Semi-Useful Tips for Custom Sets, Particularly for Sealed
Hello, everyone. Recently, I've seen some common pitfalls that most custom sets and other regular cards have had - some of which most people don't even notice. So, I'm going to bring to light some of these pitfalls in hopes that people will be able to circumvent these issues and create even better sets.
I will not be addressing flavor or non-gameplay concerns.
It is also crucial to remember that not everything has to be keyworded. Take TBD for example; even though it had cards that practically had the Heroic ability, it did not keyword it, to reduce clutter within the number of keywords and mechanics in the set. One-off mechanics, like "Whenever a creature with power 4 or greater enters the battlefield", have no reason to be keyworded, and are fine as one-off lines of text.
I will state that there are exceptions to this rule - Modern Horizons and Time Spiral getting all the keywords available, and Dragon's Maze got most guild keywords. However, these are not the norm for keywords, they are the exceptions. Not every deck needs to, nor should, have 10 keywords.
It is also important to note that some other things that would not be considered "Keyword mechanics" are still mechanics. For example, {2/X} mana is a mechanic and keyword counters are non-evergreen. For a list of mechanics that are absolutely keyworded and evergreen, MTGGamepedia has you covered.
Another prominent issue is a lot more common than you may think - a use of +0/+2 and +0/+1 counters, among other counters. These are HARD to keep track of, and have never been used on any non-reprint card in the 2010's, and for good reason. Think twice before using these counters.
And even if a mechanic is non-defunct, think twice before making it one of your 4~ mechanics. Things like "Rampage X" and "Splice" haven't been printed in Standard for more than 10 years, for good reason.
As an example, a mechanic that says "This creature gains First Strike while attacking". Is it a line of text that could see print? Of course. Is it a line of text that you would want to make into a keyword? No. Same for something such as "If you destroyed an enchantment an opponent controls, do X". The mechanic is too narrow, and there isn't any way around that.
An example of a good mechanic is Cycling - it can support pretty much any deck and fit on a wide variety of cards, but can also have certain archetypes built around it, fuel graveyard decks and others. It's interesting and works well.
Seek advice from others as to if the Keyword could see print, and always brainstorm for keywords in the set. The worst thing you can do is get stuck with a terrible Keyword for a mechanic, which doesn't support any archetypes.
For a short version, don't print cards with 18 lines of text and 3 different keywords at common. They may fit the power level of a common, but they don't fit the complexity of commons for the sake of things like Pauper. The same also applies to power level - don't make it so that a single oppressive common can destroy a limited environment. Seek advice from others as to if a common is too good.
Within the article, there are also plenty of guidelines for card distribution - sets being about 50% creatures, the general spells and keywords each color gets, eta. For a slightly more in-depth look at distribution which is newer, you can read it here.
Keep your Archetypes limited
Rarely, a set focuses on too many archetypes. The more archetypes a set has, the more cards that need to be devoted to each of these archetypes. The issue arises when there you can't draft enough cards devoted to an archetype because of how many archetypes there are and how thinly spread the card pool is for each of these archetypes, leading to unplayable decks that couldn't build around the archetypes.
You should also limit the colors on most archetypes - for example, if your set has a B/R Goblins archetype, don't print Goblins support in U/W. Not every archetype has to have support for each color.
Typically, it is best to cap the number of archetypes at a max of 10, as any more is just overkill.
A lot of common cards should be like Mistral Singer - supportive of multiple archetypes. Cross-pollination is the key to allowing players to draft archetypes, allowing a single card to be drafted by any number of players each going a different archetype.
I hope these basic pieces of advice can help someone out there, even though they probably won't and it's likely just rambling.
I will not be addressing flavor or non-gameplay concerns.
Keep the Non-Evergreen Mechanics minimal
This is one of the most common issues with designing a set - too many mechanics. Older sets, like Lorwyn, could have 5~ non-evergreen mechanics. Newer sets, such as TBD, have 4~ non-evergreen mechanics which are used to the fullest, with a few returning mechanics usually present.It is also crucial to remember that not everything has to be keyworded. Take TBD for example; even though it had cards that practically had the Heroic ability, it did not keyword it, to reduce clutter within the number of keywords and mechanics in the set. One-off mechanics, like "Whenever a creature with power 4 or greater enters the battlefield", have no reason to be keyworded, and are fine as one-off lines of text.
I will state that there are exceptions to this rule - Modern Horizons and Time Spiral getting all the keywords available, and Dragon's Maze got most guild keywords. However, these are not the norm for keywords, they are the exceptions. Not every deck needs to, nor should, have 10 keywords.
It is also important to note that some other things that would not be considered "Keyword mechanics" are still mechanics. For example, {2/X} mana is a mechanic and keyword counters are non-evergreen. For a list of mechanics that are absolutely keyworded and evergreen, MTGGamepedia has you covered.
Use Non-Defunct and Engaging Mechanics
This is another large issue - using defunct mechanics. These include things like Fear, Shroud, Intimidate and Landwalk. These are defunct for a reason, whether they are outdone by other mechanics (Hexproof and Menace) or have other mechanical problems (Landwalk), I'd advise against using them.Another prominent issue is a lot more common than you may think - a use of +0/+2 and +0/+1 counters, among other counters. These are HARD to keep track of, and have never been used on any non-reprint card in the 2010's, and for good reason. Think twice before using these counters.
And even if a mechanic is non-defunct, think twice before making it one of your 4~ mechanics. Things like "Rampage X" and "Splice" haven't been printed in Standard for more than 10 years, for good reason.
Make your custom Keywords interesting and Archetype Supportive
Since most sets thus have a limited number of keywords, custom keywords made should be engaging and interesting, not something you can put onto any card and call a day, and don't support anything.As an example, a mechanic that says "This creature gains First Strike while attacking". Is it a line of text that could see print? Of course. Is it a line of text that you would want to make into a keyword? No. Same for something such as "If you destroyed an enchantment an opponent controls, do X". The mechanic is too narrow, and there isn't any way around that.
An example of a good mechanic is Cycling - it can support pretty much any deck and fit on a wide variety of cards, but can also have certain archetypes built around it, fuel graveyard decks and others. It's interesting and works well.
Seek advice from others as to if the Keyword could see print, and always brainstorm for keywords in the set. The worst thing you can do is get stuck with a terrible Keyword for a mechanic, which doesn't support any archetypes.
Make your Commons feel like Commons
This is what Wizards call the "New World Order", and refers to making commons feel like commons and not rares. For this, I'll link an article by Wizards themselves that established the ground rules for making a common feel like a common.For a short version, don't print cards with 18 lines of text and 3 different keywords at common. They may fit the power level of a common, but they don't fit the complexity of commons for the sake of things like Pauper. The same also applies to power level - don't make it so that a single oppressive common can destroy a limited environment. Seek advice from others as to if a common is too good.
Use a Skeleton, and other Principles
Both color balancing and a design skeleton are important aspects of designing a set. This article by WotC goes over the usage of a design skeleton, and how to use it. While the article itself is a bit outdated (Tribal is defunct now), it goes over the basics on using a design skeleton.Within the article, there are also plenty of guidelines for card distribution - sets being about 50% creatures, the general spells and keywords each color gets, eta. For a slightly more in-depth look at distribution which is newer, you can read it here.
Keep your Archetypes limited
Rarely, a set focuses on too many archetypes. The more archetypes a set has, the more cards that need to be devoted to each of these archetypes. The issue arises when there you can't draft enough cards devoted to an archetype because of how many archetypes there are and how thinly spread the card pool is for each of these archetypes, leading to unplayable decks that couldn't build around the archetypes.You should also limit the colors on most archetypes - for example, if your set has a B/R Goblins archetype, don't print Goblins support in U/W. Not every archetype has to have support for each color.
Typically, it is best to cap the number of archetypes at a max of 10, as any more is just overkill.
Make your Common Cards support Multiple Archetypes
This is a simple tip - design common cards that support multiple themes, while also keeping the cards simple. I'll use an example from a newer set - Mistral Singer, a 3 mana 2/2 with flying and prowess in Blue. Minstral Singer supports three of the four blue archetypes - it benefits off of the Spells that "U/G Card Draw" played, it's a flying creature for the purposes of U/W Flyers, and it has Prowess for the sake of U/R Spellslinging.A lot of common cards should be like Mistral Singer - supportive of multiple archetypes. Cross-pollination is the key to allowing players to draft archetypes, allowing a single card to be drafted by any number of players each going a different archetype.
I hope these basic pieces of advice can help someone out there, even though they probably won't and it's likely just rambling.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This is awesome dude!
I particularly appreciated your mention of "If you destroyed an enchantment an opponent controls, do X" as an example of what not to do as a keyword mechanic, as I have seen this sort of thing proposed multiple times for artifact or enchantment-heavy sets, when in reality some decks and archetypes are going to be more artifact/enchantment heavy than others, making the mechanic incredibly coin-flippy as to whether or not it's good.