MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
CLOSED DISCUSSION
RESOLVED
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
If your cards don't break the game rules (except un-set cards) and justify their belonging to their color, it should be just fine. After all, weird and interesting designs are what this site is for.
"Constructs don't usually fall into the black coloration"
(Although this isn't on the card itself)"Sorcerer isn't a valid creature type"
(I deleted the cards with the comments on them you can find it in Disqus)"The card feels like it could have been mono-green, or green & white. Red is the color that feels out of place, and green+red don't really do these types of things together."
"Keep in mind that colors have specific meanings and uses. Before deciding on what colors do what within a set a really great reference to check out is this article by MaRo: https://magic.wizards.com/e..."
People often bring up WOTC cards/articles because people who think about how to make cards better the most are definitely those who work in WotC. If you break the limitations WotC puts on themselves, that most likely to make your design bad. There are many limitations actually, and I can understand that you feel there's no creative freedom. You are free to ignore every disagreement, or you can learn to enjoy thinking how to make your cards realistic yet unique, original and interesting.
Keep in mind that this doesn't preclude creativity, it actually allows for more. Holding yourself to a certain set of guidelines and being creative within them is actually very helpful for creativity, even though it's more difficult .
You are welcome to use the site for whatever suits you. If you upload cards to the forums and request feedback (or enter them in a realistic card competition) you should expect to get judged or receive feedback in a manor that approximates a WotC perspective because it is the only thing in existence to compare/rate your design against.
I've noticed that most of your problem here has arisen from your own publicizing of your designs. If you ask for help/feedback, you need to be aware that you are (9 times out of 10) asking for it in light of existing MtG cards.
Due to this, unless you are willing to get the feedback I've described, I would ask you not to post your cards in my Post Your Cards Here, Actually See What Others Think discussion. By doing so you are specifically asking for other people's opinions and getting disheartened when you get them, and I really don't want you accidentally discouraging yourself if you already know what type of cards you want to make.
If you do want to improve your ability to design within the game that this site references, feel free to keep posting your cards and getting feedback. Best of luck!
That's totally fine and up to you if you feel that way. You need to understand that everyone feels differently (even if similarly) and when you reach out for feedback you can't direct people on how to give it or what context to put it in.
To summarize:
There is nobody that should tell you what to design or publish, and there is nobody that should tell someone else how to dissect a design when providing feedback. As long as you get this, you'll never get upset when someone compares your cards to WotC's. You'll either learn from and adjust to that, or you'll decide you prefer to keep doing what you're doing. Both resolutions are fine.
So, make a choice. Do you want to work on something that doesn't work in current MtG, or do you want to change your set a little bit to make it work? Whatever you choose is fine; the restrictions you mention hold no restraining weight on this site.
That also just is disregarding the option to just ignore "negative" feedback, commonly known as constructive criticism, and just keep making stuff.
Nobody here is calling themselves part of an elite rank, nobody is saying that things are inferior, just unrealistic.
(Just my two cents on semantics.)