specific. When the first expansion comes out you'll have another 2 sets of different common cards (say 25-30) and the new 4 team specific play card. Those cards that will be used together with the common 70 from the basegame in order to build the team deck of play cards. Again each team will have a predefined list of common cards can use.

Using this solution you should have a more faster and streamlined version without losing this 32 team experience and without having sooo many cards to be printed each expansion.
The only doubt that came to my mind while thinking about this is that after the 1st expansion you have to choose between 2 solutions:
1) You want the team in 2nd expansion to use also play from the 1st (forcing players to buy all of them) and so on
2) You want to make it independant therefore each team from an expansion builds his deck only from the expansion cards and the basegame but are not dependant

Of course this could be applied also to the defense, but this comes a lot cheaper since we are talking about a lot less cards...

Hope my idea (and my english) make sense and could help you with your game

Best
Massimiliano

[sidthelid]

Jim, the vast majority of us have 9-5 like jobs, kids's wife's and only dream about having four hours to spare in a day to do anything, let alone play a card / board game. Four hours is just way to much time to find for one game. I think maybe an hour as some one has already mentioned is about the right time for a card or board game.

I would also suggest people would also lose interest during a game if it takes 4 hours or more, particularly if one side is down by say 21 pts at the half.

I really hope you don't have to re-design the card game as this will probably delay FOF for another decade. Your customers want an FOF update!

[scorp]

IMO Play time should be roughly an hour, 4 hours is just to long and would hurt the game.

Is it possible to cut down somewhat on the team uniqueness and to different offenses like West coast, West coast run heavy, run & shoot, etc. teams would be in a category based on the offense defense the run. you could add a few team specific cards to get all 32 teams spins on stuff, or just player differences.

[Ben E Lou]

I can't imagine how having a shorter game would help that much if you're playing the same two teams every time. I'd figure out how to streamline option A as much as I could.

[Solecismic]

I'm trying to analyze the data from the last play-test. There was a lot of talking about design issues instead of playing. I'm also using cards printed in black-and-white. The look-ups on the cards are color-coded, so it's going to be slower in test.

If Statis Pro can be played in 90 minutes, this would take less. Statis Pro involves a lot of set-up for each play. This game doesn't.

I'd imagine the first game, while you're getting used to the charts and the look-ups, could take more than four hours. After that, it depends on how fast you want to go.

As for the FOF update, if this card game is successful, it really can only mean good things for the business case for spending more time on FOF. It's not an either-or at this point. Let's keep discussion of the computer game on other items.

[cuervo72]

I say make it like Pokemon. No teams necessarily, but certainly have themes, perhaps emulating how Pokemon elements work. Instead of Grass, Fire, Ice, etc. you have offensive and defensive philosophies. Similar to how Electric might be "super effective" against Water, make a particular type of defense more effective against certain offenses, and vice-versa.

(Now, Pokemon is basically a one set of cards in play vs the other set of cards in play setup. This would have to be two sets per team - off/def for each.)

Regular cards might represent plays within that set. Like with pokemon, some plays are your bread and butter. Most of the time you run these. But strategize to evolve them into your really big hitters - say a deep pass (which might also require more 'energy', or whatever equivalent you come up with). Eventually the defense has to knock this play out (the defense has become familiar!), but until then it might be pretty effective.

For play resolution, the offense might play an attack, then the defense counters. Roll dice, use modifiers on card. Move ball accordingly.

Special cards (trainer, stadium, etc) could be special players, coaches, or other effects (crowd noise, other trickerations).

Anyway, start out with the cards coming in preformed decks, like Pokemon. But release others that could allow for deck personalization as well.

Ok, so this really isn't a football simulation, it's more a card game with a football theme. Could be workable though.

*shurg*

[Solecismic]

That sounds interesting, but I was thinking more Hello Kitty than Pokemon.

At one point, I did consider special cards that would act in the manner you describe. But that's one more look-up, and it's hard to maintain the statistical integrity of the game when you're doing power-up-type things.

[Subby]

My only observation would be that if fake football is taking longer than real football, you are in big trouble.

The sweet spot for this seems like an hour. Less experienced players may take longer, but two vets should be able to plow through a game.

[Mota]

I would say that a more casual buyer would be okay with few teams, but would want to play a game in a shorter amount of time.

The more hardcore fan would probably be okay with increasing the game time to get more realism, but would probably be looking for a complete team set for a replay league or draft league.

As a completionist, I probably wouldn't consider buying the game unless there was a way to get all the teams without having to spend too much money.

[tarcone]

I have played Game of Thrones the card game for 4 hours. But 4 hours might be too long, but then again, if it is a really good game that is immersive, it wouldnt be a long time. As you would lose track of time.
But, if it takes that long and this being a sports game, you are really limiting your potential audience.

So it would have to be cut to an hour. Or maybe 1 1/2 hours. And it must have a strong solo playability element.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I originally voted for Plan A, but now after much cogitation I think I am beginning to change my mind.

What I find intereseting about people voting for Plan A is that I think it goes against what makes FOF the computer game so popular. In FOF the team names are just window dressing. Most people start with fictional names and if they don't, in a matter of a time the league will become completely fictional anyway.

So if that is the case, why are accurate nfl teams so important in this board game? If the FOF audience and the board game audience are the same then Option B would actually be more of what we want. Apparently we just don't know it.

As for game mechanics, my suggestion would be the following:

To begin each game, have players build their own playbook taking turns. Maybe there should be less cards involved? That way if a player wants to build his team with a passing attack, he might have to sacrifice having a good defensive playbook. Or maybe the other player really focuses on picking passing defense cards which would leave him vulnerable to the run.

This would also allow more variety to the games. It would be fun building an offensive juggernaut for one game and then trying to win with a defensive team the next game.

Finally, I actually would sacrifice some of the statistical integrity to the game. It isn't like people are going to be keeping notebooks full of stats. The game just has to feel fun and it has to feel like the choices matter. It should feel like a chess match. Therefore, I think in a board game it is okay to exaggerate a little and have a runner pick up 5 yards a carry against a pass defense rather than 4. Over the course of a season or a career, yeah people would notice the statistical anomalies and be upset by it. But on a game to game basis, I think people would prefer slightly less realism to speed up the game and so it feels like their choices matter.

I hope we hear more brainstorming on these ideas. I think you have a great idea Jim and I can't wait to see the screenshots! :)

[QuikSand]

I have given this a bit of thought, also.

I side with the "4 hours is too long" and want to try another argument why. A football game is an event, but anyone serious enough about football fully understand that one game is a small sample size, and weird stuff happens. If I'm playing a deep war game that takes 4 hours to complete -- well, I feel like I have accomplished *the whole thing* (WW II, Risk-like world domination, whatever) when I did so. I invested my 4 hours, but now the war is over, the election has been held, the business is over, whatever.

In football, playing one game doesn't give you any such sense. Is Arizona clearly better than New England right now? Nobody buys that. To get a body of results that mean anything, you play hundreds of games -- each team plays a dozen and a half. We accept this as an important part of football. But that's entertainment for us, we don't do it for a living.

If I play a 4 hour football card game, and I win 24-16, what happened? What if I lose 24-16? Who knows? That one interception for a TD changed the whole thing. That weird result from the lookup chart (*shiver*) undermined my entire play-it-safe strategy... or whatever. I have a hard time feeling as satisfied at the end of one game of football as I might after something that feels complete, final, and definitive. And if I'm putting in that kind of time and effort to play the game, I want to feel like it was time well spent.

Ever play backgammon without a doubling cube? What a mess. Half the time, the game is obviously out of hand, and you end up just playing out the string while knowing how things are going to end. If i clear my schedule so I can go play the 4 hour football card game with my friend, and 2 games in 5 turn out this way -- where 60 minutes into my 4 hours of free time I'm interminably bored -- this is not going to be a favorite at my game table.

There's surely a market for the deep game with a long sit-down time. There's surely a market for a football strategy game played out over cards, a board, a set of lookup charts, or whatever. I don't think the venn diagram overlap on these two is all that favorable, personally.

And yes, you're pitching this idea to football enthusiasts, sure, but we're all people who have embraced the massive advantages that technology can bring to this sort of thing. No matter how fun it seemed to me when I was 9 years old, you would basically have to threaten me with fire ants to make me sit down and play a long-version, dice-rolling, all-the-way game of Risk these days. Now that I see how it can be done in 10 minutes, with fully acceptable losses in detail and precision, I'm done with the dice. If anything, I'm dying to get all the toothpaste out of the tube now, not looking to put it back in.


So, I guess that's a long winded vote for B. Or possibly a vote for E, to be more accurate.

[sidthelid]

And yes, you're pitching this idea to football enthusiasts, sure, but we're all people who have embraced the massive advantages that technology can bring to this sort of thing. No matter how fun it seemed to me when I was 9 years old, you would basically have to threaten me with fire ants to make me sit down and play a long-version, dice-rolling, all-the-way game of Risk these days. Now that I see how it can be done in 10 minutes, with fully acceptable losses in detail and precision, I'm done with the dice.

A huge +1

[stevew]

I'd vote for A cause it's the better option of the two as presently stated IMO. It really needs to be a shorter game, something like an hour or so.

I would also seriously consider attempting to somehow turn the concept of B into a Magic type game where you customized your decks, etc like Cuervo suggested.

[Solecismic]

I'd vote for A cause it's the better option of the two as presently stated IMO. It really needs to be a shorter game, something like an hour or so.

I would also seriously consider attempting to somehow turn the concept of B into a Magic type game where you customized your decks, etc like Cuervo suggested.

I've definitely based pieces of the design on the customization in MtG. To the point where it's mentioned in the kickstarter blurb.

I need to give this some thought. Obviously, there's a reason I haven't pulled the trigger yet, even though the game is ready. The game-play mechanism is solid, it just takes time to get from playing the cards and rolling the dice to determining a result.

That time goes down as you learn the game. But even if you're me and lightning-fast at these things, 60 minutes is about as good as it will get. And that's the piece that computers can do in a millisecond.

I don't want to get into the discussion of whether computers have replaced the evening of Strat-O-Matic. My aim was to create a modern-style card game that replicates the function of a game like Strat.

Problem is: I want A and B. Which is not practical from a production perspective.

[Daimyo]

4 hours is way too long for a game that probably has a ton of repetition, especially a game like football that has so much randomness built into the outcomes. I think 30 mins is the sweet spot with 60 mins being the upper limit... this is the type game I think you'd want to play 3-4 times in a sitting trying out different teams or rotating teams to be satisfied.

Also, having pre-set teams is a big turn-off for me in either case. Not sure how it fits with what you have, but I really like the idea mentioned above where there is a common pool of play cards that you somehow "draft" to build your deck at the start of the game, then play the game. That feels much more replayable to me adds a good amount of strategy to what otherwise seems like a very mechanical/tactical game.

[Solecismic]

I want to add something else.

From private discussions and these discussions, to a smaller extent, I realize that the reaction is concern that this project is delaying an FOF update.

I want to assure you that it isn't. I am more than four years into my new life. During that time, I've wanted very badly to work on FOF - maybe even dive into it like never before. I've had the time. My brain still works fairly well, though I have to clear out the cobwebs of age from time to time.

If it was in me, I'd have four new versions of the game out by now. Some people have asked if I could just tell them whether there will be a new FOF or not. The truth is that I don't know.

I like football. I like programming. I like research. I spend a lot of time with all three, and none of that is changed today. Something stops me from combining programming with the football stuff. I wish I knew what that was.

I understand that's no way to run a business. The point I'm trying to make here is that these projects take something more than knowledge and ability. Right now, the card game is giving me whatever that mysterious mana (to borrow again from MtG) provides. I think that bodes well for me in this business - it feels good to be working hard.

The question right now, unfortunately, is whether this card game is something the gaming world will enjoy. The reason I started this item, and these long, thoughtful posts from Quik and LWSFS illustrate so well, is that the computer has evolved the gaming world. While board games and card games are enjoying a resurgence these days, we can't ignore that the computer has changed what we expect from a game.

Anyway, I just didn't want people to worry that this was keeping me from FOF. It could be just what I need to get me back in. And maybe I'll have an insight into this card game that can make it something everyone can enjoy.

[NawlinsFan]

Thanks Jim, don't know how many more times you will have to explain that to get your point across but I appreciate you for taking the time again.

[Julio Riddols]

What about looking into a way to resolve plays electronically to avoid lookups?

Maybe each card can have a bar code which can be read by a device, then plays can be resolved via the device?

[dzilla77]

What about looking into a way to resolve plays electronically to avoid lookups?

Maybe each card can have a bar code which can be read by a device, then plays can be resolved via the device?

This was actually done about 12 years ago by WOTC for a collectible football card game. It was a decent game, but for whatever reason, it didn't catch on and only came out for two years. Play time between 2 experienced people was pretty quick 45mins (although my buddy played this really slow).

[Julio Riddols]

This was actually done about 12 years ago by WOTC for a collectible football card game. It was a decent game, but for whatever reason, it didn't catch on and only came out for two years. Play time between 2 experienced people was pretty quick 45mins (although my buddy played this really slow).

I remember that, but I think the problem with it was the card reader sucked. If Jim made the card reader work, the game would take off. I remember being super stoked about that game because I had been playing the hell out of MLB showdown and hoping eventually they would come out with a football version. Then my friends picked up the starter set and were pretty disappointed about the outcome.

[stevew]

I've definitely based pieces of the design on the customization in MtG. To the point where it's mentioned in the kickstarter blurb.

I need to give this some thought. Obviously, there's a reason I haven't pulled the trigger yet, even though the game is ready. The game-play mechanism is solid, it just takes time to get from playing the cards and rolling the dice to determining a result.

That time goes down as you learn the game. But even if you're me and lightning-fast at these things, 60 minutes is about as good as it will get. And that's the piece that computers can do in a millisecond.

I don't want to get into the discussion of whether computers have replaced the evening of Strat-O-Matic. My aim was to create a modern-style card game that replicates the function of a game like Strat.

Problem is: I want A and B. Which is not practical from a production perspective.

Is there possibly a way to incorporate a play clock into the game mode of play? It's "my ball." I flip over a sand time and declare my play within a certain amount of time and the defense counters? Otherwise it's a delay of game? I'm not sure on the mechanics of play, but 1 hour for a "fake" game sounds reasonable if you can tie it into the same time as a "real" game. Something to keep people from totally overthinking things. In real football you don't get an infinite amount of time to ponder what to do.

[dzilla77]

I remember that, but I think the problem with it was the card reader sucked. If Jim made the card reader work, the game would take off. I remember being super stoked about that game because I had been playing the hell out of MLB showdown and hoping eventually they would come out with a football version. Then my friends picked up the starter set and were pretty disappointed about the outcome.

Yeah, they actually came out with a version 2 for the reader that worked better.

I think it is definitely possible to do this although there may be intellectual property issues to overcome.

[Solecismic]

Is there possibly a way to incorporate a play clock into the game mode of play? It's "my ball." I flip over a sand time and declare my play within a certain amount of time and the defense counters? Otherwise it's a delay of game? I'm not sure on the mechanics of play, but 1 hour for a "fake" game sounds reasonable if you can tie it into the same time as a "real" game. Something to keep people from totally overthinking things. In real football you don't get an infinite amount of time to ponder what to do.

That's something players could decide on their own.

I thought of the card-reader concept early on, and I couldn't find any game printer/publisher who had the materials. My advantage, of course, is that I could program the thing. But I think on the scale I'm doing this, it would take months to produce and I could never get the kind of deal necessary to make it affordable.

I've come up with what I hope are some good ideas the last two days. I hope to have a design or two done in the next week, and test it.

The theory here is that:

With A: I don't have a game enough people will enjoy.

With B: What I offer, more statistical integrity and knowledge of football, doesn't matter all that much.

I'm going to hold off kick-starting my kickstarter project until I know this idea meets the needs of both A and B. The gameplay mechanism works. The deck-building is close, and I know how to fix what I saw in testing there. It's all about the play resolution.

[tarcone]

I have a suggestion. It sounds like your board game needs more tinkering and a lot more play testing to get it to where you want it. Maybe a side to the board game, you tinker with the computer game, you have an established market and sales would be good. Maybe that will help with the creative process. Sometimes when you focus on one thing for too long, thisgs stall. And after a traumatic stretch of life, maybe a distraction from a goal for a period of time is what your need.
Just a thought.

[Daimyo]

If you want to go the card reader route, you could do it as an iphone/android app that reads the card using the camera with a QR code printed on the card as opposed to making a dedicated device for it. (although personally a card reader seems too cumbersome to be worth it)

[Gallifrey]

Tough call on A or B for me. Statis Pro was the best game ever for me till your game came out where I could do much the same and more on a PC.

I agree that if you go A it could limit, and B would maybe be easier for the average football fan to enjoy.

I don't know how board games are selling, so if it really would make that big a difference to the market. If it were me at this point I would make sure I am keeping the costs down and test market it for feedback.

[Artaud]

...Testing, however, has revealed a serious issue: the game takes a long time. As designed now, a game could easily take four hours. More if you're learning the game mechanism....

...I have two directions I could take:


...Direction B (the alternative):

There are two teams, each with about 70 offensive play cards and 20 defensive play cards. There are no team ratings cards. The offensive play card shows a rating for the play and the defensive play card has adjustments to the rating.


...The positive: it's a more streamlined playing experience. A shorter game, probably a better game.

The negative: you don't have 32 teams. Too many cards to make production practical. That would be almost 3,000 cards every year, printed at a very nice quality. So you'd just have a few teams. Red and blue would have to be rather generic to make it a replay-able game.




A four-hour game would not be for me. I play games in my free time, as a diversion from the pressures of real life. When a game becomes like work, it is not something I would be interested in.

A game with just a few teams [option B] would also not be for me. I want a game that allows me to play out that fantasy many of us have: running an NFL-like team and competing in an NFL-like game world. I want to draft players, create a game plan, call plays, compete against my bitter rivals.

A card game that either doesn't let me play out that fantasy or takes an ocean of time to play is not something I would buy.

[aston217]

Jim, 'Dominion' was mentioned a few times in the original thread on Solecismic 2012, and I think it's worth using as an example. You can play some online games to get a feel for it:

dominion.isotropic.org

This game has a number of strengths. It's very flexible. You can play with two, or more players. You don't deal with the same decks, period, from game-to-game. Games don't last very long, but dominion itself is extremely strategy immersive, and very deep. Layers and layers. It's also extremely extensible - expansion cards should have no trouble making their way into this game.

I think you have to follow on this model, because it just gets everything right.

So, you have two teams in a game, for example, for your Football Card Game. But this doesn't mean you design two decks, one for Red Team, one for Blue Team, with specific strengths and weaknesses. I think that's just a mistake.

Instead, what you need to have is the ability for different characteristics/strengths/weaknesses to exist.

Then, when each Game starts, the players assemble their own hands - by random, by design, whatever. The result being they have a fundamentally different combination of strengths/weaknesses/characteristics, *every* single Game Start. This lends to endless combinations of strategies.

This also makes it extensible. At any time you could create a set of cards with new abilities/characteristics and release that into the game as an expansion pack.

This is all fairly similar to what you already have in mind - except there isn't going to be a deck/set designed for any one team. Every individual Game instance will result in two teams that could be A) of potentially vastly different characteristics, or B) subject to vastly different rules than any other game instance.

Play a few games of Dominion and you'll see what I am getting at, I think. The object of that game, every time, is to accumulate Victory Points. However, some games you'll have certain Action cards available to purchase by all players. The next game those same action cards might not be a part of the game at all. And there would be other Action cards, with different abilities. If two action cards happen to appear in the same Dominion game, they may work so well in concert that everyone tries to obtain them. If one appears without the other, they may become instead so worthless that nobody really bothers.

Sorry for the long post. ;)

[tarcone]

Dominion is a fun game. But Im not sure how to make a reality based football game out of a deck building mechanic. But thats why I dont design games.

There is Blood Bowl: Team Manager the card game out there already. So it has to be better then that.
That game includes deck building, hand management, dice rolling, area control/area influence.
It takes 90 minutes.
It can be played by 2-4 players.
It is thematic, though. And not a true, real person type football game.

I think this is a great idea. But I think you have a lot of work ahead of you to make it successful. And you will have to come up with something that is different or unique or wildly cool. I hope you come up with all 3 of these things.

Good luck.

[dzilla77]

Jim, 'Dominion' was mentioned a few times in the original thread on Solecismic 2012, and I think it's worth using as an example. You can play some online games to get a feel for it:

dominion.isotropic.org

This game has a number of strengths. It's very flexible. You can play with two, or more players. You don't deal with the same decks, period, from game-to-game. Games don't last very long, but dominion itself is extremely strategy immersive, and very deep. Layers and layers. It's also extremely extensible - expansion cards should have no trouble making their way into this game.

I think you have to follow on this model, because it just gets everything right.

So, you have two teams in a game, for example, for your Football Card Game. But this doesn't mean you design two decks, one for Red Team, one for Blue Team, with specific strengths and weaknesses. I think that's just a mistake.

Instead, what you need to have is the ability for different characteristics/strengths/weaknesses to exist.

Then, when each Game starts, the players assemble their own hands - by random, by design, whatever. The result being they have a fundamentally different combination of strengths/weaknesses/characteristics, *every* single Game Start. This lends to endless combinations of strategies.

This also makes it extensible. At any time you could create a set of cards with new abilities/characteristics and release that into the game as an expansion pack.

This is all fairly similar to what you already have in mind - except there isn't going to be a deck/set designed for any one team. Every individual Game instance will result in two teams that could be A) of potentially vastly different characteristics, or B) subject to vastly different rules than any other game instance.

Play a few games of Dominion and you'll see what I am getting at, I think. The object of that game, every time, is to accumulate Victory Points. However, some games you'll have certain Action cards available to purchase by all players. The next game those same action cards might not be a part of the game at all. And there would be other Action cards, with different abilities. If two action cards happen to appear in the same Dominion game, they may work so well in concert that everyone tries to obtain them. If one appears without the other, they may become instead so worthless that nobody really bothers.

Sorry for the long post. ;)

Also take a look at Thunderstone. It has the same deck building mechanic as dominion, but instead of just working your deck to buy victory points, there are other resources on the cards that are used to fight monsters in a dungeon.

You might try a design with a combination of a fixed deck (maybe players with a couple of position relevant stats) and then add the deck building mechanic in for various things like great or bad plays, penalties, bad calls, weather, etc. You might also need to get an interative portion (ala magic) in there somehow.

The only thing is, it may be difficult to avoid making the game abstract. Both dominion and thunderston are fairly abstract games.