I was going through the rules of card games that have been created throughout the years and it seems like most of them understood the inelegant way MTG's resource system was created and avoided it like the plague.
MTG is an absolutely amazing game that is only hindered by the variance of being able to play the game or not (Mana drought/flood). Variance is very important, but your resource management should be about decision-making and not something that just happens out of nowhere.
A player can't manage/dictate mana drought/flood, it just happens and usually at the wrong times. The variance should come from a deck with 60 spells which already have a four-card(playset) limit. It's more exciting to see a variance of spells than picking up valuable resources that you may never see or get too much of.
At the start of MTG, there should've been something like two decks: A spell deck and a land deck. Mana cost and abilities on Spells would be issued so that both the spell and land deck would need to be used throughout the entire match. Drawing only two lands and a spell deck full of one-drops wouldn't work if the mechanics were designed properly.
Richard Garfield himself has said that making the resources needed to play the game random in finding them was a subtraction to the game's overall fun.
There are many TCGs that take on the resource system in many different ways. I thought about the CCG My Little Pony (yep, I went there lol) that's very deep while using a resource system that isn't physical. Players have to constantly have build up "resources" because unlike lands they aren't always available.
The way they handle mana is by having both players gain from two to five (colorless) "action tokens" each turn, which can be saved, based upon whatever the leader's score is. Cards are divided into six colors, all of which require a set amount of mana to play (including a few 0's), and some also have a Requirement which must be met by having a certain amount of power of that color on the friends (read: creatures) you already have in play. In this manner, you have to build a deck with two forms of curve in mind; first, the traditional low-to-high mana curve, and second, a form of resource management; you need to have enough no-requirement cards to be able to build a power base which lets you play those that have requirements.
Granted, that game's mana curve is lower; on average, cards cap around 4 cost and 3 requirement, and the "big" costs or requirements are anything above that point. Further, the way you gain points is different and their "creatures" don't get removed from play as often. For these and other reasons, it's not a system that could be ported directly into magic - but it stands as an example of a game which has no "land" of any sort, but which includes a color system (in which any two-color combination is viable) which helps restrict cards and avoid Yu-Gi-Oh syndrome, and which still demands a similar sort of resource consideration with deckbuilding to fill requirements and manage a curve.
Everything in the game is always needed to further your plan. Like MTG, there are colors that have specific advantages. There are six colors, but unlike MTG, those advantages never drip into the other colors which leads to each color keeping it's value.
What are some TCGs and CCGs that have resource systems you find interesting?
Richard Garfield himself has said that making the resources needed to play the game random in finding them was a subtraction to the game's overall fun.
It is worth pointing out that this quote was made in an interview about a new game he created in 1994 called Jyhad (later renamed Vampire: The Eternal Struggle) and explained why that game had no lands. It is also worth pointing out that the game was sold in 2000 and then ceased to exist in 2010. The longevity and popularity of Magic compared to that game shows that just because Garfield felt the current resource system is "bad" doesn't mean he was right or that the alternative he came up with was necessarily better.
The way they handle mana is by having both players gain from two to five (colorless) "action tokens" each turn, which can be saved, based upon whatever the leader's score is. Cards are divided into six colors, all of which require a set amount of mana to play (including a few 0's), and some also have a Requirement which must be met by having a certain amount of power of that color on the friends (read: creatures) you already have in play. In this manner, you have to build a deck with two forms of curve in mind; first, the traditional low-to-high mana curve, and second, a form of resource management; you need to have enough no-requirement cards to be able to build a power base which lets you play those that have requirements.
Granted, that game's mana curve is lower; on average, cards cap around 4 cost and 3 requirement, and the "big" costs or requirements are anything above that point. Further, the way you gain points is different and their "creatures" don't get removed from play as often. For these and other reasons, it's not a system that could be ported directly into magic - but it stands as an example of a game which has no "land" of any sort, but which includes a color system (in which any two-color combination is viable) which helps restrict cards and avoid Yu-Gi-Oh syndrome, and which still demands a similar sort of resource consideration with deckbuilding to fill requirements and manage a curve.
So, I just want to understand this part. Since there are 6 colors, but no lands, what determines which color card can be cast? Do you choose the color of "mana" when using an action token?
Many games have correctly identified the mana system as the worst part of mtg. Each one has replaced it with what they belive is better, and not one of them has succeeded. Every resource system every other game faces their own problems the most common one is limiting/warping design space. While it is the worst aspect of mtg changing it would fundem4mtally change magic into what I assume would be a worse game.
MTG works with the variance in mind, I think we'd have a different deck building design if lands weren't limited this way.
Anything that cheats lands/mana and reduces costs is very useful in MTG.
One option is Heartstone-style, get one extra per turn - done.
Another option I like is actually the Decipher's Lord of the Rings CCG. In a setup where more the Fellowship (good side) uses, the Shadow side gets that many resources. I don't know if MTG can work that way, but it's a fun setup.
Richard Garfield himself has said that making the resources needed to play the game random in finding them was a subtraction to the game's overall fun.
It is worth pointing out that this quote was made in an interview about a new game he created in 1994 called Jyhad (later renamed Vampire: The Eternal Struggle) and explained why that game had no lands. It is also worth pointing out that the game was sold in 2000 and then ceased to exist in 2010. The longevity and popularity of Magic compared to that game shows that just because Garfield felt the current resource system is "bad" doesn't mean he was right or that the alternative he came up with was necessarily better.
The way they handle mana is by having both players gain from two to five (colorless) "action tokens" each turn, which can be saved, based upon whatever the leader's score is. Cards are divided into six colors, all of which require a set amount of mana to play (including a few 0's), and some also have a Requirement which must be met by having a certain amount of power of that color on the friends (read: creatures) you already have in play. In this manner, you have to build a deck with two forms of curve in mind; first, the traditional low-to-high mana curve, and second, a form of resource management; you need to have enough no-requirement cards to be able to build a power base which lets you play those that have requirements.
Granted, that game's mana curve is lower; on average, cards cap around 4 cost and 3 requirement, and the "big" costs or requirements are anything above that point. Further, the way you gain points is different and their "creatures" don't get removed from play as often. For these and other reasons, it's not a system that could be ported directly into magic - but it stands as an example of a game which has no "land" of any sort, but which includes a color system (in which any two-color combination is viable) which helps restrict cards and avoid Yu-Gi-Oh syndrome, and which still demands a similar sort of resource consideration with deckbuilding to fill requirements and manage a curve.
So, I just want to understand this part. Since there are 6 colors, but no lands, what determines which color card can be cast? Do you choose the color of "mana" when using an action token?
The Ponies serve as the "mana". A kind of reverse power system exists where the creatures "attack" the Problem cards. To remove the Problem card, and gain points, you need to meet the cost of that card.
So let's say a problem card costs so you use... I dunno... Slither Blade that is and some random 1cmc creature like Fan Bearer to "pay" for the cost of the problem.
IRT OP
I think having the current "payment" system works just fine. A ton of games are centered around randomization and resource management just like games are built around strict resource allotment. This aspect is an element of their games.
To put it another way.
How successful do you think Minecraft would be if the world maps were fixed, instead of randomonly generated? There are generated maps where you absolutely have to struggle to get any resources at all. A form of mana screw. Doesn't prevent the millions of people from playing the game. There were several mods that attempted to fix the resource screw problem in Minecraft and numerous clones tried to "fix" it as well. Minecraft is still at top.
That's not to say that resource fixed games can't be successful either. Chess has both opponents start with exactly the same pieces in, almost, exactly the same places and it stuck around for a few hundred(?) years.
My point is, complaining about Magic and the resource system is like complaining about Monopoly's Die based movement or shuffling the cards in Clue. They're fundamental parts of the overall game and I wouldn't have it any other way.
On the subject of Magic the Gathering vs other card games, the one thing that Magic the Gathering has that keeps it going when others die is that no other game offers the same depth Magic has. It has an insanely deep pool of cards with tons of permutations and combinations possible compared to just about all other games. It's why games like Force of Will have a hard time getting a foothold vs the giant gorilla, and it's this same nature that lets it overcome the weak points the game possesses. Richard Garfield wasn't wrong in his assessment that the mana system is flawed in Magic, but that doesn't mean it's something that needs to be excised.
How many people like Pathfinder? That game is based on D&D 3.0, which was horribly broken when it first got released and had to go through multiple fixes to become functional. The mana system in magic has gone through a similar patching over the years with the inclusion of fetch lands and mechanics like cycling and explore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
A lot of people aren't arguing objectively here. Magic, Pokemon and YuGiOh! aren't around ten years later because they're objectivelly the best card games ever, they're around because they're all backed by megacorps. Heartstone being able to take so much market away from them proves they're all flawed.
So while I don't believe Magic is a bad game, or that other games are inherently better. Saying "It's still played so it's the best" is both ignorant and useless.
I personally really liked the Digimon card game for PSX, where Every Digimon card was a creature, a resource and a spell at the same time and you chose which role they fit better at the time. Shamefully the non-Digimon cards were pure power creep and diminished the game's depth a lot.
Epic is also really good in a "it's Vintage magic all the time" kind of way, then again a game like that really couldn't exist in the CCG model, since drafting is pretty much it's balancing mechanic and Constructed would be always the same deck all the time.
This topic shouldn't be about what Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Games have the most interesting resource systems but rather why said companies of these Trading Card Games / Collectible Card Games are playing it safe with what's already been established instead of trying to be innovative as fears of a steep learning curve could dissuade people from buying product especially If the source material it's based on doesn't live up to the hype.
Companies realize they can get away with dumbing down Trading Card Games / Collectible Card Games for people to play instead of putting in any effort because they know that the Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game market is crowded enough as it is to compete against MTG, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Pokémon when they know it's a losing position unless they shift toward a different gaming model.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
America Bless Christ Jesus
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
A lot of people aren't arguing objectively here. Magic, Pokemon and YuGiOh! aren't around ten years later because they're objectivelly the best card games ever, they're around because they're all backed by megacorps. Heartstone being able to take so much market away from them proves they're all flawed.
So while I don't believe Magic is a bad game, or that other games are inherently better. Saying "It's still played so it's the best" is both ignorant and useless.
Strictly speaking, I don't think anyone is saying, "it's still played so it's the best." What we're saying, at least I am anyways, is that the game is still played despite the problems with its resources.
To me, this kind of discussion is usually pendantic, rarely academic. Like writing whole essays about the realism and accuracy of capitalism in Monopoly. Players don't seem the to care that "consumers" don't have a choice when landing on Boardwalk.
IMHO, Heartstone isn't taking away from Magic because Magic is flawed. It's taking away from Magic because, quite simply, there has been a massive radical shift in consumer perceptions and spending habits in the last 25-30 years. If you told anyone in 1996, they would spend $100+ a month on a computer game for virtual cards, they would've given you the better suggestion to shove it.
Today, no one bats an eye at shelling out money for monthly subscriptions to 25 year old games on their cellphone. Hearthstone is in solid lockstep with that market, whereas Magic is still trying to figure out how to get a bigger slice of that pie.
Whenever someone brings up CCG resource systems, I always go to Netrunner as my favorite. Drawing cards, earning credits, and playing cards all operate on the same action economy, and allow the player to divide their time-resource between whatever they feel is the most important at the time. It allows for a lot more granularity than MtG's draw one, play one system, and decouples luck from basic resource generation (though luck of the draw is still part of the game). While Magic probably shouldn't switch away from mana, I think Netrunner got it right where so many other games flounder.
Force of Will TCG - Your resources are in a separate deck called The Magic Stone Deck.
The Spoils - Cards in your hand could be played facedown as generic/colorless resources.
The Spoils - You started with two free basic resources that didn't have to be the same. (Such as 1x Greed + 1x Violence; or 2x Deception)
The Spoils - In addition to the previous two, each card you wanted to play had a threshold in addition to its cost.
Example for Spoils: I start with 1 Elitism and 1 Greed for resources. Its my first turn. I want to cast an an Elf character who costs 3 generic resources and has one Elitism threshold. So to cast the Elf character, I put a card from my hand facedown, this puts me at 3 resources and I have 1 Elitism which allows me to meet its threshold. I then deplete my resources and cast the elf.
The Spoils - You had to pick between your freebie each turn of "Draw Card or Play Resource". You can pay an amount of additional resources during a turn to draw additional cards and/or play additional resources.
Imagine a mind blowing resource system where the resources are separated into a different deck, and you had to roll dice to determine whether you draw from resource pile or the main deck.
Imagine rolling 2 dice, of which they must be different color to tell them apart.
You roll a 1 from the first die, you must draw from the main deck.
You roll a 2 from the first die, and a 1 from the 2nd die, you must draw a resource card.
You roll a 3 from the first die, and a 1 or 2 from the 2nd die, you must draw a resource card.
You roll a 4 from the first die, and a 1, 2, 3, or 4 from the 2nd die, you must draw a resource card.
You roll a 5 from the first die, and a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 from the 2nd die, you must draw a resource card.
You roll a 6 from the first die, you must draw a resource card.
If this were to be used in MTG, it would be a way to play where you buy a booster box, open all the packs, and all those cards would be a giant monstrous shared deck. There will be a shuffled deck of only basic lands. You follow the above rules to determine you draw from the main giant deck, or you draw from the basic land deck.
An alternate way to do draw basic lands is this. There will be 5 mana decks, one of each of which contains only plains, one of each that contains only islands, and so on. These decks do not run out. When you run out, just find some more of the basic lands and replenish it. The above rules apply, so if you have to draw a basic land, instead of from the main deck, you roll a third die, aside from the 2 that determines whether you draw from the land deck or the main deck. You roll a 1, you get a plains. 2, island. 3, swamp. 4, mountain. 5, forest. 6, you pick any land.
Considering how tough it is to shuffle a monstrosity of a 540 card deck, split them into 9 60 card decks (4 boosters), and either you draw from one until it runs out, and you move on to the next, or spin a game of life spinner to determine which deck you draw from, with a 10 meaning you draw from any deck.
Because there is one basic land included in each booster, there is a chance of drawing a basic land from the main deck, which either could be a good thing, or a bad thing.
This way to play is meant for multiplayer, and everyone is technically playing a 5 color deck. You do not realize how much fun I had with my brother when I took a tournament pack, and he took a tournament pack, and we shuffled them and played them as is.
Magic knows its mana system is kinda flawed, and so many mechanics try to compensate for it.
Cycling / Scry do that.
For constructed cheaper spells are better as you are less likely to never use them.
If half the deck is made out of mana, it better has a use for it.
And a bunch of lands have abilities to further compensate that mana is not just mana, but can actually be a usefull regardless of that.
----
The absolute worst part of magic is getting stuck at like 2 mana and being unable to do anything.
Its pretty bad luck to never draw your 3rd land, but a fair deal of games end like that.
1 land hands and the like should pretty much always be a Mulligan, which sucks, but it still allows the game to function.
Being terrible flooded is also bad, but here again some mechanics that easily compensate for that, if you can get multiple uses out of a card, or simply abilities to put your mana into.
All the draw-discard mechanics help a lot with getting flooded, so thats much less of an issue.
----
If the game could find a way to work around its problem of getting stuck at 2 mana it would help quite a bit.
Maybe a mechanic like if you do nothing in a turn, not play a land, not attacking and other optional stuff, you get a free Scry 1 (could help to find a land or at least avoid getting stuck for the next turn again).
In the end, its still a corner case and if you get such "No-Games" its the worst experience in magic.
Magic knows its mana system is kinda flawed, and so many mechanics try to compensate for it.
Cycling / Scry do that.
For constructed cheaper spells are better as you are less likely to never use them.
If half the deck is made out of mana, it better has a use for it.
And a bunch of lands have abilities to further compensate that mana is not just mana, but can actually be a usefull regardless of that.
----
The absolute worst part of magic is getting stuck at like 2 mana and being unable to do anything.
Its pretty bad luck to never draw your 3rd land, but a fair deal of games end like that.
1 land hands and the like should pretty much always be a Mulligan, which sucks, but it still allows the game to function.
Being terrible flooded is also bad, but here again some mechanics that easily compensate for that, if you can get multiple uses out of a card, or simply abilities to put your mana into.
All the draw-discard mechanics help a lot with getting flooded, so thats much less of an issue.
----
If the game could find a way to work around its problem of getting stuck at 2 mana it would help quite a bit.
Maybe a mechanic like if you do nothing in a turn, not play a land, not attacking and other optional stuff, you get a free Scry 1 (could help to find a land or at least avoid getting stuck for the next turn again).
In the end, its still a corner case and if you get such "No-Games" its the worst experience in magic.
I think that the scrying mechanic you mentioned should only work if you also have to reveal your hand to verify that you have no lands in hand. Otherwise players could just hold them in order to get a free scry. This kind of thing without the hand reveal would actually give Draw-Go strategies an inherent advantage in the game because not only do they usually not play anything during their own turns except land, but it would also give them the option to get free card selection on any turn they choose with virtually no downside.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
The two deck option (30 lands minimum deck and 60 spells minimum deck) would be the best way to eliminate the issue. There are less than 40 cards in the entire game it would be affected by the change and way less if we're talking about Standard. A player's turn
The two deck option (30 lands minimum deck and 60 spells minimum deck) would be the best way to eliminate the issue. There are less than 40 cards in the entire game it would be affected by the change and way less if we're talking about Standard. A player's turn
What about mill and land-based/land-less strategies? The former could get much stronger or weaker if you implement a Split Screen-style ruling and give a player the option to either only mill important cards or only mill unimportant cards, depending on game state or on who gets the choice in the matter. Do you have a solution to avoid either supercharging or totally disempowering the game's most popular alternative win condition?
Likewise, do you feel that decks with intentionally skewed land counts have a right to exist? Or, alternately, does the extreme boost that this change could give to otherwise manaless decks concern you at all?
You talk about those 40 mystery cards as if they exist in a vacuum, but your change would upend entire decks, strategies, and formats.
This game is well past the time to split the deck into resources and spells without creating huge format imbalances and eliminating or overpowering plenty of decks. Printing cards with different or alternate costs or creating new lands with multiple effects is how Wizards can affect deck resources. Variance is just a part of the game as much as deck manipulation, shuffling, and mana base construction.
Holy crap, I just realized the OP actually suggesting increasing the minimum deck size to 90-FREAKING-CARDS. As popular as it is to predict doom over small changes and mistakes, forcing everybody to buy 50% more cards would actually kill the game outright. For that alone, this idea is an unforgivable atrocity that deserves to be squashed and buried deep.
this topic comes up every so often, but clearly they're doing something correctly. floods/screw happen. if they happen too consistently you built your deck incorrectly, or you shuffled poorly. i would make the argument that there aren't games with a better resource system than magic's simply because the resource system for magic works and has worked for 25 years. other games have different resource systems, and those work for them but probably won't work for magic.
Xcric what keeps MtG alive is nostalgia and the vanguard, but in all honesty the game has had it's peak and is trying to find some stability after the last couple of years. I'm a much bigger fan of Force of Will than I am of MtG simply because the developers are trying and doing so many things right that the giant got wrong. Also, the company actually listens to the fans unlike WoTC that just sort of sits in an ivory tower and sends messengers down into the villages when they see smoke during a day out on the porch. Unfortunately, this habit of listening to fans also is the reason Vingolf 3 got a short run and they nearly killed their game off again because of it. I swear, first it was over printing a set that no one wanted, then it was under printing a set everyone wanted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
iv played lots of games that have better resource system and gameplay than magic
netrunner,mage wars,got and some other lcgs too
especially the first two just feel so much superior other than the resource system the gameplay is much more dynamic and full of choices, the cards dont play you, you play them
To be frank, the resource system discussion kind of reminds me of players who liked THACO vs AC in Dungeons and Dragons. If someone is used to having to balance the number of lands in a deck and understands the math behind it than the resource system becomes part of the deck building experience. The problem is that the math for lands is anything but obvious and is difficult for new players to really get a grasp on. Even to this day many of the players I've ran into who come back to the game believe decks only need 20 lands universally. Also, manabase tweaking is the least fun part of Magic the Gathering as lands are incredibly boring and simply a necessity to play the game. WoTC loves to say that we don't need those rare land cycles and can play the game with just basic lands, but there is a difference between being able to play and being able to play in a fun, consistent manner each game.
Ultimately, having lands in the main deck doesn't really add anything and just makes the entire experience a lot more frustrating for players who aren't very experienced. However, to change how the lands work and make a "lands" deck and a "main" deck would possibly be the biggest rules change since the removal of mana burn. It would also completely uproot one of the key strengths of green in the color pie and that is just one of the areas that gets impacted. I could see WoTC bringing out a brand new version of MtG that maybe focuses on a separate lands system, but they don't have any way of doing so in the current game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
MTG is an absolutely amazing game that is only hindered by the variance of being able to play the game or not (Mana drought/flood). Variance is very important, but your resource management should be about decision-making and not something that just happens out of nowhere.
A player can't manage/dictate mana drought/flood, it just happens and usually at the wrong times. The variance should come from a deck with 60 spells which already have a four-card(playset) limit. It's more exciting to see a variance of spells than picking up valuable resources that you may never see or get too much of.
At the start of MTG, there should've been something like two decks: A spell deck and a land deck. Mana cost and abilities on Spells would be issued so that both the spell and land deck would need to be used throughout the entire match. Drawing only two lands and a spell deck full of one-drops wouldn't work if the mechanics were designed properly.
Richard Garfield himself has said that making the resources needed to play the game random in finding them was a subtraction to the game's overall fun.
There are many TCGs that take on the resource system in many different ways. I thought about the CCG My Little Pony (yep, I went there lol) that's very deep while using a resource system that isn't physical. Players have to constantly have build up "resources" because unlike lands they aren't always available.
The way they handle mana is by having both players gain from two to five (colorless) "action tokens" each turn, which can be saved, based upon whatever the leader's score is. Cards are divided into six colors, all of which require a set amount of mana to play (including a few 0's), and some also have a Requirement which must be met by having a certain amount of power of that color on the friends (read: creatures) you already have in play. In this manner, you have to build a deck with two forms of curve in mind; first, the traditional low-to-high mana curve, and second, a form of resource management; you need to have enough no-requirement cards to be able to build a power base which lets you play those that have requirements.
Granted, that game's mana curve is lower; on average, cards cap around 4 cost and 3 requirement, and the "big" costs or requirements are anything above that point. Further, the way you gain points is different and their "creatures" don't get removed from play as often. For these and other reasons, it's not a system that could be ported directly into magic - but it stands as an example of a game which has no "land" of any sort, but which includes a color system (in which any two-color combination is viable) which helps restrict cards and avoid Yu-Gi-Oh syndrome, and which still demands a similar sort of resource consideration with deckbuilding to fill requirements and manage a curve.
Everything in the game is always needed to further your plan. Like MTG, there are colors that have specific advantages. There are six colors, but unlike MTG, those advantages never drip into the other colors which leads to each color keeping it's value.
What are some TCGs and CCGs that have resource systems you find interesting?
It is worth pointing out that this quote was made in an interview about a new game he created in 1994 called Jyhad (later renamed Vampire: The Eternal Struggle) and explained why that game had no lands. It is also worth pointing out that the game was sold in 2000 and then ceased to exist in 2010. The longevity and popularity of Magic compared to that game shows that just because Garfield felt the current resource system is "bad" doesn't mean he was right or that the alternative he came up with was necessarily better.
So, I just want to understand this part. Since there are 6 colors, but no lands, what determines which color card can be cast? Do you choose the color of "mana" when using an action token?
Anything that cheats lands/mana and reduces costs is very useful in MTG.
One option is Heartstone-style, get one extra per turn - done.
Another option I like is actually the Decipher's Lord of the Rings CCG. In a setup where more the Fellowship (good side) uses, the Shadow side gets that many resources. I don't know if MTG can work that way, but it's a fun setup.
The Ponies serve as the "mana". A kind of reverse power system exists where the creatures "attack" the Problem cards. To remove the Problem card, and gain points, you need to meet the cost of that card.
So let's say a problem card costs so you use... I dunno... Slither Blade that is and some random 1cmc creature like Fan Bearer to "pay" for the cost of the problem.
IRT OP
I think having the current "payment" system works just fine. A ton of games are centered around randomization and resource management just like games are built around strict resource allotment. This aspect is an element of their games.
To put it another way.
How successful do you think Minecraft would be if the world maps were fixed, instead of randomonly generated? There are generated maps where you absolutely have to struggle to get any resources at all. A form of mana screw. Doesn't prevent the millions of people from playing the game. There were several mods that attempted to fix the resource screw problem in Minecraft and numerous clones tried to "fix" it as well. Minecraft is still at top.
That's not to say that resource fixed games can't be successful either. Chess has both opponents start with exactly the same pieces in, almost, exactly the same places and it stuck around for a few hundred(?) years.
My point is, complaining about Magic and the resource system is like complaining about Monopoly's Die based movement or shuffling the cards in Clue. They're fundamental parts of the overall game and I wouldn't have it any other way.
How many people like Pathfinder? That game is based on D&D 3.0, which was horribly broken when it first got released and had to go through multiple fixes to become functional. The mana system in magic has gone through a similar patching over the years with the inclusion of fetch lands and mechanics like cycling and explore.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
So while I don't believe Magic is a bad game, or that other games are inherently better. Saying "It's still played so it's the best" is both ignorant and useless.
I personally really liked the Digimon card game for PSX, where Every Digimon card was a creature, a resource and a spell at the same time and you chose which role they fit better at the time. Shamefully the non-Digimon cards were pure power creep and diminished the game's depth a lot.
Epic is also really good in a "it's Vintage magic all the time" kind of way, then again a game like that really couldn't exist in the CCG model, since drafting is pretty much it's balancing mechanic and Constructed would be always the same deck all the time.
Companies realize they can get away with dumbing down Trading Card Games / Collectible Card Games for people to play instead of putting in any effort because they know that the Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game market is crowded enough as it is to compete against MTG, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Pokémon when they know it's a losing position unless they shift toward a different gaming model.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Strictly speaking, I don't think anyone is saying, "it's still played so it's the best." What we're saying, at least I am anyways, is that the game is still played despite the problems with its resources.
To me, this kind of discussion is usually pendantic, rarely academic. Like writing whole essays about the realism and accuracy of capitalism in Monopoly. Players don't seem the to care that "consumers" don't have a choice when landing on Boardwalk.
IMHO, Heartstone isn't taking away from Magic because Magic is flawed. It's taking away from Magic because, quite simply, there has been a massive radical shift in consumer perceptions and spending habits in the last 25-30 years. If you told anyone in 1996, they would spend $100+ a month on a computer game for virtual cards, they would've given you the better suggestion to shove it.
Today, no one bats an eye at shelling out money for monthly subscriptions to 25 year old games on their cellphone. Hearthstone is in solid lockstep with that market, whereas Magic is still trying to figure out how to get a bigger slice of that pie.
The Spoils - Cards in your hand could be played facedown as generic/colorless resources.
The Spoils - You started with two free basic resources that didn't have to be the same. (Such as 1x Greed + 1x Violence; or 2x Deception)
The Spoils - In addition to the previous two, each card you wanted to play had a threshold in addition to its cost.
Example for Spoils: I start with 1 Elitism and 1 Greed for resources. Its my first turn. I want to cast an an Elf character who costs 3 generic resources and has one Elitism threshold. So to cast the Elf character, I put a card from my hand facedown, this puts me at 3 resources and I have 1 Elitism which allows me to meet its threshold. I then deplete my resources and cast the elf.
The Spoils - You had to pick between your freebie each turn of "Draw Card or Play Resource". You can pay an amount of additional resources during a turn to draw additional cards and/or play additional resources.
Imagine rolling 2 dice, of which they must be different color to tell them apart.
You roll a 1 from the first die, you must draw from the main deck.
You roll a 2 from the first die, and a 1 from the 2nd die, you must draw a resource card.
You roll a 3 from the first die, and a 1 or 2 from the 2nd die, you must draw a resource card.
You roll a 4 from the first die, and a 1, 2, 3, or 4 from the 2nd die, you must draw a resource card.
You roll a 5 from the first die, and a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 from the 2nd die, you must draw a resource card.
You roll a 6 from the first die, you must draw a resource card.
If this were to be used in MTG, it would be a way to play where you buy a booster box, open all the packs, and all those cards would be a giant monstrous shared deck. There will be a shuffled deck of only basic lands. You follow the above rules to determine you draw from the main giant deck, or you draw from the basic land deck.
An alternate way to do draw basic lands is this. There will be 5 mana decks, one of each of which contains only plains, one of each that contains only islands, and so on. These decks do not run out. When you run out, just find some more of the basic lands and replenish it. The above rules apply, so if you have to draw a basic land, instead of from the main deck, you roll a third die, aside from the 2 that determines whether you draw from the land deck or the main deck. You roll a 1, you get a plains. 2, island. 3, swamp. 4, mountain. 5, forest. 6, you pick any land.
Considering how tough it is to shuffle a monstrosity of a 540 card deck, split them into 9 60 card decks (4 boosters), and either you draw from one until it runs out, and you move on to the next, or spin a game of life spinner to determine which deck you draw from, with a 10 meaning you draw from any deck.
Because there is one basic land included in each booster, there is a chance of drawing a basic land from the main deck, which either could be a good thing, or a bad thing.
This way to play is meant for multiplayer, and everyone is technically playing a 5 color deck. You do not realize how much fun I had with my brother when I took a tournament pack, and he took a tournament pack, and we shuffled them and played them as is.
Cycling / Scry do that.
For constructed cheaper spells are better as you are less likely to never use them.
If half the deck is made out of mana, it better has a use for it.
And a bunch of lands have abilities to further compensate that mana is not just mana, but can actually be a usefull regardless of that.
----
The absolute worst part of magic is getting stuck at like 2 mana and being unable to do anything.
Its pretty bad luck to never draw your 3rd land, but a fair deal of games end like that.
1 land hands and the like should pretty much always be a Mulligan, which sucks, but it still allows the game to function.
Being terrible flooded is also bad, but here again some mechanics that easily compensate for that, if you can get multiple uses out of a card, or simply abilities to put your mana into.
All the draw-discard mechanics help a lot with getting flooded, so thats much less of an issue.
----
If the game could find a way to work around its problem of getting stuck at 2 mana it would help quite a bit.
Maybe a mechanic like if you do nothing in a turn, not play a land, not attacking and other optional stuff, you get a free Scry 1 (could help to find a land or at least avoid getting stuck for the next turn again).
In the end, its still a corner case and if you get such "No-Games" its the worst experience in magic.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
-Chandra Nalaar
What about mill and land-based/land-less strategies? The former could get much stronger or weaker if you implement a Split Screen-style ruling and give a player the option to either only mill important cards or only mill unimportant cards, depending on game state or on who gets the choice in the matter. Do you have a solution to avoid either supercharging or totally disempowering the game's most popular alternative win condition?
Likewise, do you feel that decks with intentionally skewed land counts have a right to exist? Or, alternately, does the extreme boost that this change could give to otherwise manaless decks concern you at all?
You talk about those 40 mystery cards as if they exist in a vacuum, but your change would upend entire decks, strategies, and formats.
Modern: (G/U)Infect (G/U)Tron
Legacy: (U/B)Tezzeret (U/B)(W/U)Miracles(W/U)(B/G)Dredge(R/W)
Commander:(U/R)Mizzix (U/R)(W/U)Sydri(U/B)(W/U)Zur(U/B)
most others have failed and been long forgotten.
this topic comes up every so often, but clearly they're doing something correctly. floods/screw happen. if they happen too consistently you built your deck incorrectly, or you shuffled poorly. i would make the argument that there aren't games with a better resource system than magic's simply because the resource system for magic works and has worked for 25 years. other games have different resource systems, and those work for them but probably won't work for magic.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
netrunner,mage wars,got and some other lcgs too
especially the first two just feel so much superior other than the resource system the gameplay is much more dynamic and full of choices, the cards dont play you, you play them
Δε φοβάμαι τίποτα...
Είμαι Άνεργος.
Grimstringer on Cockatrice, add me if you wanna
Ultimately, having lands in the main deck doesn't really add anything and just makes the entire experience a lot more frustrating for players who aren't very experienced. However, to change how the lands work and make a "lands" deck and a "main" deck would possibly be the biggest rules change since the removal of mana burn. It would also completely uproot one of the key strengths of green in the color pie and that is just one of the areas that gets impacted. I could see WoTC bringing out a brand new version of MtG that maybe focuses on a separate lands system, but they don't have any way of doing so in the current game.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!