I assume many of us will be busy completing an entirely different type of design challenge this weekend. For those who aren't, pick one of your answers from the initial GDS3 essays, and design a card that you would use to support your answer. Let me know what question you're answering, and what that answer is, in addition to the card design.
And one more shout of good luck to all artisans getting their third challenges in this weekend.
72. Which of the following is the most important reason that some cards' mana costs are higher than others?
ReplyDeleteThe Harder They Fall
1W - Instant
Destroy target creature with power 5 or greater.
The *best* reason that cards cost more is for balance, and the correct answer (So that people will play them later in the game) is a form of balance. However, cards like this are an example of how that answer is not the entire story. Even though Smite the Monstrous costs more, this card will typically be played later in the game. Designing this card would be pointless if it had the same CMC as Smite the Monstrous, as it is strictly worse. So, this is an example of casting costs being used "To make the cards different".
Oh it said from the essays not MC test. Oh well.
DeleteSo unlike the essay questions, which was more about avoiding the wrong answers than divining the absolutely right ones, the Round 2 had absolutely right answers. Maro's going to presumably explain the correct answer to this question in-depth in a few weeks, but the short version is that using different ranges of mana costs for different caliber of spells is fundamental to the game. Spells that cost 1-2 mana will be great if you have them in your opening hand, but less useful later in the game. Conversely, your bomb that costs six mana is going to cause no end of frustration if you're sitting on it for want of a land the whole game.
DeleteYou're using a reactionary (answer) card as a counterexample to the answer about proactive (threat) cards. Yes, it is more likely to be played later in the game, but that's an exception, not a rule.
As a design on its own, that's a fine card. Cheaper but less effective Smite the Monstrous is interesting, although after White's abundance of removal in RIX I'm a little down on any new gradients of White Removal for the time being.
Would it be more or less likely to see print in a set like Theros, where going tall rather than wide is a set-wide theme? I would think in that set it would cost 3W, while in a set like Gatecrash it could get away at 1W.
(I disagree that all the questions on the multiple choice test have absolute right answers. They're just being graded that way.)
DeleteI think most of the questions had correct answers, but agree with Jay that there were several where (just like in the essays) there are very reasonable ways to defend even the 'bad' answers.
DeleteThat being said, I don't believe my answer for #72 was the "best" nor am I saying that this card design proves my answer correct. I just read the challenge wrong and was giving some insight into my thought process for that question.
Question 7 asked about which mechanic we felt deserved a second chance. Mark Rosewater clarified that answers could include tweaked versions of mechanics.
ReplyDeleteI answered that tribute, from Born of the Gods, had a great mechanical concept, but was disliked by players because the decisions were put in your opponents' hands. The core idea of the mechanic is that there is a tradeoff between an ETB effect and the size of your creatures. Your opponent decides whether you get a big creature or a smaller creature with an ETB effect. An alternative version of this mechanic preserves the tradeoff between size and ETB, but puts the power in the controller's hands. In this version, you decide between the size or the ETB effect. My functional name for this mechanic is "expend X," where X is the number of +1/+1 counters that you can add instead of getting the ETB effect.
Of course, most tribute cards could not be converted as-is to expend cards. Because the power is in the controller's hands, the choices need to be weaker. Nevertheless, the cards would be much more fun to play, because players would no longer feel like their cards were being turned against them.
Here's an example of a card with expend. Expend cards could be much simpler than this, but I think this uncommon does a good job of showing interesting design space.
Beatdown Creature
{2}{R} - Creature
Haste
Expend 1 (As this creature enters the battlefield, its controller may place a +1/+1 counter on it. If they don’t, it becomes expended.)
When Beatdown Creature enters the battlefield, if it was expended, target creature can’t block this turn.
2/2
*It may be possible to improve the templating for this mechanic. A decision is being made as it enters. The decision needs to be marked, and then checked during an ETB trigger. Please let me know if you can think of a more concise way of expressing this. I would prefer not to just directly check if the +1/+1 counter(s) is there, but that option may be better*
I think this mechanic is good for a few reasons:
-Its design space is massive (enough to return several tiems)
-It's flavorful and could fit many themes
-Many types of players find choices fun
-It can support virtual vanillas
However, a few weaknesses of this answer include:
-Expend is a pretty significant tweak to tribute
-Expend may be like kicker, representing so much design space that it would be better to divide it up into submechanics
-The templating is unwieldy and takes a lot of lines/words
While this keyword admittedly must be read a couple times to understand for the first time, it's very straightforward once understood. I certainly think it's less complex than tribute, and tribute's problem wasn't complexity.
Finally, it's worth noting that this mechanic could also be seen as a tweaked (and generalized) version of the fabricate mechanic.
Reminds me of the common cycle from Fate Reforged, which I think proves the concept well.
DeleteThat's a fun place to start. Both unleash and fabricate play in a similar space, although each of those is much more defined.
DeleteI think it might be interesting to use it with -1/-1 counters instead, although that very much limits the sets the mechanic could be used in. It's also very similar to a lot of cards from Amonkhet block like that.
These kind of modal spells are very Spike by nature. They can be used on Jenny or Tammy cards as well, but the utility of having the right mode at the right moment is pure Spike. The sample card you gave is an uncommon for Spike, and a fine design. How would you use the mechanic on a Tammy card? On a Jenny card?
The question I am choosing is the first question, to describe yourself. I stated that I am white for following the rules, red for emotion and blue for knowledge seeking, so I feel the card to represent this would be a Jeskai Planeswalker of me.
ReplyDeleteDoug, the Chaotic Thinker RUW
+2 Discard a card, draw a card. Draw a card, discard a card.
-3 You get an emblem with "Creatures cost 1 more to cast"
-6 Flip a coin for each instant and/or sorcery in your graveyard. For each heads draw a card. For each tails create a 1/1 red goblin creature.
4 loyalty
Oh man that first ability is fiddly. It's clever, but not elegant design. Straight up looting once is fine on a UR card, and appropriately balanced for a first PW ability. Looting twice is more of a minus ability.
DeleteThe second ability drives home the Instant/Sorcery nature of the PW in a White way, which is neat. I'm not sure that's something I want going off multiple times in a game though, which at -3 it's likely to do.
The ultimate ability is doing a bit too much. While the fact that it's all upside from the coin flips is good, the disparity between drawing a card and getting a token is pretty glaring. I would suggest rearranging the abilities and cutting down your word count for a better-reading card.
+2 - Loot.
-3 - Goblin for each instant/sorcery in your GY.
-6 - Emblem, permanent spells your opp.s cast cost 2 more.
What if the second ability is -4 and what is equal to a draw because I want to keep the chaotic coin flipping aspect?
DeleteFor the mechanic I'd make evergreen I chose detain in blue and white, arguing:
ReplyDelete"Effects that can prohibit players from 'using' their creatures fully are already evergreen in blue and white, but they're not necessarily as cleanly presented, keyworded, and thorough as what detain offers. Sometimes it comes in the form of tapping down an opponent's creatures (Territorial Hammerskull), keeping creatures from untapping for a turn so they cannot be used in combat (Watertap Weaver), or causing them to come into play tapped to slow the opponent down (Kinjalli's Sunwing). Pacification enchantments show up in both colors (Luminous Bonds; Waterknot). All of these examples are just in the Ixalan block. Variations show up in every single set.
None of them are exactly the same as detain, but detain's mechanical fingerprints are all over the 'soft control' techniques blue and white use to manipulate the battlefield. These effects are not keyworded and can vary widely, requiring players to relearn the particulars of how these mechanics are being expressed in each set when it's released. An evergreen detain can help with clarity in expressing and designing these mechanics and fits into Magic's New World Order."
And then later on in the "least favorite" expansion I dinged Ixalan for not having a whole lot of play "discovery" because it was designed around tribal identities. So I challenged myself to incorporate detain into Ixalan in a way that fit the set itself but also wasn't just stapling it onto a blue pirate using raid as an ETB effect or a white dinosaur using enrage.
I came up with an uncommon enchantment.
Boobytrapped Cache -- 3U (Uncommon)
Enchantment
When Bobbytrapped Cache enters the battlefield, create two colorless Treasure artifact tokens with "T, sacrifice: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool."
U, sacrifice a Treasure: Detain target creature.
(The flavor idea here is that you deceptively use a half-hidden treasure to attract and waylay one of your opponent's creatures. The boobytrap doesn't kill them, but puts them out of commission for a turn to recover.)
Like the concept and the argument, but the design seems too strong if you have a lot of treasure generation beyond this one card. I might bump up the activation cost or rarity?
DeleteI thought about that for a while, but concluded that was a very big "if." There are only a few cards in the set that produce treasures beyond ETB effects, and none are mono-blue, and none are common. So the sacrifice of the treasure feels like a very significant cost. I think the amount of trade-offs you'd have to make in drafting in order to make this card ability truly oppressive tells me "uncommon" rather than "rare." But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
DeleteThat design is dripping with flavor. I like detain, and I can hear the argument for pushing it to evergreen. I agree with Ryan that it probably needs to be a little harder to pull off, but we'll leave that to Playdesign. Solid way to demonstrate two of your answers in one card.
DeleteMy answer for #3 (make it evergreen) was Exert. I'm just going to best explain my answer by saying that I think the reminder text for the ability is just so... CLEAN were exert/exerted evergreen text.
ReplyDeleteKrasis Hatchling (Common)
1GU
Creature - Mutant Beast
2/2
Gestate 2 (You may have this creature enter the battlefield tapped and exerted with two +1/+1 counters on it.)
Compare that to:
Krasis Hatchling (Common)
1GU
Creature - Mutant Beast
2/2
Gestate 2 (You may have this creature enter the battlefield tapped with two +1/+1 counters on it. If you do, it doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.)
Number TWO, not number three. :p
DeleteI put exert as well. This is a cool new way to use it! I think there’s lots of potential design space here.
DeleteI am completely on board with exert becoming an evergreen action word (and I would have tap be folded into the language - if you exert something, it automatically taps). Super tap is an ability that comes up at least once per set, and keywording it would help explore uses for it outside of blue.
DeleteGestate may not be the best place to demonstrate that, since until it has enjoyed a year or more of evergreen status, it shouldn't be used as a nested keyword. Still, an interesting design and answer to the question.
To the reminder text being there, yeah I factored that in. The example card here is just to showcase a way the shorthand that 'exerted' would provide, as well as uses for that particular state on a card.
DeleteMy essay answer basically was: you guys already use it as a state (not untapping during next untap step), so hurry up and simplify it like you did 'dies'. :)
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
ReplyDeletehexproof
Bane of limited 1U
Creature Human Rouge
hexproof flying
1/1
this has to be common because of how problematic hexprrof is in creating non interactive matches
Sure, that's an annoying combo, as anyone who's stared down the trenchcoat of an Invisible Stalker can tell you. Hexproof is a solid answer to the question, but the subtext of the question is why doesn't the game need that ability at evergreen. I want to see a design that shows the game is better off after its gone, not that just demonstrates its problems.
DeleteMy answer for 7 was Bushido, with rebranding and a new color balance. I suggested "adrenaline" as the core concept and brought up the idea that it's a conceptual opposite to prowess.
ReplyDeleteChub Toadrider 4G
Creature - Elf Warrior, common
Trample, adrenaline 2 (whenever this creature blocks or is blocked, it gets +2/+2 until end of turn).
3/3
Rebranded bushido is a when, not an if. Bushido itself was rebranded from Rampage and Flanking. It makes sense in green, probably white as well. I think that's probably an uncommon, but otherwise a fine draft card.
Delete#2.
ReplyDeleteAbominable Zombie 2B
Creature - Zobmie (Common)
2/3
Kicker 2B
If CARDNAME was kicked, it enters the battlefield with two +1/+1 counters on it.
Very generalized, like kicker itself. This would be great for a core set/beginner product. A bit similar to the Invasion commons that introduced it.
DeleteI like kicker a lot mechanically, but I do think that they’re better served continuing to give it different and flavorful names rather than put everything under the kicker heading. Maybe there’s a Magic-flavored better word for it (ala the “enters the battlefield” change) that makes it feel less generic?
I wanted haunt to come back where the mechanics fit better with what we see from ghosts in pop culture. I think people being able to grok “a ghost haunting you means bad things happen to you” would make it much more interesting/resonant.
DeleteCraven Poisoner
2B
Creature - Human Rogue - Common
Deathtouch, Haunt (When CARDNAME dies, exile it haunting target creature.)
Creatures haunted by CARDNAME have 1 toughness.
2/2
Kicker has a lot of design space, but I don't know how much I like it at evergreen. It does overlap with a large swath of shallower mechanics. Having the dual mode always be "this, but bigger" also puts players in a place where they need to know both modes of a card, increasing the amount of format memorization.
DeleteI do wish the sample design gave me a new take on kicker, something that makes me want to see it appear more often. But using it on a common doesn't convince me its justified in getting an upgrade.
I know we've covered this in other threads, but Haunt is awesome and doesn't deserve its bad rep.
DeleteI really like Craven Poisoner, although I'm not sure that it works. Since it gets exiled as part of the haunt, I think some rules would need to be rewritten for that static ability to work.
Malicious Compliance {2}{R}
DeleteSorcery (Unc)
Kicker {3}{B}
Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap it. It gains haste until end of turn.
If CARDNAME was kicked, each player sacrifices a creature.
Yeah, my idea was to restrict kicker to creatures and make it mostly "this, but bigger". I realize it's kind of a hard sell at evergreen for broadness/naming reasons, which is what a lot of my essay was about.
DeleteI don't understand what you're referring to re: format memorization-- is it really that important to be conscious of all possible creature stats/costs in Limited?
The only thing I'd change about kicker on the way to evergreen is renaming it to something like empower, which is both more flavorful and more descriptive.
DeleteLet other mechanics have twists on it, that's fine, but if you're going to make a set with a dozen cards that all let you sacrifice a creature as an additional cost, just call that what it is. If you really need a mechanic to be different, make it an alternative cost, or a mandatory additional cost.
Kicker on creatures as “this but bigger” is basically worse Monstrous, no? Why not just use Monstrous to get rid of the “new players don’t want to play this early” trap?
DeleteThat's true, but if half of your creatures are just a bonus etb effect, you don't want to tie the 'just bigger' ones to a similar-but-different ability in the same set. Monstrosity and Kicker are both ways to handle "I have a bunch of extra mana lying around, what do?" but they do so in different ways with different strengths.
DeleteFor the mechanic I'd make evergreen, I'd choose hybrid Mana. Hybrid Mana is currently deciduous, however it's a clean, straightforward mechanic that helps to provide Mana smoothing that's important in every set. It also helps communicate a set's multicolor themes in the common slot, which is helpful for new drafters, and allows more dynamic drafts by increasing the number of playable cards for each color. All in all, it's a real win:
ReplyDeleteBrontosaur Herder {GW}
Creature Human (C)
Dinosaurs you control get +0/+1
1/2
Pompous Monk 2{WB}{WB}
Creature Vampire Cleric (C)
When Pompous Monk enters the battlefield, gain 2 life if W was spent to cast it and target opponent loses 2 life if B was spent to cast it.
3/3
Ambush Brigand 1{UR}{UR}
Creature Human Pirate (C)
Flash, Haste
3/1
I think hybrid would be good for evergreen, but it seems to be a big no for Wizards, even with it being deciduous. From reading the earlier Great Designer Searches seemed that bringing up hybrid did not go over well.
DeleteHybrid was very warming recieved in Ranica, and then totally over done in Shadowmoor, which was right before GDS2. In the 8 years sense GDS 2, multicolored cards went from being deciduous to bring an uncommon fixture in every set with Magic Origins (and arguably M14). Having a common cycle would be useful for similar reasons and not risk the overboard nature of Shadowmoor.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlso, Ambush Brigand should be 3{BR}, way off base in U
DeleteSamut notwithstanding, Flash plus Haste is also regarded to be a design no-no.
DeleteIt's a weird combo for sure, but this is just a color shifted Raging Kavu which was a fine design: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/body-snatchers-invasion-2005-08-08
DeleteBlue haste? Red flash? I'm a little leery of that one. Hybrid is supposed to be something each color could do alone.
DeleteI'm aware of what it is, but the existence of a 17-year-old design does not, for me, overrule the comments I've read far more recently from people in present-day Magic R&D. I don't consider it a great design. But hey, we can agree to disagree. :)
DeleteFlash and haste is great with a tap ability. I'm less satisfied with it as a french vanilla.
DeleteNoah, I think it works best in R/B where both colors have haste and flash. Also, while not synergistic Flash and Haste have thematic resonance (Surprise Pirate!) that work in the various Pirate decks.
DeleteAfter DFCs, Hybrid is probably the most important conceptual development in Magic since its early days. I'm not sure I'd advocate for it to be evergreen per se, but I definitely wish we'd see it more often, especially as a card cost (and not just an ability cost).
DeleteFlash/Haste is passable in Rakdos, although a stretch. I'm pretty sure if it was presented as an option on the multiple choice test, it would be a wrong answer.
Pompous Monk uses psuedo-gold tech utilized on a cycle in Shadowmoor/Eventide. I could see those types of hybrid being an occasional entry in the archetype-pointing uncommon cycle in a set or two.
Shadowmoor ate up a LOT of the available design space for Hybrid, which I'm sure contributes to the reluctance to use it in any real way.
What new space would you want to explore if you had the option of using it, set after set?
I'd use it on more of the the vanilla/French vanilla commons in the set. The new space that it opens up is in limited more than new card designs. Imagine a set with
DeleteNatural Disenchant 2{GW}
Instant - C
Destroy target artifact or enchantment.
It's not a radical design departure, but it fills the role player disenchant slot for green and white. That means you have an extra card slot for a thematic design rather than two functionally similar designs.
I'll be the devil's advocate and state the biggest reason for avoiding hybrid at evergreen: comprehension complexity. New players already have trouble grokking mana costs with just generic vs. colors, and now you're going to add hybrid to that? It gets especially complex when there's more than one hybrid mana in the cost-- with 2 hybrid mana there are 3 ways to pay, etc.
DeleteLittle late to this but my answer to number 7 was Affinity. Personally, I think the problems are well known and avoidable. The specific suggestion that I had was for affinity in a tribal setting.
ReplyDeleteElvish Overlord 4GG
Creature - Elf Warrior
Affinity for Elves.
Other Elves you control get +1/+1
2GG: Elves you control get +1/+1 and gain trample until end of turn.
3/3
Might be too strong, but the idea is that its a reward for linear play. As a normal tribal reward, it wold be too good as a 3 mana 3/3 that lorded and had an active since you could use it on its own. the affinity makes this printable since it would be too inefficient to play without the discount. The fact that all the creatures die to wrath and the cost includes colored mana should keep this from being overpowering as a 2 mana lord, and the affinity serves a purpose in a long game since it allows you to play and activate in one turn.
I had Affinity for number 7 also.
DeleteAs an elf affinity lord, I'm a fan. I would lose the standard static +1/+1 lord ability, and maybe tweak the numbers on the activated, or perhaps have it activate off of tapping an elf or two.
Also and this is maybe not the best place but I know no other, how does one apply for to write a GA article?
DeleteE-mail one of us with a pitch. I'm tweetforcealpha@gmail.com. (I'm kinda overwhelmed with work at the moment though, so it might take us a while to process depending on JT and JZ's availability.)
DeleteArtisans, do we all know how much text fits on a Magic card? Yes? Good. Then this should offer some small optimism to those of us remaining in GDS3:
ReplyDeleteMaRo on Twitter:
"Finished Day #1 of grading the #GDS3 design tests (aka Trial #3). A lot of good stuff, but also the realization that most people don’t know how much text fits on a card. : )"
I will say, though, that he asked for everything to be fully written out, and keywording abilities could have saved a decent amount of card space in some cases.
But anyway, I mocked all mine up in MSE, and they all fit fine (excepting one that would have to have a reasonable template tweak for it). So... I'm super-cautiously hopeful?
Also, he says he may post the design test tomorrow. Hopefully that means we get to discuss our submissions soon. I'm bursting at the seems wanting to talk and get feedback.
I assume when we get the go-ahead from on high we'll have a thread for that?
Once that's public info we'll be discussing the hell out of that.
DeleteInteresting trivia questions:
DeleteHow many characters is on the longest standard legal card?
How many characters is on the longest standard legal uncommon?
How many characters is on the longest standard legal common?
What is the number of lines of text that fit on a card without a reduction of text size?
Yeah mine were all consciously very concise, knowing that on GDS1 and 2 he or Aaron specifically made this same comment a few times.
DeleteI, too, have a ton of notes from my designing I’m eager to share.
You know, I didn't actually read the scoring criteria before I submitted. I'm kicking myself... I went for clean rarity-appropriate designs over wild creativity in a couple places. Now I wish I had pushed the originality a bit harder. If I don't make it, that'll be the reason, in my head. Aargh.
DeleteI was very, very back and forth, and frankly ended up going with mostly clean rarity-appropriate designs anyway. It’s really hard to do something big that Magic has never done!
DeleteDesign Trial 3 is now publicly posted on Blogatog. HOWEVER, MaRo asks that contestants not post their submissions until properly notified.
Deletehttp://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/170588778208/the-great-designer-search-3-trial-3-the-design
DeleteWhile I did not make round 3, I want to see what you guys had to work with. Sounded like there were a good number of constraints.
ReplyDelete