Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: On Elegance  (Read 3423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
On Elegance
« on: January 16, 2021, 06:43:38 am »
+9

There's this 'elegance' thing some people including me talk a lot about. But no-one ever explains exactly what this concept means, so here's an attempt.

I think it's something like, "explain what the card does informally. If shorter the description is, the more elegant the card."

For example, here are some elegant official cards:
  • Mastermind: a delayed King's Court.
  • Destrier: A lab that gets cheaper if you gain things.
  • Cavalry: A card that salvages your turn if you need more cards.
  • Smugglers: a powerful gainer that's restricted by what your opponent gained.
  • Black Market: a card that can gain cards from outside the game.
  • Golem: A card that searches and plays Action cards from your deck.
This isn't the same as amount of text (though it's certainly correlated). Golem is the classical example: as-is, it's wordy, but if 'dig' where a keyword, it could just say 'Dig for two action cards, play them in either order'. Similarly, Cavalry has a lot of text but the idea is simple. I've cheated a bit by not mentioning the upper half, but I think that's fair; I think of Cavalry as just being all about the bottom half. The top half is just some vanilla effect that happens to fit with the flavor. If it were +2$ instead (and the flavor supported that), I don't think I would bat an eye. It may make it less fun, but you probably wouldn't see it from looking at it.

This is why the attack on Scrying Pool is bad. Without it, it would be "a card that draws until it hits a non-Action card". Not bad. But now it's "a card that draws until it hits a non-action card and also Spy-attacks everyone". Why does it spy attack everyone? It's different from Cavalry because Cavalry needs some upper-half; Scrying pool didn't need the attack. It certainly doesn't need it for power level. (The self-spying is arguable, I think it shouldn't have that, either, but it's nowhere near as bad because it fits with the concept.) I think another example (one where I'm not just echoing what Donald said) is Goons. There's the concept, which is a card that gains points for gaining cards, and then it also attacks. It doesn't need to attack. The attack does nothing for the concept, and the card would be plenty strong if it didn't. This is different from something like Rabble, because Rabble very much is 'A smithy that discards good cards for your opponents'. The attack is part of the point.

If a card does have a short description, a related property is excitement. Basically, that's just 'how exciting is the description?' Again, I think all of cards above score well there. I also think that many people (but not all) evaluate fan cards primarily on elegance + excitement.

However, neither elegance nor excitement imply being fun to play. They're at best necessary; they're definitely not sufficient. I think smuggerls is wonderfully simple and sounds exciting, but I happen to hate the way it actually plays. Similarly for Goatherd, Masquerade, and Possession. Turns out I don't like things that punish you for doing good things with your deck. I wouldn't have known that without playing.

I honestly suspect that there are dozens of fan-made cards in the WDC alone that are every bit as good as official cards. (The format is just really good to find good ideas, as long as you look at the max rather than the mean.) I think if they had been released officially without having appeared here first, no-one would have batted an eye. However, I also suspect that there are many that look every bit as good but that most people would find completely unfun, and it's just very hard to know this from looking at them. For example, one of my favorite designs ever from the WDC is Touch of Midas by grep:


I find card is oh so elegant, and quite exciting. But if you told me that I would dislike playing with it, I would only be marginally surprised, because who knows. I think the same is true for lots of contest winners. I suspect that there is a mixture of fun and super unfun cards that won contests and in many cases, no-one can tell them apart. Here is where official cards should have an edge; there's a filter here that does something essentially invisible. It doesn't work perfectly, but there are very few official cards that everyone finds unfun. Some of the removed ones come closest; Tribute has a nice-sounding concept (give random vanilla boni based on opponent's deck) but it just doesn't work out, mostly because you get +4 Actions so often, and because it's too weak.

A corollary of this theory is that many official cards probably wouldn't win the WDC. Suppose Menagerie hadn't yet been released and someone submitted Destrier. Do you think it would win? My guess is no. It might get an honorable mention. But I think it would have a higher chance of being the 'best' card, as in, the card people would choose if everyone played a hundred games with every submitted card.

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1424
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2021, 04:10:52 am »
+3

I think that a card can be easily described yet considered, at least by some, to not be elegant.
Bard is a "terminal Silver plus a random beneficial effect". The extra setup effort is too cumbersome for some people and the randomness can be considered to be "messy" instead of elegant.

Games are in my opinion at least to some degree a form of art and that's why you only get so far with analytical terms and have to use subjective terms like elegant to describe particular features of them.
Logged

spineflu

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • Head Empty, Heart Worms, Can't Lose
  • Respect: +1349
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2021, 12:10:43 pm »
0

you should add this to the fan card creation guide on the wiki as an in-depth research at heading 5.10 or thereabouts. or maybe roll it into the "design brief" section.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 01:44:10 pm by spineflu »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2021, 12:43:11 pm »
0

I think that a card can be easily described yet considered, at least by some, to not be elegant.
Bard is a "terminal Silver plus a random beneficial effect". The extra setup effort is too cumbersome for some people and the randomness can be considered to be "messy" instead of elegant.

Games are in my opinion at least to some degree a form of art and that's why you only get so far with analytical terms and have to use subjective terms like elegant to describe particular features of them.

I'm afraid you're correct; the description length metric doesn't work in this case. I also wouldn't describe bard as elegant.

I guess description length is probably a necessary criterion, and often tracks elegance closely, but it's not exactly the same thing.

Carline

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2021, 09:28:53 pm »
+3

I think every elegant card could be described in a few words, but is not exactly this factor which makes them elegant. Elegance to me has to do with simple, clear and easy to understand instructions which bring a lot of emergent complexity, a few elements combined in a wise way to provide very rich and diverse fun experiences.

The very opposite would be something like Rube Goldberg devices, a lot of features which do almost nothing.


(Edited to fix misstype).
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 10:39:41 pm by Carline »
Logged

pubby

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
  • Respect: +1046
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2021, 12:19:06 am »
0

I tried to think of some existing elegant cards, but quickly realized it's way easier to think of inelegant examples. Perhaps it's less about doing things right, and more about avoiding a list of wrongs.

I might not call Destrier an "elegant card", but I'm keen with saying it's "not inelegant".
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1424
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2021, 04:05:58 am »
0

I might not call Destrier an "elegant card", but I'm keen with saying it's "not inelegant".
It lies in the eye of the beholder, some people might dislike the tracking/memory effort that is associated with cards like Smuggler and Destrier.
Logged

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2021, 06:33:06 am »
+4

I'm afraid you're correct; the description length metric doesn't work in this case. I also wouldn't describe bard as elegant.

I guess description length is probably a necessary criterion, and often tracks elegance closely, but it's not exactly the same thing.
For the most part, I concur on your discussion of Elegance and further expansion of Elegance being a compilation of several things.  We, as a forum, have discussed this sort of thing before that cards have three elements when it comes to evaluating them, which are Elegance, Novelty, and Balance, but to expand on this I'd like to propose the following five elements:
  • Elegance, as described above, which can possibly be expanded into several elements (such as Clarity, Simplicity, and Holism)
  • Novelty, or "excitement" as listed above.
  • Balance, which seems self-explanatory.
  • Sleekness
  • Stability
This is why the attack on Scrying Pool is bad. Without it, it would be "a card that draws until it hits a non-Action card". Not bad. But now it's "a card that draws until it hits a non-action card and also Spy-attacks everyone". Why does it spy attack everyone?
The Attack on Scrying Pool is bad because the Spy-Attack inherently bogs the pace of the game down on a non-terminal card, much less affecting the Elegance of the card.  The problem is not its Elegance so much as its Sleekness.
Sleekness is the function of the card with respect to the physical mechanics of the game.  Scrying Pool lacks Sleekness because the Spy-Attack requires one player make a decision with respect to each player, which damages the speed of the game's resolution.  Vault and Bishop similarly lack Sleekness, to a lesser extent as the individual players make their own decisions and the cards in question are terminal.  Some other cards like Apothecary and Cartographer lack Sleekness because of the sheer amount of time it takes to look at 4 cards separate from your hand and then organize them.
Bard, as segura points out, has the Fate-card setup that many consider cumbersome. While that setup possibly detracts from its Elegance, it most certainly detracts more from its Sleekness.
Cards like Border Guard and Seer are straining against Sleekness in a way that cards like Apprentice and Merchant and don't.

However, neither elegance nor excitement imply being fun to play. They're at best necessary; they're definitely not sufficient. I think smuggerls is wonderfully simple and sounds exciting, but I happen to hate the way it actually plays. Similarly for Goatherd, Masquerade, and Possession. Turns out I don't like things that punish you for doing good things with your deck. I wouldn't have known that without playing.
Stability what the card does in its ideal circumstance in contrast to the opposite.
Smugglers is frustrating, not because it is a powerful gainer restricted by other players' gains, but because Smugglers's function is between "Gain a spammable $5-cost Action" and "Does literally nothing."  Goatherd is frustrating because one random player they gets cantrip trasher, but then another has super-Laboratories, down to chance.  Bard is an economic card with low stability because it will sometimes be a non-terminal Gold, but other times is practically Explorer.
These cards have low Stability, where draw and trashing cards like Smithy or Steward have middling stability, and payload like Scavenger and Monument tend to have high stability.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2021, 09:21:00 am »
0

The Attack on Scrying Pool is bad because the Spy-Attack inherently bogs the pace of the game down on a non-terminal card, much less affecting the Elegance of the card.  The problem is not its Elegance so much as its Sleekness.

I agree that the way it resolves is also a problem (and even the bigger problem), but I think it would be bad due to Elegance reasons even if it resolves flawlessly.

I think I like your ontology, although I dispute that balance is an inherent value. (If it were, how could Donate possibly be a good design?)

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2021, 10:12:03 am »
+3

I'm not sure this definition captures all of what it means for a card to be elegant. As an example, consider Lookout. I think it is a fairly elegant card, but you are going to have a hard time describing what it does in fewer words than the card text.

I think what contributes to elegance in this case is a certain symmetry: trash 1, discard 1, topdeck 1. If Lookout revealed 4 cards and discarded 2, it would be significantly less elegant, but not in any way that the above definition could capture. I think what it comes down to is more along the lines of "how easy is it to remember this card's effects?".
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2021, 10:26:35 am »
0

I think I like your ontology, although I dispute that balance is an inherent value. (If it were, how could Donate possibly be a good design?)

I would argue that Donate works because it is an Event and has a debt cost.  If it were an Action card or cost $8, it would be terrible.  It's very powerful but accessible to all players without reliance on luck of the draw, so in that sense it isn't unbalanced, IMO.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2021, 10:27:58 am by Timinou »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2021, 12:06:55 pm »
+1

I think I like your ontology, although I dispute that balance is an inherent value. (If it were, how could Donate possibly be a good design?)

I would argue that Donate works because it is an Event and has a debt cost.  If it were an Action card or cost $8, it would be terrible.  It's very powerful but accessible to all players without reliance on luck of the draw, so in that sense it isn't unbalanced, IMO.

I remember when it cost $8. It was indeed terrible. Not in that it was weak, but whoever got to $8 first basically won the game.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2021, 12:35:33 pm »
0

I think I like your ontology, although I dispute that balance is an inherent value. (If it were, how could Donate possibly be a good design?)

I would argue that Donate works because it is an Event and has a debt cost.  If it were an Action card or cost $8, it would be terrible.  It's very powerful but accessible to all players without reliance on luck of the draw, so in that sense it isn't unbalanced, IMO.

I agree except for the underlined part. What does 'balance' mean if it doesn't apply to a card-shaped thing that is bought in 99%+ of all games and always has a massive impact?

I think your explanation shows that balance is not a fundamental value. Both 8 debt Donate and 8$ Donate are strong, but one is a bad design and the other arguably a good one. There just isn't a straight line from strength to quality.

Timinou

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
  • Respect: +634
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2021, 04:23:39 pm »
+1

I think I like your ontology, although I dispute that balance is an inherent value. (If it were, how could Donate possibly be a good design?)

I would argue that Donate works because it is an Event and has a debt cost.  If it were an Action card or cost $8, it would be terrible.  It's very powerful but accessible to all players without reliance on luck of the draw, so in that sense it isn't unbalanced, IMO.

I agree except for the underlined part. What does 'balance' mean if it doesn't apply to a card-shaped thing that is bought in 99%+ of all games and always has a massive impact?

I think your explanation shows that balance is not a fundamental value. Both 8 debt Donate and 8$ Donate are strong, but one is a bad design and the other arguably a good one. There just isn't a straight line from strength to quality.

We could probably have a separate discussion about what "balance" means, because it is multifaceted.

To me, there are a few elements to consider when it comes to balance:
- Does it provide an unfair advantage to any player? (in this respect, I believe Donate is balanced)
- Does it lead to a dominant strategy? (which is related to your point; but buying Donate is just one part of the equation - you still need to figure out the rest of your gameplan)
- Does the cost/benefit ratio make sense?

Nonetheless, I would agree that balance (or elegance or any of the other elements that Fragasnap described) on its own is neither necessary nor sufficient for a good design.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2021, 06:01:19 pm »
0

We could probably have a separate discussion about what "balance" means, because it is multifaceted.

To me, there are a few elements to consider when it comes to balance:
- Does it provide an unfair advantage to any player? (in this respect, I believe Donate is balanced)
- Does it lead to a dominant strategy? (which is related to your point; but buying Donate is just one part of the equation - you still need to figure out the rest of your gameplan)
- Does the cost/benefit ratio make sense?

Nonetheless, I would agree that balance (or elegance or any of the other elements that Fragasnap described) on its own is neither necessary nor sufficient for a good design.

Here's the thing -- I'm pretty sure that most people who talk about balance in dominion are just talking about the third, and that's the part that's neither necessary or sufficient. The first one matters a lot more, but since that's not what most people mean, I'm against calling it balance. Just say it provides an unfair advantage. This can be true for relatively weak cards like Sea hag, too.

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: On Elegance
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2021, 06:28:06 pm »
+1

The Attack on Scrying Pool is bad because the Spy-Attack inherently bogs the pace of the game down on a non-terminal card, much less affecting the Elegance of the card.  The problem is not its Elegance so much as its Sleekness.
I agree that the way it resolves is also a problem (and even the bigger problem), but I think it would be bad due to Elegance reasons even if it resolves flawlessly.
I concur.  My complex sentence made unclear my agreement.

I think your explanation shows that balance is not a fundamental value. Both 8 debt Donate and 8$ Donate are strong, but one is a bad design and the other arguably a good one. There just isn't a straight line from strength to quality.
The value of balance is perhaps more obvious at the lower end of the spectrum.  Explorer being an unbalanced card—for being much too weak—makes it a bad design regardless of any of its other qualities.

To expand: While elegance, novelty, sleekness, stability, and even balance are all values in card design, not every card excels in all areas. (In fact, one naturally sacrifices elegance when moving towards novelty.  Consider Butcher, Inheritance, Mountain Pass, or Travellers generally.)  In this particular case, $8-cost Donate is worse because of how much stability the Event loses (as acquiring a card or Event should be considered part of its function).  Even in its published 8-debt form, Donate is a worse design because it is too strong which crushes out variety of supplemental trashers in Kingdoms with it.  It is, however, highly novel, incredibly stable, and reasonably sleek.  If it did not have those latter qualities, the poor balance would be of much more concern for invalidating other cards.

As a thought experiment: If Donate was limited to trashing "up to X" cards instead of "any number," is there a number X that would it make it more balanced? Further, would sacrificing Elegance be worth the exchange? (As faust points out, the simplicity and modality that begets remembering an effect is a part of Elegance, and "any number" is easier to remember than a specific number.)
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.222 seconds with 21 queries.