M13 Bits and Pieces (1)

O what a tangled web we weave. When we first practice to design a core set. (Sorry for the poetic dissonance.) Everyone knows that a set is a complex interwoven thing and that a change in one place can ripple across the whole thing, causing other cards to change with it. We know it because Mark Rosewater tells us, or because we've designed a set before or because it's fairly obvious if you think about it. What I didn't know before this project was how much more tangled that web is when you're working as a team.

The work this team has done so far has been phenomenal and the results are far better than what any one of us could have accomplished alone. There is a downside though: When you're not the one making every single decision and designing every single card, you don't have the bigger picture, not all of it. As the lead designer, it's my job to see the bigger picture for M13 better than anyone and I can tell you that's a lot of work. There's a lot going on and not all in one place.

For that reason, there are a lot of miscellaneous questions popping up and I'd like to try to answer a few of them and give my designers a bit of feedback. In no sensical order:

Set name and logo
It has not escaped my mind that this project will eventually (with any luck at all) come to the attention of at least a few Wizards employees. I would like for their response to be "Oh cool, look at this" and not "Sigh, guess we should call Legal." We should be covered as far as the cards and the set are concerned as long as we never try to sell them. No problem there, we won't. But I suspect the fact that I've mocked up an official looking logo and we're using what is almost certainly going to be the exact same name the official product will be using is probably less than ideal.

I think we can get something extra out of the solution (changing the name and logo): We could add a subtitle. That actually seems like a reasonable thing for a core set which otherwise has nothing to differentiate itself at the product name / code level from every other core set. Our subtitle should relate to something that makes the set unique, probably terrain. Ideally, it might also cleverly hint that this is a fan-made set and not the real thing. Words and phrases like "fantasy," "new ground," and "allied territory" occur to me.

Give your thoughts or suggestions and I'll pick one and add it to our logo next time.

Planeswalkers
Despite being just five mythic rares, the choice of which planeswalkers we print makes a surprising impact on the rest of the set because of the support cards they spawn (Chandra's Phoenix, Gideon's Lawkeeper, etc). Based on the trends and logic we've seen, I think it's safe to say that the versions of Chandra, the Firebrand, Garruk, Primal Hunter and Jace, Memory Adept will return in 2013. On the other hand, Gideon Jura and Sorin Markov are seeing their second printings already, making them more eligible for replacement. So far, the designers have earmarked Elspeth Tirel as the white planeswalker since she was only printed once and is absolutely worthy of a core set encore. We won't be reprinting Innistrad's planeswalkers, so it seems pretty likely that we'll replace Sorin with a new walker. Who or what is a discussion worthy of its own article (at least).

In 2011 the Planeswalker support cards included a common and an uncommon cycle. In 2012, it was a common and a rare cycle. We could repeat either of those or we could make an uncommon and rare cycle. The inspiration for that was just dumb permutation but I actually find that scenario entirely justifiable: If 'Walkers are rare and powerful, maybe their antics shouldn't be as common as say, a Goblin Piker. This is totally up for discussion. There's even another option and that is not to keep the cycles strict within rarity. Maybe Garruk gets a common and a rare beast but Jace gets two uncommon spells, for example. Not sure I love that, but it's out there.

A Terrain by Any Other Name
We've discussed before the possibility of putting the type of terrain being used in the ability word. Let's play with that some more. Right now, my favorite option is * Adept as seen on Mastodon Calf (where * is the land type in question). Other possible words include * savvy, * adaptable, * migrant, * roaming, * rapport, resonate with *, boosted by *, etc.

We don't have to figure this out now since it's boiler plate, but it would be good to narrow it down to the two best possibilities (plus the no ability word possibility) so we can see what flies and what sinks with our playtesters.

Design Priority
It's great how seriously everyone is taking the first draft of each color's commons. It shows a genuine commitment to quality that will make us all proud when we're done. But we need to remember our priority before making a really solid list of commons (and I'm super guilty of this myself) is having any working list at all that includes terrain so that we can get out and playtest it. While a lot of this work will stand regardless of whether we continue with terrain or not and all of it is helping us to learn, we don't want to find out terrain isn't going to work after a whole month of blood, sweat and tears because that will cost us time and morale. So, I would like each color that can have a printable, playable, imperfect list ready by Saturday morning.

Don't worry if it could be better. It can. It will be. And soon. That's just not our main concern yet.

Collaboration
We've been using Google Docs and I think it's far and away our best option for this kind of spreadsheety, remote team work. It's not without limitations though. It was easy at first to see what designs and comments were new but as the files have expanded, it's become much harder. We've been using normal text for cards and italics for comments. I propose a new standard that will help a bit. When you create a new card, put it in bold. When you create a new comment, put it in bold italics. When the current lead for that tab reads it, he unbolds it. It's not perfect, but at least we know new thoughts will be seen by the person most in need of seeing them.

To Be Continued
I've got a lot more to share, but there's no need to overload. Tune in (tomorrow?) for part two.