(The banner is my own
elaboration. The original image is
by Holly Chaffin and is released in the public domain.)
The Lion's Lair 2
#1
"The Importance of Being Rarest"
Welcome to the second series of The
Lion's Lair. Expect articles to be released without any periodicity. The Lion's Lair is my series of
articles about Magic: the Gathering and custom card design in particular. You
can find the index of the first series here.
Articles will only be published here. I tried to use my mtgsalvation.com (MTGS) user blog as I always had before, but it didn't work anymore. I checked and those blogs seem to have stopped working last January, eight months ago. Because of that, I'll post articles here, but there will always be a link to them in my MTGS signature. As I'm quite active in the MTGS Custom Card Contests and Games subforum, it shouldn't be a problem to find it for MTGS users.
Articles will only be published here. I tried to use my mtgsalvation.com (MTGS) user blog as I always had before, but it didn't work anymore. I checked and those blogs seem to have stopped working last January, eight months ago. Because of that, I'll post articles here, but there will always be a link to them in my MTGS signature. As I'm quite active in the MTGS Custom Card Contests and Games subforum, it shouldn't be a problem to find it for MTGS users.
This article will explain why rarity
is a fundamental part of a Magic card, and why you should totally include it in
every custom card you'll ever design.
A short
history
If you want to see how the use of
rarity has evolved in the 23 years (as of this article's writing) of Magic
history since 1993, a convenient source to start with is the MTGS wiki page on rarity. The big shift happened with
Exodus, the first set to have the rarity of each card reflected by the color of
the expansion symbol. Today we're used to that, and for many players (myself
included) things have always been as they are today because they started
playing later. In 1998, I personally didn't even know Magic existed (it would
have been that way for seven more years, then it entered my life and it never
left ever since), but that doesn't justify anything. Before then, to quote the
wiki page, "up until that point, you had to learn rarity from card lists.
One of the most important things about trading in the early days was being
aware of what rarity each card was."
What I want to underline is that
it's not that before Exodus rarity didn't exist and all cards were the same
rarity. There were a lot of different rarities, even more than today if you
count the different subsets of each rarity separately (C1, C2, etc...), there just
wasn't any indication on a card about which rarity it belonged to, and you had
to rely on external sources to learn it. I personally think that made trading
fairly a lot harder, but again I have the mindset of a player who has always
played with the differently colored expansion symbols. Those who were playing
back in the day might confirm or deny my own impression. Anyway, the concept of
rarity has existed since the very beginning of the game (Alpha). Never in the
history of the game has rarity not existed at all as a concept.
Maro told us many times of what he
calls the "golden trifecta", meaning the three things that Richard
Garfield invented as he created Magic that are the backbone of the game. Those
are the mana system, the color pie, and the trading card game genre. I'm
mentioning this here because that last point, the trading card game genre, kind
of requires cards of different rarities. Garfield probably expected players to
want to trade not only for the most powerful cards, but also for the most rare
ones. Those two aspects are what the two broad categories of people interested
in Magic would have looked after: the former would have been what the players
wanted, the latter the collectors. Now, I totally understand the people who
think that collectors actually hurt the game by making the card prices in the
secondary market raise too much, and I kind of agree with that, but I also
understand the importance of the "collecting" part of Magic. That
part would be certainly much weaker without rarity, and the increase of sales
after the introduction of the mythic rarity in Shards of Alara could be an
indicator of that (even if it also has other causes too). Anyway, we
mainly-players must acknowledge the importance that the word
"trading" in "trading card game" has, just like the
mainly-collectors should recognize the "game" part and remember that
Magic is NOT an economic investment, and I won't reiterate that enough in my
life. A trading card game (here with emphasis on the "trading" part)
probably wouldn't be that successful without chase rares, which in turn
couldn't exist without rarity.
Points of
Authority
(Yes, I'm a big Linkin Park fan for
those that don't know...)
Among the references in that wiki
page, an article by Maro is quoted. As the link there is dead, I'll put a
working link to it here. In that article, Maro lists many reasons why
a card can need to be rare. While the article is from 2002, the same reasons
are still totally valid today, and even more since the introduction of New
World Order (we'll talk about that later). So, quoting directly from that
article, the reasons cards can need to be rare are:
- They’re too complex to be common or uncommon
- They have rules complications we don’t wish to put in common or uncommon
- They’re too wordy and require microtext (a smaller font) which requires them to be rare
- They’re big creatures or big spells that need to be rare to keep their specialness
- They’re cool, unique creatures or spells that need to be rare to keep their specialness
- They’re narrow cards created for constructed (and not limited)
- They’re cards that prove disruptive to sealed or draft and are made rare to minimize their appearance in limited formats
- They’re cards that could be uncommon or rare but there’s no room left in uncommon
- They’re part of a rare cycle
- We need to make the card rare to keep a balance of “good” cards throughout the three rarities
Please notice that he's not saying
"if these are true, the card is more likely to be rare, but it can still
exist at common or uncommon". No, he's saying that cards that meet those
criteria must be rare or not exist at
all. I know this can sound harsh and that it can be a bit of a generalization,
but it's just like that. You can just read the article to know more about each
single point, and I'm going to touch upon some of them myself in the rest of
this article.
Limited
For starters, rarity hugely affects
limited. Imagine a limited format where all cards are equally available, or
where all cards have the same rarity, or where rarity doesn't exist (those
different expressions are all synonyms). Bombs would be much more available, so
you'd see them everywhere, in every match you play. No one would play anything
else than bombs and direct answers to them. By the way, the bombs and the
answers to them being the same rarity would already alter the dynamics in draft
and the process of card selection: just take bombs and answers and ignore all
the rest, you don't need it anymore. No room for creativity or offbeat
strategies: try those and get stomped by the bombs being everywhere. No room
for variance between drafts, all of them would look very similar, as would the
games. I play a bomb, you remove it, you cast one of yours, I remove it, and so
on until one of us runs out of answers. While I admit that's a play style I do
personally like, it would get repetitive soon enough, and there are many
players who wouldn't like it at all to start with. In the end, it doesn't look like
fun gameplay for the majority of people.
Rarity goes a long way in
distributing cards for limited such that oppressive, unfun, or too complex cards
don't become dominating. Rarity is one of the most important and influencing
tools by which each limited format is shaped. A common and a rare, let alone a
mythic, behave very differently in limited. They serve very different purposes:
commons (and uncommons) are the backbone of a limited format, rares (and
mythics) where the bombs and the splashiness are. You just can't make a bomb
common or a basic effect rare. This means that the different rarities are
different categories that are not the same. If they're meant to be different,
you can't mix them all together like if there were a single one. That's what
you're doing when you're not including rarity in a custom card: you're treating
those different categories as if they were all the same. But they are not!
Complexity
and New World Order
Another thing that affects rarity is
complexity. It can easily keep a card from being common or uncommon and require
it to be rare, even if there are different kinds of complexity and some are
fine at common, while others aren't. Without going too deep, as I have already
written an article all about complexity in the first series and both Maro and
other people much more qualified than me have written a lot of material on the
subject, there are three main kinds of complexity:
• Comprehension complexity: how hard a card's text is to understand.
The question answered here is: if you read a card only once, do you immediately
understand what that card does? If you need to read it more than once, or think
a lot about it just to understand what its text means, than we have a problem
in this area. This kind of complexity is both the most evident and painful for
a new or less experienced player, because if they can't even understand what a
card does, how can they play it at all, let alone play it correctly? This kind
of complexity is definitely not allowed at common, while it is at higher
rarities. This is another example where something is acceptable at a certain
rarity and not at another. Again, rarities are different categories with
different features and purposes, you can't say it doesn't matter and just mix
them all together. A card like Warp World is fine at rare, but it just can't
be common, and if you were to design it as a custom card without including
rarity you would be implicitly saying it could be common as well as uncommon,
rare, or mythic and it makes no difference. No, there is a difference! If you
put it at rare it's fine, if you put it at common it can't even exist in the
first place.
• Board complexity: when you play the card, how much and in which
ways does it affect the battlefield? Does it generate a hard-to-follow decision
tree by just sitting there on the battlefield? Does it complicate combat by
having abilities that can alter combat math out of nowhere if a player doesn't
keep track of it? A little of this kind of complexity can be acceptable at
common, but most of it is better left for higher rarities. A "lord"
like Imperious Perfect (it's not by chance that I'm taking
my example from Lorwyn block, the one where this particular kind of complexity
was the highest in modern Magic design) could be printed at uncommon at the
time even if today it would most likely be rare, but anyway you'll never see it
at common. Again, differences between rarities that you're not acknowledging by
making them all one and the same.
• Strategic complexity: how easy is it to play the card properly, so
that you get the most out of it? This kind of complexity is the most acceptable
at common because new and less experienced players don't see it. This concept
is at the core of what Maro calls "lenticular design", and the card that he
mentions as an example is even a common: [card]Black Cat[/card]. For once, an
area where being common or rare doesn't make a difference! Too bad it's going
to be the only one...
All of this led to New World Order (NWO). NWO impacts rarity by
dictating rules only commons are subject to. The MTGS user Doombringer wrote an excellent primer about it, and you can check both it
and Maro's article I just linked to for further readings and insights. Those
resources would be useless if there were no difference between common and
higher rarities. The point I want to make here is that NWO is a set of rules
that only applies at common. Rares have their own rules too (see before), and
they're quite different. A card can't satisfy both set of rules at the same
time. And those sets of rules have their own reasons to be there: NWO to keep
complexity in check for newer players, the rare set of rules mainly for
limited. Again, different rules because there is an intrinsic difference
between rarities that you just can't ignore. Additional material can be found
in some Latest Developments articles by Sam Stoddard:
There's probably more I didn't find
at this moment. Anyway, notice how each of those articles is different. Just a
single article would have sufficed if rarity didn't matter.
Mana cost
and power level
While they don't really like to talk
about this, rarity also clearly affects the mana costs. The same effect, or the
same size of creatures, will usually cost less at high rarity, all other
conditions being the same. That means that, in general, rares will be more
powerful than commons, even if power level is relative to the format. A limited
powerhouse might see no Standard play but still need to be rare for limited. At
the contrary, a card that somehow is very powerful in constructed but creates
no problem in limited could theoretically be a common if it still meets NWO.
Here again we see there is a difference among rarities.
The thrill
of the opening
As the last, and weakest in my
opinion, point I'll mention this: rarity also allows you to live the excitement
of wondering what your rare will be when opening a pack, a thrill that many
players like (I expect most of those players to be Timmies). If all cards were
equal in rarity, you'd certainly look for powerful cards when you open a pack,
but you won't have the same thrill, the same hope to find something special in
your rare slot, which I personally don't feel that much but many players do.
A
counterpoint: reprints
In the discussion that originated
this article, it was brought up to me as a counterpoint that cards can be
reprinted at a different rarity. That's obviously true, and there are many
actual examples of all kinds of shift upwards and downwards in rarity. The
counterpoint was that a card that today would be common could be reprinted as
an uncommon in the future, and that makes rarity an uncertain and
not-determined-beforehand feature of a card. In a vacuum, a common card could
be reprinted as a rare or vice versa. While obviously acknowledging that such
shifts happen, I just ask: why do they happen? What has changed between the
card's original common printing and the hypothetical uncommon or rare reprint?
The answers can be essentially two, and one doesn't exclude the other. The
first is that the design and development principles have changed. What was once
acceptable at common, now no longer is. The other is that it depends on the
limited environment: different blocks have different needs.
But do these reasons invalidate the
point that rarity is a fundamental part of the card? No, they don't. It's just
that that particular part of the card is the only one that's allowed to change
between different printings of the same card. Usually, when one of us designs a
custom card, whether it's for a custom set, a contest, or just for fun, we do
so following today's standards and contemporary design principles. To say it in
another way, we're using today's rules. If the rules change tomorrow, we'll
change our behavior then, but until then we just know how things are supposed
to be today. So this is not a problem about rarity, but about our obvious
impossibility as human beings to know the future in advance. For example, say
R&D tomorrow decides that NWO is a huge mistake and throws it out the
window. Suddenly, a lot more things become acceptable at common, and that could
turn a card that today is uncommon into a common if reprinted. If I were to
design that card as a custom card, today the right rarity for it is uncommon,
and tomorrow it will be common, but the card is never a common and an uncommon
at the same time. At a determined point in time, the right rarity for a card
will always be defined, and that's what matters. That doesn't contradict
anything I've said until now in this article or elsewhere.
Conclusions
In the end, you can't just say
"I don't put rarity on my cards because they could be at any rarity they
need to be": a common is just fundamentally different than a rare, they
serve different purposes and are different in design too. What is fine at rare
most often isn't fine at all at common, when it isn't dangerous there. While
it's true that R&D has different sections and development (not design) has
the final word on rarity, we as custom card designers do not have that luxury.
We are not only designers, but also developers, editors, creative, rules
managers, and everything else at the same time. The cards we post for others to
see are supposed to have passed through all stages of the process. You, as a
custom card designer, can't say "I'm just a designer, I don't do
development, so I won't decide on rarity". If that's true, than who
develops your cards? Do you have a separate team? If you do, I envy you, but
I'm ready to bet you don't (unless somehow you're reading this and you actually
work at Wizards, in which case you probably shouldn't be reading this...).
With this certainly-not-exhaustive
article, I hope I helped proving my point: that rarity is a fundamental part of
a Magic card, to the point that a Magic card just can't exist without it and
you must include it in every custom card you design, especially (but definitely
not only) in contests. I was asked to make a case for this some time ago, and
that's the main reason I wrote this article. Before that discussion, I didn't
imagine one could even think about
designing custom cards without rarity, it's like designing a Magic card without
card types (you wouldn't even know if it's a permanent or a spell, so you
wouldn't know whether to put it onto the battlefield or into your graveyard as
it resolves), or without a name (which is a Magic card's ID). I feel very
strongly about this and I explained my opinion, backed up by different sources.
Yet, everyone is free to do what they want and I don't want to convince anyone,
also because, speaking in general, you can't convince people who don't want to
be convinced, and I'd have plenty of examples to make from real life too...
Leo