tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post2957029392801485164..comments2024-03-11T02:32:15.295-04:00Comments on Goblin Artisans: Design Challenge #2: Too Damn SmallUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-37178496513558220512012-05-16T11:45:45.294-04:002012-05-16T11:45:45.294-04:00And maybe that's not a reasonable thing to ask...<i>And maybe that's not a reasonable thing to ask.</i><br /><br />I realised I didn't realise this until I was writing my reply, but that when I thought about it, I realised that almost always, for a good core mechanic, the implications WILL be obvious to anyone with any familiarity with design, so it's not a problem, but that it's still natural for people to wonder if they need to make that explicit, even if they don't, and there may be some excpeptions where it would be useful.<br /><br /><i>I just don't care much about higher rarities, because commons and uncommons do most of the heavy lifting for the color pie.</i><br /><br />Good point. A mechanic which can do interesting things at uncommon and rare is always good, but (if I remember what Mark Rosewater said) red's not actually short of interesting higher-rarity cards, it's just short of variety at common other than "another shock" and "another goblin piker", so you're right, that's what we should be commenting on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-73452168144713261372012-05-16T11:07:34.111-04:002012-05-16T11:07:34.111-04:00I guess I'm also asking people to trust me to ...I guess I'm also asking people to trust me to notice the implied variations on their idea. And maybe that's not a reasonable thing to ask. But if there are any subtleties about implementation, mentioning them in the essay should be sufficient.<br /><br />But also, I just don't care much about higher rarities, because commons and uncommons do most of the heavy lifting for the color pie.HavelockVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698268009797139251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-88097789152841266012012-05-16T09:49:37.367-04:002012-05-16T09:49:37.367-04:00Yeah, interesting point. On the one hand, looking ...Yeah, interesting point. On the one hand, looking at Act of Treason, it really should be obvious how much potential design space there is. And if someone submits a lot of variants, it obscures the simple common at the start. On the other hand, it's always possible there is a lot of design space but it's not obvious (eg. a mechanic which tacking it onto other creatures doesn't look very interesting, but actually plays very differently to existing cards) in which case it makes sense to support that. I guess the best compromise is to invite people to submit variants, but emphasise that they'll be judged primarily on the common, or to invite people to describe in text if they think there's any positive implications which aren't obvious -- people probably should do that anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-49447157680136898032012-05-15T14:36:17.934-04:002012-05-15T14:36:17.934-04:00I think one card can be enough to define a piece o...I think one card can be enough to define a piece of the color pie. What I'm looking for is the next Act of Treason, Shock, or Firebreathing. Finding an appropriate effect is the challenge; designing for it at higher rarities is not.HavelockVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698268009797139251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-75132140771387095532012-05-15T13:03:20.877-04:002012-05-15T13:03:20.877-04:00Don't you think it would be easier to showcase...Don't you think it would be easier to showcase the flexibility of the mechanic if we gave you up to three cards (Common, Uncommon, and Rare or Mythic Rare)? Even with the essay, one card doesn't seem an effective way to show what we can do with the new thing.Nich Graysonnoreply@blogger.com