Forum Review - How are we doing?

[Matt]

A thought has been festering in my brain for awhile now. I realize that our system of card creation is set up in such a way that it would be almost impossible to coordinate a large-scale card theme. We could never make a Kamigawa, for instance, because the heavy legend-theme is too big for our apparatus to handle.

I actually made a meta-mechanic about alchemy once and talked to Jacob about it. We both liked it, but couldn't figure out any way to actually build a set around it.

I'm worried that our process is actively limiting the kinds of cool ideas we can come up with. So I ask the general public: can you think of any ways we could improve or expand our card making process? Feel free to question everything about it, no matter how fundamental. In particular, I want to find a way of handling larger themes like my "treasure" subtheme.

Also, between Mirrodin and Kamigawa blocks, it's clear that Wizards are printing cards that "Wizards would never print" - Time Stop, Mindslaver, etc. This has made me change my positions on a lot of things I have previously said about what we can and cannot do. So if you've had a cool idea shot down before and you think it could actually work, bring it up again and we'll see. In particular, I am much more open now to making our own keyword abilities. I would like to see our second set made much faster than the first, and I would like it to feature some nice keyworded abilities. Maybe even something like snow-covered land - the kind of thing that can generate lots of new cards, not just "the buyback bolt", "the splice bolt", "the flashback bolt" and so on.

[Jebus]

Honestly, a real focus on a theme would go a long way.

Set goals for a set based on themes and let the mechanics do the rest of the work.

Actually spend time on world building.

There is no reason we can't use a similar process that WotC does. We simply would take longer doing it.

[Jacob Orlove]

Except we have a system where each card or cycle gets its own thread. We'd need to build a world and set up guidelines for new keywords/themes so that people could incorporate those into new cards.

[Rando]

I've already made my remarks on what I think the next logical step is, in this thread

I still think things would go more smoothly if those roles, or similur roles, were appointed.

[Ephraim]

If the purpose of the first set is to set the stage for the following two sets, as Rando has suggested, we ought to go through and first unify the flavour texts of the first set. We probably have a lot of attributions to popular characters in established MtG mythos, which we'd like to change to characters from our mythos.

Beyond that, perhaps a committee of members or a series of polls could be used to determine the nature of the sets to come after. Will the flavour be based on the characters, on the mechanics, or on something else? We've already accepted some of WotC's mechanics and we may want to rethink that, so there's design space to fill in the coming sets. We've also established that our set will have common and uncommon artifacts as well as gold cards. These are relevant decisions that will affect the flavour of the following two sets.

I definitely like the idea of theming the coming sets. For example, we've got Pizzatog's set of mirage-related cards, which are rife with flavour. The city-state of Oroku could play some part in our story. Creating a new mechanic would be a big step in the direction of creating our own set. A huge portion of the "new" cards come from new mechanics. When the new mechanic is something like Entwine or Kicker, the new spells don't even have to be rehashes of old cards.

[Jacob Orlove]

Well, I always just assumed that we'd go back and put flavor text on a bunch of cards once we had some kind of flavor worked out. Every card should really have at least two lines of text (and probably more like 3-4), so there's a number of cards that we'd have to add some flavor to.

[Matt]

Well, the way Wizards does it, they design the cards first and graft the flavor on later, maybe tweaking it a bit to fit. But mostly Design submits cards with names like "Ankh Man" and lets Development sort it out. Do we want to do that? It might mean dividing the cards up into categories: Rough Drafts, Just Needs Flavor, Completed Cards, Cards In The Next Set, and so on.

[Ephraim]

Actually, Matt, the stages of design idea seems pretty good. Not everybody's good at every aspect of card design, which means that people could contribute in the forum/subforum where they'll be most effective. It would also allow anybody to keep track of the development of the complete set so that the flavour people can keep new cards on-flavour, the designers can fill empty design space, etc...

[Jacob Orlove]

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that both subforums and additional forums are not possible with the current software.

[Jacob Orlove]

Well, the way Wizards does it, they design the cards first and graft the flavor on later, maybe tweaking it a bit to fit. But mostly Design submits cards with names like "Ankh Man" and lets Development sort it out. Do we want to do that? It might mean dividing the cards up into categories: Rough Drafts, Just Needs Flavor, Completed Cards, Cards In The Next Set, and so on.

Part of the reason they can do that, though, is that they've already established the theme(s) of the set. I don't mean the flavor so much (although soulshift, for example, is definitely a flavor-driven mechanic), but the more the design side part, like the decision to emphasize legendary creatures, or multicolored cards. I think deciding stuff like that will be easier if we first establish our flavor first.

[Ric_Flair]

One of the issues I have had with the card creation forum is there is no direction.  A group of people, people committed to the forum, need to sit down and come up with a theme, mechanics, and the like then put those things out there for the public to work on.  Maybe you guys could take some suggestions but eventually you need to tell people: this is what we are working on and looking for.  Just a suggestion.  

That said I think that so many of the cards have been fantastic.  If you guys could focus the talent at making non-mechanic or mechanic rehash cards on mechanics and themes that are TMD designed it would be amazing.

[brendan]

Yes it would be cool if we could decide on a theme and(or) keywords/mechanics that we want for a set, then set about making cards to fill the holes.

I like the aztec/incan theme idea as well as the atlantis theme idea. I'd be keen to pick a theme and choose a couple of mechanics to go with it so I could start making some cards with that in mind.

[Trollstorm]

Making a custom set is a pretty lofty task, but I'm still unsure of the end that this forum is trying to accomplish. Are you trying to release these cards, or make a tournament type in which you can proxy them into?

[Bram]

We are trying to have fun.

The reason I initiated this forum was to promote Vintage-focussed card design that's balanced in other formats. Hence the initial requirement of stating that card's purpose in Vintage when posting it. People were always complaing how WotC weren't catering to type one, and others believed it was impossible to design for T1 within the confines of a balanced standard format. I wanted the CC forum to be a place where people could think abotu their decks and what they needed, and mold their needs into a card that can actualy be printed now.

It has sure grown up since then. It has become one of the most visited forums on this board. People no longer only submit cards for vintage, but also for flavor reasons as well as generally interesting ideas that may not even have a real application (and some idiots persist in posting increasingly narrow combo cards that noone seems to like

Eventually, the idea spawned in our heads that we have such an enormous collection of cards that we could 'filter' them into a set. This gave us some focus and provided a nice challenge for those of us who  like to pretend to work in R&D. We wanted to present this set to the world once it's finished through, possibly, an article on SCG (and an actual set review by JP!). We're even going to make it into an Apprentice set so that everyone who wants to (read: us) can draft it. Like I said: fun is the keyword.

Right now, we're thinking even further. We're thinking in terms of blocks now. Themes. World-building. Man, I really wish I could do this for a living. I've contacted MaRo about the possibility of us sending him the set and him actualy being able to look at it. He assured me he would look into it and consult with his legal team. That would be the ultimate goal, really. Presenting an entire, balanced, flavorful and interesting set or block to Wizards of the Coast so that they may use it for inspiration or at the very least as a reassurement that infinite ideas and talented card creators exist our there. It would be a tribute to this great game, and we'll all have had lots of fun in the process.

That answer your question?

[Matt]

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that both subforums and additional forums are not possible with the current software.

We plainly have this ability now. Does that change the verdict on this idea?

[Ephraim]

Maybe we ought to make a poll. I know that some people have expressed interest in seeing what the set looks like on an ongoing basis. I don't imagine that anybody with an active interest in the card creation forum would want to pass up an opportunity to contribute more where their talents lie. Of course, Matt, you have a weightier vote than most, since you're kind of the admin of the card creation forum. If not enough people are committed to making use of the proposed changes, it wouldn't be worth the effort of implementing them.

(For those of you who have no idea where Matt's last comment and this comment come from, see my suggestion above concerning the implementation of subforums for each of the aspects of set design -- card design, development, set integration, etc.)

[Jacob Orlove]

As long as we keep most of the action in the main forum, I'm fine with additional subforums. Of course, that means we can't go overboard with subforums, or else none of them will have enough reason to exist.

Maybe we could just start using the [] tags that people use in the other forums, like "[Concept] Ebba Jarkeldsson" (a thread I'm planning on making at some point).