Post by kefke on Nov 28, 2018 6:47:50 GMT
To be honest, I'm pretty hesitant about posting my idea here. In the past, the communities I've run into were pretty harsh, especially with my more "out there" ideas. A whole new card type? That's pretty "out there". That said, of all the things I've come up with, I know that Superstitions are the furthest away from where I want them to be. They're too rules-dense to put an explanation on the card (and I've tried), but the concept can't really be simplified and still do what I want it to do. Right now, my best idea on that front is to make a rules card explaining the mechanic. Even then, though, I'm just not sure how to balance them, and my set's not far enough along for playtesting them. I've asked my friends, but the most common response I get is just an "oh, that's cool" without much discussion. So, I'm opening myself up to get shouted down (but hopefully not).
Some of my best and worst ideas both come from reading the R&D team's articles. Sometimes they say things I disagree with or take as a challenge, sometimes they make me think about design from an angle I hadn't before, and sometimes they just mention something from their creative process that sticks with me. That last is where Superstitions come from. In one of the articles about the design on Future Sight, Aaron Forsythe mentioned the origins of Steamflogger Boss, and how it started out as a "Splorg Lord" before it was pointed out that just having a one-off creature type didn't make the card feel from the future. The article listed a bunch of proposals that were offered for abilities referencing non-existant mechanics that would make the card feel like it was from a game in a very different state than the at-that-time current one. The one that stuck with me was "Whenever you activate a possess ability of a Splorg, you may ignore all Superstitions this turn."
It got me wondering what a Superstition might be, and why you might want to ignore it. Much like I'm sure you're wondering why I'm rambling, and when you'll have some crunch to evaluate. Don't worry, this is where I get to the point. I decided that a Superstition was a new card type, that it stayed in play, and that it affected the rules of the game in some way. That left me with how it affected the rules - which was obviously by imposing restrictions, and why you'd play one - which I decided was because it comes with a reward. Then, because choices are always more interesting than having your hands tied, and also to differentiate it from an Enchantment, I decided that the rules on a Superstition are optional, but also come with a penalty for breaking them. The result looked something like this.
Actually, that's after quite a bit of tweaking, so the result looked like a less polished and more clunky version of that.
The rules for Superstitions right now are basically like this.
Overall, I'm happy with the idea of Superstitions, and I think that they're a playable mechanic as is, but they don't feel intuitive. I can tell that they're still rough around the edges, and there's a lot of rules to internalize. To an extent, if I'm creating a new kind of card, that's going to be unaviodable. As it stands, though, by complexity alone this whole mechanic should probably be at rare, and would definitely break the game's flow. I'm not sure how much I can minimize that without losing a lot of what makes the idea unique (and I definitely don't want to pitch the idea and just make them enchantments). I'm not even sure yet where the balance should be between the P/T rating and the condition imposed. Obviously, bigger hassles should come with bigger rewards, but with the symmetrical approach I'm using, bigger rewards also means a bigger penalty for not following the rules, which makes tighter restrictions more of a gamble. On the other hand, conditions that are too easy to meet are effectively just an Enchantment with a condition. Players need a reason/chance to sometimes violate Superstitions, while still having the rewards be worth the penalties. It's a tough thing to design around.
All in all, while I like them, I think right now Superstitions would be a Storm 9 or 10 if WotC made them. I'd like to get them to around at least a 5 or 6 before moving forward with the design.
Some of my best and worst ideas both come from reading the R&D team's articles. Sometimes they say things I disagree with or take as a challenge, sometimes they make me think about design from an angle I hadn't before, and sometimes they just mention something from their creative process that sticks with me. That last is where Superstitions come from. In one of the articles about the design on Future Sight, Aaron Forsythe mentioned the origins of Steamflogger Boss, and how it started out as a "Splorg Lord" before it was pointed out that just having a one-off creature type didn't make the card feel from the future. The article listed a bunch of proposals that were offered for abilities referencing non-existant mechanics that would make the card feel like it was from a game in a very different state than the at-that-time current one. The one that stuck with me was "Whenever you activate a possess ability of a Splorg, you may ignore all Superstitions this turn."
It got me wondering what a Superstition might be, and why you might want to ignore it. Much like I'm sure you're wondering why I'm rambling, and when you'll have some crunch to evaluate. Don't worry, this is where I get to the point. I decided that a Superstition was a new card type, that it stayed in play, and that it affected the rules of the game in some way. That left me with how it affected the rules - which was obviously by imposing restrictions, and why you'd play one - which I decided was because it comes with a reward. Then, because choices are always more interesting than having your hands tied, and also to differentiate it from an Enchantment, I decided that the rules on a Superstition are optional, but also come with a penalty for breaking them. The result looked something like this.
Actually, that's after quite a bit of tweaking, so the result looked like a less polished and more clunky version of that.
The rules for Superstitions right now are basically like this.
- Superstitions may be played any time you could play a Sorcery.
- Superstitions are played to the Command Zone. Like Emblems, they impose rules but do not count as permanents. This was done for three reasons - First, to better represent Superstitions as an idea, rather than a magical effect, and thus hard to kill. Second, to further differentiate them from Enchantments. Third, because I know that I intend to make "Colorless Matters" a focal point in my design, with them as something intangible and outside of the game space, putting anti-Superstition into Colorless to preserve Blue as the "no removal color" makes more sense.
- Superstitions have two subtypes. Local Superstitions apply their effects to their controller, and Global Superstitions apply to all players.
- Superstitions carry an additional rule, which is optional to follow. These rules are indicated by wording that describes a condition, but not an effect. (This may need to be better conveyed.)
- Superstitions list a power and toughness amount.
- If a Superstition is affecting a player and they follow the listed conditions, the power and toughness of creatures they control increase by the listed amounts.
- If a Superstition is affecting a player and they violate the listed conditions, the power and toughness of creatures they control decrease by the listed amounts.
- Penalties and rewards take effect as soon as a player fulfills/violates the terms of the card, and last until their next Upkeep.
- If a player was fulfilling a Superstition, and then violates it, the violation triggers the change from bonus to penalty immediately.
- If a Superstition has both restriction and fulfillment conditions, both must be observed. Violating a condition means taking penalties until the next Upkeep, even if a fulfillment condition is met after in the same round.
- If a Superstition has a condition, but no restriction, it does not provide any benefit or penalty until that condition is met each turn.
- If a Superstition offers a player a choice to take an action, and they do not, they have violated that condition. For example "When X occurs, you may return a card from your hand at random to your library and shuffle it, then draw a card." would mean that the player must return a card to their deck and take a new one to not violate the Superstition.
- Being unable to fulfill a condition or being forced to take a restricted action still violate the terms of the Superstition.
- Superstitions may contain additional rules text beyond the imposed condition.
- If a Global Superstition enters play, any Global Superstitions already in play are sent to the Graveyard.
Overall, I'm happy with the idea of Superstitions, and I think that they're a playable mechanic as is, but they don't feel intuitive. I can tell that they're still rough around the edges, and there's a lot of rules to internalize. To an extent, if I'm creating a new kind of card, that's going to be unaviodable. As it stands, though, by complexity alone this whole mechanic should probably be at rare, and would definitely break the game's flow. I'm not sure how much I can minimize that without losing a lot of what makes the idea unique (and I definitely don't want to pitch the idea and just make them enchantments). I'm not even sure yet where the balance should be between the P/T rating and the condition imposed. Obviously, bigger hassles should come with bigger rewards, but with the symmetrical approach I'm using, bigger rewards also means a bigger penalty for not following the rules, which makes tighter restrictions more of a gamble. On the other hand, conditions that are too easy to meet are effectively just an Enchantment with a condition. Players need a reason/chance to sometimes violate Superstitions, while still having the rewards be worth the penalties. It's a tough thing to design around.
All in all, while I like them, I think right now Superstitions would be a Storm 9 or 10 if WotC made them. I'd like to get them to around at least a 5 or 6 before moving forward with the design.