Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Archive

Final Rules
I suggest we make a poll in the rules to have the rules and not all mixed up, so here it is, if someone opposes to this poll idea tell me and I hope we gat to a good conclution. The votes will be finished and counted in January the 28th.-- Ratón Bat   Talk 2 me!!  22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Poll moved to Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 1:Rules) ♠  TomasBat   18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good suggestion for how to move on. Could the voting period be shorter than three months?  Should we advertise it somewhere more prominent than this page?  Do we have an action plan for what to do once we have chosen a set of rules?  Certes (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could make the voting setion for two months... I think we should advertise it, but where, I may be old at wikipedia, but I know almost nothing, can you suggest somewhere to advertise it? After we have the rules, we can search where the cards will be created and all that stuff, and then finish the final details-- Ratón Bat   Talk 2 me!!  23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Village Pump may be the place; if not then someone there will suggest a better place. I relegated the proposals from header status to avoid the misleading edit summary of /* Proposal 5 */ (though it was a handy plug for the idea I contributed). Certes (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll see if I can advertise it there.-- Ratón Bat   Talk 2 me!!  23:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Community portal has a Notices section, and the Signpost would be sure to give it a mention. &mdash; PretzelsHii! 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we could post it at the signpost, it would be really hard... but thx for the idea!-- Ratón Bat   Talk 2 me!!  00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Trading card game/Rules proposal 2
Um, A-Class is higher than GA; see WP:1.0/A. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eek! Thanks for the note! ♠  TomasBat   03:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Good luck getting this set up. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no idea too obvious to patent!
I hate to tell you this, but your idea for fun is probably illegal. See Wizards of the Coast (US 5662332) for details; they've sued other companies. If it's any consolation, they were later sued by certain devotees of Melqart/Beelzebub for the copyright on the pentagram (see Olympic symbols), but that's not really helpful to you. Wnt (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have they ever sued a nonprofit? Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:34, 18 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * If this problem exists, it may not apply to proposal 5. Certes (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't be COMPLETELY illegal...looks at Cactus Games and their success with Redemption. And what about Pokemon, Dungeons and Dragons, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Neopets? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yu-Gi-Oh! is Konami's; WotC helped out on Neopets, (i believe) helped out on Pokémon, and owns D&D. —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Dittobori ) 05:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

glaring omission
Surely there should be an all-powerful-but-extremely-rare Jimbo Wales card... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rule 37b states that you can buy this card separately for an extra $100. Certes (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite all-powerful, but here it is. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New idea
Hi guys, I saw this on the Community Bulletin Board, and I had an idea but I'm too lazy / hazy on the concept to write it up as a set of formal rules. Copyright permitting, it would work something like Mille Bornes. Each player tries to improve his/her article (either by playing numbered cards or something more specific) while other players try to stop it. They can play cards to say, block, edit conflict, page protect, and give a 404 error (?), with associated fixes (unblock, reload page, unprotect, restore service) and immunities (Bureaucrat, preferred user (?), admin, robust connection). I think it could be really simple and fun, but naturally you wouldn't want a direct rip-off. What do you think?HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Never realzied it before, but Mille Bornes is actually the same concept as any trading card game, except the game isn't expandable and thre is only one train of cards per player (if I remember correctly). It's definitely an interesting variation compared to what's been proposed thus far. For some reason, though, I'd think multiple articles in play would be more fun. That's just my opinion, though. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Top Trumps
Has anyone considered doing a "Top Trumps: Wikipedia"?

Each card could represent an article with stats that relate to, say, it's current status and edits over the last year. It would obviously go out of date pretty quickly if it became popular as it would draw attention to the articles it depicts, but I think it would be popular. It could raise money for the foundation and advertise the breadth of subjects covered.

Example Card N.B. I've guesstimated these numbers! Yaris678 (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, but Top Trumps owns the copyright on that-- although I'm sure you could ask them to make it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably Winning Moves could make these cards without any input from us since everything here is free. I can see only two issues:
 * They would need the permision of the Foundation to use the Wikipedia name. Obviously it would be fine to say "with information from Wikipedia", but if they wanted to call it "Top Trumps: Wikipedia" and use the logo... that would be something different.
 * Individual cards might need the consent of the party dipicted. I am particularly thinking of fair use images... which might not be fair use in a game, as opposed to an encyclopedia.  Maybe it would apply to other things too.  I don't know.  Some people would probably object if their BLP article was turned into a card game.  Hmmm...
 * Yaris678 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thought
Has anyone actually considered getting out more? Indeed, just getting out once or twice might be helpful...you never know where it might lead. pushthebutton &#x007C;  go on...  &#x007C;  push it!  15:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting out what? ♠  TomasBat   23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting outside. You know - pushing the "off" button on your computer, walking away from the desk and going outside. Call a friend. Go for a beer. Or a glass of wine. Or a milkshake. A walk. A bike ride. Anything. Just get out more. pushthebutton  &#x007C;  go on...  &#x007C;  push it!  20:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I have a tower, not a laptop. Just imagine how much of my time would be wasted here if I had a laptop.... Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon my French, but what the hell does this have to do with anything? —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Dittobori ) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It may just be me, but nothing in that sentence was French. Perhaps that's what's causing your lack of comprehension? pushthebutton  &#x007C;  go on...  &#x007C;  push it!  15:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bloody Christ on the Cross, Pushthebutton, would you please learn idiomatic speech and stop jerking us about for laughs, maybe take some of your own advice? v-_^v —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Dittobori ) 09:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like their toast, fries and kisses. David in DC (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Never forget their letters, David.
 * Jeremy, either I know idiomatic speech and I'm jerking you around, or I don't know idiomatic speech and I'm not. And if you think I should get out more, perhaps you should compare my contributions in the last six months (4 (not including this one) to your 2,500. I'm out...a lot.  pushthebutton  &#x007C;  go on...  &#x007C;  push it!  13:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to add comments like that, which are unhelpful in any way, why don't you just stay out? If you think that this is a waste of time, which is what it sounds like, then just go away. Hi878 (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection
How about certain cards can protect the round, preventing the other player(s) from taking a go? Varying on the strength of the protection they could be out for a certain number of rounds. Do you think this would work? Please leave me a tb template if you reply. Many thanks, Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 12:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice idea, please add it here.-- Raton Bat   Talk 2 me!!  13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wider Audience
If this game is intended to attract new users into editing, it may or may not succeed, I don't know. ("I 1337-Sock-puppeted him for the win!", does not seem like it would sell me on being an active editor, sorry.) But most people, who are not no-lifers, may not dig this so much, and that I have a little confidence in.

How about a game in which you have to build "suits" of articles which can be legitimately connected by links? Rare, powerful cards would be title pages of rather broad subjects, while more common cards would be the smaller articles on more specific subjects. This is about how real people see Wikipedia (constructively). It's a source of information. I personally want dibs on any cards relating to epigenetics. (I will hunt down and skull-noogie anyone who gets in my way!!!!!) --TheLastWordSword (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Format poll
Okay, obviously the method we're using to select rules isn't working. Folks who have already voted won't bother reading the new sets of rules (not to mention won't bother to retract a vote in favor of a new set), and folks aren't flocking over here to review sets of rules even when we make a global announcement on the news template.

I'm proposing we try something slightly different--

Let's vote on a very basic format, and then once we agree on that much, we can suggest rules to add. Each rule can be proposed on its own once we come to an agreement here, and we can discuss each rule on a case-by-case basis.

I've listed some example games to compare each format to. Some are actually board games instead of trading card games, but this is just to illustrate the concept. Each of these concepts can easily be implemented as a trading card game.


 * Format 1: Battle style. Each player plays good cards on his own articles and bad cards on his opponents' articles. Compare to: Magic: The Gathering, Pokemon Trading Card Game


 * Format 2: Mission style. All players are assigned a role and must complete their mission before other players can do so. Compare to: Secret Mission Risk - I'm at a loss for already-implemented examples; this can easily be done with or without "bad cards".


 * Format 3: Race style. Players concentrate solely on their own wiki and bad cards happen as random events. Compare to: Life, Chutes and Ladders


 * Format 4: Disaster style. Random bad events happen, and players must work together to save the wiki. Winning/losing is collective. Compare to: Jumanji, Shark Attack

Once we decide on what format we're interested in, THEN we can start proposing one rule at a time. Please voice your preference, and any constructive or critical comments are welcome. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Voice your preferences and any comments

 * Support all four options. I have a strong preference toward the battle style, but any of them are acceptable. I'm not too crazy about the race style, personally, as it doesn't really encourage player-to-player interaction . Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC) (retracted portion on 18:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC))


 * I think that any would work, other than the third. With a race style, as you said, there wouldn't be much interaction.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually, I'll retract what I said about there being little interaction in a race style. The Game of Life (the newer versions) incorporate player-to-player action by assigning occupations to players, who receive the payments. We could possibly do something along those lines, although I'm still not too crazy about the race style. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't think that there is enough interaction in race games; careers in life still don't provide enough.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go visit the members of this project who appear in the related category and let them know we're holding this poll...that might help draw results a bit faster. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support No. 1 and No. 4 I think that the last thing we should do is try and promote an "I-own-the-article" attitude in the game, since that's the exact opposite of the idea of Wikipedia. However, this will be a card game, perhaps like Pokemon or Yu-gi-oh, and that might be more familiar to non-wikipedians. Yet the pro "I-own-the-article" attitude might seem somewhat alien to Wikipedians, and might send others the wrong message. Perhaps we could have a combo of both the battle idea and the collective idea (sort of a Monopoly with Pokemon) and reach a middle ground.-- Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 01:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully support option 1 as it's familiar, simple, and proven to work. I also very much like option 4, but I'd like to more detail than we currently have to fully be on board with it. As for the other two options, I can't see them working to well, particularly considering this will be a card game rather than a board game. -Oxguy3&#91;dubious&#32; – discuss&#93; 01:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe I can elaborate some for you on option four--


 * In Jumanji (a board game), disasters build up one by one, and players must work together in order to end each disaster. Eventually, a disaster that hasn't been acted upon quickly enough becomes irreversible, and the buildup of ten irreversible disasters means everyone loses. By reversing a disaster, a player advances his token toward the finish line.


 * In Shark Attack!, the flow is radically different-- players work together to advance not only their own token but everyone's token, and any players that do not advance quickly enough get eaten and eliminated from the game. The object in that game is to be the only man who is left standing at the end, although it is possible for all remaining players to get eaten at the same time.


 * Even though both of these are board game, keep in mind the spaces on the boards in these two games are synonymous with points, which are the deciding factor of the winner in every trading card game I'm familiar with. An example of how we could implement this-- and there are certainly other ways to do this:


 * There could be a "disaster" pile (or one per player)-- this could easily be either a canned deck or an expandable and customizeable deck. Let's suppose a card from the disaster pile is turned over at the beginning of each round, or turn, and players must come up with a means to clear up the disaster. The disasters would inflict a certain damage to each editor that tackles them, and the editor would inflict a certain level of correction toward the disaster. If resolved, the player who resolved the disaster would score a point, and any unresolved disasters would carry on to the next player, who would take a shot at clearing up both that disaster and whatever new disasters arose on his turn.


 * This model clearly could use some balancing yet, but that's why we're all here-- to make a well-balanced game. Hopefully that clears up your question about how that could be carried out. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As most of the people who voiced, I like option 1 and 4. 1 because as many said, people is familiarized (however you write it) with it. The bad thing is that it would look too common and it may not look like something new which atracks lots of attention. Thats why I choose 4, it´s almost an unknown idea, and seems good. What I would is to make 2 games, one as option 4 and the other as option 1, but I think we should make one first, the option 4, and after some while do the option 1. Have I explained well?-- Raton Bat   Talk 2 me!!  01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your thinking, but let's think about creating a second game after we discover we have a market for the first one. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, I know, lol-- Raton Bat   Talk 2 me!!  21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose option 1 as I believe it romanticizes vandalism and destracts from Wikipedia's goal of working collectively to improve articles on the encyclopedia. Of the remainder, I prefer option 4 the most because these games tend to be fairly dynamic as well as emphasizing cooperation towards a common goal (I am reminded of the Battlestar Galactica game as an additional example).  Antony-22 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Option 1 would be the easiest. Option 4 would be more of a challenge, but would be excellent if done well; plus, it's got the Wikipedia spirit of collaboration encrusted in it's gameplay structure. I would say to go for option 4; in any case we can then go back to option 1 if it gets too complicated. ♠  TomasBat   01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say if no one objects by the end of the month, we proceed with details of the game, like which decks are canned/expandable, what sorts of things happen on a turn, what generates points, etc. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I second the motion.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 04:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I third it. :) -- Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 02:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)