Western Card Game

This is my idea for a Western Card Game, in response to Slugfest Games' Kung Fu Fighting . I love the game, but it runs to slow for a 2 player game, between 2 experienced players (the main way I've been playing it recently).

These are just thoughts, nothing concrete yet, but hopefully I can flesh these out, and form something concrete from it.

***
"A simple card game, based on gunfights in the Wild West. Two decks, characters and event/item cards.


Character cards tell you a bit about the character, what speed they have (initiative), how much damage they do, etc. Event cards change the attack process, adding/removing damage, changing initiative, providing cover, etc. Item cards affect everything else: weapon change, calling for backup, effects attached to the enemy, etc.

Simple, quick battles, made for a quick 2 player game. Posse vs posse.

Four stats per character card: speed (how quick on the draw they are) (used for determining initiative/play order), damage (how badly they can hurt someone), health (how much damage they can take before dropping), and bounty (how much they're worth) (not used until end game).
Just like a bell curve, the higher/est and lower/est values for any of the 3 main stats (speed, damage and health) are rarer than the middle values. A character's bounty goes up with their stats, making the rarer characters more valuable.

Possible "still alive" mechanic: any character with more than 2 health at the end of a round regains all health before the next round, because he "survived" the last shoot out. Any character with 1 or 2 health is out of play, but your opponent can't collect a bounty on them (they survived so there's no bounty, they can't fight again because they're recuperating). (How do we balance out the higher health characters? No "still alive" if you have more than 7 health?)

Possible "double team" mechanic: a scrub can take on a pro and win, with luck (item/event cards), but a second shooter is a better advantage. More than one of your outlaws can face one of your opponent's outlaws, as long as the first one has lower stats. (Even if your second outlaw is better than the opponent's outlaw. Bait and switch/to the rescue tactics.)

Three rounds of battle, between at most 5 outlaws a round. With 30 characters (in a 2 player game), you have 3 rounds of 5 by 5 battle. Any of your opponent's outlaws you kill in battle count towards your bounty total. Players set out their outlaws and assign duels (outlaw vs outlaw), determine firing order, assign damage (playing event/item cards), then pickup live outlaws and collect bounties. Then refill both outlaw and event/item hands for next shootout.

Every character is an outlaw, with a bounty on their head. The law pays out bounties to criminals because it eliminates their workload."
***

Google Books Coming Through!

It might not be the actual PHB, DMG, MM, etc, etc, but these should help provide some insight into Tabletop Role Playing Games in general: http://www.google.com/search?q=role+playing+games&tbm=bks&tbo=1&oq=role+playing .

And they're all free!!! :D

Humiliation of assholes works as a form of social progress

Greg Christopher of the Errant Game blog made this post about women and how they are being portrayed, especially when it come to games. "We have an undercurrent of belief... that implies... that women are something less than men."  I picked up on this post by reading about the discussion him and Zak S (of DnDwPS) are having in regards to understanding each others pov (more specifically, Zak attempting to understand Greg's pov).

I'm loving the fact that these guys are willing to have an actual discussion about this subject, and I fully understand Greg's pov, but I've never been one to push women to the side, to devalue them in any way.  Again, my personal stand on the issue.  And while, yes, women are being objectified by many men, for various reasons, I also know of women objectifying men, if less so.

I have always been of the opinion that anyone using there looks to better themselves, to gain something others do not have is due to "Good-gene good-sense healthy-offspring (Alfred Wallace)....beauty is a sign of good genetic qualities incl. diseases resistance." http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/mr_redqueen.html .  This is a genetic predisposition, one which market analysts fully employ, showing these sexualized pictures to entice sales.  "When it comes to buying Vanity Fair, it’s all women, all the time...." http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/vanity-fair-readers-prefer-women_b27181
is an article with an (unavailable) online report attached, one which points out that women prefer women on the cover of their magazines, using their purchasing power to make that decision.

I don't get mad with women who make money selling their sexuality, their body image, or men either, for whatever reason.  I fully understand that "mass beauty", something which many people appreciate, is worth money to people selling products.

I also realize that most people don't fit those visual profiles, and never judge/include-exclude anyone based solely on their appearance.  To me, it's the personality of the person that determines whether I'm going to entertain them as a friend on a long term basis, how well we click, so to speak.  And while I can understand why Greg believes using this genetic predisposition to sell products/services forces a "Tits or GTFO" mentality in women, a "sex is all your worth" mentality, it's more of how the woman herself views the material in question.  If she sees that representation of women as the ultimate/ideal, then that's her opinion.  If she's offended by the material, she can use her purchasing power (amongst other things) to make her decision known.

Maybe it's because I'm an intellectual. Maybe it's because I'm an introvert who's always valued function over form.  Maybe it's because of that advertising class I took by in junior high school that showed the fakeness/camera tricks that are involved.  I fully advocate Greg's position of equality in everything, but I also advocate Zak's position of "make your own decisions as an adult".  Should pictures of hot chicks used to lure people in be removed/toned down? No.  Should people realize that it's just advertising, and base their opinions on the reality of whatever is being sold/provided?  Yes.  And, yes, we should make fun of assholes.  The ones that think that anyone is worth less than they are, whether it be due to their gender, their race, their color, their creed, their views on life, etc, etc.

Except for practicing pedophiles.  They should be removed from the gene pool, IMO.

Home Tabs Links

Just a post of what I usually open up first thing in the morning! :D
>Facebook
>Topless Robot
>Kotaku
>io9
>Life Hacker

Webcomics:
>Questionable Content
>Ctrl Alt Del
>PvP Online
>Not Invented Here