Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Programming => Topic started by: guest509 on January 27, 2012, 03:57:10 AM
-
It is a bit odd to make card games for a Roguelike competition. I did one last year for the 7DRL competition. It was very low in production value but had some interesting concepts. The rules were very hard to discern though. I think most people actually played the game incorrectly. I just wrote them too quickly.
This year I plan to make another one. This time I'll be putting the game into a virtual table top so you can play the game on your computer without having to print out and cut out the cards. You can still print and cut if you want. I'll include the files and directions for doing so. But since this is a computer game competition I figure releasing a computer game is probably the most appropriate thing to do. Plus I can include hundreds of cards this way and not worry about the cost of printing and cutting for the end user.
One issue is that there will not be hardly any rules enforced for the game. This is an issue. You'll actually have to read the rules. I'm only giving you the components to drag around the desk top. Maybe some dice rollers (we'll see). The rest is a bit beyond me.
In the past I've put some effort in to making a basic digital RL and also hacking an existing one to add features (like arrow key support in PRIME). I've even toyed with the ToME engine. I'm just not much of a coder anymore. I was in the 1990's, but anymore my coding efforts fizzle. And failure is NOT FUN!
My efforts to build card and board games tend to find much greater success. Many have come to fruition and some are pretty fun. So I'm going to stick to it. Banging my head against a wall trying to make a good traditional RL has just been too frustrating.
So what do you think? Can a roguelike inspired card game with a digital interface be considered an roguelike? It'll have all the elements. Random content, item interactions, etc... And also what do people think about the value of actually succeeding in creating something? At what point do you sort of realize that coding is just not your forte? No matter how much you'd like to write the next big roguelike?
EDIT: Here is last years version. I do not think it's that good. But it was a good start.
http://uploading.com/files/21a12f55/Rogue%2B-%2BThe%2BCardlike.rar/
-
Great!
This sounds very interesting and innovative, and I'm also a big fan of poker and Magic The Gathering.
Do you know Shalandar?
It was an old MTG Microprose videogame where you were a wizard with your deck and wandered fighting other wizards (everyone with a different deck), buying/selling cards, and so on.
It was so awesome many people still play it (in a somewhat improved version.. not much because some restrictions were hard-coded, btw if you're interested check slightlymagic forums).
-
Huh. Never heard of it. Maybe I'll check it out.
-
Huh. Never heard of it. Maybe I'll check it out.
http://www.slightlymagic.net/wiki/Installation_Guide_and_User_Manual
Have fun ;-)
-
So what do you think? Can a roguelike inspired card game with a digital interface be considered an roguelike? It'll have all the elements. Random content, item interactions, etc... And also what do people think about the value of actually succeeding in creating something? At what point do you sort of realize that coding is just not your forte? No matter how much you'd like to write the next big roguelike?
It's a roguelike-like at least ;) And something fun and different from the other releases. Variety is always good.
I've realised I'll never be a good coder myself, which is why I gave up on making from-scratch games in FreePascal and starting playing with the T-Engine. That way I don't have to bother with the coding for save games, inventories, display, mouse support, etc. It may be easy for some, but it gets in the way of making a game for me. Of course it also restricts what I can achieve overall... But I'm happy making little gimmicky games, so that's all fine.
I would suggest trying to partner with someone to help do the coding side of your card game. I'm sure someone would be willing to help out. Post on the T-Engine forums if you're still interested in using it.
-
In the past I've put some effort in to making a basic digital RL and also hacking an existing one to add features (like arrow key support in PRIME).
This feature is already in along with configurable keybindings.
So what do you think? Can a roguelike inspired card game with a digital interface be considered an roguelike? It'll have all the elements. Random content, item interactions, etc... And also what do people think about the value of actually succeeding in creating something? At what point do you sort of realize that coding is just not your forte? No matter how much you'd like to write the next big roguelike?
At least partially a roguelike. I think it is fair game to enter 7DRL Challenge with this.
One cannot get everything by definition. It appears you excel at careful game design. You understand implications of rules and their long term consequences. Keep at it.
Do not think non-coding developers are undervalued. David Ploog of Stone Soup team is contributing with similar set of skills you have. Players sometimes do fling mud at him for not doing the programming while still making important design decisions though. I have no idea how Crawl team responds but if someone would accuse Psiweapon of not helping using similar "arguments" that would surely trigger my wrath.
-
So what do you think? Can a roguelike inspired card game with a digital interface be considered an roguelike? It'll have all the elements. Random content, item interactions, etc... And also what do people think about the value of actually succeeding in creating something? At what point do you sort of realize that coding is just not your forte? No matter how much you'd like to write the next big roguelike?
I think Roguelike needs to have a roguelike map divided into squares (or something similar, like hexes or HyperRogue's hyperbolic tesselation) where locations are tactically important (it is hard to exactly define this, but Decker and Desktop Dungeons fail this as tactics are completely different). But I think all good games related to roguelikes are welcome in the 7DRL challenge anyway.
-
Adding a map grid is one of the major additions to this version of Cardlike. You draw a map tile (square cards) and lay it down next to your Hero. Then you can move there if you want. More advanced rules allow you to peak into the room and see if you want to enter. But that's about the extent that manuever has on combat. Also if playing with a group other Heroes can give you stuff if you are adjacent. I could easily add more depth in a board gamey version. This version is trying for portability. I want everything to work as cards with exception being maybe a pawn (or mini fig if you have one) to show the hero location.
@Ancient - Arrow key support is awesome thanks. It may have been my request that prompted the change. I remember trying to tackle it awhile back and just quitting in frustration. I'll download the most recent version now and get to playing. BTW Prime would make a fantastic card/board game.
-
There is an old boardgame I have tried to redesign a few times, its called 'The Sorcerer's Cave'. My redesigns mostly consist of redesigning the illustrations and adding additional cards because the core mechanics are perfect in there simplicity but the game pieces are fairly limited.
Its basically a simple dungeon crawling adventure for any number of players and shares some similarities with Roguelikes:
You uncover a random map segments each turn.
You encounter monsters that are either hostile or can be approached to join your party.
You're characters can carry a limited amount and treasure is weighted
you collect magic artifacts to boost your fighting power.
It is pretty fatalistic and stupid choices lead to death.
You should check it out and buy a copy if you can. I have bought three copies from charity shops over the years.
Heres a link http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1202/the-sorcerers-cave (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1202/the-sorcerers-cave)
-
@Darren - I just spent the last couple of hours fiddling with my own module in T-Engine. It reminds me why I switched from Computer Engineering to History and Law so long ago. It's not that the concepts are too complex or that I cannot fathom the code. I just don't enjoy it. At all. And I think hobby game creation should be about pleasure. The real rub here is that I do not enjoy the actual playing of board/card games as much as I enjoy video games. It's just the creation of board/card games I enjoy so much. Go figure. :-)
Edit: You know I hear that many developers do not actually play their own games much...Does that seem odd to anyone? I guess the act of creation and the enjoyment of the end product are totally different experiences.
-
@Hamish - The influence of Sorcerer's Cave and the other Dungeon! style boardgames can clearly be seen in my design. Yet I've never actually owned a copy of them.
-
@Hamish - Hey man you can download a video game version of that game. It's a bit rough to play but hey it's there.
http://skookumpete.com/
About 2/3 the way down the page. Runs under windows (but not 64 bit).
-
@Jo
Making card / tabletop games is EXTREMELY FUN. Rewarding. Sometimes playing them is more fun, sometimes it's less. Sometimes your friends get all hooked and you spend a whole schoolyear playing it, sometimes it fares okay, then you make a second version and nobody is interested.
Keep at it. In my eyes, your cardlike was the most formally clever idea presented at the ARRP. Making games rocks. Whatever kind.
@Ancient
Thanks. So. Fucking. Much. 8) I'll write many, many, many text chunks. And do the research. I promise.
-
@Jo
Making card / tabletop games is EXTREMELY FUN. Rewarding. Sometimes playing them is more fun, sometimes it's less. Sometimes your friends get all hooked and you spend a whole schoolyear playing it, sometimes it fares okay, then you make a second version and nobody is interested.
Same here, I remeber since primary school (until the high school) all my mates have been playing the games I created. Many rpgs and also one tabletop tactics (+cards) game. We played them also during lessons, I remember there was a dumb professor who always got angry because she thinked we were playing for money (dices = money) hahaha.
Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
-
Jo, the version with new UI stuff is not out yet! I apologize for misleading. Current changes are nice but gameplay is barely touched. Target release date is late February or early March. Yes, it was you who brought the issue up at the announcement thread.
-
I tried to find the game you made for last years 7DRL comp but the link no longer works. Any chance of makinf it available somewhere? I'd love to see it.
-
Sure. It's kind of embarrassingly bad in hindsight. Many typos. Some wonky rules. But I'll link it. It was on megaupload for a bit. But that site went down. Government crack down.
http://uploading.com/files/21a12f55/Rogue%2B-%2BThe%2BCardlike.rar/
Lemme know if that doesn't work. Never used this site before.
-Jo
-
Going back to the Zero FPS genre of game design has been fantastic. Coding was just beating me down.
I'm putting together a list of the content I might want in my card game and have seriously rediscovered the joy of design. Secret Doors? Yes. Character Classes? Maybe. Keep the old combat system? NO!
Simplify without dumbing down. What a challenge! And fun.
It is surprising how much rogueness you can keep in a card game. Randomly generated dungeons with randomly spawned beasties are easy to produce via card mechanics. Card drawing makes a great RNG. Also most of the interesting choices to be made in a roguelike are there. Which item to use when. What to discard. Fight or Flee. Then you add the Multiplayer competitive cooperative element unique to table top gaming. It all just seems to flow.
It's turning into a real love fest up in here!
Influential for me is this boardgame called Dungeon Quest. If you read some of the reviews you will see people loving the fact that each game is unique and lamenting the painful YASD's.
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/71061/dungeonquest-third-edition
-Jo
-
Thanks for sending me that link, It looks like fun. I'll have to get my friends to have a go at it with me. or maybe I should wait for mark 2 :¬)
I think i saw on rec games RL that you were looking to use graphics for this version. I think you should stick with the ascii, it looked great, a nice nod to its roots. Maybe add colour though to spice things up and aid identification of cards.
-
I design games and make mods as a hobby, and I think another roguelike card game is a great idea. I don't know what you use to make the game but I wanted to point you at this: http://www.nand.it/nandeck/
It is, simply put, the greatest program in every way for tabletop game designers (and free).
-
I design games and make mods as a hobby, and I think another roguelike card game is a great idea. I don't know what you use to make the game but I wanted to point you at this: http://www.nand.it/nandeck/
It is, simply put, the greatest program in every way for tabletop game designers (and free).
Awesome, thank you.
-
Yes thank you very much. I was writing my own...not pretty!
@Hamish - Like many roguelikes there will be a text version. The reason being many will want a cheaper print out cost.
-
Edit: You know I hear that many developers do not actually play their own games much...Does that seem odd to anyone? I guess the act of creation and the enjoyment of the end product are totally different experiences.
I can understand that in the non-roguelike non-procedurally built world (it's sooooooo tedious), but I personally play my own game more than any other, and I enjoy it. Wonder what other roguedevs do...?
-
I play Prime a lot. I develop a game because it appeals to me and is fun. This tendency is strong enough to warrant picking up slowly developing project or in BOSS' case to port it because I liked the manual and wanted to play it.
As far as I know POWDER was born precisely because its author wanted a NetHack on his GBA.
Writing programs for the sake of writing programs would be solving problems on websites like http://spoj.pl. Creating a roguelike not to play it seems weird. Especially if you are not paid. I do not have motivation resource points to successfully pull off such a stunt.
-
I was writing my own...not pretty!
Yes nanDECK will make your life so much easier, I remember the old days of trying to make cards in MSPaint. I only wish this program had been around when I was in high school!
-
I've come to a key design decision with Cardlike. I've started putting together an outline of the rules and such. Note that for the 7DRL I will be concentrating on making it into a video game. So I don't think I'm cheating by starting early...
Anyway the core of the game is the combat system. I disliked how it was handled last time. Every enemy you didn't kill rolled on a chart to see if you die off. It felt wonky. So I'd like to go with a stat driven system like most RPG's. But in a card game you can do it a little differently. You can go with a result based system over a stat based system..
For example. When you pull a dragon card you see it's stats and hitpoints and what not and start rolling the appropriate dice to see what happens. Roll to hit and damage. Modify for skill, armor and weapon. This is what roguelikes, dungeons and dragons and final fantasy do, btw.
OR you can have each monster have a different effect on the player based on a dice roll. For example when you pull a dragon the card will say "Roll a Die: 1-4 = The dragon blasts you with red hot fire. Take 2 fire hits. 5-6 The dragon swipes at you with man sized claws. Take 2 hits." Each monster would also have a 'death number' that the player has to roll in order to vanquish the beast. A dragon would be a 6, of course. Probably a red six (fire immunity).
With heavy armor you could ignore rolls of 4-5-6 (or perhaps just ignore 3 hits per turn), with light armor ignore rolls of 6 (or one hit maybe). Ring of Fire Resistance would allow you to ignore any fire damage hits. A Sword of Dragon Slaying would allow you to roll 3 times vs Dragons. A shield of reflection would allow you to bounce back 2 ranged hits worth of damage allowing you two free attack rolls. As you can see one can get very creative with this and all of the stuff is written right there on the card. It can get complex but the complexity comes in small doses because you'll only be getting a card or two per turn.
The strength here is you do not have to teach your girlfriend how to play an RPG. She just tosses a die and sees "Oh man I got clawed!" So a result approach will make it more approachable. Easy to learn.
Using stats, however, would enable me to achieve that very roguelike quality of having monsters behave just like players. They'd use the same rules. This would allow allies and what not. Hell you could even play as one of the monsters if you'd like. It also makes it easier to make minor and obvious distinctions. As in 'this monster has more defense'. A result orientated approach would make it a bit tougher to distinguish between monsters at first glance but it allows a certain uniqueness and narrative quality to the game play.
So what say you all? Traditional RPG style combat with roll to hit and armor class and what not? It's tried and true. Or an easier to play but hard to design experimental result orientated approach?
I think both will be just as easy to program when the 7DRL rolls around.
-
I vote for result-oriented "creature action" rolls rather than stats.
-
I second, the creature actions over stats. It plays to the strengths of board games much more.
modifying die rolls is a pain and best left for computers. Monster specific event tables sounds like much more fun to me, especially if you add evocative descriptions.
"1- The ghouls putrefying stench spoils your rations, shuffle them to the bottom of the deck"
-
@Hamish/Psi
Yeah. It looks like I'll end up going that way. I find it best to avoid anything that feels like math. Any sort of adding or subtracting turns off a certain number of people.
So even a stat system would not have any adding. For example should stats be Att, Def, Mag, Move, Life
Att = Number of dice rolled to hit.
Def = Number the opponent needs to roll in order to hit.
Mag = Number of dice rolled to hit with magic, and number opponent needs to roll to hit you with magic.
Move = Number of spaces one can move. Also affects trap dodge and fleeing.
Life = Number of hits player/monster can take before dying.
There's no real math there. Just recognizing on the dice which are hits. The math comes when modifying stats with items. Wand of blasting gives a magic attack + 3. The Super Sword gives + 5 dice. Get 3 or 4 cards that modify stats and things start to get a little convoluted for the average player.
With a result based approach I can avoid this somewhat. But not completely.
-
Other design questions that have popped up are these:
1. To have hit points or not? The original concept was that each hit forced the player to discard a card (item). There were some complaints about not having hit points. I think I'm going to go without hit points for now. The reason being that in the new rules when an enemy hits you and you discard a card the cards will build up at the feet of that enemy. So this simple mechanic increases the reward for other players to try their hand at defeating that enemy. This can get really tense if you drop the Amulet of Yendor. So HP for now. Sorry to those that requested it.
2. To have a map or not? There was no map originally. The idea was that this game should be able to be played in a space the size of the tray table on an airplane. In coach. Anything bigger and I might as well create an entire dungeon crawling board game with pawns to track movement, buckets of dice, etc...I've decided to add an 'advanced rules' section where setting up the map is viable. I'll also add map tile cards allowing you to do this. It will add some complexity to the game as players will start out their turn drawing a tile and trying to place it next to their pawn. It will also allow less player interactivity. Without a map all players are assumed to be close by and able to help if needed (or bribed).
Not all tabletop developers agree, obviously, but one of the goals of a good tabletop game is the facilitation of social interaction. Not to the point of Dungeons and Dragons or some other role playing game. But players should be playing against and/or with the other players. They should be able to help or hinder the other players in some way.
This facilitates what, for me, makes table top games great. That mighty alliance between friends that comes apart when the Amulet is found. The wife that helped her husband with the dragon but then was killed by a trap in the next room before he could help her. The negotiation. The pleading. The hurt feelings.
Computer roguelikes are great. They can give you the feeling of outsmarting the Dungeon Master (we call him the RNG in this circle). But even the mightiest ascension does not lead to your friend bitching at you 20 years later because you back stabbed him in a game of Risk in high school? <--- True Story. His name is Jeff Aichele and he still guns for me over all others in our weekly FPS frag fest.
-
It should be noted that this game has gone too far for it to be considered for this year's 7DRL. It would fell like cheating a bit. No biggie. I'll just do something different for the competition this year. :-)
It has become increasingly 'cardlike' while designing anyway. The initial idea was to do the card game and then make a computer game of it for the 7DRL competition. I'll still release an interface for you to play with your computer. A simple click and drag affair. But certain design decisions that make for a good card game make for a crappy computer game.
Some examples include a reduction of 'fiddliness' (stat tracking, math, hp, etc...) that computer games thrive on. Also certain decisions meant to facilitate multiplayer interaction loom large in the game and do not translate well to computer.
Live and learn.
-
[SNIP]
Computer roguelikes are great. They can give you the feeling of outsmarting the Dungeon Master (we call him the RNG in this circle). But even the mightiest ascension does not lead to your friend bitching at you 20 years later because you back stabbed him in a game of Risk in high school? <--- True Story. His name is Jeff Aichele and he still guns for me over all others in our weekly FPS frag fest.
Oh hahahahahahahahahahah X_DDD Man that's so good. Well, not good at all actually, but fun.
-
Oh yes dude. It is without a doubt my favorite gaming moment.
Step 1: Convince friend an alliance would go well for both of us. Move troops off his border.
Step 2: Friend moves his troops off your border and starts fighting another player.
Step 3: Cash in reinforcement cards. Attack weak border. Take his capitol.
We were playing with capitols. Take their capitol and they are knocked out of the game. You now control their troops. I let him remain in control of his forces as my vassal (i.e. bitch).
So great. To this day I like to say, "Well why don't we just make a mutually beneficial alliance."
EDIT: You guys probably don't follow boardgaming trends, but recently with the rise of Euro style board games there is a de-emphasis on player interaction. My philosophy is that you should always be playing the other players. Though I do like to include solo rules to my games.
-Jo
-
EDIT: You guys probably don't follow boardgaming trends, but recently with the rise of Euro style board games there is a de-emphasis on player interaction. My philosophy is that you should always be playing the other players. Though I do like to include solo rules to my games.
I think that's a mis-characterization. The de-emphasis has been on premature player elimination. I have a fairly substantial board game collection (250+ now...) and still buy 10-20 new games a year. I especially have a soft spot for the games of Uwe Rosenburg and Vlaada Chvatil, and the Alea big- and medium-box games. Even in games like 7 Wonders and the deck building games (Dominion, Thunderstone, Quarriors, etc), where you're effectively playing multi-player solitaire, there's enough griefing that goes on to qualify as interaction -- and in fact, the social interaction trumps the mechanical interaction ten fold.
But that's just tangental. Continued success on your card game! :)
-
Hmm... that's interesting. I had heard otherwise. I have not gotten too much into many of the newer games to be honest. Sticking most with the older titles like Shogun, Axis and Allies, etc... thanks for the heads up.
-
Regarding joy of programming/playing: I play games for fun and challenge, but programming good games is also fun and challenging. And nothing beats designing a game, programming it, playing it, and discovering that I have created something great. I have won my Hydra Slayer several times with different races, and I think this was very fun. Interestingly, I have also tried to determine what set of weapon is the best for fighting very big hydras in Hydra Slayer. This was done with a program, and, to my surprise, the best sets found were very different that I have thought, apparently very sophisticated (they included 17-divisors, complemented by smaller divisors and meteorite blades in extremely smart ways, so even if one of the divisors caused doubling, you could later use a combination of other weapons which could fix it; and I thought that small divisors are generally better that larger ones). I am happy that there is so much emergent complexity. Now, I could set new Hydra Slayer challenges for myself, but there are so more other challenges to do: other roguelikes to beat, new roguelikes to write. So I mostly concentrate on writing Vapors of Insanity and NotEye, and on playing other good roguelikes from time to time.
Re rolls vs stats. Stats, and calculations behind them, this is an important design decision. There are lots of games which show you with lots of numerical stats (accuracy, dodging as a response to accuracy, damage, armor reduction and protection as a response to damage, armor penetration and critical hit chance as a response to armor protection, luck as a response to critical hit chance, all this split into 7 types of damage, whatever). Too many to think about, and there is no reason to have that in a board game, and even in a computer game usefulness of all that is dubious if the hidden or difficult mathematical rules make it hard to tell what weapon is the best against the given enemy. I have made some sophisticated rules in VoI and I am happy with them (experience system based on Elo's ranking, hit/dodge chances based on Cauchy distrubution instead of dice rolling which is overused in computer RPGs for no good reason, and "weapon class" as a third important feature in addition to damage and accuracy). But I am even more happy with clear but complex mechanics of Hydra Slayer. In a computer game, the developer has a choice of either creating a system based on real life intutions or beautiful mathematical principles, or something simple: as shown by some games by Jeff Lait and Darren Grey, and also Desktop Dungeons and Mage's Guild, you can get a very good game by making the battle system easy to understand, which goes as far as removing not only stats, but also dodge chance, and even HP. In case of a board/card game, you cannot get realism, since it is impossible to perform the necessary calculations, so aim for simplicity.
Hit points: As I pointed out above, you can avoid hit points and obtain a good game. The idea to lose cards instead of losing hit points sounds very nice, an original approach instead of the overused system.
Map: having a map certainly makes it more roguelike. But to have a game that can be played without a big table is as worthy goal as to have a roguelike. Maybe a small map, similar to those found in these pocket magnetic chess sets? Could be nice, but also would make it impossible to produce... (although these pocket magnetic chess sets are cheap, so maybe you could use them, have black pieces for dungeon generation and white pieces for monsters and players, or something like that, I like new games like Arimaa which reuse the pieces of old games in novel ways instead of requiring new sets).
Alliances in board/card games: I think that, if you have a game with more than two players, all of whom wants to obtain the highest score in the end, and where you directly fight other players, then this tends to make the actual rules of the game irrelevant, as everything is reduced to forming alliances and backstabbing, like in the classic board game Diplomacy. If you like such things, then I guess it is OK, but I suppose it gets boring after some times. The card game Dominion has cards which allow you attacking other players, but (IIRC) whenever you attack, you attack all the other players at once. This prevents it from becoming a new version of Diplomacy. BTW I think that Dominion is a very good game, and it has a certain very roguelike element: at the beginning of a game, card types which will be available are chosen randomly and shown, which corresponds to random equipment generation (just like in roguelikes you need to adapt your strategy to the equipment you find, in Dominion you adapt your strategy to the cards available, every game is different).
Low direct interaction in most recent Euro style board games is one solution, but indeed, I think it is a rather boring one (I think Dominion qualifies and I like it very much, because every game is different, but I find most other such games not very interesting). This can be solved by having only two players, only two teams, like in Bridge (2 vs 2), Mafia (informed minority vs uninformed majority), or a cooperative game.
-
Haven't gone through the whole thread, but I saw mention of dice rolling.
Be wary of how much rolling is involved. Dice-fests can turn off lots of players. Especially for solitaire play.
Try looking up Island of D 2 and Dungeons of D on boardgamegeek.com to see how things like random values can be incorporated into the main game cards themselves. They do a very nice job of having a deep and intricate game by only using cards and the same cards to do several mechanics of the game.
This helps keep set up quick and simple as well as keeping the game play smooth and flowing.
As far as stat tracking goes, I would shoot for some sort of stat card/sheet that the player could use some sort of token or counter to keep track of as opposed to paper/pencil. Things like discarding your cards in your hand instead of hit points is also a nice idea. It is what David used in Island/Dungeons of D and it worked very well. Gives the game a nice, somewhat, abstract feeling.
-
Yeah Legend I've checked those games out. They are cool. I recommend them for all people to check out. Take a break from the computer for a bit.
As far as tracking status, like health and what not, that is not appropriate for a card game. Computer games and desktop RPGs maybe. But it goes against my tabletop game philosophy of low fiddliness. Even with a token I think it's just not fun...so I'll be going with discards to track 'health.' The most I want to have is a deck of cards, perhaps 2 decks if I split up monsters and treasure (unlikely) and 1 die. The advanced game will require a pawn to track where the player is on the map (the basic game will be mapless so as to be played on an area the size of an airline tray table).
The design is pretty settled now. Or at least the engine is. Doing gameplay testing now and will soon be getting the layout of the cards nailed down.
I hope to post some card prototypes here in the next few days for critique.