Top-down design mechanics
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Jan. 16, 2015, 5:32 p.m. by MagicalHacker
Not 100% sure this goes here, but what are your thoughts about mechanics in a set? I am making a custom block, and I am thinking about having seven mechanics in one set and then seven new ones in the following set (that's the whole block). Should they all be different types of mechanics? Should they be related to different card types? What else should I keep in mind? Should they be similar? Should they be different? Are some types of abilities off limits, like static abilities?
For those of you wondering, this is a plane with seven evil cults fought off by seven holy religions, and the theme for the set is "color weight matters". The more evil the person, the higher the color weight. This was something I've been thinking about since before Innistrad, so it's similarity to Innistrad and Theros is purely coincidental.
Epochalyptik says... #3
You should look at scaling back the complexity of the set. It's a cool idea, but it's just not feasible the way you describe it.
January 16, 2015 5:52 p.m.
nighthawk101 says... #4
Mechanics are basically two types, just like cards: top down and bottom up.
Top down mechanics begin with an idea, theme or word and have a mechanic constructed to fit it. Bottom up mechanics begin with the mechanic itself, and it is adjusted to fit flavorfully.
Taking a look at the keywords on the MTGS Wiki (handily categorized, as I just discovered), the majority of keywords fall into three categories: Triggered, Static, and Activated. A triggered ability is just that- a triggered ability that has been keyworded. Battle cry (Accorder Paladin) is just an attack trigger. Persist (Safehold Elite) is just a death trigger. The same triggered ability fits flavorfully onto different cards.
Skipping to activated abilities, they are just keyworded activated abilities. Typically activated abilities have a cost in addition to the keyword- it would be a bit bland if they all had the same cost. This difference allows for varied Cycling (Krosan Tusker) cards, Ninjutsu (Ninja of the Deep Hours) cards, and many more.
Static abilities are a little more complicated, simply because there's more variety. Vanishing (Deadwood Treefolk) has a triggered ability, but since the "~ enters the battlefield" effect is there, it's categorized as Static. Wither (Stigma Lasher) is what I first thought of when I read Static- something that's just true about an object.
Another type of mechanic is an ability word. An ability word is typically used when you want a central theme, but more, broader variety within that theme. Morbid (Skirsdag High Priest) keeps the central theme of creature death, but implements it in different ways. Another example is Battalion (Daring Skyjek), which has the same trigger of creatures attacking but different effects.
Finally, there's keyword actions. Keyword actions are pretty much verbs. Populate (Sundering Growth) is a keyword action, as are the new mechanics Manifest (Soul Summons) and Bolster (Honor's Reward).
This is a pretty simple overview, but here are some things to keep in mind as you create the mechanics, which stem from a simple idea:
- The mechanic should be fun to play.
With that in mind...
Try not to make a drawback mechanic. The aforementioned Vanishing is a drawback mechanic, but most of the time, your mechanic should make people want to play your cards.
Mechanics can be of similar types. Sure, you don't want seven triggered mechanics, but as Bolster and Manifest show, multiples of the same type are A-OK.
Explore new design space whenever possible. Mechanics should innovate.
Don't be afraid to return mechanics in place of a new one. Seven new mechanics is a lot for a block, and a lot to make and balance cards for. (When you do return a mechanic, again, try to explore new design space)
The cards that your mechanics are on should interact well with the mechanic. Vanilla creatures like Jeskai Windscout with a mechanic are nice. However, cards that help out the mechanic or are strengthened by it, such as Worm Harvest are more interesting.
And now I have to go, but I'll be back soon.
January 16, 2015 5:58 p.m.
nighthawk101 says... #5
I think I got a little excited... I just kind of rambled all over that post.
January 16, 2015 5:59 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #6
Dude that should be like stickied onto the card creation forum or something. At the very least you should save that somewhere for later use
January 16, 2015 6:13 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #7
Epochalyptik, in that case, what I may do is recycle old abilities to fit the themes of the mechanics I wanted to be new mechanics. As a starting point, I'm aiming for 4 new, 3 old in the first set and then 4 new, 3 old introduced in the second set. Does that sound better?
What I may do to simplify it a bit is incorporate more cycles than is usual; would that help?
nighthawk101, I didn't think about the latter two you mentioned, but I like those as well! I believe that Miracle and Overload and Dash don't fit any of the ones you mentioned, except maybe static abilities, but I am not sure what a mechanic related to alternate casting costs would be... In addition, a static ability in the form of a replacement effect could be rather novel, as I can't think of any off the top of my head lol. I feel like there are three subtypes of triggered ability according to the first word: "when", "whenever", and "at". "When" abilities, like Cascade" trigger only once for that iteration of that card; "Whenever" abilities usually trigger much more than once, requiring you to be on the lookout for triggers; and "At" abilities occur at specific times in a turn, meaning remembering the trigger at a certain time rather than from a particular... well... trigger.
So I know you said you were keeping it simple, but I like getting excited about stuff like this too... So! Here's my outline for what categorization of abilities there are (based on your comment):
- Triggered ability ("When")
- Triggered ability ("Whenever")
- Triggered ability ("At")
- Activated ability (Sacrifice/Discard/Exile, as in Flashback or Cycling)
- Activated ability (repeatable, as in Outlast and others probably lol)
- Static ability (alternate casting cost)
- Static ability (replacement effect)
- Static ability (other)
- Ability Keyword
- Keyword action
Pretty cool? Maybe not? Idek
January 16, 2015 11:18 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
Seven abilities per set is still pretty high. The whole Innistrad block (just for the sake of example) had seven new mechanics (fateful hour, fight, miracle, morbid, soulbond, transform, undying) and one returning mechanic (flashback). That's eight total, one of which was an old mechanic and one of which (fight) became a new evergreen mechanic.
Once you go beyond 7-8 mechanics in a single block, you risk overcomplicating the entire block and introducing some balance issues. For example, how do you plan to distribute power and flavor among the mechanics? How are you going to make sure that each mechanic is given a reasonable amount of exposure without saturating the set with mechanic-heavy cards?
January 16, 2015 11:41 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #9
I guess that's true. After a certain point, It's just impossible for mechanics to have enough spotlight individually.
Hmm, not sure what to do actually... It is a top-down designed block, and it's seven factions vs seven factions (colorless, white, blue, black, red, green, and fivecolor/multicolored). Should some get mechanics and others not?
Ooh what if the good guys get one mechanic?
January 17, 2015 1:57 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
I think we need to know more about the story first. The entire essence of top-down design is starting from the flavor and moving toward the mechanics. If you don't have well-developed lore for your block (or at least some strong starting ideas for well-developed lore), you're kind of dead in the water.
January 17, 2015 2:15 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
For example, why is there such a big war going on? Why are the factions in this war divided along color lines? How do you blend each color's story into a larger narrative (if you don't, then you have some major segmentation going on thematically and mechanically)?
January 17, 2015 2:17 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #12
I have to warn you, this is WAAAY early in the planning stages. This is what I have so far (and it's not a ton):
One of the demons liliana seeks, a planeswalker, has come to a plane that is special. (Not sure why yet.) there he begins increasing his power by turning the entire plane worshippers of demons. He creates seven demons to rule the plane, each with their own deadly vice: pride, lust, greed, wrath, gluttony, sloth and envy. These seven deadly sins correspond to white, blue, black, red, green, colorless and multicolored/five color. (Planned with a new mechanic for each.) Something notable happens that causes some planeswalkers to be forced visions of him and his power.
Some of those planeswalkers come to the plane: Liliana to defeat him, Tibalt to serve him, and two other planeswalkers individually who come to free the people of the plane from their bondage. I'm thinking one could be Meshavel after some quick researching, and the other to be a never-before seen planeswalker. An angel from Bant who got her spark because of the vision. This is where the first set begins. The planeswalkers in this set would be Meshavel, the angel Planeswalker and Liliana.
The seven factions aren't really at war with each other, but rather, are groupings of the citizens of the plane who have become subjugated under their weakness. The "evil cards" have no generic mana, which is the basis for the separation of good and evil on the plane. Also they have their own watermark.
White represents pride. The inspiration for the mechanic is self-righteousness and vanity. It fits best into the flavor for white mana, but I haven't thought of a mechanic yet.
Blue represents lust. It may be hard to see why, but blue is a color of learning, and learning someone else's body is always different for each person. Therefore, I made the connection of blue representing lust. For the mechanic, I was thinking something similar to either tapping for two turns (frost titan) or gaining control of until end of turn. Maybe forcing blocks. Still working on this one.
Black represents greed. This one should be pretty straightforward in terms of why. After seeing Macar, I was thinking a mechanic that gets more powerful the more gold tokens you have. Then supporting the mechanic could be lots of ways to make the gold tokens.
Red represents wrath, and provoke could be the perfect returning mechanic for it. Although I would also like forcing attacks as a new mechanic instead, but still thinking about it.
Green represents green, and I'm kinda excited about this one. For the mechanic, I was thinking that creatures may enter tapped. If they do, another creature becomes tapped and both stay tapped as long as both are tapped. Like a linked ability. So once one untaps, they're no long linked. At the beginning of your upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on the creature eating and a -1/-1 counter on the creature being eaten. I'm sure it can be streamlined, but it is also in the works.
Colorless represents Sloth. As I mentioned before, these evil cards will have no generic mana, so a new mana symbol will be made for sloth cards. This symbol means "can only be payed by colorless mana". I can't have this be an ability because I need to make hybrid mana with the symbol in the second set. For the mechanic, I was thinking a static ability that lets you be lazier while playing mtg. That's all I got though.
Multicolored represents envy. This faction has a mechanic similar to being a Clone, but not exactly. Maybe along the lines of Experiment Kraj or Necrotic Ooze. This will also have a new mana symbol, representing any color as long as it wasn't payed for another symbol on the card. So for example, MMMM could be payed by any colors, but it must be four different colors.
Because of the two new mana symbols, I wanted to make two new basic lands for this block. One obviously just adds colorless. The other adds mana of a random color not in your mana pool.
That's the first set. For the second set, the Angel planeswalker meets Meshavel and the two team up to bring holiness to the people. Some are converted, represented by good cards, which contain one colorless hybrid symbol and the rest generic mana. So for example, and evil four drop would be RRRR and a good four drop would be 3(2/R). These cards have their old watermark smeared away. The planeswalkers in the set are Meshavel and the demon planeswalker.
That's it.
January 17, 2015 1:38 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
Blue doesn't really represent lust, nor green gluttony.
Your case for green being gluttonous based on the mechanic is more aligned with black than anything else, and it's 
/
at best (in my opinion).
Your case for blue being lustful is, I think, too much of a stretch. Learning isn't representative of lust, and you can learn someone's body without being overtly lustful. And the jump from learning the arcane to learning someone's body is another leap. Red is a better representation of lust because it's the color of passion.
You wouldn't use a new mana symbol to denote that a cost must be paid with different colors of mana. You would use a static ability or a clause that reads "Spend only up to one mana of each color to cast ~," and the cost itself would need to contain colorless mana symbols. Same with the colorless-only costs. You would write "Spend only colorless mana to cast ~." If a card must have at least one colored mana spent on it, you'd write "Spend at least one mana of any color to cast ~."
The set division also introduces some issues with balance. You now need to create good and evil cards for every color, for colorless, and for multicolored, and you need a convincing reason for the absolute separation of characteristics by color. Further, to represent conflict, the evil cards need to be powerful because they need to be capable of overwhelming the good. And the good cards need some power in able to resist the evil. That's not design-breaking in itself, but representing the goodness or evilness of a card by color weight is a huge problem because it limits your ability to balance power with saturation. Powerful cards will have to have outrageous saturation or outrageous mana costs (especially if you're using 2/C symbols). And that, in turn, affects the flavor of those cards.
I like some of the ideas, and I'm not saying they absolutely can't be implemented, but I don't think you're implementing them in the most logical and effective way. Take these points as constructive criticism.
January 17, 2015 2:11 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #14
In all of the particular sins, there is some stretching involved, but I don't think there is a way to change the links to make the sins fit better. And to the people of the plane, they will feel as this is what they always wanted to spend their lives doing. So for lust, the learned who previously studied books and scrolls, now they feel their desire to learn other people's bodies as more central to their life goals. Red may be indicative of passion more than blue, but I didn't want to pigeonhole each sin as a type of passion by stretch their boundaries a little. Ask yourself this, of the seven sins, which is most blue?
As for gluttony, this may be a poor example, but green monsters are called fatties for a reason.
And the reason I think I need to make new mana symbols is because the converted slothful and envious will have the hybrid symbol in their mana cost. Like 3(2/C) or 5(2/M). It may not mean much, but it's a flavor thing.
Because of the color weight, the evil cards will be powerful at a lower cmc than the good cards. However, when the good cards get to be played, they shut down and make the evil cards hard to stand on their own. And the first set will be mostly evil with some support for good and the second set will be vice versa.
In general, with this idea, what could be the most effective/logical way to use this idea?
January 17, 2015 3:01 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
It's poor design practice to unnecessarily complicate the game for the sake of implementing an idea exactly as you have it. It's better to modify the idea to work without unnecessary complications. Additional mana symbols are one of these complications. Refer to the wording I proposed earlier for a solution to these issues.
The amount of conflict and complexity within each color should be an indication that the set as a whole is monstrously complicated. If you trend toward [low-CMC, high-saturation] and [high-CMC, low saturation], then you're going to severely hinder the tempo of the set in Limited (and even Constructed) environments. The end result will be a set that's (1) very difficult to splash in due to the high saturation of the low-CMC cards and (2) very difficult to maintain tempo in due to the high cost of all of the more powerful cards.
January 17, 2015 3:34 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #16
I agree that unnecessary complications are a bad idea, so I'm going to use C to represent colorless-only mana and M to represent multicolored-only mana. Here is a chart using M as the example of what evil vs good x-drops would look like:
Evil 1-drop: M
Evil 2-drop: MM
Evil 3-drop: MMM
Evil 4-drop: MMMM
Evil 5-drop: MMMMM or WUBRG, cause they're the same thing.
Evil 6-drop: WUBRGM
Evil 7-drop: WUBRGMM
Etc...
Good 1-drop: (2/M)
Good 2-drop: 1(2/M)
Good 3-drop: 2(2/M)
Good 4-drop: 3(2/M)
Good 5-drop: 4(2/M)
Good 6-drop: 5(2/M)
Good 7-drop: 6(2/M)
Etc...
If I implemented your wording, it would make it more confusing actually. The reason is because it's just not that simple. If you ask a new player if those new symbols seem complicated on their own, I guarantee you they will grasp it quickly. That said, good and evil will both have spells ranging from 1-7, but the cheaper spells in evil will be more powerful than the cheaper spells in good and the more expensive spells in good will be more powerful than than the more expensive spells in evil. This will only be a guideline though.
I think to fix a set with small problems, you got to at least build a backbone, build the organs, build the muscle, and then the skin. Then you can fix anything wrong at that point.
January 17, 2015 5:02 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #17
Wait, would changing red to lust, white to wrath, and blue to vanity be a good fix?
January 18, 2015 2:12 a.m.
I love this! Maybe do something like 6 "factions" vs 6 "factions rather than seven. This way, you could focus on something like this:
Good side:
White
green
blue
red
u/g
w/r
Bad side:
Black
green
red
blue
b/g
r/u (maybe a nin, the pain artist reprint? That would drake it modern legal.)
This way, you could focus on the black faction in the bad and white in the good, each side without the other. Then give each side two enemy-colored pairs, giving no one b/w. this could just be easier to focus and design.
For mechanics, how about this:
Vigor mana color - If you spent only mana color on this spell, when it enters the battlefield, effect.
Since you would have more symbols in certain cards, it would be easier to achieve vigor, since you only need to spend colorless mana. In the second set, vigor with hybrid mana would be introduced.
Second set would have hybrid mana and both sets would have a returning mechanic of persist. This is just my thoughts!
A great start.
Epochalyptik says... #2
Seven new mechanics per set per block is way too many. Usually, you want 3-4 new mechanics and 1-2 returning mechanics in the first set, and 2-3 new mechanics after that (this isn't a strict rule).
Diversified mechanics are better because they create distinct flavor rather than homogeneity. I would avoid making them all type-specific.
January 16, 2015 5:51 p.m.