Gregory Daily and others (who I cant tag because their names don’t come up on the stupid list even though I type it…

Gregory Daily and others (who I cant tag because their names don’t come up on the stupid list even though I type it…

Gregory Daily and others (who I cant tag because their names don’t come up on the stupid list even though I type it in exactly: Chris Stone-Bush, Peter J, Andrea Serafini):

This is something I worked up with several of the idea that were being talked about. A deck would be separated into 3 stacks: STR/DEX, CON/INT, and WIS/CHA. Each player would be dealt 1 card from each stack and can choose 1 card to discard, drawing a new card from the same stack.

The card has a damage die modifier (default is d6, and the die symbol on the card will have an up or down arrow, or a dash meaning no change).

Also, an HP modifier is included. Maybe base 16 or something, then each card modifies that total.

Move name and move appropriate to the category it’s drawn from.

The bottom of the card has your modifiers (in this case STR + 2 and DEX + 0, but Called Shot would probably have STR + 0 and DEX + 2).

There’s also a bond on each card, and you get to pick one bond and one player to apply that too.

This setup gives you 3 moves, all six stats, 1 bond, your damage die and HP. Additional thoughts include text along a side edge giving your starting equipment.


86 thoughts on “Gregory Daily and others (who I cant tag because their names don’t come up on the stupid list even though I type it…”

  1. This is the only card I’ve made a prototype for, but I have a list of about 15 cards for each category, but I think 20 would be ideal (making it a 60 card deck).

    Another thought is to make it completely dice-less by including a row of die images (d4 – d12) on each card, with a number in it. Then, when a die roll is needed, draw the appropriate number of cards from the pile of unused cards and apply the number in the correct die. Don’t know if that’s even necessary, but it would make it a completely self contained game.

  2. The one thing that initially occurred to me was how you ensure there isn’t too much swing between characters, or having someone too rich or too poor in basic abilities or powers. If the basic matrix is +2, +1, +1, 0, 0, -1, that’s a net +3. With complete randomization, it’s certainly possible to get a character seeded with 3 +2/0 cards unless some level of control is further applied. I’m also not sure I agree with the Con/Int and Wis/Cha divide; I’d be more inclined to side with Int/Wis and Con/Cha as pairings/tradeoffs, or Int/Cha and Wis/Con.

    Perhaps consider having either a color coding/point value in addition to the stat divides. Thus, within the STR/DEX group, there are say 15-20 cards that are Green-Yellow-Red on the back in addition to being marked as your STR/DEX cards. Green indicates it’s a net +2 card, yellow that it’s a net +1, and red that it’s a net +0. Players choose one red, one yellow, one green from the stacks of their choice (and it gives them a bit more control). Alternately, someone could choose all yellow for a more “balanced” character.

  3. Scott Heyden, I agree about the stat divide, I was only going straight across the stat line in the playbooks. My gut is to what you said with INT/WIS & CON/CHA. The INT/WIS category makes more sense than CON/INT.

    Also, I like your color coding method. You’d have 9 stacks instead of 3, but it does ensure more balance, which was something I was worried about. Thanks for your input!!!!

  4. Yeah, we made a deck of moves cards almost exactly like this, but divided into groups by class. I’ve been trying to think of what we can do with it that’s more than just a prop for DW (since full-colour cards aren’t dirt cheap).

  5. Gotcha Johnstone Metzger, Yeah, I have been thinking about a board game based on DW for a while but I couldn’t really make any headway. But a post that Gregory Daily made, along with some of the discussion about it, made me realize that a card game would work too! I spent some time thinking about it and the Merciless card I posted was a first draft prototype.

  6. Brian Holland​​ Do you need nine, though? Any reason you couldn’t divide purely by power level, and just mix the different stats up within those three decks? You could even vary the stat pairs from card to card if that’s not the sorting method.

  7. It was mainly supposed to be for one-shots, actually, not board games. You’d draw 4 cards, drop 1, and the remaining 3 are your character, start playing right away. I’d like to make it a game in it’s own right, apart from DW, and Jaywalt wants to add cards for the GM to use to create stuff. But we’re also busy, so I dunno what we’ll end up doing. Yours is pretty good too, I like that you put a bond on there.

  8. Saul Alexander If you did that you couldn’t ensure you’d get all six stats. If you pull 3 yellows, you may get 2 or more of one stat. I think you definitely need to sort by category first, then power level.

  9. Johnstone Metzger yeah I pretty much decided to do it as a card game. I’ve even been thinking of it by the name “One-Shot”. I hadn’t thought about GM cards though. I’ll have to put some thought into it.

  10. Andrea Serafini I’ll take a look at it soon. Regarding the division on the stats, I’m only trying to get all 6 stats on 3 cards. If there’s a better way I’m definitely open to suggestions.

  11. I like where this is going, but don’t have much to contribute right now. I doo agree that STR/DEX, INT/WIS, and CON/CHA seems like a better stat divide.You could go for a World of Darkness division: Strength, Finess, and Resistance. That would pair STR/INT, DEX/CHA, and CON/WIS I think.

  12. Another idea: two piles, one physical (STR/DEX/CON) one mental (INT/WIS/CHA). Each card has some permutation of +1, +0, +0. You pick four cards, two from each pile. You choose one of the four to discard. Then, optionally: add 1 to any ability that isn’t at +2, and make one of your zero abilities -1.

    This will give you a starting stat array that:

    o nets to +3

    o has no more than one +2

    o has no more than one -1

    o allows two arrays not usually allowed in DW:

    o four +1s, one 0 and one -1

    o three +1s and three 0s (you can eliminate this one by making the “then, optionally” part required)

  13. Lester Ward, I like the Physical vs Mental aspect, and the iterations of + 1 is an interesting solution. It alleviates the color coding for power level. I don’t know about the optional part exactly as suggested, but there should be some way to give a stat -1. I just can’t think of the best way to do that right now.

  14. Also, for everyone, since it’s taking somewhat of a departure from DW anyway, what about eliminating “HP”. Damage is mostly fictional anyway, so what about a number of “wound points” equal to your CON plus some standard number? CON plus 3 maybe. When a GM move deals damage to you it removes a wound point. Savage Worlds (and countless other RPG’s that I don’t know about, I’m sure) uses “wounds” instead Hit Points. I think it fits for purely fictional damage. It also eliminates some bookkeeping. You can use a 6 sided die to keep track of your wounds. What are the thoughts on that?

  15. The “optional part” serves to make the math work. If you use it, you will get a typical +2, +1, +1, 0, 0, -1 array most of the time (and a +1, +1, +1, +1, 0, -1 array the rest of the time).

    If you phrased it as “If you have no +2 stats, make one of your +1 stats +2, otherwise make one of your +0 stats +1. Then make a +0 stat -1.”, you’d only ever get the standard +2, +1, +1, 0, 0, -1 array.

  16. I understand the math behind it and you’re absolutely right, I’m just thinking about making it the least complex it can be. If everything is on the card you don’t have to find a way to mark which has been turned into a + 2 and which has been turned into a -1. That could be done with a bead or something, so that’s not so bad.

    That being said, what would it look like if cards had multiple stats instead of 100, 010, 001? What about cards like 110, or 1-10 (emphasis on the -1 stat there)? If you had 30 cards with that type of distribution, and only ever had 1 or 2 of them in a game, what would the result look like?

  17. If you change the HP and damage economy significantly, you’ll find that the changes ripple a lot.

    Class moves, monsters, tags, gear, spells, and magic items all touch HP and damage, and the interactions between those things have a significant effect on pacing.

    I’m not saying “don’t change HP to wounds.” Just pointing out that it’s a bigger change to the game than it seems at first glance.

  18. I’d think you want to limit yourself to each card netting to +1. That way, you’d be guaranteed a net +3. The rest depends on how willing you are to build +3, −2 or −3 stats.

    If you added some +1, +1, −1 cards, you’d still avoid +3 stats but, if you wanted to avoid the possibility of a −2 stat, you’d need to limit the cards so a given stat has a -1 only once in the deck (that is, only one +1 +1 −1 card, one +1 −1 +1 card and −1 +1 +1 card).

    Or, if you think +3 is OK, you could do +2, 0, −1 cards. Again, to avoid +4 or −2, you’d need to limit the cards so that only one card gives a +2 or a −1 to a particular stat.

    Or, I guess you could have some kind of “if you have a +3 or −2 stat, deal again” rule or something.

  19. One drawback compared to your original scheme is that you do have to add to get stats, rather than just lining up the cards.

    In that scheme, I’d think you’d still want to have each card be net +1. With only two stats on each card, that only gives you the choice of +2 −1 or +1 +0 (or maybe +3, −2 as well). The arrays would be a bit more swingy than DW as well (possible three +2, three −1 arrays, for example).

  20. We did what Lester suggests with our version. It works fine if you limit the ones with a minus to a small number of cards and don’t have them add +2 to a single stat. You might end up with three +1s and thats it, but eh.

  21. Maybe incorporate the move on the card into the “balance”. Have a stack of “power” moves. These would be some of the standout moves that really make the class feel special or unique. On these would be your +2 for the stat associated to the move and your -1 on the other stat. Maybe the player gets to choose which they want at the start or are delt one at random. All the other cards would be combinations of +1/+0. After getting your power move, draw two cards from each of the normal move decks for the stats you dont have yet. keep two.

    Or follow the numbers: stack of +2s with a power move, stack of +1s with normal moves, stack of +0s with equipment, stack of -1s with a bond. Might have to work through a drawing mechanic until you have all 6 stats but it should be doable and don’t think 6 cards in front of a player is excessive.

    Really cool idea! I’m excited to see where it goes!

  22. Lester Ward yeah I’d rather just read the stats across the bottom, but your idea of splitting moves into 2 categories (Physical and Mental) feels like the better way to go, so I have to go with the math thing. Maybe you could do Physical (STR/DEX/CON), Mental (INT/WIS) and Social (CHA) to keep the stat line, but I really don’t like the asymmetry.

    Regarding your comment about redrawing if you have +3 or -2, maybe that can be hard coded into the “Draw two from each stack, discard one” rule. That just part of the “character creation” system…

    Andrew Alwood, the concept of balance will definitely be incorporated. A Move like Shapeshift would probably give INT 0 / WIS + 2 / CHA -1 for example.

    Also, yeah, 6 cards is too many. My original concept had 3, on the Physical and Mental Stack concept uses 3. I lean towards the latter because the former had some strange stat divides.

    Conceptually I think I have enough to make a list of cards. The math portion is just going to come with playtesting. Hopefully tonight I can post a card list, or at least a portion.

  23. Simone Bonavita I agree that DW doesn’t need balance. In DW Moves, Stats, Damage Die and HP are not combined. A card though would need some balance since an individual card represents a move AND up to three stats AND a modification of your damage die AND a modification of HP. When you’re talking about your entire character being made up of three such cards balance does become an issue.

    I like that division of stats Scott Selvidge. I’m still torn as to whether I should go 2 categories with math or 3 categories with stat line… I really like the simplicity of stat line, but I also really the Physical and Mental categories. If I go with 3 categories, I think 3 levels of card (green-yellow-red from above) makes sense for balance, and if I go with 2 categories the math make sense for balance.

    More pondering ahead…

  24. Scott Selvidge, it’s an attempt to put everything you need to know about your character on three cards.

    Since everything about your character is going to be on the three cards that you’re dealt (although you’ll get the opportunity to replace one of them) the equipment line is there to give you “class appropriate” equipment. A Fighter-y move might have a sword and armor listed, a cleric-y move may have a mace listed or a holy symbol, a Ranger-y move will list a bow and some ammo. The Poisoner move would give you some poisons. Bag of books, Adventure Gear, Healing Potions, etc. are all listed here.

    You’ll end up with three bonds which you’ll choose one of to apply to one person and you’ll have 3 looks which you’ll choose one of.

    You’ll have equipment from all three cards, to represent all of the equipment you carry.

    The system (as I’m envisioning it) is for quick, one-shot, classless, “here’s three cards to tell you what your character does” sessions, but still follows the rules of DW. Of course, all basic and special moves are available to everyone.

  25. Maybe go with 3 stats to a card broken up by the Physical and Mental like you mentioned using a stat line. But have two levels for each category. If it’s your power move it has a +2, +1, and +0 to the stats. If it’s your normal is has +1, +0, and -1. Your third card is equipment and a related move that would appropriate for that type of equipment or the class who would reasonably select that equipment (i.e. plate armor would have another fighter-y move, or bag of books might have a wizard-y one). I think this keeps you to 3 cards and might keep them less cluttered. I would dump Bonds and Alignment as it seems this is more for quick one shots so xp isn’t as big of a factor and both of those are xp mechanics. For Aid, the player would just use the appropriate stat for the fiction like DD.

  26. Andrew Alwood, yes and no about the Bonds and Alignment. Yes they are XP mechanics, but no that’s not their only function. Bonds and Alignment tell you how to role-play the character, and you’ll get XP only if you do so. MAYBE Alignment would be more appropriate than Bonds (because I sometimes have a hard time understanding how to “resolve” them). IMO one of them needs to be on the card for the role-playing cue that it provides.

  27. That’s true Scott Selvidge​. I so rarely Aid or Interfere that I forget about it. That’s a good point, as bonds add a mechanical as well as a roleplaying element!

    Also, this game IS Dungeon World. Think of it like an expansion (“core book required to play”…). It just uses a 3-card draw instead of playbooks to define your character. Otherwise it will play exactly the same (which is why I’m trying to get as much info as possible onto each card).

    It’s not an “expansion” in the way Class Warfare or Perilous Wilds is because it doesn’t add anything new to the game (although there is a lot of rooms for new moves sense is essentially classless), so maybe I should say it “interfaces with” DW.

  28. Brian Holland, yes they both have great value for a larger game beyond just xp. For simplicity’s sake i think they could be removed for a one shot and not be vastly detrimental. If you are looking for something simple to tell the player how to roll play perhaps it’s another stack of alignment and a related bond as i could see those connect well on one card (i.e. lawful – description of lawful, then bond – (blank) has broken a law, at some point you will see that justice is served).

    Scott Selvidge, I agree and that’s how i play, but i know many GMs dump bonds for other mechanics like Flags and use the fictionally appropriate modifier for aid/interfere like DD. I think in this type of streamlined one shot game, that probably makes sense to do here.

  29. Brian Holland If you do 3 stats per card, you can just pick 2 cards out front for stats, and stack other cards behind them, with their stat lines hidden and only the move visible.

  30. Andrew Alwood I see your point, and you make it clearly with “not be vastly detrimental”. It wouldn’t make the game unplayable to not have bonds or alignments. It would clean up the card to not have another line of text, and I don’t really want another whole subset of cards if we’re talking about simplicity. But if I did have another subset of cards, your alignment and related bond card would handle it beautifully.

    It all comes back to your original point then: Is it necessary for a one-shot? It probably isn’t, so I could remove it entirely without hurting the experience (and speaking of not necessary, the Looks section that I added is 100% not necessary). But would it make it a better experience to have it? Maybe. More thought and some play testing required!

  31. Johnstone Metzger, that’s an interesting idea! So have Physical and mental cards, each with their portion of the stat line, and just “keep” the stat line for the card you want. That’s may be a good way to do it. I’ll play around with that and see what I think. Thanks!

  32. Scott Selvidge I’ve heard of flags a couple times but don’t really know what they are. Can you explain, and would they be better for this one-shot card version of DW?

  33. Brian Holland, glad you like it. I agree you don’t want too many subsets of cards but you probably want enough to ensure there are a lot of fun combinations. 4 cards seems to be a sweet spot over 3 as there would be more combinations and less clutter: A Power Move card (physical or mental) with your +2, +1, +0, Normal Move card (opposite stat line of your power move) with your +1, +0, -1, Equipment Card with an equipment-y move or move for the kind of person would use that equipment, and a roleplaying card (look, alignment, bond). Could have all kinds of fun combinations with the last one. Probably only need one bond for a one-shot so the player can stay focused on resolving that one item within the short window of fiction. Aid/Interfere would have to be treated similar to DD under this model, but that definitely works.

    I think this is really cool idea. Would love to help designing and play testing cards. If you’re looking for resources let me know!

  34. Brian Holland, Flags are basically: “(blank) is how I want other characters to interact with my character this session”. Simple example: Rogar the warrior would like to drink heavily and share stories of great battles won and lost. If another character at the table interacts with Rogar during the session in this manner, they get an xp. The (blank) can be all manner of things but should trigger meaningful roleplaying between characters and avoid anything mechanical (i.e. Rogar wants someone to aid him in combat).

    I don’t think they would be ideal for this type of game because they are very player centric and don’t contribute to the characters inter party relationships or back story.

    Also, since there’s probably not going to be leveling in this type of game there is less incentive for characters to trigger the flag to earn an xp. While a bond can help drive the premise or sub plots of the one shot.

  35. Got it, thanks Andrew Alwood . Yeah not for this style of play, but I can see the appeal in replacing bonds with flags. I may give it a try with my players the next time I GM.

    Also, I definitely need some help in the future if I start developing this, so I’ll keep in touch with you!

  36. Brian Holland​​ I’ll post a document I made for different flags you could use. I tend to have everyone initial next to the ones they have and I hang onto the sheet so I know who has what. I also tend to let them each have as many flags as their character would have bonds.

  37. Thanks J. Walton​. The design spaces are similar but different, and something I saw on your cards gave me an idea. I’m going to mull some things over and decide where to go next.

  38. I’m giving this a go. I’ve done four decks, A/B/C/race and an optional Fate draw.

    A is STR/INT,

    B is WIS / DEX

    C is CON / CHA

    All three have HP, damage, a move and bond.

    Race has two stat mods, a racial move / bonus and a specific Mark XP move

    Fate, the optional one, has a story kick, bond, and a choice of three stat mods.

    I’m going to try to do maybe eight ABC&Race cards, and ten Fate ones. I usually have four players, going to have them do draw two and ditch one from the first four, and if they choose a fate card then that’s what they are stuck with 🙂

  39. Ross Kingston that works fine for playtesting! I only did a slightly more fancy version to help clear my thoughts and make it clear what I was envisioning.

    I like the idea of opposing stats on a card too. If you’re very wizard-y then your STR takes a hit. But it doesn’t have to. A powerful card may give +2/-1, and midrange may give +1/0. I like it!

  40. Yes, exactly Ross Kingston!! You could generate all kinds of different combinations that aren’t possible when playing with playbooks! I’m excited to see where this goes! I’m working on a card list now, but may end up doing something a little different with the stats.

    The cards that J. Walton shared, and your stat split got me thinking that maybe you can do a single stack of cards for the moves. Each move has an associated stat (or stats) and an opposing stat (or stats). This would mean going with the “math method” instead of the “stat line” method”, but putting them all together would create a more random character (maybe draw 5 keep 3, then draw a 4th “Fate” card). Maybe a color coding or symbol on the front would allow you to break them out into smaller stacks for more control.

  41. The cards I’ve done give characters 4 moves / bonuses to stock moves. I’m tempted to do another stack corresponding to melee / ranged / magic moves… But that’s more randomisation, I’d almost be tempted to have players pick from that deck.

  42. I had a conversation with Brian earlier, suggesting an idea for leveling and he told me to post it here for discussion. It’s a rough idea right now but what if…

    When you start the game, you get your allotment of move cards and one more. This one more represents what you’re writing towards. It also gives the GM an idea of what to put into the game so that it works both prescriptive and descriptive.

    As for HOW leveling could work, I’ve got an idea for that, too. Each card would have a number of boxes equal equal to the number of bonuses. You would ‘check’a box whenever you would normally in Dungeon World. Once all boxes on all cards are checked, you qualify for leveling.

    Alternatively, if doing a one shot, you could assume that the players only need to fill in the boxes from the card that they would be writing towards.

  43. Yeah Gregory Daily and I talked about this for a while and I really liked it. I had the same idea about getting an extra move card as a “mission” to play towards, but really had no ideas about how to go about leveling. I like his idea for it because it’s simple, everything’s on the card (which is something I REALLY like) , and you could track the XP with beads. To level again, you have to fill all the cards (including your new one) with XP again.

  44. OK, so this is what I came up with for a rough draft of a card. It needs refinement, and I’ll add to it when I can, but this is what I could do on my iPad at work. I think this is the MOST wordy a single card should ever be, but it’s necessary for the move(s). Alternatively, Prepare a Spell, Cast a Spell, and Spell Book could be separate cards that instruct the person who draws them to look through the deck for the other cards. Anyway, tell me what you think.

    In this card, I didn’t limit the player to a specific ability score assignment. This way, they could customize their stats as they see fit. Perhaps spell casting is a secondary skill to their more brutish ways.

    EDIT: I don’t know why, but my phone mess with the color of the card when I look at it full screen. It should be a hunter green boarder with a ‘Dungeon World’ green interior. No expense was spared in the creation of this card.

    EDIT 2: I also wanted to point out that I put all the vital information that would form the makeup of the character at the bottom, so they can stack cards in a way to see all of their info easily.

    EDIT 3: I’m beating this dead horse. Anyway, the idea with the XP is that high XP would be the trade-off to having things like a +2 and high HP or damage on a card. I think d10 should be reserved for moves like Signature Weapon or other very combat heavy moves and it should be very easy for the average player to wind up in the d6 – d8 area. I was thinking about putting a special note on the spell card here that this reduces your damage die one stage no matter what, but that could just be on the “rule card”.

  45. I like this. Removing specific stats makes it more versatile, but I think it needs to have the primary associated stat listed. In this case, + 2 INT / + 0 other

    Also, I think the hit points need to be listed as + X or – Y, and same with the damage die (that’s what my up, flat or down symbol inside the die means). The reason being that this move is a PART of the character, not THE character.

    I like the XP and I agree, the more powerful the move, the more XP should be required for leveling.

    Also, the “casting of spells” is something I wanted to stay away from for this card game because I wanted to avoid needing cards for spells. I was thinking more along the lines of Elemental Mastery and Awful Good Games’ Wizard’s “Evocation and Thaumaturgy” moves for spell casting.

    Solid start! Looking forward to seeing more!

  46. I chose to go with spells because if we make this an actual product, we don’t want to step on toes and requiring the base book for things of this nature is the easiest way to go about that. For a GM that would rather avoid such things, they can just take out a few cards and opt out of spell casting for their games.

  47. Interesting mechanics here for sure, but I think once you add in leveling and “math” for the modifiers it starts to get a bit crunchy and looses some of it’s “quick start” appeal. If I’m planning on playing more than a one shot with a group, I’m probably reaching for the tried and true pencil and paper.

    Benefit of keeping it simple and lean is a deck of cards in your dice bag that can get you playing dungeon world with interesting mini classes in 15 minutes with no prep. The replay-ability is the fun of interesting classes and jumping right into the action.

    Just some thoughts on what jumped out at me as the value of a DW card deck. I’ll throw together some versions of what I’m thinking and post here for your feedback.

  48. For me, this began less of an item I would throw in my dice bag, and more of an item that I might have in my car when I don’t have my dice bag. This whole idea came about when I was at a friend’s house and some of my regular Pathfinder crew was there and we were talking about our last game with some other people. I mentioned that we could make characters for a game called Dungeon World if we wrote out our characters on paper since he didn’t have a computer or printer of any kind. When everyone finished writing out their characters and moves and everything, we had wasted just over an hour. By the time we finished introducing the PCs, another hour had gone by and we had about one more hour before two of the 4 had to leave. I managed a really short encounter and got them intrigued, but I heard from my friend that the other guys were really bored with character creation and would rather play Pathfinder. I think most of that came from having to jot down the moves from the book.

    The idea is that with a few cards, you can jot down your HP total, Hit Die, Bonds, and how much XP you’ve got as you play. It’s not as much about not having any paper, but not having a printer or other means of quickly getting character creation done. Dice rollers are on just about every phone, too. However, I do see the draw to having everything on the cards which is why I wrote that damage die should be the highest one on the cards you’ve got.

  49. Andrew Alwood, I agree things could get clunky after a couple levels. I still like the idea of drawing an additional move card to have something to play towards though. With three players, each with a different thing they’re playing for (aspiring to maybe), the GM would have some good material to plan an adventure.

    Gregory Daily that version looks awesome! Also, what Andrew said has some merit, and you can see my response to him. Your idea for the reduced size playbooks is what got me thinking along the lines of a “classless character creation” card game version of DW as a one-shot. While I had leveling in the back of my mind (and we both had the same idea of drawing a card to play to), maybe he’s right and leveling isn’t something this style of game needs.

  50. A lot of games have optional rule, and that could be one of them. No rain to limit it and have someone make up their own rules when we have a pretty sound idea for how to do it.

  51. Being a fan of choice I would want to draw “x” choose one. But that’s just me.

    You could also further diversify advanced level cards by having additional decks. Like weapon and attack spell specific decks. They would be smaller in overall number but allow more personalized growth. So far example a player takes a sword card at level 2 and then decides between an elemental burst or bow card for a ranged option at level 3. This would be more for a game that ended up being “classless” I imagibe.

    Also you could take a page out of the 4th edition play book and have different levels draw from different deck types so like odd levels get non-combat abilities while even levels get combat abilities.

  52. You could even tongue and cheek ccgs and go back to the random with card hand outs. Call it a booster pack and they pick and keep a set number of cards at level up the rest get shuffled back to their respective decks.

Comments are closed.