Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Proposal: Types of Cards

Reached Quorum 5 to 0. Enacted by Derrick.

Adminned at 20 Jun 2018 13:26:41 UTC

create a rule called “Card Types” as follows:

All cards must fall under specific types. A card may not have more than one type. These include “spells”, “potions”, and “tricks”. Further rules may add additional types that are mutually exclusive from previous types.

Comments

card:

06-20-2018 01:53:47 UTC

miscellaneous doesn’t sound like a specific type! in fact one of the definitions for that word is “consisting of diverse things or members”

9spaceking:

06-20-2018 03:18:46 UTC

alright. Guess we can add more types later.

Corona:

06-20-2018 05:31:55 UTC

imperial

card:

06-20-2018 06:35:32 UTC

for
Thematic constraints of this kind can be nice when designing rule snippets. It would be nice to have an expansion on what sort of things you had in mind when defining the types.
Potions is pretty obvious, the wizards are brewing something that is a liquid and is probably very local in its effect.
Tricks brings to my mind stage magicians, but I’m not quite sure what sort of thing you had in mind the Wizard playing a trick card to do.
Spells in fiction are pretty broad in modern usage; common themes are that they are usually spoken (defiantly tied to the definition of ‘spell’ as in to spell words) and do some sort of instantaneous effect (levitation, change color, etcetera).
One thing I can think of not represented is rituals. Examples like summoning satan or bloody mary springs to mind first but fiction has various other non-evil rituals.

Kevan:

06-20-2018 07:49:14 UTC

for

derrick:

06-20-2018 13:25:56 UTC

for

I have strong thematic objections to the exact types you have listed. I’m hoping to model wizards as Merlins and Gandalfs: long-lived wanderers whose counsel and manipulation are as important as any magic.

but I think passing this and then modifying the list is the best way forward.