|
|
Post by Lady Mapi on Jun 20, 2019 19:40:10 GMT
Here's a list of things that I think about when I make cards - I'm mostly throwing them up here to start a discussion.
1) Dies to removal is my friend. If my card always worked, the game would be boring.
2) My card is not awesome. The board state it enables is.
3) How much would I hate it if someone else played my card against me?
4) Magic is a multiplayer game, not solitaire - can you interact with my card?
5) How many things is my card trying to do? One is good, two is OK, three or more is problematic.
6) How many hoops am I jumping through to get my card to work? If the answer isn't "none", I'd better have a really good reason.
Sometimes I'll skip one or two of those, but that's generally what I'm thinking about. How about you?
|
|
|
|
Post by 2wb on Jun 20, 2019 20:50:19 GMT
I don't completely agree with 5 and 6.
Because 5 you can (theoretically) make a card that does/works with 3 or 4 things without losing any of its elegance and cleanliness, which in my opinion are the most important parts of the card. Like, say, a card that combines Surveil and Reanimate, which does quite a lot of things but is very clean and easy to parse.
6, because if I took it straight, ie. Viashino Pyromancer, Shock, Healer's Hawk, Opt, etc. would be in question. Therefore I feel it needs a clause against those "basic" pieces; things that are the base state against which stuff pushes. I guess "Isn't really that good" is a good reason for the card to have no hoops, though?
And I morally disagree with 2 because cards are awesome on their own, ie. Gigantosaur or Ghalta or Progenitus... I guess, though, that "the board state" becomes "I am close to winning" and that's awesome for the player?
I think these are all very strong spaces to go with myself and I must thank you for putting to words these because now i can quote them
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Mapi on Jun 20, 2019 21:59:07 GMT
2wbTo clarify #5: I consider Surveil + Reanimate as more of a singular thing. You could have a card that read "Look at the top X cards of your library. You may put any number of them into your graveyard, and then return a creature from your graveyard to the battlefield." Now imagine if we threw on, say, cycling - we'd have two things: "Look at the top X cards of your library. You may put any number of them into your graveyard, and then return a creature from your graveyard to the battlefield. Or you can discard this card to draw a card."How about if we replace surveil with scrying? We'd have three distinct things that the card's trying to do. "Look at the top X cards of your library, then put any number of those cards on the bottom of your library. Then you may return a creature from your graveyard to the battlefield. Or you can discard this card to draw a card."Notice how the card's concept is steadily getting less coherent?
For #6, it covers the difference between "Deal 2 damage to any target" and "Deal 2 damage to target Elf that was damaged this turn", or whatever. It's mostly just a reminder to KISS.
For #2... I agree that a lot of those cards are pretty cool... but they're cool because they're big stompy threats. Ghalta is actually a good example - it's a card that goes "my wide board just became really tall!" Top-decking Ghalta after a board-wipe doesn't feel as good. Honestly, this is mostly here so that splashy cards are intentional - if I'm making an uncommon, I don't want to fall into the "so cool" trap, because then my set would just be a mess.
---
Actually, another item for the list came to mind as I was writing this:
7) Does my card do what I want it to? Does it not do the things I don't want it to? The answer to both of those questions should be "yes".
|
|
|
|
Post by 2wb on Jun 21, 2019 2:33:15 GMT
To clarify #5: Notice how the card's concept is steadily getting less coherent?
Yeah, I do, hmm. So "things that don't directly synergize", really, shouldn't belong?
This makes exceptional sense since I managed to read it backwards--I managed to read "is none", not "isn't none".
Hm, I see, yeah. "The coolness should have something to do with the resultant gameplay" would probably be more accurate for me personally but I like the brevity...
Thank you!
|
|
