tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post118054012978429205..comments2024-03-11T02:32:15.295-04:00Comments on Goblin Artisans: Multiple Choice Magic Design Question of the Day 1Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-33234981035402645322017-12-20T12:42:36.623-05:002017-12-20T12:42:36.623-05:00They only recently changed the name of Development...They only recently changed the name of Development to Play Design. That distinction was always fuzzy (and unique to Wizards). But it remains that the people who generate that set's primary identity and experience before passing it on for refinement are not the final arbiters of a card's cost, and more precisely, very rarely design around a card's cost (<a rel="nofollow">Isamaru</a> being one counter-example).Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-87462442543731978842017-12-19T22:21:59.863-05:002017-12-19T22:21:59.863-05:00Costing cards IS design's job. It's the jo...Costing cards IS design's job. It's the job of Play Design and Set Design, not Vision Design, but it is still a design job. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14896923515331410740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-49313929709162898942017-12-16T19:15:44.276-05:002017-12-16T19:15:44.276-05:00D. Designing wordy cards is deadly to the game. D. Designing wordy cards is deadly to the game. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16794636383576542352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-66801731630682878572017-12-14T12:04:16.603-05:002017-12-14T12:04:16.603-05:00Yeah, definitely. Debating ambiguities is answerin...Yeah, definitely. Debating ambiguities is answering questions on advanced mode -- not as fair, but GREAT for getting confident exploring difficult questions.Jack (cartesiandaemon)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08258267965242039995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-30350705582394461592017-12-14T10:58:45.701-05:002017-12-14T10:58:45.701-05:00I'm very happy with how this went. I think I&#...I'm very happy with how this went. I think I'm even happier than if the question had been 'perfect' from the start, because everyone including me was challenged to think very hard about the ideas proposed, and the discussion was hugely illuminating.<br /><br />While I hope the questions on the actual test are 'perfect,' exploring the grey areas and debating the answers is more useful to us as preparation. Expect more of this.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-60985218329918358872017-12-14T10:55:33.853-05:002017-12-14T10:55:33.853-05:00Isamaru does fail as a design without being cheap....<a rel="nofollow">Isamaru</a> does fail as a design without being cheap. Good point!<br /><br />(When I wrote under-costed, I was thinking "very efficient" as opposed to "so inexpensive you have to play it" but I learned quickly that was not everyone's take.)Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-77315024875222335512017-12-14T10:50:58.203-05:002017-12-14T10:50:58.203-05:00There's certainly a set of players who love fu...There's certainly a set of players who love funny cards, and that love is Vorthos in origin.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-30531891642871521122017-12-13T18:54:58.249-05:002017-12-13T18:54:58.249-05:00Agreed. For example, Fblthp is very much a Vorthos...Agreed. For example, Fblthp is very much a Vorthos thing.lpaulsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07772860908442278112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-65435122039978568052017-12-13T17:56:14.076-05:002017-12-13T17:56:14.076-05:00Interesting. Loving these Qs.
OK, firstly, I inte...Interesting. Loving these Qs.<br /><br />OK, firstly, I interpreted "least appropriate" as meaning "least fulfilling the stated goal of serving those audiences". If it's better interpreted as "which is worst for magic as a whole", then I agree with R Stetch that undercosted cards are probably the worst. I'm not sure you can clearly determine which of those was intended from "least appropriate".<br /><br />From an exam-technique question, I was pretty sure the answer would be T, J or S since understanding those is important more often than understanding V or M. But I wrote up my answers before reading Jay's without trying to second guess.<br /><br />My logic was:<br /><br />Worst: Wordy for Melvin. I don't think Melvin likes wordy at all, even though the things melvin likes can easily lead to wordy-ness. To my melvin side, the best card ever is Vindicate, because the rules line up so perfectly they don't even need to be said.<br /><br />Second worst: high mana cost. Like Melvin, Timmy tolerates expensive, not embraces expensive. But I think timmy's do like high mana cost a little bit -- there is a thrill and challenge of casting *any* ten mana spell.<br /><br />Middle: Bad cards for Johnny. This isn't Johnny's main thing, but finding good uses for bad cards is *one* thing Johnny does.<br /><br />Second: Under-costed cards for spike. This isn't a good way of designing cards for spike, and should't be over-done, but AIUI, choosing cards that make for fun competitive environments and pushing them is one of the the things R&D does do.<br /><br />Best: "Funny" is not a good thing for vorthos in general, but I think "funny" falls under "flavour", so providing humour is one thing which does help people's vorthos sides.<br /><br />I see I thought quite differently about spike. Partly I interpreted "under-costing" as being "lower than exactly the middle of the road", not "so low it was dangerous". I'm not sure if there's a standard?<br /><br />And partly I know development does most of costs, just like creative does most of the creature types, etc, but I think design looks at those things where appropriate, especially where it's a major decision, like Isamaru or watchwolf, where the important thing about the card is "this one is pushed". Or where something is supposed to be a competitive staple of a marquee mechanic.Jack (cartesiandaemon)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08258267965242039995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-83226712980399411052017-12-13T17:41:40.911-05:002017-12-13T17:41:40.911-05:00"the best way to get useful data from a test ..."the best way to get useful data from a test like this is to award different points for different answers. When you score the second best answer the same as the worst answer, you're throwing away data."<br /><br />Excellent point, especially with gradated answers like this one.Jack (cartesiandaemon)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08258267965242039995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-39814039953639007422017-12-13T16:44:12.964-05:002017-12-13T16:44:12.964-05:00I would still describe the audience for humorous c...I would still describe the audience for humorous cards as high Vorthos. Vorthos appreciates cards for their aesthetic elements, and a personal aesthetic appreciation will vary from person to person. While many Vorthos appreciate a sets theme or story (particularly those that are more vocal), the term also applied to those who appreciate a card on the merits of the art or humor without having or needing any context at all. Wobbleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11494097707732649864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-32034168297018021502017-12-13T16:00:39.007-05:002017-12-13T16:00:39.007-05:00After reading through everyone’s thoughts, I want ...After reading through everyone’s thoughts, I want to clarify - C, I think, is way worse than any of the other options, for Design or Dev, and for Magic overall. Intentionally making overcosted or “bad” cards doesn’t really threaten magic, nor does intentionally making wordy or funny cards. Intentionally making broken cards has been demonstrated to cause brand damage in the past.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15941977219304581236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-32925457428667700282017-12-13T15:54:54.797-05:002017-12-13T15:54:54.797-05:00C. There are quite a few misses here, but not only...C. There are quite a few misses here, but not only does intentionally undercosting cards threaten Magic overall (see Combo Winter, Skullclamp, JTMS, Smuggler’s Copter, etc. and the damage banning does), costing isn’t even in the purview of Design, it’s Dev (who really shouldn’t be undercosting intentionally either).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15941977219304581236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-71807958679071147222017-12-13T15:26:33.325-05:002017-12-13T15:26:33.325-05:00This all has reminded that the best way to get use...This all has reminded that the best way to get useful data from a test like this is to award different points for different answers. When you score the second best answer the same as the worst answer, you're throwing away data.<br /><br />I don't love that this question ends up being a trick (because it prioritizes a detail that it doesn't profess to be about), but I'm not going to edit it any further.<br /><br />C and E are both strong answers.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-85712121568367846072017-12-13T15:21:04.347-05:002017-12-13T15:21:04.347-05:00All spikes care about cost/strength ratio, all Tim...All spikes care about cost/strength ratio, all Timmies care about big things, all Jennies care about deck-building challenges, all Mels care about decoding things, you could be completely anhedonic still be a full-blooded Vorthos.<br /><br />I changed my mind three times while reading the question. At first I read "Which is the worst design philosophy" but the question doesn't care if these would make a bad game, just how they serve specific player-types.<br /><br />Then I read "Which of these is the least important to focus on" because good cards/bad cards don't need to be purposefully designed. They happen anyway.<br /><br />Finally I read the question right, and settled on E because it felt the least central. Vorthos cares about being in on the joke, but Vorthos humor is a personality thing.Devin E. Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09216945116878064817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-40700643489525077262017-12-13T15:18:21.859-05:002017-12-13T15:18:21.859-05:00Screw it. Only 30 view at the time. I updated it. ...Screw it. Only 30 view at the time. I updated it. Thanks, Ipaulsen!Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-77890419593188606842017-12-13T15:05:13.294-05:002017-12-13T15:05:13.294-05:00D'oh. Costing isn't Design's job! And ...D'oh. Costing <i>isn't</i> Design's job! And 'under-costed' is often used to refer to cards that are problematically cheap, rather than just notably efficient.<br /><br />For now, I'm going to say C is also a valid answer, but maybe it should be the <i>only</i> valid answer what with 'Design' in there.Jay Treathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09428861685923241850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-88833030818960212002017-12-13T15:00:04.919-05:002017-12-13T15:00:04.919-05:00My answer (pre-seeing Jay's answer):
C. All th...My answer (pre-seeing Jay's answer):<br />C. All the other answers are bad, but will still somewhat serve the stated psychographic. Undercosted cards are actively frustrating for Spike since they warp formats. Also, undercosting cards is not Design's job.lpaulsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07772860908442278112noreply@blogger.com