Keywording game mechanics is totally normal, if you have an ability that appears often it can make sense to just refer to the effect by a keyword or an icon instead of spelling it out every time.
This tends to make evaluating game pieces faster for experienced players, but does add more front end knowledge that a new player will have to learn. It also opens up valuable real estate on your cards for more text if needed.
The only thing I would caution is just to ensure all of your game pieces are functionally different, if you have two different pieces with different names that do the exact same thing you can probably cut or redesign one of them.
Having more pieces does not make a game better, having the right amount of pieces that all have a purpose and create interesting decisions does. Don't pick an arbitrary number of abilities you have to design (10 abilities, 4 offense, 4 defense, 2 misc) just design interesting abilities that make your game more fun to play and keep the best ones.
Functionally different.
So having Shotgun and Uzi do the exact same thing (double tap) with same damage = no go.
Shotgun and Uzi do double tap, but different damage = preferred.
Am I understanding your point?
And appreciate the detailed response!
Yes, having two pieces that are different in name alone is generally poor design. It increases the number of things people have to remember and consider without adding any strategic depth.
If you had other mechanics that made them distinct, like if the Uzi required one hand to use so you could use another one handed item at the same time while the shotgun was two handed, then they would still be unique pieces.
Another example would be adding weapon subcategories, like "automatic" or "single-fire" and different cards only interacted with one type or the other. Then hypothetically if you had a "Spray and Pray" card that let you play a card twice but only if it was an automatic weapon, even if the shotgun and uzi both have "double tap and deal two damage" the way that they interact with the other game pieces still make them function differently.
I would say in general identical cards with different names or visuals is confusing. But if you just have 10 abilities (with no variation) you could treat them like suits where the border is obviously different with a big icon in the corner, then you could have different art/name combos for flavor reasons.
This is a good idea, if luck doesn't get in the way.
Like, "oh no, he has a revolver and I only have a 9mm, he's going to win if we fight."
(Assuming there's no way to affect what card you draw from the deck).
If you have game mechanics that occur on many cards, you *might* want to reference them using a symbol? (꩜1 instead of Distraction 1, for example)
But if you have quite a few of these (which you do), it can get weird for players remembering what all the symbols are. I'd recommend play testing with both formats.
Keywording game mechanics is totally normal, if you have an ability that appears often it can make sense to just refer to the effect by a keyword or an icon instead of spelling it out every time. This tends to make evaluating game pieces faster for experienced players, but does add more front end knowledge that a new player will have to learn. It also opens up valuable real estate on your cards for more text if needed. The only thing I would caution is just to ensure all of your game pieces are functionally different, if you have two different pieces with different names that do the exact same thing you can probably cut or redesign one of them. Having more pieces does not make a game better, having the right amount of pieces that all have a purpose and create interesting decisions does. Don't pick an arbitrary number of abilities you have to design (10 abilities, 4 offense, 4 defense, 2 misc) just design interesting abilities that make your game more fun to play and keep the best ones.
Functionally different. So having Shotgun and Uzi do the exact same thing (double tap) with same damage = no go. Shotgun and Uzi do double tap, but different damage = preferred. Am I understanding your point? And appreciate the detailed response!
Yes, having two pieces that are different in name alone is generally poor design. It increases the number of things people have to remember and consider without adding any strategic depth. If you had other mechanics that made them distinct, like if the Uzi required one hand to use so you could use another one handed item at the same time while the shotgun was two handed, then they would still be unique pieces. Another example would be adding weapon subcategories, like "automatic" or "single-fire" and different cards only interacted with one type or the other. Then hypothetically if you had a "Spray and Pray" card that let you play a card twice but only if it was an automatic weapon, even if the shotgun and uzi both have "double tap and deal two damage" the way that they interact with the other game pieces still make them function differently.
I would say in general identical cards with different names or visuals is confusing. But if you just have 10 abilities (with no variation) you could treat them like suits where the border is obviously different with a big icon in the corner, then you could have different art/name combos for flavor reasons.
This is a good idea, if luck doesn't get in the way. Like, "oh no, he has a revolver and I only have a 9mm, he's going to win if we fight." (Assuming there's no way to affect what card you draw from the deck). If you have game mechanics that occur on many cards, you *might* want to reference them using a symbol? (꩜1 instead of Distraction 1, for example) But if you have quite a few of these (which you do), it can get weird for players remembering what all the symbols are. I'd recommend play testing with both formats.