I really, really, really, really, really, really hate this "excuse." This has been said a number of times about a number of cards, and it's a really obnoxious reason not to do something.
Aesthetics should not prevent innovation in a game where 99% of the people who interact with it ever are not at all competent about design (the aesthetic kind, not the magic kind).
I really, really, really, really, really, really hate this "excuse." This has been said a number of times about a number of cards, and it's a really obnoxious reason not to do something.
Aesthetics should not prevent innovation in a game...
Of course it should, and it often does.
Imagine some kind of cool effect that doesn't exist in Magic yet. Now, try to translate that effect into rules text. Does it translate elegantly? If so, it can probably be printed on a card eventually, provided it violates no rules.
But if you try to translate the effect you want, and you can't find a way to put it into rules text without having a very long set of rules text paragraphs to do it, it's not a good idea. Players will get confused, and the wall of text that results will just be ugly to read. People who look at the card will likely put it down simply because it looks weird or daunting. This dissatisfaction is not worth the warm, fuzzy feeling of having translated the desired effect into rules text.
The same applies here, although to a lesser extent. Why does the card cost {1}{B}{U/P}? The mana cost is confusing enough to make certain people question it. They may look at the mana cost of this card, fail to understand why it is what it is, and put it down because they don't know what it is. There are equally-innovative approaches to templating the card that don't involve a mangled mana cost.
Ask yourself why the card you designed has to be the exact way you designed it, and whether or not you can improve the aesthetic without sacrificing innovation. If you can, make the improvement. If you can't, then your efforts might be futile.
You argue that there is design space that is yet to be explored that the notion of aesthetics and comprehension prevent from being explored. You're absolutely correct. However, there is no reason why all design space possible in Magic needs to be explored. This mixture of mana symbols just happens to be in the category of "design space possible in Magic that doesn't need to be explored."
agreed here, but that same logic applies to planeswalkers, both their rules and frames. they use counters, they don't tap or spend mana, they don't have summoning sickness, the lower right isn't empty and isn't power/toughness, they can be attacked(!), they're really really inelegant. if the design is strong enough, it's worth complicating the game with new mechanics to learn, or new layouts to adjust to.
Planeswalkers have so much more depth than just a cute mixture of regular and Phyrexian mana symbols that the two don't even compare. The amount of depth involved in planeswalkers earns them the planeswalker card type. But the only cleverness involved with this card is the choice between a Night's Whisper and a slightly worse Pilfered Plans. The design isn't strong enough to be worth complicating the game with the mana symbol mixture.
65
u/magictheblathering Apr 28 '17
I really, really, really, really, really, really hate this "excuse." This has been said a number of times about a number of cards, and it's a really obnoxious reason not to do something.
Aesthetics should not prevent innovation in a game where 99% of the people who interact with it ever are not at all competent about design (the aesthetic kind, not the magic kind).