I was interested until I saw essay questions, multiple choice quiz and then I decided as much as I enjoy designing cards that I'd rather stick to my day (well, night) job than go through all of that just to have a chance at a chance.
Have they sent out the essay questions yet? I signed up for this, but I haven't seen anything yet.
Read this, and cross your fingers:
Quote from Mark Rosewater »
Here’s what we’re going to do. If you were supposed to get a letter for the third Great Designer Search, and did not (including signing up in the first 24-hours and not re-signing up), please send me an email through the link of any of my “Making Magic” articles. Label the email “I Didn’t Get My GDS3 Letter”. Make sure to include the email address you signed up with. Please send me the letter sometime today (Tuesday, January 16).
I'm not interested in the internship but these 4 questions from the essay email have me interested in your short answers (a sentence of two). Anyone care to share?
An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
if you want to wait until after the 21st to answer, that's fine too.
I'm not interested in the internship but these 4 questions from the essay email have me interested in your short answers (a sentence of two). Anyone care to share?
An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
if you want to wait until after the 21st to answer, that's fine too.
i'll give you the short versions of my answers
An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
i said provoke, because it'd be good for the game in much the same way "fight" is
If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
i said defender. because it doesn't show up hardly at all and is a drawback, and most of the time it's on 0 power creatures so yer not gonna attack with those anyway
What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
i said the game's ability to break its own rules and general variability. i kinda rambled on this question honestly
What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
i said the land-based resource system, and the land flood/screw that results
An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
I chose to add cycling. It has shown up in more sets than any other non-evergreen keyword, can go on any card type, and helps smooth out games in all colors.
If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
Like others here, I also chose defender. I suspect this will be a common answer. It's the only keyword that is inherently a drawback and won't leave a "keyword void" in any colors as it's fairly evenly spread across all colors.
What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
I said Magic's greatest strength was it's diversity, stemming directly from the color pie.
What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
I said Magic's greatest weakness was it's complexity. Design is definitely moving towards keeping the complexity as a "hidden layer" for experts to explore, but Magic has a lot of tough concepts to crack like priority, the stacks, and layers.
Good luck to everyone who submitted! I'd also be very curious what others said to question #10 (What one thing would you change about Magic)?
i found #10 to be the hardest question. my answer was that i'd either lower the maximum number of copies of each card in deck construction below 4, or raise the minimum deck size above 60. this would be to increase variance and thereby reduce monotony
i feel a lil shy about doing this, as i feel some of my answers could've been better, but
1. Introduce yourself and explain why you are a good fit for this internship.
Hello, my name is Rudyard Cashman. I have been practicing the art of Magic card design for over a decade now. I have learned much in that time and my evolution has gone through several stages. Over time my interest has shifted from individual card design to synergetic design, to archetype design to set and block design. Lately I have begun to wonder about inter-block synergy and how all pieces of the game interact with each other through time.
At this stage in my development I have some key principles that I think are part of what make me a strong designer. Above all the rule of fun is my guiding principle. To me, the most important question when evaluating card design is, “Will this make players’ experience of the game more fun?” Beyond that concern I consider simplicity and elegance trademarks of mine that set me apart. “Less is more.” I’m all about how a simple implementation of an idea can express itself in subtle and complex ways. Keeping things simple is good for the game in many ways. It helps keep the game accessible to new players. It keeps things moving and flowing in game. And from a design standpoint, keeping things simple on the small scale helps to keep things flexible and manageable on the large scale.
I think every individual cost, ability or stat on a card can be considered like a cell in a body, and every individual card in a set is like a body in an ecosystem. I see myself as a modular, holistic designer.
2. An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
Provoke is a good candidate for granting evergreen status. Evergreen mechanics tend to have strong flavor that indicates their function in an intuitive way. Provoke does this as well, as its name gives players a good sense of what it does, and when they find out exactly how it works there is a good chance that it corresponds closely with what they imagined.
Provoke is good for the game, as it helps to deal with stalemate situations and stagnant board states. This is something the game needs more of, since such situations where the game becomes stalled are more common than might be desired and are not much fun. Creatures with provoke help to deal with those situations by forcing blocks that are to the defending player's disadvantage. They also allow other attacking creatures to get through to the defender's life total by provoking and "distracting" potential blockers.
Another advantage to provoke is that, much like the fight mechanic, it provides green with a needed form of creature removal. Provoke also provides red/green with a shared keyword that is more valuable on smaller creatures than trample.
Magic is a game that breaks its own rules. Many of the evergreen keywords break a basic rule of Magic in a simple way that’s almost essential. Creatures can’t attack the turn they enter the battlefield, unless they have haste. Creatures must tap to attack, unless they have vigilance. New players sometimes do not immediately understand that they can’t attack creatures, that they only attack players and those players decide whether or not to block. Provoke provides an exception to this rule that seems natural, desired, almost obligatory.
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
If I had to remove an evergreen keyword, I would choose Defender. Walls being unable to attack was a sensible flavor choice made long ago. But flavor might not be enough of a reason to keep this old drawback mechanic hanging around.
Most creatures with defender have 0 power, so their inability to attack is minimally relevant. Attacking is the main way to win the game, so in a given set you don’t want too many creatures to be unable to do so. And as a matter of fact the number of creatures with defender in most sets is very low. In fact, a few recent sets have had none at all.
Given how uncommon the mechanic actually is, the memory space saved by having a keyword rather than writing out “this creature can’t attack” is not a lot. Note that the ability “this creature can’t block” doesn’t have its own keyword. If defender were worth keeping as a keyword at evergreen status, we could ask why couldn’t that ability also be granted such status? Maybe it could be, but it has all the same reasons not to be.
Defender has some design space to play with, but not much that couldn’t be done without the keyword. Imagine a creature that had two abilities, “Defender,” and “This creature can attack as though it didn’t have defender if you pay 3.” The same effect could be achieved with fewer words by saying, “This creature can’t attack unless you pay 3.”
Every other evergreen keyword provides a benefit rather than a drawback. The game would not lose much if defender lost evergreen status. It could still show up again in any set that really wanted it, whether that be for flavorful or mechanical reasons.
4. You're going to teach Magic to a stranger. What's your strategy to have the best possible outcome?
The best way to learn a new game is to play it, preferably in a controlled environment. Magic has a steep learning curve, there are a lot of details and terminology to take in. A new player should be introduced gradually, one concept at a time.
I would sit down with this stranger and give each of us with a prepared deck designed specifically for teaching the game. I would make sure the decks covered the bases between them in terms of essential game concepts to learn. Each deck would include cards of all card types except planeswalkers. I would include one or two creatures with each evergreen keyword ability and some vanilla creatures. A couple nonland cards with activated abilities would probably be included, and one or two with triggered or static abilities too.
After we played one game we could switch decks so that this stranger could experience a different style and start to learn what they like to play. After they’d been familiarized with the essentials I’d take the decks apart and give the cards to this person so that they could build.their own deck, because customization and deck construction is half the game in itself and it promotes personal investment. I wouldn’t guide them in building their first deck so as to allow for their fullest personal expression and self direction, and so as not to stymy them.
Overtime I might provide pointers in deckbuilding and strategy, but more often allowing them to figure things out on their own. When playing with this person I would note what themes, tribes and strategies they vibe and identify with and I would give and trade cards to them that I thought they’d like.
After they’d really gotten the hang of things I’d ask what aspects of my teaching style helped them and what didn’t so I could learn how to be a better teacher in the future.
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
Its depth and history, built up over time. Magic’s card pool (almost 20,000 cards) puts it at an advantage over other trading card games. This is true not only in the possibility and variety provided to the deck builder, but also in the grammar and vocabulary provided to the card designer. Magic has grown its own arcane language. To outsiders this can be intimidating, but to those who have grown up alongside the game it’s a meaningful asset and facet.
Magic is huge, and it has a lot of resources from which to draw upon in all areas. There are thousands of players willing to share their knowledge and teach others. There are many worlds in its multiverse. The various attributes of its five colors (and colorlessness) continue to be deeply developed and explored. The full range of human emotion and experience is represented, a plethora of playstyles are supported, and all forms of personal expression are possible.
More generally, I could say diversity and variation are Magic's greatest strengths. There are so many things that can be done within the game; this game that breaks its own rules and can basically do anything any other game can do within itself in this way. It’s already so deep but we’ve barely scratched the surface.
Magic has something for everyone. Flavors for all tastes. “Variety is the spice of life.” It's especially great for anyone like me who has a voracious appetite for novelty.
And because Magic can be and is so many things it can be a lens to see and understand the world. I am one of many who have learned so much from this game.
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
As much as I love them, I would have to say lands are Magic’s greatest weakness, or more specifically land screw and land flood. It’s an acceptable problem to long time players of the game, but it’s probably the most frustrating aspect for new players, and the most likely to turn them off from the game. This I have observed on many occasions, in addition to experiencing it myself.
No matter how well a deck’s lands are balanced, mana flood or screw is still going to happen from time to time. It is a bad feeling when you lose a game through no fault of your own and there was nothing you could do about it.
There doesn’t seem to be any rules change that could fix this problem without fundamentally changing the game, and such change would probably be difficult for dedicated fans to accept. What can be done is liberally sprinkling around mechanics that mitigate the issue, such as cycling and scry. But doing so is covering up a problem with the game rather than fixing it. And such patches have to be carefully balanced so that they can’t be exploited. Every solution carries with it its own potential problems.
Many other games that otherwise copy the Magic formula choose to eschew a land-style resource system. But it should be said that what those games gain in consistency they lose in variability and the interesting gameplay that can bring. Hopefully there exists a balance between those two positions that can one day be found.
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
Some of the free spells from Urza’s block were undoubtedly broken. But they didn’t have to be.
Untapping a number of lands equal to the converted mana cost of the spell doesn’t necessarily make the most sense, because tapping lands isn’t the only way to pay for spells, and not all lands tap for only one mana (which is part of what made it broken).
The permanents that had the mechanic had it as an ability that triggered on entering the battlefield. This was more abusable through blink/flicker effects. And it was also inconsistent with the instants and sorceries that had the ability as part of its effect upon resolution.
I could see two possible paths for fixing the mechanic. Each spell could trigger upon casting to produce mana equal to its mana cost. This would be less abusable and provide value to the caster even if the spell was countered. Alternatively, each spell could just be castable without paying its mana cost if you controlled lands that corresponded to its mana cost. For instance, if its mana cost was 2UU, you could cast it for free if you controlled two Islands and two other lands. This would be the safest option to avoid breaking the mechanic.
I think it would be worth bringing back some version of this mechanic, because people like getting things for free. It just feels good. The power of each card would probably need to be pulled back relative to its cost, since raising the cost wouldn’t work for balancing it.
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
Time Spiral was great, but it had too much going on. The theme of time was very interesting and had a lot of gameplay value. That theme alone would have been enough to base a set or block around. However Time Spiral was also overcrowded with new and returning mechanics, to the point it was overwhelming and intimidating, especially to new players.
In addition to being overloaded with mechanics, the individual cards seemed wordier on average, and the block in general felt cluttered. Every card being a reference to one or more older cards created a unique feeling, but unfortunately led to many of the cards feeling isolated from one another. Archetypes and synergies are not readily apparent, being buried under all of that, which makes me question the quality of the drafting experience, though I have not drafted any of Time Spiral block myself. The block as a whole felt exactly like what you’d get if you mashed all previous sets in Magic’s history together into one. Many of the individual cards were indeed mashups themselves.
So in that sense Time Spiral was a great success and really captured the essence of what it was supposed to be perfectly. All these different timelines crammed together, of course this is what it would look like in the form of a Magic set. Planar Chaos indeed!
I look forward to the future block that takes a nostalgic look back in time to Time Spiral. I could see formerly futureshifted cards with the timeshifted frame and special purple set symbol, maybe Wistful Thinking colorshifted into black, who knows...
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
Kamigawa had a lot of problems, but the legendary subtheme popped out to me and really added to the myth and immersion of the expansion. It was an evocative block, with amazing art and flavor that had presence and pulled you in.
Having legends at uncommon was a nice touch. Populating Kamigawa with so many unique personalities, and having them run around in the foreground, really made the world feel alive. Seeing humble, unknown nobodies change into renowned legends on the flip cards captured the sense of the hero’s journey well. Overall this theme was not overdone, and the “legends matter” felt like the cartilage that held the sets together. Epic was a cool take on what a legendary instant/sorcery could be.
The war between the spirits and mortals came across clearly. The otherworldliness of the spirits contrasted well with their mundane adversaries. Somehow the unusualness of the conflict made it feel more real than the typical magic war between humanoid factions. The motivation for the war was simple and relatable, and somehow more believable because of that.
I appreciated how the spirits had their own arcane magic, that had its own very unique look to it. I wonder if this might have been a good place to use the tribal supertype that lorwyn introduced later on. Splice might have had to work differently, and maybe tribal was a mistake, but it’d’ve been cool to have “tribal sorcery - spirit” spells floating around, especially if they could’ve been returned to hand with soulshift.
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
I might reduce the maximum number of copies of each non-basic card allowed in a deck to less than four. Or I could increase the minimum deck construction size above sixty cards. Either of these changes would increase the variability and diversity within decks, which would in turn make games less repetitive. It is in the deck builder’s best interest to maximize the consistency of their deck and narrow their strategy. It is in the game designer’s best interest to maximize fun, and things are more fun when they’re less predictable.
Changing the minimum size of decks could be done without having the same kind of effect on the card market that changing the maximum number of copies in a deck would have. Depending on the size of the increase though, we could consider increasing the size of the average set as well. That might not be necessary, but it would provide a larger card pool to offset the need to fill out the larger decks.
Unfortunately, increasing the deck size minimum would reduce the effectiveness of mill as a strategy. So if we did decide to make that change it’d be recommended that the minimum is raised minimally, and we should specifically playtest the effects it has on mill.
If we went with the maximum card copy reduction route, it might be wise to announce the change at least a year in advance so the effects on the market aren’t as immediate. Alternatively, the change could be first introduced and implemented as a new competitive format while making no changes to existing formats.
An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
I chose to add cycling. It has shown up in more sets than any other non-evergreen keyword, can go on any card type, and helps smooth out games in all colors.
If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
Like others here, I also chose defender. I suspect this will be a common answer. It's the only keyword that is inherently a drawback and won't leave a "keyword void" in any colors as it's fairly evenly spread across all colors.
What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
I said Magic's greatest strength was it's diversity, stemming directly from the color pie.
What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
I said Magic's greatest weakness was it's complexity. Design is definitely moving towards keeping the complexity as a "hidden layer" for experts to explore, but Magic has a lot of tough concepts to crack like priority, the stacks, and layers.
Good luck to everyone who submitted! I'd also be very curious what others said to question #10 (What one thing would you change about Magic)?
My answers were similar, except I suggested convoke as an evergreen mechanic (mass appeal, promotes/rewards playing creatures, etc) and while I agree with color pie being magics greatest strength, I focused on the identity it created for the game and players.
I would be happy to share my answer to question ten, but lets just say it involves supertypes and inspired my challenge for the latest CCL round, and I don't want to divulge what I suggested until my players have all submitted cards for the deadlines ;).
Mechanic to make Evergreen: Cycling. I cited how it acts like Scry as a smoothing mechanic that is easy to understand and can be applied in any set.
Mechanic to remove from Evergreen: Hexproof. I cited how the mechanic is hard to balanced, creating boom or bust cards, and how the mechanic creates feel bad scenarios and uninteractive gameplay.
Greatest strength: Color Pie. Cited diversity in deck archetypes and player identity with colors.
Greatest weakness: Magic's daunting stature. Citing complexity and it's 25 year old history.
Returning mechanic: Flanking. Citing how the biggest issue was the whole "non-Flanking" part and how the mechanic could eventually fill in the UB Evergreen keyword.
Favorite Set: Lorywn but cited complexitty
Least favorite: Scars of Mirrodin. Cited that the feel of the set of helplessness against the eventual Phyrexian take over was well conveyed.
Change something: Mana system, suggesting you could play any card facedown as a Waste-esque land.
----
Also, just got my email for Round 2. Multiple choice test will only be live from 6am Friday to 6am Saturday.
EDIT: Everyone who turned in 10 valid essays are making it into Round 2.
Completed sets:
Iamur — The Underwater Set
Overworld — Pirates vs. Octopuses
Esparand — The Sands of Time
Unfinished Sets:
Siege of Ravnica — Eldrazi in Ravnica
Shandalar — The Mana Set
Iamur Reimagined — Iamur v2
You can find more creative projects on my page Antaresdesigns!
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
This guy!
Past Ruminations
Links are broken, will fix in near future.
- Kaladesh
- Zendikar
- Rise of the Eldrazi
- Alara Reborn
- Innistrad <- Personal Favorite
- Dark Ascension
- Avacyn Restored
- Theros
- Return to Ravnica
- Tarkir
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
Source: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/169791508013/if-you-didnt-get-your-gds3-letter
Past Ruminations
Links are broken, will fix in near future.
- Kaladesh
- Zendikar
- Rise of the Eldrazi
- Alara Reborn
- Innistrad <- Personal Favorite
- Dark Ascension
- Avacyn Restored
- Theros
- Return to Ravnica
- Tarkir
An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
if you want to wait until after the 21st to answer, that's fine too.
Follow me on instagram @TheMTGWord
That should answer everything.
Past Ruminations
Links are broken, will fix in near future.
- Kaladesh
- Zendikar
- Rise of the Eldrazi
- Alara Reborn
- Innistrad <- Personal Favorite
- Dark Ascension
- Avacyn Restored
- Theros
- Return to Ravnica
- Tarkir
i'll give you the short versions of my answers
An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
i said provoke, because it'd be good for the game in much the same way "fight" is
If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
i said defender. because it doesn't show up hardly at all and is a drawback, and most of the time it's on 0 power creatures so yer not gonna attack with those anyway
What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
i said the game's ability to break its own rules and general variability. i kinda rambled on this question honestly
What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
i said the land-based resource system, and the land flood/screw that results
I chose to add cycling. It has shown up in more sets than any other non-evergreen keyword, can go on any card type, and helps smooth out games in all colors.
If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
Like others here, I also chose defender. I suspect this will be a common answer. It's the only keyword that is inherently a drawback and won't leave a "keyword void" in any colors as it's fairly evenly spread across all colors.
What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
I said Magic's greatest strength was it's diversity, stemming directly from the color pie.
What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
I said Magic's greatest weakness was it's complexity. Design is definitely moving towards keeping the complexity as a "hidden layer" for experts to explore, but Magic has a lot of tough concepts to crack like priority, the stacks, and layers.
Good luck to everyone who submitted! I'd also be very curious what others said to question #10 (What one thing would you change about Magic)?
Archenemy: Nicol Bolas Upgrades
Hello, my name is Rudyard Cashman. I have been practicing the art of Magic card design for over a decade now. I have learned much in that time and my evolution has gone through several stages. Over time my interest has shifted from individual card design to synergetic design, to archetype design to set and block design. Lately I have begun to wonder about inter-block synergy and how all pieces of the game interact with each other through time.
At this stage in my development I have some key principles that I think are part of what make me a strong designer. Above all the rule of fun is my guiding principle. To me, the most important question when evaluating card design is, “Will this make players’ experience of the game more fun?” Beyond that concern I consider simplicity and elegance trademarks of mine that set me apart. “Less is more.” I’m all about how a simple implementation of an idea can express itself in subtle and complex ways. Keeping things simple is good for the game in many ways. It helps keep the game accessible to new players. It keeps things moving and flowing in game. And from a design standpoint, keeping things simple on the small scale helps to keep things flexible and manageable on the large scale.
I think every individual cost, ability or stat on a card can be considered like a cell in a body, and every individual card in a set is like a body in an ecosystem. I see myself as a modular, holistic designer.
2. An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
Provoke is a good candidate for granting evergreen status. Evergreen mechanics tend to have strong flavor that indicates their function in an intuitive way. Provoke does this as well, as its name gives players a good sense of what it does, and when they find out exactly how it works there is a good chance that it corresponds closely with what they imagined.
Provoke is good for the game, as it helps to deal with stalemate situations and stagnant board states. This is something the game needs more of, since such situations where the game becomes stalled are more common than might be desired and are not much fun. Creatures with provoke help to deal with those situations by forcing blocks that are to the defending player's disadvantage. They also allow other attacking creatures to get through to the defender's life total by provoking and "distracting" potential blockers.
Another advantage to provoke is that, much like the fight mechanic, it provides green with a needed form of creature removal. Provoke also provides red/green with a shared keyword that is more valuable on smaller creatures than trample.
Magic is a game that breaks its own rules. Many of the evergreen keywords break a basic rule of Magic in a simple way that’s almost essential. Creatures can’t attack the turn they enter the battlefield, unless they have haste. Creatures must tap to attack, unless they have vigilance. New players sometimes do not immediately understand that they can’t attack creatures, that they only attack players and those players decide whether or not to block. Provoke provides an exception to this rule that seems natural, desired, almost obligatory.
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
If I had to remove an evergreen keyword, I would choose Defender. Walls being unable to attack was a sensible flavor choice made long ago. But flavor might not be enough of a reason to keep this old drawback mechanic hanging around.
Most creatures with defender have 0 power, so their inability to attack is minimally relevant. Attacking is the main way to win the game, so in a given set you don’t want too many creatures to be unable to do so. And as a matter of fact the number of creatures with defender in most sets is very low. In fact, a few recent sets have had none at all.
Given how uncommon the mechanic actually is, the memory space saved by having a keyword rather than writing out “this creature can’t attack” is not a lot. Note that the ability “this creature can’t block” doesn’t have its own keyword. If defender were worth keeping as a keyword at evergreen status, we could ask why couldn’t that ability also be granted such status? Maybe it could be, but it has all the same reasons not to be.
Defender has some design space to play with, but not much that couldn’t be done without the keyword. Imagine a creature that had two abilities, “Defender,” and “This creature can attack as though it didn’t have defender if you pay 3.” The same effect could be achieved with fewer words by saying, “This creature can’t attack unless you pay 3.”
Every other evergreen keyword provides a benefit rather than a drawback. The game would not lose much if defender lost evergreen status. It could still show up again in any set that really wanted it, whether that be for flavorful or mechanical reasons.
4. You're going to teach Magic to a stranger. What's your strategy to have the best possible outcome?
The best way to learn a new game is to play it, preferably in a controlled environment. Magic has a steep learning curve, there are a lot of details and terminology to take in. A new player should be introduced gradually, one concept at a time.
I would sit down with this stranger and give each of us with a prepared deck designed specifically for teaching the game. I would make sure the decks covered the bases between them in terms of essential game concepts to learn. Each deck would include cards of all card types except planeswalkers. I would include one or two creatures with each evergreen keyword ability and some vanilla creatures. A couple nonland cards with activated abilities would probably be included, and one or two with triggered or static abilities too.
After we played one game we could switch decks so that this stranger could experience a different style and start to learn what they like to play. After they’d been familiarized with the essentials I’d take the decks apart and give the cards to this person so that they could build.their own deck, because customization and deck construction is half the game in itself and it promotes personal investment. I wouldn’t guide them in building their first deck so as to allow for their fullest personal expression and self direction, and so as not to stymy them.
Overtime I might provide pointers in deckbuilding and strategy, but more often allowing them to figure things out on their own. When playing with this person I would note what themes, tribes and strategies they vibe and identify with and I would give and trade cards to them that I thought they’d like.
After they’d really gotten the hang of things I’d ask what aspects of my teaching style helped them and what didn’t so I could learn how to be a better teacher in the future.
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
Its depth and history, built up over time. Magic’s card pool (almost 20,000 cards) puts it at an advantage over other trading card games. This is true not only in the possibility and variety provided to the deck builder, but also in the grammar and vocabulary provided to the card designer. Magic has grown its own arcane language. To outsiders this can be intimidating, but to those who have grown up alongside the game it’s a meaningful asset and facet.
Magic is huge, and it has a lot of resources from which to draw upon in all areas. There are thousands of players willing to share their knowledge and teach others. There are many worlds in its multiverse. The various attributes of its five colors (and colorlessness) continue to be deeply developed and explored. The full range of human emotion and experience is represented, a plethora of playstyles are supported, and all forms of personal expression are possible.
More generally, I could say diversity and variation are Magic's greatest strengths. There are so many things that can be done within the game; this game that breaks its own rules and can basically do anything any other game can do within itself in this way. It’s already so deep but we’ve barely scratched the surface.
Magic has something for everyone. Flavors for all tastes. “Variety is the spice of life.” It's especially great for anyone like me who has a voracious appetite for novelty.
And because Magic can be and is so many things it can be a lens to see and understand the world. I am one of many who have learned so much from this game.
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
As much as I love them, I would have to say lands are Magic’s greatest weakness, or more specifically land screw and land flood. It’s an acceptable problem to long time players of the game, but it’s probably the most frustrating aspect for new players, and the most likely to turn them off from the game. This I have observed on many occasions, in addition to experiencing it myself.
No matter how well a deck’s lands are balanced, mana flood or screw is still going to happen from time to time. It is a bad feeling when you lose a game through no fault of your own and there was nothing you could do about it.
There doesn’t seem to be any rules change that could fix this problem without fundamentally changing the game, and such change would probably be difficult for dedicated fans to accept. What can be done is liberally sprinkling around mechanics that mitigate the issue, such as cycling and scry. But doing so is covering up a problem with the game rather than fixing it. And such patches have to be carefully balanced so that they can’t be exploited. Every solution carries with it its own potential problems.
Many other games that otherwise copy the Magic formula choose to eschew a land-style resource system. But it should be said that what those games gain in consistency they lose in variability and the interesting gameplay that can bring. Hopefully there exists a balance between those two positions that can one day be found.
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
Some of the free spells from Urza’s block were undoubtedly broken. But they didn’t have to be.
Untapping a number of lands equal to the converted mana cost of the spell doesn’t necessarily make the most sense, because tapping lands isn’t the only way to pay for spells, and not all lands tap for only one mana (which is part of what made it broken).
The permanents that had the mechanic had it as an ability that triggered on entering the battlefield. This was more abusable through blink/flicker effects. And it was also inconsistent with the instants and sorceries that had the ability as part of its effect upon resolution.
I could see two possible paths for fixing the mechanic. Each spell could trigger upon casting to produce mana equal to its mana cost. This would be less abusable and provide value to the caster even if the spell was countered. Alternatively, each spell could just be castable without paying its mana cost if you controlled lands that corresponded to its mana cost. For instance, if its mana cost was 2UU, you could cast it for free if you controlled two Islands and two other lands. This would be the safest option to avoid breaking the mechanic.
I think it would be worth bringing back some version of this mechanic, because people like getting things for free. It just feels good. The power of each card would probably need to be pulled back relative to its cost, since raising the cost wouldn’t work for balancing it.
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
Time Spiral was great, but it had too much going on. The theme of time was very interesting and had a lot of gameplay value. That theme alone would have been enough to base a set or block around. However Time Spiral was also overcrowded with new and returning mechanics, to the point it was overwhelming and intimidating, especially to new players.
In addition to being overloaded with mechanics, the individual cards seemed wordier on average, and the block in general felt cluttered. Every card being a reference to one or more older cards created a unique feeling, but unfortunately led to many of the cards feeling isolated from one another. Archetypes and synergies are not readily apparent, being buried under all of that, which makes me question the quality of the drafting experience, though I have not drafted any of Time Spiral block myself. The block as a whole felt exactly like what you’d get if you mashed all previous sets in Magic’s history together into one. Many of the individual cards were indeed mashups themselves.
So in that sense Time Spiral was a great success and really captured the essence of what it was supposed to be perfectly. All these different timelines crammed together, of course this is what it would look like in the form of a Magic set. Planar Chaos indeed!
I look forward to the future block that takes a nostalgic look back in time to Time Spiral. I could see formerly futureshifted cards with the timeshifted frame and special purple set symbol, maybe Wistful Thinking colorshifted into black, who knows...
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
Kamigawa had a lot of problems, but the legendary subtheme popped out to me and really added to the myth and immersion of the expansion. It was an evocative block, with amazing art and flavor that had presence and pulled you in.
Having legends at uncommon was a nice touch. Populating Kamigawa with so many unique personalities, and having them run around in the foreground, really made the world feel alive. Seeing humble, unknown nobodies change into renowned legends on the flip cards captured the sense of the hero’s journey well. Overall this theme was not overdone, and the “legends matter” felt like the cartilage that held the sets together. Epic was a cool take on what a legendary instant/sorcery could be.
The war between the spirits and mortals came across clearly. The otherworldliness of the spirits contrasted well with their mundane adversaries. Somehow the unusualness of the conflict made it feel more real than the typical magic war between humanoid factions. The motivation for the war was simple and relatable, and somehow more believable because of that.
I appreciated how the spirits had their own arcane magic, that had its own very unique look to it. I wonder if this might have been a good place to use the tribal supertype that lorwyn introduced later on. Splice might have had to work differently, and maybe tribal was a mistake, but it’d’ve been cool to have “tribal sorcery - spirit” spells floating around, especially if they could’ve been returned to hand with soulshift.
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
I might reduce the maximum number of copies of each non-basic card allowed in a deck to less than four. Or I could increase the minimum deck construction size above sixty cards. Either of these changes would increase the variability and diversity within decks, which would in turn make games less repetitive. It is in the deck builder’s best interest to maximize the consistency of their deck and narrow their strategy. It is in the game designer’s best interest to maximize fun, and things are more fun when they’re less predictable.
Changing the minimum size of decks could be done without having the same kind of effect on the card market that changing the maximum number of copies in a deck would have. Depending on the size of the increase though, we could consider increasing the size of the average set as well. That might not be necessary, but it would provide a larger card pool to offset the need to fill out the larger decks.
Unfortunately, increasing the deck size minimum would reduce the effectiveness of mill as a strategy. So if we did decide to make that change it’d be recommended that the minimum is raised minimally, and we should specifically playtest the effects it has on mill.
If we went with the maximum card copy reduction route, it might be wise to announce the change at least a year in advance so the effects on the market aren’t as immediate. Alternatively, the change could be first introduced and implemented as a new competitive format while making no changes to existing formats.
My answers were similar, except I suggested convoke as an evergreen mechanic (mass appeal, promotes/rewards playing creatures, etc) and while I agree with color pie being magics greatest strength, I focused on the identity it created for the game and players.
I would be happy to share my answer to question ten, but lets just say it involves supertypes and inspired my challenge for the latest CCL round, and I don't want to divulge what I suggested until my players have all submitted cards for the deadlines ;).
Mechanic to remove from Evergreen: Hexproof. I cited how the mechanic is hard to balanced, creating boom or bust cards, and how the mechanic creates feel bad scenarios and uninteractive gameplay.
Greatest strength: Color Pie. Cited diversity in deck archetypes and player identity with colors.
Greatest weakness: Magic's daunting stature. Citing complexity and it's 25 year old history.
Returning mechanic: Flanking. Citing how the biggest issue was the whole "non-Flanking" part and how the mechanic could eventually fill in the UB Evergreen keyword.
Favorite Set: Lorywn but cited complexitty
Least favorite: Scars of Mirrodin. Cited that the feel of the set of helplessness against the eventual Phyrexian take over was well conveyed.
Change something: Mana system, suggesting you could play any card facedown as a Waste-esque land.
----
Also, just got my email for Round 2. Multiple choice test will only be live from 6am Friday to 6am Saturday.
EDIT: Everyone who turned in 10 valid essays are making it into Round 2.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor