Post by kefke on Aug 22, 2021 16:58:18 GMT
Currently working on a set where the flavour is a general hodgepodge of Industrial, Renaissance, and Age of Exploration. Since it's largely a top-down set, I feel like it's important to get the worldbuilding right, and one of the subthemes I want to address some space to in the set is the role of artists and craftsmen. I'm struggling with what to type them as, however.
I know that I'm going to be using "Relic tokens" to represent both the treasures of ancient civilizations, and prized works of art, as well as trying to work in Fortifications to show how architecture and engineering allow a more "developed" civilization to shape the world. So, it would make a lot of sense to make these creatures Artificers...and Artificers definitely will have a strong role in my set.
On the other hand...well, first of all, it just doesn't feel right to make them Artificers. While some of them will probably end up working with specific types of artifacts, they're not meant to represent magic users, or even masters of technology. I also know that some works of art will be represented by Enchantments, to give them more of a feeling of "art that transcends its medium". Ideally, I'd like to keep the creature class something grounded in a non-magical background, to help stress the idea of mundane works taking on a mystical power through superior craftsmanship, as opposed to "spellcasters weaving magic into their creations".
On yet the third hand though, I feel like I should be wary of creating new types for my set, as I know there are people who don't like it. There are already two "setting races" I'm using that need to have their race named in their cards - one being a "these aren't kitsune because they aren't Asian" race of fox people, called Reynarts, and the other a race that originally had the matching subtype of "Faeborn" before I made the decision to just make them Ouphes and say that their not being short in stature just plays into the set's general toying with the norms for races (but more on that when I release details of the set). This once again makes it feel like I should just use a standard creature type. However, the flip side to that is that when the logical arguments stack up so strongly and I still don't feel like the existing types fit, I have to wonder if my brain is nagging me for good reason, especially as it's not exactly uncommon for a set to slip in one or two mix-ups to the standard race/class paradigm to fit the flavour.
However, I thought that getting some feedback from others might help my decision. It seems like these are my options;
Out of these, I'm currently favouring #2, with #3 as a close second despite it muddying the waters a bit. #1 is what I feel like I should do, but is third on my list because it feels like a flavour fail, and because it causes overlap between the "artists and craftsman" theme, and the "techno-magical progress" theme. #4 is better flavour-wise, but my least favourite option since it both fails to clearly denote the theme, nor does it mechanically link the creatures.
On yet the third hand though, I feel like I should be wary of creating new types for my set, as I know there are people who don't like it. There are already two "setting races" I'm using that need to have their race named in their cards - one being a "these aren't kitsune because they aren't Asian" race of fox people, called Reynarts, and the other a race that originally had the matching subtype of "Faeborn" before I made the decision to just make them Ouphes and say that their not being short in stature just plays into the set's general toying with the norms for races (but more on that when I release details of the set). This once again makes it feel like I should just use a standard creature type. However, the flip side to that is that when the logical arguments stack up so strongly and I still don't feel like the existing types fit, I have to wonder if my brain is nagging me for good reason, especially as it's not exactly uncommon for a set to slip in one or two mix-ups to the standard race/class paradigm to fit the flavour.
However, I thought that getting some feedback from others might help my decision. It seems like these are my options;
- Go ahead and make them artificers, and accept it as just a part of Magic's occasionally janky conventions.
- Go with my gut, and add an Artisan type to highlight the flavour the way I want it to be.
- Go ahead and lean into another of the set's conventions, and make them Citizens, a type that I'm already giving some love to with a run of creatures meant to represent the norms of each major race.
- Go through the list of types and assign each creature a different existing type that most closely resembles what they do.
Out of these, I'm currently favouring #2, with #3 as a close second despite it muddying the waters a bit. #1 is what I feel like I should do, but is third on my list because it feels like a flavour fail, and because it causes overlap between the "artists and craftsman" theme, and the "techno-magical progress" theme. #4 is better flavour-wise, but my least favourite option since it both fails to clearly denote the theme, nor does it mechanically link the creatures.
