Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2026-02-22 19:34:35)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2026-02-22 19:34:35)
I guess it'd want to be a world with weird and different magic rules, strong enough to force the planeswalkers to kowtow to those rules rather than the magic they know. Or storywise, giving them a very good reason to do so.
Probably the latter, since you also want a reason for this foreign magic to sipill out and change the rules of the multiverse and.. that way lies badness. How about just not doing that?
> Would Shrines from New Phyrexia be listed as Shrines or Hymns?
Neither since they are artifacts and both Shrine and Hymn are enchantment types. The issue here clearly is that Shrine - the only canonical among these beside Arcane, Fortification and Treasure - should thematically never have been an enchantment type. But being an actual printed type it is the hardest to shift.
(As a side-note Hymns also were supposed to be used for "Anthem" cards. But that's just because I had a system that would make an enchantment without subtype about as common as a creature without subtype. :) )
I think I have clasified them as Monument - my catcha-all type for artifacts representing large structures not a sufficient fit for other types with a deeper mechanical definition.
Back when I made the list Ixalan treasures were not yet a thing, but technically Treasure is now an official artifact type tied to something valuable you sacrifice for an effect that New Phyrexia shrines could fall into. Otherwise Totem is an option.
You also seem to miss that Fortification is an official artifact type with associated rules.
To adress the actual world... well, I always assumed that I would not have a singular world introducing all concepts at once e. g. I would have a "land tribal" world (I thought about a return to Rabiah that would give us returning Desert and new Market etc.).
That would be followed up by maybe a Might & Magic world where the distinction between arcane mages and physical warriors is pronounced (establishing the "nonmagical" subtypes like Tactic, maybe Assembly and Monument etc.).
But more generally a good idea is usually to have a thematic underlying social system that can give meaning to the distinct types e. g. a society of actual guilds - but not (necessarily) the color-coded type of Ravnica. There would be a builder's guild for Monuments/Fortifications as opposed to an alchemists guild brewing Potions, an explorer/adventurer's guild that uses Traps/Tactic combat tricks on their Quests, a thaumaturge's guild which builds Shrines and hands out Charms and casts Wards (divine), a scholar's guild that offers Tutors and can cast Arcane magic.
I actually brain farted with that sphere cosmology thingie since that's closer to a new color pie distribution if even applicable for mtg as it is in practice. "Entropy" sphere (not the quotation marks) could be when traversed in reverse from symmetry to material known as "entropic animancy" which would be necromancy. Specifically doing a "symmetry skip" by combining "entropy" + void/mind would be the thing, but whatever. I would need to a wiki for that system to explain it properly.
So yes, these functionally related types are good and I recall referring to them before when brainstorming this block concept - specifically to that post SecretInfiltrator linked to. That contains a very good list already so I think the thing would be to formulate a proper composition for a setting.
So just parsing that specific list, I would consider filtering them somewhat as I see fit
> Enchantment: Circle, Font-Seal, Hymn-Quest, Law, Leyline, Shrine, Siege, Ward-Mark
> Spells: Arcane (splice onto instant/sorcery?), Beacon-Zenith, Cantrip, Charm-Command, Pact, Primal, Psionic, Ritual, Skill-Tactic (warcast/during combat), Summon, Trap, Tutor-Wish, Ultimatum.
> Artifacts: Assembly, Banner-Signet-Borderpost, Bauble-Bomb-Implement, Fortification, Gem, Monument, Potion, Stone, Totem, Treasure, Trigon.
Would Shrines from New Phyrexia be listed as Shrines or Hymns? Anyway...
Perhaps initially I would go for a smaller number - trying to get a handle for "tribal" themes/archetypes by choosing two or so from each of those categories.
//
//
//
//
What kind of world/setting would have those and be specifically focused on them? How do they map to colors? etc
I'm going to go against the grain here: I think that the subtypes should not be equivalent to 'schools' or 'types' of magic (i.e. Necromancy, Conjuration, Abjuration from DnD; or, 'Fire', 'Water', 'Poison' from PokeMon and a million other such works). I think the subtypes should be defined by an identifiable / associated card text, i.e. Aura always has Enchant [X] and Cantrip always has 'Draw a card'.
As for actual subtype ideas, well... I've mentioned Charm (for spells with modal effects, so this would include cards with Entwine, Fuse, and Escalate, etc) and Ritual for Sorceries that would generate mana (i.e. Rite of Flame, Seething Song, Dark Ritual, High Tide?, etc.) and maybe Tutor? could be on cards that said, "Search your library for a card, reveal it, and put it into your hand."
You mean like this? It's a little out-of-date, but contains some ideas.
I had a whole list of noncreature types for spells in my "Turn Magic into an LCG" project that will probably never see the light of day, but for the most part it's hard to make them have relevant tribal support -AND- include enough spell domains that each spell could reasonably belong to. Though I had something like 20-30 spell types, with only a few having tribal synergies.
I think the cosmology you listed would be fine for a standalone block, though some of them feel a bit abstract - entropy including necromancy, for example. Is Raise Dead really entropic? It seems more like Memory/Spectral or Energy to me. Which would make it weird when Zombify is something else. Any block with noncreature types would have to have more grounded types that people can look at and go "Oh, I guess I see how that's a Fire spell" or "Oh, I can tell it's a Martial spell because it involves dudes punching stuff harder".
Interesting how many of the mechanics in GDS 2 later got printed in real magic. It looks like
was designed there, not long after the first zendikar/worldwake block (??)
I agree a cardset here for discussion and such is a good idea - this one can do it nicely for the questions.
For the actual card design - would we all want to create our own sets; or all in a big messy set? There's interesting possibilities either way.
rip im 14 and canadian
To me, the first questions are
For another project, I've been thinking of this kind of elemental/sphere/"spell school" cycle/cosmology:
Generally, I consider a race to be "human-like" if they're the default for the setting, can exist in most roles/colors, and aren't necessarily tied to a mechanical theme. That's why I'm okay with Innistrad - instead of humans being the -default- race of many races, they're the origin race (with every other tribe represented in Innistrad just a various form of human - ghost human, undead human, furry human, pale human). I'm okay with human-like beings as races as long as they have a relatively cohesive mechanical or color identity to them.
Dwarves in Kaladesh, for example, didn't do much to differentiate themselves from humans. Aerial Responder, Fairgrounds Warden, and Consul's Shieldguard, for example, didn't need to be dwarves. If all of the dwarves were similar to Depala, Pilot Exemplar or Gearshift Ace, that would be less of an issue.
Conversely, if you had a setting that had Elves in all colors, with most of them eschewing their green, mana-producing, tree-hugging, swarming ways, you're probably just better off using humans as the default race. You're not necessarily impressing anyone with that aspect of your setting unless you do something meaningful with it. I feel the same with Orcs - too often they're easily replaced by the more MTG-default Goblins or Ogres, depending on the size. They don't really do much to separate themselves from those races. Orcs in Khans of Tarkir only felt like they were included because Wizards needed some alternate races to spice up some of their designs and world, not because they had any want for them mechanically. The same with Aetherborn - they look cool, but for the most part, they do stuff that can be covered by humans or vampires (if they existed in Kaladesh) in the setting.
I'm generally tired of human as the default race in high-fantasy settings as well. Finding art for every card would maybe suggest that the speaker isn't a human? Unfortunately, many people need humans specifically to identify with. Such was considered one of the faults of Lorwyn-Shadowmoor.
Mal, what's your limitations of human-like beings as races? I would see elves and dwarves as overly humanesque in terms of appearance, but I'll give vedalken a pass, their features feeling slightly alien. How about orcs?
I was rereading some of GDS 2. I was pleased to see, I think I now could handle it a lot better than I could at the time. Partly from having got better at design, but mostly from being more willing to let go of ideas I have that don't work, and embracing the things that seem most likely to impress the judges. (Or that Mark explicitly asks for.)
I was impressed at how good the GDS2 contestents were, but also, how rocky many of their entries were. Their entries had more going for them than I could manage. But there are lots of problems that I could clearly see, even if hard to avoid, like "this plane just doesn't sound like a magic plane" applied to most of them, and "this is overcomplicated and isn't going to work" came up a lot.
Sub-races that can be classified as a n existing race are usually pretty helpful, like Hobgoblins under Goblins, or Drow under Elf. Magic generally has a way to classify various classical races that aren't existing in MTG (i.e. Tieflings are imps or devils, etc.), but I'm usually not averse to adding new types if the source material calls for it, or if there's a good reason for them to exist on the plane.
Most of my inspiration is real-world mythology, so I try to use animals that are iconic to the region or setting. For example, in Xianlu, I chose Monkey and Turtle as the two key races because both are fairly prevalent in fiction. Bear (Panda) erred too close to Pandaren for me to want to use them, and the other members of the Chinese Zodiac aren't really prevalent or anthropomorphized enough in Chinese fiction for me to consider them. Aven also appear because birds in various forms are staples of Chinese myth.
I'd love to stop using Human as the default race, but too often any names that don't include clues towards a creature's race are filled in as "human" creatures. Very few planes feel "right" without humans or human-like beings as a race.
If a plane has some inspiration from something from our world I'll try to include creatures and races known or associated with the source, such as zombies (as ghouls) in my Deshub set that has some medieval Middle East inspiration. When filling planes not drawn from any iconic source I tend to grab at either what feels right based on the civilization or is just familiar to Magic players.
Are there any races or monsters you tend to avoid or always seek to include? I'm not keen on merfolk on land, so unless my plane has numerous, large bodies of water, I tend to skip them. I also forget faeries because they're associated with flying rather than any actual aversion. Though, acknowledging that, a few faeries filling in for slots usually given to birds in blue is something I could probably do. Oddly I've used Aven despite being associated with flying.
@froggychum: The Great Designer Search 3 which is the current search.
The Great Designer Search 2 which was the previous search, back in 2011.
Because if you change your mind after reading the questions, it is now too late.
what is Great designer search?
It's not like they won't make the essay questions public anyway. So why bother?
At least sign up to get a peek at the essay questions. Certainly, there's no harm in that.
Now I'm having second thoughts. I was originally just not going to do it because I wouldn't seriously take up the offer, but now I'm wondering, doing the first couple of rounds and dropping out is probably not actually a big deal.
link to contest?
Ahh, I forgot about that. I guess I'll just have to lose on purpose if I even get that far then.
Keep in mind it's a TOS violation to sign up if you're not willing to take the internship. I'll be done with classes by that point, but I will need to take a leave of absence from grad school. Too early to be able to finish up remotely, but I'll figure it out if I get there
I'll be making an attempt.
Not American
Oh, and here's one extra advantage everyone here has:
"Editor's note: If you submitted an entry for the Great Designer Search 3 prior to 11:30 a.m. PT on December 5, 2017, an internal error prevented your entry from being correctly recorded. This issue has since been corrected. Please resubmit your entry to ensure we receive it correctly."
It seems of our initial competition got eliminated by accident.
Woot, Woot! GDS3 here we come! Man, that was a long wait since I flubbed up the multiple choice section in GDS2. I somehow missed that Wizards printed 3 green creatures with vigilance. I could have just checked on Gatherer! I'm the Gatherer guy! Still bugs me.
Anyhow, if anyone on Multiverse gets selected, tell us. We have an awesome team here that are ready and eager to support you. Simply from being a part of this community, every person on this site has a leg up over the competition from word 'go'.
I signed up for it! I know that the chances of winning are very very slim but if I'm sure it'll be a fun exercise for designing Magic cards nonetheless!
I think that's a very interesting take on FFG's LCG model, and it could be a lot of fun. I'm still of the opinion that WotC should adopt something like this for the entirety of Magic, since their current business model results in: 1) tons of terrible cards / rehashes of old cards (yeah, yeah, I know there is the whole "but its decent in a limited format" but I don't think that justifies printing trash cards that no-one cards about) and 2) ridiculous card prices that are great for collectors but bar entry to the game for new players / most would-be competitive players, i.e. pay-to-win.
There is also a 3rd much darker implication: if the economy goes south and money gets tight, people are going to buying less cards (obviously) but I think FFG's LCG format has more staying power as people who do decide to splurge on buying cards are going to know exactly what they're getting and know that the relative power-level of the cards are fair, whereas WotC would be asking people to gamble, and when they are subsequently disappointed, their players will likely quit, at least for a little while.
As a format TopConstructed/PreConstructed has potential, but I really just think WotC should change their business practices. However, about this idea of yours, I think it could be really great if WotC gave it the support like they've given the multiplayer formats (which could be included, I don't think they're necessarily against the spirit of the idea, since everyone gets the same cards and knows what they're getting and the power-level is fairly balanced across products.)