A friend/colleague of mine decided to chat a little bit about design theory, so today I'm going to talk a bit about some Design Theories that I have developed/stolen over the years. A fair number of these I have learned from my old co-workers and for that I am eternally grateful. I would not be the designer today if it wasn't for their [i]constant[/i] tutelage.
- Not Every Card Needs 8 Lines of Gametext - I think this is probably the biggest lesson I have learned. See I am from the school of SWCCG where every single last space of the gametext box had to be filled with gametext, even if it only got used once in the card's lifetime. I mean really, did you ever convert the Tonnika Sisters with Double Agent? I would link to it, but the archives are down...still. :( Anyway, cards don't need to have 8 lines of gametext. What could you possibly say in 8 lines that you couldn't say in 6 or less. If you can't then I seriously suggest that you re-examine the card and perhaps try to break it up into two cards. Now, I'm not saying that you can't have 8 lines worth of gametext on a card, but if you do here are a couple things to keep in mind. It can't be a common and it shouldn't really be a centerpiece to a strategy. In my experience, an 8 line'd card is one that you stock one of in your deck in hopes that you can "pull it off" because it would be "pretty cool".
- Force fed decks are sometimes ok - This is one that I have gone rounds with on more than one occasion with more than one designer. Now, I'm not advocating that it should be so force fed that every card in the strategy should reference at least three other cards in the strategy. But if one card gets a bonus for another card being in play or played, then that is alright. Sometimes players don't want to have to think about making a deck and if the strategy fits together well and follows the story a bit then hey, it might be ok and sell a few extra boxes because of it. Not every strategy should be like this because then there is no creativity. But if there is one or two per set, as long as it's not the main focus of the set, then it's ok.
- Timing, Condition, Cost, Effect - That is the order in which a card should be written (as handed down to me by two smart individuals). If this is strictly adhered to then you should have no problems when it comes to rulings/timing questions. Unfortunately, that was not strictly adhered to and I have a headache.
- Don't Design for Rarity (unless it's a starter product card) - You shouldn't sit at the blank template and tell yourself "ok, I need to design a rare version of character X". If you do this, you are doing two things: severely limiting yourself in terms of being creative and dwelling on a single card for too long, thus neglecting the other 300 or so cards that need to be written. A wise designer once taught me that the best way to do some initial design is to take a non-descript template and just write card text. Don't think about what faction it goes in or what character it goes on, just design. And keep designing and writing cards. To the non-designer's eye, this may appear to be a bunch of nonsense, but to a designer it's a goldmine of ideas. Those bits are then taken and placed in the appropriate faction, costed and concepted. The opposite of Top-Down Design and it's probably how 90% of the cards that I write are designed nowadays. Thanks to the guy who taught me that.
That's it for today. I have so much more that I want to chat about, but it's getting on into my work day and I need to pull some PSDs for art to create some foil masks. I love me some foils.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
This is some very interesting information. Thanks for sharing.
Since you asked (ok, so you didn't ask, tough, should have turned off comments if you didn't want them):
- Not Every Card Needs 8 Lines of Gametext
Agreed. In fact, only a small percentage (15-25?) of rares (or on rare occasion, an uncommon) should max the text space.
- Force fed decks are sometimes ok -
I don't buy it. If they don't want to build a deck, buy a precon or surf up a net deck.
I think it can be lazy design practice to just rip a bunch of story and tie the cards together.
I'm not saying that cards from the same story bits can't have synergistic gameplay, or that when a synergistic set of cards are created that they can't all be given the same story bits, but each card should stand on its own and not require other linked cards to be valid.
Another issue is how do you balance the "designer built" decks versus decks created from more standard cards? That is imposing an additional burden on development.
What happens if the designer decks are subpar? Whole chunks of the set suck (think of those shitty ents I designed, and the effect that had on set sales).
Designing good, flexibile mechanics that can interlock achieves the same "additional box sales," and in the long run is much cleaner design that doesn't create problems for development.
- Timing, Condition, Cost, Effect -
Sure, makes sense. Though I think it better if a layer of symbology can be used to standardize some of this. For instance, Magic's costing on the abilities of permanents. You see it a couple of times, understand it, and then you get rid of gobs of words that clutter up a card and disguise the "new" text that a player should be focusing on.
- Don't Design for Rarity (unless it's a starter product card) -
Yes and no. I think that the brainstorming stage is a good start (writing ideas on blank templates), but good process says that once that initial session kind of runs it's course, it is time to put rarity on cards and make sure that you have the right number of cards for each level being designed and developed. Not getting to that point before the cards go into development invites one of two problems. Either there are cards that are sitting in the wrong rarity slots at the end (for example, common cards that are too complex), or doing design work at the end of the process (worst case, at the end of the development process) to replace the cards that don't match.
Frankly, I eventually evolved to a bit of a cheat. Make sure the commons were good matches and the rares were good matches, and used the uncommons for everything that was left over.
Since you asked :)
It's so cute how you bring up development when you speak of design and how you do what you can to make that process easier.
there is no sarcasm contained within this reply. I'm Mike Girard and I approve this reply.
No, but I did have my Tonnika Sisters converted with Double Agent. Sucks.
Hey, as I read through this stuff I'm reminded that I used to do this sort of thinking in my old job. That was kind of fun.
It's so cute how you bring up development when you speak of design and how you do what you can to make that process easier.
there is no sarcasm contained within this reply. I'm Mike Girard and I approve this reply.
Honestly, we should have been so damn much better about setting up and refining process for design and development. We did a little bit in dribs and drabs, but there was never a maintained initiative from any level of management to do so. Process without the endorsement of management never lasts, because anyone can rebel against it if they disagree, and nobody else has the authority to call them on it.
The lack of processw led to a couple of problems.
We were in consistent from game to game.
We did an especially poor job of documenting process (some were much better than others, 'specially Evan).
Without documentation, everyone has their own vision of how the process should be, which leads to stupid conflicts and things slipping through the cracks.
Just something I've been thinking about as we all go forward.
We knew it wasn't you, Joe, you were always on our side.
Tom, re: Force-fed decks... I'm an outsider who only playtested on a few ocassions, so you can weigh my remarks accordingly...
I could easily point the finger at First Edition, but that game's extremely limited core mechanics were ultimately to blame for the "designer strategies" seen in the last several sets. How else can you explain the otherwise brilliant implementations of The Wrath of Khan, Bluegills, and Sha-ka-re? It's more a testament to Evan's brilliance than to the fact the system restricted his creativity.
Second Edition is so broad and has so many more checks and balances that conservative designer strategies can exist in a more open metagame. Case in point, the new "Cadet strategy" that will likely arise after To Boldly Go. It does dip the game's big toe into the "retelling the story" pond First Edition waded neck-deep in, but the new Cadet mission seems perfectly balanced. Cadets were already pretty balanced, and it seems only fair they have a mission for themselves.
I have appreciated how open Second Edition is. Building decks have been a treat rather than an headache. In spite of so much recent confusion about certain interactions, I think it's the cleanest, most balanced system in gaming. Too bad it's attached to a dormant to dead franchise.
Thanks for that Mike... It's cool to see thought processes for you guys.
Here you go...
http://kasiesplace.blogspot.com
Trek may be "dormant to dead" but that doesn't mean that Trek is out of mind. Star Trek fans are always going to be Trek fans, even if there isn't a show on TV.
Besides, you KNOW they won't leave it off the air (or out of the theaters) for long.
-crp
This feels like the old days! I'd share insight but a) I don't have any and b) I wanna get paid for it.
Great insight, man. You are doing a great job with 2E, and I look forward to the coming sets. I have to say that Borg and Maquis are Really fun!
Barry
Post a Comment