Episode Special: Rock, Paper, Karl, A deep dive into card game mechanics

Ever wondered why some fantasy worlds just don’t add up? On this episode of Deep Space and Dragons, Richard and Karl tackle the quirkiest inconsistencies that plague fantasy series using video game logic. Richard's passion for well-defined systems shines as he critiques the often flawed game mechanics found in these stories.

Next, we sink our teeth into the rich, character-driven narrative of "Baby Prisoner of the North Castle." This manga, featuring a half-blood princess who becomes a golem master, offers a breath of fresh air compared to action-centric series. We emphasize the essence of good writing and character development, drawing examples from beloved shows like Spice and Wolf. Our conversation also spans the creative freedom offered by self-publishing platforms like Tapas and our desire for more originality in Shonen Jump’s current lineup.

Finally, we break down the complexities of designing a strategic card game rooted in rock-paper-scissors mechanics. From discussing the “double down token” to considering user-friendly game mechanics, we leave no stone unturned. Our insights compare the nuances of strategic depth found in games like Texas Hold'em with our unique card game concept. Wrapping up, we preview our nostalgic yet innovative demo board setup, combining elements from classics like Digimon World and Dokapon Kingdom. Join us for a rollercoaster of humor, insights, and game design geekery!

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:01

Good unspecific time period denizens of the internet. I am Richard Arthur John Kivas, first of his name.

Speaker 2: 0:12

Wow, I mean I guess I am Carl David Abram Pohl. As far as I know, I'm the first of my name too.

Speaker 1: 0:18

That is not how I thought this bit was going to go. I really thought you'd be like and I'm Carl.

Speaker 2: 0:24

I mean, I have as many middle names as you do. How dare you?

Speaker 1: 0:28

It's because you used them all up. Actually, if you were to collect the number of names per square foot in your household, there's a lot of names. Anyway, we're Richard and Carl. We're presenting Deep Space and Dragons, and talking about neither of those things this week. Maybe Dragons and, as we spoiled on a previous episode, that might have been one, two or three episodes ago we're going to be talking the Rock Paper Scissors card game Untrademarked, a project of Carpool Studios Untrademarked. We're planning to attach a Google Doc to this episode if anyone wants to comment on the rules and see how things go, and if it's not attached in the episode description. I didn't do it. Come at me, brah, I owe you nothing. You have gotten so many hours of entertainment from our podcast. Although, to be fair, people can either watch our podcast or all of Fullmetal Panic and Fullmetal Alchemist, so I'd recommend watch all of Fullmetal Panic, then all of Fullmetal Panic and Fullmetal Alchemist. So I'd recommend watch all of Fullmetal Panic, then all of Fullmetal Alchemist, then come back.

Speaker 2: 1:31

That will definitely help you understand this episode in context. But first off, what's?

Speaker 1: 1:35

new in the Carlverse.

Speaker 2: 1:38

So there's a certain style of video where the video creator, they take a comic or a manga or whatever and, panel by panel, they voice over it and they animate elements of the panels. They don't add any extra frames or anything.

Speaker 1: 2:01

Yeah, moving comics. I think I watched a Wreck-It-7's manga that way.

Speaker 2: 2:05

Yeah, moving comics, I think I watched a Wreck-It 7's manga that way, yeah, okay. So a couple episodes ago we were talking about free Android games.

Speaker 1: 2:16

Interesting. I love trying to. I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this. So in class we were talking about writing scripts for podcasts in class and I literally laughed out loud in class because it's like most podcasts are scripted. I'm like scripting our podcast. That's funny.

Speaker 2: 2:37

I didn't know that.

Speaker 1: 2:39

I don't believe it. I think people just bluff. Like we say, our podcast is clearly scripted, edited. We have a team of writers. Why not?

Speaker 2: 2:47

yeah, definitely um, but so we're talking about free android games, and I downloaded the number one. Uh called uh alto's odyssey. It's a pretty good game, uh, but in between runs uh there's advertisements because it's a free game. That's how they actually make their money, if people don't buy their stuff.

Speaker 1: 3:09

That's fair.

Speaker 2: 3:11

Right, and so one of these advertisements was for this app. I think it's called like Tapas T-A-P-A-S, and I could be mistaken. Tapas T-A-P-A-S and it's. I could be mistaken. I think it's Korean Manga Translations. I guess I think it's Manhwa is the official term, but anyways. So it looks like this app is a collection of Manhwa that have been translated and animated in this moving comic style.

Speaker 1: 3:49

I mean that sounds cool. That just sounds cool to me yeah.

Speaker 2: 3:54

It does sound cool. But so the first series advertised was this like Lentka saga or something like that, and I was interested. So I looked up the series, uh, and it's uh about this guy. Uh, he gets transported to a digital world, uh, but his uh system information box is glitched, uh, so he ends up stuck in the uh starting area for like 20 years, uh, and every time he gets to level five he resets the level one and you have to get to level five. He ends up stuck in the starting area for like 20 years and every time he gets to level five he resets to level one and you have to get to level five to be able to leave the starting area. But his stats increase and when he gets reset to level one they don't decrease. So by the end of 20 years, when the moderators of the digital world realize someone's been trapped there for 20 years, it's like, oh, we should let this guy move on. Then he's just like this level five character. That's incredibly busted and, you know, typical.

Speaker 1: 4:54

It's a genre I got the group A to B to gain kind of stuff. I liked it better when you fell down a well and ended up in feudal Japan. But same basic concept.

Speaker 2: 5:04

Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, um, and I mean, like you're right, that it is like a whole genre of being that having cheat code powers or or having the, the menu that lets you see people's stats and levels, or, whatever.

Speaker 1: 5:18

So I have to give a mini rant because you've triggered me I don't have a problem with you being in a fantasy world that runs on video game logic.

Speaker 1: 5:28

I don't have a problem with you being literally in a video game. Like you die and end up in a video game. Your soul gets ripped out. You're in a video game, you go into fantasy world, video game logic.

Speaker 1: 5:38

My problem with a lot of these series and my problem with most things that are run the risk of being declared lazy writing is when the game mechanics wouldn't actually work. So if I'm watching something like Sword Art and you're like, okay, pull up the screen, here's your level, here's your stats, here's your skill points, and then I look and there's no actual skill tree in the menu it showed me and it's like these numbers don't actually have values attached to them. That's when I get salty right, because like, oh, I used to scan and they have a power level of 20,000. If that's not in context to anything, that's actually not useful information. So what I'm saying to all the expiring Ikasai writers out there in the universe is make your fictional video game actually function and we're good, I won't have no problem. Video game actually function and we're good, I won't have no problem. But if you're like, oh, I equip this dagger, look at his stats. And then you show me the stats and they don't correspond to how your fictional world works.

Speaker 2: 6:31

I'm mad okay, okay, okay. But uh, I didn't get invested in that one because the genre, um, I don't know what you could do to make a unique Isekai-style story, so I actually have a sassy remark.

Speaker 1: 6:52

So I recently watched a series called Shangri-La Frontier. Instead of being a traditional Isekai it's literally a guy who is used to playing garbage games decides to play a good VR game. That's the entire principle. Okay. So that sounds like oh, I'm just watching a guy play a good VR game. That's the entire principle. So that sounds like oh, I'm just watching a guy play a good video game. But because the characters are well-written and sound like actual gamers, me and.

Speaker 1: 7:15

Panda binged the entire thing because it was entertaining. He's like, oh yeah, I've got a perfect parry with my twin swords and no armor because I've been cursed in this video game with my adorable rabbit sidekick. I'm like this is compelling because there isn't a twist. You know how you mentioned a lot of them is, you have a cheat power and it turns into some kind of I'm hesitant to say it, but I can't think of a better term incel revenge fantasy, and I have no desire to read that. I've been to Magic the Gathering tournaments my whole life. I do not believe that socially awkward nerd needs a superpower to get vengeance for people who are treating them badly. Sometimes people just deserve to be treated a bit badly, and a lot of these cheap protagonists I'm like, yeah, I think you kind of like, did you try, just not being a jerk to everyone in your life.

Speaker 2: 8:08

The point that's new to me is not the Isekai, it's the second story that I actually did get invested in, which sounds stupid. It's called the Baby Prisoner of the North Castle, and the premise of this one is that, uh, there's a, a half-blood princess, who is uh being abused and mistreated by her royal family. Yeah, uh, and then an invading army comes and executes all the royalty um, but because she's not, because she's under 18, and apparently it's illegal in their country to execute anyone under the age of 18 uh, they decide to take her to the castle and make her a prisoner. Okay, and uh, the initially it's like oh, my family told me I'd be dead by the time I was 12. You're gonna let me live to be 18? That's amazing. You guys are so awesome. And then, obviously, her life in this castle as a prisoner is far better than her life as an actual princess, because her family hated her.

Speaker 1: 9:15

Fair. So I've been doing research and it looks like you can just free publish your own work on this website.

Speaker 2: 9:21

On what website?

Speaker 1: 9:22

On Tapis it looks like a lot of the stuff they make are self-published stuff. Oh really, yeah, I'm looking at their whole like submit to us join a community publishing opportunities, earn money da da, da, da da.

Speaker 2: 9:35

So this may actually be more a manga wattpad than anything maybe, uh, maybe I shouldn't admit this this live on the air, but I did not actually legitimately find the comics I read. That's fair. I'm sorry aspiring artists, but I I don't know how to support an international comic artist like that. Uh, uh, anyways, but. But so then the story? It Uh-uh, anyways, but um. So then the story the baby prisoner in the North Castle, I think. It starts with the girls around like eight or nine, uh, and then, uh, she gets taken to the castle and she's like, oh, can I take my only friend, these rocks? And the Duke is like, oh, your only friend is these rocks. Yeah, your rocks have a permission to come to my castle. Seems legit. Then it turns out that she's actually she doesn't know per se, but she is like a golem master, so she can imbue life into rocks and so these rocks are literally her friends.

Speaker 1: 10:49

You know I kind of low-key, love that.

Speaker 2: 10:53

And the castle that she went to. The golem master there died several years ago and assumably they're setting it up so that she can eventually take over that place and not get executed when she turns 18, but I don't know, it's kind of slow rolling because I think she's only aged a year since the start of this series I love how, though, what's new with you is, I read this random series that no one will ever find.

Speaker 2: 11:17

Here's my thoughts on it no, so it was like it was a lot of interesting twists. I thought it sounded stupid at first, uh, but then it's like I, it was a lot of interesting twists. I thought it sounded stupid at first, but then it's like I started reading it and then there's like intrigue and spies and there hasn't really been any like combat, because it's mostly focused on this little girl. So, Brightening the light. I'm going to pivot a bit into what's new with me?

Speaker 1: 11:44

because this feels kind of a natural pivot. Yeah. So I do a lot of writing courses, being a writing student, and one of the things that comes up is in short stories. You don't really have room to put in combat and a lot of literary masterpieces don't actually have a ton of combat, where my first novel almost comes off as a light anime light novel, because I put combat in every chapter, because I'm good at writing combat Like.

Speaker 1: 12:11

I literally like okay, there's a tower with 60 people to murder, I better make sure to show 60 people being murdered. So when I inevitably get studio triggered animated, it's going to look sick. But I've been trying more and more to like look at works that don't have combat in them and try and like analyze what makes those work Cause it's harder to make something good without it being cool. So you know.

Speaker 1: 12:34

I like to dunk on JJK cause it's just my most recent victim and I dunk on it for the things. I dunk on. A lot of things is if you took the fight scenes out or had them happen off screen, it would not work. So the most recent series I went through was Spice and Wolf and it really only had one quote-unquote fight and it mostly was just Giant Wolf beats some people up because it's a giant wolf and they're regular people, but it's interesting trying to create compelling plots without any action. Because it's interesting trying to create compelling plots without any action? Because it's ironic. I read so much Show and Jump but a lot of Show and Jump is no substance, just fights.

Speaker 2: 13:15

I mean, yeah, that's true.

Speaker 1: 13:17

And to even loop around a bit, one of my recommended topics for this week that I'll probably hit on another week in our lives is to do an Abridged Series episode, because some Aridged series were just better than the originals, because it turns out good writing is more important than like they'll cut an actual fight sequence out and replace it with a joke, and sometimes that's just better. Also, I think we're both kind of burnt out on show and jump right now because there's so much samesies going on.

Speaker 2: 13:48

There is a lot of samesies going on.

Speaker 1: 13:51

We're like, I'm like, oh, these gag series are currently my favorite. I think that says more about me than the magazine.

Speaker 2: 14:00

It might be a little bit of both, because it's like the magazine is trying to jump on a trend of this necromancy exorcist.

Speaker 1: 14:09

I think the real trend it's jumping on is the Great Ninja War arc Business. That's what it really feels like. It's like, okay, we're going to do that thing where each character, one at a time, fights the awesome boss, because then we get a lot of hype about the awesome boss being awesome. Fights the awesome boss, because then we get a lot of hype about the awesome boss being awesome Because, like my hero definitely started that up of let's have every character fight this person and let's just keep doing that. But I don't want this to get too rambly because we have a core topic.

Speaker 2: 14:38

Yes, our core topic is attempting to make a card game version of Rock Paper Scissors.

Speaker 1: 14:48

So it's funny when you say that, because I have the two files in front of me and longtime listeners will know that a lot of inspiration for game design is. We really enjoy Dokopan Kingdom, yeah. And both me and you for years have been bouncing around the ideas of taking Dokopan Kingdom's near-perfect mix of JRPG and board game and making a physical game out of it, because there's just a lot of really interesting concepts in there. Right.

Speaker 1: 15:20

But also without computers to track numbers and things, you hit very interesting restrictions. But because Dokopon went above and beyond to literally physically show you cards, it's like, okay, I see what their logic was of how this would work. So it's like I have a few Word documents on my computer as well about how I would set something like this up. Right.

Speaker 1: 15:43

But for that we have a couple options. So I have two files in front this up, Right, but for that we have a couple options. So I have two files in front of me, Right, I assume you want the rock paper scissors. One is what we're going to go through first.

Speaker 2: 15:54

Well, yeah, because it kind of weighs the groundwork for the Dokopan one.

Speaker 1: 15:57

And then we'll see where we're at for time, because this is probably going to be a long episode or not. I don't know. I'm not a doctor, so I'm going to start by having you give me the pitch. Pitch this game to me Like I'm an executive in an office wearing a suit with a monocle.

Speaker 2: 16:13

Oh, oh well, sheesh.

Speaker 1: 16:18

What's the elevator pitch? Come on, you caught me in an elevator. I run Hasbro. Go, go, go an elevator.

Speaker 2: 16:24

I run Hasbro Go, go, go. Well, people have choice cards and they can play one of their cards face down in front of them and challenge someone to rock paper scissors. The other person chooses a choice card from their hand and then plays it face down. Both players reveal simultaneously and then the winner basically gets points. In the first version of the game that I have, there's also a deck of Rock Paper Scissors symbols and you reveal the top card of the deck instead of challenging an opponent, and then, if you beat the top card of the deck, you can add it to your scoring area, and then the point of the game is to get matching symbols and colors to create sets that score for more points at the end of the game, and the game is over when someone scores their 14th card.

Speaker 1: 17:22

So yesterday, when I was reviewing these rules, I had the weirdest train of thought and I almost wanted to call you and just give you this unhinged tangent that's very loosely attached to these rules.

Speaker 1: 17:34

So the idea is that if you're rock-paper-scissoring against other people or a deck and then you're trying to effectively build sets, my first thought was like, oh man, if this was a Digimon game it'd be hilarious because it'd be data vaccine virus. You defeat your Digimon and add them to your bench, and then you'd like trade them up and you'd get bonus points for building evolution lines.

Speaker 2: 17:57

Okay, actually, as a little side note to your side note, actually Perfect.

Speaker 1: 18:02

This isn't a structured debate. We're not presidential candidates.

Speaker 2: 18:05

Candidates, we can ramble okay so, um, I have this, this trainer mentality. Uh, and I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you have to assume that the person you're you're training doesn't know anything correct I believe the exact line from the heroic legend of Arslan was always structure your battle plans based on your worst soldiers.

Speaker 1: 18:30

Don't try and build a plan for the person who can kill a thousand people with a spear. Make a plan for I really was about to use a filler name that would have been offensive if that person listens to this podcast, but they know who they are.

Speaker 2: 18:50

But so then, in situations like this, my first instinct is to explain what Rock Paper Scissors is, because you never know, maybe there's cultural differences or boundaries or age gaps or something. But I learned from the Rubik's Cube fiasco and I did the slightest bit of research and it seems that Rock Paper Scissors has been around for an incredibly long time. It started in China and then disseminated to Japan, and from there it disseminated to Japan and from there it disseminated to the rest of the world. But seeing as Japan is one of the first places to receive this style of game, it suddenly makes a little more sense why they're so obsessed with using rock paper scissors style mechanics in all of their video games.

Speaker 1: 19:40

So I need to pause for a moment. I recently went through Baki on Netflix and there's a scene where Baki and his dad rock paper scissors to see if he'll do the dishes. And then Baki chooses rock and his dad chooses scissors, but then his dad crushes down on his fist with the scissors to make it into paper. Not related. I just thought you would enjoy that visual. It's like when you're strong enough, scissors cuts rock.

Speaker 2: 20:08

That's pretty funny. So, uh, another uh, uh, rock paper scissors anecdote um, I'd have to look it up to see what the year it was. But, um, there was a? Uh, women's super soccer league, um, and uh, the uh referee, uh, he left his coin for the coin flop toss in, uh, in the locker room, and so he goes out there and he's to the side. Who who gets first possession? Um, and he doesn't have his coin to the coin toss, so he gets the two captains to do rock paper scissors, uh, and then he got suspended for three weeks, uh, because, uh it the rules, it has to be a coin toss.

Speaker 1: 20:48

Yeah, it is. People bet large sums of money on these games and if someone thinks that can affect the odds, they will with gusto and hatred. So, however, the Rubik's Cube analogy is different in different contexts. So, as you're aware, when I was the TTRPG Club president, I ran different tabletop RPGs or other games every week, right Rubik's Cube. When writing and doing high-concept things, trusting your audience is vital, and a lot of video games trust their audience. None, they don't. You play Breath of the Wild and they're like yeah, no, go through these four trines to learn how the basic mechanics work, as we explained. Or Pokemon Arceus, pokemon Legends Arceus takes 15 minutes to play Pokemon, a thing we've been doing since before Y2K. So, when it comes to explaining, typically games will have two rulebooks, because games are the exception to the rule, because you need basic rules of how to play a game and then comprehensive rules of no, but seriously, how to play a game.

Speaker 1: 22:07

So most games I've played, be it TTRPG or physical. They'll have the basic rules, which will be a nice 16 to 32 page leaflet that explains the basic game and then, usually online, you can find the comprehensive rules. I'm going to ask you a question. How many pages do you think the Magic the Gathering comprehensive rules PDF is?

Speaker 2: 22:29

Oh, it's a stupid number of pages. It has like over like 900 rules 292 pages. I have it pulled up.

Speaker 1: 22:39

That's the comprehensive rules and then the basic rules that they put in, like your starter kit are like 32 pages at most, and that's the thing. Rules that they put in your starter kit are 32 pages at most.

Speaker 1: 22:46

And that's the thing when making a game is your rulebook you use for the released game is not the rulebook you use for writing the game. You want comprehensive rules, which is almost in legalese, where you define terms and define their use and make sure the terms are consistent and defined across use cases and then find terms and define their use and make sure the terms are consistent and defined across use cases, right.

Speaker 1: 23:15

And then there's the quick rules of how you actually play it. So when it comes to ttrpgs, you get a cheat a bit. Rules like ttrpgs will often be like oh, when in doubt, the dm can just make it up right, that's why a lot of these games die. The reason Magic and Pathfinder and D&D have such staying power is there is typically a correct answer to every interaction. So the.

Speaker 1: 23:32

DM between sessions can look up these interactions. But most importantly, it allows play to be consistent across tables. You can go run an Adventure League booth at a convention and anyone who's watched Critical Role would have a decent chance of playing that game successfully. Just from osmosis, where, if I were to run a Shadow Dark booth, even though Shadow Dark is a more elegantly designed game, not as many people will have played it and use cases are less defined by that logic.

Speaker 1: 24:01

Pathfinder should be the better game than D&D Because it defines nearly every use case. But my problems with Pathfinder actually come to turn order and function, because each person gets three actions and every action is defined so honestly. Choice paralysis is a problem with Pathfinder not complexity. It'd be like if you played a game of Magic and you upped the hand size to 20. Technically fair, but it'd be terrible.

Speaker 1: 24:28

So to end, my rant is do you need to explain rock paper scissors In the Quick Play Guide? Probably not In the Expanded Rules glossary. You may never actually use, but is written down so you can answer guest questions. Yeah, you do actually need to explain Rock Paper Scissors because it's a game, especially if it's like a semi-perfect information game or a game with consistency to it, because, ironically, games that are designed well get played more often. That's just the way of it, and if people have to make up rules, the games usually are worse. Look at Monopoly.

Speaker 2: 25:04

If people actually read the rules to.

Speaker 1: 25:06

Monopoly, it wouldn't be as hated as it is today.

Speaker 2: 25:11

Well, I mean, that's probably true I probably mentioned this before on our podcast but if you want to get into the official Monopoly tournaments, you have to write a whole essay on Monopoly strategy tournaments. You have to write a whole essay on Monopoly's strategy, because there's just a whole thing about statistics and numbers and what squares are actually most likely to be landed on. It's actually a surprisingly complex game, but nobody really knows how to play it.

Speaker 1: 25:38

Yes. So, with that monologue out of the way, your rules as written right now is more a game pitch than a game like it's, because another big thing missing from your dev cycle for any game is playtesting, right like? Even when I was working on my synth core saga ttrpg, we had a playtesting environment, but we also used the open source polymorph engine. So we are using a tested engine, modifying it and then testing it more, and a lot of games drop the ball on the test phase. So it's like do you have enough rules to test it? You do, except you'd probably have a notebook open and whenever a rule comes up that's not in writing, you would write it down so it could be codified into a hard rule later, right, right. So back to the topic at hand writing you would write it down so it could be codified into a hard rule later.

Speaker 2: 26:29

Right, right, so Tweet back to the topic at hand. Well, so one of the things I wanted to get from you was your thoughts on which of the three versions of the card game you think sound the best as a standalone game. Okay. So version A each player gets their four cards rock paper, scissors and counter yeah. And then there's a. As I mentioned, there's a deck of rock paper scissors cards. Each one has a rock paper scissors symbol and one of four colors.

Speaker 1: 27:05

Yeah, and to the point, one has a Rock Paper Scissors symbol and one of four colors. And to the point, just a design note, I'd probably literally on every card have a little triangle diagram showing what beats. What it took Pokemon like ten generations to have the attack save and be super effective from the menu.

Speaker 2: 27:21

Well, so in this version I have the I called it the RPS diagram. I would imagine it's a little pog that shows you which symbol beats which uh. And then, um, there's also I called it the double down counter or double down token, uh. But basically when you uh, you can either challenge the deck, like I said, you place your choice card face down, you flip over the top card. Challenge the deck, like I said, you place your choice card face down, you flip over the top card of the deck and then, if you beat the top card of the deck, you get to add that card to your scoring zone, otherwise you receive a loss token which deducts from your points at the end of the game.

Speaker 2: 28:00

Or if there's another player that has a card in their scoring area, you can choose to attack them to try and steal their cards from their scoring area. Or, generally, I mean you can also just give people a loss token but you put the double down token on one of the three symbols on the RPS diagram and that becomes, I guess, actually in this version, I feel like the defending player has a perceived disadvantage. Not that there's an actual disadvantage, but since the attacker is the one who is taking action and the defending player just has to react, I chose to have the defending player choose which symbol. They chose to have the defending player choose which symbol they want to be the so-called strike symbol, which then, if either player wins with the strike symbol, you get to steal a card from the opposing player's scoring area. But if you lose with the strike symbol, which also loses to the counter card, then you have to give up one of your cards from your scoring area.

Speaker 2: 29:11

Okay, but I mean that's. Then, once you've either challenged the deck or challenged another player, you can trade any cards you want in your scoring area with other players, and this is a mechanic that I really like. I think it's kind of cool when you lose to the deck, the card you lost to gets discarded. Yeah, if you want to take that card and put it in your scoring area, if you have the matching choice card in your hand, you can put that face up in front of you, take the top card of this card and put it in your scoring area, but then you can't use that choice card in your next challenge.

Speaker 1: 30:02

So, what's interesting now that we've pretty much summarized version A, unless you have a couple more notes.

Speaker 2: 30:10

No, that's all the version A is. It's really just fairly straightforward rock paper, scissors.

Speaker 1: 30:16

So this version of it. Just in my mind's eye right now, the only information on the cards are literally a rock, a paper and some scissors, and then the strike counter are things you're setting with your token. Is that correct? Yeah, yeah, so for points, eric.

Speaker 2: 30:36

You do have a fourth card, that is, the counter card, which will be, whatever symbol is chosen to be, the strike symbol, which is denoted with the token on the RPS diagram.

Speaker 1: 30:49

And both people get to know what beats the strike symbol Right.

Speaker 2: 30:55

But the defender gets to choose which again it's Doesn't actually do anything mathematically. Doesn't actually do anything mathematically, but it gives the defender a chance to be more active and engaged in the process. And then also, who knows whether or not they're strategizing that? That's the symbol they want to play. You can kind of try to use the strike symbol as a mind game against your opponent.

Speaker 1: 31:25

So what's funny about Rock Paper Scissors is Rock Paper Scissors actually has no strategy. If you're playing it fairly, you can say things like oh, I'm going to throw a rock every time, and then when they fall into a pattern, I'll throw a paper. But based on just mathematics, your next result isn't actually impacted by the previous results, right? So Rock Paper Scissors in a vacuum is actually a zero strategy game. Right.

Speaker 1: 31:52

Where both players rolled a dice, it'd be equally effective. The defender strike symbol mechanic is funny because it's still actually like the same odds, but not really, because then it becomes oh, everything has one card has a 50% chance of losing instead of a 30% chance of losing. But we both get to know that, so strategically then everyone would just always try and pick that one. But also, that's the mind game. That's the mind game, but as a game engine. If played like this which for the record could literally be played with a regular deck of cards and you just Clubs is rock, hearts is paper, diamonds is scissor, spades is counter, you're pretty much good to go.

Speaker 1: 32:48

And the points, every card being worth one point, means fundamentally there isn't a whole lot of game going on in that setup right now, as like a core engine is interesting, but that's just kind of my thoughts is, you could theoretically just test that with a deck of cards right now and see if there's any logical flaws with it, because the cards themselves don't contain any additional information Right Now. When we move from version A, which is like, okay, this is our base engine, instead of using dice we're using rock paper scissors counter, and then attacker and defender it's asymmetrical rock paper scissors counter, and then attacker and defender it's asymmetrical rock paper scissors, because defender gets to pick the thing and attacker is choosing who they target. But the odds are the same of beating the deck and beating a player.

Speaker 2: 33:40

Your odds of beating a player are slightly better. I guess I don't know if I put who wins in a tie. The loser receives a deck. Player's Defender wins in a tie. Yeah, you know okay. So yeah, your odds of beating a player and your odds of beating the deck are the same, except your odds of beating a player are slightly better because of the strike symbol. It gives you a 50% chance.

Speaker 1: 34:06

Maybe Well, kind of, but Not really so. For version A, like I said, if you were to play that as an alternative to poker, here's what it's missing, as just a game using this engine and a conventional deck of cards. Hypothetically so, say you had a deck of cards, you had your rock paper scissors icon in front of each person where you put your poker chip, on which one for the defender Battle the deck battle the player. So traditional poker, like five card stud or Texas Hold'em there's only two things that make traditional poker more skill-based than just straight up rock paper scissors. And in a game I played recently until the dawn they had like a poker mini game, but you didn't actually get a change your cards, you just got dealt your three cards and that was your poker hand is if there's no change of cards.

Speaker 1: 35:00

In poker, the only strategy comes to betting amounts. It comes to person. One bets and the second person can either raise or call, so someone who's feeling confident can then bet more or less. Changing the amount of points you would bet on each round would actually add an extra layer to strategy that I feel like as a game in a vacuum. This is missing Because if you play this exact game, but each person had 10 chips and you've got to choose how many chips you bet. And if you bet against a player, you took their chips, and if you bet against the house, you lost or gained them from the bank. Then suddenly those choices become weighted, because it's like you get a bet on your confidence, but still, there's like even with regular poker, if your confidence Hmm, but still there's like even with regular poker, if you're not actually changing the cards in your hand, then there isn't actually strategy, it is just a game of bullshittery.

Speaker 2: 35:57

So version B instead of having dedicated choice cards, you are dealt out seven cards from the RPS deck, and so then you still have the RPS diagram and the double down token. But each turn is divided into two phases the challenge phase, where you reveal the top. Well, you place the card from your hand. That's the challenge phase where you reveal the top. You place the card from your hand. That's your challenge card. Then you reveal the top card of the RPS deck and If it is a rock paper scissors card, then you flip over your card and if you win, you get to score that card. If it's an action card, you just get to put it into your hand and keep your face-down card in front of you.

Speaker 1: 36:54

So in this version, action cards versus rock paper scissors cards. Yeah, what is the difference? Because in the previous version the only non-Rock Paper Scissors card was counter.

Speaker 2: 37:06

Well, so I mean, I haven't really decided exactly what kind of action cards they would be, but it would probably be things like invert the diagram or something like swap a card with an opponent or steal a card with an opponent or steal a card from an opponent.

Speaker 1: 37:24

So first, I want to roll back up to version A and talk about the first big difference between A and B and what it means mechanically and mathematically. Okay, so let's go back to version A but change it. Instead of each player receiving their four choice cards rock paper, scissors and counter we take a regular deck of cards and, like I said, you give each suit, rock paper, scissors and counter respectively and you deal out seven cards and then at the start of the turn, each turn you either draw a card or you play out your seven cards and that's a round and get dealt a new seven.

Speaker 1: 37:57

By switching that little amount that each player no longer has a set number of rock paper, scissors encounter, you have drastically improved the strategy aspects of this game. Astronomically, because now you don't always have rock paper and scissors guaranteed right, so a player can see like they could try and figure of if each suit has 12 cards and there's 10 people around the table and I've seen five rocks thrown out. Carl is very unlikely to have a rock, oh, and he sent his counter to rock.

Speaker 1: 38:30

That means he doesn't actually have a rock in his hand. I'm going to hit him with scissors. So by simply making it that it's now possible to try and theorycraft and guess the number of cards in a hand, version A has went from being perfect information lottery to imperfect information lottery, which functions immensely better as a standalone game, in my opinion, because you've just added, you introduced, the ability to track odds. You introduce the ability to track odds.

Speaker 1: 39:01

And that's the big difference between deal each person a five-card poker hand and the only mechanic is how much they bet and deal each person a five, show each player two cards and then deal out three each is why Texas Hold'em is the one played in tournaments, because if you have a piece of shared information that everyone knows, and then a piece of private information. Risk and reward becomes calculatable.

Speaker 2: 39:27

But so then, if your revealed card from the deck is not a rock paper scissors card, it's an action card, you add that to your hand and then you have a couple choices. You can challenge a player with a current face-down challenge card, reveal your challenge card and put it in your scoring area, or draw another face-down card from the RPS deck and return your challenge card to your hand. There is no maximum hand size, and so then, if you have your face-down card and you decide you want to challenge another player, this time I felt like there was a perceived disadvantage to the attacker because they've locked in their decision, and so then I have the attacker choose the strike symbol to try and play my games against the defender, and then player versus player, rock paper scissors just resolves the same way as they did before. So I don't know what do you think about defender versus attacker choosing the strike symbol?

Speaker 1: 40:41

So in this version of it, which is by far the more complicated version of the two, we're to the point where version B requires having read version A, because version B is just missing some of the details. Like it doesn't actually your version B doesn't actually explain rock paper scissors which, as we mentioned earlier, you kind of have to. Ironically enough, it's kind of like you have to explain what a dice is for D&D, no matter how stupid that sentence sounds. Right right.

Speaker 1: 41:11

So so first off, the idea that in the original version, in version A, player A is like I'm going to fight the deck or I'm going to fight Carl. Then if I'm going to fight the deck, I set down a card, flip from the deck. If I'm going to fight Carl, I set down a card, carl picks the counter, Carl sets down a card, we flip, so it's still functionally locked in the same way in both versions.

Speaker 2: 41:38

Well, I was imagining that the defending player chooses the counter before either player chooses their challenge card.

Speaker 1: 41:48

Which is almost semantics at that point where it's like I choose to attack you, I put my card down. So if it's like if I choose to attack you, you pick the symbol, I put my card down, you put your card down.

Speaker 2: 42:01

Well, yeah, because the attacking player does need a chance to know what the strike symbol is before they choose their card.

Speaker 1: 42:08

Which is weird because of how you've worded B. It doesn't actually function that way quite, Because you're locking down your card before you're even picking who you're fighting.

Speaker 2: 42:19

Right, because you always challenge the deck and then potentially can challenge a player.

Speaker 1: 42:25

Which I don't like that as much. I'm gonna be real. B is more of a game, but you've added in points of confusion that I don't think needed to fundamentally be there.

Speaker 2: 42:34

So I mean it's the idea of Munchkin, where you kick down the door and if it's a monster you fight it. Your turn's over. If it's not a monster, you put it into your hand and you can either fight a monster from your hand or draw a card from the deck. That's where I got the inspiration from. If it's an RPS card, you fight it. If it's not an RPS card, then you have choices.

Speaker 1: 43:01

So to loop into Munchkin and even loop further into fundamental game design theory, one of the most important thing to make your game good and this comes from playing so many ttrpgs and analyzing a lot of them is fusing flavor and function. A lot of dnd clones that get the why don't we just play dnd? Are generic games and they're like oh, the DM can fill in the blanks, so they'll be like. This is to dunk a bit on Shadow Dark, which, for the record, I really like the game design of Shadow Dark. It lacks flavor. You read through the game and nothing about it strikes you other than, oh, this is slightly more grimdark D&D setting. Or it'll be like oh, this is D&D, but in space, where really well-engineered games, their mechanics and flavor feed into each other. So let's take Three Dragon Anti. So Three Dragon Anti could have easily been poker with dragons. Right.

Speaker 1: 43:58

But it pulled in a lot of D&D design elements. So the dragons were appropriately that the higher pointed ones were stronger dragons in the lore, gold is the currency of the game. Good dragons help and draw cards. Bad dragons attack other players, split along alignment levels, mortals have their flights, three of a kind. For dragons do things, dragon gods do things. So if you just made it poker with dragons. It wouldn't have been as good of a game, but they deliberately went out of their way to add dragon flavor to the mechanics from the onset.

Speaker 1: 44:36

Even though you play three dragons part, like the fact that it's a three-card hand that goes in front of you feels like it fits, because the dragons were innately colored creatures to begin with, so three of a color made sense right so when it comes to this challenge phase kicking down a door if the game's meant to emulate rock paper scissors Scissors in its current state and we'll get to the next part of flavor later then the flipping over to decide between an action and a Rock Paper Scissors card doesn't make sense, because there's nothing separating Rock Paper Scissoring from actioning, because Rock Paper Scissoring is an action.

Speaker 1: 45:22

so because the rock paper scissors aren't pokemon or monsters or digimon right now, and it's at this super abstract state, the idea that you would add an action card to your hand but if it flips over a rock, paper or scissors you'd have to fight against it and then you can either battle the deck or the player almost takes away from the flavor of the game in a weird way.

Speaker 1: 45:37

For version b, I would almost get rid of challenging the deck. I would deal out the cards from the flavor of the game in a weird way. For version B, I would almost get rid of challenging the deck. I would deal out the cards from the deck and I'd have you always pick a player to fight against and you get to pick that player based on the number of cards in their hand this, that and then at the end of your turn you would draw back a card and you'd structure it in such a way to keep it relatively fair and balanced so you can't just attack someone until they're out of cards. But if you're setting it up that I'm attacking a player to steal their points or I'm attacking the deck as a deck-building game, it gets a little tricky. If you're not clearly defining for non-abstract games, why Like Exploding Kittens, for example, which?

Speaker 1: 46:20

is a literally a game of old made. You're playing against the deck because the deck is the win condition to other players, so you don't directly interact with the other players. You interact with the deck to try and kill the other players and every card you draw from the deck you get a just draw where, as you mentioned for munchkin, you flip it over and it's either an item or a monster. But that has the flavor of going through a dungeon to back it, so it very clearly divides it. So it's very visually and instantly identifiable why it would be structured that way, where this feels almost like if you told me oh, come up with a flavor for this game, I'd flavor like the kirby samurai slash right, like call it like vertical, cut horizontal, crud perry, and like set it up like that.

Speaker 1: 47:07

So you're doing these quick, intense, one-on-one showdowns right because that's just kind of the rock paper scissor vibe, as it were right so when I look at version A, I would immediately, from version B, take the. You are dealt out your cards at random, so that way some poor unlucky bastard can actually just have seven rocks in their hand, and around the second last duel you'd be like he's played six rocks. There's no way, right, because that causes that because by not having every hand consistent, it causes mind games that mean something. Because, ironically, the mind games in current Rock Paper Scissors are meaningless.

Speaker 2: 47:48

Right.

Speaker 1: 47:48

So I like the drilling out random cards.

Speaker 2: 47:52

So then, version B has a trade phase where, again, you can trade cards in your scoring area, or you can discard two matching symbols to take the top card of this card.

Speaker 1: 48:04

That starts to get undercooked. So version B is substantially less playable Because we haven't defined these scoring symbols. So let's go back to our.

Speaker 1: 48:18

If we were to just use a poker deck analogy for now. So would it be like oh, if I play, let's just say they're regular poker cards Like oh, if I can trade two, threes to grab a card, so are these cards going to your? So it's like okay, you beat a player, you take one of their cards, or you beat a deck and you take that rock paper scissors card, which isn't an item card, and it moves in front of you, not into your hand.

Speaker 1: 48:44

You now have these cards in front of you, which probably is information that needs to be more overly spelled out in the document that you have a play area and a hand, and they're separately defined, but anywho. So you drag that card over, and then how it goes is at the end of the game, the person with the most points wins. Right. The end of the game, defined by, however it's defined which I don't know if you defined it, but it may in fact be when you run out of cards in the deck.

Speaker 2: 49:10

Well, in the end, in the game section, which is the same for all versions, arbitrarily I chose the 14th card. Once a player places the 14th card in their scoring area, each other player gets one more turn to score cards. Then each player determines what sets they have. For each set of four matching symbols that are one of each color, you receive three points. Then for each set of three cards that have one of each symbol, you receive one point. If each of those symbols are the same color, you receive another point. So you get two points for sets of three and then, finally, you receive one point for each pair of matching symbols that also matches color. Then deduct a point for a lost token. The player with the most points wins the game.

Speaker 1: 49:48

So for ending the game using this poker card analogy for now. It is funny the idea that you count cards but you have lost tokens instead of just removing point cards from their bin. Right, because it is weird that you have lost tokens instead of just removing point cards from their bin. Right, because it's weird that you have negative points rather than just reducing their current points, but also a logistics question. So if it goes until someone wins 13 times and you can trade two score points, to draw a card is that the oh, I guess you have the if no one has any cards.

Speaker 1: 50:18

They must discard any they have and draw four new cards. I'm not quite sure the value of trading your points for drawing cards when your cards reset.

Speaker 2: 50:27

Well, so the idea was you discard two cards from your hand that match symbols to draw the card from the discard pile. Match symbols to draw the card from the discard pile. So you're looking for the symbol or the color to match one of the sets that you're trying to make in your scoring area.

Speaker 1: 50:47

See, that's, I think, where I got a point of confusion. Was that so when you beat someone in the game, you get to keep your card in your point area? It's not that you're taking their card, unless you win with a strike symbol.

Speaker 1: 50:59

it's not that you're taking their card unless you win with a strike symbol so the scoring feels a lot like trick based games, almost where it's like okay, the scoring starts to get a little elaborate. For with the current lack of cards being designed for version B, for no real meaning, because version A, even if you switch out a few of the mechanics, works with a poker deck. Version B is depending on some hypothetical actions and symbols that don't quite exist yet. So the scoring is kind of nonsensical For the hypothetical strategy of I want to win a game of rock paper scissors using a specific rock so I can have the correct three rocks. Does that.

Speaker 1: 51:43

I'm curious your thoughts of if that sounds like a good game design to you. I sound sassy, but I mean that no judgment the idea that you're playing rock, paper scissors but if you have two rocks, you want to try and win with the rock that matches the other cards in front of you.

Speaker 2: 51:59

Well, yeah, so what sets you have are public information, which is why I have the trade phase, where you can trade cards from your scoring area with other players to help each other get sets.

Speaker 1: 52:15

So, um, this trade phase is kind of paradoxical and I'll get to that during my notes in a bit, but please continue.

Speaker 2: 52:24

But yeah, basically just to add that extra layer of potential strategy is trying to get the right colored cards into your scoring area before you're forced to score your 14th card.

Speaker 1: 52:40

Okay, so first off, your 14th card. Okay, so first off, 14 feels high. This will be a test and play test, but just from Unstable Unicorns which, for the record though, did have Destroy Unicorn cards it took like an hour to get up to seven unicorns.

Speaker 1: 52:57

So if there's any form of point card removal, 14 will take a very long time. A game I'd recently played, ramen fury, which was largely about the building a set where you're given recipe cards and you had to try and play your ingredient cards and you could swipe some ingredients to try and score points at the end and then you scored points based on what your ramen recipes were right if you have like a that explains the scoring, you're good to go.

Speaker 1: 53:23

But a scoring-based game, weirdly enough, trying to arrange your pieces, is very strategic when weighted rock paper scissors is not.

Speaker 1: 53:35

And that's where it gets odd, because I see the idea where you're like okay, I have three red cards, which means he's going to try and play a red card, and if we assume that all rocks are red, then you can be like okay, he's going to try and play a rock, so he has more points. But without those hypothetical cards designed, I can't do the math because, like, if you have four matching symbols, one of each color. So if we go for like traditional cans, where literally your scoring is, let's say it's five cards, and you literally add them up to a poker hand at the end and you're using that like the suits defeat each other in place of your rock paper scissors, then it becomes the okay, the three of diamonds hasn't been played yet and he has two diamonds in play, he's probably going to play a diamond. You can do that, but that would kind of involve the players having a knowledge of what's in the deck. Which is awkward.

Speaker 1: 54:30

It gives existing players a massive strategic advantage.

Speaker 2: 54:34

The colored cards at this point don't interact differently. It's just your card has a, a symbol, it has a color, uh, and then you uh, when you win or lose, you're choosing which card you want to keep, based on whether or not it matches sets in your hand or in your scoring area. And if you have cards that don't match sets in your scoring area, then you would hypothetically want to trade them away so you can get cards that match sets. But the colors don't actually interact with the rock-paper-scissors mechanic. That's just for scoring.

Speaker 1: 55:13

And that's kind of my complaint about form-function mechanics is that the colors don't interact with the game. Function and mechanics is that the colors don't interact with the game. So the theory is you would want people while playing the game. If the idea is that I have seven cards in my hand let's say it's two blue rocks, a green scissor, a yellow scissor and a red paper or whatever have it be, and a red paper or whatever have it be, I would want, you would want, ideally, for you who's fighting me to be like okay, he has two red things in play. He's probably going to try and play a red card. Which pieces are red that are in play? Because if it's not possible to track what people have, then it's not strategy. So say there's four colors, literally just red, blue, green, yellow. You would kind of need to know how many rocks are in each color. So if there's three red rocks, three blue rocks, three green rocks, three yellow rocks, then you'd look on the board and see how many rocks are on the board to try and figure out how many rocks are left in play. So in the more abstract version, because usually if you Arkham Razor things and trim it down to its most basic function.

Speaker 1: 56:25

If we go back to the poker deck for a moment and the ending scoring is literally just when the deck runs out of cards. It's literally each turn. You play your card, then you draw a new one, and when the deck runs out of cards, the game ends and the person with the most point cards in front of them wins. Then it becomes you're not looking at the points in front of them for colors and combo, but literally just to figure out what players have left in the later phases of the game. So it would become if spades beat hearts, for example, I'd be checking the board and counting the number of spades. And if the deck's out of cards and there's nine spades in play, I know that three of the cards in your hand or in the remaining player's hands must be spades. So I'm going to play a diamond and kick your ass is how a more traditional card game would function at that point.

Speaker 1: 57:15

Because if the colors aren't attached to the cards in front of you and there's no cheat sheet explaining how many copies of each thing there are, then the fact that you have a bunch of blue in front of you doesn't actually impact my thought process of who I rock paper scissor and why, unless it becomes more of a when you beat someone you look at their hand and take a card kind of thing. But in my experience that gets messy to look at one person's hand and take a card. Right.

Speaker 1: 57:44

Does that make any sense? That ramble?

Speaker 2: 57:48

Well, I mean in theory. Part of why you would attack a specific player would be, say, they have a lot of blue and you want blue. You would attack that player, and then the mind game would be did you attack them to strike them and steal their card, or did you just attack them to give them minus points?

Speaker 1: 58:07

But that's kind of my rant about if your game's built on rock paper scissors, the rest of the game should be influencing the thought process of rock paper scissors, because rock paper scissors is the core. So we go back to version A.

Speaker 1: 58:22

Every single interaction in version A has a 30% chance of success. That's just it. Because setting it to a counter to this symbol and then both people know this knowledge means that knowledge doesn't actually affect the outcome any. So if we say we're playing a game where both me and you roll a d6 and who rolls higher wins and then we have, we both roll and then we're deciding which card to take, which point to take Ooh, am I attacking you to take the point or is it because I have better odds Then we're actually playing two games.

Speaker 1: 58:57

We have game A, which is conflict resolution, and game B, which is resource trading and collecting. So if we look at a game like Catan, which is entirely like research-based trade, collect, to trade for points, catan uses dice. And if we switch out dice for rock paper scissors to see where things move or what resources are generated, where switched out rolling dice at Catan, that me and you rock paper scissors and winner chooses the number, we are not building a game around that mechanic that way, because right now your version B works if you replace rock paper scissors with both player rolling a dice, which I think kind of undercuts the point of trying to make a weighted Rock Paper Scissors game.

Speaker 2: 59:47

Hmm, Well, see my problem here is that, according to Wikipedia, Rock Paper Scissors is known as a zero-sum game, where, if both players start at zero, they play a hand. The player that wins gets plus one point. The player that loses gets minus one point. Their combined score is still zero. No matter how far apart they get, their combined score is still zero. So you have to be fighting over something.

Speaker 1: 1:00:24

But my logic being that A by adding more players, you've already broken it. If you're choosing who you battle, even though it's still a zero-sum across the table, it's no longer a true zero-sum game Because B and you can both have two points if Redacted has minus four and you do have to be fighting over something.

Speaker 1: 1:00:46

But to go back to the original inspiration of Dokopan Kingdom, for example, dokopan Kingdom used weighted rock-paper-scissors in its core with its physical magic skill counter system. But everything you did in that game affected the odds of the weighted rock paper scissors. Did you want to weight it more heavily so your rock hits harder? Did you want to weight it more heavily that you're less likely to take damage from scissors? Did you want to make it that if someone uses an item on you, it launches them back in their face so they don't mess with you when you're rock paper scissoring the board? Did you want rock paper scissors the player, so they don't fuck with you when you're exploring the board?

Speaker 1: 1:01:28

So a lot of the details, bells and whistles and points in that were built around not playing fair rock paper scissors, because if the rock paper scissors is fair, then everything you build around it is just a secondary note, because you're literally using it as a dice roller. So me and you played D&D and the mechanic was you rock paper scissor, the DM, and we used version A of this exact engine and you're just setting down cards. I was setting down cards, setting a thing rock paper scissors to see if you succeed or fail. We would quickly have to add waiting to that to make it a fun experience, Because it would have to become like hey, if we're playing rock paper scissors and I'm giving you advantage, that means I have to win two, you only have to win one Disadvantage. That means I have to win two, you only have to win one disadvantage.

Speaker 2: 1:02:23

Conversely, or even be like oh an advantage, I win in a tie on disadvantage, you win on a tie to try and make that core mechanic blend better into the rest of the mechanics yeah, okay, but so then there is a version C, which is a hybrid of the two game, of the two versions, where each player has the four choice cards, but they also draw four additional cards.

Speaker 1: 1:02:48

So version C is probably my favorite, which is ironic because it's the short and straightened one.

Speaker 1: 1:02:53

So you deal out your four choice cards. Everyone gets at the start, so that means everyone is guaranteed to be able to possibly beat you at Rock Paper Scissors Right. Then you draw four cards, so it makes it really hard to tell how many rocks have been played. Your choice cards aren't stolen, discarded or scored, and so you play Rock Paper Scissors and when you win you just get a poker chip. In my brain. Although, if we go back to version A and look at how the graveyard is looted, do-do-do-do-do.

Speaker 2: 1:03:29

It's at the bottom of the active player matrix any number of cards. Additionally, they may loot the discard pile by placing the choice card that corresponds with the top card of the discard pile face-up in front of them. They cannot use that choice card in their next challenge.

Speaker 1: 1:03:41

See that one just seems like the worst move you can make in this game. So you lose a rock, a paper or scissors what looks like for no particular game. Please explain this one to me.

Speaker 2: 1:03:57

It's because of the scoring, where you score based on what sets you have at the end of the game yeah, but if you're guaranteed to lose a round of rock like the amount you're not guaranteed to lose a round of rock paper scissors by not being able to use that choice card yes, you are.

Speaker 1: 1:04:11

If me and you are playing rock paper scissors and you can't use scissors, right, you cannot win that game of rock paper scissors against me because I will choose paper, which means I either tie or win Scissors. Right. You cannot win that game of rock paper scissors against me Because I will choose paper, which means I either tie or win, and if I'm defending, I win in a tie, depending on the version.

Speaker 2: 1:04:35

So, losing one of your three options means you cannot win the game of rock paper scissors, but in the hybrid version you could hypothetically have a non-choice card.

Speaker 1: 1:04:45

But you see, that's also paradoxical, because if you played your choice card and they have the same backs, it'd be impossible to tell if that's the one that should be blocked or not. And there's a few options too. So to go outside the box a bit, do you remember the five dragon card game from our game we made long, long time ago of the five dragon elemental chess? So where you have that type chart where it's a circle, but then things also cut across on a line, if you went with that chart instead of rock paper chart, where it's a circle, but then things also cut across on a line, if you went with that chart instead of rock paper scissors, where there's five options and each thing can beat two options Right, then a lot of this becomes more feasible, because then if you lose one of your options, you can still win or lose, because rock paper scissors doesn't actually have to be three options. They just have to interact.

Speaker 1: 1:05:42

They just have to interact circularly. And if you did it that way, where you're like, okay, here's my five colors, my five elements, have you and each one defeats two elements.

Speaker 1: 1:05:57

Then it becomes we're going to rock paper scissors and I have a. Either nothing happens, I beat you or I lose to you. But then removing cards from it changes the odds in a more interesting way. But version C if we're using traditional rock paper scissors, here's your four cards and then four extra cards, so that way at the very start they're guaranteed. Does that add a bit more stability to it? I'm not really sure if it's worth the energy, because if you deal out seven cards at the start of a game and there's only four different cards, odds are they will get one of each.

Speaker 1: 1:06:35

And because bluffing is a factor no opponent is going to be confident in your initial seven cards that there's no way you have a rock, a scissors and paper. Yeah, I was just.

Speaker 2: 1:06:49

If there's action cards, then that eats up some of the cards you could potentially have in your hand. And then also there's four, because one of them is counter. I don't know, I guess.

Speaker 1: 1:07:06

Counter's interesting. It's kind of funny Is counter kind of a wild card.

Speaker 1: 1:07:14

Yeah, counter's counter is a wild card Because counter becomes effectively what the defender says. It becomes Right. So counter is either rock paper or scissors, depending on what it's set to. But when your hand is a set number of rock paper scissors, as I said before, then having two rocks in your rock paper scissor hand doesn't actually change the odds because it's still a 30% chance they play. Rock paper scissor hand doesn't actually change the odds because they can still play. There's still a 30% chance they play rock paper or scissors because having two rocks doesn't actually change those numbers any.

Speaker 2: 1:07:49

Okay. So if we go to the end of the game here, you just don't like the idea that you're building sets in your scoring area.

Speaker 1: 1:07:58

I don't like that. It's not attached to anything. So what's weird about this right now? Right is, if I play, we'll still just arbitrary color it. So let's say I play Red Rock and you play Blue Scissors, I beat you with my Red Rock. That means I get to take a card that's in front of you, or do I get to take the red rock, or do I take the blue scissors?

Speaker 2: 1:08:27

Well, so you can take the blue scissors, or you can take the red rock, and if you win with a strike, then you can additionally take a card from their scoring area.

Speaker 1: 1:08:39

So you get your choice. So what makes it kind of like for the point matching system, that makes it weird, is, like I said, you can see what's in front of people and, in theory, if you had like a list of how many of each symbol there were, that could affect your decision making process, especially with your dealt out seven cards that could affect your decision-making process especially with your dealt-out seven cards.

Speaker 1: 1:09:01

So like, if there's only one red rock and one blue scissors and there's seven colors, that means there's only six more rocks in play. So you can just keep spamming scissors at people to burn up all the rocks. You're like ha-ha, now I'll crush you with paper. So it starts to have a bit more strategy. But that information needs to be conveyed somewhere, because as it stands right now, with four matching symbols, then three of the same, so if your goal is to collect three rocks, then it's not like you're going to deliberately play rocks so you can collect your own rock.

Speaker 3: 1:09:41

Because, yet again, if you're using to deliberately play rock so you can collect your own rock, because, yet again, if you're using perfect information rock paper scissors, it doesn't matter what card you play, because it's still your same chance of winning with every card, so it doesn't really make the cards more or less valuable.

Speaker 1: 1:09:56

So then it becomes a set collecting game which, like I said, if the goal is the rock, paper scissors is the star of the game, then if the scoring can be settled with me and you each roll a dice and then the winner gets to take a card from the person's hand and if they get the exact same number as them, they get to take a card from their hand and in front of them they're not really building up on your core mechanic, at least in my opinion, the point of the debate is it's free to be discussed.

Speaker 2: 1:10:29

Well as I mentioned in the comment on this document, version A is what I would use for the Dokopong board game version which if we want to transition over to that. Firstly, I have a list of key terms. Do you have any questions about the key terms that I have listed out?

Speaker 1: 1:10:52

So to wrap up the Rock Paper Scissors chat a little bit because I do want to touch up on your initial question. So version A is a standalone game Functions. It's an engine. The fight the deck versus fight the player is good. The scoring feels weird for version A. My version of version A as written, I'd probably just use poker chips and choose how many we bet on each given game against each other and might not even have battle the deck as an option, although I kind of like the idea that in a tie, whoever both people bet goes to the center and you can only win that from the center if it's there. Just to kind of add some flexibility For version B, I don't like the trade phase. I would just remove that. For version B, I don't like the trade phase. I would just remove that Because it's supposed to be a competitive game and it's like weird mind games on weird mind games on weird mind games.

Speaker 1: 1:11:48

So, to give one of my favorite Magic, the Gathering rants. Remember when someone put a card on their card and said this taps my card and it can't be untapped. You're supposed to play that on your opponent's card and then try to explain it's like no, I made my strategy because you can't predict it. When you're just playing mind games that don't actually have a function behind them, I as a person just hate that. I would not enjoy a game where people are playing mind games when there isn't a good strategy behind them.

Speaker 3: 1:12:18

In Magic, for example, one of my brother's favorite mind games is to swing with the untapped mana to show he could have a trick.

Speaker 1: 1:12:28

A pro player who's in a different thought school would always have a trick. They're not just going to do it hoping they think they have a trick, because then if they call your bluff you lose right where jeremy has a good enough poker face and he's a good enough player that he's probably you think he's most likely swinging because he can blow you out. If you make that same play against jeremy, he'll be like, no, you don't have a trick because he would have used a here or here and you just get blown out because he can know that when you make that bluff based on your previous actions, that it is in fact a bluff because you're like no last turn, you would have used it if you had it.

Speaker 1: 1:13:10

Where Journey is good enough to know to make it. That put you in that quantum state of oh, he could have a trick, because statistically, this is when he would have one if you were to use one. This is a game-ending moment, so he saves his bluffs for moments that would be like. I cannot let him do this thing, even if he's bullshitting me, because it's a win-or-lose situation when a bad player will do these bluffs when they're not win-or-lose situations and no one will ever fall for them because they're not win or lose situations.

Speaker 1: 1:13:45

So, if you attack and you have one man, tap mana and you have a trick. You're like ha ha ha, if he blocks, I'll use my trick. I would just block and you would just use the trick, because it's not a game-defining moment. So when it comes to back to Scissors card game before we moved to Dokopon, if it comes to oh, there's these point cards and I need to take his blue rock to make sure I win, Right.

Speaker 1: 1:14:11

So I'm going to swing at him to take his blue rock. That really only works if I have some way to rig the odds, because you could be like well, he has a 30% chance. So I would just do a thing, because it's still the 30% chance, so you don't really have the control needed to be playing trade phase mind games, right, like, oh, do you want to trade this with this?

Speaker 1: 1:14:35

from me this feels like bonus actions in D&D, where it would slow down the flow of play right for no real reason, because players will always try and use a bonus action even if they don't have one right and they'll try and argue what is a bonus action and they'll use not even on critical role. They'll be like, well, can I use my bulgis action to be prepared? And they'll be like, okay, sure, which didn't do anything.

Speaker 1: 1:15:01

So the trade phase doesn't do anything right now, because you can't have a level of control really to do anything with it. That's my final. Wrap up is for version B.

Speaker 1: 1:15:15

I think I need to see what some of the points cards look like so we can figure out what the math is right because if the scoring system was attached, if the cards existed, if you had like a canva file that showed what all the cards would be and then listed the scoring, then there's some math that can be done to be like, okay, is there enough cards in play to affect my choice of who I attack? Because if it's always a 30% chance of winning, then your strategy isn't what card do I play for Rock Paper Scissors. Your strategy is who do I attack among the other players or the deck, and that can be a controllable thing if it's a known quantity how many points things are worth. That's my rant.

Speaker 1: 1:15:57

TLDR is, I'd cut the trace phase because it would chalk up time and I'd want to make sure the points are publicly available knowledge. So now that I'm done that rant, do you have any? Questions for me about it, oh sweet.

Speaker 1: 1:16:15

I hope I helped give some clarity because I did come with notes. So key terms as I mentioned before, there's going to be a rulebook. I hope I helped give some clarity because I did come with notes. Yeah, I agree. So key terms, as I mentioned before, there's going to be a rulebook and a simplified document and so far so good. So we got a stat tracking board with level HP, physical, magical speed, stat cap, unique gear. I like it. I'm picturing nice little fabric deck mats. We put this on kickstarter level 20 tier gets a crappy plastic mat, but those hundred dollar buy-ins they get the nice, velvety deck mats. All right. Right, because the thing is a lot of the deck builder genre of games, which is a genre marvel, deck builder dominion, what have you? We'll show you where the card layouts goes and some people won't set up the board. A game like this. I'd set up the board, yeah, yeah, and looking at how Flesh and Blood cards are laid out, because that was my big decider of if you have too many zones or not Flesh and.

Speaker 1: 1:17:12

Blood has four sets of armor on the left side, head, core, arms legs, two weapons. In the middle a deck, a remove from game pile, a discard pile and a pitch pile. So it works out being three rows spaced apart with four items per row. That is a reasonable amount of space per player to take up at a table, in fact it's actually using up less slots than a Yu-Gi-Oh mat. That seems good. You can fit a bunch of Yu-Gi-Oh players around a table. Active player does need to be defined.

Speaker 1: 1:17:47

Right RPS, a rock paper scissors mini-game, the outcome of a tie is determined on a case-by-case basis. Well, I hate how that's worded, being a D&D gamer, but I see what you actually mean.

Speaker 1: 1:18:00

Hmm, indie gamer, but I see what you actually mean. So, like you're not saying that the players decide, you mean literally, there'll be cards and mechanics that explain who wins in a tie. Right? So the outcome of a tie? I think I'd literally define the term tie and it'd be like a tie when both players throw out the same card in the minigame. See other cards and mechanics to determine who wins, yadda, yadda, yeah, okay, and then we have your choice card, which is your rock paper scissors, your counter card, which is the rock one. There's an active strike symbol. You can counter Straightforward, no problems here, all right.

Speaker 1: 1:18:38

Loot, also pretty straightforward. You go on a loot space or trade in theft. Loot is its own deck. However, at this point in your structuring of the rules, you have the board, you have your gold, which I'm picturing as poker chips, you have an active player, but you don't actually have an active player button. You have an attacking player, defending player. You kind of blend together in your key terms I'd probably divide them a bit as components to play the game and then gameplay terms.

Speaker 1: 1:19:11

So, the stat tracking board the gold, the different decks of cards, like choice cards go, then counter cards, then different decks cards, the attacking, defending, and things would probably go under a separate heading later, but that's like a substance. Edit note it's not super relevant.

Speaker 2: 1:19:30

Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:19:30

Because we get to the loot card but we forgot to define a loot deck and where it goes Right which I'm assuming loot have their own back and they go in the middle of the table. Yeah, I assume event have their own back probably a little exclamation mark, and go in the center of the table, and I assume monsters have their own back and go in the center of the table.

Speaker 2: 1:19:56

Monsters are actually? Well, there are two types of monsters, well, three types of monsters Boss monsters, property monsters and event monsters. So the event monsters are just part of the event deck. Yeah, the property cards are organized separately and the boss monsters are organized separately, although I don't have a key term for boss monster.

Speaker 1: 1:20:23

So there's a couple ways that could go in the logistics in my brain. So, on one hand, what you could do, and this is kind of a wild idea, so stick with me here. Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:20:33

What if? For your monsters? Because the cards are so you've mentioned, property cards are two-sided. It shows the boss monster on the front. Because the cards are so you've mentioned, property cards are two-sided. It shows the boss monster on the front and the town on the back, or what have you. And when it comes to playing, you would just pick if you want to fight monsters or clear a town. But I'm not really sure because we don't. There's no. To clarify, there's no pachinko board in this version. Oh no, there is.

Speaker 1: 1:21:00

There's a full board, never mind, yeah this version has the full board, because with the full board then you literally just go to the school, you can literally just put your property cards there, and games like Eldritch Horror would have you just literally search the deck for the label town and then flip it over to see what monster it is. So what's?

Speaker 1: 1:21:21

funny is for something like the board. Then the property cards would literally be players would look through them to find the property and then flip over the monster and vice versa. And conversely, looking at a game like Eldritch Horror. This is a complex game but it's definitely doable to have your monster cards, your event cards, your property cards, your item cards. That's not unreasonable compared to a large scale setup game.

Speaker 2: 1:21:50

The property cards and boss monster cards are essentially their own deck, but they're double-sided so they don't need to be shuffled or anything. You just need to find the corresponding boss or property.

Speaker 1: 1:22:01

Yeah, because if each town always has the appropriate boss, that's fine. Mm-hmm. And then you have your game board, which is star rating and color three town, one boss, one bank, one loot, one magic spring and seven event spaces. Do-do-do-do.

Speaker 1: 1:22:22

Okay, so you have your world map. Whatever that ends up being Right and for the sake of design, good enough. I mean, for a project like this, at some point probably me will have to do a mock-up of the game board. So setup, setting aside your different decks. So far, so good. Goal of the game is to have the most victory points and the most gold when a player reaches level 7, the day tracker hits zero or the Demon King is defeated.

Speaker 1: 1:22:51

So to loop back to the Inspiration game, I do enjoy that the goal of the game is to have the most gold. I'm not really sure why you've like added in victory points.

Speaker 2: 1:23:02

I'm not really sure where victory points have come in. Well, I mean, if it's just gold and gold is everything, then I feel, like some of the other, like having a certain number of levels should be worth a certain number of points, because you had to invest your gold into it.

Speaker 1: 1:23:23

So here's how I would probably handle this. So what I would do is certain event cards would say right on them at the end of the game add this much gold to your gold total. And the class cards would say on on them at the end of the game add this much gold to your gold total. And the class cards would say on them add this much gold to your gold total. So you're investing them, but instead of introducing a victory points that you have to convert, I'd probably just put gold values on the things that are worth victory points. Yeah, okay, so kind of a minor quip, but it's like okay, instead of I get this many victory points, it's like literally each monster has a cash value.

Speaker 1: 1:24:00

Each piece of item has a cash value. It's literally just like sell all your things and you give each class a cash value, it becomes a sell all your things to add up your money situation at the end of the game. Right. At least in my brain situation at the end of the game, right, at least in my brain.

Speaker 2: 1:24:15

You can feel free to debate me on that one. No, no, I mean, that's kind of what I was thinking. I just wasn't sure how to go about it, I guess.

Speaker 1: 1:24:23

So there's the unknown town space. Fight the monster, take the property as their own. So to loop back around to fighting the deck, so when you fight the monsters they literally just flip over a rock paper or scissor card from the rock paper scissor deck. So you set yours down, you flip theirs over, you flip up yours to see who wins.

Speaker 2: 1:24:45

No, rock paper scissors is only used for player interactions. If you go down to player versus monster combat, you might recall the other version of Dogapon which didn't have a board, it was just cards. I kept the combat system between players and monsters, I guess, more streamlined because I don't want combat to take a lot of time. Streamlined because I don't want combat to take a lot of time.

Speaker 1: 1:25:14

Because what I was thinking was, if we're still using the rock paper scissor resolver, if you have a boss monster card and you have the boss monster card, have like the four symbols on it, like the rock, the paper, the scissors and the counter symbols on the card, and that's where you write their magic damage, their physical damage, their special ability, their counter then you can pretty quickly just flip over a card to see what it does.

Speaker 1: 1:25:40

If you want to keep that synchrosity across because if we're using dice and implementing dice, then we don't need rock paper scissors cards ever Then to play whenever it would be a rock paper scissors encounter in this game, you could literally just have you both players roll dice and highest dice roll wins instead of Rock Paper Scissoring. I suppose and I mean as quippy as this sounds if we're using Rock Paper Scissors as Rock Paper Scissors other as the solving mechanic for things, you want to use it across the game or not in the game. As I was explaining earlier that for the Rock Paper Scissors game that kind of has to be the star of the game or it would just be, because if you're fighting monsters rolling dice, you might as well fight players rolling dice.

Speaker 2: 1:26:33

No, no, obviously you need to read the player versus monster combat. You don't roll dice against monsters. I mean you can roll a die to see whether or not you can strike them, because they're going to have a chart to see how often they counter. But besides that it's just you check your stats and then you deal, deal damage and then combat is over.

Speaker 1: 1:26:54

Yeah, so the only mechanic in it is a dice roll, if you choose to use it Right and, like I said, if you're using it Against monsters because the players versus monsters.

Speaker 2: 1:27:05

I don't want to be an involved, lengthy process, I just want it to be boom done Players versus players, resolved using rock paper scissors. So it's like you want to attack a town, then the owner of that town will defend with rock paper scissors. You want to attack a player, that player will defend with rock paper scissors. Because I want it to be more involved than player versus monster combat, because player versus monster combat is not the star of the game, because player versus monster combat is not the star of the game.

Speaker 1: 1:27:35

But to follow that up a bit, if player versus monster combat is less involved than player versus player and is not the star of the game, it does also make up the bulk of the game. So to give an example for Pokemon, as I've been watching a YouTuber do his legacy mods of his Pokemon games to try and make them run smoother and cleaner, people like to think when they talk about Pokemon outside the game itself. So a lot of times I look at Pokemon and be like how can we balance this for post-game PvP? Which Pokemon are the best compared to all of them?

Speaker 1: 1:28:14

But that's not actually how the game feels when you're playing it. For example, let's take I don't know, I'm going to say Sandslash. Sandslash is a bad Pokemon outside of its context, right, but you get Sandslash around the time you fight an Electric Gym. Right.

Speaker 1: 1:28:33

Where it's very good, so you can bring it with you for that chunk of your journey, which means, even though its stats on paper are low, to you it'd feel like a good Pokemon. So what makes a Pokemon actually good is how many battles throughout the course of the game it helps you with, because Mewtwo's actually useless, because you never use it in Pokemon when Charmander is amazing, because you use it throughout the entire game. Right.

Speaker 1: 1:29:00

So with this game you want to use Rock Paper Scissors for player versus player, for stealing towns, For event cards that are dramatic, for setting up a hot spring, for whatever things.

Speaker 1: 1:29:13

You decide to put your rock paper scissors icon on by not using it in some streamlined way for the monsters the most common thing you do it makes the monster part an outlier.

Speaker 1: 1:29:26

My proposal is two ways. First, to make a quick monster battle, all you're doing is you're flipping over the top rock paper scissors card. So instead of choosing physical, like you choose physical or magical and then you flip over a card to see what the monster does or something, just to keep those cards as a factor. Even if your rock paper scissor cards are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and it's like you attack and then they flip over if you choose to strike. If they flip over a card above da-ba-da-ba, you fail. But the fact that you're introducing a dice makes me, as a game designer, want to switch out all the rock paper scissors with various dice, because that is the most common thing they're doing is they've learned to play this game through fighting generic monsters, that this is a game where you can try and double your damage by rolling above the thing's challenge rating right and if that's your mechanic, then when you go to fight another player you'd actually feel like, okay, I choose physical or magical, they choose physical or magical, I can roll a strike dice.

Speaker 1: 1:30:35

I have to get above their level. It's just what would feel natural instead of having two separate engines. Hmm. So what I would think about doing is how can I, if my main mechanic is, each person holds four cards in their hand, or it's literally flip the top card of the deck or it's the set then flip? How can we make the set then flip the most satisfying for fighting monsters? So here would be my proposal.

Speaker 2: 1:31:06

Well, yeah, see, my problem is that the monsters are fixed.

Speaker 1: 1:31:09

Do you want to hear my proposal?

Speaker 2: 1:31:11

Or do you want to shoot down my criticism? What's your proposal?

Speaker 1: 1:31:14

So here's what you could do. What if you lock in your choice? When you want to fight a monster, you lock in your choice of rock paper scissors other. Your item cards are corresponded to those rock paper scissors other. So you're locking in your physical magical. What have you? Before even seeing the monster, you flip over the monster card. The monster would take damage based on what you locked in. So the monster would be written on it how much damage it takes from rock, paper, scissors, other. So what you're doing is I'm going to fight this place, and especially if the places because we have this advantage in regular dokapon, if the places because we have this advantage in regular Dokopan If the monster decks are literally each section of the board or stars have different monsters and you start getting a feel for it.

Speaker 1: 1:32:01

I'm going to rock down Brock because there's a lot of wizards in this wizard cave. The wizard, when it gets flipped over. My locked card gets flipped over, it's just the wizard just gets flipped over. I then get to beat the wizard. Or if you make the monsters two-sided, like you made the towns, then you actually get to see what monster's on top of the deck, but you don't know what it flips over into.

Speaker 1: 1:32:25

So if you had four vampires in the monster deck, for example, identical vampire cards and the only thing different is when you flip them over, it says if they counter on rock, paper or scissors, you can lock in your card. I see there's a vampire at the top of the deck. I'm going to fight the vampire. I lock down my card. Vampire flips I flip. Vampires are more likely to be weak to physical. I just know this from flavor. So there's actually more vampires that are weak to rock than there are weak to the other elements in the deck. So we as the designers could stack it, as it were, where, for example, swordsmen, monsters, we just make more likely to be weak to rock on their reverse side. So it becomes you lock, you put in their card, you flip the two side monster cards, you flip the character card to see who wins and all the numbers are just printed right on the cards.

Speaker 1: 1:33:20

That's my proposal because as it stands right now, it's like you compare your stat to the monster stat. To deal an extra damage if your speed is greater, you do additional damage, may attempt to double your damage with a strike if you roll, rest on the counter. But to more closely emulate the source material, I feel like you would have a weapon, a spell, and you already have these in front of you in the other rules. You'd have those four things in front of you that say what each of your rock, paper, scissor other does and you just have the two-sided monster where you walk in, you walk in the monster, you flip, you flip and it just says what beats what.

Speaker 2: 1:33:57

Well. So, as the title suggests, I called this Simplified Dokopan Kingdom because in Classic Dokopan Kingdom the magic stat is not Like. The magic stat is your magic defense and your magic offense, but there's no gear to increase your magic stat. So you can only increase your magic stat through leveling.

Speaker 1: 1:34:28

There's some gear that increases your magic stat. There's weapons that increase it.

Speaker 2: 1:34:33

Very few and they don't increase it as much as they increase your magic stat. There's weapons that increase it Very few and they don't increase it as much as they increase the physical stat, so it's even more weighted away from magic.

Speaker 2: 1:34:46

And so it's like trying to have magic weapons and physical weapons, and it felt like it was unnecessarily complicated, and so I just paired it down to the three, where both are your physical is your physical defense and your attack. Magic is your magic of defense and your magic attack, and then speed just does a variety of other things.

Speaker 1: 1:35:09

Okay, because when we look at these mechanics, so in the original magic did two things it was your combat magic and your field magic Right. And your magic defense in the field was your evasion, your odds of being hit by it, so your speed was functionally your magic defense out of battle and your defense was your magic defense in battle plus your magic guard ability Right, your defense was your magic defense in battle plus your magic guard ability. So, looking at this player versus monster combat. How you have it set up right now is written.

Speaker 1: 1:35:39

You have your monster stats, you deal your level damage to it. If your physical or magical is higher, you'll deal extra. If your speed's higher, you deal extra, and you can try and double it with a strike. Right. Do you lock in physical or magical, before you see the monster?

Speaker 2: 1:36:01

Well, I mean classic Dokoban.

Speaker 1: 1:36:03

No in your game. As written. Do you? Lock in physical or magical Not before you see the monster. So you would always pick the one you're higher at.

Speaker 2: 1:36:15

Well, for fighting monsters? Yes, most likely.

Speaker 1: 1:36:21

So that's where it gets kind of finicky, is? It's not simplified. If you have to check each number against the card's number, then make a choice, then attempt to double it, then resolve the damage. Like. The way this is set up is just a straight-up different mechanic than how you fight against another player and it may be slightly quicker because you have the Like. You also have both players rolling a dice to decide who goes first for determining attacking player.

Speaker 2: 1:36:58

Right.

Speaker 1: 1:36:59

Then you have.

Speaker 2: 1:37:00

Because the player versus monster combat, the damage is resolved based on your speed. So again, if you're fast, then you'll hit them first and potentially kill them into a single phase. That should go faster when you're fighting monsters rather than players, where, when you're fighting players, as the attacking player, you have to attack them. As the attacking player, you have to attack them.

Speaker 1: 1:37:36

So I think I'd simplify the monsters even further then. So here's an even way to simplify the monsters more. When you fight a monster, they have three numbers Physical, magical speed they take. You have your numbers of physical, magical, magical speed as well. You look at their card. For each number you have higher than them, they take a damage. For each number you have lower, you take a damage. And once you get three out of them, they're out. But it's weird because it's like the thing is monster fights. Do you want monster fights to be resolved instantly? Do you want each fight to last? Do you want someone's entire turn to be them continuing a fight, or do you want a fight to just instant resolve in one phase?

Speaker 2: 1:38:28

Well, I mean for monster fights. I want to try and balance it so that it will resolve in a single phase.

Speaker 1: 1:38:34

Because what you could do is when a monster's flipped up, you simply take a damage for each stat you have lower than it out of the three and the monster always dies. So if you flip up a vampire and you have more physical than it, you take one less damage. So if you lose to physically, you take a damage. You lose at speed. You take a damage. You lose at speed. You take a damage. You lose at magical, you take a damage. The monster always dies.

Speaker 1: 1:38:59

If you do it that way, every fight will always last one phase. So if I throw up a kobold who has one physical, zero magic, zero speed, it beats you in physical and then you beat it at the other two, you take one damage, it's gone. That is the cleanest way I could do this, and then striking in that version would be that. So you take one point of damage for each thing. You're weaker than it. If you strike. You flip a coin, roll a dice, what have you? And you either take the guaranteed three damage or nothing. So if you have something that beats you at all three, you can try and strike and you either take six damage or you kill it and take no damage.

Speaker 2: 1:39:48

See, and I was thinking to resolve the strike through a rock-paper-scissors type mechanic, except that that's there's no way to. A high level monster should counter more, and if you're just playing rock paper scissors, then the odds are always 33%, no matter how high level the monster is.

Speaker 1: 1:40:15

So here's where my two-sided monster card suggestion comes into play. So on side one you have just their strength, their speed, their magic and maybe a gimmicky effect if you want to be fancy with it, like ooh, it causes poison or, when it dies, search the deck for a railgun. On the reverse side of the card is what it counters, and it either counters rock paper scissors or all and the higher level monsters. Since you know that they're higher level monsters, they can have the all counter on the back once in a while. So if the countering mechanic is literally just rock paper scissors and the monster, if you have four vampires and it says on the vampire the odds like one in four chance of insta-counter it says it on the front and then you flip it and it says insta-counter, you got insta-countered.

Speaker 1: 1:41:07

So that's how you can scale it. That way is you could literally put on it, you lock your card in, you say you deal up your. On it, you lock your card in, you say you deal up your damage or you get a strike. So here's how a monster phase would go in this version. I'm me, I want to fight a monster. Okay, shuffle the monster deck. Top card is a kobold.

Speaker 1: 1:41:31

Uh-oh, I'm pretty weak. That kobold would do 2 damage to me. I'm going to strike the cobalt. I put my card face down. Someone flips the cobalt. I flip my face down. Yeah, I beat it. Cobalt dies instantly. I take no damage. Ah shit, cobalt countered me. I take six damage. Uh-oh, I'm dead. And that's, I think, a pretty elegant solution to making you still use the rock paper scissors. And in this version you do get to see what monster is on the top of the deck. Or it's that each time you have a monster encounter, you just shuffle it, because you're taking advantage of it being two-sided, so you just flip the monster to see what it counters. Right.

Speaker 1: 1:42:12

And that way, like Rico Jr, for example, would literally warn on the front of the card can auto-counter, and then it flips over it just says counters you Hmm. Or like it might be a wizard. It might say warning, can magic bounce, and then flips over and magic bounces. You take damage equal to your magic card. Hmm, so that gives you like the ability for monsters to react, but they only flip if you try and strike them Right when the normal fight is.

Speaker 1: 1:42:51

Just you take zero to three damage, based on how many things you beat them at and then you get space on the front of the card if you want to be cheeky with it. Like a wizard being like opponent takes two magic damage from this creature or something like this thing. If you're faster than it, ignore its side effect or something really mean where it's like.

Speaker 1: 1:43:12

If this does damage to you, it breaks your weapon, uh-oh, and then strike just becomes like you rock paper scissors to opt out of a fight, but if you lose you take six damage. Actually, I think it'd be five. I think it'd be five. So you take one to three damage normally, and if you strike it, you rock, paper, scissors it, and if you lose you take five damage. If you win, you rock paper, scissors it, and if you lose you take five damage. If you win, you just win the fight, because I think that would stop that drag down you're concerned with Right? Well, that's my pitch. Anyway, I also took all the math out of it.

Speaker 2: 1:43:50

Well, okay, but so then, when you read player versus player combat, I don't know how better way to determine who gets to attack first.

Speaker 1: 1:44:03

So I mean, I feel like highest speed should just attack first or active turn Whoever's turn it is should attack first. So looking at how he's set right now, say we had player combat function in the same way as this revised monster combat, where you compare your three stats and whoever's lower at a stat takes the damage. So it'd go like this I will attack Carlos.

Speaker 1: 1:44:31

You're like okay, I'm like, my strength is higher than yours. You take a damage. Our magic is tied. We both take a damage. My speed is lower, I take a damage. I don't like this fight. It's pretty fair. I'm going to try and strike you. I put a card down. You put a card down.

Speaker 1: 1:44:44

I flip, you flip. Oh shit, I lost damage and you just win the fight. And then you're having to calculate out of the equation where, literally, your strength is just your gear strength. You add up your gear to see your strength stat. You add up your magic to see your magic. You add up your speed to see your speed, and that just determines how many points of damage you take in an encounter.

Speaker 1: 1:45:10

The difference between players and monsters is that players keep track of their HP and the fight just doesn't instantly end right so if I jump you and I only deal 3 damage to you and it's your turn, you can either attack me back or just not. You can just not care, you can just leave. And that way attacking player always has that edge. Because part of that edge is if I jump you and I go first which doesn't really matter in this version, because going first doesn't matter it's just who wins each category. If it's a tie, you both take a damage. So if our strengths match, if all three of our stats are matched, we both just take three damage in that fight and it's just attacker locks their card down first and the defender locks their card down.

Speaker 1: 1:46:01

But that's more for sequencing than actual mechanical benefit right and then you lock down your card by just saying I'm going to strike, and then you lock down your card, so me and you can have a fight. And if I'm not going to strike, and then you lock down your card, so me and you can have a fight. And if I'm not going to strike you and say I'm just higher than you, all three stats I'll be like I attack you, you take three points of damage and you'll be like well, I don't even care, I'm a monk, I have like 20 HP. And then you just ignore me and go about your day, knowing I wasted my turn on you.

Speaker 1: 1:46:34

So that's my proposal, huh. We have like 15 more minutes If there's other aspects you'd like to go into.

Speaker 2: 1:46:50

Um. No, I mean. Not really. I mean player versus talent combat, that's just simple rock paper scissors, mm-hmm. Um. But I see your point about needing to add rock paper scissors to the player versus monster combat to keep the mechanics consistent.

Speaker 1: 1:47:23

And, like I said, my big revision to the combat system is monsters don't have HP. You're literally just calculating how much damage you take, where each stat you're lower than it and you take a damage, and paralleling that change to the player combat as well. And that way, like your stats, like you as a player, are kind of like adding up what your strength is by combining your weapon, your class, what have you, and then your strength, magic and speed are literally just how many hit points of damage you take when taking an action, and then turn order no longer becomes a factor. It's just simply the player attacking decides if they want to strike, and then it's up to the other player if they want to attack you back, and then it's up to them if they want to strike, and then your three stats are, ironically, functionally the same. Now, where strength, magic and speed are just the main thing they matter is if you tie or beat the other guy, and then you can have side other things like weapons, gear and items and effects that can reference those as well.

Speaker 1: 1:48:33

If you want to implement field magic. With this version of the game it's much more implementable because field magic becomes choose a target. They take damage equal to your magic stat minus their speed stat or minus their magic stat. So you can just compare those two numbers on a field magic Right. But those are my thoughts on the rules. I think you have a pretty solid foundation going.

Speaker 1: 1:49:03

After adjusting that combat a bit to make it that each player keeps four cards in their hand. The rest of the cards are in front of them on the board. Those four cards are used for rock paper scissoring setting up your the board. Those four cards are used for rock paper scissoring Setting up your demo board.

Speaker 3: 1:49:21

You probably don't actually need all seven zones for your demo board and all your different star ratings.

Speaker 1: 1:49:23

Right, but having a demo board testing out the fights and giving this a go. But do you have any closing remarks on this extra special dev episode? I mean not, not really I hope I didn't destroy your confidence too much no, I'm pulling my hair.

Speaker 2: 1:49:48

Do we still have a random question?

Speaker 1: 1:49:50

we do because that's just a thing we do. I'm just trying to find them because I have a lot of we do because that's just a thing we do. I'm just trying to find them because I have a lot of tabs open for this discussion. Or instead I could end the episode with my Digimon World tangent.

Speaker 2: 1:50:03

Ah yeah, what was your Digimon World tangent?

Speaker 1: 1:50:05

So while I was walking, enjoying the sun, sipping a nice iced coffee, I thought to myself Digimon World for the PlayStation 1 is underrated. So how that game works is. Each hour of game time you can either fight, feed your Digimon, train at the gym, use a bathroom, do what you have to. After three in-game days passed, your Digimon evolved. But how it worked is it kind of calculated. Each condition you had and the game basically flipped over the top card of the Digimon deck until you found one. That's conditions you met and you evolved into it.

Speaker 1: 1:50:42

How fun would it be if we were to take Digital Dokopon, for example, where you pick your starting Digimon, you fight wild ones and you level it up. You get to use one item each turn, followed by rolling a dice, and you had to actually feed them and water them, and then that determined what they evolved into when the clock went through. So after like five turns they evolved. After like 10 turns they evolved and then, when they hit the end of their lifespan and died, players would start falling out of sync. So it'd be like oh, carl's gonna fight the boss with his ultimate and mine died. So now I need to start training it up and doing other stuff in the game.

Speaker 1: 1:51:16

And that game functioned literally by you'd go find wild Digimon to join your village.

Speaker 1: 1:51:20

That gave you certain numbers of prosperity points and added new mechanics in.

Speaker 1: 1:51:24

So like, instead of clearing a town from a monster, you'd go get Leomon to join the village and give you three victory points and the person at the end of the game who defeats Machinedramon, the game ends and you tally out who helped the village most.

Speaker 1: 1:51:36

And the big changes it adds to Dokopan, which would still be based on the rock-paper-scissors system, is that you'd have a passive ability based on your creature, kind of like how Fighter got extra strength, Wizard got double casting, they would evolve up and based on how you spent the stats, it changed what they evolve into and then they die and reset. So that way, when you like, when you cap out, you're still limited by time, so you only get to be strong enough to beat the game for so long. I just thought it'd be fun, not not actual suggestions, just a very lengthy monologue about I'm like oh, I'll just take dokebun kingdom and add in Digimon World's nonsense setting and game mechanics to be like oh, that awkward moment where you need to go defeat the Demon Lord, but you have to use the restroom, and if you don't make it to the restroom it'll devolve into a sentient yellow sludge monster.

Speaker 1: 1:52:27

So Carl beat me to defeating the Demon Lord because I had to stop at the restroom. It's just a funny mechanic. That is pretty funny Because I'd be taking the PSX Digimon World game, which was delightful, and turning it into a four-player board game, using Dokoban to bridge it. But here is our random question Are you the youngest, middle or oldest child, and how has that shaped you? Damn someone's being heavy. They must have heard us talking about your various siblings.

Speaker 2: 1:53:01

Well, okay, I mean, I am the youngest child and because I have four older siblings and I was fairly self-sufficient, I feel like I didn't create strong bonds with a lot of people in my life when I was younger, because I would just play by myself and then my parents would be like, oh yeah, he's fine, he's just playing by himself.

Speaker 1: 1:53:28

Inventing card games on the back of napkins.

Speaker 2: 1:53:33

When I was younger I used to like to record cassettes. You take legitimate cassettes and then you tape over the little don't record hole thing. You can put it in the recorder and record on it. Then you record my own radio shows Nice.

Speaker 1: 1:53:49

I respect that and it kind of makes sense given what we're doing right now.

Speaker 3: 1:53:53

Nice. I respect that and it kind of makes sense given what we're doing right now, what's your answer?

Speaker 1: 1:53:59

Well, I'm the youngest and I feel like I give off that energy so overtly that by just listening to me talk it's like, yeah, he probably has a quiet, stoic older brother. It just feels obvious. Given my overall ambiance, I have less of the isolation syndrome because it was like me and my brother were a duo and I became my brother's problem for his entire life because our ages are close enough together that my mom just kind of pawned that off on him and it worked out great for me. It hasn't at all affected me in my adult life. But with that, thank you everyone for tuning in to this very special episode of DSpace and Dragons. Rock Paper Carl's, Let us know if you'd like to hear us do more deep dives into game development theory.

Speaker 1: 1:54:48

I would love to do a part two to see some revisions and possibly test this in the future. Yeah, and I don't know. Buy my book, buy the Waltz of Blades. I see every sale Makes me happy. Do that. Like I said, we've given out We've literally given the more entertainment for episode count than the first part of Naruto, including filler. That's how much podcasts we put out. That at least warrants $4. Come on, guys, you can at least buy the e-book if you're going to be this far into our show. That is my pitch. I think it was pretty solid.

Speaker 2: 1:55:26

Bye, bye.

Speaker 1: 1:55:29

I hope I wasn't too harsh on your game. You have a lot of really solid ideas in there, which is why I hyper-focused on the roll of dice here and I'm like why have ties Just calculate damage instantly? We can do this. Maths. But yeah, it definitely works better as a Dokopan rather than just as a rock-paper-scissors standalone game engine. Right.

Speaker 1: 1:55:53

It's like you did it. Through advanced mathematics, you accurately simulated the probability of rock, paper scissors in real life and all the skill that it requires. And unless you literally are Baki's dad, you can't use scissors on rock and win.