How TCGs Break Game Systems

[@thomasfavrot4987]

One of your best videos imo. The crunch is what I'm looking for, and it is presented in a way that I can extrapolate the knowledge to any other game and design. MTG is just the example, not the point. Well done

[@fastpuppy2000]

While I love talking Magic (or yelling at Commander), I think videos like this are more important if the channel is aiming to be by game designers for (future-)game designers. It's good to see a real mix of game-specific critique alongside higher level general game design philosophizing. Or non-generalized exceptions-that-prove-the-rule type things. Though , of course, you gotta do what gets views to some degree. I've got a request, if you are willing to add to the backlog of video ideas I'm sure exists. There is a heuristic among at least tabletop role-playing game design hobbyists that a character should succeed at tasks they are built for about 65% of the time. It's definitely a reflection of the popularity of D&D considering this seems to be what WotC has decided, and I imagine it trickled down from there. Sometimes people reference a study WotC did that determined 65% is the ideal chance of success, but I've never seen the study, or proof it exists really, not that I've done my due diligence. The two justifications I've seen for this are that it's near a 50/50 so rolling feels dangerous, but with an edge to the player so they generally come out on top, and that 65% just feels like 50/50 to people because people tend to feel losses twice as strongly as positive outcomes, so if you lose about a third of the time, and win twice as often, that balances out, vibes-wise. Thinking too deeply on this leads to non-game-design after a while, and you should probably just start playtesting to see if stuff "feels" right rather than meeting some goodness quotient. That being said, I've found cool stuff looking for info on this. All the papers I could find on how people experience probability seem to say that you can't generalize people as over or underestimating the probability of an event occuring from their experiences, but that people are personally consistent in feeling probabilities as lower or higher than they are. (Note that I am not at all trained to read academic psychology papers, so I don't trust my reading, frankly.) Additionally, I found studies that people are apparently somewhat consistent on how they interpret "probability words" like "perhaps" and "definitely not" as they would describe the chances of their described thing occurring. To be more general, and less fantasy-heartbreaker, are there any psychological principles you know of that can provide rules of thumb for the start of a design? (I've been thinking a lot about granularity as it applies to advancing power in games that care about that. An additional +1 to a die roll means more to a d20 than a d100. The percentile game's players would likely not care nearly as much as the d20 game's. There's an amount of improvement that becomes useless to consider. How subjective is that line? One could make a Magic like card game that had all land produce double the resources and also double the costs of cards (this game would be a rip-off, yes). You could then effectively start making new cards with half-pip costs relative to magic. One can imagine that that is a meaningful space to design cards in. Some cards already sit on a line of too strong for 2 mana and too weak for 3 for instance. But if you quintupled costs and resource generation, you're probably dealing with false precision, there. When does a card need to cost 1/5th a pip more? There's a goldilocks zone for resource-cost granularity that is going to be subjective, but there's a number that is probably subjectively best for the greatest number of people relative to your game.) Terribly sorry for the wall of text. This channel is great and gets me in a tinker-y headspace, but I tend to be stuck tinkering rather than designing.

[@fastpuppy2000]

Also Commander should be treated like two headed giant: a rules add-on applied to a real format. Most people play Commander-Kitchen Table or otherwisr play Commander-Legacy.

[@distractionmakers]

Very interesting topic. We’ll add it to the list.

[@tldreview]

This was extremely insightful. If nothing else because it kinda shows the value in proper definitions and boundary setting rather than handwaving it. Whenever I'm able to clearly do so when coming up with something creative (not necessarily in a game design setting) it just opens the doors to so many new ideas because you can laser focus your thought on an extremely narrow subject. Like if you're wandering out of mechanics design and into systems design you can just stop and say "no, I want to explore my mechanics further and this is out of scope for now"

[@distractionmakers]

It definitely helps to be able to understand a problem you might be having and where it falls. If the players aren’t having the intended experience where along the path did it fail.

[@tldreview]

@@distractionmakers I never released anything to the public so I dont have that part of the experience lol but it does make sense yeah

[@evilagram]

A dynamic, under the MDA framework, is a mechanic or set of mechanics that create a system with a certain bias or flow. The rules of poker create a dynamic that incentivizes bluffing. In MTG, being able to play lands every turn creates a dynamic where the number and strength of game actions grows each turn, the power of each player grows over the course of a game.

[@badbunnyTUBE]

Absolute gold. Can't wait for later episodes. As a game enthusiast and a mechanics geek this will give me more tools to express and discuss game mechnics for sure!

[@inkibusss]

MtG genuinely has a lot of the most egregious examples of this. Companions, Eminence, and Partners are some of the most broken mechanics in the game, and they all essentially break the rules of the system. I think there is an argument for putting Phyrexian mana, the Force cycles, and Leylines in this category as well.

[@andrueurbane7361]

...and banding.

[@BatCaveOz]

@@andrueurbane7361 *Especially* Banding

[@timbombadil4046]

Partners are interesting. They do seem troublesome, but say backgrounds really dont seem to be an issue. It might be the difference of two creatures, but I dont think so Think the partner problem primarily is several, especially among the first partners, are just too good and generically valuable. Companion and eminence are definite candidates. An example of something that has been less troublesome would be cards with unique deck limitations like Relentless Rats or Seven Dwarves. Again background commanders aren't an issue and only some partners are. Then again "an issue" is perhaps the wrong criteria. Arahbo's eminence ability isn't an issue, but its still troubled design.

[@CliosPaintingBench]

These talks really get me thinking, love the discussion on mechanics and how people interact with them

[@TonySloan2112]

Grinding Station as thumbnail?!? Hell yes!

[@5-4-s7q]

this is by far my favorite video of yours and would love to see more. I really want to learn more about game design but ive gone through all the surface level stuff i can find, and i dont know what i dont know until i know it, and this was very helpful as a takeaway for how i should design things in the future. Thank you so much!

[@distractionmakers]

Glad it was helpful!

[@alexrivera5747]

Companions are too strong but I wouldn’t necessarily say that it's because they defy the systems of the game. This would imply that any start of game effect would inherently be broken which I don't think is the case. I will say that because of the delicate nature of systems that start of game effects are the most difficult to balance.

[@sammckay1307]

Opening hand action cards aren't card advantage and require you to play below rate cards in your deck. Companions don't require below rate cards just cards different from what you otherwise might play. Drown in the Loch versus Counterspell in Grixis Jegantha. Drown is arguably better than counterspell. Leyline of the Void is a 4 mana for a worse RiP. Also, companions are guaranteed. Lurrus would still be bannable if the companion rule started you with one less card instead of the 3 mana payment system.

[@Flamewolf14]

Thinking about this it really seems like the mechanics that do this come down to if the effects are mirrored. Commander everyone gets the 8th card so it is seen as more fair even if I run some late game commander that is noob bait and you run a very efficient commander. That is uneven but feels more fair because I picked to have a bad commander. I also think of Gen and Baku from hearthstone those cards were rotated early because if you didn't have the card and your opponent did then they had a major advantage. And the other thing is that if you get the same 1 card or ability every game many games will play very similarly. If you get that passive hero power effect or a companion on the board or in the hand right away that is something you want to do and will do every time. But in commander people are expected to be casting their commander everyone will try and do it that is their decks main dude! But if the opponent gets something that I don't that is mega strong and makes the game play nearly the same I the opponent won't like it and it will feel unfair

[@alexzoin]

Love these videos. Really love the design conversation.

[@muddlewait8844]

I dislike cards that dodge the consequences of mechanics they otherwise exactly duplicate, like cards that say “put the top card of your library into your hand” rather than “draw a card”. Like, I’m sorry you regret having printed Orcish Bowmasters, but please don’t break other parts of the game because of it. I’m waiting for keywords like “NotPlay: You may put this card into the graveyard from your hand and pay BU at any time you may cast a Sorcery. When this card is put into the graveyard this way, .”

[@CptManboobs]

They already have cards that have effects when you cycle them.

[@WyattAndrews]

I think that's basically channel?

[@jweaver909]

Add "draw a card" and you've got cycling and it's ilk

[@muddlewait8844]

@@jweaver909 Argh you’re right

[@NZPIEFACE.]

I feel like you forgot that Channel exists...

[@relevantusername3342]

The new set looks nice!

[@augustdunnihoo]

That popping noise is so satisfying

[@ArcDragoon]

What I took away from this is that the Extra Deck summoning mechanic from Yu-Gi-Oh! was a mistake. And MtG regrettably learned its lesson with just one "extra" card; but Yu-Gi-Oh! now lives and dies with fifteen extra cards. No one understands when I try to explain to them how crazy it is for a player to start with essentially twenty cards in hand, while their opponent only has access to five. And then they look at cards like Maxx "C" as if it was the problem, instead of acknowledging the core issue that is the Extra Deck, and that one fed into the other.

[@fgnsfgnsfgn]

Love your game design videos.

[@Wingedmagician]

This is the kind of content I wanna see 👏

[@jaceg810]

There is no room for input during the untap step* Unless there is (God I love MTG), some cards for example, state that one can only untap a limited amount of cards, requiring player choice

[@nesterpilgrim]

Agree with this and like it! Would suggest including a game's business model in the graphic, especially in light of the Boosters video. Thanks for the thinky content as always!

[@distractionmakers]

That's a great idea. Having a visual that covers all aspects of a card game could be very helpful.

[@TapDat52K]

A good pick me up video after seeing Mana Crypt, Jeweled Lotus, Dockside Extortionist, and Nadu getting banned. I did not have any, but my friend traded part of a collection for a mana crypt like 3 months ago. My only real gripe with asthetics for Magic, is I disike how artifact cards can mistakenly look like white. It makes sorting large piles of your bulk a pain. -_- Otherwise, other laws of mechanics I dislike tend to be more minute situations. Like how a battle when defeated, doesn't go to the player who killed the battle, but just the original card owner. I think the craziest law changes have been Yugioh. They have changed how the field works multiple times over the years. The biggest changes came eith the introduction of Pendulums, and the Introduction of Link summonings. Yu-Gi-Oh suffers by not having more base rules in place before the expansions of newer packs, and to account for the introduction of new card types. Great vid so far (like 12 minutes in)

[@bakerbakura]

I think i would add another 'loop' to this on the players' side, if one zooms out further. In most TCG players' experience, you initially build the deck, play it, get feedback during that game, change the deck, play again, and keep updating your deck over time. In my view this is a larger Game in which the smaller games have a place, and part of the enjoyment of TCGs is the Game, not only the games. Perhaps you could talk about systems/mechanics/aesthetics on a Game level too?

[@arrowrandoman]

The identities of players thus play into both systems. A Timmy player will approach both gameplay AND deck construction differently than a Spike player. One can even approach both parts differently. My brother, for example, approaches deck building with a focus on what he likes and then knows how to play it effectively. I'm variable on whether I make a fun or focused deck, but every strategy I build, I inevitably play aggressively, like it's Naya or Boros. To think of deckbuilding as part of the game lends an interesting take on calling oneself a Blue player, an Orzhov player, a Temur player, etc. Could one build as a Blue player and then play like a Red player? It makes interesting use of the systems.

[@punkypinko2965]

I agree with your thoughts on companion. It's like eminence: they give an advantage just cuz ... before anyone plays a single card. There should have been a cost or stipulation for companion or eminence to take effect. Hey how about giving two companion commanders each eminence? That sounds fun, right?

[@psychodriveskip]

In this framework, how much of the left hand loop is replaced with a box labelled "pre-con" (after all you still have to choose the pre-con)? How much is replaced by a box labelled "Net-Decking"?

[@psychodriveskip]

In this framework, how much of the left hand loop is replaced with a box labelled "pre-con" (after all you still have to choose the pre-con)? How much is replaced by a box labelled "Net-Decking"? Are there meaningful and/or substantive differences between the two?

[@distractionmakers]

Pre-cons essentially bypass the deck building system other than the player choosing which pre-con they want to play for whatever reason. Net-decking is interesting. This chart probably needs an additional Meta loop that informs the deck building system. In the case of net-decks the player is engaging with the meta loop and probably with the deck building loop, but begins that loop with input from the meta loop.

[@marcobiraghi]

Does Gavin pop his mouth every time he untaps?

[@danielprivate8038]

I like the comfy set up. What’s with that Doll between the two of you?¿?

[@distractionmakers]

That's Biggy.

[@alexmoskowitz811]

Commander: when you rule 0 so hard it becomes the game

[@gomensnana9169]

Game breaking design choices, like, RED LEYLINE, and that red, 1-cost mouse. I don’t think anyone should be able to die in mtg before their second turn.. TLDR: Someone had the combo in hand and killed me BEFORE my second turn (-4 hp). Who lets these red designs go to print?.. This morning I decided to play constructed ranked mtg arena for the first time. I am someone who likes making weird decks and optimizing them, and, once they’re “decent,” I usually work on a new one. I had a deck that was doing a nice combo and didn’t require much mana. Rather than beat up on fellow unranked players, I figured I’d play some ranked with it. The third game I played, the player got to start with the red leyline on the field and played the mouse. I’m thinking, “well, this will hurt.” I play my first land and have no 1-costs in my hand. Opponent’s second turn, casts the +3/0 manifest dread on the mouse, and then after hitting me casts the sacrifice creature to do its power in damage (of course the mouse has the same effect on itself, why wouldn’t an uncommon have this?). So I had 1 land and -4 hp before my second turn started. After that match I looked it up and there was a video outlining it 3 weeks ago so there isn’t even any creativity involved. I seen the red leyline 3 more times before I had to go to work. Fun meta, I like when I don’t get to even play the game.

[@cheeseitup1971]

Interesting video, I'll have to listen again. Could you link that paper you talked about? I'm not sure what you're saying about companions. They're weird, but the only takeaway I hear is that they're way too strong. It doesn't seem necessarily bad to change deckbuilding options in this way.

[@distractionmakers]

Here ya go! users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf

[@Flamewolf14]

I think they were saying part of why they were bad is they change the systems of the game before the game even starts. The downside is not a high enough cost that's what I thought they said anyway. I compare it to commander where if everyone gets a companion tends to feel more fair

[@cheeseitup1971]

What confuses me is that there are lots of other asymmetries. My creatures can't attack the turn they're played, you can never counter spells, the other guy is putting cards face down and calling them 2/2s. The choices you make during deckbuilding have always affected what actions you can take during play.

[@cheeseitup1971]

Also, I can't see your reply here, but I see the link got added to the description. Thank you!

[@compacta_d]

I'll maintain that the only problem with companion is that everyone didn't get one. Salty players complained it didn't slot into their decks. They should have made 2-3x as many. Commander players aren't salting bc commanders exist as a concept. Commander over took all of magic. Companions made a ton of sense to me

[@misterfox6094]

"we talked about mechanics and dynamics" Me: now let's talk about ceramics.

[@minabasejderha5972]

Hmmm..... maybe this is my bias as someone who also plays yugioh, but I don't exactly see the reason why things like companions are actually as system breaking as you seem to believe. So, in Yugioh, we have the extra deck, which is essentially like a 15 card companion or command zone. Are there problems with it? Certainty. It's one of the two reasons (in addition to the extreme amounts of tutoring available) why Yugioh decks are so incredibly consistent. Damn near every extra deck card requires you to build your main deck differently in some way. Sure, the tradeoffs can be minimal in some cases, but overall, it's still just part of deckbuilding that we all experience in the first level system. And I don't really see how companions are any different *in kind* in that regard to any other build-around card, or to the increasingly costly resources of splashing 2nd, 3rd, or 4th colors in your decks. Perhaps I would agree with you that this advantage fundamentally leaked between the first and second system *if* it weren't possible for both players to play companions.

[@irisnegro]

They act as an aditional card in your hand that are always there at the beggining of the game, reducing the randomness and giving you card advantage before even starting the game. If the companios gives you a good advantage (they did), they make the force the players to use them in order to stay competitive, reducing the diversity of the format.

[@tldreview]

13:56 I mean