OK. Ironically, that's rather like an old-school magic-user's spell acquisition (randomized by Know Spell % and the scrolls/spellbooks placed by the DM). 5e even retains a bit of that.
Even if you do get some randomization of spells available to prepare, though, you still make the decision which to prepare.
True! I think in that situation, there would be a more MTG-like use for trap spells.
I guess drawing cards is also random, though. But don't see how that makes a huge difference.
Nah, I don’t think that makes a big difference either.
Constructed is what most people think of when they think of Magic, where you build a deck out of cards from your whole collection (or the subset thereof that are legal in whatever format you’re building it for.) Limited is where you receive a limited pool of cards, usually by opening a certain number of packs and drafting picks from them with a group of other players (referred to as “draft”), or by opening a sealed product that contains a larger random assortment of cards (referred to as “sealed”), and have to build a deck out of that limited pool. Skill testing cards certainly play
some role in Constructed, but generally speaking, the skill required to recognize and avoid skill testing cards when building a constructed deck is low enough as to be negligible. In limited though, the smaller pool of cards to build decks from significantly lowers the average power level and consistency of decks in the event, and accordingly increases the impact of players’ skill at evaluating individual cards.
Especially in draft, because you have to be able to evaluate what cards to pick without knowing the full pool of cards you’ll have to work with. Limited (and especially draft) also makes card rarity a much more significant balancing factor, bringing the game much closer in line with the way Richard Garfield initially imagined it being played, as he significantly underestimated how much product the typical player would purchase, and probably never imagined the role the secondary market ended up playing in constructed.
Oh, there's no need to 'prove' the obvious, it just points out that, at least in 3e, they were intentional.
Well, what he points out is that some spells are intentionally more powerful than others. I think that interpreting that as meaning that
trap spells are intentional is a misunderstanding (though to be fair, his comparison to skill testing cards, coupled with his misrepresentation of their purpose does make this an easy mistake to make.)
To be clear, skill testing cards in Magic are not intended to trick players. They don’t design cards to look impressive but actually be bad. What they do is intentionally design cards that are obviously bad to players who have a basic understanding of the game’s power curve. For a basic example, the game expects you to be able to get a 2/1 creature for one white mana. A 2/1 creature for one white mana and one additional mana of any color might seem fine in a vacuum, but is obviously behind the curve to any player who has learned this fairly fundamental aspect of the game. The idea isn’t to trick anyone, but to teach players about the power curve. Learning to recognize these skill testing cards is an expected part of the progression of learning the nuances of deck building.
Separate from this is the player psychographic profiles, which are really more of a marketing tool. At a certain point, the developers of Magic realized that different players play the game for different reasons, and it would be a good idea to design cards specifically to appeal to these different types of players. So, the player psychographic profiles were developed. The three fundamental profiles WotC designs for are referred to as “Timmy,” “Johnny,” and “Spike.”
Timmy plays for the pure experience. He generally cares more about making cool things happen in the game than about winning. He likes winning of course, but he wants to win on his terms. If Timmy plays a two out of three match and loses two games, but wins one in a splashy way, he still walks away happy. Cards designed to appeal to Timmy tend to be impressive in some way, either creatures with really high power and toughness, or spells that do lots of damage, or otherwise do really big things. This is probably why Cook got them mixed up with skill testing cards. It’s not that Timmy cards intentionally look cool but aren’t good, it’s that Timmy cards are designed to be flashy above all else, and their competitive viability isn’t as much of a concern (though plenty of Timmy cards are still competitively viable).
Johnny plays to express himself. Johnny likes building decks that stand out in some way, maybe because theyre built around a specific theme, or a combination of cards with a synergy he really likes, or maybe he always finds a spot for his favorite creature in every deck he builds. For Johnny, playing the game isn’t about winning and losing, it’s about showing off his deck. If he plays a two out of three match and loses two games before winning one, he still walks away happy that he got to put his cool deck on display. Cards designed to appeal to Johnny often have really off-the-wall effects, or built-in synergies with other cards, or play a significant role in the game’s meta-plot. As with Timmy cards, Johnny cards may or may not be competitively viable, that’s just not really the main focus of the design.
Spike plays for the competition. She likes building the best decks she can, and winning with them. If Spike plays a 2 out of 3 match, and doesn’t win 2 games, she probably doesn’t walk away happy. If she wins two and loses one, she probably walks away happy, but she’s also probably thinking about how she could have done better in the game she lost. Cards designed to appeal to Spike are often ahead of the curve, doing just a
bit more for their cost than is typically expected. Of all the psychographic profiles, Spike is most likely to like cards with built-in drawbacks, as long as the overall power level is worth the trade off.
