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.
Because it doesn't work for Legend's argument. Parasitsm is only about how compatible or not compatible a card is with the other cards in MTG (to get full value out of the card). Legend's argument leads to problems.
Legend is arguing the equivalent of, "A mechanic isn't parasitic if it's a pure bonus, it's just extra. Sidewinder Sliver isn't less compatible than Mtenda Herder, because it does everything the herder does and more. The sliver tribal doesn't limit your options, it just gives you even more options. Therefore, sliver tribal isn't parasitic because it doesn't reduce overall compatibility."
However, this is a false comparison. One could just as easily make the argument, "Blessed Breath isn't less compatible than Stave Off because it does everything Stave does and more. Splice onto Arcane doesn't limit your options, it just gives you even more options. Therefore, Splice onto Arcane isn't parasitic."
I can use this argument to prove literally any mechanic isn't parasitic this way. That's why it doesn't work.
Okay, I was erroneously using "parasitic card" with "parasitic mechanic" interchangeably. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Break Open is a parasitic card because all it has is a purely parasitic mechanic and nothing else. It's a prime example of parasitism and is a 10 on the Parasite Scale.
Ixidor, Reality Sculptor has two parasitic mechanics yet is not a parasitic card because it has nonparasitic qualities - power and toughness. The card itself would rank 0 on the Parasite Scale because it's first and foremost a 3/4 for 3UU, but its mechanics would each rank 10 on the Parasite Scale. Relatively few creatures are parasitic cards, though they do exist - Ember Beast and such.
In my mind, neither Blessed Breath nor Stave Off are parasitic cards (except in the extreme sense that they require white mana and a target to cast), but Blessed Breath does have a parasitic mechanic that is vestigial outside of its intended context. One could argue that Blessed Breath is a parasitic card by virtue of its parasitic mechanic, but I would disagree and argue that Blessed Breath is a card with two mechanics, one that isn't parasitic and one that is.
I will agree that parasitic/low compatibility mechanics that find themselves an environment in which they become nothing more than vestigial appendages are unpleasant. What I mean is, if I were making a deck and had a choice between one Stave Off and one Blessed Breath in the absence of other Arcane cards, I'd choose Stave Off because it just feels right to me. It's cleaner.
I think you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone that Shock is parasitic.
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.
Because it doesn't work for Legend's argument. Parasitsm is only about how compatible or not compatible a card is with the other cards in MTG (to get full value out of the card). Legend's argument leads to problems.
[...]
Ah, alright. My apologies for misunderstanding.
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
@ThoughtCriminal - Any misunderstanding you had was probably based on my misunderstanding.
@anyone - I still don't think flying or horsemanship (or a few other mechanics) are parasitic mechanics because they always work as intended and have no dependency whatsoever.
Consider Memnite the only 100% compatible, non-parasitic card in all of Magic (Coincidentally, it's compatibility has nothing to do with its power level):
How could anyone conclude that any of these are parasitic cards? Answer: Only by believing that "vanilla", reach, and horsemanship are parasitic mechanics. It could be argued that reach is a parasitic mechanic because it depends on another mechanic (flying) to be relevant, but I don't think so, not in view of Doombringer's definition of parasitic. I would classify it as a symbiotic mechanic - one that makes creature cards it's on strictly better than vanilla counterparts. It always works as intended and doesn't depend on your resources to function - most notably, extraneous objects within your deck.
One last comment. Neither Shock nor Galvanic Blast are parasitic cards (beyond requiring mana and a target to cast). Galvanic Blast just has a parasitic mechanic that elevates its power level above Shock. I believe the same is true for Mtenda Herder and Sidewinder Sliver.
One last comment. Neither Shock nor Galvanic Blast are parasitic cards (beyond requiring mana and a target to cast). Galvanic Blast just has a parasitic mechanic that elevates its power level above Shock. I believe the same is true for Mtenda Herder and Sidewinder Sliver.
Then the same should go for Blessed Breath, Glacial Ray, Surging Might, Kitsune Riftwalker and so on. All are cards that have uses, albeit very weak ones (but you said power level doesn't matter) without their parasitic mechanics. Therefore, they aren't parasitic cards according to your argument.
The reason we worry about compatibility is because players don't like feeling their cards aren't useful. All else being equal, they prefer it when their cards have more options and are relevant for longer. Players also want to get full value out of their cards. Just as players prefer to hold spells with kicker back to try and get full value out of them, and even mana-screwed themselves in the famous early Zendikar tests which had the kicker lands (lands you could pay a certain amount of mana when played to do a spell effect)... Players feel like the're losing value if they play only 1 copy of Surging Might in a deck. This feels bad, and this is why we care. Players often treat theoretical "guide lines" as "hard walls". If you're running a D&D encounter and you tell a group of players that walking into a space will deal a minor amount of damage to them, players will treat that space like it simply can't be enetered unless they're forced to. Players want to feel like they're getting full value, and they often treat it like a hard wall.
No one feels like they're missing out on something if they play Stave Off without arcane cards. Blessed Breath is a different story. It isn't rational, but it's natural player psychology and we've got to deal with that.
One last comment. Neither Shock nor Galvanic Blast are parasitic cards (beyond requiring mana and a target to cast). Galvanic Blast just has a parasitic mechanic that elevates its power level above Shock. I believe the same is true for Mtenda Herder and Sidewinder Sliver.
Then the same should go for Blessed Breath, Glacial Ray, Surging Might, Kitsune Riftwalker and so on. All are cards that have uses, albeit very weak ones (but you said power level doesn't matter) without their parasitic mechanics. Therefore, they aren't parasitic cards according to your argument.
Right. They aren't parasitic cards because they have a function independent of their parasitic component. They are cards with a parasitic mechanic. A purely parasitic card can't function without first engaging its parasitic mechanic - such as Evermind. But I can also see how a card can be labeled parasitic by virtue of having an adjunct parasitic mechanic (especially for the purposes of a primer). Particularly in light of the rest of your post, which is really what it's all about. (I just like to dissect things. It's how I learn. And I've definitely learned alot in this thread from just about everyone.)
The reason we worry about compatibility is because players don't like feeling their cards aren't useful. All else being equal, they prefer it when their cards have more options and are relevant for longer. Players also want to get full value out of their cards. Just as players prefer to hold spells with kicker back to try and get full value out of them, and even mana-screwed themselves in the famous early Zendikar tests which had the kicker lands (lands you could pay a certain amount of mana when played to do a spell effect)... Players feel like the're losing value if they play only 1 copy of Surging Might in a deck. This feels bad, and this is why we care. Players often treat theoretical "guide lines" as "hard walls". If you're running a D&D encounter and you tell a group of players that walking into a space will deal a minor amount of damage to them, players will treat that space like it simply can't be enetered unless they're forced to. Players want to feel like they're getting full value, and they often treat it like a hard wall.
No one feels like they're missing out on something if they play Stave Off without arcane cards. Blessed Breath is a different story. It isn't rational, but it's natural player psychology and we've got to deal with that.
All of which I wholeheartedly agree with. That's basically what I was getting at here.
I will agree that parasitic/low compatibility mechanics that find themselves an environment in which they become nothing more than vestigial appendages are unpleasant. What I mean is, if I were making a deck and had a choice between one Stave Off and one Blessed Breath in the absence of other Arcane cards, I'd choose Stave Off because it just feels right to me. It's cleaner.
The issue is that your application of "parasitic" is far too narrow. You've created a binary divide which has Break Open on one side and everything else on the other. This doesn't adequately support the designer's needs. For all intents and purposes, Kitsune Riftwalker is treated by players similarly to Rend Spirit. Both are considered hate cards that they'd hate to play outside of a target-rich environment. Putting pathetic stats on the diviner isn't enough to change the player's perception of the card. The perception is what we care about in the principle of parasitism. Players don't really like it when they perceive their cards as not being very useful with their other cards, or not being able to make many decks that might want these cards, or that the cards will become irrelevant in the future.
So calling cards like Rend Flesh "parasitic" and Kitsune Riftwalker "not parasitic" misses the point. They're very similar in the player's perception.
The issue is that your application of "parasitic" is far too narrow. You've created a binary divide which has Break Open on one side and everything else on the other. This doesn't adequately support the designer's needs. For all intents and purposes, Kitsune Riftwalker is treated by players similarly to Rend Spirit. Both are considered hate cards that they'd hate to play outside of a target-rich environment. Putting pathetic stats on the diviner isn't enough to change the player's perception of the card. The perception is what we care about in the principle of parasitism. Players don't really like it when they perceive their cards as not being very useful with their other cards, or not being able to make many decks that might want these cards, or that the cards will become irrelevant in the future.
So calling cards like Rend Flesh "parasitic" and Kitsune Riftwalker "not parasitic" misses the point. They're very similar in the player's perception.
Player perception isn't always reality though. It's relevant, it's what we play to as designers, but it isn't necessarily reality.
I don't know about you, but I'm amused by my musings, as well as those of others, of how to assemble a contraption.
Parasitism is a useful concept because of how it affects player perception of new cards. It isn't particularly useful otherwise.
So, player perception isn't an *objective* reality - but it's the only thing that matters when dealing with a concept created to deal with issues of player perfection.
I would also argue that the concept of parasitism is useful to keep in mind when trying to design towards a game with more interconnected parts and creativity. Having a concept for how well a set's mechanics play with the mechanics of other sets is good for such a goal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Known as Inanimate at Goblin Artisans, and TyrRev at /r/custommagic!
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
While Environment Synergy is a very important aspect of a set, Parasitism isn't the best possible lens to explore that information. Parasitism mostly has to do with backwards compatibility and future compatibility.
Parasitism is just one lens a designer has at his or her disposal. Other factors can make highly parasitic mechanics more acceptable (new tribes like werewolves are far more parasitic than doing even-more-golin-tribal but that's balanced against the fact that they're a cool new option, and players like new stuff). Environment Synergy is a related concept, but not the same as Parasitism.
Trying to evaluate Environment Synergy with Parasitism leads to bad results. Glacial Ray is extremely parasitic, but has high environment synergy. Does that mean that high parasitism leads to high environment synergy? Of course not. Eidolon of Blossoms has low parasitism and high environment synergy (since enchantments have been printed since Alpha and will probably continue being printed till the game's end).
This is why Parasitism isn't a good lens for evaluating Environment Synergy, because it's weighted so heavily by concerns far outside most environments.
I would also argue that the concept of parasitism is useful to keep in mind when trying to design towards a game with more interconnected parts and creativity.
Just that from the very beginning Magic has (by design) exemplified the the usefulness of varying levels of compatibility between cards, players, and mechanics - including parasitism. Garfield and friends could have easily left out some of the (then) parasitic elements that cards have (such as targeting) and we would have never been the wiser, but they wisely chose to include them - plenty of games do not. But over the years, those parasitic elements have bred creativity and led to streamlined rules. The trick is to hit the sweet spot of compatibility (known as "fun") whether it's parasitic or not. So viewing design through the lens of parasitism is much more relevant than you seem to think. And you better believe it was at the forefront of Garfield's mind in 1993. Yes, he had eureka moments while designing and developing Alpha, but future compatibility was not one of them. He knew what the parasitic end of compatibility was and how it would effect the future of Magic - i.e. Black Lotus was not an accident.
All that to say that TurboJustice is right, and I think you were too quick to try to explain how he was basically wrong because his scope was too narrow. I realize you're an educated game designer and programmer and stuff, but be careful of getting into the habit of basing your every opinion of game design on cookie cutter college lessons or you'll wind up posting one preconceived notion after another that disregard the notions of others all the while thinking that everyone who doesn't agree with you has something to learn rather than considering the possibility that maybe you are the one who has something to learn. Thank God Richard Garfield thought outside of the box and listened to his collaborators or Magic would probably be a long forgotten box game by now, if it had ever existed at all.
Er... I think you misread my post. At the very least you haven't responded to my points. If you see a flaw in my arguments, it would be great to hear about it. Saying, "Alpha did it different" isn't really a useful argument.
As for "targeting" being parasitic... I honestly don't know what you mean. In fact, I've re-read that whole paragraph several times and I don't understand what most of it is saying.
@TurboJustice - By the way, I misread your post slightly. You said...
I would also argue that the concept of parasitism is useful to keep in mind when trying to design towards a game with more interconnected parts and creativity. Having a concept for how well a set's mechanics play with the mechanics of other sets is good for such a goal.
For some reason, I read it as...
I would also argue that the concept of parasitism is useful to keep in mind when trying to design towards a game with more interconnected parts and creativity. Having a concept for how well a set's mechanics play with the other mechanics of the set is good for such a goal.
That's why I was talking about Parasitism vs. Environment Synergy. Because I thought you were talking about parasitism vs. environment synergy. My bad.
Just that from the very beginning Magic has (by design) exemplified the the usefulness of varying levels of compatibility between cards, players, and mechanics - including parasitism. Garfield and friends could have easily left out some of the (then) parasitic elements that cards have (such as targeting) and we would have never been the wiser, but they wisely chose to include them - plenty of games do not.
I find this claim to be suspect. The only way you can claim that targeting is a parasitic element is if your entire definition of "parasitic" is "operates on other game objects," which is a definition so broad as to be useless. Is a chess queen parasitic because it can capture other chess pieces? By your definition, it appears to be! But that definition cannot be the definition that anyone else is using because it cannot differentiate any game object from any other game object. Even cards as resolutely indifferent to events happening in the game as Darksteel Relic are operating on other objects in the game (in this case by filtering what operations can be performed on it).
Maybe you're using targeting as a concept because it selects which objects it operates on, but again this is not a useful distinction. Any game where objects have unshared properties will have this behavior. In Monopoly, you can buy Marvin Gardens, but you can't buy the shoe! Is the "buying" operation parasitic? What are you trying to communicate with this post? I'm trying to find a definition of "parasitic" that is valid for your post and also beneficial for continued discourse and I am not convinced that there is a definition that can meet both those constraints.
Er... I think you misread my post. At the very least you haven't responded to my points. If you see a flaw in my arguments, it would be great to hear about it. Saying, "Alpha did it different" isn't really a useful argument.
I didn't address the points of your post because they didn't address the points of the post they were pointing to. So, instead I pointed out and addressed the point that you missed Turbo's point and that he was correct and you were in error, not with the goal of highlighting any error, but with the goal of attesting a truth for the benefit of the thread.
...viewing design through the lens of parasitism is much more relevant than you seem to think.
...
All that to say that TurboJustice is right, and I think you were too quick to try to explain how he was basically wrong because his scope was [supposedly] too narrow.
Just that from the very beginning Magic has (by design) exemplified the the usefulness of varying levels of compatibility between cards, players, and mechanics - including parasitism. Garfield and friends could have easily left out some of the (then) parasitic elements that cards have (such as targeting) and we would have never been the wiser, but they wisely chose to include them - plenty of games do not.
I find this claim to be suspect. The only way you can claim that targeting is a parasitic element is if your entire definition of "parasitic" is "operates on other game objects," which is a definition so broad as to be useless.
Targeting isn't parastic because it "operates on other game objects". It's parasitic because it depends on them, but the game does not depend on it.* Targeting is just one example. When we get mana screwed, we suddenly realize how parasitic even the best cards are. And we all know what it's like to draw one Holy Strength/Giant Growth after another yet not have a creature to target. But I've talked about that in previous posts.
Maybe you're using targeting as a concept because it selects which objects it operates on, but again this is not a useful distinction. Any game where objects have unshared properties will have this behavior.
In Magic, as in any game, there is dependency and interdependency.* Targeting is a dependent mechanic. It just is. And is therefore parasitic at least to a small degree. We just accept it as the norm because it's how the game was given to us, but it didn't have to be that way. (Refer to Turbo's post for context.)
What are you trying to communicate with this post? I'm trying to find a definition of "parasitic" that is valid for your post and also beneficial for continued discourse and I am not convinced that there is a definition that can meet both those constraints.
One point of the post was to get Stairc to reconsider his response to Turbo, not to "belittle" him or anything like that, but in the hopes of getting a relevant response from him for my own edification if not that of others. The other was to elaborate on my own reply to Turbo - "Alpha agrees and so do I." It was cryptic I suppose, and I apologize for that, which is why I (somewhat) explained what I meant by it. I suppose my point does go beyond the scope of the intentions of this thread and therefore isn't helpful in that regard, but I like giving and receiving food for thought, and I couldn't resist going there when I read Turbo's post, which was imo a bit more profound that he may have intended if not realized.
*I guess ultimately, in my mind, games are about relationships - relationships between people or objects or both (give a group of children a ball and they will make up a game). Some relationships that manifest as games have components to them that aren't necessary to their irreducible essences. Such components are dependent components while all other components are interdependent components. Those interdependent components constitute gestalt relationships, and all other components add either positive or negative aspects to those relationships. Components that I consider "parasitic" lie outside of the irreducible essence of their respective games, lean on them, tax them, and offer little to nothing. So I guess there's my contextualized, personal definition of "parasitic" in a nutshell. Sorry if it isn't helpful. I struggle with apophenia.
I didn't address the points of your post because they didn't address the points of the post they were pointing to. So, instead I pointed out and addressed the point that you missed Turbo's point and that he was correct and you were in error, not with the goal of highlighting any error, but with the goal of attesting a truth for the benefit of the thread.
Well, consider that truth attested then. Still would like to know what you think the issue with my argument was though.
I've re-read that whole paragraph several times and I don't understand what most of it is saying.
You were probably just tired. Here's the short version. I hardly see how anyone couldn't understand it.
You'd be surprised. After I couldn't figure it out, I posted it to various other designers familiar with the forum and no one seemed to have an idea what you were saying. Maybe we were all tired?
Instead of saying you're "attesting a truth" and, "no one could misunderstand it" - maybe you should take the time to clarify where you think the argument is wrong and what you actually mean. I honestly don't understand what you're talking about.
...viewing design through the lens of parasitism is much more relevant than you seem to think.
...
All that to say that TurboJustice is right, and I think you were too quick to try to explain how he was basically wrong because his scope was [supposedly] too narrow.
This isn't a meaningful statement. I could say, "viewing design through the lens of parasitism is much less important than you think. You're too quick to say I'm basically wrong."
You kinda need to justify that claim. I'm perfectly aware with what you're concluding. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Literally no one else of the five people I showed it to understood either. I'm not saying you're wrong, I couldn't possibly say that - because I simply don't understand what that post was saying.
Luckily it seems you've finally clarified some of it in the below quote.
So I guess there's my contextualized, personal definition of "parasitic" in a nutshell. Sorry if it isn't helpful. I struggle with apophenia.
When you introduce your own personal definitions of a term under discussion, don't clarify your definition ahead of time and don't make a compelling argument as to why we should switch to your definition - then people are probably not going to understand what you're saying. Additionally, when your definition of "parasitic" is so broad that everything in the game falls into it (or perhaps only 99.9999999% of cards) it isn't a helpful lens for a designer to use.
@StairC
I think what Legend is using parasitism as is a very scalar quality not a binary quality. That is, identifying aspects of parasitism within everything, and labelling as such or not depending on where it falls in that range. That seems like a useful definition, but is perhaps better labelled as a related concept of dependency as opposed to parasitism.
You'd be surprised. I posted it to various other designers familiar with the forum and no one seemed to have an idea what you were saying. Maybe we were all tired?
Before answering, I need to know... did you post it whole or snip out the pieces that inconvenienced you as your prone to do?
Instead of saying you're "attesting a truth" and, "no one could misunderstand it" - maybe you should take the time to clarify where you think the argument is wrong and what you actually mean. I honestly don't understand what you're talking about.
Again, it was never about your argument. It was about how you "heard" what you wanted or expected to "hear" instead of what was being "said", which can be detrimental to the purpose of a thread.
This isn't a meaningful statement. I could say, "viewing design through the lens of parasitism is much less important than you think. You're too quick to say I'm basically wrong."
This is the wrong forum for resorting to meaningless statements such as "meaningful statement".
You kinda need to justify that claim. I'm perfectly aware with what you're concluding. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Literally no one else of the five people I showed it to understood either. I'm not saying you're wrong, I couldn't possibly say that - because I simply don't understand what that post was saying.
I don't understand what it is that the six of you don't understand. And gosh, it would be so great if those five people would actively post here instead of being your anonymous minions. I'd much rather deal with "bands with Stairc" than "protection from Legend".
Luckily it seems you've finally clarified some of it in the below quote.
So I guess there's my contextualized, personal definition of "parasitic" in a nutshell. Sorry if it isn't helpful. I struggle with apophenia.
When you introduce your own personal definitions of a term under discussion, don't clarify your definition ahead of time and don't make a compelling argument as to why we should switch to your definition - then people are probably not going to understand what you're saying. Additionally, when your definition of "parasitic" is so broad that everything in the game falls into it (or perhaps only 99.9999999% of cards) it isn't a helpful lens for a designer to use.
Excuse me, but the op provides a (decent but subjective) definition of "parasitic" and then asks if we agree or disagree. I don't think that means to give a one word answer since there is no voting pole. So I have provided an explanation of my view of parasitism. If it isn't helpful, then pardon me, but I see no need for an inquisition from you and your five invisible friends. Have ya'll ever considered looking for the positive in an intelligent effort rather than being condescending to everyone who doesn't agree with your cookie-cutter college answers? And if you've had a sacrosanct definition of "parasitic" the whole time then why didn't you reveal it in your first post in this thread since it is the "term under discussion" and stop wasting everyone's time? I'd really like to read what your five game designer associates have to say about parasitism in Magic or in gaming in general.
I'd like to think so, but then where did the whole "sidewinder sliver isn't parasitic" thing come from?
Overall though, what I don't understand is this paragraph. The rest of it I think I understand.
Quote from Legend »
from the very beginning Magic has (by design) exemplified the the usefulness of varying levels of compatibility between cards, players, and mechanics - including parasitism. Garfield and friends could have easily left out some of the (then) parasitic elements that cards have (such as targeting) and we would have never been the wiser, but they wisely chose to include them - plenty of games do not. But over the years, those parasitic elements have bred creativity and led to streamlined rules. The trick is to hit the sweet spot of compatibility (known as "fun") whether it's parasitic or not. So viewing design through the lens of parasitism is much more relevant than you seem to think. And you better believe it was at the forefront of Garfield's mind in 1993. Yes, he had eureka moments while designing and developing Alpha, but future compatibility was not one of them. He knew what the parasitic end of compatibility was and how it would effect the future of Magic - i.e. Black Lotus was not an accident.
Like - apparently parasitism was at the forefront of Garfield's mind in this paragraph, yet two sentences later it's stated that Garfield wasn't thinking about future compatibility. Then in the next sentence, it seems to contradict that again by saying he knew exactly what future compatibility was and how it would affect the future of magic. And black lotus? What does that have to do with the parasitic end of compatibility in MTG's future?
EDIT - To Legend...
Before answering, I need to know... did you post it whole or snip out the pieces that inconvenienced you as your prone to do?
I linked the whole thread, and used the hyperlink that pointed them to the specific message within the full thread. I didn't copy and paste an excerpt. However, it seems you have a great deal of hostility towards me in general. Sorry if I've done anything that's offended you, but I don't feel inclined to continue a discourse when you seem to be continually sniping at me.
I'd much rather deal with "bands with Stairc" than "protection from Legend".
I linked the whole thread, and used the hyperlink that pointed them to the specific message within the full thread. I didn't copy and paste an excerpt. However, it seems you have a great deal of hostility towards me in general. Sorry if I've done anything that's offended you, but I don't feel inclined to continue a discourse when you seem to be continually sniping at me.
Lack of tone, bane of many an internet-based discussion .
Legend I'm finding your alternative definition for Parasitism rather confusing. Mind if you help me understand?
Let me know if any of this is incorrect: According to you sidewinder sliver = Not Parasitic Break Open = Parsitic Ixidor, Reality Sculptor = Not parasitic, but its abilities are??? (Why the hell are you looking at elements in separation???) Memnite = Not Parasitic (Because has no mana cost etc. so your saying all the previous designs are parasitic to an extent?)
Targeting = Parasitic
Could you define your version of parasitic-ness in a clear sentence or two?
What is your version of parasitic-ness useful for as a designer?
Like - apparently parasitism was at the forefront of Garfield's mind in this paragraph, yet two sentences later it's stated that Garfield wasn't thinking about future compatibility. Then in the next sentence, it seems to contradict that again by saying he knew exactly what future compatibility was and how it would affect the future of magic.
Ohhhh... now I see. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? What I meant was that parasitism and forward compatibility in general were not a "eureka moment" for Mr. Garfield. In other words, he didn't stumble upon it on accident nor was it an afterthought. He was well aware of its existence while making the game if not before. And that it needed to be handled properly to ensure the game's longevity. And the reason I brought it up at all was to make a case in favor of Turbo's post.
Legend I'm finding your alternative definition for Parasitism rather confusing. Mind if you help me understand?
Let me know if any of this is incorrect: According to you sidewinder sliver = Not Parasitic Break Open = Parsitic Ixidor, Reality Sculptor = Not parasitic, but its abilities are??? (Why the hell are you looking at elements in separation???) Memnite = Not Parasitic (Because has no mana cost etc. so your saying all the previous designs are parasitic to an extent?)
Targeting = Parasitic
[(Why the hell are you looking at elements in separation???)]
It helps me to think clearly. I find it to be a helpful practice in life in general. For example, what someone can do does not define who they are or what they mean to me. EDIT: It also helps me draft.
Could you define your version of parasitic-ness in a clear sentence or two?
Probably not any clearer than I did a couple of posts above. But I'll try: Any part of a game that isn't necessary for its existence and desired resolution.
What [How] is your version of parasitic-ness useful for as a designer?
It gets me to ask myself two questions when designing: Is it necessary, and if not, is it fun?
In Magic, when designing a mechanic, the answer to the first question "is it necessary" is always going to be "no", so we move on to the second question "is it fun" to which the answer should always be "yes". (EDIT: The lens of "is it fun" takes past, present, and future into consideration, which again points to Turbo's post as well as Stairc's first post on this page.)
Is the medium through which a game is played considered to be parasitic? After all, the exact medium in question isn't always necessary for the game to exist. Examples of these would include controllers for console games, balls for various ball-related sports, and of course, cards for Magic.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because it doesn't work for Legend's argument. Parasitsm is only about how compatible or not compatible a card is with the other cards in MTG (to get full value out of the card). Legend's argument leads to problems.
Legend is arguing the equivalent of, "A mechanic isn't parasitic if it's a pure bonus, it's just extra. Sidewinder Sliver isn't less compatible than Mtenda Herder, because it does everything the herder does and more. The sliver tribal doesn't limit your options, it just gives you even more options. Therefore, sliver tribal isn't parasitic because it doesn't reduce overall compatibility."
However, this is a false comparison. One could just as easily make the argument, "Blessed Breath isn't less compatible than Stave Off because it does everything Stave does and more. Splice onto Arcane doesn't limit your options, it just gives you even more options. Therefore, Splice onto Arcane isn't parasitic."
I can use this argument to prove literally any mechanic isn't parasitic this way. That's why it doesn't work.
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
Break Open is a parasitic card because all it has is a purely parasitic mechanic and nothing else. It's a prime example of parasitism and is a 10 on the Parasite Scale.
Ixidor, Reality Sculptor has two parasitic mechanics yet is not a parasitic card because it has nonparasitic qualities - power and toughness. The card itself would rank 0 on the Parasite Scale because it's first and foremost a 3/4 for 3UU, but its mechanics would each rank 10 on the Parasite Scale. Relatively few creatures are parasitic cards, though they do exist - Ember Beast and such.
In my mind, neither Blessed Breath nor Stave Off are parasitic cards (except in the extreme sense that they require white mana and a target to cast), but Blessed Breath does have a parasitic mechanic that is vestigial outside of its intended context. One could argue that Blessed Breath is a parasitic card by virtue of its parasitic mechanic, but I would disagree and argue that Blessed Breath is a card with two mechanics, one that isn't parasitic and one that is.
I will agree that parasitic/low compatibility mechanics that find themselves an environment in which they become nothing more than vestigial appendages are unpleasant. What I mean is, if I were making a deck and had a choice between one Stave Off and one Blessed Breath in the absence of other Arcane cards, I'd choose Stave Off because it just feels right to me. It's cleaner.
I think you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone that Shock is parasitic.
Ah, alright. My apologies for misunderstanding.
[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
@anyone - I still don't think flying or horsemanship (or a few other mechanics) are parasitic mechanics because they always work as intended and have no dependency whatsoever.
Consider Memnite the only 100% compatible, non-parasitic card in all of Magic (Coincidentally, it's compatibility has nothing to do with its power level):
Memnite1
0
Artifact Creature - Construct
1/1
vs
Memnite2
0
Artifact Creature - Construct
1/1
Reach
vs
Memnite3
0
Creature - Construct
1/1
Horsemanship
How could anyone conclude that any of these are parasitic cards? Answer: Only by believing that "vanilla", reach, and horsemanship are parasitic mechanics. It could be argued that reach is a parasitic mechanic because it depends on another mechanic (flying) to be relevant, but I don't think so, not in view of Doombringer's definition of parasitic. I would classify it as a symbiotic mechanic - one that makes creature cards it's on strictly better than vanilla counterparts. It always works as intended and doesn't depend on your resources to function - most notably, extraneous objects within your deck.
One last comment. Neither Shock nor Galvanic Blast are parasitic cards (beyond requiring mana and a target to cast). Galvanic Blast just has a parasitic mechanic that elevates its power level above Shock. I believe the same is true for Mtenda Herder and Sidewinder Sliver.
Then the same should go for Blessed Breath, Glacial Ray, Surging Might, Kitsune Riftwalker and so on. All are cards that have uses, albeit very weak ones (but you said power level doesn't matter) without their parasitic mechanics. Therefore, they aren't parasitic cards according to your argument.
The reason we worry about compatibility is because players don't like feeling their cards aren't useful. All else being equal, they prefer it when their cards have more options and are relevant for longer. Players also want to get full value out of their cards. Just as players prefer to hold spells with kicker back to try and get full value out of them, and even mana-screwed themselves in the famous early Zendikar tests which had the kicker lands (lands you could pay a certain amount of mana when played to do a spell effect)... Players feel like the're losing value if they play only 1 copy of Surging Might in a deck. This feels bad, and this is why we care. Players often treat theoretical "guide lines" as "hard walls". If you're running a D&D encounter and you tell a group of players that walking into a space will deal a minor amount of damage to them, players will treat that space like it simply can't be enetered unless they're forced to. Players want to feel like they're getting full value, and they often treat it like a hard wall.
No one feels like they're missing out on something if they play Stave Off without arcane cards. Blessed Breath is a different story. It isn't rational, but it's natural player psychology and we've got to deal with that.
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
Right. They aren't parasitic cards because they have a function independent of their parasitic component. They are cards with a parasitic mechanic. A purely parasitic card can't function without first engaging its parasitic mechanic - such as Evermind. But I can also see how a card can be labeled parasitic by virtue of having an adjunct parasitic mechanic (especially for the purposes of a primer). Particularly in light of the rest of your post, which is really what it's all about. (I just like to dissect things. It's how I learn. And I've definitely learned alot in this thread from just about everyone.)
All of which I wholeheartedly agree with. That's basically what I was getting at here.
You just put it a little better.
So calling cards like Rend Flesh "parasitic" and Kitsune Riftwalker "not parasitic" misses the point. They're very similar in the player's perception.
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
Player perception isn't always reality though. It's relevant, it's what we play to as designers, but it isn't necessarily reality.
I don't know about you, but I'm amused by my musings, as well as those of others, of how to assemble a contraption.
So, player perception isn't an *objective* reality - but it's the only thing that matters when dealing with a concept created to deal with issues of player perfection.
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
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
Parasitism is just one lens a designer has at his or her disposal. Other factors can make highly parasitic mechanics more acceptable (new tribes like werewolves are far more parasitic than doing even-more-golin-tribal but that's balanced against the fact that they're a cool new option, and players like new stuff). Environment Synergy is a related concept, but not the same as Parasitism.
Trying to evaluate Environment Synergy with Parasitism leads to bad results. Glacial Ray is extremely parasitic, but has high environment synergy. Does that mean that high parasitism leads to high environment synergy? Of course not. Eidolon of Blossoms has low parasitism and high environment synergy (since enchantments have been printed since Alpha and will probably continue being printed till the game's end).
This is why Parasitism isn't a good lens for evaluating Environment Synergy, because it's weighted so heavily by concerns far outside most environments.
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
Alpha agrees and so do I.
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
Just that from the very beginning Magic has (by design) exemplified the the usefulness of varying levels of compatibility between cards, players, and mechanics - including parasitism. Garfield and friends could have easily left out some of the (then) parasitic elements that cards have (such as targeting) and we would have never been the wiser, but they wisely chose to include them - plenty of games do not. But over the years, those parasitic elements have bred creativity and led to streamlined rules. The trick is to hit the sweet spot of compatibility (known as "fun") whether it's parasitic or not. So viewing design through the lens of parasitism is much more relevant than you seem to think. And you better believe it was at the forefront of Garfield's mind in 1993. Yes, he had eureka moments while designing and developing Alpha, but future compatibility was not one of them. He knew what the parasitic end of compatibility was and how it would effect the future of Magic - i.e. Black Lotus was not an accident.
All that to say that TurboJustice is right, and I think you were too quick to try to explain how he was basically wrong because his scope was too narrow. I realize you're an educated game designer and programmer and stuff, but be careful of getting into the habit of basing your every opinion of game design on cookie cutter college lessons or you'll wind up posting one preconceived notion after another that disregard the notions of others all the while thinking that everyone who doesn't agree with you has something to learn rather than considering the possibility that maybe you are the one who has something to learn. Thank God Richard Garfield thought outside of the box and listened to his collaborators or Magic would probably be a long forgotten box game by now, if it had ever existed at all.
Due respect to you.
As for "targeting" being parasitic... I honestly don't know what you mean. In fact, I've re-read that whole paragraph several times and I don't understand what most of it is saying.
@TurboJustice - By the way, I misread your post slightly. You said...
For some reason, I read it as...
That's why I was talking about Parasitism vs. Environment Synergy. Because I thought you were talking about parasitism vs. environment synergy. My bad.
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
Maybe you're using targeting as a concept because it selects which objects it operates on, but again this is not a useful distinction. Any game where objects have unshared properties will have this behavior. In Monopoly, you can buy Marvin Gardens, but you can't buy the shoe! Is the "buying" operation parasitic? What are you trying to communicate with this post? I'm trying to find a definition of "parasitic" that is valid for your post and also beneficial for continued discourse and I am not convinced that there is a definition that can meet both those constraints.
I didn't address the points of your post because they didn't address the points of the post they were pointing to. So, instead I pointed out and addressed the point that you missed Turbo's point and that he was correct and you were in error, not with the goal of highlighting any error, but with the goal of attesting a truth for the benefit of the thread.
You were probably just tired. Here's the short version. I hardly see how anyone couldn't understand it.
As for the rest, see below.
Targeting isn't parastic because it "operates on other game objects". It's parasitic because it depends on them, but the game does not depend on it.* Targeting is just one example. When we get mana screwed, we suddenly realize how parasitic even the best cards are. And we all know what it's like to draw one Holy Strength/Giant Growth after another yet not have a creature to target. But I've talked about that in previous posts.
No.*
In Magic, as in any game, there is dependency and interdependency.* Targeting is a dependent mechanic. It just is. And is therefore parasitic at least to a small degree. We just accept it as the norm because it's how the game was given to us, but it didn't have to be that way. (Refer to Turbo's post for context.)
Yes.*
One point of the post was to get Stairc to reconsider his response to Turbo, not to "belittle" him or anything like that, but in the hopes of getting a relevant response from him for my own edification if not that of others. The other was to elaborate on my own reply to Turbo - "Alpha agrees and so do I." It was cryptic I suppose, and I apologize for that, which is why I (somewhat) explained what I meant by it. I suppose my point does go beyond the scope of the intentions of this thread and therefore isn't helpful in that regard, but I like giving and receiving food for thought, and I couldn't resist going there when I read Turbo's post, which was imo a bit more profound that he may have intended if not realized.
*I guess ultimately, in my mind, games are about relationships - relationships between people or objects or both (give a group of children a ball and they will make up a game). Some relationships that manifest as games have components to them that aren't necessary to their irreducible essences. Such components are dependent components while all other components are interdependent components. Those interdependent components constitute gestalt relationships, and all other components add either positive or negative aspects to those relationships. Components that I consider "parasitic" lie outside of the irreducible essence of their respective games, lean on them, tax them, and offer little to nothing. So I guess there's my contextualized, personal definition of "parasitic" in a nutshell. Sorry if it isn't helpful. I struggle with apophenia.
Well, consider that truth attested then. Still would like to know what you think the issue with my argument was though.
You'd be surprised. After I couldn't figure it out, I posted it to various other designers familiar with the forum and no one seemed to have an idea what you were saying. Maybe we were all tired?
Instead of saying you're "attesting a truth" and, "no one could misunderstand it" - maybe you should take the time to clarify where you think the argument is wrong and what you actually mean. I honestly don't understand what you're talking about.
This isn't a meaningful statement. I could say, "viewing design through the lens of parasitism is much less important than you think. You're too quick to say I'm basically wrong."
You kinda need to justify that claim. I'm perfectly aware with what you're concluding. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Literally no one else of the five people I showed it to understood either. I'm not saying you're wrong, I couldn't possibly say that - because I simply don't understand what that post was saying.
Luckily it seems you've finally clarified some of it in the below quote.
When you introduce your own personal definitions of a term under discussion, don't clarify your definition ahead of time and don't make a compelling argument as to why we should switch to your definition - then people are probably not going to understand what you're saying. Additionally, when your definition of "parasitic" is so broad that everything in the game falls into it (or perhaps only 99.9999999% of cards) it isn't a helpful lens for a designer to use.
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 what Legend is using parasitism as is a very scalar quality not a binary quality. That is, identifying aspects of parasitism within everything, and labelling as such or not depending on where it falls in that range. That seems like a useful definition, but is perhaps better labelled as a related concept of dependency as opposed to parasitism.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I don't think you're argument had an issue in the sense that it was flawed. It was just misapplied.
Before answering, I need to know... did you post it whole or snip out the pieces that inconvenienced you as your prone to do?
Again, it was never about your argument. It was about how you "heard" what you wanted or expected to "hear" instead of what was being "said", which can be detrimental to the purpose of a thread.
This is the wrong forum for resorting to meaningless statements such as "meaningful statement".
I don't understand what it is that the six of you don't understand. And gosh, it would be so great if those five people would actively post here instead of being your anonymous minions. I'd much rather deal with "bands with Stairc" than "protection from Legend".
Excuse me, but the op provides a (decent but subjective) definition of "parasitic" and then asks if we agree or disagree. I don't think that means to give a one word answer since there is no voting pole. So I have provided an explanation of my view of parasitism. If it isn't helpful, then pardon me, but I see no need for an inquisition from you and your five invisible friends. Have ya'll ever considered looking for the positive in an intelligent effort rather than being condescending to everyone who doesn't agree with your cookie-cutter college answers? And if you've had a sacrosanct definition of "parasitic" the whole time then why didn't you reveal it in your first post in this thread since it is the "term under discussion" and stop wasting everyone's time? I'd really like to read what your five game designer associates have to say about parasitism in Magic or in gaming in general.
Overall though, what I don't understand is this paragraph. The rest of it I think I understand.
Like - apparently parasitism was at the forefront of Garfield's mind in this paragraph, yet two sentences later it's stated that Garfield wasn't thinking about future compatibility. Then in the next sentence, it seems to contradict that again by saying he knew exactly what future compatibility was and how it would affect the future of magic. And black lotus? What does that have to do with the parasitic end of compatibility in MTG's future?
EDIT - To Legend...
I linked the whole thread, and used the hyperlink that pointed them to the specific message within the full thread. I didn't copy and paste an excerpt. However, it seems you have a great deal of hostility towards me in general. Sorry if I've done anything that's offended you, but I don't feel inclined to continue a discourse when you seem to be continually sniping at me.
This is funny though.
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
Lack of tone, bane of many an internet-based discussion .
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Let me know if any of this is incorrect:
According to you
sidewinder sliver = Not Parasitic
Break Open = Parsitic
Ixidor, Reality Sculptor = Not parasitic, but its abilities are??? (Why the hell are you looking at elements in separation???)
Memnite = Not Parasitic (Because has no mana cost etc. so your saying all the previous designs are parasitic to an extent?)
Targeting = Parasitic
Could you define your version of parasitic-ness in a clear sentence or two?
What is your version of parasitic-ness useful for as a designer?
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
Ohhhh... now I see. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? What I meant was that parasitism and forward compatibility in general were not a "eureka moment" for Mr. Garfield. In other words, he didn't stumble upon it on accident nor was it an afterthought. He was well aware of its existence while making the game if not before. And that it needed to be handled properly to ensure the game's longevity. And the reason I brought it up at all was to make a case in favor of Turbo's post.
It helps me to think clearly. I find it to be a helpful practice in life in general. For example, what someone can do does not define who they are or what they mean to me. EDIT: It also helps me draft.
Probably not any clearer than I did a couple of posts above. But I'll try: Any part of a game that isn't necessary for its existence and desired resolution.
It gets me to ask myself two questions when designing: Is it necessary, and if not, is it fun?
In Magic, when designing a mechanic, the answer to the first question "is it necessary" is always going to be "no", so we move on to the second question "is it fun" to which the answer should always be "yes". (EDIT: The lens of "is it fun" takes past, present, and future into consideration, which again points to Turbo's post as well as Stairc's first post on this page.)
[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