Nalpha: Gimmick versus Optimization

I have been working on a few games concurrently, and one of them is a genre-mash-up somewhere between a TCG and a tabletop RPG.  For the sake of discretion, let's give this project a codename: Nalpha.

So, I've been working on this project for a couple weeks, and there was a bit of a gimmicky hook to the play action; the cards were used in a physical way as a game element that cards usually aren't.  Yes, I know I'm being guarded with my description, but bear with me.  I wouldn't probably be talking openly about this game at all, if not for the developmental crossroads I find myself at.


There are other things that make the game unique and - in my estimation - fun and interesting, but this is particular facet makes handling the cards feel different.

There are a couple downsides to the format, however.  For one, this implementation requires special play surfaces (a mat of sorts) that both takes up a fair amount of table-space, as well as mandates extra hardware (the mat itself) to play the game.  These in turn reduce the portability of the game; it is not very travel-friendly.

One of the things I love about TCGs is the ability to throw a deck in your backpack, purse, or pocket.  It's not a cheesy "travel-version" of the "real game;"  the real game is travel friendly.  You can take it to school, or the coffee shop, or a friend's house easily.  Pull out your deck and in under a minute you are playing the game.

I could redesign the game components (without changing game mechanics) to address all of these problems, and even give a few intuitive improvements to some cards.  But if I do so, then I eliminate the physical hook that gives you the "Whoa" impression when you first see the game.

Ultimately, I think either format will feel similar once you have learned the game (with a slight edge to the "redesigned" Nalpha), so it comes down to other factors.  The question I'm grappling with is simple, really:

Is having a strong (visual/physical, not mechanical) gimmick more or less valuable than designing components for optimum playability?

Marketing is a factor, but fidelity to the player (not merely the consumer) is important, too.  This question was posed in a different way by Arcade over at Learning Game Design, which I posited my two cents on.  But now that it's my crisis and not his, I'm finding it more difficult to sort out the issue.