MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Prehistory Set - Introduction and Vision Design
Introduction
About sixth months ago, I posted a discussion talking about a prehistory set that I planned to make. That project ended up never taking off due to a lack of effort from me, but also due to the fact Ikoria was spoiled recently after it, and I suspected that set might end up being the "1 Million B.C" world. It was not, so here I am again.Why am I Making This Set?
When I was little, I was obsessed with dinosaurs. I had stacks of books on dinosaurs. I watched countless documentaries on dinosaurs. I begged my parents to take me to science museums on weekends. Although my fascination around dinosaurs has since departed, it has instilled in me a small amount of knowledge concerning prehistory and a love for all things prehistoric.I am fully aware that between Ixalan and Ikoria, a little bit of the prehistoric trope space has been eaten up; however, I believe the themes in both sets were weak enough to warrant a full on prehistoric set. Also, as this is my first custom set design, designing around a theme that has already been explored a little provides me with a set of training wheels.
What is "1 Million B.C?"
1 Million B.C is a genre of fiction named after the 1966 film of a similar name. The genre itself is a kind of anachronism stew, meaning that it features various themes and tropes from many time periods. In a "1 Million B.C" world, you can expect to find cavemen alongside dinosaurs alongside the giant insects of the Carboniferous Period. I personally believe that this is the most effective genre for a prehistoric set, for it allows the set to hit as many prehistoric tropes as is possible.
What Will the Design Process of this Set Look Like?
For this set, I wish to follow the same general design process that Wizards of the Coast currently utilizes to design sets, with a few tweaks to make it better suite a set without as focussed of a design team. This system of design is usually broken up into three separate phases.Vision Design
Vision design is the part of design where the mechanical themes are hammered out. In vision design, we will try and figure out what mechanical themes of the set are, and what fun mechanics could interact with that theme. At its core, vision design is not about individual cards, but about laying the foundation for the set as a whole. During vision design, designers should ask themselves the following questions:- How should a player feel when they play our set?
- How can we give a mechanical identity to prehistory?
- What mechanics might make a player excited to play our set?
Note: For this project, I mixed both exploratory and vision design together. Because this set will not have as dedicated a team as there is at Wizards, I do not feel like these phases needed to be separated.
Set Design
Set design is where the cards are made. The goal of set design is to build a house on the foundation laid behind by vision design. Set design is where a completed file of all the cards in the set is made. In set design, designers should ask themselves:- What mechanics best represent the theme of the set?
- How can we design cards that most effectively convey the mechanical themes of the set?
- How can we decrease complexity while still creating the play experience we are aiming for?
Play Design
Play design is where the final set is created. Play design is in charge of balancing cards in a set, and correctly pushing themes. Play design makes certain that the electricity, heating, and the like of set design's house all work. In play design, designers should ask themselves:- Is this set's limited format fun and engaging?
- Did we make new themes viable in constructed?
- Are cards in this set at an appropriate power level?
On the Topic of Creative
Due to the small scale of this set, I do not believe it shall be necessary to separate the creative and design teams in this set. For this little project, I believe that world building will go hand-in-hand with design, and all issues usually dealt with by a creative team will be dealt with under the design discussions.
Design Themes
I suspect you are nearing sleep after reading all of this, so let's cut to the chase. Below are the three themes that I believe are the most essential for a prehistoric set.Evolution
It's hard to think of prehistory without mentioning evolution, a theme that has been left unexplored for nearly all of Magic, the closest being Ethan Fleischer's set for the Great Designer Search II, Epolith. Evolution itself could be explored in many different ways, and I think this theme could be very interesting to develop.Big Creatures
After Ikoria, I do not believe that this should be the central pitch of a set; however, I find it hard to envision something other than the colossal mammals of the Pleistocene Epoch, the giant insects of the Carboniferous Period, or the titanic dinosaurs of the Cretaceous when I think of prehistory.Early Humans
Another theme that frequently shows up in prehistoric fiction is the early development of humans. In fact, the majority of all fiction set in this time period follows the story of a primitive human and their tribe. I feel like the evolution of humans and other races such as goblins, merfolk, elves, and vampires would be a fascinating theme to address, along with major discoveries such as the taming of fire, cave paintings, or the adoption of pets. While I do not yet know how this translates into design, I believe this is an important theme that should be present.On How the Cards Will Actually Be Made
Unfortunately for me, I do not own a Windows computer, which means I do not have access to Magic Set Editor. Due to this, this project will be confined to Cardsmith, or to Google Docs should the mechanics of the set get too ambitious for this generator. I might get access to Windows soon; however, if I did, I would only be able to access it for two week intervals.This discussion has been closed.
Comments
My Stance on Art
I have an unpopular stance on art in the custom Magic community in that I do not want to include images I found on the internet in the final set unless something incredibly special happens. Instead, art descriptions will be created for each of the cards, and I might even doodle a few images. This does not mean I am against using art found online during the design process; however, it only means I do not wish to use other's art in the final product. Despite my stance on art, I still encourage you to post any images you find that you think would fit into this set in the discussion below.Conclusion
Thank you kindly for reading all of this. I am very excited to take up the challenge of designing my own custom set and look forward to seeing what this set becomes. I am open to all thoughts and advice. No idea is a bad idea, and I encourage all of you to join this discussion and help collaborate on this project.I'm not sure if you're looking for a name for the plane yet, but if you are, I thought something that's a play on Pangea might be cool. For instance, something like Pangala. That may be too similar to Pangea, but it's just an idea.
Do any of you think that this is a very Jund themed set? Could we perhaps use one of the Jund mechanics?
Survival N
At the beginning of your endstep, if this creature attacked this turn, put N +1/+1 counters on it.
@Tigersol
Also, walrus merfolk please.
Red-Blue-Green-Black for cavemen! Also, I feel like this set would have an anti-artifact theme, and a creature-heavy.
Also, what kind of colors?
Mono, bi, tri, or quad?
I haven't done all that much thinking about a name for the world, or even much of a world at all. I have been tossing around the idea of setting the set on Muraganda, a primordial plane featured in Planechase and Future Sight; however, I'm not certain if the world fits a prehistoric theme very well. If this set is not set on Muraganda, which I suspect is very likely, I think naming it after Pangea would be awesome. I believe set names should instantly give players a clue of what the set is about, and I think a name similar to Pangea would give players a pretty good clue that they are going to prehistory world.
@KorandAngels
Happy to have you on board! You question about merfolk has got me thinking about the core races of Magic. On most planes, especially in older cards sets, each colour had one race representing it. For example, on Zendikar there were kor in white, merfolk in blue, vampires in black, goblins in red, and elves in green. In the Great Designer Search II, something I thought was fascinating in Ethan Fleischer's set, Epolith, was the concept of using creature types to signify early humans, merfolk, and the like. For example, and Ape Human and a Fish Merfolk. I did a little thinking about that, and I began to work on a list:
- Ape Human
- Fish (or maybe shark?) Merfolk
- Boar Orc
- Monkey Goblin
- ? Elf
I feel like fish merfolk fit a little better than walrus merfolk unless there is a really good reason for walruses. For example, this plane might be really cold for some reason. Merfolk are general shown with gills and the like, and I believe more Magic players associate them with fish than aquatic mammals.
Additionally, it could be interesting to play around with more anthropomorphic races, such as ainok, luxodon, leonin, and the like. I'm less sold on this, but it's an interesting thought.
@The-DM
Thanks for joining in!
@LordTachanka123
On the topic of colour identities, I think it would be interesting to explore how each colour believes they could best survive in the primal world.
White - The best way to survive is in a herd or pack. Working as a group with other dramatically increases the chances of not just the group surviving, but you too.
Blue - Blue believes in achieving perfection. By perfecting oneself, it is much easier to survive in a savage world. Blue is probably one of the colours most interested in the theme of evolution.
Black - Black believes the best way to survive it rely on oneself and not on others or morals. Black in nature strives to be the apex predator, the thing that has complete power over others.
Red - Red believes the best way to survive is to do get what it needs when it needs it. In a dangerous world, red believes that the best way to survive is by relying on its gut.
Green - Green believes its goal in life is to uphold the role it was created for. If it is a predator, it will hunt. If it is prey, it will avoid hunters.
After this little session of theory crafting, I feel like cavemen best fit into white. Primitive humans usually hunted as packs. Since they were smaller than the other creatures of the time, they learnt to work together to take down larger prey, which is about as white as you can get.
About devour, I'm not certain whether the mechanic fits yet, but I do think it easily could. If the "big creatures" theme ends up being played up a lot, I could see us trying to add in devour as a way to get black some really big creatures.
Survival to me seems like a mechanic that would also be put into the file a little later. Generally, I feel that mechanics like this that encourage attacking will probably enter the file a little later if we feel that players aren't attacking enough when playing with the set.
On the topic of artifacts, I don't like including a high amount of anti-artifact cards in a set that doesn't care a lot about artifacts, for they're not really punishing something that will be frequently played. I do think it would be interesting if early intelligent races cared a little about artifacts. Often, when thinking about primitive humans we think of early stone tools and the like, since that is what gave them an advantage over many creatures of the period.
In terms of colours, I think its too early in design to decide whether abnormal colour pairings will be pushed or not.
If this creature is equipped, other humans(?) you control get *********************
Would this work @Tigersol?
Just an idea for a name @Tigersol...
On the topic of dilophosaurus @Tigersol, are we using Jurassic park dilos(Acid spitters) or historic dilos(Weak jawed pack hunters, no acid)?
Primal(This spell cost {1} less if you control a creature with power 4 or more)
Azorius Merfolk
Rakdos Orcs
Gruul Goblins
Simic Elves
Orzhov Humans
Mirrored by
Selesnya primitive humans
Boros primitive orcs
Golgari primitive elves
Izzet primitive goblins
Dimir primitive merfolk
Or alternatively, we make them the enemy colours the advanced ones and the ally colours the primitive ones.
The way this works, each race is basically a shard or wedge, but with 2 sub-species to add variety and enhance the "focus" colour's mainness in the faction.
Cause everyone knows that Dimir is best @KorandAngels.
This is mostly just a way for me to plug this card I made which I think will fit with the set.
If you disagree, that's fine @Tigersol, just tell me what I'm wrong with.
I hadn't put much thought into the possibility of their being civilized races on the plane that are either now gone or are in conflict with the more primitive versions of the same race. While I believe this is an interesting concept, I'm not certain this would feel very resonant on the prehistoric plane. I feel that, in a way, showing that a more developed species exists defeats a lot of the purpose for going to a "land before time." It certainly is an interesting idea, though, and I believe a lot of interesting stories can be born from the idea of a more advanced person or group interacting with the denizens of the prehistoric plane, or maybe the other way around.
@LordTachanka123
I like the name Panegoa. I am certainly putting that down on the list of possible world names.
In terms of dinosaurs, I believe we have a lot a creative liberty for what we can make them look like. Magic has general been pretty loose with its definition of dinosaur, so I believe we can handle that definition pretty loosely as well. That being said, I feel that Ikoria was a little too lenient with the definition of dinosaur, essentially slapping the term on any large reptilian. I personally liked Ixalan's approach to what was a dinosaur, and will probably stick to that model.
In terms of mechanics, I've thought a little, and I believe that the core theme of this set should be evolution. Cards should let you adapt your strategy, and your creatures themselves should change and evolve to better suite themselves and your needs. I feel like this theme conveniently encompasses both the "big creatures" and "developing humans" themes I discussed earlier, so it perfectly fits as a larger theme. This is more of a hot take than anything else, but I will certainly spend a lot of my day today and tomorrow brainstorming about how this theme could be represented in mechanics, and if it is worth exploring further.
There is a penguin on an island. The only food is snakes, but they live in burrows. What does the penguin do? It gets claws to dig.
Or something like that.
So, a while ago, I was designing a animal based game, with a mechanic called "adaptations". See where I'm going with this? Here's an example of a magic card using this mechanic:
Long Neck ggg
Adaption(Not an enchantment, but maybe a creature???)
Only cast Long Neck if your opponent controls creatures with flying.
Adapted creature has reach and +1/+1.
So, that's just an example. Does it work?It can definitely be put in the oven again, but I like the idea of having a "condition" and then "adapting" to fit that challenge @Tigersol.
(Also, please take into account that evolution, or adaption, in this case, takes a very long time.)