EN
This post is another rerun of an article that Otto wrote earlier this year. Big shout out and thank you to Otto (again!). Otto has proven that he has a unique and elite perspective when it comes to TCGs. It’s a pleasure to share his thoughts here. Check out his Twitter account here and throw him a follow: OttoSuwenNFT.
There are a multitude of topics to discuss within the general umbrella of “game design”. One of the most overlooked topics in trading card games (TCGs) is the concept of resource systems. When TCGs come to mind, one tends remember popular cards, or memorable moments from a specific game. It is unlikely that players will really think about resource systems. Yet, each game’s resource system is essentially its backbone. In this article, I will be covering the intricacies of several resource systems (Magic: The Gathering, Hearthstone, and Parallel). Historically, there have been notable flaws and strengths within each resource system. After detailing out MTG and Hearthstone’s take on the topic, I will dive into how Parallel aims to deal with this in their game.
For those who are not familiar with TCGs, let me quickly explain how resource systems work. Fundamentally, resource systems provide a player with the opportunity to “put into play” units, spells, items, upgrades, and other miscellaneous benefits. The majority of TCGs have some variation of a resource system implemented.
In TCGs, resources are mainly sacrificed as a cost to play cards. The general rule of thumb is: the more powerful the card, the more resources need to be sacrificed in order to play the card. A player usually accrues these resources over the duration of a game. As such, high-cost powerful cards usually cannot be played until the end of the game.
So then, what is the overall purpose of resource systems? Obviously, not every single card in these games is going to be created equal. There are weak cards, and there are strong cards. Given the high card pool in these games, this is inevitable. Therefore, the way to balance these cards is to give stronger cards a higher resource cost. By doing so, there is a much more natural progression to the game. Weaker cards will be the crutch of the early game, while stronger cards will be the focal point of the late game.
Earlier, I mentioned that most TCGs have some variation of a resource system embedded into the game. One notable TCG that does not is Yu-Gi-Oh. In that TCG, there are still other costs for summoning units. However, there is effectively no barrier for their spell/effect cards. This is where having no resource system becomes quite problematic. Cards like “Pot of Greed” and “Graceful Charity” are way too powerful. Please see the below for their effects:
These cards, and many similar cards in Yu-Gi-Oh have no downside. With a resource system, these cards would probably cost a significant amount. Therefore, a player would only be able to play one per turn. However, since there’s no semblance of a resource system in Yu-Gi-Oh, a player would be able to chain these powerful cards back-to-back. Since the aforementioned cards also tell you to draw additional cards, a player can reasonably cycle thru a majority of their deck.
There are only two ways to deal with these cards. The first is to ban them, which Yu-Gi-Oh did for a number of years. However, I think it’s quite counterintuitive to create cards only to remove them from the general card pool. The second option, which Yu-Gi-Oh also proceeded with was to create more powerful cards to render the prior cards irrelevant. The problem with this solution is that there are even more problematic cards being introduced to the ecosystem. Eventually, the printing of extremely powerful cards led to the decline of Yu-Gi-Oh. Most matches were decided extremely quickly, and the current state of the metagame resembled nothing of the game’s original ethos. Yu-Gi-Oh’s lack of a resource system serves as a cautionary tale. Without a resource system in place, a domino effect commences, and a TCG can quickly spiral out of control.
Magic: The Gathering (Land Mana System)
It is safe to say that Magic: The Gathering was the predecessor to all modern TCGs. It’s obvious that MTG’s mana system is the foundation for many resource systems seen in subsequent TCGs. During its inception, this mana system was revolutionary. However, it is also deeply flawed as well.
MTG’s primary resource is mana, and can be collected via Land cards. There are five main types of Land cards, and each of them produces a different color of mana. Within the game itself, most cards fall under one of these five color categories. To play a card, a player must sacrifice the corresponding mana cost.
In order to accumulate mana, a player must play Land cards. The limitation is that only one Land card can be played per turn. As the game progresses, players will have access to more mana (assuming they played one Land card each turn). For example, a player should have access to one mana on turn one, and two mana on turn two. As the game progresses, players are able to play stronger cards which presumably have high costs. Due to this resource system, there is a natural cadence to the game flow.
The biggest issue with this resource system is that Land cards need to be played within the deck. Traditional strategy dictates that lands should compose about 40% of a deck. This means about 17–18 lands for a 40-card deck and about 24–25 lands for a 60-card deck. This severely limits the actual cards that go into each deck. Basically, 40% of all MTG decks are exactly the same. Additionally, since these Land cards provide no utility besides the accumulation of resources, there are two distinct negative scenarios known as “mana screw” or “mana flood”. Mana screw is when players draw too few Land cards and are unable to play cards efficiently. Mana flood is when players draw an abundance of Land cards and run out of actual cards to play. These issues are prevalent enough, that a substantial number of matches are decided just based off mana issues alone. There are methods to alleviate these issues via deckbuilding, but they remain a prominent problem in competitive play even today.
Hearthstone (Simple Mana System)
Many consider Hearthstone to be the TCG genre’s most popular game today. It came out in 2014, but still remains the most played TCG. The resource system in Hearthstone is much simpler than MTG’s. In this system, players gain one mana crystal automatically at the start of each turn. Players spend these mana crystals to play cards. Essentially, think of MTG’s system, but you’re GUARANTEED one mana each turn.
What draws modern TCG players to Hearthstone is its simplicity. This resource system reinforces that concept. If a player has enough mana, then they can play certain cards. Hearthstone has the same sense of game progression that MTG does. The added bonus is that the player doesn’t necessarily need to ever track their resources. The game automates this completely within the client.
There are two main issues present with Hearthstone’s resource system. The first problem is that this resource system would only work for a digital game. Physical card games could never replicate this resource system. It would be quite easy to lose track of how much mana was already used. Additionally, I argue that this simple mana system is barely a resource system. There is no strategy involved when utilizing this system. Players do not have to consider mana at all during the deckbuilding phase. All players have to do is consider whether their decks have a smooth curve. At least with MTG’s land mana system, one would have to consider how to effectively balance between Land cards and actual cards. The complete absence of these considerations makes Hearthstone overly simple. In fact, that is a common complaint with Hearthstone, that the game isn’t as complex as its predecessors. Resource management in Hearthstone is non-existent because you know exactly how much mana you’re getting per turn, without needing to plan ahead for it.
Parallel (Banking Energy System)
From the commentary above, it’s obvious that neither MTG nor Hearthstone’s resource systems are optimal. In my opinion, Parallel’s approach towards a resource system is a happy medium between MTG and Hearthstone. In Parallel, each player has the ability to “bank” a single card per turn. This card goes into the power bank, and adds one corresponding energy to the pool. Energy is paid to play cards during the game. If a player banks a card during their turn, then they will also draw one additional card at the end of the turn.
The banking energy system is the best of both worlds. Each player is guaranteed to gain one additional energy each turn if they want. I consider this system much better than MTG’s because there’s no chance for mana screw or mana flood. A player will not fall behind due to the number of resources they do or do not draw. Additionally, the 40 cards that go into any Parallel deck will all contribute towards a deck’s win condition. No longer will players need to include cards that provide no strategic advantage (besides to solely generate resources).
The advantage this system has versus Hearthstone is that it rewards decision making. When a player automatically gains a mana crystal, there isn’t any agency there. However, in Parallel, there is an active choice of either banking or not banking a card. If the player needs more energy for future turns, then it would be wise of them to bank a card this turn. If the player wants to empty out their hand, then there is no need to bank a card. This extra layer of strategy adds more complexity to Parallel’s resource system vs. Hearthstone’s.
There are a variety of resource systems in TCGs. Most provide some key strengths, but also present notable weaknesses. Overall, I think it’s still better for a TCG to have a resource system than to not have one. Magic: The Gathering and Hearthstone represent two separate extremes regarding resource system approach. The one deployed by Parallel is a happy medium that addresses the issues present in other TCGs. Moving forward, I anticipate resource systems to be more nuanced.