At any rate, I am happy with how I perceive the designed cards are looking. I have 32 individual cards made to date, and am producing steadily. I expect to begin play-testing in three weeks; part of the play test will be to see if players grow attached to the cards themselves, as that is an important element of the interaction mechanic.
I've selected what I think would be the most baffling card I've produced (to those who haven't had the system explained), just to give a glimpse. Call it cruelty. It's probably self-aggrandizement. I can't seem to help it. As I say, I'm in a state of euphoria.
This would be the front and the back of the same card. The picture is stolen, as this is only a mock-up ... it will be great when the picture is one that I've paid to have drawn for it.
How's it look?
UPDATE:
As per Oddbit's suggestion:
It's a good prototype. I'm excited for you to start playtesting.
ReplyDeleteI know that feeling of euphoria, too. It's been a little while for me, but the few times it has happened I will take with me to my grave.
Congratulations, Alexis.
(Actual Carl)
Pretty, concise and easy to read. There's actually a lot I can extrapolate from this (true or false).
ReplyDeleteI'd consider looking at putting the '+1 sensibility' on the bottom left opposite defense in future iterations to allow all the numbers to be visible if multiple cards are played simultaneously. (in this case up to three?)
This would work if most cards are small bonus' or if you have shortened versions of sensibility and whatever traits might be boosted.
I like it overall.
That sounds like a good suggestion, Oddbit. I've posted a duplicate image with the change made.
ReplyDeleteIt's a fine-looking card and I concur with Oddbit's suggestion. Getting all of the modifiers and numbers out of the middle and consistently to the edges of the card makes referring to them easier. Let the middle remain text. I'm looking forward to learning more about the actual system when the time is right.
ReplyDeleteThe glowwy gradient looks very professional and slick. I personally do not like it, but it's a judgment call:
ReplyDelete-if you want it to look like other things on the market, leave it,
-if you want it to look less like other things on the market, I suggest changing it.
??? Interesting... but the flashiness seems like it would be distracting during play. Needs simple symbols like a playing card or tarot deck. Something you can just glance at and know what it is. This is for the social mechanics right?
ReplyDeleteSo, Zak, you're saying they should look amateurish and groddy?
ReplyDeleteYou ARE in the porn industry.
Compared to the handful of card games I've played, this is a pretty simple, basic design. There is nothing that could be made into a symbol that I can tell, and it is broken down rather clearly.
ReplyDeleteThe only other thing I think you could do to improve the content, would be to be very specific and regular with your text formatting. Most of the time in games like Magic, italics are flavor text and regular text is rules.
In this card I can see the format.
A. How I got it. <- Flavor
B. The RP idea of how it works. <- More flavor
C. The functional rules. <- Not flavor
I would consider adapting maybe the opposite format. Italics only for rules (with the exception of top/bottom shorthand)
I say this because in effect you are going for a card that Memorializes the players achievement and embodies the idea of the thing while making a balanced and simple functionality of the thing.
Maybe I've misinterpreted the intent some, but that would be my goal with the cards if I were to pursue that path.
Very astute, Oddbit.
ReplyDeleteNon-italics/Italics were chosen to separate the static qualities of the card vs. the active qualities. While virtually every point you make is spot on, I see no reason to change this format.