r/cardgamedesign

Been working on my own cardgame for years but still facing the same problem: i'm dumb.

While making arts and templates are no problem, making use of nanDeck, codes and sheets have caused me many headaches and zero results.

For the last prototype i made i had to make card by card on Photoshop just because i don't know how to make batches and stuff, the tutorials also didn't help a bit.

And as you may guess, trying to apply text and template changes card by card is a hellish job.

It's really a shame to keep failing like that

So i am messing around with a tcg project just for fun to see if i can make an interesting one. I tried a concept where all cards doubles as resource mana if you tap it to the left (tap to right would be effects, attacking etc) you gain a certain amount of mana specified on the card. This way you have to decide if you want your card to act as mana or use their effects / attack, you get the point. Well, i tought "what about an artefact that does nothing than generate resources, thats a great flavour idea as a spiritual/religious place!" So i made an elder tree that taps for 1 mana 🤦‍♂️ oh how i laughed at myself when i realised!

Second Article about UX in TCGs

Let me know your thoughts :)

Hey all, working on a mythology-themed TCG with a small team and want outside eyes on our core comeback mechanic before we lock it in for playtesting.

How the Soul Point (SP) system works:

• Both players share a single 80-point pool
• It's zero-sum — both start at 40, and when one player gains a point, the other loses one. The pool always totals 80
• First player to push the pool to 80 (their opponent hitting 0) wins

The Rebirth trigger:

• If a player pushes the pool to 60 in their favor, their opponent (sitting at 20) triggers Rebirth
• Rebirth doubles the losing player's SP gain going forward, and unlocks a once-per-game God Skill — a powerful leader ability that costs half their current SP to activate

What I want feedback on specifically:

1. Does a single shared zero-sum pool feel more interesting than separate health/score tracks, or does it create weird incentives (e.g. only attacking the pool instead of the board)?
2. Is the 60/20 threshold the right point to trigger a comeback mechanic, or does it risk triggering too early/late to feel meaningful?
3. Does doubling SP gain plus a discounted ultimate feel like enough of a comeback, or too strong/weak as currently scoped?

Genuinely trying to stress-test this before more development goes into it — appreciate any thoughts, including "this sounds broken because X."

EDIT 1: One thing I should have clarified in the original post — the leading player's SP gain is frozen on the turn Rebirth triggers. This prevents anyone from camping near 59 points and spiking to 80 in one turn without giving the opponent a chance to respond. After that turn the freeze lifts and normal play resumes. This is the main counterplay mechanism against deliberate threshold camping.

EDIT 2: A few people have asked how SP is actually gained since I didn't explain it in the original post — my bad. There are a few ways to gain SP:

1. Start of turn — you gain SP for each unit you have on the board at the start of your turn, so maintaining board presence matters
2. Unit attacks — whenever one of your units attacks, you gain SP. Units can attack face directly if your opponent has no units on the board, so aggro decks always have a way to generate SP even against a passive opponent
3. Destroying an opponent's unit — you gain SP when you kill an enemy unit

I'm in the early stages of playtesting. My game is a deck-builder for 2 players where each player try to achieve victory the quickest from 3 shared victory tracks. Each victory track is shared as such increasing your position decreases the opponent. The game has 3 main types of cards each corresponding to each track but also to some mechanics. Like Deck A for Victory Track A usually contains Deck Manipulation effects (Draw, Discard, etc.). Deck B for VIctory track B usually contains Sabotage effects. Same goes for Deck C and anotther set of mechanics. Each deck also has cards with like +2 Track A -1 Track B. The buying system is similar to Dune Imperium where cards you don't play in your turn have a reveal value.

After 3 playtests with my partner and a friend we found that it got monotone quick, as when our decks were settled it just became who can "puzzle" it out better or drew better.

Looking for advice as to what i can add or improve the core game loop?

Hey everyone! I’m working on an early prototype for a cozy tactical card game called Hearth & Hollow.

The idea is: players are building and defending a tiny woodland village before winter arrives. I’m trying to make it feel cozy in theme, but still tactical in gameplay.

The core loop is a little RTS-inspired:

Players build Production Buildings first. These generate resources over time. Then players use those resources to build other types of Buildings, like:

* Military Buildings — unlock Critters/defenders
* Support Buildings — give utility or village bonuses
* Medical/Repair Buildings — heal, repair, or protect things
* Other village structures that help push toward victory

The five main resource identities are:

Acorn — food, stockpiles, village growth
Root — foundations, tunnels, sturdy structures
Pebble — tools, walls, roads, construction
Light — tricks, movement, misdirection, slowing opponents
Sap — healing, repairs, regrowth, support

Right now, I’m trying to figure out whether this sounds clear before I go deeper into card layout and visuals.

My main question:
Does separating Production Buildings from other Building types sound intuitive for a card game, or does it feel like too much to track?

I’d also love feedback on:

1. Whether the five resource identities are easy to understand
2. Whether “Buildings unlock/support Critters” makes sense
3. Whether this sounds cozy but still tactical
4. Any red flags you see before I keep building the system

This is still early, so I’m not looking for hype — mostly honest design feedback. Thank you!

Hi all, I am currently aspiring to try and create a card game with the premise "The booster ... is all you need to get in the game" and if possible wanting to make it a Trading Card Game (but accepting the case if it becomes an Expandable). I have tested currently 3 designs for this idea but I am stuck on the attractiveness factor or not making it too frustrating for a beginner. One of the designs have been publicly playtested for months, the other two have barely been playtested in private with relatives:

• "WarPlus" - a MOBA-like 1v1 The original idea when "The Booster and a Deck of Playing cards is all you need" was the main idea: get a booster and a deck of playing cards together with a friend and play immediately. You are playing an updated version of War, but the booster offers you a special Leader card (with the base rules of the game on the back) and MOBA like abilities that influence the board. Draw cards, flip cards into battle, flip between your abilities to increase your numbers and win Exchanges until you control the most Victory cards. This one I did playtest on multiple occasions and I got some likes from strangers but they hated the balance: some numbers were too high and the natural randomness of a standard deck of playing cards made slight frustrations even if some cards were tutoring. The other problem was a lack of proper fantasy - no one understood the vision of what are they supposed to play, even with my intention that the abilities are named after idioms. Apart from this, I had personal issues and put this into hiatus, but now returning I have an anxiety to play because I notice I cannot convert it into a proper trading card game like I would want to and I have bloated it with rules and potential rules that make it a Magic game.

• "Rotators" - a fight against the chain of time This one is latest and I playtest it on TTSim with the proposition that you no more need playing cards, JUST the Booster and the booster only is all you need. The thing I did is "funny" in the sense that the board (represented in text) would be like this: (North) |

(West) - - [Core] - - (East) | (South) The objective is to turn the opponents' clock (or core) around the board by using the limited 7 cards you get from the booster. How do you turn the clock? By creating conflict with your attacking characters! Using spells. Your cards occupy a space on the space of your core and stay in that position. If one's coes does the final turn from north to west, they lose. The place is available for this randomness especially that some cards are powerful AND that the core contains two faces: Evil Force or Good Force. Because the cards also care if one is good or one is evil and if you are creative enough with what9 you offer even if one knows nothing about card games, you can make a comeback. The fear I learned is possibly how fast the game can go based on the cards power. Second problem is how a game can end fast: if one gets to just keep hitting the core 3 or 4 times, it's over in minutes. Another problem would be where do you put the tutorial? Like with the WarPlus, the cards had the rules on them (1 on the leader, one on one of the abilities and one on a token) but with this one I no longer have space for an additional pamphlet or something, thus the introductions are difficult.

• "Spotlight" - a cinematic ticket of random cards This is one of the earliest ideas but an evolution from the previous Rotators idea. The idea is that the booster is a ticket to a randomly generated movie and you are trying to construct the plot by creating a conflict it with your opponents' movie. The objective is to progress the camera through all the 4 Acts and bring their side of the movie to an end. To do it, you have a two-faced "Camera" card that has one of two themes (almost like passive you can choose from), 7 cards and a zone of 4 Acts. In each Act you can place up to two cards which are either actors, props, scenes or effects. Your camera starts in the first Act and every time you attack with your actors the opponent you "check" them like in chess - if they accept, they must move to the next act, if not they protect their pride. This one has the benefit of doubt but the idea finally has a thematic cohesion which I like - the others work way too "universally". The main problem is too early to tell.

So, by reading this, I ask again: which of these ideas should I pursue further?

My town has a lot of game designer meetups, as we’re in the same area as Wizards of the Coasts. Designers bring a variety of game types at various stages of prototyping. However, I’ve found that whenever I bring something like a TCG there tends to be a reaction of eyerolling or “oh here‘s another one.” Usually this happens before I even show the game, and in some cases people will only play a few turns, or say that someone of my skill level shouldn’t be attempting a game like this. I’ve also found no one else really brings anything like TCGs.

Admittedly, I’m more of a hobbyist designer, but is this type of thing more commonly looked down upon by designers, or have I just had some specific experience. It’s possible I’m also inflating things in my own head, or that being from the same town that makes MtG also makes people a little tired of such games.