I'll add a golden rule: in addition to giving a name to a card, also provide an ID,. I'm a native Spanish speaker who is also fluent in English. Most of the games I buy are in English but from time I buy something in Spanish. It is not secret that the gaming community that speaks English is much larger than the one that speaks Spanish so if I want to get clarification about a card but only know the Spanish name, it's tough to find someone who can answer the question. Even if I try to translate the test, it's not as simple as asking with the ID of the card. Even if you think you'll never sell a copy in another language it's so simple to do it, it might also be simpler for English speaker to remember an ID rather than a name, and if in the future you end selling copies in another language you are already prepared for this scenario.
@TheAnt89 What I meant is that beside cards having names, they should also have IDs. Since IDs don't need to be translated they serve as a way to identify a single card across languages which I have found to be helpful.
@@gaijinco Heyy, sorry my message wasn't clear at all. Wanted to ask if you have any specific examples for that. What kind of IDs should be displayed on cards?
@@davejeltema3 Thanks for your video! For all board game designers out there, I made a little tool to speed up your prototype card generation/updates process: ua-cam.com/video/Sm32cd3rYoE/v-deo.html Cheers!
Adding another silver rule: When in doubt don't rely on color alone to convey crucial information, if your palette has a few colors match each of them with a distinctive shape and you'll boost readability for anyone with color vision deficiency
In "Ticket to Ride", each card and rail color also has a distinct icon. The game pieces, however, all look the same. It's like half colorblind friendly.
You have to be careful with symbols. Too many (or poor icons) and you risk creating a whole symbolic language that players have to learn before they can play, making the cards harder to read.
Definitely agreed. Several of my game-creating friends prefer symbols, but to me that feels like learning a new language of hieroglyphics. Might be friendlier for players who don't speak the same language, but when we do all speak the same language, I strongly prefer that language to be used, not symbols. After all, isn't a later principle supposed to be that we should limit how much the players need to reference the rule book?
@@brianbaker1700I think if the symbols represent a “thing”, and not a property, that may be something easier to understand. Like, if you see a picture of a rock, being used to stand for a rock, you can tell it is a rock. If you see e.g. a magic orb of some color, it seems easy to get that that is referring to a “thing” one can possess or spend or something. Especially if it doesn’t do anything beyond “be a thing you can have or spend”. A symbol for “double-strike” or “flying” would probably be confusing.
the worst example of this I've ever seen was a Batman minis/ boardgame kickstarter. Literally everything was iconified. No text at all. But every icon had a specific and sometimes complex effect. It was really, really, bad.
Yeah, I agree with this one. In the video Dave said to "keep the rules on the cards, not in a rule book" or something to that effect, then also said to use symbols when text is repeated. The issue is that if the symbols aren't able to be defined on the card because using the symbol at all is meant to keep information concise, then you're offloading the explanation of the symbols to the rule book which is exactly contradictory to the other advice. The important thing is to consider how the information is conveyed. For example, A "tap" symbol like from Magic avoids needing to use the word "tap" or whatever word you use, in my game's case "tax". It's not that these words are very long. In fact the icon is only a few pixels shorter than the word written in the card's text. And when the card text says to "tap target permanent" or whatever in Magic it spells it out instead of using the icon. But the explanation for what this symbol means is entirely in the rule book. Why is this symbol necessary? The reason it's important is that you don't need to read it at all if it's a symbol, and it identifies it as a cost just like the mana costs. You just take it in at a glance, and you understand it to be a cost because other costs such as mana are in the same location on some cards. Why is mana a symbol? To be concise, yes, but it's more than that. It indexes them. They're all circles with different flavor shapes inside and unique colors from one another. The tap symbol is not mana, but it's also kept round and anyway you have to tap the lands to generate mana, so it's the same function just moved to the card itself. The most important amendment I'd make to the golden rule described in the video about when to use symbols is to use them whenever you would otherwise be repeating a key word, or key phrase, which is only slightly worded differently than the video itself but has a core meaning change. Remember that the reason is because the repeated phrase is important because it has depth that must be precise and universal. It's law. If it didn't need to be taken as law, it wouldn't need to be repeated in the exact same way every time and then fully explained in the rule book. The ability text that's written on a card is a contract, but a contract is just a paper covered in words until the court of law steps in to enforce it. Keywords are law themselves which contracts refer to for authority, and icons replacing keywords are done when the law needs to be identified as similar to one another and therefor indexed together in your mind, or when the keywords are too verbose like my comments. Red circle and blue circle are both indexed as mana in Magic, and mana is currency backed by law. Sometimes the mana symbol is there when it's provided, and sometimes removed. No need for the mana to have a + or - on it, though, because the contract outlines the terms like in all other contracts. Just know that the card has a purchase receipt in the top right corner which is always mana removed by using placement on the card as a language, and the card effect sections have a spot for mana removed as well at the start of the effect, and also for tapping in the same spot. If you find mana inside the text body, however, you need to refer to the rest of the effect contract to see how the law will apply this symbol. Also numbers are just symbols in language that have mathematical laws backing them as well. When you use numbers you're just using symbols who's rulebooks are taught thoroughly at school. 1 is an image that replaces the key word "one", just like 1/2 replaces "one half", but if you use them just right you can have your rulebook override some mathematical key words such as in Magic when 1/2 means "1 power and 2 toughness". This is another case of Magic using location as a form of language. 1 is a mathematical keyword that could be anywhere, but because of its location relative to the rest of the card and especially the / beside it this 1 also means "power" which is a separate keyword also defined in the rule book. Together these mean "one power", which is relevant to like 50 paragraphs of text for "power" in the completed rule book, and entire math degrees worth of information to fully define "one". Anyway, I went on a bit of a ramble there. Gonna get back to eating my lunch. 😅
I think the example of Magic really is shaped by how you fan the cards in your hand; for example, i have always naturally fanned cards so that the "topmost" card was on the left, so costs were always unobscured. It has never occured to me that some people were arranging their hands so that the topmost card was on the right. I'm also right-handed.
Likewise! I'm right-handed but naturally hold my cards the "left-handed" way. I agree with the overall principle of not obscuring important information, but disagree that putting costs on the left side is the solution.
@@LuckySketchesit's not just "regular" 52 card decks that are like that, it's the standard practice for basically every board game that involves cards, and every new TCG of the last two decades. Yes, MtG putting the cost in the wrong top corner is "ok" because you can fan the hand backwards if you don't have the cards in your deck memorized yet, but doing so will hide the name of the cards. Some people resort to stacking their hand vertically with the entire top like of every card visible, while others sort their hand by cost so you know "everything else costs more than the top one". MtG only gets away with breaking the rule because it's too entrenched to fix it now. If your primary market is "the west", anywhere that reads from top to bottom & left to right, putting the most important two or three things on the left & top edge of the card is common sense.
many sets of 52 card playing cards have the numbers in all 4 corners. presumably this is because the makers are aware that some people fan the cards the opposite way! there’s no need to be dogmatic and prescriptive about it, but knowing that most people fan their cards a certain way, it is at least pragmatic to cater to that expectation. unfortunately for me, it feels too unnatural to fan them the ‘normal’ way
As an illustrator primarily and working on a game with a friend of mine, it made me tear up a little to see "Art is paramount" tacked on at the end. I love seeing appreciation for the visual elements get so much weight, and I love the emphasis of the art as a core game element. *Note: being the principal illustrator for an entire game is murder on the wrists, BUT, tons of fun.* Thank you for your video. I probably have some layouts to revisit haha
It's weird to me, a lot of card games recently seem to have fallen out of love with art design, but to me it's absolutely vital. Most of the new TCGs since lockdown have had plain ugly art, and MTG of course has only been putting out a dozen genuinely good card arts a year since 2014. It's impossible to be interested in a game that can't offer me any cards that look cool enough for me to want to build a deck.
@@yurisei6732 Wow. I only play MTG casually, I didn't know the new art scene was that bad. I think the last of anything new I saw was New Capenna (not all great, but I was probably more lenient on the art given my partiality to Art Deco). Considering there are no other visual assets in a card game, you'd think they'd pay much closer attention to that... Long shot but if you're interested in staying up-to-date with the project I mentioned, I'd be happy to send the linkedin page where we'll eventually be posting our dev discord. Definitely trying not to fall into the same blandness-of-art rut, but perks of being a tiny dev team is we have full say over that lol
Only just now am i realising that right handed magic players have the cost covered up, something i hope never changes, lefties need every win they can get
Lefties can’t uncover the cost without covering the name of the card. It’s still not an issue either way, but the right-handedness has nothing to do with it.
In italy, or at least in my city everyone use it from the left, its kinda strange to have problems seeing yugioh levels, atk def and magic costs but you get used to it
The direction you feather out the cards is not dictated by the hand you are holding it in. The reason you don't cover up the cost is because you can tell what cards you are holding by the cost and the right side of the artwork.
"If it can be said in fewer words, say it in fewer words" Meanwhile Yu-Gi-Oh: You can remove 6 Spell Counters from your field; Special Summon this card from the Pendulum Zone, then count the number of cards you control that can have a Spell Counter, destroy up to that many cards on the field, and if you do, place spell Counters on this card equal to the number of cards destroyed. you can only use this effect of "Endymion, the Mighty Master of Magic" once per turn. Once per turn, when a Spell/Trap Card of effect is activated (Quick Effect): You can return 1 card you control with a Spell Counter to the hand, and if you do, negate the activation, and if you do that, destroy it. Then, you can place the same number of Spell counters on this card that the returned card had. While this card has a Spell Counter, your opponent cannot target it with card effects, also it cannot be destroyed by your opponent's card effects. When this card with a Spell Counter is destroyed by battle: You can add 1 Normal Spell from your Deck to your hand.
i did an experiment condensing yugioh card text in a reasonable way. some cards condense well and others do not because of how specific they are. try it for yourself.
Nice video, very helpful. One thing I would add is that the secondary purpose of the artwork is to make cards easily recognizable from a distance for players who have played the game before.
On adding symbols to the card, I disagree that they should outright replace text. If you study Magic cards, you’ll see that while they use, for example, the tap symbol when saying “tap the card to do this”, if they mention tapping in the rest of the text they say the word “tap”. They only have a few symbols that they routinely use in the actual ability text: those for mana costs, and even then it’s used sparingly. People know how to read words, but they don’t come to your game knowing what your symbols mean in the context of your game. If you send them to the reference manual too many times to figure out what your symbols mean it’ll be frustrating. You can still use your symbols if you think they’d be useful, but reminder text (again, see mtg) is a good idea so that players stay immersed.
I agree with a lot of this depending on the context. For CCG's I'm on board 100%, I tried to keep this video valuable to anyone designing a cards layout for any reason but it was mostly through the lens of board games. I have a bias because our game is leaning more towards the other direction and needs to be readable on the table and not in your hand. You bring up a great point, the key is readability and to a lesser extent theme. When everything works well together the game is awesome. I referenced magic quite a bit because most people are familiar with it, but it was also designed many years ago so use that how you will. I also 100% agree that having to go into the rulebook for every keyword or the FAQ ruins most games.
The tap symbol and the word tap have different mechanical effects, though. Even so, i agree. Symbols should be used sparingly for only the most common elements of the game
In some ways I think one could consider keywords a kind of symbol. There's some tradeoffs compared to graphical symbols though; particularly I think graphical symbols stand out more and can stand out even in small spaces, but keywords can be more intuitive to read especially in terms of pronouncing a card out loud (like if trying to describe a card in Magic that has Haste, one just says "it has haste", but if it had some symbol like a person running or similar it might not be obvious how to say it without checking the rules). I think with a CCG the large potential card pool makes it make sense to have some priority on being able to pronounce text easily while that might not be necessary in the scope of a single board game. I wonder also if perhaps some particular kinds of gameplay elements are better suited to graphical representation while others work better textually.
Art serves a extremely important function: it allows people to mentally chunk the effects of a card to an image. It's much easier to tell apart images than blocks of text, especially with cards in hand. After reading my cards, I can remember what they do at a glance by seeing the artwork. Yu-Gi-Oh especially utilizes this. Then there's the connections between art and effects, if the art is of a magical effect, I expect a spell, it gets me in the right mindset to understand the effect of the card. If the art is a big monster, I expect a big monster stats. I've been working slowly on the art for my game, and the cards with art are 50x easier to play with than the ones without.
I agree a lot. Was listening to him talk about how the visual hierachy means that you should put the card names at the very top when I realised that Cardfight Vanguard has the card names at the very bottom instead. I've never had an issue in identifying the cards though and I dont know anyone that has such an issue even when fanning out the cards in their hand and the names are covered up. Tbh, as long as you are able to recognise the card and know the effect, you can play even if you aren't able to read any of the words on the card. In that train of thought, the art of a card is probably more important than the actual name in helping you recognise it.
@@epucgaming1008 Title does not need to be at the top. But, top to bottom ordering can help you remember information in the order of: "card name - card effect". Personally I think "Shadowverse evolve" has amazing card layouts, and they have name at the bottom.
As a long time magic player with an interest in game design I love how MTG is the exception to most of these rules. Goes to show what defining a genre can do for you
Magic took all these existing rules and set them in stone. sure, there were some growing pains and formatting problems with alpha and beta, but the game is a perfect example for each of these. this guy can't even read cards he's holding and think it's the cards' problem.
I think that the rules defined here are flawed and instead MTG has found them through their trial, error and listening to backlash when they move key components. There are some good rules in the video but the cost location one IMO is awful.
I'd be very careful with symbols. If the first card I ever read says something like "[symbol I've never seen] 1 of your [another symbol I've never seen]", I'm probably not going to be very interested. If it happens during a game, not only am I going to have to look it up, I won't even know what to Google. Even if I have an experienced player who can help me, is going to be very embarrassing and confusing to ask "what does the little symbol that kinda looks like a question mark mean?" On the other hand, if symbols *reinforce* an idea, then I 100% agree. In your game, I see the big green green in your card. So when the effect asks if the card below is [green gem], I immediately get what it means, even if "green gem" isn't the right term. Keywords are very similar in that regard but: they (should) have reminder text, and at least they're words you can say to ask. Plain symbols replacing entire words or phrases are a problem if they're important.
I appreciate the approach that is for example seen in Ark Nova, which makes heavy use of symbology but then provides you with a cheat sheet for the sombols.
@@disrespecc9678 And where would you put that? In a helper card that everyone has to carry everywhere? In a board game at home, you always have access to everything you need. In a tcg, you only carry your decks and some dice, not the rules.
I’ve never once had a problem reading what my cards cost in my hand while playing MTG. They even tried “fixing” this problem in the Future Sight set and then realized it wasn’t broken to begin with.
I tested it with some of my magic card and I prefer to fan the other way around, with the bottom card on the right and the top card on the left. Seems like there is quite a bit of variability here and there is no one way people do it.
@@Lothrean Probably habits. Looking at regular playing cards (like poker cards), while some cards have the name on all 4 corners, a lot of the biggest brands (like Bicycle) have the name of the card only on the top-left and bottom-right. It seems to be generally accepted as a common practice to fan cards with the top-left corner visible. And the only peoples I've met that complained about it were left-handed, so maybe there is something about the majority of right-handed peoples finding it easier to fan that way while the majority of left-handed peoples finding it easier to fan the other way. As for my own experience, I'm right-handed, and I hold card with my left-hand so that I can play with my right hand. While with two hands I can fan both ways, if I try to fan only with my left hand (and I do one-handed fanning most of the time), it's much easier for me to fan to show the top-left corner. I can do it with one sweep of my big thumb, while I need multiple tries and/or some helps from my other fingers to fan the other way.
I designed a card game a few years ago, and I've always wanted to take it to the next level. I recently got excited about updating it, and this video showed up just in time. Thanks, Dave! Great info
I designed a card game, then while looking online for Layout examples (such as this video) I discovered Land, Air & Sea, which was about 90% similar to the game I invented.
That was actually really interesting to hear. As a magic player, I had always wondered why they decided to try such a drastic change for FutureSight, but if they were trying to test the waters with a more streamlined layout, that makes so much sense. It has always bothered me that when I'm holding my cards in my hand, I'm either covering the name, or the cost.. So it makes a lot of sense why they tried to change it. I also find it a little amusing to hear Golden Rule #4. Not that Yu-Gi-Oh technically breaks it... but the fact that later cards do become multiple paragraphs is pretty funny.
I disagree with the point you make about fanning cards. I fan them in the other direction, with the top card on the left rather than the right, especially when playing Magic. This lets me see all the costs easily. The top right of a card isn't an automatic no-go zone.
I'm totally with you. For a game I'm making, I'm putting the most important part (a number) in the top left, to cater to people who prefer that, and I'm finding it easy to simply switch to an unnatural card-holding position while playing the game. As long as each game is internally consistent, it's fine!
I disagree with the fanning thing as well, but for a different reason. Unless I'm playing a deck that I've never played, I am going to know the exact or roughly the cost of the cards. I need the name of the card first and foremost.
Not a pro like you, but I couldn't disagree more about using symbols instead of text for recurring keywords. Symbols take a ton of memory space to learn since you have to connect them to words in your head anyway, and I get really turned off reading text with too many of them. I feel like MTG does symbols really well: it has 7 recurring symbols (the 5 mana symbols, the colorless mana symbol, and the tap symbol), but all of these fall into categories (mana and tapping). The mana symbols don't take much memory space to tell them apart from each other because they're all the same size and shape, so really you have two symbols- mana symbols and tapping. 2 symbols is a lot easier to memorize than 5 or more, which is something I see in a lot of games nowadays. The symbols in MTG also don't come up when describing interactions between cards. MTG never uses the tap symbol to tell you that a card taps down an opposing creature, only to tell you to tap a card for an effect.
On that first rule, I fan with my thumb, not with my fingers. I think it comes from playing video games as much as I have, but it was also because I specifically fan my cards the way I do due to Magic Card layouts. The power and toughness is very inconveniently under my right hand thumb, but knowing the cost rules out cards before their power and toughness is relevant anyway, so I can move my thumb to see that or the card effect. Whichever I need to see right now. Memorizing my cards also lets me only consider them on if I can play them or not, which means my method of fanning which is just "reverse how you do it" and is just as easy and viable as your method. Not sure why you do it that way unless you're playing Poker, honestly. But anyway, that's not a flaw on the cards. It's a very minor mistake in your method of holding them. In the case of Magic the cost is simply on the same side as the power and toughness to allow you to expose both at the same time. This is particularly useful is OG Magic where you had many monsters that only had a power and toughness and no effect, so you could stack them to cover everything except the card's colors (in the cost), and power and toughness on the same side. I'm not making this comment to say "you're wrong" because you're not! Just like with your method of fanning your hand works best for Poker and some other games but not for Magic, it's an element of the game that's designed for. There is no "correct location" for a cost. There is only a "best location for your game" for a cost assuming you have a cost. So yeah, you're right in your case, but I wanted to make this comment to help anyone new to game design understand that like all other examples and rules of design the location of your card's cost is up to interpretation within the confines of your game. Also try fanning your Magic cards out with your thumb instead.
Hey Dave, im an indie game dev who has been trying to put together a good card game for a while (turns out it isnt easy as I jad always assumed). This video was incredibly helpful, especially for someone like me who doesnt have the skills to handle the artwork and bas therefore been focused much more on nailing the basic layout of the cards. I wish there was more good quality information available online about the intricacies of designing these games.
Thanks for taking the time to say this, I'm glad you found it helpful! I'm in the same boat, that's why I did this deep dive into how I can make things look good with the un-artistic side of my skills.
if a phrase is repeated to describe something that's a full sentence, consider coining a key game term for it. It makes the rulebook cleaner. Nobody iterates just cards. It's a back and forth process.
i often hear the mtg thing about hiding the mana cost in the fanned hand, but I'd argue that the name (and art) is more important. there is so much more info about the card hidden in a grip, but players know the cards by name or at least the illustration
As someone who is designing a homemade card game, that may never see that light of day. I did learn some very useful information, although I'm not sure revamping my game for the 7th time, is all that worth it.
I like how in Terraforming Mars, the card abilities are written entirely in symbols, and they have a tiny explanation in words at the bottom. It's very easy to understand cards from across the table at a glance, and even if you can't, most cards are single use so there are only a few cards to memorize (and because of the huge iconography, it's memorization with a huge hint).
in moderate defense to having names of cards in the top left corner instead of costs, they can act as a really good information shortcut to really experienced players. as an MTG player, if I saw a fanned out hand of cards in a vacuum and see Counterspell in the top left corner of one of them, I've played the game enough to know exactly how much it costs and what it does just by seeing that name alone, in this case two blue mana. If I saw the cost in that position instead, it's certainly the most useful info I could know about the card while it hasn't yet been played, but (ignoring any other potential visual indicators for the sake of this example like seeing part of the art) I might not necessarily know *what* card it might be of that cost, for all I know the deck might be stacked with other cards that also cost two blue mana. however this only applies once you have played a game enough to tell what any card does just by the name or the art, this doesn't apply to new players which you should be probably be formatting the card's interface in service of. Not saying that the golden rule is straight up wrong or anything, just that if you are going to put something else there, I think the card name would be the second best alternative
Another thing to bear in mind magic is that you generally build your deck as well. Which means that you'll usually know all the cards you put into it, so you likely do know all the card names.
Iconography is nice until you need to read the text out, or tell the other players what the text means. Games with a lot of iconography are a bigger pain in the ass. Terrible having to pause a game to look up a symbol, and harder to look up symbol than a word. Just take a moment to try, and play Aeon Trespass for the first time, and run into symbols that have no reference to them in the glossary, but instead somewhere within the main section of rules. You'll find that keywords work better overall unless you use very few icons.
One thing that should be added is have a border. I'm not talking about magic's green, red, blue, white, black, Im talking about pokemon's silver/yellow. you can have the art take up the whole card but no border (vanguard) is more overwhelming than any amount of text and symbols. it also "cheapens" the art. when you hang a poster on your wall, having or not having a frame complete changes the feel and importance of the art.
Great tips! I think Bandai has been knocking it out of the park with their recent card design, especially with Digimon. That game has basically become my gold standard for card design now. They use keywords instead of symbols, but I actually prefer that with a TCG. Card text with symbols are definitely better for board games.
That's something I'll definitely have to look into, Digimon was a big part of my childhood. It'll be near to see what the modern card game looks like now days.
I was also going to comment about the Digimon TCG. Is such a clean design and works so well within the mechanics. The updated design that is rolling in in the latest set prevent future clutering on the card to open game design (not a different bubble color for each evo but a outercircle with the color information filled in). Also how despite all, the art is allowed to shine like any other card game allow for their common cards
@@thunderybuggy7399 And that outer circle is going to increase clarification for people with colorblindness. Such a great design that people can learn from.
I'd argue that the name of a card is significantly less important than several other elements you placed lower. They may be especially useful for playtesting or categorizing, but for most players, they don't have to care about the name. I'd argue that the art is more important because it is much more immediately recognizable.
I'll interject one counter point: art is the most important, and should take up the most space, because it conveys the most information the fastest. When a card becomes known, and reading it is no longer necessary, the image will immediately alert the player(s) to what the card is. Like Pot of Greed or Black Lotus. The cards are known enough and remembered enough that the image immediately invokes their effects and names.
6:21 I wouldn't say that I "hate change" so much as that Gangar card is literal eye cancer. As for the Magic Card, sure there's some minor merit to your Rule 1, but it's *very* minor. As you say later, the cards in your hand are indeed the cards you put into your deck, so you don't need the mana cost visible all the time while you have things tightly fanned. People have object permanence and minor memory capacities. They can see the mana cost (and other info) and then remember it for most cards even when it's obscured. Furthermore, The mana cost being on the left side under the name of Tarmogoyf now causes two problems. First is that it's obscuring the picture, and the picture is the most important thing because - again - people remember the info on their own cards. They just need to recognize which card they have, and that mana cost there is obscuring the image if there are similar 1-F green cards. Two, the beauty of Magic cards is that everything is placed in its own relevant space, so you can find the information you want about the card by looking at a distinct section of it. name, image, mana cost, creature type, power/toughness, effects (and sometimes flavor text). They're partitioned out so everything is clear and the info for one section doesn't distract from info in another section. This puts the mana cost and the name in the same spot, and makes the mana cost unclear because of the curved behavior. This works for something that costs some colorless mana and a single colored mana, but what if it cost 3 forests? 5 forests? Now the mana cost design has to curve around and make the spacing uneven and make counting harder. So your format is either going to suck for some cards, or you're going to only use this format for cards with few colored mana, making a split standard which makes it that much worse to look at cards and evaluate their information at a glance. Because now you need to look in two different locations with two different formats for mana cost. Which is why that Gangar card is such cancer. The image now covers the whole damn thing, being distracting in general and making reading any of the text a nightmare. Well defined borders and information is important. And no, it doesn't have to be "most to least important, top to bottom" like some kind of passage in a book. The important thing is that relevant information is visible, and in its own space so you can instantly fixate on whatever information is most Sorry but, while this video was nicely produced, you're speaking like these design rules are gospel. And that'd be fine if they were fundamental and ironclad but, frankly, they're arbitrary, poorly supported, and often missing what's important. You're not arranging text on a page or trying to tell a whole cards story from the 10% visible in a tightly fanned hand. You want each card, individually, to have its information clear, organized, identifiable, and recognizable. Absolute location doesn't matter as much as being distinct. People's memory takes care of the rest. And because it's so bad, I have to say it a third time. That Gangar card was cancer and you ought to be ashamed for holding that up as some kind of implication that players "just don't know what's good for them."
The design of mtg has gotten increasingly worse, both design and the images themselves. One of the reasons I never'll come back. I played mostly from 4th edition to Urza's Legacy. Cards have generally gotten worse looking since then.
I think I'd like to suggest a change to the silver rule about colour blindness: Never have icons that mean different things be the same icon/design but just in a different colour. It is a surefire way to make the game completely unplayable for a portion of people. Take for example in MTG: The different mana symbols practically mean the same thing, but they all have designs that make sure you can tell them apart even if they were to be in just black and white (like people with complete colour blindness would see them, for example). It was the first thing I thought of at 10:15 when you showed the example card. The green and gray crystals at the top of the card (the cost) should be different designs and not just different colours.
11:20 I actually really like card games that have their art in a frame on the card like the big 3 Magic, Pokemon, and Yugioh do. It keeps the image clear and unobscured by mechanical aspects of the game shown in text or icons. It means that when I'm looking at the art I'm looking at the art unobstructed and able to appreciate it fully, and when I'm looking for mechanical components I can find them where I know they will be without the colors and shapes of the art behind them distracting my eye and changing the color and shape language of the area around the game mechanic icon or text. I also care about my cards, and when a nick at the edge of a card damages a black or yellow, or white border or whatever, I don't care so much, but if it damages the edge of the card art I'm much more invested and bummed out by it. I can appreciate the odd full card art style from time to time, but I never use those cards, with the exception of simple resource cards such as energies in Pokemon or lands in Magic where there isn't really any other icons or text to worry about obscuring and the image is simple enough that it won't matter so much. I know it would make all card games look exactly the same if they have an art frame, and the art is in the upper half of the card, and the name is above that, and maybe that chokes the market a lot by new games looking "samey" at a glance, but if you make your game have art to the edges, and card information on top of the art, it fatigues me mentally over time in a way that's not necessary, and I won't pick up those cards to play as often as I might have if I wasn't fatigued by just looking at them. The golden rule here should be "Treat your art like any other image on your card. You wouldn't layer icons or make text run across them. Don't layer icons or text over images. Art is paramount." The image is just a bigger icon which is more unique from other icons so it can serve to identify the card at a glance. It should be respected as such. For example, the big green orb your game puts overlapping the base of the card art could have been a green bar that served as a bottom frame with a much smaller circle or diamond part at the middle of the line where your green orb is located. Small enough that it doesn't intrude visually on the image above or the information below, but wide enough as a bar to always be visible no matter where your thumb lands while holding it. Almost the width of the card. I'd actually recommend making this change in your own game's layout in future card sets if it's a persistent game, or later editions if it's a boxed card game. The big colorful circle is fun and whimsical at first glance, but it's also just a massive blank green field on the card that's wasting space and obscuring other elements. If it was white or black you'd see it for the wasted space it is as designed. It kind of feels like I had paint on my thumb when I was playing the game one time and now that smudge won't ever come off. Anyway, I wasn't trying to be too harsh, and I realize this is a lot of criticism in one of 3 comments on a video with 5 golden rules, so I want to end this one saying these observations aren't terrible. We all have our own methods and opinions. Take them or leave them, and don't let yourself dwell on what I've said here for more than it took to read the text unless you feel like you agree with what I said. In which case thanks for reading, and your welcome for helping. This is all coming from a place of kindness and support on my side. Not meaning to be an ass or anything. 😄
Totally agree. I also prefer cards to be framed, and text or symbols overlapping art should be kept to an absolute minimum, if at all. In my opinion, Yu-Gi-Oh got it down perfectly when it comes to the art-to-information ratio, and its borders are perfect. Yes, they look like crap *now,* but that's only because they made the mistake of adding more and more complicated effects and thus having to shrink the font down to a size 6. If you revisit some of the classic Yu-Gi-Oh cards you may be pleasantly reminded of just how perfect the layout is.
Very useful advice, keep up the content. Been printing and playtesting my game over the last 3 months but am completely rebuilding it using your methods to playtest online now
This is very interesting and never thought of some of these. They make sense. This is very good insight and very helpful for me as someone that has been making my own card games for years now and looking to hopefully publish games someday. Thank you! I'll have to keep these rules in my mind.
"People hate change." It's so true yet so frustrating... i personal like that new magic card border, and the full art on the pokemon card with white and black text is a neat idea.
I’ve been implementing rule 4 a ton in my recent iteration of my card game. My cards already have symbols associated with them (🐚 for Monster, 🎲 for Item, 🏠 for Place, 🗡️ for Attack, ❤ for HP, etc.) so instead of an ability saying “search deck for item. Shuffle afterwards” it would say “search deck for 🎲. Shuffle Afterwards”. It’s good to remember to not go overboard though. There was a brief time where I’d summarize everything in symbols like “🔄🤚⬅️” which was suppose to mean “swap hands with player on left”. It was obvious to me but made it confusing for other players.
Thanks for this list! Soooo many games don't do rule number 3 use way more words in their texts than necessary. I suspect they're trying to use more words to try to be less confusing but it always ends up being more confusing! And yesss on using symbols too. I know there's an argument against symbols that says that they make it harder for new players to understand a game because they have to keep looking them up in the rules, but the truth is they only have to look them up in the rules a few times and then they'll remember them and the game will be so much easier to understand.
Distinctive art also acts as a sort of shorthand for experienced players, a highly detailed symbol that identifies the card. Nobody can read a tiny text box upsidedown across the table, and they might not easily be able to read the name, either, but if they see the art and are familiar with it, then they'll recognize the card.
Should be a watch for every indie tcg creator. So many new games have amazing art that is just kneecapped by the worst design. Design is essential to making a professional looking game and it’s always skipped over.
Ironically MTG actually solved the first golden Rule with "Future Sight" expansion as all the cards had the Cost on the left border, and then they scrapped it and went back to traditional MTG layout.
A little confused with the symbols advice; you replaced green with a green symbol, but I know of a fellow game player who is blue-green colorblind, and you mentioned accommodating colorblindness. I'd recommend doing something MTG has done; giving each color its own shape or design, similar to how MTG and Pokemon each has their own mana/energy symbol. That said, I'd love to learn more about your game!
For Yugioh the way the games developed over the years the tiny font is mandatory for example as current topical card reads: | You can target 1 face-up monster on the field or in either GY; place it face-up in its owner's Spell & Trap Zone as a Continuous Spell. During your opponent's turn (Quick Effect): You can target 1 Monster Card treated as a Continuous Spell on the field; Special Summon it to your field. If this card is sent from the hand or field to the GY: You can Special Summon 2 Level 1 FIRE monsters from your GY. You can only use each effect of "Snake-Eyes Flamberge Dragon" once per turn. | But if the cards didn't explain all their rulings in the text and only said the most important parts (losing the nuance) a revised friendly version would read like: - Place 1 face-up monster on the field or GY, in its owner's Backrow as a Continuous Spell. - During your opponent's turn (Instant): You can Summon monster treated as a continuous spell to your field. - If this card is sent from the hand or field to the GY: You can Summon 2 Level 1 FIRE monsters from your GY. It's still a lot of text and Konami had no Idea how ridiculous the game would get and it's funny that removing texy from mosy modern cards msked then infinitely stronger.
Nice vid, bet the mana-not-visible problem isn't really a problem, you just have to hold the cards differently. It doesn't matter if the mana is on the left or right, if you don't hold the cards correctly you won't see the costs even if they are printed on the left. But yes, I know what you mean, costs should not be printed in the middle.
5:20 my eyes went to the art and then up, so the elements were in the reverse order to ejst you describe. Having played arkham horror, the card titles wind up being the less importsnt thing and i identify the cards by their art.
I really liked your videos, I have been making board games for more then 10 years(for fun) but these tips(watched all of your vids.) were really good. got new energy on a game we are design for more the 4 years now. and went back to drawing board a couple of times. But now we making some real progress... Do you need some play testers for you games? I loved your video's keep em coming.
I think until now and probably another card game appears in the future, my favourite card design is from Cardfight! Vanguard. It's just visually clear to me, but that could just be bias
One caveat with the golden rule about symbols is that symbols are an intro barrier to your game in the same way that magic's keywords are. To get around this they have a sub-rule: if you have space to explain the thing, explain the thing. This most commonly occurs with set-specific keywords like Soulbond. What does Soulbond do? Well I can look at my Wingcrafter (which is a common card) and everything I need to know about the keyword is right there. Now when I get a rare or mythic card that JUST has the keyword I already know what it does. So one variation of your card could read: Gain one colourless power shard (colourless power shard symbol). If the card below this one is (green), this card has a combat value (sword) of 1.
At 10:20 you said Adaptive Growth increases your attack by 1, but the card says it sets your attack to 1. Was that a slip of the tongue or a card grammar issue? I haven't finished the video, so maybe that was intentional and you address this by the end as another example for a golden rule.
I've definitely found when playing magic that art is the most important part of card identification The different art makes navigating lots of cards much easier
Your video starts with a question (can you pick out all the flaws?) but it did not end with an answer. Consider closing all the loops you start, it makes the video feel more satisfying to watch.
I'm a big fan of that, it's like easter eggs but actually important information. Using everdell again as an example, it took me a few playthroughs to fully understand what each colored of card did mechanically, for the first few games I just knew I had to collect specific colors for points. I later learned that blue is triggers, purple is VP, etc.
A great video. One thing I could do with advice though is good places to look for art work. What are places to seek help with art work/illustration/imagery? How do you go about finding an artist to help? Or is there software out there that can provide a foundation point?
For a moment I thought you were wrong about MtG obscuring the casting costs when you fan the cards out... then I realized I got used to fanning the cards the opposite way exactly because of this problem.
I intend to make more soon, thanks for reaching out :) I want to try slightly different content, still educational but more about content creation than board games specifically. Glad you liked my vid!
Art is very important not just aesthetically but functionally. Once I am familiar with a card, I rely on the art to recognize it in play. Tell me the name of a card and I won’t know wtf you are referring to, I need the visual cue. Not saying I’m the norm, but I’m sure there are others like me.
I find that observation interesting because I thought about how I play MTG. I fan the cards so that I see the casting cost and most of the art... and generally I know the cards by the art, not the name.
#4 is definitely one of the biggest criticisms I see of Yugioh right now. Although they are long, the effects can be complex, and have a lot of specific limitations on when and how often they can be used. The latter is really what half of the text is. Terms and conditions. Additionally, in Asian language prints, they list out and give each effect a card has by a number, and reference each numbered effect whenever necessary. Also, makes it easy to know where one effect ends, and the other begins. All other languages, you have to read through a block of text, and deduce logically where each one ends, and each one begins. The Asian region is run and overseen by a different branch of Konami compared to the one in the West. So that is likely one reason why this format hasn't been moved over. One thing I actually would like to see get implemented. And keywords discourse I've found to be pretty touchy subject too within the community. Some players seem to loathe the idea because everything isn't spelled out directly to them, and increases the number of things new players need to learn, or something to those lines. When the game alreaady technically has 2 keywords that exist (Excavate and piercing). Adding in a few more to very specific actions that cannot have variations wouldn't be the end of the world. Although keywords in Yugioh in general is hard, since you can have like 6 different variations of a similar thing. Like in MTG, you have hexproof. It does one thing. While in Yugioh, you have cards that have similar abilities, but sometimes only for specific kinds of cards (Like only from Spells or only from monsters). You also have cards that are kind of reverse (Unaffected by anything that doesn't target it). At that point, it is probably easier to just be explicit with it at the cost of some real estate.
Race for the galaxy is a neat example of 'if it can be said in stmbols, use stmbols'. Very few of rhe cards hace words, its all symbols with a ckear iconography. You might have to refer to the rules a bit at first but after a while you learn tve symbols or can at least deduce roughly based on similar symbols.
Everdell is one of my clearest examples of how card design makes a game practically unplayable for me. The text on the players' cards on the other side of the table is just so tiny, yet so important for me to know. Since I can't see the text, I just don't want to play.
The cost of the card is only hidden if you fan your hand out the way you showed. Fanning it correctly places the costs of each card in the top right showing each cost perfectly...
That is a mechanical skill we've all learned from playing the game. The point is that someone who's just picking up Magic, doesn't know that, and holds them like poker cards, has to fiddle around with cards in hand before they actually know what they can do in a turn. It's unnecessary friction. MTG gets away with it because so maybe people already have learned it, or have incentive to learn it because it's so popular. But you as an individual designer are limiting your audience to only people who are already familiar with this convention if you do the same thing.
@@siosilvar I feel like that's reason enough to keep designing card templates in way. The majority of people that play card games are card game players. Familiarity helps players understand new games faster. My whole point is magics cost in the top right or yugiohs attribute/level in the top right isn't a cut and dry bad design. There are pros and cons. The one piece tcg for example has costs in the top left instead and this makes it a frustrating experience for me to play as I have to awkwardly hold my cards backwards to what I am used to.
I was disappointed that the Future Sight design in Magic, where the mana cost is on the left side of the art box, didn't catch on. An actual card might have been less wacky, but that was a good element!
I remember when I first saw those cards, I liked the new location for costs but the card itself had too many rounded elements. Magic has always been boxy in my mind. Someone showed me the Saga's cards after I released this video as well, they are... interesting. gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&subtype=+[%22Saga%22]
@@bradensorensen966 Was the transparent design ugly or the placement of the cost ugly? I think the aesthetics were kinda bad, but I really loved that you could fan out your cards and have the name and cost of your cards be easily referenced.
I think a huge thing a lot of games make is having too much visual clutter on a card. You dont need two different spheres of different colours to define attack and defense values, information like tribe or the colour of a card does not need to be communicated as a large sigil in the center of the card. Knowing when to use graphics and when to just leave it streamlined is a huge thing for card design. In my experience the most important information is: What kind of card is it When can i use it (instant vs sorcery) What and how much resources does it use What it actually does. And that order is important as it decreses thinking time. Breaks in that rythm also makes the information harder to get right the first time you look glance over it.
7 місяців тому
I have another one, that Decipher broke with Star Trek 1st edition. "Never reference lore text in your game text". The card Hirogen Hunt is maybee the worst offender I have ever seen. [Hir] is in this case a way in text to show that on the card there is the Hirogen symbol. Also, once each turn, you may report an Alpha-Hirogen (or any [Hir] card that names in its lore an Alpha-Hirogen you already have in play) for free. When you play a Hirogen, you need to look in its lore text to see if there are any names in it. Then check if you have that character already in play. If it is in play, you need to check if it is an Alpha-Hirogen.
I'll add a golden rule: in addition to giving a name to a card, also provide an ID,. I'm a native Spanish speaker who is also fluent in English. Most of the games I buy are in English but from time I buy something in Spanish. It is not secret that the gaming community that speaks English is much larger than the one that speaks Spanish so if I want to get clarification about a card but only know the Spanish name, it's tough to find someone who can answer the question. Even if I try to translate the test, it's not as simple as asking with the ID of the card. Even if you think you'll never sell a copy in another language it's so simple to do it, it might also be simpler for English speaker to remember an ID rather than a name, and if in the future you end selling copies in another language you are already prepared for this scenario.
exceptional observation my friend
Thanks!@@uncolorr
Nice observationbut how does it practically work?Let's say I have a and a in my deck of cards.
How would you ID that?
Using symbols?
@TheAnt89 What I meant is that beside cards having names, they should also have IDs. Since IDs don't need to be translated they serve as a way to identify a single card across languages which I have found to be helpful.
@@gaijinco Heyy, sorry my message wasn't clear at all. Wanted to ask if you have any specific examples for that.
What kind of IDs should be displayed on cards?
You’re on to something with this video: substantive advice, insider game design seasoned perspective, solid editing, zero clickbaityness. Solid.
One of the best compliments I've gotten since the start of my channel. Those things are my guiding light! Thank you!
@@davejeltema3 Thanks for your video! For all board game designers out there, I made a little tool to speed up your prototype card generation/updates process: ua-cam.com/video/Sm32cd3rYoE/v-deo.html
Cheers!
Adding another silver rule: When in doubt don't rely on color alone to convey crucial information, if your palette has a few colors match each of them with a distinctive shape and you'll boost readability for anyone with color vision deficiency
In "Ticket to Ride", each card and rail color also has a distinct icon.
The game pieces, however, all look the same. It's like half colorblind friendly.
This video would've been so much better if you placed your cards on the table instead of waving them into the camera for a second.
You have to be careful with symbols. Too many (or poor icons) and you risk creating a whole symbolic language that players have to learn before they can play, making the cards harder to read.
Definitely agreed. Several of my game-creating friends prefer symbols, but to me that feels like learning a new language of hieroglyphics. Might be friendlier for players who don't speak the same language, but when we do all speak the same language, I strongly prefer that language to be used, not symbols.
After all, isn't a later principle supposed to be that we should limit how much the players need to reference the rule book?
@@brianbaker1700I think if the symbols represent a “thing”, and not a property, that may be something easier to understand.
Like, if you see a picture of a rock, being used to stand for a rock, you can tell it is a rock. If you see e.g. a magic orb of some color, it seems easy to get that that is referring to a “thing” one can possess or spend or something. Especially if it doesn’t do anything beyond “be a thing you can have or spend”.
A symbol for “double-strike” or “flying” would probably be confusing.
the worst example of this I've ever seen was a Batman minis/ boardgame kickstarter. Literally everything was iconified. No text at all. But every icon had a specific and sometimes complex effect. It was really, really, bad.
Voidfall comes to mind
Yeah, I agree with this one. In the video Dave said to "keep the rules on the cards, not in a rule book" or something to that effect, then also said to use symbols when text is repeated. The issue is that if the symbols aren't able to be defined on the card because using the symbol at all is meant to keep information concise, then you're offloading the explanation of the symbols to the rule book which is exactly contradictory to the other advice. The important thing is to consider how the information is conveyed.
For example, A "tap" symbol like from Magic avoids needing to use the word "tap" or whatever word you use, in my game's case "tax". It's not that these words are very long. In fact the icon is only a few pixels shorter than the word written in the card's text. And when the card text says to "tap target permanent" or whatever in Magic it spells it out instead of using the icon. But the explanation for what this symbol means is entirely in the rule book. Why is this symbol necessary? The reason it's important is that you don't need to read it at all if it's a symbol, and it identifies it as a cost just like the mana costs. You just take it in at a glance, and you understand it to be a cost because other costs such as mana are in the same location on some cards. Why is mana a symbol? To be concise, yes, but it's more than that. It indexes them. They're all circles with different flavor shapes inside and unique colors from one another. The tap symbol is not mana, but it's also kept round and anyway you have to tap the lands to generate mana, so it's the same function just moved to the card itself.
The most important amendment I'd make to the golden rule described in the video about when to use symbols is to use them whenever you would otherwise be repeating a key word, or key phrase, which is only slightly worded differently than the video itself but has a core meaning change. Remember that the reason is because the repeated phrase is important because it has depth that must be precise and universal. It's law. If it didn't need to be taken as law, it wouldn't need to be repeated in the exact same way every time and then fully explained in the rule book. The ability text that's written on a card is a contract, but a contract is just a paper covered in words until the court of law steps in to enforce it. Keywords are law themselves which contracts refer to for authority, and icons replacing keywords are done when the law needs to be identified as similar to one another and therefor indexed together in your mind, or when the keywords are too verbose like my comments. Red circle and blue circle are both indexed as mana in Magic, and mana is currency backed by law. Sometimes the mana symbol is there when it's provided, and sometimes removed. No need for the mana to have a + or - on it, though, because the contract outlines the terms like in all other contracts. Just know that the card has a purchase receipt in the top right corner which is always mana removed by using placement on the card as a language, and the card effect sections have a spot for mana removed as well at the start of the effect, and also for tapping in the same spot. If you find mana inside the text body, however, you need to refer to the rest of the effect contract to see how the law will apply this symbol.
Also numbers are just symbols in language that have mathematical laws backing them as well. When you use numbers you're just using symbols who's rulebooks are taught thoroughly at school. 1 is an image that replaces the key word "one", just like 1/2 replaces "one half", but if you use them just right you can have your rulebook override some mathematical key words such as in Magic when 1/2 means "1 power and 2 toughness". This is another case of Magic using location as a form of language. 1 is a mathematical keyword that could be anywhere, but because of its location relative to the rest of the card and especially the / beside it this 1 also means "power" which is a separate keyword also defined in the rule book. Together these mean "one power", which is relevant to like 50 paragraphs of text for "power" in the completed rule book, and entire math degrees worth of information to fully define "one".
Anyway, I went on a bit of a ramble there. Gonna get back to eating my lunch. 😅
I think the example of Magic really is shaped by how you fan the cards in your hand; for example, i have always naturally fanned cards so that the "topmost" card was on the left, so costs were always unobscured. It has never occured to me that some people were arranging their hands so that the topmost card was on the right. I'm also right-handed.
You can also sort them in your hand making search much easier
Likewise! I'm right-handed but naturally hold my cards the "left-handed" way.
I agree with the overall principle of not obscuring important information, but disagree that putting costs on the left side is the solution.
I think because regular playing cards have the number and suit in the top left, the "top card to the right" method is the default.
@@LuckySketchesit's not just "regular" 52 card decks that are like that, it's the standard practice for basically every board game that involves cards, and every new TCG of the last two decades.
Yes, MtG putting the cost in the wrong top corner is "ok" because you can fan the hand backwards if you don't have the cards in your deck memorized yet, but doing so will hide the name of the cards. Some people resort to stacking their hand vertically with the entire top like of every card visible, while others sort their hand by cost so you know "everything else costs more than the top one". MtG only gets away with breaking the rule because it's too entrenched to fix it now.
If your primary market is "the west", anywhere that reads from top to bottom & left to right, putting the most important two or three things on the left & top edge of the card is common sense.
many sets of 52 card playing cards have the numbers in all 4 corners. presumably this is because the makers are aware that some people fan the cards the opposite way!
there’s no need to be dogmatic and prescriptive about it, but knowing that most people fan their cards a certain way, it is at least pragmatic to cater to that expectation. unfortunately for me, it feels too unnatural to fan them the ‘normal’ way
As an illustrator primarily and working on a game with a friend of mine, it made me tear up a little to see "Art is paramount" tacked on at the end. I love seeing appreciation for the visual elements get so much weight, and I love the emphasis of the art as a core game element. *Note: being the principal illustrator for an entire game is murder on the wrists, BUT, tons of fun.*
Thank you for your video. I probably have some layouts to revisit haha
It's weird to me, a lot of card games recently seem to have fallen out of love with art design, but to me it's absolutely vital. Most of the new TCGs since lockdown have had plain ugly art, and MTG of course has only been putting out a dozen genuinely good card arts a year since 2014. It's impossible to be interested in a game that can't offer me any cards that look cool enough for me to want to build a deck.
@@yurisei6732 Wow. I only play MTG casually, I didn't know the new art scene was that bad. I think the last of anything new I saw was New Capenna (not all great, but I was probably more lenient on the art given my partiality to Art Deco). Considering there are no other visual assets in a card game, you'd think they'd pay much closer attention to that...
Long shot but if you're interested in staying up-to-date with the project I mentioned, I'd be happy to send the linkedin page where we'll eventually be posting our dev discord.
Definitely trying not to fall into the same blandness-of-art rut, but perks of being a tiny dev team is we have full say over that lol
@@drawingmoo4109 I'm not sure what @yurisei6732 is saying, mtg has great art. maybe they just hate the more realistic style.
@@BEANCO-td1hr how did you interpet that comment as saying MTG art is bad?
Only just now am i realising that right handed magic players have the cost covered up, something i hope never changes, lefties need every win they can get
You know, I've never really thought about it like that. Interesting.
That's why it's allllll the way in the corner. So when you fan them out enough you can still read it.
Lefties can’t uncover the cost without covering the name of the card. It’s still not an issue either way, but the right-handedness has nothing to do with it.
In italy, or at least in my city everyone use it from the left, its kinda strange to have problems seeing yugioh levels, atk def and magic costs but you get used to it
The direction you feather out the cards is not dictated by the hand you are holding it in. The reason you don't cover up the cost is because you can tell what cards you are holding by the cost and the right side of the artwork.
"If it can be said in fewer words, say it in fewer words"
Meanwhile Yu-Gi-Oh: You can remove 6 Spell Counters from your field; Special Summon this card from the Pendulum Zone, then count the number of cards you control that can have a Spell Counter, destroy up to that many cards on the field, and if you do, place spell Counters on this card equal to the number of cards destroyed. you can only use this effect of "Endymion, the Mighty Master of Magic" once per turn. Once per turn, when a Spell/Trap Card of effect is activated (Quick Effect): You can return 1 card you control with a Spell Counter to the hand, and if you do, negate the activation, and if you do that, destroy it. Then, you can place the same number of Spell counters on this card that the returned card had. While this card has a Spell Counter, your opponent cannot target it with card effects, also it cannot be destroyed by your opponent's card effects. When this card with a Spell Counter is destroyed by battle: You can add 1 Normal Spell from your Deck to your hand.
i did an experiment condensing yugioh card text in a reasonable way. some cards condense well and others do not because of how specific they are. try it for yourself.
I only read the 6 spell counters and I instantly knew you it was lmao
who* not you
Everyone knows about Endymion
That's exactly one of the reasons why I gave up on Yu-Gi-Oh
Nice video, very helpful.
One thing I would add is that the secondary purpose of the artwork is to make cards easily recognizable from a distance for players who have played the game before.
On adding symbols to the card, I disagree that they should outright replace text. If you study Magic cards, you’ll see that while they use, for example, the tap symbol when saying “tap the card to do this”, if they mention tapping in the rest of the text they say the word “tap”. They only have a few symbols that they routinely use in the actual ability text: those for mana costs, and even then it’s used sparingly. People know how to read words, but they don’t come to your game knowing what your symbols mean in the context of your game. If you send them to the reference manual too many times to figure out what your symbols mean it’ll be frustrating. You can still use your symbols if you think they’d be useful, but reminder text (again, see mtg) is a good idea so that players stay immersed.
I agree with a lot of this depending on the context. For CCG's I'm on board 100%, I tried to keep this video valuable to anyone designing a cards layout for any reason but it was mostly through the lens of board games. I have a bias because our game is leaning more towards the other direction and needs to be readable on the table and not in your hand. You bring up a great point, the key is readability and to a lesser extent theme. When everything works well together the game is awesome. I referenced magic quite a bit because most people are familiar with it, but it was also designed many years ago so use that how you will. I also 100% agree that having to go into the rulebook for every keyword or the FAQ ruins most games.
The tap symbol and the word tap have different mechanical effects, though. Even so, i agree. Symbols should be used sparingly for only the most common elements of the game
In some ways I think one could consider keywords a kind of symbol. There's some tradeoffs compared to graphical symbols though; particularly I think graphical symbols stand out more and can stand out even in small spaces, but keywords can be more intuitive to read especially in terms of pronouncing a card out loud (like if trying to describe a card in Magic that has Haste, one just says "it has haste", but if it had some symbol like a person running or similar it might not be obvious how to say it without checking the rules). I think with a CCG the large potential card pool makes it make sense to have some priority on being able to pronounce text easily while that might not be necessary in the scope of a single board game.
I wonder also if perhaps some particular kinds of gameplay elements are better suited to graphical representation while others work better textually.
Tap symbol is not the same meaning as the word "tap" though.
@@brofst reading the comment replies explains the comment replies
Art serves a extremely important function: it allows people to mentally chunk the effects of a card to an image. It's much easier to tell apart images than blocks of text, especially with cards in hand. After reading my cards, I can remember what they do at a glance by seeing the artwork.
Yu-Gi-Oh especially utilizes this. Then there's the connections between art and effects, if the art is of a magical effect, I expect a spell, it gets me in the right mindset to understand the effect of the card. If the art is a big monster, I expect a big monster stats.
I've been working slowly on the art for my game, and the cards with art are 50x easier to play with than the ones without.
I agree a lot. Was listening to him talk about how the visual hierachy means that you should put the card names at the very top when I realised that Cardfight Vanguard has the card names at the very bottom instead. I've never had an issue in identifying the cards though and I dont know anyone that has such an issue even when fanning out the cards in their hand and the names are covered up. Tbh, as long as you are able to recognise the card and know the effect, you can play even if you aren't able to read any of the words on the card. In that train of thought, the art of a card is probably more important than the actual name in helping you recognise it.
@@epucgaming1008 Title does not need to be at the top. But, top to bottom ordering can help you remember information in the order of: "card name - card effect".
Personally I think "Shadowverse evolve" has amazing card layouts, and they have name at the bottom.
As a long time magic player with an interest in game design I love how MTG is the exception to most of these rules. Goes to show what defining a genre can do for you
Magic took all these existing rules and set them in stone. sure, there were some growing pains and formatting problems with alpha and beta, but the game is a perfect example for each of these. this guy can't even read cards he's holding and think it's the cards' problem.
I think that the rules defined here are flawed and instead MTG has found them through their trial, error and listening to backlash when they move key components. There are some good rules in the video but the cost location one IMO is awful.
I'd be very careful with symbols. If the first card I ever read says something like "[symbol I've never seen] 1 of your [another symbol I've never seen]", I'm probably not going to be very interested. If it happens during a game, not only am I going to have to look it up, I won't even know what to Google. Even if I have an experienced player who can help me, is going to be very embarrassing and confusing to ask "what does the little symbol that kinda looks like a question mark mean?"
On the other hand, if symbols *reinforce* an idea, then I 100% agree. In your game, I see the big green green in your card. So when the effect asks if the card below is [green gem], I immediately get what it means, even if "green gem" isn't the right term.
Keywords are very similar in that regard but: they (should) have reminder text, and at least they're words you can say to ask. Plain symbols replacing entire words or phrases are a problem if they're important.
I appreciate the approach that is for example seen in Ark Nova, which makes heavy use of symbology but then provides you with a cheat sheet for the sombols.
@@Jerom_ I think board games have very different expectations.
There can be a legend for all the symbols
@@disrespecc9678 And where would you put that? In a helper card that everyone has to carry everywhere? In a board game at home, you always have access to everything you need. In a tcg, you only carry your decks and some dice, not the rules.
@@fernandobanda5734 aaand I’m not talking about trading card games, just dedicated deck games
I’ve never once had a problem reading what my cards cost in my hand while playing MTG.
They even tried “fixing” this problem in the Future Sight set and then realized it wasn’t broken to begin with.
Completely agree. Not an issue.
I tested it with some of my magic card and I prefer to fan the other way around, with the bottom card on the right and the top card on the left. Seems like there is quite a bit of variability here and there is no one way people do it.
exactly my thought... it just depends on how you fan out your cards, not if the symbol is on the left or right.@@Jerom_
I don't get why he isn't just fanning the cards the other way around? With the left-most card on top. . .
@@Lothrean Probably habits.
Looking at regular playing cards (like poker cards), while some cards have the name on all 4 corners, a lot of the biggest brands (like Bicycle) have the name of the card only on the top-left and bottom-right. It seems to be generally accepted as a common practice to fan cards with the top-left corner visible.
And the only peoples I've met that complained about it were left-handed, so maybe there is something about the majority of right-handed peoples finding it easier to fan that way while the majority of left-handed peoples finding it easier to fan the other way.
As for my own experience, I'm right-handed, and I hold card with my left-hand so that I can play with my right hand. While with two hands I can fan both ways, if I try to fan only with my left hand (and I do one-handed fanning most of the time), it's much easier for me to fan to show the top-left corner. I can do it with one sweep of my big thumb, while I need multiple tries and/or some helps from my other fingers to fan the other way.
I designed a card game a few years ago, and I've always wanted to take it to the next level. I recently got excited about updating it, and this video showed up just in time. Thanks, Dave! Great info
I designed a card game, then while looking online for Layout examples (such as this video) I discovered Land, Air & Sea, which was about 90% similar to the game I invented.
That was actually really interesting to hear.
As a magic player, I had always wondered why they decided to try such a drastic change for FutureSight, but if they were trying to test the waters with a more streamlined layout, that makes so much sense.
It has always bothered me that when I'm holding my cards in my hand, I'm either covering the name, or the cost.. So it makes a lot of sense why they tried to change it.
I also find it a little amusing to hear Golden Rule #4.
Not that Yu-Gi-Oh technically breaks it... but the fact that later cards do become multiple paragraphs is pretty funny.
I disagree with the point you make about fanning cards. I fan them in the other direction, with the top card on the left rather than the right, especially when playing Magic. This lets me see all the costs easily. The top right of a card isn't an automatic no-go zone.
I'm totally with you.
For a game I'm making, I'm putting the most important part (a number) in the top left, to cater to people who prefer that, and I'm finding it easy to simply switch to an unnatural card-holding position while playing the game. As long as each game is internally consistent, it's fine!
I disagree with the fanning thing as well, but for a different reason. Unless I'm playing a deck that I've never played, I am going to know the exact or roughly the cost of the cards. I need the name of the card first and foremost.
Not a pro like you, but I couldn't disagree more about using symbols instead of text for recurring keywords. Symbols take a ton of memory space to learn since you have to connect them to words in your head anyway, and I get really turned off reading text with too many of them. I feel like MTG does symbols really well: it has 7 recurring symbols (the 5 mana symbols, the colorless mana symbol, and the tap symbol), but all of these fall into categories (mana and tapping). The mana symbols don't take much memory space to tell them apart from each other because they're all the same size and shape, so really you have two symbols- mana symbols and tapping. 2 symbols is a lot easier to memorize than 5 or more, which is something I see in a lot of games nowadays.
The symbols in MTG also don't come up when describing interactions between cards. MTG never uses the tap symbol to tell you that a card taps down an opposing creature, only to tell you to tap a card for an effect.
I had to learn some of these rules the hard way. Designing card layout and legibility is a lot harder than people realize.
On that first rule, I fan with my thumb, not with my fingers. I think it comes from playing video games as much as I have, but it was also because I specifically fan my cards the way I do due to Magic Card layouts. The power and toughness is very inconveniently under my right hand thumb, but knowing the cost rules out cards before their power and toughness is relevant anyway, so I can move my thumb to see that or the card effect. Whichever I need to see right now. Memorizing my cards also lets me only consider them on if I can play them or not, which means my method of fanning which is just "reverse how you do it" and is just as easy and viable as your method. Not sure why you do it that way unless you're playing Poker, honestly. But anyway, that's not a flaw on the cards. It's a very minor mistake in your method of holding them.
In the case of Magic the cost is simply on the same side as the power and toughness to allow you to expose both at the same time. This is particularly useful is OG Magic where you had many monsters that only had a power and toughness and no effect, so you could stack them to cover everything except the card's colors (in the cost), and power and toughness on the same side.
I'm not making this comment to say "you're wrong" because you're not! Just like with your method of fanning your hand works best for Poker and some other games but not for Magic, it's an element of the game that's designed for. There is no "correct location" for a cost. There is only a "best location for your game" for a cost assuming you have a cost. So yeah, you're right in your case, but I wanted to make this comment to help anyone new to game design understand that like all other examples and rules of design the location of your card's cost is up to interpretation within the confines of your game.
Also try fanning your Magic cards out with your thumb instead.
“Spacing between lines” is “leading.” Typesetters used to insert strips of lead between rows of text
TIL
Hey Dave, im an indie game dev who has been trying to put together a good card game for a while (turns out it isnt easy as I jad always assumed). This video was incredibly helpful, especially for someone like me who doesnt have the skills to handle the artwork and bas therefore been focused much more on nailing the basic layout of the cards. I wish there was more good quality information available online about the intricacies of designing these games.
Thanks for taking the time to say this, I'm glad you found it helpful! I'm in the same boat, that's why I did this deep dive into how I can make things look good with the un-artistic side of my skills.
"You can't see the costs of the cards." Proceeds to fan them backwards from every card game since forever...
if a phrase is repeated to describe something that's a full sentence, consider coining a key game term for it. It makes the rulebook cleaner. Nobody iterates just cards. It's a back and forth process.
i often hear the mtg thing about hiding the mana cost in the fanned hand, but I'd argue that the name (and art) is more important. there is so much more info about the card hidden in a grip, but players know the cards by name or at least the illustration
Battle Spirits Saga cards are excellently designed according to these rules. Very readable elements both in hand and at a glance.
As someone who is designing a homemade card game, that may never see that light of day.
I did learn some very useful information, although I'm not sure revamping my game for the 7th time, is all that worth it.
😆
I like how in Terraforming Mars, the card abilities are written entirely in symbols, and they have a tiny explanation in words at the bottom. It's very easy to understand cards from across the table at a glance, and even if you can't, most cards are single use so there are only a few cards to memorize (and because of the huge iconography, it's memorization with a huge hint).
The future sight set cards are actually one of my favourite mtg card designs. Not for any particular reason other than they look really cool.
in moderate defense to having names of cards in the top left corner instead of costs, they can act as a really good information shortcut to really experienced players.
as an MTG player, if I saw a fanned out hand of cards in a vacuum and see Counterspell in the top left corner of one of them, I've played the game enough to know exactly how much it costs and what it does just by seeing that name alone, in this case two blue mana.
If I saw the cost in that position instead, it's certainly the most useful info I could know about the card while it hasn't yet been played, but (ignoring any other potential visual indicators for the sake of this example like seeing part of the art) I might not necessarily know *what* card it might be of that cost, for all I know the deck might be stacked with other cards that also cost two blue mana.
however this only applies once you have played a game enough to tell what any card does just by the name or the art, this doesn't apply to new players which you should be probably be formatting the card's interface in service of. Not saying that the golden rule is straight up wrong or anything, just that if you are going to put something else there, I think the card name would be the second best alternative
Another thing to bear in mind magic is that you generally build your deck as well. Which means that you'll usually know all the cards you put into it, so you likely do know all the card names.
Iconography is nice until you need to read the text out, or tell the other players what the text means.
Games with a lot of iconography are a bigger pain in the ass. Terrible having to pause a game to look up a symbol, and harder to look up symbol than a word.
Just take a moment to try, and play Aeon Trespass for the first time, and run into symbols that have no reference to them in the glossary, but instead somewhere within the main section of rules.
You'll find that keywords work better overall unless you use very few icons.
As an aspiring game designer this helps a lot.
One thing that should be added is have a border. I'm not talking about magic's green, red, blue, white, black, Im talking about pokemon's silver/yellow. you can have the art take up the whole card but no border (vanguard) is more overwhelming than any amount of text and symbols. it also "cheapens" the art. when you hang a poster on your wall, having or not having a frame complete changes the feel and importance of the art.
Great tips! I think Bandai has been knocking it out of the park with their recent card design, especially with Digimon. That game has basically become my gold standard for card design now. They use keywords instead of symbols, but I actually prefer that with a TCG. Card text with symbols are definitely better for board games.
That's something I'll definitely have to look into, Digimon was a big part of my childhood. It'll be near to see what the modern card game looks like now days.
I was also going to comment about the Digimon TCG. Is such a clean design and works so well within the mechanics. The updated design that is rolling in in the latest set prevent future clutering on the card to open game design (not a different bubble color for each evo but a outercircle with the color information filled in). Also how despite all, the art is allowed to shine like any other card game allow for their common cards
@@thunderybuggy7399 And that outer circle is going to increase clarification for people with colorblindness. Such a great design that people can learn from.
Kicking myself now! So much of this is retrospectively so obvious, shocked i never even considered them before ! Thanks so much
I'd argue that the name of a card is significantly less important than several other elements you placed lower. They may be especially useful for playtesting or categorizing, but for most players, they don't have to care about the name. I'd argue that the art is more important because it is much more immediately recognizable.
This video is a god send. I have been struggling with my TCG for awhile now.
I'll interject one counter point: art is the most important, and should take up the most space, because it conveys the most information the fastest. When a card becomes known, and reading it is no longer necessary, the image will immediately alert the player(s) to what the card is.
Like Pot of Greed or Black Lotus. The cards are known enough and remembered enough that the image immediately invokes their effects and names.
6:21 I wouldn't say that I "hate change" so much as that Gangar card is literal eye cancer.
As for the Magic Card, sure there's some minor merit to your Rule 1, but it's *very* minor. As you say later, the cards in your hand are indeed the cards you put into your deck, so you don't need the mana cost visible all the time while you have things tightly fanned. People have object permanence and minor memory capacities. They can see the mana cost (and other info) and then remember it for most cards even when it's obscured.
Furthermore, The mana cost being on the left side under the name of Tarmogoyf now causes two problems.
First is that it's obscuring the picture, and the picture is the most important thing because - again - people remember the info on their own cards. They just need to recognize which card they have, and that mana cost there is obscuring the image if there are similar 1-F green cards.
Two, the beauty of Magic cards is that everything is placed in its own relevant space, so you can find the information you want about the card by looking at a distinct section of it. name, image, mana cost, creature type, power/toughness, effects (and sometimes flavor text). They're partitioned out so everything is clear and the info for one section doesn't distract from info in another section. This puts the mana cost and the name in the same spot, and makes the mana cost unclear because of the curved behavior. This works for something that costs some colorless mana and a single colored mana, but what if it cost 3 forests? 5 forests? Now the mana cost design has to curve around and make the spacing uneven and make counting harder. So your format is either going to suck for some cards, or you're going to only use this format for cards with few colored mana, making a split standard which makes it that much worse to look at cards and evaluate their information at a glance. Because now you need to look in two different locations with two different formats for mana cost.
Which is why that Gangar card is such cancer. The image now covers the whole damn thing, being distracting in general and making reading any of the text a nightmare. Well defined borders and information is important.
And no, it doesn't have to be "most to least important, top to bottom" like some kind of passage in a book. The important thing is that relevant information is visible, and in its own space so you can instantly fixate on whatever information is most
Sorry but, while this video was nicely produced, you're speaking like these design rules are gospel. And that'd be fine if they were fundamental and ironclad but, frankly, they're arbitrary, poorly supported, and often missing what's important. You're not arranging text on a page or trying to tell a whole cards story from the 10% visible in a tightly fanned hand. You want each card, individually, to have its information clear, organized, identifiable, and recognizable. Absolute location doesn't matter as much as being distinct. People's memory takes care of the rest.
And because it's so bad, I have to say it a third time. That Gangar card was cancer and you ought to be ashamed for holding that up as some kind of implication that players "just don't know what's good for them."
The design of mtg has gotten increasingly worse, both design and the images themselves. One of the reasons I never'll come back.
I played mostly from 4th edition to Urza's Legacy. Cards have generally gotten worse looking since then.
I think I'd like to suggest a change to the silver rule about colour blindness: Never have icons that mean different things be the same icon/design but just in a different colour. It is a surefire way to make the game completely unplayable for a portion of people. Take for example in MTG: The different mana symbols practically mean the same thing, but they all have designs that make sure you can tell them apart even if they were to be in just black and white (like people with complete colour blindness would see them, for example). It was the first thing I thought of at 10:15 when you showed the example card. The green and gray crystals at the top of the card (the cost) should be different designs and not just different colours.
11:20 I actually really like card games that have their art in a frame on the card like the big 3 Magic, Pokemon, and Yugioh do. It keeps the image clear and unobscured by mechanical aspects of the game shown in text or icons. It means that when I'm looking at the art I'm looking at the art unobstructed and able to appreciate it fully, and when I'm looking for mechanical components I can find them where I know they will be without the colors and shapes of the art behind them distracting my eye and changing the color and shape language of the area around the game mechanic icon or text. I also care about my cards, and when a nick at the edge of a card damages a black or yellow, or white border or whatever, I don't care so much, but if it damages the edge of the card art I'm much more invested and bummed out by it. I can appreciate the odd full card art style from time to time, but I never use those cards, with the exception of simple resource cards such as energies in Pokemon or lands in Magic where there isn't really any other icons or text to worry about obscuring and the image is simple enough that it won't matter so much. I know it would make all card games look exactly the same if they have an art frame, and the art is in the upper half of the card, and the name is above that, and maybe that chokes the market a lot by new games looking "samey" at a glance, but if you make your game have art to the edges, and card information on top of the art, it fatigues me mentally over time in a way that's not necessary, and I won't pick up those cards to play as often as I might have if I wasn't fatigued by just looking at them.
The golden rule here should be "Treat your art like any other image on your card. You wouldn't layer icons or make text run across them. Don't layer icons or text over images. Art is paramount." The image is just a bigger icon which is more unique from other icons so it can serve to identify the card at a glance. It should be respected as such. For example, the big green orb your game puts overlapping the base of the card art could have been a green bar that served as a bottom frame with a much smaller circle or diamond part at the middle of the line where your green orb is located. Small enough that it doesn't intrude visually on the image above or the information below, but wide enough as a bar to always be visible no matter where your thumb lands while holding it. Almost the width of the card. I'd actually recommend making this change in your own game's layout in future card sets if it's a persistent game, or later editions if it's a boxed card game. The big colorful circle is fun and whimsical at first glance, but it's also just a massive blank green field on the card that's wasting space and obscuring other elements. If it was white or black you'd see it for the wasted space it is as designed. It kind of feels like I had paint on my thumb when I was playing the game one time and now that smudge won't ever come off.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to be too harsh, and I realize this is a lot of criticism in one of 3 comments on a video with 5 golden rules, so I want to end this one saying these observations aren't terrible. We all have our own methods and opinions. Take them or leave them, and don't let yourself dwell on what I've said here for more than it took to read the text unless you feel like you agree with what I said. In which case thanks for reading, and your welcome for helping. This is all coming from a place of kindness and support on my side. Not meaning to be an ass or anything. 😄
Totally agree. I also prefer cards to be framed, and text or symbols overlapping art should be kept to an absolute minimum, if at all. In my opinion, Yu-Gi-Oh got it down perfectly when it comes to the art-to-information ratio, and its borders are perfect. Yes, they look like crap *now,* but that's only because they made the mistake of adding more and more complicated effects and thus having to shrink the font down to a size 6. If you revisit some of the classic Yu-Gi-Oh cards you may be pleasantly reminded of just how perfect the layout is.
Very useful advice, keep up the content. Been printing and playtesting my game over the last 3 months but am completely rebuilding it using your methods to playtest online now
It's a pain, but totally worth it. :)
This is very interesting and never thought of some of these. They make sense. This is very good insight and very helpful for me as someone that has been making my own card games for years now and looking to hopefully publish games someday. Thank you! I'll have to keep these rules in my mind.
"People hate change."
It's so true yet so frustrating... i personal like that new magic card border, and the full art on the pokemon card with white and black text is a neat idea.
I’ve been implementing rule 4 a ton in my recent iteration of my card game. My cards already have symbols associated with them (🐚 for Monster, 🎲 for Item, 🏠 for Place, 🗡️ for Attack, ❤ for HP, etc.) so instead of an ability saying “search deck for item. Shuffle afterwards” it would say “search deck for 🎲. Shuffle Afterwards”. It’s good to remember to not go overboard though. There was a brief time where I’d summarize everything in symbols like “🔄🤚⬅️” which was suppose to mean “swap hands with player on left”. It was obvious to me but made it confusing for other players.
Excellent quality. Super helpful. I am thankful that I think I did pretty well with all these when I sent my latest prototype update to the printer.
Literally watching this video while designing the cards for my game. Great video!
Literally replying to this comment while designing our action system ;) Thanks!
Really slick video. Lots of great points that verbalize well the thoughts I've had but haven't been able to put into words. Thanks, man!
Great video! I gasped at the first rule. Can't believe I'd never considered it before.
Thanks for this list! Soooo many games don't do rule number 3 use way more words in their texts than necessary. I suspect they're trying to use more words to try to be less confusing but it always ends up being more confusing!
And yesss on using symbols too. I know there's an argument against symbols that says that they make it harder for new players to understand a game because they have to keep looking them up in the rules, but the truth is they only have to look them up in the rules a few times and then they'll remember them and the game will be so much easier to understand.
These are great rules for anything really. It's like a mini design basics class. Nice work.
This is really good. Simple and quick but packed with info. Keep this up!
Distinctive art also acts as a sort of shorthand for experienced players, a highly detailed symbol that identifies the card. Nobody can read a tiny text box upsidedown across the table, and they might not easily be able to read the name, either, but if they see the art and are familiar with it, then they'll recognize the card.
OMG; i have been designing games for a year...this is a game changer.
This video is pure gold! Well done!
Should be a watch for every indie tcg creator. So many new games have amazing art that is just kneecapped by the worst design. Design is essential to making a professional looking game and it’s always skipped over.
Ironically MTG actually solved the first golden Rule with "Future Sight" expansion as all the cards had the Cost on the left border, and then they scrapped it and went back to traditional MTG layout.
Amazing video, thank you so much.
A little confused with the symbols advice; you replaced green with a green symbol, but I know of a fellow game player who is blue-green colorblind, and you mentioned accommodating colorblindness. I'd recommend doing something MTG has done; giving each color its own shape or design, similar to how MTG and Pokemon each has their own mana/energy symbol.
That said, I'd love to learn more about your game!
Wow, this was super interesting! Thanks a lot, I'll be sure to learn some more from you :D
I am making a card game myself and this was very helpful. SUB !
It's genious and concise video, thank you. Your videos are as well designed as well-designed board games.
For Yugioh the way the games developed over the years the tiny font is mandatory for example as current topical card reads:
|
You can target 1 face-up monster on the field or in either GY; place it face-up in its owner's Spell & Trap Zone as a Continuous Spell. During your opponent's turn (Quick Effect): You can target 1 Monster Card treated as a Continuous Spell on the field; Special Summon it to your field. If this card is sent from the hand or field to the GY: You can Special Summon 2 Level 1 FIRE monsters from your GY. You can only use each effect of "Snake-Eyes Flamberge Dragon" once per turn.
|
But if the cards didn't explain all their rulings in the text and only said the most important parts (losing the nuance) a revised friendly version would read like:
- Place 1 face-up monster on the field or GY, in its owner's Backrow as a Continuous Spell.
- During your opponent's turn (Instant): You can Summon monster treated as a continuous spell to your field.
- If this card is sent from the hand or field to the GY: You can Summon 2 Level 1 FIRE monsters from your GY.
It's still a lot of text and Konami had no Idea how ridiculous the game would get and it's funny that removing texy from mosy modern cards msked then infinitely stronger.
Thanks for considering colourblind players.
Excellent information and presentation. Going to check out the rest of your channel. Subscribed! Thanks again. 👍
Nice vid, bet the mana-not-visible problem isn't really a problem, you just have to hold the cards differently. It doesn't matter if the mana is on the left or right, if you don't hold the cards correctly you won't see the costs even if they are printed on the left. But yes, I know what you mean, costs should not be printed in the middle.
I have not play a single game of lorcana yet. But damn I want to pull some of those cards (not even a disney fan). So I 100% agree with rule #5
I feel like for your game specifically, "If the card below this one" will show up a lot, so it would be good to also make that an icon
5:20 my eyes went to the art and then up, so the elements were in the reverse order to ejst you describe.
Having played arkham horror, the card titles wind up being the less importsnt thing and i identify the cards by their art.
I really liked your videos,
I have been making board games for more then 10 years(for fun)
but these tips(watched all of your vids.) were really good.
got new energy on a game we are design for more the 4 years now.
and went back to drawing board a couple of times.
But now we making some real progress...
Do you need some play testers for you games?
I loved your video's keep em coming.
I think until now and probably another card game appears in the future, my favourite card design is from Cardfight! Vanguard. It's just visually clear to me, but that could just be bias
One caveat with the golden rule about symbols is that symbols are an intro barrier to your game in the same way that magic's keywords are. To get around this they have a sub-rule: if you have space to explain the thing, explain the thing. This most commonly occurs with set-specific keywords like Soulbond. What does Soulbond do? Well I can look at my Wingcrafter (which is a common card) and everything I need to know about the keyword is right there. Now when I get a rare or mythic card that JUST has the keyword I already know what it does.
So one variation of your card could read: Gain one colourless power shard (colourless power shard symbol). If the card below this one is (green), this card has a combat value (sword) of 1.
would love to see a video on card gameplay design
Just discovered this channel. Great video! I would LOVE to see a video on how to design cardbacks
At 10:20 you said Adaptive Growth increases your attack by 1, but the card says it sets your attack to 1. Was that a slip of the tongue or a card grammar issue? I haven't finished the video, so maybe that was intentional and you address this by the end as another example for a golden rule.
Easy test for color blind people, because there are multiple types. If your card can't be easily played in Grayscale, you need to change something.
Nicely done informative content
What an incredibly insightful video, I think within the near future that you will go very far in the industry my friend
I've definitely found when playing magic that art is the most important part of card identification
The different art makes navigating lots of cards much easier
Something like 2/3 of men have some degree of color-deficiency. Thanks for including us.
Your video starts with a question (can you pick out all the flaws?) but it did not end with an answer. Consider closing all the loops you start, it makes the video feel more satisfying to watch.
@@Wizard_of_the_Tower That's fair, I didn't realize I left that open, good call.
And the most important rule above all, tldr make a good game that looks good
Great points! I’d like your thoughts on frames of cards and other background information that is sometimes used to convey information.
I'm a big fan of that, it's like easter eggs but actually important information. Using everdell again as an example, it took me a few playthroughs to fully understand what each colored of card did mechanically, for the first few games I just knew I had to collect specific colors for points. I later learned that blue is triggers, purple is VP, etc.
A great video. One thing I could do with advice though is good places to look for art work. What are places to seek help with art work/illustration/imagery? How do you go about finding an artist to help? Or is there software out there that can provide a foundation point?
For a moment I thought you were wrong about MtG obscuring the casting costs when you fan the cards out... then I realized I got used to fanning the cards the opposite way exactly because of this problem.
Nice video! I like how you used cards from popular games to demonstrate the rules by pointing out ways that their design could be improved.
Funny how the everdell card you used as an example is the only one in my box which has a misprint in that specific data point. (II instead of III)
Great video, hope you're doing well (just saw the latest video was about 4 months ago). If you plan on uploading more, I'm looking forward to them
I intend to make more soon, thanks for reaching out :) I want to try slightly different content, still educational but more about content creation than board games specifically. Glad you liked my vid!
Art is very important not just aesthetically but functionally. Once I am familiar with a card, I rely on the art to recognize it in play. Tell me the name of a card and I won’t know wtf you are referring to, I need the visual cue. Not saying I’m the norm, but I’m sure there are others like me.
Rule #1, i fan my cards from left to right (front to back) so I see all of my MTG costs instantly. The rule still applies though
I find that observation interesting because I thought about how I play MTG. I fan the cards so that I see the casting cost and most of the art... and generally I know the cards by the art, not the name.
#4 is definitely one of the biggest criticisms I see of Yugioh right now.
Although they are long, the effects can be complex, and have a lot of specific limitations on when and how often they can be used. The latter is really what half of the text is. Terms and conditions. Additionally, in Asian language prints, they list out and give each effect a card has by a number, and reference each numbered effect whenever necessary. Also, makes it easy to know where one effect ends, and the other begins. All other languages, you have to read through a block of text, and deduce logically where each one ends, and each one begins. The Asian region is run and overseen by a different branch of Konami compared to the one in the West. So that is likely one reason why this format hasn't been moved over. One thing I actually would like to see get implemented.
And keywords discourse I've found to be pretty touchy subject too within the community. Some players seem to loathe the idea because everything isn't spelled out directly to them, and increases the number of things new players need to learn, or something to those lines. When the game alreaady technically has 2 keywords that exist (Excavate and piercing). Adding in a few more to very specific actions that cannot have variations wouldn't be the end of the world.
Although keywords in Yugioh in general is hard, since you can have like 6 different variations of a similar thing. Like in MTG, you have hexproof. It does one thing. While in Yugioh, you have cards that have similar abilities, but sometimes only for specific kinds of cards (Like only from Spells or only from monsters). You also have cards that are kind of reverse (Unaffected by anything that doesn't target it). At that point, it is probably easier to just be explicit with it at the cost of some real estate.
Race for the galaxy is a neat example of 'if it can be said in stmbols, use stmbols'. Very few of rhe cards hace words, its all symbols with a ckear iconography. You might have to refer to the rules a bit at first but after a while you learn tve symbols or can at least deduce roughly based on similar symbols.
Great video! Thank you for the fantastic analysis ;)
Everdell is one of my clearest examples of how card design makes a game practically unplayable for me. The text on the players' cards on the other side of the table is just so tiny, yet so important for me to know. Since I can't see the text, I just don't want to play.
The cost of the card is only hidden if you fan your hand out the way you showed. Fanning it correctly places the costs of each card in the top right showing each cost perfectly...
That is a mechanical skill we've all learned from playing the game. The point is that someone who's just picking up Magic, doesn't know that, and holds them like poker cards, has to fiddle around with cards in hand before they actually know what they can do in a turn. It's unnecessary friction. MTG gets away with it because so maybe people already have learned it, or have incentive to learn it because it's so popular. But you as an individual designer are limiting your audience to only people who are already familiar with this convention if you do the same thing.
@@siosilvar I feel like that's reason enough to keep designing card templates in way. The majority of people that play card games are card game players. Familiarity helps players understand new games faster. My whole point is magics cost in the top right or yugiohs attribute/level in the top right isn't a cut and dry bad design. There are pros and cons. The one piece tcg for example has costs in the top left instead and this makes it a frustrating experience for me to play as I have to awkwardly hold my cards backwards to what I am used to.
I was disappointed that the Future Sight design in Magic, where the mana cost is on the left side of the art box, didn't catch on. An actual card might have been less wacky, but that was a good element!
I remember when I first saw those cards, I liked the new location for costs but the card itself had too many rounded elements. Magic has always been boxy in my mind. Someone showed me the Saga's cards after I released this video as well, they are... interesting. gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&subtype=+[%22Saga%22]
The future sight design was kinda ugly. The cost is fine where it’s at now.
@@bradensorensen966 Was the transparent design ugly or the placement of the cost ugly? I think the aesthetics were kinda bad, but I really loved that you could fan out your cards and have the name and cost of your cards be easily referenced.
I think a huge thing a lot of games make is having too much visual clutter on a card. You dont need two different spheres of different colours to define attack and defense values, information like tribe or the colour of a card does not need to be communicated as a large sigil in the center of the card.
Knowing when to use graphics and when to just leave it streamlined is a huge thing for card design.
In my experience the most important information is:
What kind of card is it
When can i use it (instant vs sorcery)
What and how much resources does it use
What it actually does.
And that order is important as it decreses thinking time. Breaks in that rythm also makes the information harder to get right the first time you look glance over it.
I have another one, that Decipher broke with Star Trek 1st edition. "Never reference lore text in your game text". The card Hirogen Hunt is maybee the worst offender I have ever seen. [Hir] is in this case a way in text to show that on the card there is the Hirogen symbol.
Also, once each turn, you may report an Alpha-Hirogen (or any [Hir] card that names in its lore an Alpha-Hirogen you already have in play) for free.
When you play a Hirogen, you need to look in its lore text to see if there are any names in it. Then check if you have that character already in play. If it is in play, you need to check if it is an Alpha-Hirogen.