Last week, we discussed possible mechanics for Tesla that represented the player's growth, giving you upgrades and improved abilities as the game goes on. While the idea of 'player progress' greatly excited many of you, the mechanics presented were still quite rough. Though plenty of critique was offered, not a lot of alternatives were presented because of this. This week, let's change that! Your challenge is to design a mechanic that represents the player's progress.There's multiple ways you can approach this week's challenge. You could refine one of the mechanics last week, addressing the problems you perceive in it. Or, you can push one of these mechanics into a new direction, like how Tommy's Revolution became Access the Machine, Industrial Revolution, Ascendancy, Reuben Covington's Revolution, Advance, etc. Or perhaps a different direction is best - you could make a new mechanic, exploring the same design space and ideas, but in a way that you think avoids the problems of the other suggestions last week.
I think that, if Tesla is going to truly capture the theme of progress, we're really going to want a mechanic that makes the player feel like they're progressing. For this week's bonus discussion topic, this is exactly what I'd like to discuss: Do you all think that Tesla needs a player progress mechanic? Chime in with your thoughts below!
Powerful Forces {2}{B}{B}{B}
ReplyDeleteCreature-Demon
Flying
You can't cast ~ unless you've won a game this match.
When ~ dies, each opponent loses 5 life.
5/5
Secret Char {2}{R}
Instant
You can't cast ~ unless you've won a game this match.
~ deals 4 damage to target c/p.
Powerful Forces 2BB
DeleteCreature-Demon
Flying
When ~ dies, if you've won a game this match, each opponent loses 4 life.
4/4
Secret Char 2R
Instant
~ deals 4 damage to target c/p.
~ deals 2 damage to you unless you've won a game this match.
Victorygoyf {1}{G}
DeleteCreature-Tarmogoyf (mythic)
~ gets +1/+1 for each Magic game you've won here today.
1/1
This one's definitely not realistic because it would be a huge pain in the ass to verify throughout a tournament or even a casual game night, but the idea was too cute not to share.
The match ones aren't realistic either, apparently. They've been attempted before (in Future Sight) and failed.
DeleteI'm not sure they'd even play well. If your deck is good enough to win once, does it need more power the second time around?
However, the idea of seeing progress beyond even one match is truly innovative. I wonder if we could do something with that. My first thought is something that carries over between games. For example, cards in your deck that transform, or experience counters that carry over between games.
DeleteThis is incredibly awkward when you consider that game losses (and therefore wins) can be awarded for non-gameplay-related things. It also does nothing at the kitchen table unless your playgroup agrees to house-rule the concept of "matches" into existence outside of a tournament.
DeleteThis was done in silver border: Gus. It didn't even play very well there.
DeleteIf we're exploring player progress beyond the current game, I'd much rather find a way to make the Double Dip cycle or Time Machine work in black border.
Burning Desire
ReplyDeleteR
Sorcery - Rare
Exile the top card of your library. You may play it this turn.
Sprawl - For each City you control, repeat this process.
Urban Enforcer
W
Creature - Human Warrior - Uncommon
CARDNAME gets +1/+1 for each City you control.
1/1
Daily Grind
3G
Instant - Common
Destroy target artifact or enchantment.
Affinity for Cities
City
Basic Land - City
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
"Player progress", to me, is already amazingly represented in magic by the land drop/mana cost system. I love the concept of Barry's Land and wanted to see if I could make it be some sort of "progress marker".
This is an interesting idea! It's like Gates, but even moreso. Which is fitting, as apparently MaRo really regrets not making Gates more of a thing.
DeleteWe want to be careful that we aren't encouraging players to wreck their manabase too much. If it's basic, we might be doing just that. New players could definitely get overzealous about the number of cities they include.
One way to possibly fix this is to make them nonbasic, but still consistently accessible. And then the mechanic can just look for nonbasic lands, giving it more backwards-compatibility with the rest of Magic. Of course, then we need to make sure players can get enough nonbasics...
Perhaps solve it like FRF, where the basic land slot has a chance of including a nonbasic - but to an even higher degree? That certainly seems flavorful.
Anyway, if we do it this way, there's far less of a chance that newbies accidentally mess up their deck's mana. If it's not unlimited, they have to think more carefully about taking nonbasics. Additionally, nonbasics can fix mana, or at least provide colored mana - so we can have players pay with tempo-losses rather than poorer mana.
But yeah, I'm a fan of this. I agree that nonbasics are a fun idea. I was a fan of Industry when it was first suggested, and I still think it could be an interesting theme to explore.
Cities is incredibly parasitic, not to mention hard to build a deck around -- I have to include Cities in my deck, which means shaving the number of lands that make colored mana, and then in addition to caring about making my land drops at all I have to care about how many Cities vs. non-Cities I put into play.
DeleteI feel KTK struck a pretty good balance between providing land-based multicolor support and cluttering up the common spots in the set with too many lands (to the point that pretty much all decks, at least in Sealed, wanted to run 5+ nonbasic fixers).
Cities could instead by dual lands like Gates. It has the advantage that it is a number that goes up over time, but doesn't feel much like progress to me.
DeleteThere could be a mechanic for making Cities, namely Zeffral's Excavate that he made for Zeffrikar.
DeleteIndustrial Pinger 2R
Creature - Wizard
T, Develop a land (Turn a basic land you control into a nonbasic City with T: add 1 to your mana pool): ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player
0/3
Sudden Augmentation 2G
Instant
Develop any number of lands. (Turn a basic land you control into a nonbasic City with T: add 1 to your mana pool) For each one, target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
There could be cards that scale with the number of Cities you control as well.
The thought occurs that the word "Gate" is fairly flexible. Why not repurpose that subtype? Make a bunch more Gates with artwork looking like Vryn's mage-rings or portals of some kind, and then just refer to Gates. That instantly makes it (slightly) less parasitic and certainly allows people to avoid wrecking their manabases.
DeleteAlexC: I was thinking the same thing, but my thoughts immediately leapt to logic gates (in programming). We could get some fun programming puns if we used Gates again. :)
DeleteThe reason I didn't suggest it, though, is I think retreading too similar of space is a problem. The Gate theme was interesting, and went over pretty well with most of the audience. In fact, one of the biggest flaws with RTR block (as MaRo noted) is that Gates weren't used more. So, mechanically, revisiting Gates would be pretty fun. However, I think it'll be difficult to justify to the audience why these Gates are different. (Perhaps not, though!)
Chah, I really like your mechanic!! That feels like 'progress' both flavorfully and mechanically. This is very much like the 'Ruincast' mechanic, but with more choice involved, which I think is a good thing. My concerns with Ruincast and Cities still stand, though - I'm worried that players will accidentally ruin their mana. In this case, though, since you're developing lands on the battlefield, it's a lot less likely you'll accidentally screw yourself over. So I'm more of a fan.
Another concern I have is whether this actually plays well. It's certainly a cost of a sort, but is it an interesting cost? Paying life and sacrificing creatures are interesting costs since they make you obviously vulnerable. Discarding cards is generally an uninteresting cost since it just prevents you from playing the game as much. I think this is even more along those lines. The 'cost' doesn't matter too much of the time, I fear.
Still, you've certainly struck something interesting here. Let's explore it some more.
It occurs to me that the important feature of ruincast/develop is that you can only turn a basic land nonbasic once, and that inhibiting the mana it produces only supports that thematically. We can excise that part entirely, or even replace it with something /positive/. Perhaps:
DeleteMug {R}
Instant
As an additional cost to cast ~, develop. (Turn a basic land you control into a nonbasic City with T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.)
~ deals 1 damage to target creature for each nonbasic land you control.
Now it's a fixing mechanic instead of a screwing mechanic, but it still retains all the flavor and limited uses.
Heh:
DeleteDevelop (Turn a basic land you control a nonbasic named City of Brass with "T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool." and "Whenever City of Brass becomes tapped, it deals 1 damage to you.")
What if "player progress" meant making your deck better?
ReplyDeleteApprentice Shock 1R
Sorcery
CARDNAME deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Apprentice 2R (you may cast this card for its apprentice cost. If you do, after it resolves, transform it and you may reveal any number of cards named CARDNAME from your hand and/or library and transform them. Then shuffle this into your library.)
///
Master Bolt. R
Instant
Can't be countered.
Deals 3 damage to target cre or player.
Granted, there are logistical issues and some slight memory issues. Not to mention the rule for transform would have to be rewritten to allow this...but I think I've mitigated most of the problems.
Transforming all copies at once limits the amount of shuffles. Also, if you find a transformed copy when you shouldn't have one your opponent can just call you on it, as you haven't played the apprentice version yet. And in limited, having only one copy still puts the card back into your deck, so it still has value on its own.
Since this version of "apprentice" is quite wordy, we could even put some of the revealing and shuffling on the "B" side...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteworked on this a little:
DeleteApprentice 3RR (You may cast this for its apprentice cost. If you do, it gains "Reveal any number of cards you own named CARDNAME and transform them. Shuffle this card into your library.")
Remember, this is just the reminder text, so it doesn't have to be 100% accurate.
This could be merged with the pseudo-suspend mechanic from before:
DeleteBolt Research R
Sorcery
~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player. Master this spell 5. (Put this into your library, transformed and revealed until shuffled, 5 cards from the top. If you would draw it, cast it for free.)
The transformed side is:
Master's Bolt (no cost)
Sorcery
~ deals 4 damage to target creature or player.
If I'm reading Mike's version right, it's a lot like Kindle, just with a far narrower window and a binary upgrade. That seems difficult to develop and make exciting.
DeleteChah, that's a pretty interesting way to fuse the two mechanics. I think you might be onto something.
Inanimate: I'm not sure what you mean by "narrower window".
DeleteComparing this mechanic to kindle is sort of like saying werewolves could have been done with one face and counters. Yeah, I suppose there is a correlation, but it's superficial.
I chose shock-into-bolt because it's easy to process and get out of the way of the mechanic.
Apprentice Spike. 1U
Inst
Counter target spell unless it's controller pays 1.
Apprentice 1UU
///
Master Spike. UU
Inst
Counter target spell. Draw a card.
The first one in every game is a watered down force spike with the option to overpay for it. If you do pay (hard work/careful study) results in learning how to cast the spell better in all future instances (progressing as a wizard).
Apprentice beast call. 2G
Sorcery
Put a 3/3 green beast token onto the battlefield.
Apprentice 5GG
///
Master beast call. 2GG
Sorcery
Search your library for a green creature and put it onto the battlefield. It has trample and haste until end of turn.
Apprentice Covenant. 2B
Sorcery
Draw two cards. Lose two life.
Apprentice BBB.
///
Master Covenant. XBB
Sorcery
Target player draws X cards and loses X life. Put an X/X black demon creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
W: target creature gets +1/+1 and first strike ueot /// put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. It has double strike ueot.
R: destroy target artifact /// gain control of target artifact. Ueot it has "sac: add RRRR to your mana pool."
I compared it to Kindle because it has the same problems, but moreso.
DeleteIt has a narrower window because, while Kindle (once in the yard) upgrades any other Kindle you cast, this can only upgrade other copies of itself upon the moment it's cast. You have to wait to have other copies in hand before you can Apprentice. (Unless you dont have to reveal the cards from your hand, in which case it has even more problems, I think? Can we just reveal cards from every zone like that?)
The problem with Kindle is that it only works with other copies of itself. This is difficult to make exciting for Limited, especially on higher rarities. They tried bringing the Kindle mechanic back for Magic Origins, and decided to instead use spell mastery. (This might have been a mistake.)
If this can upgrade the cards from any zone, it does get more interesting for sure. I'm just not sure the Kindle mechanic, since it calls out cards by name, is doable.
I suppose I wasn't as succinct as I should have been with my reminder text, but yeah, I was trying to imply cards in any zone. The apprentice cost is the cost to upgrade every copy of that particular card. By shuffling it back Into the library you guarantee a single card with apprentice does something :)
DeleteI see! Yeah, I'm definitely more excited about the mechanic then. I think it might have some comprehension issues for other Inanimate-minded players, though. :P
DeleteI've been out of the loop for a bit, did anyone offer up the low hanging fruit would be "you get a progress counter"?
ReplyDeleteLiberal soldier W
Cre- soldier
Etb you get a progress counter.
P/t = your progress.
Inspiration variant
Giant growth variant
Shock variant
Etc
We discussed it in last week's comments, and it does seem to be a favorite. I've personally included it in a set before, but I found that it was a bit lacking in excitement (the set never made it to playtesting for other reasons)
DeleteIn my file, I had the following:
Inspiration variant
Giant growth variant
Shock variant
"If you have X or more experience counters, ~ gains [keyword]" cycle
"~ costs less for each experience counter you have" cycle
Token generating spell, where # of tokens = experience
"~ can't attack unless you have X or more experience counters" <- the big dumb sea serpent of the set
I never got to the rares or finished the uncommons, so that's all I had.
I had a black variant at common but I can't remember what it was. And my blue variant at common was a Mana Leak where the 'tax' = experience counters.
DeleteNot to be detrimental, but I don't like player counters.
DeleteThey are inelegant: they have no use in game, other than being there to be counted.
They are parasitic: Only cards that specifically give out experience counters synergy with cards that care about them.
They seem to me cumbersome in practical use: you have to have numerous tokens representing them, or have a dice (which I always accidentally , or write it out on paper; differently from poison, your opponent has no incentive to count yours out, other than maintaining game state.
Lastly, and more importantly, they feel uninteresting, they don't seem to add much to gameplay. You play some spell with a rider, you get a bonus
It's possible I'm wrong on all fronts, but playtesting should clear everything out.
I agree that I'd rather count permanents of some kind (like lands as mentioned in another subthread) rather than add a new thing to be counted.
DeleteP for Pizza, that's pretty much every reason I had against including experience counters in my set. I just couldn't make them feel anything other than parasitic. When I tried stuff like 'research counters' - discussed last week - they always felt clunky and forced.
DeleteI think tracking a player's progress is a rich vein of design space, but I agree that it doesn't have to be done with counters. Permanents, as AlexC notes, can do a similar job.
I do think we need a mechanic of some sort that highlights what the player is doing to progress, though. Devotion, Metalcraft, and Landfall are good examples of mechanics that get pretty close. (Though, I think Devotion is too oriented around 'the present', and Landfall is too oriented around repeated rewards rather than a feeling of 'building up', and Metalcraft just had issues.)
Can we think of a new one along these lines that would be fitting to Tesla?
Reading the discussion here has helped clarify my thoughts: I don't think we should add a new specific way to track player progress. Because Magic already has ways to track your progress: we call them the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteA very natural way to progress in Magic is putting stuff onto the battlefield. Lands (Molimo), artifacts (Master of Etherium), creatures (Seraph of the Masses). Of course, that progress can be undone; in particular board sweeps like Wrath of God, Shatterstorm, Nevinyrral's Disk can wipe away all a player's progress at once. That's undeniably a setback to a player, but as a designer that just makes the mechanic interactive, which is a good thing.
The only drawback as far as I can see is that it's the kind of thing that's been done in many previous sets (Metalcraft etc), so it's harder to make it feel like progress.
So many ways to track progress existing within the core game of Magic was the reason I was skeptical of "progress" as a theme in the first place.
DeleteIf we're exploring progress specifically as a facet of an artifact/steampunk theme, player level counters aren't quite as on point. However, I still think there's a gem of a good idea in there.
This is a good argument.
DeleteI think the big reason to go with some form of 'player progress', despite the fact that (as you mentioned) games of Magic naturally progress, is that it highlights the theme specifically. We want to make it a bigger theme.
Jenesis: Combat has been a theme, and there's lots of different ways to go about combat - not every combat is nearly the same. Just because a theme is broad doesn't mean we can't explore it.
Progress isn't really the only theme of the set, of course. You're right that, if we're trying to capture the theme/experience of progress as a facet of the steampunk theme, we have to reorient ourselves. I think there might be a way to achieve player counters that feels fitting alongside artifacts. For example, if we have charge counters, +1/+1 counters, and player counters, we get a form of symmetry where it makes more sense and feels fitting. We'd have a form of progress available for three subsets (Creatures, Noncreatures, Players)
However, more broadly - and addressing both your points and AlexC's - we don't have to have a player counter theme, let alone a specific 'player progress' theme. This week I'm just asking for mechanics that can represent player progress. So, for example, AlexC brings up the idea of just putting things on the battlefield as a form of progress. If we want to use that as our form of progress, let's find a mechanic that highlights that action for a player. Metalcraft or Landfall are great examples.
To offer a different take on this question: Have we ever gone through and attempted to define what progress is not?
DeleteIf we're using combat as a theme, for example, we want to reduce or eliminate the number of decks that don't care about combat at all. Identifying those is pretty easy, i.e. fast combo decks, control decks that don't play m/any creatures, and activated abilities that primarily operate outside of combat, like pingers. Conversely, if we want to de-emphasize the role of combat in a set, we can up the numbers of these cards, as Cubes often do.
What proposed mechanics have been insufficiently "progress-like" so as to give an indication of mechanical space that is best left explored in other sets? The only deck type I can think of off the top of my head that captures "not progress" is Stasis.dec, maybe Turbofog?, and those are unfun enough that Wizards is never going to print cards for them in quantity.
I do enjoy the +1/+1, charge, player counter idea, especially because someone was talking about bringing back proliferate in one of the other threads.
Delete"Proliferate" is also a great flavor word to describe rapid, reckless expansion of technology.
Oh, yes, that's a good point: proliferate is a mechanic which is a great fit both flavour-wise and mechanically, as well as being popular last time round. I will admit that's an argument on the side of using player counters, because they fit so very well with proliferate.
DeleteMhm. I was actually going to make a post about proliferate and filling the 'trifecta' of +1/+1, charge, and ???, but I wanted to talk about player progress first. I totally agree that proliferate would be a great fit for the set, if we can find the right mechanics for it.
DeleteProliferate was on my mind when I brought up progress counters.
DeleteWhat if we replaced charge counters on permanents with some variation of "progress"
Then you have the interesting text "equal to the number of "progress" counters among permanents you control."
Or what if we count player progress as "the number of charge counters on permanents you control?" Or even better, "the number of counters on permanents you control?"
Delete