And this got me thinking. More experienced players tend to gloss over cantrips as regards flavor. To them, the phrase "Draw a card" doesn't really "exist" in flavor terms. But think about it in regards to new players. The action of drawing a card more or less coorelates to remember or learning something. How then, is making my creature "jump" into the air allowing me to remember something? It doesn't really make sense, if you think about it. This innoculous little phrase actually has a great deal of flavor meaning that we just slide aside because we know it doesn't actually matter. But why would a new player know that?
Another thing that I realized is that R&D has to have a purpose for each card. One of those purposes, and one that was very important to them in M10, is showing off what the colors can do. So, imagine you are them, and you want to reprint a cheap blue card that gives a creature flying, the purpose being to demonstrate that blue can do this sort of thing. Off the top of my head, I can think of four choices that cost one blue to cast:
1. Jump
2. Leap
3. Flight
4. Shimmering Wings
Out of these, Jump is clearly the simplest. All of the others have more text, more rules about them. Leap draws you a card, both Flight and Shimmering Wings are enchantments, not to mention that Shimmering Wings has even more text on it with its bounce ability. Therefore, Jump is the simplest execution of this concept. And lets be honest, would any of the veteran players really be happy about any of these choices? Probably not. They'd rather it be something like Rune Snag, or Brainstorm, etc.
This leads me to my main point. We all know R&D creates cards for the archetypes (Johnny, Timmy, Spike, Vorthos, and Melvin), but my brief conversation with Mr. Forscythe allowed me to realize something else. They also create cards for different skill levels. And lets be honest, this is a good thing. Terrible cards should exist for these reasons:
1. They often show off something about the color, allowing newer players to get an understanding of what sorts of things each color does.
2. They can often be popular cards with new players, who like them for the simplicity, or for the flavor, or other reasons, but don't understand their downsides. Jump as the example here, they can grasp the idea easily, and don't understand the concept of card advantage. Also, new players tend to latch onto certain terrible cards because they helped them win in a losing situation, leading them to continuing to like the card.
3. Terrible cards allow old players to teach new players. Because new players have a tendency to gravitate towards these cards, it gives an excellent opportunity to teach them why those cards are bad, and in turn, make them better at the game.
To conclude this, here are some final thoughts:
1. R&D is not dumb. They know what cards are terrible. But, they continue to make them because they are a good learning tool, and because they make cards for different skill levels. Afterall, if your old players aren't going to like what card you print regardless of what it is because of what you want to do with that slot, then you might as well cater to the new players.
2. Terrible cards are terrible, yes, but they serve a great purpose. They help draw new players into the game. They are often simple, allowing the flavor of the colors to show. And they serve as an excellent teaching tool.
3. Just remember what Mark Rosewater has said. If you don't like a card, it isn't for you. I think this applies to skill level as much as archetypes.
Overall, that short conversation made me realize much more about how R&D works, and I thank Mr. Forsythe for opening my eyes in regards this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment