Red Flags When Making A TCG | Talk TCG

[@ceresgc]

"if your player picks up a card and doesn't relatively understand what that card is cable of doing, you have a red flag" Yu-Gi-Oh cowering in the corner rn

[@ShardTCG]

Oooh, shots fired.

[@OlgaZuccati]

I can understand most cards from a first read, cards like inspector boarder and master endymion are exceptions to the rule. we ain't talking about misstiming tho

[@ceresgc]

@@OlgaZuccati It's not simply about understanding what the effect does, it's understanding what the power or the point of it is. In most games, you can have a half-decent idea of the relevance of a card the first time you see it played (outside of more gimmicky decks), while in yugioh you need a good understanding of the whole deck to begin to tell wether a card is secondary or a key power play. P.s. I like Yu-Gi-Oh, I just also like pointing out how baffling it is when compared to the rest

[@yurisei6732]

@@ceresgc That's a green flag, not a red flag. If you know exactly what the purpose of every card is the first time you read it, your game's too simple. What makes a card game fun is seeing how the interactions between cards cause things to happen greater than the individual cards involved. The only way that every card is intuitive is if no card is interactive.

[@ceresgc]

​@@yurisei6732 You are not getting what I mean. I'm not saying that for EVERY card you should know EXACTLY what the purpose is. I'm saying that in ygo, if you haven't studied a deck before, you don't have the faintest clue of the purpose of any of the cards your opponent is playing. Like, there's not even a debate. Just take a look at how new players react to new opposing cards in games that aren't ygo. There is no contest.

[@clarkecreates]

Hot take, Infinite loops and alternate win conditions are a fun form of gameplay and we shouldn't encourage designers to remove them entirely.

[@educationalmadness8415]

Agreed

[@evilbarrels2506]

Watching this video has made me start thinking of how to make a game where creating an infinite loop is the goal. off the top of my head, the game would start with three hands where you build the loop, then you enter the "loop phase" which is a scoring phase where you both count how many times you can play the same card before you mill yourself, run out of mana, cards in your hand, or the loop otherwise breaks. If both players' loops are infinite or loop the exact same number of times, then they will be scored on size of loop. (shortest seems more practical, but forcing players to create the most convoluted Rube-Goldberg machine possible sounds funnier.)

[@erlanddrow7950]

I feel like when it's hard to set up/can be dismantled before it pops off it's perfectly fine

[@brendalee1215]

Yugioh said fuck all that we ball

[@kindlingking]

Best and worst TCG ever at the same time

[@pedronied]

It released before they had an official rules book

[@Bardic_Knowledge]

There's a ccg I started designing, but never got to the a point where I could playtest, where I initially would have it be "your deck is your HP," but now I think instead that playing for a high score is the better option. I've also had some interesting ideas for making if/then style cards, like "if you have no characters in play, do this; one character, do this; two or more, do this." Making things a bit more dynamic, but making sure the things done are simple and make sense.

[@ShardTCG]

If/then style cards are good for catch-up play. Giving powerful effects in scenarios where you are at a disadvantage is a great way of seeing momentum shift from one player to another. It's better to see blows being traded over one player just dominating the other.

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

A good thing to watch out for - does your game naturally turn into two players playing solitaire at each other, with the first person to finish winning? That's probably a red flag. Players get easily bored with a game that doesn't involve actually interacting with the other player(s), so you want your baseline rules and card design to generally encourage interaction as a meaningful and important part of the gameplay. While not every game needs 'interrupt' type mechanics, they're probably one of the most common and directly understandable ways to work towards this. On the flipside, you should try and make sure that completely stopping your opponent from playing the game never becomes the 'best option'. Whether this be by removing all your opponent's resources or preventing their cards from being played directly and consistently, it should probably not be the easiest/best thing you can do, or else you will have a game where players become easily frustrated. If, when a player starts winning early, they inevitably snowball into a win with very little chance to turn it around, that's probably a red flag. A lack of catchup/comeback mechanics or options in a game (or active 'win more' mechanics that additionally reward players who are already doing well) can make any game come down to who can take the early lead and hold onto it long enough to start snowballing, at which point the game feels 'decided' early, but doesn't finish until much later. If your game is 'decided' too long before it actually finishes, that's a red flag, as players don't usually like 'going through the motions' for turn after turn after turn once the winner is already clear.

[@ShardTCG]

These are all good red flags. I am a strong believer in catch-up mechanics. There is nothing worse than a one-sided game with no opportunity to turn it around. It's boring to play and boring to spectate, too.

[@AFnord]

On the flip side to the last point, there also needs to be a game ender. There are games where the catchup mechanics are too strong, and you end up with no player being able to actually finish the game. This might not be a massive problem in TCGs, but in board games it can be a real issue. Take Munchkin as an example, while there's no explicit catchup mechanic a function of the games design is that you'll beat up on the person at the top, and leave the person at the bottom untouched, allowing them to catch up. This is good. But it's too easy to just keep the leader down, and by the end of the game you'll have (almost) everyone sitting at a point where they're just one move away from winning, making the early game feel pointless, and the game can just end up dragging.

[@yurisei6732]

@@AFnord Or the catch-up mechanic is so strong that the best strategy becomes letting your opponent try to win first, and then you're in a chicken game where neither player wants to try winning because they want to be catching up.

[@wun_zee3599]

if i ever make a tcg i want it to be all about breaking it, like inscryption lol oh yeah i also really like how inscryption simplifies the cards and declutters them by using sigils

[@erlanddrow7950]

That would be really fun but then players would need a sheet to explain all of them Though it would be it easy to play/make them in another language since people can go "Okay, I'm not familiar with that card in Korean but it has the Trample and Haste signil so I know what it does."

[@rhodykoop7672]

That wouldn't be too hard to make tho since inscryption already has something like that lol

[@Mrbrawnie]

I am finally on the right track with my card game project that I've been working on and off for a couple of years now. Your videos are really well made, fun to watch and full of useful tips, information and perspective. I'm glad I discovered your channel, keep up the good work buddy!

[@ShardTCG]

Thank you for the kind words. I am pleased you've found value in the things I've said.

[@mix-n-match834]

I feel like revisiting mechanics that did not worked for first time can be actually valuable, especially if it comes from more analytical point of view. Maybe the only thing that said mechanics needs is some minor adjustments? Maybe the issue is not said mechanic itself but existence of a card or two enabling a broken state? Or maybe lack of proper counter play?

[@39Lords]

Not sure I agree that having more than 1 victory condition is a red flag. It can allow some interesting choices for deckbuilding.

[@joeryan5587]

Quality on this video is top tier. Good job on the red flags!

[@ShardTCG]

I recorded myself for around 10 minutes waving the flag in so many different ways. I had no idea how I was going to incorporate them into the video. Thank you.

[@Shotgunkin-s8k]

have you seen kohdoks card game game jam. hes challenging people to make a card game in a week starting on the 1st October.

[@ShardTCG]

OMG, that will be so good. My anniversary is coming up, so I might not be available then. I'll check it out and see what the parameters are. Thanks!

[@yurisei6732]

That's cool, if only I had artistic talent.

[@franciscosuarez4521]

This is just Yu-Gi-Oh, it literally meets all the "red flags"

[@Beets_Creations]

Cool concepts! I definitely didnt know wll of these going into gsme creation but alot of them become very apparent when actually making and playtesting the game. That said its also important to know when its okay to break these sorts of rules to come up with something new and innovative.

[@ShardTCG]

Nice. This is a generalised list. Every TCG is different. So it is mainly up to you to decide what works and what doesn't. But I hope this video has highlighted some potential issues for you in the future.

[@Beets_Creations]

@@ShardTCG Oh for sure! I always like to learn more, nice video!

[@casoozh]

ahh yugioh, breaking the rules before they existed

[@yurisei6732]

Just be like Yugioh - discover a game-breaking mechanic? Make that how the game works now. I'd add two more red flags, personally: 1. Your game doesn't have some kind of combat step. 2. Your game does not include any cards that have words to the effect of "in response to your opponent activating an effect, activate this card to prevent that effect". A lot of games are very limited in interactivity, some, like Pokemon, going as far as to not be able to activate any card or effect during your opponent's turn whatsoever. This sort of means you're making late stage Yugioh right from the start - a solitaire vs solitaire handchuck. And I'm yet to see a game without combat that wasn't being made by someone offended by the concept of conflict, with no creative vision except "I don't want combat". I disagree about "consistency = boring" though. Especially for an early card game, consistency is very important to me, because the small pool of cards means it's typically difficult to find an entire deck I enjoy using. Consistency can make games much more fun by giving me more time spent using the cards I enjoy - and when I want more variety, I can just build a new deck around another card or interaction, I don't need to put everything in one deck and hope randomness will make it feel like I'm playing a different deck each game.

[@ShardTCG]

Consistency is good. I would just worry about too much consistency. I want my deck to work more times than not. I know it sounds weird, but having those imperfect games makes you appreciate the games where it everything went right.

[@johnathanward867]

I came up with an idea called bones basically it is a resource to then be spent on cards that you can only obtain if your opponent gives them to you. It adds a cat and mouse game where you want to use them, but if your opponent doesn't give them to you then some of the cards are weaker. (It is like lorcona where you can play the card as a land.)

[@yurisei6732]

@@ShardTCG Yeah for sure. The theoretical ideal for me is that your deck will always do a similar thing, but there might be a few different paths to get there or the end result might vary a bit depending on your opponent's interactions or the pattern of cards you drew. The Yugioh archetype "Ritual Beasts" is a solid example of this; every game, you're going to be cycling through fusion materials and fusion monsters searching as many disruptions as you can, but each starting hand does them in a slightly different order, meaning you'll end up with anywhere from 1 to 3 disruptions and anywhere from 1 to 3 fusion summons next turn.

[@HighLanderPonyYT]

Gwent

[@toekneemart5597]

​@@johnathanward867 you need a reason for the opponent to want to give the bones too though because otherwise why would I ever want to give my opponent a tool they can use against me

[@GTENNISON]

Hey! I love your videos and advice! Keep up the awesome work. I'm working on a tcg right now and your videos been helping to inspire me to hone my focus a bit more, which has been beneficial in the long run. I really enjoyed the HP Trading card game, I still have decks built and play occasionally with friends. There's a new update to the tcg actually! a revival!

[@ShardTCG]

That's awesome! I would love a reboot of the Harry Potter card game. They can do so much with that IP. If they got it right, it would be a strong contender for breaking into the top 5 most played TCGs. Thanks for the support.

[@RougenTCG]

Just to add to the conversation, absolutely none of these rules apply if you're having fun!! There's nothing wrong with being the "Boss" of your game with extra overpowered cards as long as other people understand that the game is just a nifty thing you started doing without any plan to make a million-bajillion dollars!! Very good points all around, but you're using a big brush for a small niche!!

[@ShardTCG]

Exactly this!

[@Meteorcentric]

I literally found one of these red flags (loop problem) ten minutes before you posted this. Your video helped me confirm it was the right move in trashing it.

[@hhpwassupyall3511]

Hey shard! Is there a good community to join in the custom tcg space? Thank you for your contributions

[@xCotten]

r/TCG and r/tcgdesign are the ones I follow. Wish TCG design was more active but it’s fun to scroll and chat about certain mechanics in there

[@hhpwassupyall3511]

@@xCotten thanks!

[@ShardTCG]

There's a Homemade TCG community on Discord. discord.gg/mwZeh6Fj

[@theazuredemon4854]

I think the most prominent red flags for a TCG for me is lack of a Official Rulebook + Beginner's Guide + Game mat/Gameboard that tells you what cards go where + Game Counter/Tokens + Game Flip Coin/Dice + Calculator + Lifepad. Now obviously Pokemon doesn't need the last 2 because of how simplified it's gameplay and win conditions are, and typically actively avoid not providing their players with the things that the need to have and know in order to play the game, and Pokemon TCG has 3 main win conditions. MTG and YGO and literally any other card game trying to mimic those 2 in some way, on the other hand go OUT OF THEIR WAY TO NOT GIVE PLAYERS THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE AND KNOW TO ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME! If you are having trouble bringing in new players, START by providing the players with ALL of the things they NEED to HAVE and KNOW, at a reasonable price. If Pokemon TCG is able to do it, then the competition is ALSO able to do it.

[@MaouProductions]

Yugioh breaks all these rules and has one of the most passionate player bases

[@ShardTCG]

I was a huge YuGiOh once upon a time. I really loved that game. It didn't have as many red flags in the beginning, and its IP allows it to take risks. But I wouldn't recommend an unknown brand do the same.

[@MaouProductions]

@@ShardTCG oh yeah I just find it funny. It's kind of a situation where Yugioh has earned the ability to break these rules with strong fundamentals and only does so as a result of accretion over time. a new player should absolutely never ever try to make yugioh from the jump. yugioh is something your game evolves into, not something you can do from the start. You even see this from the fact they did it a second time with rush duels. strong simple fundamentals evolving into a complicated game of accretion with a passionate fanbase.

[@JoshKnoxChinnery]

I'm not really sure what you're referring to by exceptions in rules. Got any examples in existing games? In Magic, the cards create the exceptions, like "you don't have a maximum hand size", or "it doesn't untap during your untap step", or "this creature can attack and tap the turn it is played". I assume these aren't the exceptions you're referring to. I actually have some proposed game actions that could be considered "exceptions" in the card game I'm creating. In short, the playing field is created by larger landscape cards that both players play from separate decks from their main decks, on turns 1,3, and 5, which then increase the size of the playing field. The idea that creates the exception is that each turn aside from those turns, you can wheel one of these cards to replace it with whichever is on top of that deck. So the exception would be that you can replace one of these cards every turn *except* turns 1,3,5. I don't think it's too complicated personally, so I'm interested in the kinds of exceptions you're warning against.

[@ShardTCG]

Your rule has you alternating turns for your action, which is a little bit of a memory game but not too bad. It sounds intuitive, but actually playing the game would confirm that. An exception I can think of from the top of my head is the rule of 4 in pokemon. You can have 4 copies of a card. A good exception is that you can add as many energy cards as you like. This makes sense and won't confuse people. So a new player going through the rules will understand this part. Now I have built my brand new pokemon deck, which contains 8 radiant pokemon 4 copies of 2 different types, which follow the above rules. Then, I decided to get rid of 4 copies of my regular pokemon for an EX version because 4 copies is the max amount. I am then told my deck isn't legal because there are exceptions to the 4 copy rules. I should only have 1 radiant in my entire deck, and I am allowed more non EX copies of that same pokemon that exceed the 4 copy rule. Once you know it, it is fine. But it is unintuitive, and these can frustrate new players because players usually scan through a rule book instead of studying it.

[@thekittenfreakify]

always said this. if it loops or anything like that it should take 3+ cards to work.

[@PunishedFelix]

As an amateur game developer I find these kinds of videos extremely insightful and helpful. Thank you!

[@DarokTheMaul]

I like your videos, but I feel like it could use some low volume background music. Food for thought. Keep it up bubba!

[@ShardTCG]

It does have some in parts. Very quiet as to not be too intrusive. Thanks!

[@ARDIZsq]

“Deck exhaustion is a red flag” Sounds like either a skill issue or someone who can’t deal with mill decks

[@ShardTCG]

If you are in the early stages of making a game and you are seeing a number of matches where players are running out of cards without the aid of your opponent's mill strategy, then I would consider that a red flag. Why are the cards you're playing not good enough to finish the game before they run out? I'm sorry if I didn't explain this very clearly in the video, I hope this cleared it up a little.

[@yurisei6732]

@@ShardTCG If your game is getting to this point, I say turn it to your advantage and use it as a source of consistency for your game. Weiss Schwarz does this, you'll cycle through a good 8-15 cards per turn, then once you run out, you shuffle up your graveyard, lose 1 life, and make a new deck. It's pretty interesting, cos it means that sometimes a search the deck effect is strong, other times you might just use it to find a card that lets you get the card you actually want back out of your discard pile.

[@bishopwerst]

A new TCG came out and it’s getting really popular. Why not review the mechanics? The game is called HOLOLIVE TCG

[@yurisei6732]

Yeah, but it has the very unfair advantage of being a Hololive TCG - which I say as a Hololive fan. The actual gameplay is very safe; modernise Pokemon, rather than try something entirely new.

[@bishopwerst]

@@yurisei6732 it is safe but it got the energy as a separate deck, and has a banishment system that is very deck threatening. It’s very interesting. And it’s a 2 v 2 style.

[@FruitMonstersTCG]

Good video.

[@ShardTCG]

Thanks!

[@erfarkrasnobay]

how to say a lot and say nothing =\

[@ShardTCG]

No hard feelings.

[@erfarkrasnobay]

@@ShardTCG The issue is, your advices sounded like "don't touch hot" and "don't eat food that are roting". They are very basic and also little bit lacking of examples.

[@jom1718]

I think generally tcgs are pretty easy to design since they've been around for so long. Also I think many points on this video are valid but maybe stuff that card game players have noticed themselves already. Also I don't think that rules should always be perfectly intuitive and simple; I've seen some games that have confusion inducing rules but play extremely well because the designer wasn't afraid whether the rules were intuitive or not. I personally don't watch many game design videos these days because I know most of the stuff that there is to know about the subject. I suspect you're having the same issue.

[@jknifgijdfui]

​@@ShardTCGbro said one negative youtube comment cope a lil harder

[@krokalop]

Took words out of my mouth, if the video is just the last segment i would be like yea, you are right, all in all, your personality is engaging, just a big nuthing burger of a video, so in your words keep making videos, keep making mistakes and learn from them

[@OniBoiXD]

Great video 🤩...for me a big red flag is when you can't counter plays cough* cough* lorcana 😂

[@ShardTCG]

Are you talking about the lack of blockers?

[@OniBoiXD]

@ShardTCG yes, if someone quests you can't stop them. Yes you can challenge them next turn but there is no way to block a quest.

[@grenvallion]

Its a red flag when you cant find anyone else who plays that game.

[@keltikglider9188]

I’m the 69th like, heh nice 😂 great video man keep it up! Love your content! 🤘

[@ShardTCG]

Very nice. I'm loving the profile pic, too.

[@keltikglider9188]

@@ShardTCG thanks! I noticed your Tentomon digivice in the background 😁🤘

[@Kylada-o5t]

"life decking is a great" is a phrase i thought i will never see. Sorry, but it seems you do not know what you are talking about. life decking is objectively TERRIBLE.

[@ShardTCG]

Did you pause the video at that very moment? I said, "Life decking is great... on paper" Then I went on to explain the contrary.

[@rlxLando]

The best card game of all time uses this mechanic and I have to go to its World Championship now.

[@Liliana_the_ghost_cat]

​@@rlxLando which one do you mean?

[@rlxLando]

@@Liliana_the_ghost_cat Star Wars CCG

[@Liliana_the_ghost_cat]

@@rlxLando which one? There are a ton of Star Wars card games. And the current one doesn't use life decking

[@OliveMobius]

Very good vid. Btw what do you think of negates/counterspells? I think they should never be introduced in a game, not even if they're highly conditional.

[@ShardTCG]

Negates that will just stop the other player from what they were doing during their own turn is a slap in the face. But if you mean counter spells that will react off of your opponent during their turn, then there is room for that. Whether it is redirecting an attack, reducing damage, playing a free card, etc. These last-minute twists have a place in games because the unexpected excites us. It is up to the designer to assess what forms of counter play leave too much of a bitter taste in the players mouths.

[@babyfreeD]

Disliked

[@ShardTCG]

No hard feelings.

[@babyfreeD]

@@ShardTCG not really though. That is always the first thought when people fish for engagement though lol. 😆

[@ShardTCG]

Honestly, I'm not fishing. But if you want another reason, it removes you from my not responded list. All the best, my friend.

[@babyfreeD]

@@ShardTCG Do you script your videos?