Literally Jargon

Pygyzy
Posts: 995
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by Pygyzy » 3 years ago

Working on the complexity mechanic I think I've come up with a thread of an idea. Jargon and literal is what I came up with.

Jargon (A card is nonsense if it has three or more nonname jargon words in it's text.)
Literal (A card is literal if it has a sentence that makes sense literally.)

Gonna start with literal since this was the hardest. My first attempt made things too wordy. The answer was literally staring me in the face.

Yonder! 2g
Sorcery
Literally — I look at my card pile. I flip it over for only me to see. I see a card with the word land. I prove it's not a lie. I put it in my hand actually. I flip the card pile over again and randomize it.

I AM TALKING IN CAPS R
Enchantment
Literally — I PUT THIS DOWN, FACE UP. OK?
If yes, I add the following rule to the game;
I AM NOW TALKING IN ALL UPPERCASE.
If no, I don't do those things.

Yes the cards obnoxious I'm sorry. I tried to think of the most ridiculous thing I could think of. But it's very literal. Obviously the other cards won't make you talk in caps but I was having trouble with ETB "cast" and "play" etc. Turns out I wasn't being literal enough. So I had to get real literal.

Im not trying to rewrite the whole rules but if I could make a few cards that are straightforward enough with literal words that actually work and don't take half a paragraph to write "mana". I think it could be a fun counter to Jargon.

Jargon — This one is pretty straightforward but of course nuanced. Nonmountain would be jargon as well as non-Elf etc. but what about things like counter, or tap? Since they have real English meaning, no, even if their meaning is different. A jargon word has to have no meaning outside the game. Sorry deathtouch you're jargon. Lifelink, jargon. Rampage 2 would not be jargon because it's two separate words even tho it's one ability. Kinda weird.

Stop Making Sense U
Instant
Counter target spell that has jargon.

I know I kinda asked this before but this is slightly more specific.

For literal. ignoring the typeline. Could the "rules" "work" with extremely literal cards? I was thinking "I look at" would be target.

Killer Stare 2B
Instant
Literally — I'm looking right at this card with the word creature or planeswalker. It dies. Cards can't die in real life but it's a game so we're imagining it did.

Or maybe "I recite the name of a card with the word creature I see."

I think it could be really funny and would work well with my cards that have you recite things but does it come across well enough to make sense?

Jargon — is it scaled back enough? I wanted to make it 3 jargon words to be considered a jargon card but I'm concerned Magic has too much jargon. What is and isn't jargon is a grey area but as long as it's "a word that doesn't have meaning outside the game" would it work?

Thanks. I know it's UN but I just wanna make sure it at least makes sense.

User avatar
spacemonaut
Bauble reclaimer
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 10
Pronoun: she / her
Location: Scotland

Post by spacemonaut » 3 years ago

Pygyzy wrote:
3 years ago
Literal (A card is literal if it has a sentence that makes sense literally.)

[...]

For literal. ignoring the typeline. Could the "rules" "work" with extremely literal cards? I was thinking "I look at" would be target.
Not really, no.
Pygyzy wrote:
3 years ago
Yonder 2G
Sorcery
Literally — I look at my card pile. I flip it over for only me to see. I see a card with the word land. I prove it's not a lie. I put it in my hand actually. I flip the card pile over again and randomize it.
Magic is a game of following procedures, instructions, and permissions. We operate in discrete steps. We use standardised well-defined terminology. In the scope of the game "Destroy target creature" or "When this creature enters the battlefield, draw a card" makes sense literally. We also understand it well because it's operating on conventions we understand.

Yonder ... actually doesn't make much literal sense. Spells are supposed to instruct us to do things, but these aren't actually isntructions. Cards are supposed to use standard terminology, but I don't know what "my card pile" is or what "flipping it over" means (flipping actually is well defined in game scope, but we're not doing that). You're essentially making me learn a whole new language and set of conventions to play Magic with this card ... but Magic already has a language and set of conventions I've learned that are perfectly fit for purpose, and I don't understand how your new language correlates to this one.

Now, the words do mean something side by side. If I simply read that text out to you, it would make sense. But we're in a game of Magic. The cards have to make literal sense inside Magic, and this card does not make sense in Magic.

If this said—I think I've got this right—"Search your library for a land card, reveal it, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library", it would make literal sense to me. It utilises standard convention, the Magic rules, gives me specific instructions about what to do when, and I know whether other effects (like Panglacial Wurm or Cosi's Trickster) care about what just happened because it uses the conventional terminology. But I'm not even sure that's what this card is doing. (I'm not even sure the card pile is my library, or that I should be searching it vs revealing the top card.)

"I AM TALKING IN CAPS" doesn't make much sense either. Am I being instructed to say those words? (It doesn't say so.) Whose yes? When does this happen—is it an ETB?

What's Killer Stare doing? Is it destroying, or is it in fact bypassing indestructible? It seems like I'm not targeting, so I just make a choice on resolution, which is kind of busted in that it gives my opponent no opportunity to respond to my choice.

"Use standard Magic convention, templating, and terminology" is not a rule you should be aiming to break. You can bend it once or twice on very thematic cards where the implications still seem very clear: Question Elemental? is, I think, the only card that does this, and it's clear what its rules implications are. Convention is helpful; it helps us understand how your card works because we've seen other things like it.
Pygyzy wrote:
3 years ago
Jargon (A card is nonsense if it has three or more nonname jargon words in it's text.)

[...]

Jargon — This one is pretty straightforward but of course nuanced. Nonmountain would be jargon as well as non-Elf etc. but what about things like counter, or tap? Since they have real English meaning, no, even if their meaning is different. A jargon word has to have no meaning outside the game. Sorry deathtouch you're jargon. Lifelink, jargon. Rampage 2 would not be jargon because it's two separate words even tho it's one ability. Kinda weird.

[...]

Jargon — is it scaled back enough? I wanted to make it 3 jargon words to be considered a jargon card but I'm concerned Magic has too much jargon. What is and isn't jargon is a grey area but as long as it's "a word that doesn't have meaning outside the game" would it work?
Honestly I think you have the opposite problem: Magic has too little "jargon" by the definition you've used. All card instructions use words that exist in English outside the game. Almost every keyword ability or keyword action just uses a plain English word. Magic does as much as it can to operate via metaphor of things we're already familiar with: library, hand, graveyard, discard, draw, tap, cast, fight, flying, legendary, etc.

You've said "non-mountain" is jargon, but "non-mountain" actually has a real English meaning. "Non-mountain inclines like hills and cliffs" is a sentence that makes sense in normal English. It's a weird sentence, but it's a valid sentence. Therefore, "non-mountain" isn't jargon. The same goes for "non-Elf".

Some of the creature types were invented for the game, but many species names (like "Kavu" or "Felidar") show up in names rather than on type lines, and going by the bracketed text jargon excludes names.

Lifelink, deathtouch, landwalk, soulshift, and gravestorm might be the only jargon keywords in the game, but only the first two are evergreen. A couple of dozen creature types are also on the jargon list.

I suggest the Jargon mechanic should expect only one word at minimum. It's easy to see which cards have one word, it's harder and more time-consuming to be accurate if I have to check they have a second and third. The set should probably also have at least a couple of mechanics that are jargon. Then I could see a Knight of the Kitchen Sink that says "First strike, protection from jargon (A card has jargon if it uses a non-name word in its rules text that makes no sense outside the game.)" working, and its power level would be proportionate to how many cards in the set you've used deathtouch, lifelink, or your jargon-y mechanics on.

Although some folks would argue "deathtouch" makes perfect sense outside the game still as a result of Magic using metaphors. Blue-ringed octopuses have deathtouch: you touch them, you die.

Could I suggest a definition of "A card has jargon if it has a non-name word in its rules text you can't find it in the dictionary"? — deathtouch and lifelink are very jargon according to that test.

"First strike, protection from jargon (A card has jargon if it uses a non-name word in its rules text that you can't find in a dictionary.)"

User avatar
folding_music
glitter pen on my mana crypt
Posts: 2236
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by folding_music » 3 years ago

I see no reason why the card's syntax cannot be subverted by more interesting wording on a custom card :3 in real life they'd need to print a normal version with microscopic full oracle wording, and you wouldn't enter anything of the sort into a strict card creation competition, but I don't think consistency has to be a virtue when you're on a flight of fantasy.

Kamahl's Renewal 2g
Sorcery
Fanciful (Interpret these words as though they were game instructions.)
The land has become dry. Mercifully I bury it, and in its place foster the elemental planes of my imagination. It rewards me with further inspiration and we are all nourished. Renewal giggle

Pygyzy
Posts: 995
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by Pygyzy » 3 years ago

@spacemonaut All good things for me to consider. I figured literally wouldn't literally work as I intended. It's literally a tough cookie to crack. I'm trying to separate "game speak", "Magic-ese" you might call it into functionally similar but more practical English terms. That way I can avoid some associated rules baggage for things like choose, target, search, etc but still maintain a functionality that is clear. I've gone with recite, pick, and look. Examples:

Yonder!
Sorcery
Literally — Show your deck of cards only to yourself. Pick a card in it with the word land not in it's name or text box. Show the picked card to opponents. If it meets the requirement to be picked, put the shown card into your hand, then randomize your deck of cards.

Talking in all caps is supposed to be "ETB" but that ones been hard to figure out so it wasn't a good example but I think I refined it

Silence is golden
Enchantment
Literally — When you put this card onto the play area from your hand of cards, if you did so following the game rules, you add the following rule to your rulebook;
My opponents can't recite words.

Killer Stare
Literally — Recite the name of a creature card. A creature with the recited name dies. Cards can't really die but it's a game so we're imagining it did.

Thanks for entertaining me. I know it's stupid but the idea is supposed to poke fun of "complex" cards, so it's challenging what "complex" means in game. The fact that things are "complex" when they're not really complex just I dunno require a certain amount of associated rules knowledge, is the core of the tension that literal vs jargon is supposed to underline.

@folding_music This is exactly the type of thing I'm going for. A card like this would also work great with my Pay Attention! mechanic, that has you recite a cards text and have an effect based on recitation or an opponent's understanding of the recitation.

Verily G
Sorcery
Pay attention! (Recite this card's non-reminder text at your normal speaking pace as you cast it. Opponents must listen but can't read it's text during resolution. It resolves after being read.)
I'm fancy (Interpret this card in game terms.)
Verily I doth declare,
To all who shall oppose me,
Hark!
Recite a creatures name or lose your glamors. (Sacrifice your enchantments)

User avatar
spacemonaut
Bauble reclaimer
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 10
Pronoun: she / her
Location: Scotland

Post by spacemonaut » 3 years ago

Pygyzy wrote:
3 years ago
That way I can avoid some associated rules baggage for things like choose, target, search, etc but still maintain a functionality that is clear.
I mean ... that's not just avoiding rules baggage, that's just completely avoiding the rules. That disconnects from effects that care about targeting for better and for worse: hexproof, Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker, Mizzium Meddler, Phalanx Leader, Keep Safe. The card is less able to interact with other cards, reducing my synergy options as someone who wants to build with it, and reducing my options for dealing with it as an opponent. Interactions with protection, indestructible, and regenerate become less clear on a spell that says "A creature with the recited name dies" instead of "destroy target creature"—strictly speaking they don't interact with it at all. I am not sure that will actually lead to good gameplay. It's like if I bring my yu-gi-oh cards and shuffle them into my Magic deck: you can't do anything to them because they're playing by a whole different set of rules. I'll leave it to you to playtest and determine if it'll really work, but I'm very skeptical about its gameplay behaviour.

Pygyzy
Posts: 995
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by Pygyzy » 3 years ago

I'm gonna use your input to figure out a better execution, regroup, and come back with something that addresses as many of the issues you've pointed out. I've gotten further down the path but I'm still heading off a cliff so I'm gonna make a major evaluation.

I know it seems like I'm breaking rules for fun, sure throw some Yugioh cards in your magic deck, why not? That's understandable and not wholly incorrect, but my goals are: Make a grixis shard that plays with the things I like, and find the limits of what's Magic and what's not. I feel like I'm right on the line I just gotta justify it somehow. If I get a better overall view I think I'll figure it out. Right now it's just "how can I torment my opponent" which is unfortunately my playstyle.

User avatar
void_nothing
Look On My Sash...
Posts: 14922
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Tal Terig, Zendikar

Post by void_nothing » 3 years ago

Pygyzy wrote:
3 years ago
I know it seems like I'm breaking rules for fun, sure throw some Yugioh cards in your magic deck, why not?
Because that's not a comprehensible game. You're not playing Magic at all, at that point. Might as well play Calvinball.
Right now it's just "how can I torment my opponent" which is unfortunately my playstyle.
In black border, cards that make the game no fun for one or more people are totally fine. There are entire decks - Stax being the classic example - devoted to grinding, and counterspells, removal, and other reactive effects are there so that the game has safety valves and a back-and-forth aspect.

But this is not something Un-cards should strive for, and not something you should strive for with every design. In silver border you should be laughing even if you lose badly in a one-sided game. If you bring cards designed to make people miserable to an Un game, you'll find yourself without a playgroup.

It's pretty clear you're really creative at this. But creativity works best within restrictions.
Psst, check the second page of Custom Card Contests & Games! Because of the daily contests, a lot of games fall down to there.

The greatest (fake) pro wrestling on the internet - Collaborative Create-A-Booster - My random creations (updated regularly)

Important Facts: Colorless is not a color, Wastes is not a land type, Changeling is not a creature type

Pygyzy
Posts: 995
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by Pygyzy » 3 years ago

Got it. Thanks. That makes perfect sense. Calvinball is pretty much what I was going for so you're spot on and I see now why all the reasons it wouldn't work.
Because of your feedback, I think I've actually been able to salvage the good parts (group involvement) and use the parts that do work. I am gonna make one last attempt at the trickier parts because I think I figured out a solution that should address the problems.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Custom Card Rulings”