Back when GDS3 had just started, one of the questions in the questionnaire was something like this:
"Choose your favorite Magic set that you've played with. What is that set's biggest failure from a design perspective?"
I chose Return to Ravnica (or Gatecrash, as my analysis applies equaly to either set). My response can be summed up by saying that the set didn't innovate enough. Ravnica: City of Guilds was innovative because the theme and block structure used was entirely new, but RTR and GTC felt like more of the same. That's not necessarily a bad thing; the block was very well-put-together and popular. It's just that the RTR block played it safe, choosing to refine or expand upon what already worked rather than venture into unknown design territory. It didn't take risks, which every new Magic set should try to do in some amount.
My point is that this got me thinking about how to introduce innovation to Ravnica. I actually posted a thread about an idea on how to solve this problem a while ago using a unique draft structure. But that idea isn't what I want to talk about in this one.
I want to know what you guys think about how Ravnica could innovate. How could the Ravnica formula be shaken up or changed to make things interesting without making a set that doesn't feel like Ravnica? What sorts of novel mechanics might fit on Ravnica and open up interesting design space that hasn't been delved into before?
I was also thinking about how new mechanics could possibly fit into a set which would already have a named mechanic for each represented guild, and had an idea. Would a Ravnica set in which the guilds don't have dedicated named mechanics be going too far? What if each guild's identity was based solely on that guild's collection of cards?
This would accomplish two things: it would open up space for mechanics that aren't limited to two colors each; and it would reduce disappointment or frustration over some guilds getting better mechanics than others (like Surveil vs Mentor).
As for ideas about un-guilded mechanics, I can think of at least one role that should be filled. I would want to create a structural mechanic that somehow rewards a player for committing to a faction. It would be a mechanic like Energy or Historic, which would act as the main mechanic the set would be guilt around.
Devotion came to mind as I was thinking about this. Something like "if you're devoted to (color a) and (color b), do something" might work. That said, it's not exactly new or innovative to bring back an old mechanic. I'd want to create a mechanic that's new, simple, and reusable, so other faction sets could also use it.
Other un-guilded mechanics would probably depend on the story or what sort of mana-smoothing/card-flow the set might need.
I rather like your thoughts here. I also feel like having 10 guild mechanics per block is getting quite tired now, and while I do enjoy the sets and mechanics, let's be honest - set mechanics very rearely make it into Constructed wholesale (the exceptions being Energy and Vehicles with KLD). To that end, seeing more emphasis on multicolour cards tying you to your guild would be something I'd appreciate and I really like your Devotion to X AND Y idea
I rather like your thoughts here. I also feel like having 10 guild mechanics per block is getting quite tired now, and while I do enjoy the sets and mechanics, let's be honest - set mechanics very rearely make it into Constructed wholesale (the exceptions being Energy and Vehicles with KLD). To that end, seeing more emphasis on multicolour cards tying you to your guild would be something I'd appreciate and I really like your Devotion to X AND Y idea
Thanks! Actually, thinking further into the devotion idea, I was able to mock up a rare cycle of guild "exemplars" that care about guild devotion. For example:
"Selesnya Exemplar2GW
Creature - Elephant Cleric (R)
4/4
At the beginning of your end step, create a 1/1 white Soldier creature token for each creature you control that's devoted to Selesnya. (A creature is devoted to Selesnya if it has (G/W) or GW in its mana cost.)"
I'm not sure how much design space is available here, but the flavor is strong. What do you think?
I like "devoted to" as a riff on devotion, but I'd call it "devoted to green and white" for example for easier comprehension for new players as well as reusability.
I like "devoted to" as a riff on devotion, but I'd call it "devoted to green and white" for example for easier comprehension for new players as well as reusability.
That is probably a better use of the devotion-based idea, but I had another thought that might use faction names to better effect. How do you feel about color-based batching, Dominaria-style?
"...for each Selesnya creature you control. (Creatures that are both green and white are Selesnya)"
It's a bit more succinct and a smaller tweak in an existing mechanic than "Devoted to Selesnya" would be, even if the flavor is arguably shakier ("why is my monogreen creature with the Selesnya watermark not considered Selesnya?").
Is this better, or would you still avoid using faction names in rules text altogether?
I like "devoted to" as a riff on devotion, but I'd call it "devoted to green and white" for example for easier comprehension for new players as well as reusability.
That is probably a better use of the devotion-based idea, but I had another thought that might use faction names to better effect. How do you feel about color-based batching, Dominaria-style?
"...for each Selesnya creature you control. (Creatures that are both green and white are Selesnya)"
It's a bit more succinct and a smaller tweak in an existing mechanic than "Devoted to Selesnya" would be, even if the flavor is arguably shakier ("why is my monogreen creature with the Selesnya watermark not considered Selesnya?").
Is this better, or would you still avoid using faction names in rules text altogether?
That's not batching. That's renaming "green and white" to "Selesnya". Batching as presented is about creating unions of subsets (so "green and/or white" would actually be batching on a really low level - not that I suggest that) rather than intersections.
I had a similar idea for a bunch of Ravnica-themed cards that I might be able to dig up once that uses the previously-not-used-ins-Standard rules term color identity (the reminder text shouldn't be too long), because you actually really want to catch cards like Seed Spark as Selesnyan cards.
I think a mechanic similar to ascend could be worth considering: If/when you have (e. g. sticking with) devotion to green and devotion to white each N or more, you prove yourself to Selesnya. You do it once and have cards that care about having proven yourself to at least N guilds or a specific guild. I think the lasting benefit was cool, and the ability to prove yourself to multiple guilds can play well into e. g. a storyline about ending animosities among the factions and uniting the guilds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Honestly as much as I like the classic Ravnican structure, the devotion/ascension idea feels like it could be pretty fun. I'd need to see examples to be sure.
If you wanted a batch mechanic, you could bring back guilded and gateless, with multicolour/hybrid cards as guilded and mono & colourless as gateless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
"Choose your favorite Magic set that you've played with. What is that set's biggest failure from a design perspective?"
I chose Return to Ravnica (or Gatecrash, as my analysis applies equaly to either set). My response can be summed up by saying that the set didn't innovate enough. Ravnica: City of Guilds was innovative because the theme and block structure used was entirely new, but RTR and GTC felt like more of the same. That's not necessarily a bad thing; the block was very well-put-together and popular. It's just that the RTR block played it safe, choosing to refine or expand upon what already worked rather than venture into unknown design territory. It didn't take risks, which every new Magic set should try to do in some amount.
My point is that this got me thinking about how to introduce innovation to Ravnica. I actually posted a thread about an idea on how to solve this problem a while ago using a unique draft structure. But that idea isn't what I want to talk about in this one.
I want to know what you guys think about how Ravnica could innovate. How could the Ravnica formula be shaken up or changed to make things interesting without making a set that doesn't feel like Ravnica? What sorts of novel mechanics might fit on Ravnica and open up interesting design space that hasn't been delved into before?
I was also thinking about how new mechanics could possibly fit into a set which would already have a named mechanic for each represented guild, and had an idea. Would a Ravnica set in which the guilds don't have dedicated named mechanics be going too far? What if each guild's identity was based solely on that guild's collection of cards?
This would accomplish two things: it would open up space for mechanics that aren't limited to two colors each; and it would reduce disappointment or frustration over some guilds getting better mechanics than others (like Surveil vs Mentor).
As for ideas about un-guilded mechanics, I can think of at least one role that should be filled. I would want to create a structural mechanic that somehow rewards a player for committing to a faction. It would be a mechanic like Energy or Historic, which would act as the main mechanic the set would be guilt around.
Devotion came to mind as I was thinking about this. Something like "if you're devoted to (color a) and (color b), do something" might work. That said, it's not exactly new or innovative to bring back an old mechanic. I'd want to create a mechanic that's new, simple, and reusable, so other faction sets could also use it.
Other un-guilded mechanics would probably depend on the story or what sort of mana-smoothing/card-flow the set might need.
So what do you guys think? Any ideas?
"Selesnya Exemplar 2GW
Creature - Elephant Cleric (R)
4/4
At the beginning of your end step, create a 1/1 white Soldier creature token for each creature you control that's devoted to Selesnya. (A creature is devoted to Selesnya if it has (G/W) or GW in its mana cost.)"
I'm not sure how much design space is available here, but the flavor is strong. What do you think?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
"...for each Selesnya creature you control. (Creatures that are both green and white are Selesnya)"
It's a bit more succinct and a smaller tweak in an existing mechanic than "Devoted to Selesnya" would be, even if the flavor is arguably shakier ("why is my monogreen creature with the Selesnya watermark not considered Selesnya?").
Is this better, or would you still avoid using faction names in rules text altogether?
That's not batching. That's renaming "green and white" to "Selesnya". Batching as presented is about creating unions of subsets (so "green and/or white" would actually be batching on a really low level - not that I suggest that) rather than intersections.
I had a similar idea for a bunch of Ravnica-themed cards that I might be able to dig up once that uses the previously-not-used-ins-Standard rules term color identity (the reminder text shouldn't be too long), because you actually really want to catch cards like Seed Spark as Selesnyan cards.
I think a mechanic similar to ascend could be worth considering: If/when you have (e. g. sticking with) devotion to green and devotion to white each N or more, you prove yourself to Selesnya. You do it once and have cards that care about having proven yourself to at least N guilds or a specific guild. I think the lasting benefit was cool, and the ability to prove yourself to multiple guilds can play well into e. g. a storyline about ending animosities among the factions and uniting the guilds.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
If you wanted a batch mechanic, you could bring back guilded and gateless, with multicolour/hybrid cards as guilded and mono & colourless as gateless.
Art is life itself.
Basically an importation of color identity to non-Commander, except doing away with the color indicator corner case.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝