I’ve been putting more hours into Drakerion TCG. I am definitely enjoying this game far more than I had originally anticipated. But that does not mean this nor any other game is perfect for everyone.
So today, I’d like to take a bit different approach. In this new series, I’ve decided to take a deep dive into one of the Drakerion’s game design that I think this game stood out for me.
My hope here is I will try to present this in relatively objective way first, and then give my subjective take. So as you watch this, I am hoping you’d follow along the objective part and pick your own stance. At the end, you may not agree with my opinion but I am hoping this will still gave you a guide to say “why this game might not be for you.”
In this first in the series, I’d like to start with the the main game design decision the team made, “simultaneous turn play” system.
Background
Purely turn based vs. Dynamic Interactive Play
One of the very first way I look at new TCG is based on how the game allow interaction between players during opponent’s turn.
If non-active turn player have no single way to intervene during opponent’s turn, I call it isolated turn based (ITB) system game. If the game system allows non-active player to intervene during opponent’s turn, I call them dynamic interactive play (DIP) system game.
For example the big 3, Pokemon TCG is ITB system game. While Magic the Gathering is paradigmatic TCG using DIP system. Yu-Gi-Oh is DIP system because of their trap type cards. Flesh and Blood is also DIP system because they have instant cards and abilities.
Each system has their own characteristics. One may view a specific feature of one system as a merit while the other may feel the same feature as a demerit.
ITB System
Main features of ITB system are simplicity and focused play.
During a player’s own turn, the player can focus and execute their entire plan without any unexpected in game status change.
Since this system do not require pre-resolution interruption, I TB games do not have stack system. This makes the game rule simple without a moment of “playing with a rule” rather than playing with a card.
By this I mean the same card can have totally different effect depend on the exact timing of when the card is used to interrupt. This gets confusing even for veteran players as you have to learn for each game, and each new mechanics the specific timing at what timing one can. interrupt and what time they cannot.
DIP System
The main feature of DIP system is its interactivity.
Here non-active turn player have a potential way of interrupting opponent’s plan often as a surprise play during opponent’s turn. No only this provides non-active player to remain involved in the game outside of their turn, but the system also given the active player the moments of need to adapt and create new game plan on the spot.
Which one is better?
Obviously, neither system is superior to the other. The preference is totally subjective. Having said that, I believe either consciously or subconsciously many TCG players if they have played enough number games usually have a preference on one category of game over the other.
I personally find DIP game my favorite system. Understanding your own preference, identifying ITB vs. DIP of a given TCG may help you determine if the game is worth your time.
For the case of Drakerion, this may not be so easy . The gam e is certainly DIP game, but the game is actually built with ITB system at its basis. So even if you are ITB system fan, you may still end up liking the game.
Drakerion Simultaneous Turn System
Now let’s take closer look at Drakerion’s Simultaneous Turn system from the ITB vs. DIP point of view.
In Drakerion, each player alternate their action during the main phase of the game, called action phase. Similarly, each player alternate the priority to use combat trick.
This means whenever a player plays a card or activate an ability, they resolve instantly. Therefore, this game does not have stack system.
So why do I categorize Drakerion’s simultaneous turn system as DIP category? There are two reasons.
Let’s start with relatively more conventional one.
Combat Tricks
In this game, when combat between two characters take place, starting with a defending player each player can alternatively play an event type card from their hand with a combat ability or activate “combat” type ability among cards they control.
For example, an attacker may choose to finish an opponent character after a meticulous, first grade level math. Then defender plays “The Brother’s Choice” to give 1 shield to negate 1 of incoming damage. This is certainly seen as a surprise to the attacker.
However, in response, the attacker may play Face your Own Death to negate the shield’s health point saving.
At this point, opponent may again respond. Once both player passes, the combat resolves i.e. final damage calculation takes place.
This is prototypical example of counter action exchange between players in response to the other player’s action. In Magic, this is nothing but instant type card exchange. In Flesh and Blood, this is more analogous to reaction type card exchange.
This is pretty cool and the exact reason why I like DIP system game; however, as a game mechanics there was very familiar to me.
Alternating Actions
Now let’s take a look at second element of this game that makes the system interactive, alternating actions.
This is one of the main feature of this game. With my mostly digital TCG background, I’ve only played one simultaneous turn game system before, which was Infinity Wars TCG. Drakerion implementation feels quite a different from that.
How does alternating one action at a time make game feel so interactive? I’ve decide to make some hypothesis here.
Interaction in the game does not have to be interruptive, but I think most players equates interruption or disruption of opponent’s plan or action as a prototypical form of interaction. So l will use them as synonym here.
To me, interruptive interaction in tabletop game are usually either proactive or retroactive.
The combat action exchange in Drakerion is a form of retroactive interaction. A defender sees attacker’s attack power, defender’s health and based on those information they get to decide if they play a combat action card. Attacker can then respond to defender’s combat action .
The other form of interaction is a proactive. Conventional strategy game like Chess or Go often utilize this as a counter play. You predict what the opponent will be doing next a few turns, and play accordingly to stop from that happening.
Now let’s take a look at specific proactive interaction, counter play in Drakerion.
You have critically wounded character with only 1 life point remaining on the board. As a next action, you predict opponent will commit their city and present 1 non-combat damage to finish it off. You do not want the character to be destroyed just yet. So you play Water is Life to heal the character as your current action. Now, opponent no longer can destroy the character with the single city tap.
If the same scenario were handled in a classic retroactive fashion, you do your action current turn. Opponent commit the city and present 1 non-combat damage. You’d then present an instant type card to heal the character’s life before the damage resolves.
The proactive counter play requires more planning on healer side while retroactive one requires more planning on attacker side. The latter is true in a form of attacker guessing will my opponent have a counter play card in their hand?
Drakerion’s action phase counter play support primarily proactive interruption. But depending on how you define it, I think it also support retroactive one just not “cancel” spell form.
Counterspell Dilemma
At this point, I’d like to share my opinion about counter-spell like retroactive interruption, which is cards or ability that can cancel opponent’s target card even before they resolve.
I think the concept is easy to grasp and feel like a perfect form and example of “counter” play.
There are players love this type of play, and there are perhaps many more who hates them. Why?
My hypothesis is unconditional cancel of your action give less interactive feel even if the final outcome were the same. By this I mean, I can play a little fireball or cast a super powerful creature. Counterspell can cancel either one.
In reality, the control player have to put a lot of thought into playing by ensurin g cards and resources are available when they need to cancel the specific card that impact the game. However, this is not so apparent or perhaps irrelevant to a player who got denied their action. They feel as if they did not get to do anything.
Also, it is often obvious that the other player is set up/waiting to deny your card so there is usually no surprise element. But you may not have any other way to play thus you just carry your plan with a hope they got a bad hand.
I personally think retroactive “permission” type of card is not a necessity for good interactive TCG. I think game can still have lots of interaction including counter play element without unconditional, retroactive permission cards.
As an example, I shoot fireball. They take the damage, but immediately after they heal the damage. The end result between these two actions is the opponent took 0 damage. This is identical to my fireball got denied by counter spell. The one exception is if the character were to die with the first fireball then there is no time to heal, but that could have been prevented by proactive play.
Now, instead of fireball I cast a super creature. As a next action, opponent immediately destroys it using removal type spell. Net result again is the same as my opponent end up cancelling my super creature casting.
The difference between post-resolution answer and pre-resolution cancelling to me is significant. In the above two situations, I’ve got chance to play my cards and carry out my plan at least for that particular action. My opponent had a specific answer and carried their own action in response to my action. This feels to me more of players exchanging their own actions rather than one is cancelling just whatever action the other player takes.
So now going back to Drakerion.
Since every card or ability one play always resolve immediately, and the other player gets a chance to take action, I am 99.9% certain this game will never have a complete cancel or negation effect.
The reason I am not saying 100% is that technically, they could create some type of trigger based effect, analogous to Yu-Gi-Oh trap card where it says when your opponent’s play this, do that. But even if such card were to be implemented, I believe the designer took this route so I highly doubt they would create counter-spell equivalent in this game.
If you’ve actually played the game already, you may wonder what about the Gathering information? This maneuver card indeed negates opponent maneuver card text. The difference here is each player are revealing their own maneuver card simultaneously. So you are still guessing if opponent will be using a maneuver that’s impactful enough you want to negate it.
Is Drakerion ITB?
If each player’s action always guaranteed to resolve, one may view it a ITB system with every action being just a micro-turn. At the most fundamental level, I think that’s what’s going on. This design decision is the reason why the game does not require stack system and keep the game system flow with simple rule.
However, beyond that I do not believe it’s the same as just taking small turns. The fact each action is a small unit, there will be no single action that can create massive board game state change.
The good example here is, one comment I saw on Kickstarter page. Someone was asking about board reset/wipe effect in this game.
Obviously, the complete wipe with a single won’t happen in this game as that by itself is an instant end game effect. However, that does not mean effectively the same or similar effect will not take place in this game if you were to compare Drakerion to other games like Magic in equivalent in-game time unit.
In Magic, there are card that resets a board. By paying relatively high cost at turn 4 or 5, you can destroy entire creatures on the board perhaps both your side as well as opponent’s side. So let’s say you had built up 4 creatures on the board, and turn 4, opponent uses the spell and wipe 4 creatures. That turn the opponent attained 4 to 0 board status change.
In Drakerion, it is totally possible if you carry sequences of actions, you could end up destroying 4 characters during one turn. The net result are the same. But in Drakerion, you earned it. There are multiple action exchange between the 4 to 0 step, and that cannot be skipped in Drakerion as each action step is a small step of it.
Do you prefer board wipe with a single card? Do you prefer multiple steps to achieve the same result?
My preference is the latter. Drakerion is a game that won’t let you skip a step. You always contribute to the board status. This is the reason why I feel like I am playing the game all the time in this game.
So does this mean we will never see a cataclysmic action in this game?
This is purely my speculation, but I think we will be seeing setup driven synergy and combo that allow some massive effect with a single action.
For instance, the designer has created a system “unpredictable”. This allows multiple characters to be deployed during opponent’s attack action. You will have the action immediately the combat. So these these characters are really came out of no where before your opponent can respond. Not necessary the good design example, but what if there is an event card that says damage each character on the board that relates to # of characters? The massive power from a single action here takes a setup but the setup itself was done in a unpredictable fashion.
Based on what I have seen so far on starter decks, I have the highest confidence the team have no problem bring powerful synergy without breaking a fundamental of the game.
Conclusion
Drakerion’s simultaneous turn play system is quite an interesting system from the isolated turn based vs. dynamic interactive play system point of view. This seems to provide the best of both world. While it provide the dynamic interactive play support, it is developed using fundamental play unit of isolated turn based system equivalent simplicity.
My handful game plays experience so far, without an exception, I had several moments during every game where I was making proactive actions, surprised by retroactive combat tricks or simple subsequent actions.
Continuously changing board state in every action gave me multiple moments of “I am going to win this game, oh I guess not” and “I will lose this game, oh I guess not.”
Playing this game feels like watching a great movie for the first time. Some of this excitement comes from the fact I am so new to this game and still have not learned every card and tricks in the game, but I believe a lot has to do with the actual game system itself.
I would highly recommend this game for those who likes dynamic interactive play game, especially if you are looking for proactive counter play feel in a game, this is one of the best implementation. Even if you are isolated turn based game lover, I feel this game may still be for you as you may experience your familiar system now with interactive element built in.
Drakerion TCG™ is a registered trademark of LoreMaster Game. Drakerion TCG™ and all associated images are copyright © LoreMaster Game. All rights reserved.