Hi, all. I am biggerbossman, a semi-active contributor in weekly card design competitions. I visit Hearthpwn mainly because of the thriving card creation community. I would like to think that I speak for most of the community when I say that card creation is an outlet for creative types, who like to use both the left and right hemispheres of their brains, i.e., make something new that is mechanically and mathematically sound, within a given set of parameters. The ideas thrown around in the discussion threads, and the entries in the submission thread are all inspiring, to say the least.
I started this topic to find out the contributors’ design philosophy behind card creation and, through this thread, create some form of catalog for the community’s thought processes. I guess I should start with myself. I have two main philosophies.
First, a card should be simple and elegant. I am a minimalist, at heart. I like cards with two lines of text, at most, or even one line, if possible. I do not want cards that explicitly do more than one thing at the same time (hence my slight aversion towards Choose One cards – a personal bias, and not an attack on these cards), or those that have multiple chains of interactions. An idea should be simple and elegant, like Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Second, a card should use old principles in new ways. It does not have to create an entirely new mechanic. Old mechanics should be made to work in a fresh manner. Although I admit that I can be guilty of breaking this rule at times (especially with some alcohol in my system).
So what about you guys? What are your guiding principles behind card creation?
I like cards with complicated effect that reward a game plan. Often 4 lignes (I had to fight to reduce my 5 lignes to 4 in a lot of cases). And I love total innovation so basicly, something we never heard about it. For example Wizhbang, using recipes, thats an awesome card for me and thats the kind of things I want to do.
I also have a particular love for tribes synergy. Murlocs, totems and elementals are my favorite (Guess my favorite class... shaman :D ). I like the idea of making a deck around minions that help each other, with some choices to make: Do I prefer giving +2HP to all my minions with X minion or I adapt everyone with X minion?
Sadly I don't think my tastes are the most popular, I think I get to the final in the card competition 3 or 4 times, and each one was with a more simple card. This explain too why u have the Card Design Champion title and not me :P
I agree with your "using principles in old ways" idea. Although that is mostly because probably my main thing i keep in mind while creating a card is that i want to make it unique and have it stand out from the rest. And in my opinion a card can sometimes be a little complicated but as you stated it shouldn't be too complicated but the amount of text you can have on a card is a nice way to set a restriction on that :P
Another thing i like is synergies with other cards or even sometimes in one of my custom expansions make cards that synergies with eachother.
I'm glad you made this thread. It's nice to see how the minds of many think on things like this.
I like to specifically create unique pieces (pieces, as in a card, token, or mechanic), pieces that bring something new to the game that really has never been seen before, like when I made a card that equips your opponent's portrait with an unseen part of their Hero's art, an indestructible pair of pants that occupies a spot on the board (zone 4 of 7 to be exact). I like creating cards that are pretty strong or just strange, and enjoy using four lines of text. While I tend to use four lines of text with most cards I make, it's to give the card more freedom to be more than simple, and usually, the card itself is doing something simple, even with four lines of text. (If you'd like a taste of my mischief, I have a link to my card emporium in my signature.)
I dislike when a card is merely copying something we've already seen, or when a card has five or more lines of text. Even if the five lines of text are doing something great or crazy, I immediately turn my nose up at it, as I see four lines of text being the absolute most a card should host. I look at it as forcing an idea too much. Four lines should be the most that a card requires. Going back to when a card copies something, I especially dislike when Blizzard seemingly copies and pastes something that someone outside of their team has already made. As much as Defile is great, someone made exactly that card before. If I remember correctly, the only difference was the art and the cost of their card, though I could be off about a detail here.
1) A card should be strong enough to be playable, but fair to play against it. Inherently imbalanced cards (for example, the latest "Deals 30 damage, it is always the last card in your deck) are not fun, because you cannot interrupt your opponent from obliterating you. (I know that there is a possibility to mill your opponent, but you can't play around each particular deck).
2) A card should rely on existing game engine possibilities. If you make something that Team 5 is not capable to infer in their game, then you're probably just wasting your time. (What are they capable of? The same or similar to mechanics that were printed in cards, played in bosses' decks and hero powers.) Of course, you should think outside the box, but you should realize what is implementable and what is not.
3) A card should be flavourful. Sometimes I think of the card's name and art first and only then figure out what mechanics is best suited for it.
1) Always consider the card, first and foremost, as a blank, vanilla card. Stat it accordingly. If it's a class card or you know you want something special with it, throw in an extra stat where you know it will matter.
2) I oftentimes structure the effects of my cards around the art I find for them. Art suggests flavour, and flavour suggests mechanics. Additionally, a good piece of art can tie the whole piece together and suggest its own name.
3) I never go beyond 4 lines, and try valiantly to not stray beyond the number of words in Curious Glimmerroot.
4) I try to look at existing mechanics and find which cards suggest a missing synergy card, but in ways that haven't been explored before. While Dead Ringer synergizes well with Quest Priest and acts as 'missing' card draw, it's only very similar to Loot Hoarder. By looking at cards like Cult Master, you can see there's another type of synergy that's missing in Priest, because Cult Master isn't played and yet its trigger is relevant.
5) I look to stretch some of the more mundane limits of the game. Parts of the UI that haven't been explored (for instance, double targeting on spells or battlecries hasn't been done yet but certainly could be), etc. etc.
6) I don't beat horses to death. When K&C came out, everyone made like a million spellstones. I'm seeing the same thing with improved by Spell Damage. Instead of coming up with ideas right after a new mechanic is introduced thinking I'm a pioneer or something, I try and figure out what could be a mechanic in the future and predict it as best as I can. Some people are more successful with predicting these things.
7) Take criticism, and take it from the right people. Know that you don't always know everything about your card and its balance, and take it to the right people to help you with that. If you're asking a number of people, you can bet they'll have different opinions. Pick what you feel is most aligned with the game itself, your gut feeling, and the majority of criticism and make the changes accordingly.
Hi, all. I am biggerbossman, a semi-active contributor in weekly card design competitions. I visit Hearthpwn mainly because of the thriving card creation community. I would like to think that I speak for most of the community when I say that card creation is an outlet for creative types, who like to use both the left and right hemispheres of their brains, i.e., make something new that is mechanically and mathematically sound, within a given set of parameters. The ideas thrown around in the discussion threads, and the entries in the submission thread are all inspiring, to say the least.
I started this topic to find out the contributors’ design philosophy behind card creation and, through this thread, create some form of catalog for the community’s thought processes. I guess I should start with myself. I have two main philosophies.
First, a card should be simple and elegant. I am a minimalist, at heart. I like cards with two lines of text, at most, or even one line, if possible. I do not want cards that explicitly do more than one thing at the same time (hence my slight aversion towards Choose One cards – a personal bias, and not an attack on these cards), or those that have multiple chains of interactions. An idea should be simple and elegant, like Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Second, a card should use old principles in new ways. It does not have to create an entirely new mechanic. Old mechanics should be made to work in a fresh manner. Although I admit that I can be guilty of breaking this rule at times (especially with some alcohol in my system).
So what about you guys? What are your guiding principles behind card creation?
[not native english speaker]
I'm all your opposite.
I like cards with complicated effect that reward a game plan. Often 4 lignes (I had to fight to reduce my 5 lignes to 4 in a lot of cases). And I love total innovation so basicly, something we never heard about it. For example Wizhbang, using recipes, thats an awesome card for me and thats the kind of things I want to do.
I also have a particular love for tribes synergy. Murlocs, totems and elementals are my favorite (Guess my favorite class... shaman :D ). I like the idea of making a deck around minions that help each other, with some choices to make: Do I prefer giving +2HP to all my minions with X minion or I adapt everyone with X minion?
Sadly I don't think my tastes are the most popular, I think I get to the final in the card competition 3 or 4 times, and each one was with a more simple card. This explain too why u have the Card Design Champion title and not me :P
Love the tribes.
I agree with your "using principles in old ways" idea. Although that is mostly because probably my main thing i keep in mind while creating a card is that i want to make it unique and have it stand out from the rest. And in my opinion a card can sometimes be a little complicated but as you stated it shouldn't be too complicated but the amount of text you can have on a card is a nice way to set a restriction on that :P
Another thing i like is synergies with other cards or even sometimes in one of my custom expansions make cards that synergies with eachother.
I'm glad you made this thread. It's nice to see how the minds of many think on things like this.
I like to specifically create unique pieces (pieces, as in a card, token, or mechanic), pieces that bring something new to the game that really has never been seen before, like when I made a card that equips your opponent's portrait with an unseen part of their Hero's art, an indestructible pair of pants that occupies a spot on the board (zone 4 of 7 to be exact). I like creating cards that are pretty strong or just strange, and enjoy using four lines of text. While I tend to use four lines of text with most cards I make, it's to give the card more freedom to be more than simple, and usually, the card itself is doing something simple, even with four lines of text. (If you'd like a taste of my mischief, I have a link to my card emporium in my signature.)
I dislike when a card is merely copying something we've already seen, or when a card has five or more lines of text. Even if the five lines of text are doing something great or crazy, I immediately turn my nose up at it, as I see four lines of text being the absolute most a card should host. I look at it as forcing an idea too much. Four lines should be the most that a card requires. Going back to when a card copies something, I especially dislike when Blizzard seemingly copies and pastes something that someone outside of their team has already made. As much as Defile is great, someone made exactly that card before. If I remember correctly, the only difference was the art and the cost of their card, though I could be off about a detail here.
Come visit my Card Emporium. Strange things, you will find inside...
Come take the test, if you're daring. Feel free to show me your results in a message.
Well, my card creation principles are:
1) A card should be strong enough to be playable, but fair to play against it. Inherently imbalanced cards (for example, the latest "Deals 30 damage, it is always the last card in your deck) are not fun, because you cannot interrupt your opponent from obliterating you. (I know that there is a possibility to mill your opponent, but you can't play around each particular deck).
2) A card should rely on existing game engine possibilities. If you make something that Team 5 is not capable to infer in their game, then you're probably just wasting your time. (What are they capable of? The same or similar to mechanics that were printed in cards, played in bosses' decks and hero powers.) Of course, you should think outside the box, but you should realize what is implementable and what is not.
3) A card should be flavourful. Sometimes I think of the card's name and art first and only then figure out what mechanics is best suited for it.
Here's all the principles I can think of:
1) Always consider the card, first and foremost, as a blank, vanilla card. Stat it accordingly. If it's a class card or you know you want something special with it, throw in an extra stat where you know it will matter.
2) I oftentimes structure the effects of my cards around the art I find for them. Art suggests flavour, and flavour suggests mechanics. Additionally, a good piece of art can tie the whole piece together and suggest its own name.
3) I never go beyond 4 lines, and try valiantly to not stray beyond the number of words in Curious Glimmerroot.
4) I try to look at existing mechanics and find which cards suggest a missing synergy card, but in ways that haven't been explored before. While Dead Ringer synergizes well with Quest Priest and acts as 'missing' card draw, it's only very similar to Loot Hoarder. By looking at cards like Cult Master, you can see there's another type of synergy that's missing in Priest, because Cult Master isn't played and yet its trigger is relevant.
5) I look to stretch some of the more mundane limits of the game. Parts of the UI that haven't been explored (for instance, double targeting on spells or battlecries hasn't been done yet but certainly could be), etc. etc.
6) I don't beat horses to death. When K&C came out, everyone made like a million spellstones. I'm seeing the same thing with improved by Spell Damage. Instead of coming up with ideas right after a new mechanic is introduced thinking I'm a pioneer or something, I try and figure out what could be a mechanic in the future and predict it as best as I can. Some people are more successful with predicting these things.
7) Take criticism, and take it from the right people. Know that you don't always know everything about your card and its balance, and take it to the right people to help you with that. If you're asking a number of people, you can bet they'll have different opinions. Pick what you feel is most aligned with the game itself, your gut feeling, and the majority of criticism and make the changes accordingly.
please consider voting for my custom class in the fan creations competition :]
• TRIALS IN AUCHINDOUN - A Custom Hearthstone Adventure (4th Wing!) • New and Interesting Hearthstone Mechanics (by me!) •
Two rules for me:
1) Flavor seems to be what lets most people win, so I try to make mine with that in mind.
2) Art should almost always come first, because most people will just glance over a card if it has mediocre/bad art.
Might be stupid since I've never even made it to final poll, but at least I'm having fun ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Unpopular opinion: Rogue is OP