Horsemanship isn't problematic. It just doesn't make sense to have both it and flying in the same game for developmental reasons, and flying fits the flavor better. Portal was basically the parralel universe "intro" version of MTG, and originally the cards could not even be played at sanctioned MTG events.
Jetvans something to note is that Linear mechanics and parasitic mechanics are very separate (but often confused.) Morph is linear but not parasitic and this is an example I'll address in the primer.
Y...yeah, that is where it gets truly strange. I can't think of any other non-parasitic mechanics where a designer must include a certain number of cards with that mechanic if they want to use it at all. In morph's case, presumably that number is, like, two per color at minimum but obviously in practice significantly more than that.
Just a Blogatog reference that it's considered 'parasitic'. Not sure if it will be relevant to the final primer, but it might be worth mentioning to designers that there are some concepts where "there can be only one" supported in the game, so a unique evasion variant may not be such a great custom mechanic for their set depending on what it is.
Horsemanship is a very strange kind of parasitic, to the point it's not really worth considering it to be parasitic. Horsemanship works just fine even if none of your opponents use horsemanship, and it works just fine in a lot of decks - because it's unblockable in that context. It only works-as-intended within its block, but it still works everywhere.
It's important to recognize the difference between "doesn't work as intended outside its context" and, "doesn't work at all outside its context". Splice onto Arcane doesn't work at all. Horsemanship just gets rewritten to "can't be blocked".
ITT: people throwing around the word "parasitic" without justifying how they use it. Here's my list of what I consider to be parastic mechanics, and why I think they are. I didn't include Future Sight's one-off mechanics or obsolesced ones (aka horsemanship, banding, etc.) My main point is that parasitic mechanics warp both how you build the skeleton of your set and how you draft it.
Persist, wither: These all force your set to include -1/-1 counters, which are a lot more difficult to design for than +1/+1 counters are. Infect: See above, but throw in poison counters as well. Morph, manifest, megamorph: Requires facedown card support and warps the P/T ratio and mana costs of other creatures in the set, so that morphing your creatures is actually viable. Heroic: Forces a higher number of combat tricks. Modular: Implies a heavy concentration of artifact creatures, of which most sets normally have just a few. Amplify, champion, changeling, kinship, offering, prowl, soulshift: These all imply your set has some "creature types matter" aspect to it, whether it's flat-out tribal supertype or more subtle support. Either way, you're going to have to devote a higher pecentage of your set to cards of those creature types to make sure these mechanics have enough gas. Domain, extort, sunburst: Implies a much higher than average percentage of multicolor cards in your set. Madness: Including madness means you also need to have a greater number of discard outlets, which can be feel-bad and counterintuitive to new players. Ripple: I guess this is a parasite of itself? Ripple cards are useless in constructed: but in limited, if you draft one ripple card you're forced to draft them all, which ends up being terribly unfun. Either way, ripple's a horrible mechanic and should never return. * Bushido, ninjutsu: Only parasitic because the name implies a Japanese setting. Change the name and you're good. (Changeling also has this problem.)
Remember that we're talking mechanics here - not cards - so Battlegrowth for example is not to be considered parasitic, but Evolve on Experiment One is.
You are working with an absurdly broad definition of parasitic that I don't think is helpful to OP.
Its helpful in that I can discuss how that definition isn't correct or useful in my primer.
You're wrong if you think I'm wrong. My definition may not be useful for your primer, but it is correct. I'll state it again more succinctly: In the strictest sense, a parasitic mechanic is any mechanic that requires an object other than a basic land (or the mana produced thereof) to function whatsoever. Beyond that vector, there are degrees of mechanical parasiticism. A "Parasite Scale" with the "ten worst-to-best parasitic mechanics" could be a helpful reference.
Legend, I honestly have no idea what your criteria for "Parasitic" is. There's a whole lot of mechanics on that list that literally require "a creature" to work, like Bolster and Reinforce. By that logic, Fight is parasitic because it requires creatures. Rampage, which requires being blocked by two or more creatures isn't parasitic, but Ninjutsu, which requires not being blocked, is. How is Fear parasitic when Intimidate isn't? It's literally just a color fixed Intimidate. Landfall requires you to play lands. That's totally confined to and only works in a limited amount of sets right?
Your right, Fear is not parasitic and but Fight is. Fear was supposed to be in the NOT PARASITIC list, Fight I misjudged. Fixed.
How is Sweep parasitic but Landfall is not? (Edit: Woops, neither of them are. Shame on me.) Rampage is dependent on a situation, Ninjutsu depends on another card - there's a significant difference. Rider mechanics that depend on circumstance or happenstance aren't parasitic.
My main point is that parasitic mechanics warp both how you build the skeleton of your set and how you draft it.
As far as I can tell, that classifies literally every mechanic as parasitic. Flying's existence significantly warps your set skeleton and draft environment.
I think the discussion could be straightened out immensely if we all decided on the same two definitions of parasitic from which we based our opinions, one concerning gameplay and one concerning mechanics development for a set or block.
The ones I use are the standard "insularity" definition for the gameplay aspect, and the standard "critical mass" definition for the mechanics development aspect.
Having said that, I don't understand how landfall is parasitic. Landfall works at its best when a player does what is generally expected of them in a game of Magic -- that is, to play lands and do stuff with them and the mana that they produce. That is, effectively, almost the complete opposite of parasitism.
There are many examples of positive correlations between a mechanic's parasitism and a mechanic's ability to make a player do something they wouldn't be generally expected to do in a game. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single parasitic mechanic that doesn't fit this correlation (at least, with the definition of "parasitism" I'm using). I can illustrate with some examples if desired, but I think most of them have already been covered somewhere in the previous forty or so posts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
My main point is that parasitic mechanics warp both how you build the skeleton of your set and how you draft it.
As far as I can tell, that classifies literally every mechanic as parasitic. Flying's existence significantly warps your set skeleton and draft environment.
You seem to be misinterpreting my statement. Flying doesn't warp a set skeleton: including flying creatures in a set doesn't mean other slots have to acommodate and support them. Contrarily, with modular as an example, you can't just stick in 1-2 artifact creatures with modular and call it a day. You need a "critical mass" of artifact creatures (to borrow the term from other posters) in order for modular's presence to be worthwhile.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH/Commander
(W/U)(W/U)Raff Capashen, Ship's Mage: The New da Vinci (historic control)
(W/B)(W/B)Teysa Karlov: Death Be Not Kind (aristocrats)
(R/G)(R/G)Hallar, the Firefletcher: Yavimaya Burning (kicker and counters)
(B/G)(G/U)Sidisi, Brood Tyrant: Queen of the Damned (dredge)
Maybe Build
(W/U)(U/B)Aminatou, the Fateshifter: And a Child Shall Lead Them (superfriends)
I see your definition Legend, and technically it makes sense with the English word for parasitic. It would probably be good to have words for these different things:
"relies upon something else to do anything at all" - Auras
"plays better with something else" - Landfall
"only plays well with itself" - Ripple
"plays better in multiples" - Kindle
"plays particularly well with other cards of the same mechanic" - Morph
"only plays as intended with its own set/block" - Horsemanship
"only plays well with its own set/block" - Splice onto Arcane
"requires lots of space in the design file" - Infect
"requires other types of cards for support in the design file" - Heroic
I like the breakdown you have here. I'd like to separate each category with some points.
"relies upon something else to do anything at all" - Auras
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
- Does NOTHING with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game or while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
"plays better with something else" - Landfall
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
- Does NOTHING with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game or while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
"only plays well with itself" - Ripple
"plays better in multiples" - Kindle
- Does NOT do something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards
- FORCES players to do something not generally expected of them in a game or while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work AT ALL
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
*For Kindle, I'm considering only the bonus damage portion.
"plays particularly well with other cards of the same mechanic" - Morph
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
"only plays as intended with its own set/block" - Horsemanship
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
"only plays well with its own set/block" - Splice onto Arcane
- Does NOT do something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards (by "other types of cards" here, I mean card types on which splice does not appear)
- FORCES players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
"requires lots of space in the design file" - Infect
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
"requires other types of cards for support in the design file" - Heroic
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
- Does NOTHING with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
As we can see, not one of the listed game elements gets out scotch-free. However, that doesn't mean that these game elements are parasitic. Both mechanics that are often-praised and often-disliked fail to meet these different aspects of mechanics. The list of aspects I have here is by no means all-inclusive, which means there are even more that these mechanics may or may not fulfill.
My main point is that parasitic mechanics warp both how you build the skeleton of your set and how you draft it.
As far as I can tell, that classifies literally every mechanic as parasitic. Flying's existence significantly warps your set skeleton and draft environment.
You seem to be misinterpreting my statement. Flying doesn't warp a set skeleton: including flying creatures in a set doesn't mean other slots have to acommodate and support them. Contrarily, with modular as an example, you can't just stick in 1-2 artifact creatures with modular and call it a day. You need a "critical mass" of artifact creatures (to borrow the term from other posters) in order for modular's presence to be worthwhile.
Although you didn't include it in your list, I'd like to ask: do you consider horsemanship to be parasitic? And if so, why? Keep in mind that although horsemanship does require heavy set or block space for it to constitute whatever theme that a person wants it to fit, it does satisfy the other points in the list that I came up with above.
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
ok I think this is the time in the conversation were I weigh in with a definition to base our discussion on.
I'd like to hear if you agree or disagree with this definition
Parasitic Mechanic:
A mechanic that only works as intended in the context of itself or a very restricted environment.
Being parasitic does not equate to being bad and is also a matter of degrees, meaning some mechanic can be more parasitic than others.
How parasitic a mechanic is can be heavily effect by the context of card pool. For example, Mechanics can work together to reduce parasitism such as Proliferate and Infect.
A linear parasitic mechanic such as Allies is the same as Elf tribal, but due to there being such a huge amount of elves printed the mechanic is considered to only be linear.
In a similar vein slivers are less parasitic than allies simply because there are more of them.
Bad linear mechanics (In my opinion) are those that are both extremely insular AND un-interactive. Infect interacts with combat, proliferate, combat tricks, removal and many other things while something like Splice into Arcane is nearly impossible to variate and interact with.
Individual card designs can be parasitic such as Break Open or Hero's Drake. These are the usual examples of modular parasitic designs.
Horsemanship or Shadow only work as intended with themselves and there original environment and so are parasitic. That they still work incorrectly outside of that context makes them less parasitic though.
This term is based on Mark Rosewater's, and other mtg designer's articles and blog posts.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
My main point is that parasitic mechanics warp both how you build the skeleton of your set and how you draft it.
As far as I can tell, that classifies literally every mechanic as parasitic. Flying's existence significantly warps your set skeleton and draft environment.
You seem to be misinterpreting my statement. Flying doesn't warp a set skeleton: including flying creatures in a set doesn't mean other slots have to acommodate and support them. Contrarily, with modular as an example, you can't just stick in 1-2 artifact creatures with modular and call it a day. You need a "critical mass" of artifact creatures (to borrow the term from other posters) in order for modular's presence to be worthwhile.
Actually it does. The existence of flying dramatically changes the balance of the draft environment. It's the reason green needs things like Reach, and is a core weakness of that color. The presence of a certain amount of evasion in the draft via flying massively impacts the pace of the game, which also impacts your set skeleton enormously. You need the right amount of flying creatures to non-flying creatures for the mechanic to work (if everything had flying it would be very different if only one creature in your block had flying), its presence defines archetypes and so on and so forth. It has a more dramatic impact on a set skeleton of any mechanic in the game. Any mechanic that demands a massive portion of your set features the mechanic or ways to interact with the mechanic is definitely making an impact on your skeleton.
Or, to use your own phrase, you need a critical mass of flying/reach creatures for the effect to be worthwhile from a design perspective. You also can't go too high. Too few and they're basically just unblockable. Too many and the ability is worthless. There's a sweet spot that has a massive impact on how you design your set skeleton.
My main point is that parasitic mechanics warp both how you build the skeleton of your set and how you draft it.
As far as I can tell, that classifies literally every mechanic as parasitic. Flying's existence significantly warps your set skeleton and draft environment.
You seem to be misinterpreting my statement. Flying doesn't warp a set skeleton: including flying creatures in a set doesn't mean other slots have to acommodate and support them. Contrarily, with modular as an example, you can't just stick in 1-2 artifact creatures with modular and call it a day. You need a "critical mass" of artifact creatures (to borrow the term from other posters) in order for modular's presence to be worthwhile.
You seem to be confusing linear and parasitic.
Also Flying is parasitic in the context of a single set (look at Horsemanship.) But not parasitic in the context of all of magic. Context is important.
Although you didn't include it in your list, I'd like to ask: do you consider horsemanship to be parasitic? And if so, why? Keep in mind that although horsemanship does require heavy set or block space for it to constitute whatever theme that a person wants it to fit, it does satisfy the other points in the list that I came up with above.
I do, alongside shadow. Horsemanship and shadow both have significant unintended interactions when used outside their blocks - what was a flying variant in one environment becomes just plain unblockable anywhere else.
ok I think this is the time in the conversation were I weigh in with a definition to base our discussion on.
I'd like to hear if you agree or disagree with this definition
Parasitic Mechanic:
A mechanic that only works as intended in the context of itself or a very restricted environment.
Being parasitic does not equate to being bad and is also a matter of degrees, meaning some mechanic can be more parasitic than others.
How parasitic a mechanic is can be heavily effect by the context of card pool. For example, Mechanics can work together to reduce parasitism such as Proliferate and Infect.
A linear parasitic mechanic such as Allies is the same as Elf tribal, but due to there being such a huge amount of elves printed the mechanic is considered to only be linear.
In a similar vein slivers are less parasitic than allies simply because there are more of them.
Bad linear mechanics (In my opinion) are those that are both extremely insular AND un-interactive. Infect interacts with combat, proliferate, combat tricks, removal and many other things while something like Splice into Arcane is nearly impossible to variate and interact with.
Individual card designs can be parasitic such as Break Open or Hero's Drake. These are the usual examples of modular parasitic designs.
Horsemanship or Shadow only work as intended with themselves and there original environment and so are parasitic. That they still work incorrectly outside of that context makes them less parasitic though.
This term is based on Mark Rosewater's, and other mtg designer's articles and blog posts.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Seems pretty damn solid to me. (y)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH/Commander
(W/U)(W/U)Raff Capashen, Ship's Mage: The New da Vinci (historic control)
(W/B)(W/B)Teysa Karlov: Death Be Not Kind (aristocrats)
(R/G)(R/G)Hallar, the Firefletcher: Yavimaya Burning (kicker and counters)
(B/G)(G/U)Sidisi, Brood Tyrant: Queen of the Damned (dredge)
Maybe Build
(W/U)(U/B)Aminatou, the Fateshifter: And a Child Shall Lead Them (superfriends)
ok I think this is the time in the conversation were I weigh in with a definition to base our discussion on.
I'd like to hear if you agree or disagree with this definition
Parasitic Mechanic:
A mechanic that only works as intended in the context of itself or a very restricted environment.
Being parasitic does not equate to being bad and is also a matter of degrees, meaning some mechanic can be more parasitic than others.
How parasitic a mechanic is can be heavily effect by the context of card pool. For example, Mechanics can work together to reduce parasitism such as Proliferate and Infect.
A linear parasitic mechanic such as Allies is the same as Elf tribal, but due to there being such a huge amount of elves printed the mechanic is considered to only be linear.
In a similar vein slivers are less parasitic than allies simply because there are more of them.
Bad linear mechanics (In my opinion) are those that are both extremely insular AND un-interactive. Infect interacts with combat, proliferate, combat tricks, removal and many other things while something like Splice into Arcane is nearly impossible to variate and interact with.
Individual card designs can be parasitic such as Break Open or Hero's Drake. These are the usual examples of modular parasitic designs.
Horsemanship or Shadow only work as intended with themselves and there original environment and so are parasitic. That they still work incorrectly outside of that context makes them less parasitic though.
This term is based on Mark Rosewater's, and other mtg designer's articles and blog posts.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
If we are to combine the gameplay and environmental aspects of the mechanics in question to form a definition of parasitism, then I think the definition works fairly well. I like this definition, since it doesn't take flavor into account at all.
From the miscellaneous notes that you write, I think we can infer the following:
As the parasitism of a mechanic increases, the number of mechanics that exist in its native environment that interact with it decreases.
As the parasitism of a mechanic increases, the number of cards in the game that interact with it decreases.
As the parasitism of a mechanic increases, the general relevance of the game element that the mechanic interacts with decreases.
As the parasitism of a card increases, the number of situations in which the card can be used, either meaningfully or at all, decreases.
As the parasitism of a mechanic increases, the concentration of cards with the same mechanic in its native environment increases, and decreases everywhere else.
The parasitism of a mechanic is affected less by unexpected interactions outside its native environment than by any of the other five points mentioned.
I don't agree with the blue statement. Unlike the other five inferences, the blue statement has to do with native-environmental mechanic intentions, rather than strict gameplay. For instance, flying and horsemanship are identical in that both state that "a creature with <mechanic> can't be blocked except by creatures with [an ability in a subset of creature abilities that includes <mechanic>]", but horsemanship shouldn't be deemed to be more parasitic just because of its inclusion in only a select few sets or blocks.
Parasitism is an attribute of a mechanic that is "irreparable" -- that is, an attribute that cannot be remedied with the printing of more cards with that mechanic. If flying were printed with the same set distribution and frequency as horsemanship, then flying would be just as "parasitic" as horsemanship. An increased printing of cards with horsemanship remedies horsemanship's "parasitism" because horsemanship does not inherently rely on other creatures with horsemanship for it to function at all. In contrast, an increased printing of cards with splice onto arcane does not remedy splice onto arcane's parasitism because splice onto arcane inherently relies on the existence of Arcane cards to function.
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I really like those inferences, as well as the points you made before. I'm not sure my language was precise enough, and as you said, there are other types of mechanics, but I find projects / analysis of that type really interesting. Going to try take a look and reply more thoroughly later.
On these inferences -- it seems the direction of causality is backwards to me, i.e.
1. As the number of mechanics that exist in its native environment that interact with a mechanic decreases, the mechanic's parasitism increases.
2. As the number of cards in the game that interact with a mechanic decreases, the mechanic's parasitism increases.
[...]
The direction of causality is indeed backward, but that's more for readability and emphasis purposes rather than for actual causality assertion purposes. Their purpose is more for illustrating the correlation between one and the other, and how mechanic parasitism and the other aspect in each of those inferences are positively or negatively correlated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The term "parasitic mechanic" implies that it's the mechanic itself which determines whether it's parasitic or not.
However, this isn't a useful way for a designer to think about the concept; and is the source of most of the confusion here. The only thing the designer cares about is compatibility. Players tend to prefer when the cards they buy in packs can be used in lots of different strategies and build lots of different decks. They also tend to prefer having more options for how to build a specific strategy or find interactions with their cards.
This lens immediately clears several things up. Gorgon Tribal has very little compatibility with past cards and is unlikely to be compatible with many future cards printed. "Gorgon" isn't a common creature type. However, Goblin Tribal is compatible with a huge host of other cards printed throughout magic's past and those that are certain to be printed in the future (as goblins are red's characteristic race). Despite both mechanics being identical in design (rewarding you for playing creatures of a certain type) one is compatible with a huge amount of other cards. The other isn't.
Additionally, as per the Horsemanship vs. Flying discussion, let's compare two cards; Rend Spirit and Rend Flesh. Rend Spirit is relevant to far fewer cards than Rend Flesh is, and thus isn't useful in most decks you'll be building. As the number of spirits in magic becomes smaller and smaller compared to the number of cards in magic, Rend Spirit becomes less relevant (as it's a hate card). Rend Flesh on the other hand becomes even more relevant as this trend progresses. The further we move from Kamigawa, the better Rend Flesh gets.
This explains why flying can be considered to be more symbiotic - as it interacts with more things. However, Flying is an odd mechanic. Reach depends on there being a high number of Flying cards in existence for it to be relevant. If flying was printed in only one block, Reach would have very low compatibility. Flying, on the other hand, has two sides. On the one hand it's an evasion mechanic. On the other hand, it allows you to defend against other flier. However, the weaker the defensive side gets (if there are fewer fliers to block) the better the aggressive side gets (because there are fewer fliers to block you). Horsemanship today basically reads, "This creature can't be blocked" within most situations. Likewise, Shadow reads, "This creature can't block and can't be blocked".
By definition a shadow creature interacts with more cards than a creature that simply said, "this creature can't block and can't be blocked". However, the initial assumption is that the second card is more symbiotic while the shadow creature is more parasitic. This is incorrect. Shadow creatures have a great deal of compatibility. It's just odd that, like Will of the Council in duels, they don't seem to be working as originally intended.
That's a legitimate concern, but it's a different concept to explore than parasitism vs. symbiosis. Players care about whether their cards work well with their other cards. They care about how relevant their cards' mechanics will be to one another. Whether your design changes its function outside of its environment isn't relevant to whether it has a function in the first place.
TLDR; There are no parasitic mechanics. Parasitism only concerns us because it affects how compatible cards are with the other cards in the game, and the cards that are likely to exist going forward. It's all about compatibility, whether that comes from the core mechanical design being naturally open-ended (like Raid) or a high amount of content that makes a more narrow mechanic relevant (like Goblin Tribal).
I'd like to hear if you agree or disagree with this definition
Parasitic Mechanic:
A mechanic that only works as intended in the context of itself or a very restricted environment.
I think "as intended" is at the heart of the matter.
I still have some questions thought (directed at no one in particular).
What exactly is meant by the word "mechanic" - keyword actions, keyword abilities, ability words, effects, mechanics with no name, all of the above?
How much of a presence in a given context is required of a mechanic for it to be considered relevant for purposes of the primer - enough to warp set design?
Why is tribal being considered a parasitic mechanic when it isn't a mechanic but an archetype based on creature types? Allies, Rebels, and Slivers and such shouldn't be considered parasitic mechanics any more than Break Open should be considered a parasitic mechanic. Tribal is overall a parasitic archeytype. Within that archetype are parasitic cards, but the sum of those cards don't constitute a parasitic mechanic any more than Break Open and Ixidor, Reality Sculptor constitute a mechanic (as I understand the word to mean at this point).
Is Ondu Cleric parasitic while Devout Monk isn't?
Is Sidewinder Sliver parasitic while Mtenda Herder isn't?
Is Defiant Falcon parasitic while Royal Falcon isn't? (Many Rebels have an ability which contains the keyword action "search" for the subtype "Rebel". "Search" is not parasitic - the subtype "Rebel" is. So it's the tribe and its emergent archetype that makes the ability parasitic. I guess I'm splitting hairs, but it's just food for thought.)
To answer one of your questions, Legend, I'm considering anything from flying to ripple, from Kindle to Relentless Rats, to all be within the scope of the discussion. Since "mechanic" already has such a strong use elsewhere in custom card creation, I've used the term "game element" to refer to the relevant collection of things that are being discussed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
What exactly is meant by the word "mechanic" - keyword actions, keyword abilities, ability words, effects, mechanics with no name, all of the above?
In this context, it's "anything a card does". If it's text on a card here, it's a mechanic. "When this creature dies" is a mechanic, even though it isn't named like in Hearthstone with Deathrattle.
How much of a presence in a given context is required of a mechanic for it to be considered relevant for purposes of the primer - enough to warp set design?
I recommend referring to my previous post in the thread. How parasitic or symbiotic a card is only matters because of compatibility. It's more useful to a designer to think about it in those terms. I go into detail in my previous post.
Why is tribal being considered a parasitic mechanic when it isn't a mechanic but an archetype based on creature types?
My previous post explains this as well, but here's an example of two cards to show the issue here.
Spider Lord - 1BG
Creature - Spider
Spiders you control get +1/+1
2/2
Spider Lady - 1BG
Creature - Spider
Community 1 (Creatures you control that share a creature type with Spider Lady get +1/+1).
2/2
The second is stated in the context of a keyword, the first in a broader mechanic. Both are the same for all intents and purposes. They both have less overall compatibility than Lightning Bolt, and thus are more parasitic. However, due to the large number of spiders in MTG's history, they both have high enough compatability to not create worries about being too parasitic. Kithkin Tribal, on the other hand, is compatible with fewer cards and thus risks being too parasitic.
Allies, Rebels, and Slivers and such shouldn't be considered parasitic mechanics any more than Break Open should be considered a parasitic mechanic.
Break Open is parasitic. It's actually more parasitic, because hate cards require a larger overall proportion of the cards to exist in MTG for them to frequently be relevant. Kithkin Tribal only requires you toplay a kithkin deck. A spell with "Destroy target kithkin" requires there to be so many kithkins in the format you're playing in that you can expect your opponent to be running them.
Yes. Ondu Cleric only looks like you're getting more (despite the bonus being restricted to allies) because it's at a much higher power level. You'd have to compare the cleric to a card that's meant to be just as playable without requiring allies. The parasitic card will give you more power if you play to their deckbuilding restrictions, while the symbiotic card will give you a moderate amount of power but not restrict you at all. A good comparison here is Galvanic Blast to Lightning Bolt, or Thoughtcast to Divination.
Is Defiant Falcon parasitic while Royal Falcon isn't? (Many Rebels have an ability which contains the keyword action "search" for the subtype "Rebel". "Search" is not parasitic - the subtype "Rebel" is. So it's the tribe and its emergent archetype that makes the ability parasitic. I guess I'm splitting hairs, but it's just food for thought.)
The bottom of that scale would probably be something like "Card draw" or "direct damage". If ou wanted a keyword mechanic there, it would be things like Vigilance instead.
The Parasite Scale would only include parasitic mechanics. Mechanics that aren't parasitic, such as Vigilance, would have an effective parasite rating of zero.
In your previous post you claim that parasitism is an illusion, that compatibility is the reality. There are degrees of compatibility and therefore measures of compatibility, the most deviant of which is incompatibility, from which arises the concern about and concept of parasitism. So now we're talking in semantic circles. Parasitism is not an illusion, it's an array of compatibility. You're right, compatibility is the greater reality here (which I just learned from you, thanks), but it doesn't make parasitism an illusion.
I'm aware that Break Open is parasitic, I just wasn't sure if it was representative of a mechanic in and of itself for the purposes of the primer. I have been thinking in terms of groups of cards with the same mechanic (named or not named) that were printed for the same context that are readily recognized as a cohesive batch of cards due to their mechanical attributes.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Sidewinder Sliver and Mtenda Herder as well as tribal in general. I think that tribal mechanics that function independently and/or "give" instead of "take" are no more parasitic than nontribal equivalents. You said it yourself: symbiotic =/= parasitic.
The Parasite Scale would only include parasitic mechanics. Mechanics that aren't parasitic, such as Vigilance, would have an effective parasite rating of zero.
You should include a 0 then, because it implies the 1 and 10 are opposite ends.
In your previous post you claim that parasitism is an illusion, that compatibility is the reality. There are degrees of compatibility and therefore measures of compatibility, the most deviant of which is incompatibility, from which arises the concern about and concept of parasitism. So now we're talking in semantic circles. Parasitism is not an illusion, it's an array of compatibility. You're right, compatibility is the greater reality here (which I just learned from you, thanks), but it doesn't make parasitism an illusion.
What I meant by that is the idea that a mechanic itself is inherently parasitic due to some core nature is misleading. The controversy here is the illusion, not the reality of parasitism. I'm just defining parasitism based on what we actually care about and why; compatibility.
You can say that "Tribal is more parasitic than Vigilance" and technically be correct, but it's not that useful to a designer. For each design, just look at how compatible it is with the rest of MTG. Some tribal mechanics are going to be very parasitic (like minotaur tribal) because of low compatibility, whereas others like elves and goblins have extremely high compatibility. Looking at the mechanic in a vacuum isn't very helpful to a designer. You have to look at the compatibility overall, no matter where it comes from. That's what determines how parasitic something is.
I'm aware that Break Open is parasitic, I just wasn't sure if it was representative of a mechanic in and of itself for the purposes of the primer. I have been thinking in terms of groups of cards with the same mechanic (named or not named) that were printed for the same context that are readily recognized as a cohesive batch of cards due to their mechanical attributes.
That's not a useful way to think about "mechanics" in this context. Whether it's named or not doesn't affect compatability, which is the reason we care about parasitism in the first place. If metalcraft wasn't named, it wouldn't suddenly change its compatability with the other cards in the game.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Sidewinder Sliver and Mtenda Herder as well as tribal in general. I think that tribal mechanics that function independently and/or "give" instead of "take" are no more parasitic than nontribal equivalents. You said it yourself: symbiotic =/= parasitic.
The issue is that you're not comparing the cards fairly. You're comparing a decent card parasitic card to a terrible non-parasitic card. That's like comparing Galvanic Blast to Shock, which isn't fair. The blast is strictly-better, but the cards aren't on the same power level. There's never a reason to play the Shock instead. Lightning Bolt is a much better comparison to Galvanic Blast, because the Blast is only better than the bolt *if its criteria is met* and is weaker otherwise.
This is why it helps to look at card compatability rather than mechanical compatability. Tribal is more parasitic as opposed to non-tribal (assuming the cards are of equal power level) but Sidewinder Sliver has more compatability than Mtenda Herder on a card by card basis (because the Sidewinder Sliver is almost stritcly better and can be used in more decks). If you compare a solid card to an extremely weak one, the solid card is going to look better.
Okay, you're brining power level into the equation, which is fine, but I deliberately ignored it. I was trying to compare apples to apples inasmuch as possible, not concerning myself with power differences in order to ascertain a relatively "pure" description of parasitism.
I like your use of "symbiotic". I think it's a good description alongside "parasitic" to describe mechanics like metalcraft and morbid. I used to call them "rider mechanics", but I rather like symbiotic.
(P.S. - I didn't say the mechanic has to be named.)
By deliberately ignoring it you're not really comparing apples to apples. Power level is corrupting your analysis of how the mechanics work when you get onto a card vs. card level. Again, compare Lightning Bolt to Galvanic Blast (where Galvanic Blast is clearly more parasitic than Lightning Bolt) and you get a different answer for parastitism than Shock to Galvanic Blast (where galvanic blast is less parasitic than shock because it does everything shock does and more)... Despite the mechanics involved being exactly the same (direct damage and metalcraft). That's where the problem with your example lies.
(where galvanic blast is less parasitic than shock because it does everything shock does and more)
Why is power level a concern when determining how parasitic a mechanic is? Just because a card is strictly better than another doesn't mean that the one that's strictly better is less parasitic. It's not in the definition, and including a power level component to parasitism when the only component of primary concern is game element instance interdependency only distracts from the latter component.
All else equal, a 2/2 creature is not more parasitic than a 3/3 creature. There is no added game element dependency that is needed for a 2/2 than with a 3/3 for them to provide sufficient game meaning as limited by their characteristics.
On the other hand, with all else equal, a 2/2 creature without soulshift is less parasitic than a 2/2 creature with soulshift, because the soulshift of the second creature adds a game element dependency for it to provide sufficient game meaning. Without another game element (another creature, in this case), the creature's soulshift meaning is dead weight, does not provide any meaning toward the game, and is effectively reduced to the 2/2 creature that doesn't have soulshift. This problem doesn't happen between the 2/2 and 3/3 creatures mentioned above.
As other examples, a 2/2 creature with no abilities would be less parasitic than a 2/2 creature with flying; and a 2/2 creature with no abilities would be considered just as parasitic as a 2/2 creature with either vigilance or haste.
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Horsemanship is a very strange kind of parasitic, to the point it's not really worth considering it to be parasitic. Horsemanship works just fine even if none of your opponents use horsemanship, and it works just fine in a lot of decks - because it's unblockable in that context. It only works-as-intended within its block, but it still works everywhere.
It's important to recognize the difference between "doesn't work as intended outside its context" and, "doesn't work at all outside its context". Splice onto Arcane doesn't work at all. Horsemanship just gets rewritten to "can't be blocked".
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Persist, wither: These all force your set to include -1/-1 counters, which are a lot more difficult to design for than +1/+1 counters are.
Infect: See above, but throw in poison counters as well.
Morph, manifest, megamorph: Requires facedown card support and warps the P/T ratio and mana costs of other creatures in the set, so that morphing your creatures is actually viable.
Heroic: Forces a higher number of combat tricks.
Modular: Implies a heavy concentration of artifact creatures, of which most sets normally have just a few.
Amplify, champion, changeling, kinship, offering, prowl, soulshift: These all imply your set has some "creature types matter" aspect to it, whether it's flat-out tribal supertype or more subtle support. Either way, you're going to have to devote a higher pecentage of your set to cards of those creature types to make sure these mechanics have enough gas.
Domain, extort, sunburst: Implies a much higher than average percentage of multicolor cards in your set.
Madness: Including madness means you also need to have a greater number of discard outlets, which can be feel-bad and counterintuitive to new players.
Ripple: I guess this is a parasite of itself? Ripple cards are useless in constructed: but in limited, if you draft one ripple card you're forced to draft them all, which ends up being terribly unfun. Either way, ripple's a horrible mechanic and should never return.
* Bushido, ninjutsu: Only parasitic because the name implies a Japanese setting. Change the name and you're good. (Changeling also has this problem.)
You're wrong if you think I'm wrong. My definition may not be useful for your primer, but it is correct. I'll state it again more succinctly: In the strictest sense, a parasitic mechanic is any mechanic that requires an object other than a basic land (or the mana produced thereof) to function whatsoever. Beyond that vector, there are degrees of mechanical parasiticism. A "Parasite Scale" with the "ten worst-to-best parasitic mechanics" could be a helpful reference.
Your right, Fear is not parasitic and but Fight is. Fear was supposed to be in the NOT PARASITIC list, Fight I misjudged. Fixed.
How is Sweep parasitic but Landfall is not? (Edit: Woops, neither of them are. Shame on me.) Rampage is dependent on a situation, Ninjutsu depends on another card - there's a significant difference. Rider mechanics that depend on circumstance or happenstance aren't parasitic.
As far as I can tell, that classifies literally every mechanic as parasitic. Flying's existence significantly warps your set skeleton and draft environment.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The ones I use are the standard "insularity" definition for the gameplay aspect, and the standard "critical mass" definition for the mechanics development aspect.
Having said that, I don't understand how landfall is parasitic. Landfall works at its best when a player does what is generally expected of them in a game of Magic -- that is, to play lands and do stuff with them and the mana that they produce. That is, effectively, almost the complete opposite of parasitism.
There are many examples of positive correlations between a mechanic's parasitism and a mechanic's ability to make a player do something they wouldn't be generally expected to do in a game. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single parasitic mechanic that doesn't fit this correlation (at least, with the definition of "parasitism" I'm using). I can illustrate with some examples if desired, but I think most of them have already been covered somewhere in the previous forty or so posts.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
You seem to be misinterpreting my statement. Flying doesn't warp a set skeleton: including flying creatures in a set doesn't mean other slots have to acommodate and support them. Contrarily, with modular as an example, you can't just stick in 1-2 artifact creatures with modular and call it a day. You need a "critical mass" of artifact creatures (to borrow the term from other posters) in order for modular's presence to be worthwhile.
I like the breakdown you have here. I'd like to separate each category with some points.
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
- Does NOTHING with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game or while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
- Does NOTHING with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game or while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
"plays better in multiples" - Kindle
- Does NOT do something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards
- FORCES players to do something not generally expected of them in a game or while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work AT ALL
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
*For Kindle, I'm considering only the bonus damage portion.
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
- Does NOT do something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards (by "other types of cards" here, I mean card types on which splice does not appear)
- FORCES players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
+ Does something with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
+ Does something if only one instance of the game element is considered
- Does NOTHING with the absence of other types of cards
+ May encourage players to do something not generally expected of them in a game while deckbuilding in order for the game element to work well
+ Does not require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to create meaningful impact
- DOES require heavy set or block allocation for the game element to constitute a theme
As we can see, not one of the listed game elements gets out scotch-free. However, that doesn't mean that these game elements are parasitic. Both mechanics that are often-praised and often-disliked fail to meet these different aspects of mechanics. The list of aspects I have here is by no means all-inclusive, which means there are even more that these mechanics may or may not fulfill.
---
Although you didn't include it in your list, I'd like to ask: do you consider horsemanship to be parasitic? And if so, why? Keep in mind that although horsemanship does require heavy set or block space for it to constitute whatever theme that a person wants it to fit, it does satisfy the other points in the list that I came up with above.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I'd like to hear if you agree or disagree with this definition
Parasitic Mechanic:
A mechanic that only works as intended in the context of itself or a very restricted environment.
Being parasitic does not equate to being bad and is also a matter of degrees, meaning some mechanic can be more parasitic than others.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
Actually it does. The existence of flying dramatically changes the balance of the draft environment. It's the reason green needs things like Reach, and is a core weakness of that color. The presence of a certain amount of evasion in the draft via flying massively impacts the pace of the game, which also impacts your set skeleton enormously. You need the right amount of flying creatures to non-flying creatures for the mechanic to work (if everything had flying it would be very different if only one creature in your block had flying), its presence defines archetypes and so on and so forth. It has a more dramatic impact on a set skeleton of any mechanic in the game. Any mechanic that demands a massive portion of your set features the mechanic or ways to interact with the mechanic is definitely making an impact on your skeleton.
Or, to use your own phrase, you need a critical mass of flying/reach creatures for the effect to be worthwhile from a design perspective. You also can't go too high. Too few and they're basically just unblockable. Too many and the ability is worthless. There's a sweet spot that has a massive impact on how you design your set skeleton.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
You seem to be confusing linear and parasitic.
Also Flying is parasitic in the context of a single set (look at Horsemanship.) But not parasitic in the context of all of magic. Context is important.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
I do, alongside shadow. Horsemanship and shadow both have significant unintended interactions when used outside their blocks - what was a flying variant in one environment becomes just plain unblockable anywhere else.
Seems pretty damn solid to me. (y)
If we are to combine the gameplay and environmental aspects of the mechanics in question to form a definition of parasitism, then I think the definition works fairly well. I like this definition, since it doesn't take flavor into account at all.
From the miscellaneous notes that you write, I think we can infer the following:
I don't agree with the blue statement. Unlike the other five inferences, the blue statement has to do with native-environmental mechanic intentions, rather than strict gameplay. For instance, flying and horsemanship are identical in that both state that "a creature with <mechanic> can't be blocked except by creatures with [an ability in a subset of creature abilities that includes <mechanic>]", but horsemanship shouldn't be deemed to be more parasitic just because of its inclusion in only a select few sets or blocks.
Parasitism is an attribute of a mechanic that is "irreparable" -- that is, an attribute that cannot be remedied with the printing of more cards with that mechanic. If flying were printed with the same set distribution and frequency as horsemanship, then flying would be just as "parasitic" as horsemanship. An increased printing of cards with horsemanship remedies horsemanship's "parasitism" because horsemanship does not inherently rely on other creatures with horsemanship for it to function at all. In contrast, an increased printing of cards with splice onto arcane does not remedy splice onto arcane's parasitism because splice onto arcane inherently relies on the existence of Arcane cards to function.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The direction of causality is indeed backward, but that's more for readability and emphasis purposes rather than for actual causality assertion purposes. Their purpose is more for illustrating the correlation between one and the other, and how mechanic parasitism and the other aspect in each of those inferences are positively or negatively correlated.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The term "parasitic mechanic" implies that it's the mechanic itself which determines whether it's parasitic or not.
However, this isn't a useful way for a designer to think about the concept; and is the source of most of the confusion here. The only thing the designer cares about is compatibility. Players tend to prefer when the cards they buy in packs can be used in lots of different strategies and build lots of different decks. They also tend to prefer having more options for how to build a specific strategy or find interactions with their cards.
This lens immediately clears several things up. Gorgon Tribal has very little compatibility with past cards and is unlikely to be compatible with many future cards printed. "Gorgon" isn't a common creature type. However, Goblin Tribal is compatible with a huge host of other cards printed throughout magic's past and those that are certain to be printed in the future (as goblins are red's characteristic race). Despite both mechanics being identical in design (rewarding you for playing creatures of a certain type) one is compatible with a huge amount of other cards. The other isn't.
Additionally, as per the Horsemanship vs. Flying discussion, let's compare two cards; Rend Spirit and Rend Flesh. Rend Spirit is relevant to far fewer cards than Rend Flesh is, and thus isn't useful in most decks you'll be building. As the number of spirits in magic becomes smaller and smaller compared to the number of cards in magic, Rend Spirit becomes less relevant (as it's a hate card). Rend Flesh on the other hand becomes even more relevant as this trend progresses. The further we move from Kamigawa, the better Rend Flesh gets.
This explains why flying can be considered to be more symbiotic - as it interacts with more things. However, Flying is an odd mechanic. Reach depends on there being a high number of Flying cards in existence for it to be relevant. If flying was printed in only one block, Reach would have very low compatibility. Flying, on the other hand, has two sides. On the one hand it's an evasion mechanic. On the other hand, it allows you to defend against other flier. However, the weaker the defensive side gets (if there are fewer fliers to block) the better the aggressive side gets (because there are fewer fliers to block you). Horsemanship today basically reads, "This creature can't be blocked" within most situations. Likewise, Shadow reads, "This creature can't block and can't be blocked".
By definition a shadow creature interacts with more cards than a creature that simply said, "this creature can't block and can't be blocked". However, the initial assumption is that the second card is more symbiotic while the shadow creature is more parasitic. This is incorrect. Shadow creatures have a great deal of compatibility. It's just odd that, like Will of the Council in duels, they don't seem to be working as originally intended.
That's a legitimate concern, but it's a different concept to explore than parasitism vs. symbiosis. Players care about whether their cards work well with their other cards. They care about how relevant their cards' mechanics will be to one another. Whether your design changes its function outside of its environment isn't relevant to whether it has a function in the first place.
TLDR; There are no parasitic mechanics. Parasitism only concerns us because it affects how compatible cards are with the other cards in the game, and the cards that are likely to exist going forward. It's all about compatibility, whether that comes from the core mechanical design being naturally open-ended (like Raid) or a high amount of content that makes a more narrow mechanic relevant (like Goblin Tribal).
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I think "as intended" is at the heart of the matter.
I still have some questions thought (directed at no one in particular).
What exactly is meant by the word "mechanic" - keyword actions, keyword abilities, ability words, effects, mechanics with no name, all of the above?
How much of a presence in a given context is required of a mechanic for it to be considered relevant for purposes of the primer - enough to warp set design?
Why is tribal being considered a parasitic mechanic when it isn't a mechanic but an archetype based on creature types? Allies, Rebels, and Slivers and such shouldn't be considered parasitic mechanics any more than Break Open should be considered a parasitic mechanic. Tribal is overall a parasitic archeytype. Within that archetype are parasitic cards, but the sum of those cards don't constitute a parasitic mechanic any more than Break Open and Ixidor, Reality Sculptor constitute a mechanic (as I understand the word to mean at this point).
Is Ondu Cleric parasitic while Devout Monk isn't?
Is Sidewinder Sliver parasitic while Mtenda Herder isn't?
Is Defiant Falcon parasitic while Royal Falcon isn't? (Many Rebels have an ability which contains the keyword action "search" for the subtype "Rebel". "Search" is not parasitic - the subtype "Rebel" is. So it's the tribe and its emergent archetype that makes the ability parasitic. I guess I'm splitting hairs, but it's just food for thought.)
The Parasite Scale
10 Ripple???
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Horsemanship???
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
In this context, it's "anything a card does". If it's text on a card here, it's a mechanic. "When this creature dies" is a mechanic, even though it isn't named like in Hearthstone with Deathrattle.
I recommend referring to my previous post in the thread. How parasitic or symbiotic a card is only matters because of compatibility. It's more useful to a designer to think about it in those terms. I go into detail in my previous post.
My previous post explains this as well, but here's an example of two cards to show the issue here.
Spider Lord - 1BG
Creature - Spider
Spiders you control get +1/+1
2/2
Spider Lady - 1BG
Creature - Spider
Community 1 (Creatures you control that share a creature type with Spider Lady get +1/+1).
2/2
The second is stated in the context of a keyword, the first in a broader mechanic. Both are the same for all intents and purposes. They both have less overall compatibility than Lightning Bolt, and thus are more parasitic. However, due to the large number of spiders in MTG's history, they both have high enough compatability to not create worries about being too parasitic. Kithkin Tribal, on the other hand, is compatible with fewer cards and thus risks being too parasitic.
Break Open is parasitic. It's actually more parasitic, because hate cards require a larger overall proportion of the cards to exist in MTG for them to frequently be relevant. Kithkin Tribal only requires you toplay a kithkin deck. A spell with "Destroy target kithkin" requires there to be so many kithkins in the format you're playing in that you can expect your opponent to be running them.
Yes. Ondu Cleric only looks like you're getting more (despite the bonus being restricted to allies) because it's at a much higher power level. You'd have to compare the cleric to a card that's meant to be just as playable without requiring allies. The parasitic card will give you more power if you play to their deckbuilding restrictions, while the symbiotic card will give you a moderate amount of power but not restrict you at all. A good comparison here is Galvanic Blast to Lightning Bolt, or Thoughtcast to Divination.
Same answer.
[
Same answer.
The Parasite Scale
10 Ripple???
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Horsemanship???[/quote]
The bottom of that scale would probably be something like "Card draw" or "direct damage". If ou wanted a keyword mechanic there, it would be things like Vigilance instead.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The Parasite Scale would only include parasitic mechanics. Mechanics that aren't parasitic, such as Vigilance, would have an effective parasite rating of zero.
In your previous post you claim that parasitism is an illusion, that compatibility is the reality. There are degrees of compatibility and therefore measures of compatibility, the most deviant of which is incompatibility, from which arises the concern about and concept of parasitism. So now we're talking in semantic circles. Parasitism is not an illusion, it's an array of compatibility. You're right, compatibility is the greater reality here (which I just learned from you, thanks), but it doesn't make parasitism an illusion.
I'm aware that Break Open is parasitic, I just wasn't sure if it was representative of a mechanic in and of itself for the purposes of the primer. I have been thinking in terms of groups of cards with the same mechanic (named or not named) that were printed for the same context that are readily recognized as a cohesive batch of cards due to their mechanical attributes.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Sidewinder Sliver and Mtenda Herder as well as tribal in general. I think that tribal mechanics that function independently and/or "give" instead of "take" are no more parasitic than nontribal equivalents. You said it yourself: symbiotic =/= parasitic.
Thanks again.
No problem.
You should include a 0 then, because it implies the 1 and 10 are opposite ends.
What I meant by that is the idea that a mechanic itself is inherently parasitic due to some core nature is misleading. The controversy here is the illusion, not the reality of parasitism. I'm just defining parasitism based on what we actually care about and why; compatibility.
You can say that "Tribal is more parasitic than Vigilance" and technically be correct, but it's not that useful to a designer. For each design, just look at how compatible it is with the rest of MTG. Some tribal mechanics are going to be very parasitic (like minotaur tribal) because of low compatibility, whereas others like elves and goblins have extremely high compatibility. Looking at the mechanic in a vacuum isn't very helpful to a designer. You have to look at the compatibility overall, no matter where it comes from. That's what determines how parasitic something is.
That's not a useful way to think about "mechanics" in this context. Whether it's named or not doesn't affect compatability, which is the reason we care about parasitism in the first place. If metalcraft wasn't named, it wouldn't suddenly change its compatability with the other cards in the game.
The issue is that you're not comparing the cards fairly. You're comparing a decent card parasitic card to a terrible non-parasitic card. That's like comparing Galvanic Blast to Shock, which isn't fair. The blast is strictly-better, but the cards aren't on the same power level. There's never a reason to play the Shock instead. Lightning Bolt is a much better comparison to Galvanic Blast, because the Blast is only better than the bolt *if its criteria is met* and is weaker otherwise.
This is why it helps to look at card compatability rather than mechanical compatability. Tribal is more parasitic as opposed to non-tribal (assuming the cards are of equal power level) but Sidewinder Sliver has more compatability than Mtenda Herder on a card by card basis (because the Sidewinder Sliver is almost stritcly better and can be used in more decks). If you compare a solid card to an extremely weak one, the solid card is going to look better.
Anytime.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Okay, you're brining power level into the equation, which is fine, but I deliberately ignored it. I was trying to compare apples to apples inasmuch as possible, not concerning myself with power differences in order to ascertain a relatively "pure" description of parasitism.
I like your use of "symbiotic". I think it's a good description alongside "parasitic" to describe mechanics like metalcraft and morbid. I used to call them "rider mechanics", but I rather like symbiotic.
(P.S. - I didn't say the mechanic has to be named.)
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Why is power level a concern when determining how parasitic a mechanic is? Just because a card is strictly better than another doesn't mean that the one that's strictly better is less parasitic. It's not in the definition, and including a power level component to parasitism when the only component of primary concern is game element instance interdependency only distracts from the latter component.
All else equal, a 2/2 creature is not more parasitic than a 3/3 creature. There is no added game element dependency that is needed for a 2/2 than with a 3/3 for them to provide sufficient game meaning as limited by their characteristics.
On the other hand, with all else equal, a 2/2 creature without soulshift is less parasitic than a 2/2 creature with soulshift, because the soulshift of the second creature adds a game element dependency for it to provide sufficient game meaning. Without another game element (another creature, in this case), the creature's soulshift meaning is dead weight, does not provide any meaning toward the game, and is effectively reduced to the 2/2 creature that doesn't have soulshift. This problem doesn't happen between the 2/2 and 3/3 creatures mentioned above.
As other examples, a 2/2 creature with no abilities would be less parasitic than a 2/2 creature with flying; and a 2/2 creature with no abilities would be considered just as parasitic as a 2/2 creature with either vigilance or haste.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall