Louck Sac – The Great Designer Search *5th* Part 1

This is a great series of articles if you A) want to know about me, the man, the legend; B) want to see behind the scenes of the Great Designer Search; C) didn’t catch the Designer Search and want a neat summary; or D) want to know more about game design. For me, this is a hard series to write. It’s difficult enough to talk about losing a PTQ – not winning the Great Designer Search cut so much deeper – but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Flash back to 2006. I’m a senior in high school about to head to Seattle for college. My “plan” was to study math and science things, and eventually I would do some math and science job. Meanwhile, I’m playing a lot of Magic and joining the ranks of the PTQ grinders. Enter: the Great Designer Search numero uno.

Game design is one of those things a lot of Magic nerds want to do, and I was (am) no different. Unfortunately, back then I was pretty awful at it. It’s not like I was bad at game design really, I just hadn’t seriously done it before. I submitted my 10 essay questions (which I’m sure were stone terrible) and was out in the first elimination round – the multiple choice test. For a while I moped about getting just one question too many incorrect, but there was no way I would have made it past the next stage – I had no idea what I was doing.

The time between GDS1 and GDS2 perfectly marked my journey to become a real game designer from start to finish.

Here’s A Summary

After missing out on the first Great Designer Search, I went to the University of Washington. Lucky for me – and I mean really lucky for me – Richard Garfield and Skaff Elias were teaching a class about the characteristics of games. Score! At the end of the quarter Skaff hooked me up with Tyler Bielman (a previous WOTC guy) and I started working on the Xeko collectible card game. That’s when I knew that game design was for me. After a year Xeko ran into trouble, so Tyler and I moved to work for Jordan Weisman on Arcane Legions, a miniatures game.

I also took every game-related class I could get my hands on. While my jobs were teaching me about game design, I found Wanda Gregory teaching classes about the gaming industry. There I learned a lot about game marketing, gaming demographics, and how different companies approach games. I wrote a lot for Wanda about games and the gaming world.

Parallel to this, I was playing a lot of Magic. I started writing for Brainburst and travelling the City Championship circuit, where I met a ton of people in the Seattle area. (Hi Zaiem!) From there I started drafting with the good players and learning their lessons, and I started building decks and doing well with them. One year I built a deck that Top 8ed a Grand Prix, the next year Zaiem Beg and I built a deck that I took to day two of a Grand Prix, the next year I qualified for the Pro Tour with my own deck, and the next year I Top 8ed a Limited Grand Prix!

I guess I went to actual school, too. I got a degree in economics because I love the way economists think. While the math of economics is somewhat directly usable in game design (especially for large-scale games with actual economies), I found the thought process incredibly useful. Economics gave me a way to express ideas about game design I couldn’t find words for. I mean, opportunity cost alone!

So there I was. I knew game design, I knew the gaming industry, I knew Magic, and I had just graduated from college: Enter the Great Designer Search 2. A four-year montage later, and I honestly felt like this contest was made for me to win.

Step 1: The Essays

I’m going to walk you through each step of the contest, what I did, and why I did that – starting with the essays. I encourage you to check out my full essay answers here. I’ll give you the tl;dr version below, along with my thoughts on the questions looking back.

1) Introduce yourself and explain why you are a good fit for this internship.
I’m a game designer, I’m a writer, and I’m an MTG player. I’m a great designer and the perfect co-worker.
I am pretty awesome.

2) You are instructed to move an ability from one color to another. This ability must be something used in every set (i.e. discard, direct damage, card drawing etc.). You may not choose an ability that has already been color shifted by R&D. What ability do you shift and to what color do you shift it? Explain why you would make that shift.
Make Shades green. It’s not a black ability, and if any color is about spending mana and making creatures bigger, it’s green. Giving Shades to green also opens up the design space on shades, since green is allowed to make bigger creatures for cheaper.
I should have mentioned that black Shades were likely grandfathered in to the color pie, though I kind of implied it. I also gave an answer that I’m not 100% in favor of (a pattern you’ll see) but these questions were meant to be hard. While I think green could have some Shade action, I would by no means remove it from black if given the choice.

3) What block do you feel did the best job of integrating design with creative? What is one more thing that could have been done to make it even better?
Ravnica. It’s incredible how easy it is to identify which guild a card is from with very little information. However, a great part of Ravnica’s flavor that didn’t come across in the mechanics was the city setting.
I loved my overall answer, but was disappointed that I couldn’t come up with a suitable example for a mechanic that represents a city world. Given infinite time, sure, I would have come up with something, but the deadlines were pretty rough.

4) R&D has recently been looking at rules in the game that aren’t pulling their weight. If you had to remove an existing rule from the game for not being worth its inclusion, what would it be?
Remove the maximum hand size rule. While it has a role (pushes players towards action and keeping their choices manageable) it isn’t pulling its weight. The downside is that it presents an unnatural discard outlet, feels awful, prolongs the game by adding another choice, and is often forgotten.
I should have likened the unnatural discard outlet to the unnatural self-damage outlet of mana burn. Still, this was my most confident answer. If given the choice to actually implement this change, I would seriously consider it.

5) Name a card currently in Standard that, from a design standpoint, should not have been printed. What is the card and why shouldn’t we have printed it?
Grand Architect. It’s complicated, has three very different abilities that don’t do anything the set around it does, and it’s completely un-grokkable.
By far this was my favorite question – do you know the difference between design and development? I was actually a bit of a traitor here, as I love playing with Grand Architect – but I’m a Johnny who has been playing the game for 8 years. I’m sure there is a great card somewhere here, but Grand Architect needs another round or two of designing. Imagine submitting this for the Great Designer Search!

6) What do you think design can do to best make the game accessible to newer players?
Magic is an incredibly complex game, so the best thing you can do is manage the initial complexity by making simple cards and by hiding the complexity through rarity, mechanics, flavor, or repetition.
I was worried that my answer was too broad, but I really believed the BEST thing to do for new players is to manage the complexity, which is a broad subject. Sometimes for an essay you choose not the best answer, but the answer you can best write about. This time, I just went with the best answer and made myself write about it.

7) What do you think design can do to best make the game attractive to experienced players?
Experienced players to me doesn’t just mean Spike or tournament players, but players that understand the game. Answer: keep pushing Magic to new places, but continue to give players the tools to do what they want to do, just in a new context.
Again, a very broad answer, and probably my softest answer overall. The best I could do was give specific examples, such as Tempered Steel or Goblin Guide. Hedron Crab would also have been a great example, but I wanted to stay as current as possible.

8 ) Of all the mechanics currently in Extended, which one is the best designed? Explain why.
Landfall, not close. It runs so smoothly along the player’s natural path, provides good tension, and is very scalable to a player’s personal preference.
Srsly. I knew this would be a popular answer, but that doesn’t make it any less correct.

9) Of all the mechanics currently in Extended, which one is the worst designed? Explain why.
Champion. It’s a decent design goal that fails miserably at creating something players actually want to do. It feels worse than it should, it’s awkward to play, and it’s hard to process.
Another awesome question. There are many viable answers to this question, champion was just the answer I felt most comfortable writing. I considered the gimmick of using clash as the answer to both question 8 and question 9, since clash has both awesome bits and terrible bits, but I held back. I had enough confidence in my normal essays that I didn’t think I needed to do anything gimmicky.

10) Choose a plane to revisit other than Dominaria or Mirrodin. What is a mechanical twist we could add if we revisit this plane?
“Revisit Lorwyn, except this time you have two-race creatures.” Elf Goblins! Merfolk Kithkin! This solves a problem of tribal blocks by creating a ‘critical mass’ of each tribe, and does a much better job than changeling for playing double-race Constructed decks for the fans of tribal.
I totally forgot about this answer! I still like it. I mean, I can’t tell if it’s actually good enough to hang a whole block on (probably not) but I really think there are players out there that would enjoy building the Elf/Goblin deck, if given the sweet tools to do so. My goal with this answer, from the very beginning, was to be able to say my concept as quickly and simply as possible. “It’s , except this time <twist!>” I knew Mark would appreciate an opening line like that, especially after reading through piles of essays. I finally came up with a concept that fit the template I was holding myself to, but also had the legs to carry my full 250 words.

I really tried to structure my answers as kindly as possibly for poor overworked Mark Rosewater, knowing he had a lot of reading to do. You’ll see I often stated my answer simply in the first line, presented each point in a paragraph, and summarized at the end. That’s not exactly an essay writing revelation, but it’s easy to forget about when you’re crunching a word count. I was blown away when I read essays that had an answer hidden deep down in the third paragraph. I’ll be honest, I was disappointed when our essays weren’t individually critiqued. I really wanted to see what the guys at Wizards thought about them. While I had a few soft answers, I’m proud of how I approached each question and how my essays as a whole turned out.

Multiple Choice

The essays were just a filter for people that were willing to put in the work. Next, it was time for the automated thinning process. 44 out of 50 correct answers were needed to pass, and I skimmed by at exactly 44 correct. The fact that I missed so many blew my mind, but I was thankful that I made it. You can check out the whole test here, with a link to the answers, but I’ll just provide my responses to the questions I missed below.

6) Design often makes creatures that have flash and “enters the battlefield” triggered abilities like Deflecting Mage. Which of the following abilities would we least likely pair with flash?
a) Counter target spell.
b) The next time target instant or sorcery spell would deal damage, it deals double that damage instead. (MY ANSWER)
c) CARDNAME deals 2 damage to target attacking or blocking creature.
d) Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn.
e) Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn. (CORRECT ANSWER)

The most missed question, since it was poorly worded (maybe on purpose). There’s not much to say here – I misread the question and picked what I thought was the worst ability for a flash creature since casting a spell and holding priority to cast this creature is pretty awful. However, e) is technically the “least likely to be paired with flash”, since all the other abilities need to be paired with flash to function. Had I not passed this test I would be more upset at a question like this, but the test was graded on a curve so I like to think it worked itself out.

30) Who is most likely to build a deck themed around The Wizard of Oz? (The description of the five answers are here and here.)
a) Timmy
b) Johnny – (CORRECT ANSWER)
c) Spike
d) Vorthos – (MY ANSWER)
e) Melvin

I chose this answer quite confidently, and did little research to verify my answer. Again, in an ideal world given infinite time I would have dug through Mark’s articles more, but I spent my energy checking my answers to other questions instead. Why did I choose Vorthos? Because I know why Mark uses psychographics and why they are so important to his design: because they tell him whom he is designing cards for. You don’t design cards directly for Vorthos, in the same way that you don’t design cards to fit in The Wizard of Oz theme deck. While writing this article I’ve since gone back and looked for Mark’s article that taught me this lesson and found the perfect quote to make my point:

“The Vorthos-ness works on a completely different level. I can sharpen the name, I can hone the card concept, I can ask for more dynamic art, I can even fiddle around the edges of the mechanic. And it doesn’t have to affect the dial on the Timmy meter. I can’t make the card more Johnny with any such assurance.”

Well, according to question 30 and its answer, you totally can! The reason I chose my answer is because I associated the flavor stuff that is unimportant to design (such as making a card for the Wizard of Oz Theme Deck) with Vorthos. Knowing that the psychographics were created to facilitate card design hurt me here, but I’m not saying Mark is wrong. He even went on to explain how his view of the psychographics and their role in Magic changed thanks to Vorthos – a piece I totally forgot about. (Really, you should go read the article.) Ultimately I wouldn’t call this question unfair, but my opinion is that this is a much more complicated issue than a simple multiple choice question can handle.

38) Which of the following abilities is R&D least likely to put onto a green creature in an upcoming set?
a) All creatures able to block CARDNAME do so.
b) CARDNAME can’t be blocked except by two or more creatures. – (CORRECT ANSWER)
c) [Mana]: CARDNAME gets +2/+2 until end of turn. Activate this ability only once each turn.
d) Vigilance
e) You may have CARDNAME assign its combat damage as though it weren’t blocked. – (MY ANSWER)

I’ll be honest, I’m still upset about this one. Mark said it himself, we’ve “only” seen b) on a green creature three times, but they are relatively recent: Kamigawa, Guildpact, Zendikar. While I agree that usually this ability is paired with red, if I saw it on a green creature in an upcoming set I wouldn’t be too surprised because it’s a fine ability – nothing bad would happen. The color pie is supposed to bleed a little, and this isn’t unbelievable for green.

So what’s wrong with e)? It’s been seen on just as many cards recently: Tornado Elemental, Rhox, Lone Wolf, and Thorn Elemental. Notice, though, that three of those are reprints in a core set. Why don’t we see much of e ) anymore? Because it’s a bad ability! I can’t find the article, but I remember reading somewhere that this ability was put into core sets as an alternative to trample. However, eventually the trample code was cracked and it has been in core sets ever since, happily replacing the Rhox ability because it’s just better.

So, if you were lead designing a set and were given the choice between the ability that’s not seen on a green creature very often, or the ability that R&D has kicked out of modern Magic because it isn’t fun, which one do you choose? Sure, I’m being a little dramatic here, but I really do still believe in my answer. Again we hit an issue that is much more complicated than a simple multiple choice question.

41) According to current design standards, which of the following is least likely to be a common card?
a) A white instant that gives protection to target creature.
b) A blue aura that stops enchanted creature from untapping.
c) A black sorcery that causes you to pay life to draw cards.
d) A red instant that states target creature can’t block this turn. – (MY ANSWER)
e) A green sorcery that destroys all enchantments. – (CORRECT ANSWER)

Oh boy. If you thought the last question upset me…

First, I’m going to quote the relevant parts of Mark’s response: “Almost every block has b), c), and d) in common… e), on the other hand, while it started in common, was long ago moved off to uncommon. Global destruction (destroying all of something) is an ability we’ve chosen to move out of common.”

I was really disappointed in the answer Mark gave because it’s just false. What I wish I knew was whether or not Mark realized it when he wrote the question, because he certainly didn’t when he wrote the answer. (Mark, if you’re listening, I’d really like to know.) There are only five instants of any rarity that state “target creature can’t block this turn”: Glyph of Reincarnation, Off Balance, Panic, Stun, and Winters Chill – only two of which are red, and most of which are ancient. There may be spells with similar effects out there, but let’s start with what the question is actually asking about.

So why does Mark say “almost every block” has a “red instant that states target creature can’t block this turn”? It’s almost true, but the effect is almost always on a sorcery. Putting that ability on an instant is bad design, especially for new players. I attack you, you block, then I cast Stun to cancel your block. You and I know this doesn’t work, but it’s very natural that new players think it does (and they do this all the time). That’s not good. The effect works great on sorceries, though, so that’s where it lives. Did Mark think he was talking about sorceries here?

So what about e), the global enchantment destruction? Mark is totally right, this isn’t a common effect anymore. However, if we do the same gatherer search for “destroy all enchantments”, we get many more hits at common than the d) search yielded – the most recent examples being Spring Cleaning and Patricians Scorn. Still, the search clearly shows that the ability has been moved out of common, it’s not like Mark is wrong there. [card]Back to Nature[/card] is the new benchmark for “destroy all enchantments,” and is the most common response I hear as to why e) is the correct answer.

Well then, where’s the Back to Nature of d)? There’s no example of that card existing at all until you get to Tenth Edition. That’s because “target creature can’t block” isn’t printed on an instant anymore at all, let alone at common!

I came to this conclusion when answering the question, and I assumed Mark was trying to be a little tricky. The question, to me, became: which is the lesser of two evils? The answer was clear to me. While e) was unlikely to be a common card, d) is unlikely to be a card at all! Once again, if I assume the role of a lead designer being forced to put one of these common cards into his set, which do I choose? I would HATE to have d) be a common in my set. While I would also hate to have e) be a common in my set, it’s not like the world stops working. It’s not like the game breaks. It’s not like new players get frustrated by the rules changing under their noses.

Again, I’m being dramatic. Still, we find another issue that’s much more complicated than a simple multiple choice test. Was it an issue Mark intended to be a part of the question? I don’t know. I’ve talked with a few people about this question, and I’ve decided it’s not important which option is really “worse,” since if you’re a designer you’re not going to put either into your set. (The same is true for question 38, or any of these debatable questions.) You’re also going to run into exceptions, like Spring Cleaning or Panic Spellbomb – ultimately it’s up to what the set needs and not some design rule.

46) Which of the following cards is least a Johnny card?
a) Clone
b) Devastating Summons – (CORRECT ANSWER)
c) Fauna Shaman – (MY ANSWER)
d) Mortician Beetle
e) Near-Death Experience

I’m a little out of breath from the last response, but here goes: I thought Devastating Summons was a great Johnny card because I’ve seen it in action. I’ve seen the glee of Devastating Summons into Goblin Bushwhacker, or Devastating Summons with Countryside Crusher on the table. This was a very aggressive Johnny, but a Johnny nonetheless. I thought this card fit clearly the “ Up To The Challenge” category of Johnny cards.

I’ve also seen Fauna Shaman do some Johnny things, like Necrotic Ooze. I’ve also seen it do a lot of very Spikey things, grinding people out with value gained from Squadron Hawk and Vengevine. All the while the 2/2 body is getting in for value. Looking through Mark’s article on designing for Johnny, and nowhere did I see tutoring mentioned.

Ultimately, both cards can be used in a Johnny way. That’s more a testament to Johnnie’s flexibility then a possibly flimsy question. I also yield that I’m seeing a very biased selection of uses for these cards, and that R&D likely has a much more full (and correct) understanding of where these cards stand with players than I do. At first the question seemed very much “guess what I’m thinking”, but I think I just need to brush up on my psychographics. (See question 30.)

48) One of R&D’s ongoing concerns is board complexity. We’ve coined the term “virtual vanilla” to refer to a creature that, after the first turn it enters the battlefield, functions as a simple vanilla creature for purposes of evaluating the board state. (Avoid getting hung up on obscure combinations of cards that could make the card not function as a vanilla.)

Here are ten creatures:


How many of the ten creatures are virtual vanilla?

a) four
b) five
c) six
d) seven – (CORRECT ANSWER)
e) eight – (MY ANSWER)

Now for the embarrassing part: I just can’t count. Clearly Squadron Hawk isn’t a virtual vanilla creature, but apparently my brain just doesn’t understand that. I checked and re-checked every question so many times, and each time I failed to realize that Squadron Hawk had flying. Luckily I passed the test, or I would have been very upset with myself for missing this question.

As for the Canyon Minotaur debate on whether or not he’s virtual vanilla (since he’s actually straight vanilla), you’re not following directions. You cannot arbitrarily create more directions than you’re given in a situation like this, and as such I thought it was a neat test of whether or not you’re somebody they want to work with.

On a design note, the concept of virtual vanilla blew my mind, and I was amazed I hadn’t thought of it before myself. It’s such a powerful tool! This concept was on the back of my mind throughout the whole competition.

And Then There Were…

…104. My journey to the Top 8 is a longer one than I expected, so I’ll have to walk you through my first design submission in my next article! In the meantime, I’m curious what you think of my approach to the essay questions, or my beef with the multiple choice test. (Especially if your name is Mark.)

Join me next time when I create a whole new world in just ten cards.

Thanks for reading,

Jonathon Loucks
loucksj at gmail dot com
Zygonn on Magic Online
@JonLoucks on Twitter

43 thoughts on “Louck Sac – The Great Designer Search *5th* Part 1”

  1. I hope you weren’t one of the guys that just renamed Kicker as your mechanic. I was sorely disappointed at how many people did that.

  2. In addressing your annoyance with question 38: the ability to deal damage as though not blocked is on 8 creatures, all green (deathcoil worm, gurzigoist, lone wolf, pride of lions, rhox, thorn elemental, tornado elemental, wolf pack). the ability must be blocked by two or more creatures is on 11 creatures, 3 of which are green. of those green creatures, only one does not have to do with red (Gruul Nodorog has a red activation cost, Summit apes requires a mountain). Arguing this point seems kind of silly, based on numbers alone. It’s a red ability.


  3. Panic Spellbomb, Goblin Shortcutter, Smoldering Spires, Grotag Thrasher. Common, red (mostly), target creature can’t block this turn. Who cares if they’re not instants?

  4. @weston: I hope not, though to be honest it’s really hard NOT to do. Kicker is very general, so it’s easy to fall into the “this should just be kicker” trap. I don’t think I did much in that space this time around, but it happens.

    @FritzJaeger: My point was not about a pure numbers comparison. It’s clear that dealing damage as though not blocked is a green ability – never argued that. However, look at when those cards you listed were actually printed. Many are old, and the recent ones are reprints in core sets. The reason for this is that Trample is just a better ability in many ways. It’s easier to understand (mostly because it’s used so much more often), it’s more interactive, it’s more fun to play against, and it can be more fun to play with (since players have less opportunity to make really bad plays). Basically, R&D has upgraded the old Rhox ability into just trample. So, while I agree that “must be blocked by 2+ creatures” is a mostly red ability, it’s also been clearly demonstrated to be a RG ability. The color pie is allowed to bleed – this ability doesn’t feel at all wrong in green, since it’s been dabbling in green recently anyway. So which ability would I be most surprised to see in an upcoming set on a green card? The ability that has been replaced entirely – not the ability that i’ve seen on gold green cards. (I also admit in the article that this distinction is largely not important, I just want to bring up that I think the question is deeper than Mark makes it out to be.)

    @Tom: I should have stressed this more: it’s not that they aren’t instants – what’s important is the speed at which these things happen. Shortcutter, Smoldering spires, Thrasher – they are all happening (usually) before blockers are declared, or well after. What those cards can never do is make a creature unable to block basically WHILE blockers are being declared. Sure a Stun always technically happens before or after blockers to you and me, to a new player it can be incredibly confusing when you try to Stun while blockers are being declared. That’s where you have a problem, and it’s because the ability is happening at instant speed. The only time we’ve seen this since Stun in a core set (that i’m aware of) is Panic Spellbomb, and it’s an exception to the rule because of the block themes. (Again, I argue that it’s not the ultimate right answer that matters, but the discussion itself.)

  5. The instant vs sorc red panic effect issue is pretty frustrating, they shouldnt have included card types (instant/sorc) unless they were gonna be very careful about it, and it seems like whoever made the test just threw instant in there without even thinking. Ofcourse the people taking the test will read every word and take it quite literally. Interesting article, look forward to the next.


  6. Mark’s “costs don’t matter” mantra was my biggest issue with the design test- knowing the casting cost on that lifelink guy was actually really important for knowing what rarity to put him at.

  7. Great Article, I enjoyed it very much

    I am a game designer myself and since I play Magic more regularly and competitively, I am releasing different aspects where I realize how good and well thought out Magic really is.

    I also laughed because I missed Flying on the Hawk as well 🙂

    really look forward to your next article

  8. Making a multiple choice test to discriminate on something like this would be really hard. I’ve had university courses with equally bad tests.

  9. Question 38: Considering the possibility of future gold cards, I’d say b) is more likely to appear on a (red-)green creature than e) is to appear on, well, anything. Outdated mechanic is outdated.

    Question 41: You just got straight-up screwed here. Even I know d) is bad design. If they’re going to include poorly designed cards in the answers and expect you to respond based solely on recent rarity print patterns, then the question *should* read, “According to current design standards, which of the following is least likely to be a common card given that all of them are printed?”

    ROFL I bet the guy who really designed this question is the same genius who designed Stun.

    @David88: This reminded me of college too.

  10. about your essay answer #10: they already did that and they already did that in lorwyn! Instead of a bizarre elf/golbin, they have crossed races, not classes.

  11. Oh. Question 48 sucks too, because if you’re wrong about BOTH Canyon Minotaur AND Squadron Hawk, you still get the right answer. LOL wut? Poor question design.

  12. Interesting stuff. Sorry about not making it all the way, but at least you went down swinging. Looking forward to the other articles.

  13. Good article but I disagree with your big rant about the red instant. You focused too much on the instant part and gatherer instead of using simple logic. REd is all about not blocking, its easily possible for them to print a red instant that doesn’t let a creature block at common.

    The only complicated thing is the part that “destroy all” effects aren’t common anymore which is very hard to get because destroy all enchantments effects were the only mass destruction effect thats mostly at common until now.

    So it wasn’t a clear cut question but your logic for the red instant makes no sense too me either way.

    nice read though

  14. “ROFL I bet the guy who really designed this question is the same genius who designed Stun.”

    well MaRo probably wrote this test, and he led the design of Tempest, so it could be.

  15. Did the exact same thing as you did at 48 ^^
    Geting 3 copies, bah, he´s still vanilla once he´s on the battlefield =D

    The only reason for having -can´t block as an isntant would basicly be as a defensive trick so I´m kind of with you there even if destroy all seems to be abit over the top for a common card.

  16. I totally agree with you on question 41. Whether or not the Red instant really is a likely card or not, the fact is that Mark’s explanation is just plain wrong, and really an extraordinary mistake for the most experienced designer to make. He states that almost every block has a Red instant that states target creature can’t block this turn, which simply isn’t true at all, in fact almost the opposite is true!

    Those of you who are saying Jon has “missed the point” here are missing a pretty huge point here yourselves – don’t you think it’s pretty mind-blowing that Mark, the most experienced and influential designer at Wizards states that “almost every block” has a card like this, when only two have ever been printed in the entire history of Magic? I just think that’s incredible.

  17. Good article. I was rooting for you, and it’s sad that you were eliminated the way you were. I can’t help but think had you made your * mechanic “one colourless mana OR two/three mana of any colour” and then priced things appropriately, it would have went over better.

    I also think that calling it a retroactive third colour is a bit of an overstatement. Saying that colourless things are already basically Blue in older formats would probably be more apt.

  18. I also got 41 wrong and wrote a rather angry letter to MaRo on the subject and have yet to answered. I’d really like to know his response because that was the answer that failed me from the competition.

  19. I don’t dislike you personally, but I was really hoping that you didn’t win based on the cards you were designing in the search. I really didn’t think you had a grasp on fun and balanced design.

  20. @Dimzool: Presumably there were at least 6 other answers that you also got wrong, so uh.

    @JLoucks: I find your answer to essay question 6 pretty hilarious in light of why you got bounced.

  21. Interesting read, I didn’t realize I was interested that much in the actual design process, however I found a lot of what you talked about very very cool. Looking forward to the next part.

  22. Also, regarding the Johnny question: look at his card, in the UNsets. It tutors! Johnny likes tutors because they help him assemble his 15 card win conditions. he doesn’t care if he loses to them as well, as long as he wins every now and again.

  23. Hey Jon, I must admit that I thought most of the cards you designed were pretty far deviated from the expectations of the contest (and not in a good way). But I also enjoyed this article, and perhaps you’ll be able to sway me in the next ones. Keep up the good work.

    Btw about question 38 I think it really depends on whether the upcoming set is a core or expert level set. R&D has shown that they allow reprints of outdated abilities in core sets, whereas color bleeding is a big no-no. The opposite is true for expert level sets and in particular for the then “upcoming” MBS I would totally have been unsurprised by a green card with that ability since it interacts nicely with infect which does not exist in red.

  24. Yeah I failed the same questions you did for the most part. I really hated the short time frame to get this done. I basically meant there was no way to ‘raise your hand’ for clairification of the often poorly worded questions.

    I enjoyed your submissions alot and your set really appealed to me, but that’s probably because I am a pretty super Johnny too.

  25. Hey Jon, good idea for an article series.

    Did you feel at all burned out by the process? I only made it as far as the 104, but the compressed time, insistence on use of their horrible community site, and mostly just the volume of the total effort left me feeling like anyone with other responsibilities need not apply. And of course that only picked up for the top 8, so I don’t know how you guys handled it.

    Then coupled with the fact that 96 people got no closure on what they did wrong, the net result to me seemed off-putting. I tried following the coverage a bit but missed most by being overwhelmed. More to point I know two other people in the 104 and neither of them read a word of it. We can call it bitterness which I’m sure is a part but for me it was mostly just a combination of exhaustion and zero take-away.

    So I know you’re a good sport and you DID get the benefit of feedback. But I’d like to know what you felt about the volume of the process and if it left you feeling more burned out or energized for more?

  26. adam mcconnaughey

    i think your statement that you call flavor stuff “unimportant to design” bespeaks a problem that you don’t realize you have as a designer.

  27. A general point I should make:
    History, ala The Gatherer, is our best window into R&D design policy. (The next best source are the articles on dailymtg.com) While history is a good resoure for design policy, it is not the design policy itself. As takers of the test, we can use history and articles to try and deduce design policy, but sometimes it comes down to inherent understanding. Sometimes you have to figure it out yourself – a place I fell short on the psychographic questions, I would say. So while I use history to try and decude R&D policy (like in the green mechanics question #38) ultimately I have to make a personal call, at which point I tap into my own design pholosophy and hope it’s in line with R&D. In some cases I think I’m right, on most cases it doesn’t matter, and sometimes I’m wrong and have to readjust my thinking.

    @Phil: I wouldn’t call Mark’s explanation an extraordinary mistake – my guess is it was just an oversight. Not only was that article huge, but it sounded like he was extra busy at the time.

    @hodge: Give me a few articles – I’ll get there.

    @Bob: 🙁

    @randomsyllable: Yeah. Knowing good design rule is one thing – executing good design rule is another. I’ve met designers that can tell you a rule and argue in its defense, but have no idea how to actually use it. (I hope that’s not me!) In my defense, doing what I described in question 6 is hard and takes time. Then again, the other contestents were fine! A definite failure I’ll get to next article.

    @Lunar: That comment reads like I planted it there! That’s the EXACT reaction I was hoping for.

    @Amarsir: I wasn’t so much burned out as really really stressed out. I’ll be sure to talk about that next week, but there were problems. I’m glad you brought it up – I like writing to what people want to read about. Also, I’ll be honest: I haven’t been keeping up with the GDS2 either. I checked who made top 3, and I’ll check who wins, but I haven’t been reading judge comments. They make me hurt 🙁 I’m sure I’ll get over it one day and go back.

    @adam mcconnaughey: I’m not saying flavor is unimportant to design – not at all! I talk about flavor in my essay questions and card design – Ravnica and the city setting and Liliana’s design off the top of my head. You’re quoting from this line: “…I associated the flavor stuff that is unimportant to design (such as making a card for the Wizard of Oz Theme Deck)…” Awkward wording, but what I was trying to say is that there’s a subset of flavor that is unimportant to design – not all of flavor itself. One memeber of that subset that is unimportant to design is “flavor that makes a card good in the Wizard of Oz Theme deck”. Often times flavor text, name, art, and other pieces don’t affect the design at all. Sometimes they do! It was these “unimportant to design” pieces that I was attributing to Vorthos, a mistake on my part.

  28. Jon,

    You’re right that knowing a design principle and being able to apply it easily are two very different things. As I said in that article we did for Mana Nation, practice is essential if we’re going to make these things that we know intellectually into second nature.

    Question 46 was definitely a tricky one; I could see Johnny using any of those cards. Devastating Summons appeals, I think, more strongly to Spike than to Johnny, but it’s by no means a clear call.

    Your response to 41 is interesting. I totally focused on the redness of the card, and ignored the fact that it was an instant. It seem clear that Maro did the same thing! If they hire me, I’m going to have a hard time keeping that guy in check!

    I think that you were far and away the most inspired and radical designer of the top 8 in GDS2. If there’s a GDS3, I hope you enter.

  29. Who are the following in magic?
    a) Timmy – I think this is a kitchen table player that likes big power/toughness monsters
    b) Johnny – ?? not sure
    c) Spike – I think this is a player who only cares about winning and will play a card that appears to be no fun but would win them the game.
    d) Vorthos – ?? no clue
    e) Melvin – Really no clue??

  30. Maro says: February 14, 2011 @ 5:43 am

    Hi Jonathon.


    Either things just got epic, or that was a wonderfully epic troll.

  31. Pingback: MTGBattlefield

  32. if only you were a tenth the designer you think you are jon, you’d be halfway to being good enough to be worth our time…stick to writing articles about bad decks

  33. I think I may have just witnessed the most unfounded arrogance ever. The fact that Jonathon made it 5th demonstrates how much of a failure GDS2 was. A small sampling of Jonathon’s Fails during GDS2:

    -2 of the first 3 cards he showed were massive flying creatures in a world that takes place completely underground (and named Underland, how creative!)
    -He made a 6th color, but gave it no unique identity, nor did it add anything interesting to the game.
    -He made the most useless keyword ability ever (Prismatic).
    -During the create a cycle challenge, he made a cycle of vanilla big creatures (and green wasn’t even the biggest).
    -He created a colorless planeswalker (Liliana) with distinctive black/white abilities.
    -He reprinted landcycling, but changed its name.
    -He made a common ability (Living Reflection) that would have resulted in ~50 different tokens on the board.

    The list could go on. If Jonathon had come up with any good ideas, I would cut him a little slack, but he didn’t. My friends and I played with all of the contestants’ cards. Jonathon’s cards were roughly as fun to play as Fallen Empires or The Dark.

  34. Join me next time when I create a whole new world in just ten cards.

    Thanks for reading,

    Jonathon Loucks


    More like a pile of vomit in ten cards. Thanks for not winning, I think I would burned all my magic cards and suicided. Get a grip on reality you talentless hack.

  35. Good article. I like the insight into the GDS process from the point of view of the contestants.

    Although I didn’t like your designs, I understand that different people approach Magic from a different vantage point. It takes a lot of guts to put your ideas out there and ask for feedback. Good job on that, and Good luck if you decide to take part in a GDS 3.

  36. Wow, I am still amazed at the intense hatred people can spew at others just for being different. I agree with some of the naysayers about your design: obviously your designs were too complicated, you were told that, and creating another color was a bad idea. However, I understand there are merits to what you did, even if it may be different from my beliefs. As for complication, I enjoyed Living Reflection, even though it wouldn’t be able to be a common ability. I also understand it can be way more difficult to create fun commons than fun rares, something I think many readers of the contest believe they would do better at than you, yet they didn’t reach the top 10 as you did. If these people truly are better at this than you, then I hope if there is a 3rd go around they try themselves.

    As for making a new color, I absolutely hate the idea of making a new color in any way, yet many, many players think it would be a good idea. I can name any number of reasons against it, all falling back to the destruction of the color pie: There are enemy and ally colors, and for the most part color hate and protection within one color targets the enemy colors (though not always, as Leonin Arbiter and the crusaders of MBS show). Multicolor groups based on flavor of their color would be much harder to grokk for future players when the color pie falls apart – so there goes your (and my) beloved Ravnica and the cool shards of Alara.

    Despite all of these negatives, I think you had a good idea in your approach. However, it had many similarities to snow lands and snow mana, and as others mentioned it did not have a strong flavor that didn’t seem like colorless versions of colored abilities. I think this falls into the idea Maro has mentioned that just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be. I just wish all of the people who are so vocal about a 6th color would understand that.

    So, again, I disagree with some of your ideas, but I see where you have a lot of talent, and with more work could become at least top 3 material in any future competition. I hope the haters don’t get you too down, and I look forward to your future articles because, even though I may have disagreed with some of your designs, you are a fantastic writer and I look forward to getting some insight into your decision process during the contest.

  37. Pingback: » Louck Sac – The Great Designer Search Part 2: A Whole New World

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top