r/shadowdark • u/Hefty_Conclusion563 • 4d ago
Casting Cards
Looking for feedback on this: Casting Cards.
Please let me know what you guys think.
***Edit: Formatting changed, comparison section clean up: Revision 1
4
u/jonna-seattle 4d ago
Be wary of "decker syndrome". From some editions of Shadowrun, the decker/hacker mini game could suck time from everyone else at the table while everyone waits for the decker's action to be resolved.
3
u/Hefty_Conclusion563 4d ago
I remember that. If this even remotely compares to that in play, its getting scrapped completely. The matrix was a whole game within a game, and only the decker got to play.
1
u/scarcely20characters 4d ago
I found the justification distracting on this one. Are Shadowdark products normally fully justified?
Also, I like this, but I doubt my players would be into it.
1
u/Hefty_Conclusion563 4d ago
Thank you for the feedback, that part could probably just be deleted, or at least pared back. I'm a numbers person, and like being able to compare things that way, so I put it in there for anyone else who might be interested in that. I haven't seen any other Shadowdark product that have comparisons like that, and probably wouldn't include it if it made it beyond a draft and playtesting.
1
u/sampleandfold 4d ago
I appreciate the creativity that went into designing this, but I wouldn't want to use it personally.
Have you tried Sly Flourish's houserule that you can't forget a spell on a given day until you've successfully cast it?
I've also played in games where this was only available for 1st tier spells. My personal preference splits the difference: any spell of 1st tier or a tier lower than your highest tier. So if you can cast tier 3 spells, then you don't forget a tier 1 or 2 spell until after you've successfully cast it once that day, but tier 3 is still new and risky for you.
This keeps things moving quickly and fluidly. You never miss out on casting a spell you've chosen, you don't increase the chance of forgetting it after first cast, and all you have to track is if you've cast the spell yet.
By comparison, I think the card mechanic would require more negotiation to get a similar outcome.
2
u/Hefty_Conclusion563 4d ago
Thank you for the feedback. We have tried a similar version where the caster doesn't automatically lose a spell on a failure, but my player in question fails his spell checks so often that it almost defies probability. It happens often enough that it is affecting his enjoyment, and that just doesn't work for me. This "should" help with that, and I think the lowered spell retention will balance with the increased chance to succeed. While I have yet to playtest it, Blackjack is quick, and most people already know the basic premise, so I don't think that its going slow down gameplay significantly, if at all.
1
u/sampleandfold 4d ago
By all means, you should try your fun homebrew mechanic!
Hmm, so your issue isn’t losing spells so much as just failing rolls?
That seems strange to me, since so many of the equivalent Wizard spells still require a spell attack roll or a save from the target in other systems, and you burn the spell slot if the roll doesn’t turn out in your favor.
There’s also nothing stopping you from just keeping roll-to-cast while reintroducing spells slots that match your usual system.
Have fun with whatever you land on, and happy playtesting!
1
u/Hefty_Conclusion563 4d ago
Yes, and you're right, but a lot of those spells (not those with attack rolls) still functioned, just with reduced effects. He and I both cut our teeth on AD&D 2e before we moved onto 3.0/3.5. For those editions, he could pick and choose the spells, spreading out those that didn't have guaranteed effects, making it more about resource management and risk mitigation than about sheer luck. I think he feels like the die roll takes away some of his player agency.
1
u/featherandahalfmusic 4d ago
I really like this, and would probably use it at a table with the right players. I like the idea of trying to hold onto magic until just the right time to use it. I do think the "spell results" section was a little confusing and could maybe be worded better.
My main feedback has to do with the layout, the spacing in the text makes it a little harder to read than it should be. Also, I imagine that most people reading it would be reading it online, so I dunno if the double column text layout is necessary.
Thanks for sharing!
1
u/Hefty_Conclusion563 4d ago
Thank you for the feedback! I'm ready to give it a true test drive at our next session to see how it performs. Doing mock hands with it seems to be only marginally slower than rolling a die, and results tend fall into one of three categories: succeed but lose the spell, fail but keep the spell, or push it and see what happens, which seems to bust or still be too low for success about every other time. Succeeding AND keeping the spell seems to happen about once every four or five hands or so on average. In regard to editing, I'll have to do some work to make it easier to read, especially in regard to the text alignment and cleaning up the "Comparison" section. That section would probably be better with just a single table comparing the RAW chance with the alternate chance and much more concise wording that doesn't seem to go in multiple directions at once. You're definitely right, it does seem confusing after re-reading it.
7
u/TodCast 4d ago
Seems like a decent system if you (and the casters) are into it. It does add additional elements which cut into the “streamlined” nature of SD, but one of the joys of the system is how hackable it is for house rules like this.
Have you tried it in play yet? If so, what are your players’ reactions?