In this episode I talk with Alex Silady aka void_nothing about the considerations designers should make when thinking about factions and uncommons in set design, with a bonus topic on trinket text.
Guest details:
Alex Silady
void_nothing on MTGSalvation
When it comes to a cohesive look on a plane, though, there's a fine line to walk between a chaotic jumble of art and everything looking the same. And there are good and bad ways to execute very similar types of art: Both Coalition Victory and Last Stand are all-color cards with action-oriented and "busy" art that depict important moments in the Phyrexian invasion of Dominaria, but I would argue that the former does it a lot better than the latter in that you can clearly see the key players and what they're doing, and even though the whole scene isn't visible on the card you get a clear sense of what is going on outside the periphery of where Gerrard, Sisay, and Tahngarth are standing. Meanwhile, Last Stand is... a pile of bodies. Obviously it's meant to be an intense battle scene, but the eye can't really find the action.
That's a great extension of the point Brian makes about art being too similar. Personally, I'd argue that the art for Last Stand is just poorly directed, while that of Coalition Victory is well directed. Having distractions from the focal point in the foreground on Last Stand for example is a real sticking point for me. In a world where game designers commission art, I'd have worked with the artist to make Last Stand fit better with the needs of a card game. That's not to say that busy art can't exist, but it should mesh better with the frame etc.
I'm glad you're doing these podcasts and really enjoyed this episode. I appreciate yall's view on art and the importance of art and agree to a point. I compliment yall's patience with searching for art. I HATE looking for art. Most of the art in my set consists of random abstract oil paintings. My set's art gallery slowly improves over time as a stumble upon suitable pieces, but I do little searching for art these days because it's a waste of time imo. (I'd MUCH rather waste my time on MTGS.) And there's no way I'm sacrificing a good design because I can't find an artistic depiction for it - that's what abstract art is for. Also, I LOVE Magic's old art and despise nearly half of what passes for art these days. That being said, despite my slight personal distaste for automobiles in Magic, I have to admit that I really like the art of Kaladesh.
That's an interesting opposing perspective, and it certainly bears some merit. If your primary focus is having compelling designs, art can certainly get in the way of that. As I mentioned on the 'cast though, I find that players engage much more willingly if the art resonates strongly with the design.
For Lorado, ShadowCentaur has been keeping his planesculptor's file much more updated. Glad to hear you're enjoying the podcast so far!! Talking with Stairc/Dan is always a treat, I expect he'll end up back on the show at some point in the not too distant future.
In this episode I interview Ron Vaseman aka R-Shig about his custom magic set Rising Throne. We also have a deep analysis discussion about how physical games differ from digital games and how best to design for the platform you're playing on.
Guest details:
Ron Vaseman
R-Shig on Reddit and the Custom Magic Discord
Cogwork Double5
Artifact Creature - Shapeshifter (R)
Draft Cogwork Double face up.
As you draft Cogwork Double, reveal a creature card you've drafted and note its name.
Cogwork Double enters the battlefield as a copy of a card with a name noted as you drafted cards named Cogwork Double.
0/0
I've been doing quite a bit of paper playtesting, using sealed pools either solo or with friends to make limited decks. Got some great feedback and much better understanding of where the mechanics are at and how they function. This led to two big changes:
1) Hunt, as awesome as it is in premise, sadly doesn't work.
As a mechanic, Hunt was in an awkward spot where it could either shut a player out of the game (they weren't able to put together meaningful defenses) or it was utterly irrelevant. That's not good design space. After a few games I tried another user's implementation of Hunt (This creature must be blocked if able.) and it worked much better. Granted, I've only tried it in one match, but I hope it bears fruit in future games.
2) Unravel's decision space wasn't meaningful enough.
Making -1/-1 counters a good thing is new ground that friends liked, from an "I'm the Villain" perspective, but the one-time decision and the design philosophy in general wasn't quite there. The choice, they said, wants to be whether you're going to hurt your minions for your own gain. So I'm shifting around the Unravel triggers to be more one-shot spell effects, and I'm changing the mechanic from an ETB -1/-1 counter to Unravel (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a -1/-1 counter on this creature.)
Overall, the flavor of the set didn't ooze villainy as much as I hoped. I'll need to do a lot more work on naming and flavor text to really get that across.
Nefarox's Lieutenant3BB
Creature - Skeleton Minion (U) 1B, Sacrifice a creature: Minion creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain wither and indestructible until end of turn. (They deal damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters.) "Unless you want to end up in the Overlord's death-pit, get back to work!"
4/4
Villainous Monologue2RR
Whenever you cast a spell, put a verse counter on Villainous Monologue. Then Villainous Monologue deals damage to each opponent equal to the number of verse counters on it.
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, remove all verse counters from Villainous Monologue.
In this episode I interview Brian Faulkner aka ShadowCentaur about his custom magic set Lorado. He's playtested it online and at GenCon! We also have a deep analysis discussion about the importance of art in Magic and game design, and how best to use art resources to enable player engagement.
Guest details:
Brian Faulkner
ShadowCentaur on MTGS, Reddit, and "everywhere else online."
In this episode I interview professional game designer Dan Felder about his history with gaming, some of the common pitfalls careful designers can avoid, the importance of designing towards a specific goal, and much more!
I'm back! Ready to get into some answers, let's go.
Re:Shortwing Griffin - While the upside for this card isn't incredible, it'd be too much if a 3/1 had its ability. White does want this cardslot to be evasive, from a metrics standpoint just comparing it to official sets.
Re:Mandatory Unravel - To me, it isn't deserving of a proper keyword if the option isn't there. Having tested only once and against myself, I found that sometimes it was better to just take the larger body. This runs into the kicker issue, where players want to get their value even if it's the wrong play. After more testing, I might be open to giving the raw sizes some moderate boost to make the vanilla versions more attractive, or make the creatures more interesting in either mode (such as with the Specter).
Re:Inconspicuous Informant - With the Harrier change I think your initial concern has been addressed. The goal for the design was a repeatable way to trigger Scry that an opponent could interact with. Soft evasion seemed a good way to go.
Re:Hide in Wait - I like changing the wording to Vines of Vastwood style, since it gives another opportunity for the "I'm using the card in an unconventional way" players to feel Intelligent (one of the core emotions for meeting the design goal). It does make the flavor worse though.
Re:Crashing Wave - Crashing Wave is from Ringsir, aka Garruk's backwater home. The set wants to have some alternate win condition cards players can scheme and plot towards, and mill is one of the classic unconventional directions to take. If testing doesn't show this making much of an impact, it'll probably get changed to some other alternate win condition effect.
Re:Ingenious Invention - X can't be zero was to avoid issues with Lotus Bloom and other "no cost" cards being cheated into play. Instead the correct decision is to use a different design instead.
Re:Duskwood Piper - It's naming a different card, the green one that searches for a Piper (Precursor IIRC). The two form a weird synergy in that they find each other. I'm considering letting them find both Pipers and Precursors, essentially doubling up on the "same name matters" experiment.
Re:Ladar Skeleton - The initial application for limited was to be a weird sacrifice outlet for the WB aristocrat archetype, but I found a different outlet for that on Blood Beggar.
Re:False Step - This is admitedly a step in the "arms race" of creatures versus removal. I'm of the opinion that it's an acceptable step for removal to edge in on, but I'm also leveraging the goal of letting players feel like they're intruding on the acceptable terms of warfare.
Re:Ember Hound - part of the reason that there are so many Devils is that Tibalt brings them with him to Lorado. The other worlds that exhibit red are Grixis and Shandalar, which have a fair representation. I'd be open to including some kind of niche Devil tribal card.
Re:Hellion's Revival - The only precedent I'll cite is the inspiration for the effect: Grixis' keyword in Alara was Unearth. Since Grixis is one of the planes the set visits, I wanted to include at least one card that referenced Unearth, and I figured it'd be fun to go big.
Re:Spurious Evolution - I too am curious if the same-name archetype is doable! I'm hopeful it is, but if not I have some other ideas for what BG drafters can aim for.
Re:Idealon Stag - Idealons are a creature type from Aenyr that reference paintings come to life. The ability is also a reference to Aenyr's Imaginarium mechanic. If the card survives playtesting, it'll get some flavor text that hopefully serves to explain what's going on here.
Re:Excessive Retribution - There's no big reason this is a spell instead of a creature, but there are some small reasons. I think the name does a better job of explaining the story moment of Garruk's first kill (at least of humans). There are players who actively enjoy tokens and this spell caters to them. The difference is minimal in most gameplay scenarios.
Re:Pinnacle of Evolution - I agree, I'm not particularly happy with the design. I don't expect this to survive playtesting.
Re:Dropping flipwalkers - I've had some lengthy conversations about the merits of both options. For the time being I've dropped the creature half because the moment of sparking isn't as crucial to the set's storylines as the moment of crossing the line. Sparking is relevant, but it seems a distraction from the set's focus. This doesn't mean flipwalkers are out, just that I'm currently leaning to the other side of the fence.
Re:Overlaps - I've noticed this as well as I review and rereview the set file. I'm going to look for a couple of ways to increase the overlaps by bleeding abilities and synergies into third colors like I've done with Esper. Unravel bleeds into red. Wither bleeds into green. Hunt bleeds into white. Traps bleed into blue. (Operate has already bled into black.)
Re:Crush - I like red's common artifact destruction not hitting creatures since it's quite a color hosing thing to do in this set. But I could see using Anvil and Forge with noncreature artifact and probably buffing it to "choose one or both".
Re:Filigree Bracing - I rationalized this as "a learning moment for players that equipment doesn't tap with an attacking creature" but that seems more likely to trip people up since it doesn't usually matter. Playtesting it hasn't been too rough with experienced players, but I'll probably change the slot regardless.
Re:Blue death triggers - I thought I had included more, I'm glad you pointed this out.
Re:Escape Artist - There's reasonable justification for this to be tweaked into a legendary creature, which I think would alleviate your concerns.
I will happily answer them, but I'm about to leave home for a long weekend trip so it'll be a while before I get back.
In the meantime, I managed to update planesculptors before I left in response to your feedback. You should be able to reference which cards changed in the change log, I think?
In this episode I talk with Alex Silady aka void_nothing about the considerations designers should make when thinking about factions and uncommons in set design, with a bonus topic on trinket text.
Guest details:
Alex Silady
void_nothing on MTGSalvation
Podcast contact details:
Jake Mosby aka Piar
Email: CardographyCast@gmail.com
In this episode I interview Ron Vaseman aka R-Shig about his custom magic set Rising Throne. We also have a deep analysis discussion about how physical games differ from digital games and how best to design for the platform you're playing on.
Guest details:
Ron Vaseman
R-Shig on Reddit and the Custom Magic Discord
Podcast contact details:
Jake Mosby aka Piar
Email: CardographyCast@gmail.com
Cogwork Double 5
Artifact Creature - Shapeshifter (R)
Draft Cogwork Double face up.
As you draft Cogwork Double, reveal a creature card you've drafted and note its name.
Cogwork Double enters the battlefield as a copy of a card with a name noted as you drafted cards named Cogwork Double.
0/0
I've been doing quite a bit of paper playtesting, using sealed pools either solo or with friends to make limited decks. Got some great feedback and much better understanding of where the mechanics are at and how they function. This led to two big changes:
1) Hunt, as awesome as it is in premise, sadly doesn't work.
As a mechanic, Hunt was in an awkward spot where it could either shut a player out of the game (they weren't able to put together meaningful defenses) or it was utterly irrelevant. That's not good design space. After a few games I tried another user's implementation of Hunt (This creature must be blocked if able.) and it worked much better. Granted, I've only tried it in one match, but I hope it bears fruit in future games.
2) Unravel's decision space wasn't meaningful enough.
Making -1/-1 counters a good thing is new ground that friends liked, from an "I'm the Villain" perspective, but the one-time decision and the design philosophy in general wasn't quite there. The choice, they said, wants to be whether you're going to hurt your minions for your own gain. So I'm shifting around the Unravel triggers to be more one-shot spell effects, and I'm changing the mechanic from an ETB -1/-1 counter to Unravel (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a -1/-1 counter on this creature.)
Overall, the flavor of the set didn't ooze villainy as much as I hoped. I'll need to do a lot more work on naming and flavor text to really get that across.
Nefarox's Lieutenant 3BB
Creature - Skeleton Minion (U)
1B, Sacrifice a creature: Minion creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain wither and indestructible until end of turn. (They deal damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters.)
"Unless you want to end up in the Overlord's death-pit, get back to work!"
4/4
Villainous Monologue 2RR
Whenever you cast a spell, put a verse counter on Villainous Monologue. Then Villainous Monologue deals damage to each opponent equal to the number of verse counters on it.
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, remove all verse counters from Villainous Monologue.
In this episode I interview Brian Faulkner aka ShadowCentaur about his custom magic set Lorado. He's playtested it online and at GenCon! We also have a deep analysis discussion about the importance of art in Magic and game design, and how best to use art resources to enable player engagement.
Guest details:
Brian Faulkner
ShadowCentaur on MTGS, Reddit, and "everywhere else online."
Podcast contact details:
Jake Mosby aka Piar
Email: CardographyCast@gmail.com
In this episode I interview professional game designer Dan Felder about his history with gaming, some of the common pitfalls careful designers can avoid, the importance of designing towards a specific goal, and much more!
Guest details:
Dan Felder
danfelder.net
Contact details:
Jake Mosby aka Piar
Email: CardographyCast@gmail.com
Re:Shortwing Griffin - While the upside for this card isn't incredible, it'd be too much if a 3/1 had its ability. White does want this cardslot to be evasive, from a metrics standpoint just comparing it to official sets.
Re:Mandatory Unravel - To me, it isn't deserving of a proper keyword if the option isn't there. Having tested only once and against myself, I found that sometimes it was better to just take the larger body. This runs into the kicker issue, where players want to get their value even if it's the wrong play. After more testing, I might be open to giving the raw sizes some moderate boost to make the vanilla versions more attractive, or make the creatures more interesting in either mode (such as with the Specter).
Re:Inconspicuous Informant - With the Harrier change I think your initial concern has been addressed. The goal for the design was a repeatable way to trigger Scry that an opponent could interact with. Soft evasion seemed a good way to go.
Re:Hide in Wait - I like changing the wording to Vines of Vastwood style, since it gives another opportunity for the "I'm using the card in an unconventional way" players to feel Intelligent (one of the core emotions for meeting the design goal). It does make the flavor worse though.
Re:Crashing Wave - Crashing Wave is from Ringsir, aka Garruk's backwater home. The set wants to have some alternate win condition cards players can scheme and plot towards, and mill is one of the classic unconventional directions to take. If testing doesn't show this making much of an impact, it'll probably get changed to some other alternate win condition effect.
Re:Ingenious Invention - X can't be zero was to avoid issues with Lotus Bloom and other "no cost" cards being cheated into play. Instead the correct decision is to use a different design instead.
Re:Duskwood Piper - It's naming a different card, the green one that searches for a Piper (Precursor IIRC). The two form a weird synergy in that they find each other. I'm considering letting them find both Pipers and Precursors, essentially doubling up on the "same name matters" experiment.
Re:Ladar Skeleton - The initial application for limited was to be a weird sacrifice outlet for the WB aristocrat archetype, but I found a different outlet for that on Blood Beggar.
Re:False Step - This is admitedly a step in the "arms race" of creatures versus removal. I'm of the opinion that it's an acceptable step for removal to edge in on, but I'm also leveraging the goal of letting players feel like they're intruding on the acceptable terms of warfare.
Re:Ember Hound - part of the reason that there are so many Devils is that Tibalt brings them with him to Lorado. The other worlds that exhibit red are Grixis and Shandalar, which have a fair representation. I'd be open to including some kind of niche Devil tribal card.
Re:Hellion's Revival - The only precedent I'll cite is the inspiration for the effect: Grixis' keyword in Alara was Unearth. Since Grixis is one of the planes the set visits, I wanted to include at least one card that referenced Unearth, and I figured it'd be fun to go big.
Re:Spurious Evolution - I too am curious if the same-name archetype is doable!
Re:Idealon Stag - Idealons are a creature type from Aenyr that reference paintings come to life. The ability is also a reference to Aenyr's Imaginarium mechanic. If the card survives playtesting, it'll get some flavor text that hopefully serves to explain what's going on here.
Re:Excessive Retribution - There's no big reason this is a spell instead of a creature, but there are some small reasons. I think the name does a better job of explaining the story moment of Garruk's first kill (at least of humans). There are players who actively enjoy tokens and this spell caters to them. The difference is minimal in most gameplay scenarios.
Re:Pinnacle of Evolution - I agree, I'm not particularly happy with the design. I don't expect this to survive playtesting.
Re:Dropping flipwalkers - I've had some lengthy conversations about the merits of both options. For the time being I've dropped the creature half because the moment of sparking isn't as crucial to the set's storylines as the moment of crossing the line. Sparking is relevant, but it seems a distraction from the set's focus. This doesn't mean flipwalkers are out, just that I'm currently leaning to the other side of the fence.
Re:Overlaps - I've noticed this as well as I review and rereview the set file. I'm going to look for a couple of ways to increase the overlaps by bleeding abilities and synergies into third colors like I've done with Esper. Unravel bleeds into red. Wither bleeds into green. Hunt bleeds into white. Traps bleed into blue. (Operate has already bled into black.)
Re:Crush - I like red's common artifact destruction not hitting creatures since it's quite a color hosing thing to do in this set. But I could see using Anvil and Forge with noncreature artifact and probably buffing it to "choose one or both".
Re:Filigree Bracing - I rationalized this as "a learning moment for players that equipment doesn't tap with an attacking creature" but that seems more likely to trip people up since it doesn't usually matter. Playtesting it hasn't been too rough with experienced players, but I'll probably change the slot regardless.
Re:Blue death triggers - I thought I had included more, I'm glad you pointed this out.
Re:Escape Artist - There's reasonable justification for this to be tweaked into a legendary creature, which I think would alleviate your concerns.
In the meantime, I managed to update planesculptors before I left in response to your feedback. You should be able to reference which cards changed in the change log, I think?