Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[O]

This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up. 

For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes.

I actually can't think of a situation where any of those sound better...

You don't want to trigger a reshuffle, but you want to get boost out of playing the card.

Witch in particular, would be slightly stronger if the card drawing was optional.  Ever had both of your witches in your hand with 1 card left in deck?

RAAAAAAAAAAGE.

Ok, yes, any draw card or lookahead card is better conditionally because of the reshuffle, I tend to ignore reshuffles for the puzzle cases.

But Menagerie *still* isn't ever better.

[AJD]

This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up. 

For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes.

I actually can't think of a situation where any of those sound better...

You don't want to trigger a reshuffle, but you want to get boost out of playing the card.

Witch in particular, would be slightly stronger if the card drawing was optional.  Ever had both of your witches in your hand with 1 card left in deck?

RAAAAAAAAAAGE.

Ok, yes, any draw card or lookahead card is better conditionally because of the reshuffle, I tend to ignore reshuffles for the puzzle cases.

But Menagerie *still* isn't ever better.

I think Frisk's point was, if you could play Smithy without drawing, that could be handy for cases when you have two Smithies and a Menagerie in hand.

[Captain_Frisk]

I think Frisk's point was, if you could play Smithy without drawing, that could be handy for cases when you have two Smithies and a Menagerie in hand.

O's point is: if you could play the smithy for +3 cards... you wouldn't need to activate the menagerie

[theory]

Maybe you have exactly 3 cards left in your deck, and you want to be able to play both Smithy and Menagerie for your Horn of Plenty without triggering a reshuffle.

I think the good folks of the Puzzles & Challenges forum could come up with a dozen more ways to improve Smithy given no constraints on card text complexity.

[Captain_Frisk]

Maybe you have exactly 3 cards left in your deck, and you want to be able to play both Smithy and Menagerie for your Horn of Plenty without triggering a reshuffle.

I think the good folks of the Puzzles & Challenges forum could come up with a dozen more ways to improve Smithy given no constraints on card text complexity.

My favorite would be "Draw Up to 3 Cards From Your Deck".  This would solve the Turn 4 proplem, where it misses the reshuffle in a way that Witch and Masquerade do not.

Of course - I don't view smithy as being too weak to need a boost in the form of "may".

Some cards don't have a may that actually make them new player unfriendly.  Upgrade for example - would be a stronger card with it,  but I think prefer it without because it rewards advanced play (do I risk playing it?). 

University I think is an interesting one.  I didn't even realize that it was a "may" until someone pointed it out to me on the forum.  I tend to view University as a trap, so I think it benefits from the (slight) power boost, although I think that in the situations where university shines (many cards that are worth picking up), it doesn't matter.

Mine should have it for the same reason that Mint and King's Court do.

I would prefer it if Salvager had it... keep the buy, but make the trash for coin optional.

[blueblimp]

I would prefer it if Salvager had it... keep the buy, but make the trash for coin optional.

This isn't just a wording quibble though. A card that trashes for a buy (Salvager, Spice Merchant, Trade Route) is in a different category than cards that give buys without trashing.

[GigaKnight]

First, I realized I may not have been totally clear in my earlier communications.  I'm not saying that all aspects of all cards should default to "may".  I'm specifically thinking of triggered abilities, which are often secondary to the purpose of a card and easy to forget.  With that in mind, I have a some more thoughts.

I was hoping you'd also address this point

It also has the benefit that if a player forgets to leverage an ability, they haven't actually broken the rules and, well, sucks for them.

but I imagine the response is "doesn't happen often enough to matter."  But, as a player, it irks me when I'm obligated to tell somebody to take the benefit of their card when they'd otherwise forget it, in part because I may be helping them beat me and in part because it just delays the game.

Here's an interesting perspective on this. What you are saying is, I should change something, in such a way that, for certain players, it "sucks for them." Isn't that crazy? I don't want things to suck for anyone. Okay, you don't want to remind someone to gain a benefit; that just isn't as bad as missing out on the benefit.

I don't think it's crazy and I'll tell you why.  My point is not that I want things to suck for other players.  My primary concerns are that, by not making abilities optional, you 1) create a real possibility of corrupted game state (i.e. rules violations), 2) you place what should be an individual responsibility (playing optimally) on one's opponents (people who are punished for fulfilling that responsibility), and 3) you prevent optimal play in more-interesting scenarios where an ability should be unintuitively skipped.

Also, here's 2, rephrased in a way that I think captures the essence of it.  In what competitive game is it fun to help your opponent beat you?  In a relaxed setting with friends or newbs, I have no problem reminding people to take their ability or asking if they want to take it.  Those are teaching opportunities.

You seem concerned that it's more un-fun (if you will) for people to miss the benefit than it is to have to remind them to take it.  But I think that's totally debatable.  Nobody gets to win for free; you learn from your mistakes and part of the fun is improving.  It seems like you're limiting tactical space because of the chance that somebody might make a mistake and... not enjoy that?  Well, I don't think many players are going to quit Dominion because they forgot to leverage an ability.  I think it's more likely that they'll say "let's play again; I'll remember that next time and beat you!".  But maybe that's just my mentality.  I also haven't conducted focus groups on this or anything and I don't know what research you've done about it.

For a while there was a card, "+$2, put this on your deck." I changed it to "you may" because one player just constantly forgot to do it. For sure I might say "you may" to make it so someone isn't breaking the rules accidentally constantly.

This obv. isn't one of those cases. It is pretty in-your-face when you buy Inn despite not wanting to shuffle in any cards from your discard pile. In general when you want to do something, it does not say "you may" unless you might also want not to (or the Throne Room example). There could be an exception like my hypothetical card, but it would need to really earn that "you may." And the issue you are citing isn't forgetting, it's not wanting to shuffle a shuffled deck when confronted with unfriendly opponents, man.

Inn isn't the particular ditch that I would choose to die in on this issue.  It is, to me, just example of a principle that I would have done differently, for whatever that's worth.

I still don't think I agree that adding "you may" adds appreciable complexity, though.  The argument that you could make all cards better by adding complexity seems like a red herring to me; that's not really the issue.  "You may" is a well-understood and common mechanic; it's also two of the shortest words you could meaningfully put on a card.  And it elegantly handles all of the (rare, I agree) awkward situations that I can see.

There is no red herring here.

Here are two links to articles by Wizards of the Coast R&D members:
- http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/188
- http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/188

These articles are discussing, which is preferable for Magic: "You draw two cards," or "target player draws two cards?" How could that small of a difference in complexity matter? And yet "you" is currently winning this battle.

Thanks for the links; these are really interesting.  And I feel less bad about disagreeing when Mark Frickin' Rosewater thinks about this very much the same way I do.  His argument is amazingly appropriate to the "may" issue.  He covers all the points I would make.  It's a common idea, it's a gateway to depth, and it allows players to feel clever / crystallize.  I'm especially encouraged by their research showing that newer players do NOT get confused by targeted draw, as I just don't think they'll confused by "may", either.

On the flip side, this may be confirmation bias speaking, but I several issues with Zac Hill's article.  The most prominent one is his ridiculous juxtaposition of "Option Charm" and "Divination".  He's made the implicit assumption that there will never be other reasons you would want an opponent to draw cards.  He's precluded the notion of an Enchantment that causes players to lose life when they draw, for example.  Maybe that's a terrible card idea; that's not really the point.  To me, the point is that he's restricting the set of interesting interatactions to prevent confusion that their own research suggests does not exist.

Also, one notable exception in their debate is that Magic phases sets in and out, while Dominion really doesn't (which, as a frugal person, I actually appreciate very much).  They'll get an opportunity to revisit the issue in the next set.  Dominion just won't, and that's another reason I would default towards a higher skill ceiling.  The only people who will be playing it years after the final expansion gets printed are those who appreciate the extra choices.  And I find it very hard to believe you'll lose even one sale to a default behavior of "you may".  But, again, I have no particular evidence for that.

Theory also had a point I wanted to address:

This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up. 

For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes. 

Making cards "better" is a separate issue, to me.  Choices always make cards "better" but I wouldn't argue that all cards need to be better or fit into every situation.  For example, I don't think Inn is underpowered because it doesn't say "you may".  But I do think it's an dangerously-subtle opportunity for corrupted game state and I also personally find it unintuitive.

I cited these before, but Bishop and Haggler are very good examples of where not allowing choice makes sense to me.  It's central to playing the card and the lack of choice balances the card by creating an interesting trade-off for the player.  These are also cases where removing choice on the card doesn't change the magnitude of the complexity; it just shifts the thinking from whether to leverage an ability to whether to play the card at all.

In my never-designed-or-published-a-game opinion, if you aren't going to change balance or the magnitude of the complexity by removing a choice, I would prefer to see it left in.  Inn is an example where the choice does not greatly affect the balance of the card and, I believe, helps ensure game state validity while also being more intuitive.

EDIT: Quick fix.

[Donald X.]

And I feel less bad about disagreeing when Mark Frickin' Rosewater thinks about this very much the same way I do.

Not the way I read it! Mark specifically cites how the option adds complexity and therefore has to be worth it; then he argues that for his case it is. You cannot make that argument for Inn, the "you may" there adds zilch. And if you want Dominion to have more strategy, you get that by actually adding more strategy, not by adding pointless extra words to Inn.

And that's that! I continue to disagree with you eight ways from Sunday.

[Davio]

Seeing as how Donald is following this thread, I wonder if he can rule on Inn and Stash:

When you gain an Inn and have Stashes in both your deck and discard pile and need/want to Shuffle because of the Inn, you:
a) Don't get to place your Stashes anywhere
b) Get to place your Stashes in your deck
c) Get to place your Stashes in your discard pile
d) Get to place your Stashes in your deck and discard pile

[Donald X.]

Seeing as how Donald is following this thread, I wonder if he can rule on Inn and Stash:

When you gain an Inn and have Stashes in both your deck and discard pile and need/want to Shuffle because of the Inn, you:
a) Don't get to place your Stashes anywhere
b) Get to place your Stashes in your deck
c) Get to place your Stashes in your discard pile
d) Get to place your Stashes in your deck and discard pile

I feel like I answered this one here. When you shuffle your deck, you get to pick where Stash goes, but this doesn't let you move Stashes into your deck that are in other places. Think of it as, the back is marked, and that's okay, and that's all there is to it. The marked back means you will know where they go when you shuffle, every time you shuffle, including shuffling for Inn for example; but it doesn't mean anything more than that, it doesn't cause them to leap from your discard pile into your deck when you aren't shuffling the rest of your discard pile or any such thing.

[Ozle]

Donald, what happens if I buy an Inn, but my opponent eats all my action cards before I get a chance to shuffle them in. Do I still have to shuffle?

I don't think there is anything in the rulebook that covers that....

[WanderingWinder]

Donald, what happens if I buy an Inn, but my opponent eats all my action cards before I get a chance to shuffle them in. Do I still have to shuffle?

I don't think there is anything in the rulebook that covers that....

Sit back and wait for heartburn to do its trick?

[GigaKnight]

And I feel less bad about disagreeing when Mark Frickin' Rosewater thinks about this very much the same way I do.

Not the way I read it! Mark specifically cites how the option adds complexity and therefore has to be worth it; then he argues that for his case it is. You cannot make that argument for Inn, the "you may" there adds zilch. And if you want Dominion to have more strategy, you get that by actually adding more strategy, not by adding pointless extra words to Inn.

And that's that! I continue to disagree with you eight ways from Sunday.

Well, you're still hung up on Inn while I'm trying to make the point that defaulting "you may" is a lot like defaulting to "target".  Mark gives a very well-reasoned argument that, while target on a draw card "adds complexity", it's complexity that is actually useful to hooking new players and improving their experience; most importantly, it doesn't confuse them.  If it doesn't confuse anybody or create analysis paralysis, I'm not seeing the downside.  So, IMO, the "complexity" is warranted and I don't think it's a stretch to extrapolate that to a general policy.  People understand "you may" and choices, IMO, are not inherently bad.

Anyway, I suppose that is that.   Thanks for engaging with me.

[Donald X.]

Well, you're still hung up on Inn while I'm trying to make the point that defaulting "you may" is a lot like defaulting to "target".  Mark gives a very well-reasoned argument that, while target on a draw card "adds complexity", it's complexity that is actually useful to hooking new players and improving their experience; most importantly, it doesn't confuse them.  If it doesn't confuse anybody or create analysis paralysis, I'm not seeing the downside.  So, IMO, the "complexity" is warranted and I don't think it's a stretch to extrapolate that to a general policy.  People understand "you may" and choices, IMO, are not inherently bad.

Anyway, I suppose that is that.   Thanks for engaging with me.

There is no possible way that Mark will agree that most cards should say "you may." He will come down hard on the side of, do not include nearly useless options on cards. Ask him yourself, he answers a million questions daily on his tumblr page.

Further reading: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/49

[GigaKnight]

Well, you're still hung up on Inn while I'm trying to make the point that defaulting "you may" is a lot like defaulting to "target".  Mark gives a very well-reasoned argument that, while target on a draw card "adds complexity", it's complexity that is actually useful to hooking new players and improving their experience; most importantly, it doesn't confuse them.  If it doesn't confuse anybody or create analysis paralysis, I'm not seeing the downside.  So, IMO, the "complexity" is warranted and I don't think it's a stretch to extrapolate that to a general policy.  People understand "you may" and choices, IMO, are not inherently bad.

Anyway, I suppose that is that.   Thanks for engaging with me.

There is no possible way that Mark will agree that most cards should say "you may." He will come down hard on the side of, do not include nearly useless options on cards. Ask him yourself, he answers a million questions daily on his tumblr page.

Further reading: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/49

I'm sorry, Donald.  I must be doing a poor job of explaining my position.  Because I read this Rosewater article, I think it's insightful / correct, and it still hasn't changed my opinion.  So let me re-evaluate how I'm saying it...

Maybe a better rephrasing is that I would start design with all cards having "you may" for triggered abilities.  I would remove that "may" if doing so actively served the gameplay, and I would feel comfortable doing that because of all the bullets Rosewater laid out in the "target" article (it's well understood, yadda, yadda, crystallization, yadda).

With respect to the "Decisions" article, putting "may" on a card is not the same as adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card.  It's more akin to putting a mana cost on an ability instead of saying "this always happens".  The "may" is almost always implicit in Magic and, in fact, you must go beyond simply wanting it; you must also pay for it.  I don't think it's unreasonable for triggered abilities in Dominion to have a default "mana cost" of "choosing it"; that's an extremely reasonable cost. It also sidesteps the other issues I keep bringing up (game integrity, learning, responsibility, etc).

Going back to the example of Inn, we agree that "may" doesn't particularly change the usefulness of the card.  But it does preserve game integrity and, IMO, it makes the card more intuitive.  Do you disagree about the intuition?  It seems odd that if I want the card to be my village but I don't want to shuffle any cards in, I still *have* to shuffle.  You seem to think that makes the card more straightforward ("always shuffle") but I think it runs counter to the way people grok cards.  I thought of Inn as a cycling village that I could also gain to shuffle actions back into my deck when I want it to.  You're saying it's a cycling village that shuffles my deck on gain and, if I want to, I can also shuffle actions into it.  So it turns out the constant of the effect is... my deck gets shuffled?  Do people really think about it like that?  This is a case where a default policy of "you may" would remain because I think it fulfills the intuition about the card.

I realize I'm arguing from a subjective perspective here; if my intuition is counter the crowd's, it doesn't count for much.  I suppose you could say it doesn't count for much either way, since I don't actually make the decisions.

[eHalcyon]

I agree with GigaKnight regarding Inn specifically, in that I didn't expect you'd have to reshuffle if you choose to leave your action cards in the discard.  But as far as "you may" goes, I think it's better that it isn't the default.  Saying "you may" do something is not similar to putting a mana cost on an ability.  "You may" means that there is no cost.  You can use it or not, and there is no downside to the "option" (to use the terms given in the article).  It's more interesting if you make it an actual "choice" as per Steward, Pawn, Torturer, Vault, Bishop.  Those are choices, and taking the choices has a cost.

[GigaKnight]

I agree with GigaKnight regarding Inn specifically, in that I didn't expect you'd have to reshuffle if you choose to leave your action cards in the discard.  But as far as "you may" goes, I think it's better that it isn't the default.  Saying "you may" do something is not similar to putting a mana cost on an ability.  "You may" means that there is no cost.  You can use it or not, and there is no downside to the "option" (to use the terms given in the article).  It's more interesting if you make it an actual "choice" as per Steward, Pawn, Torturer, Vault, Bishop.  Those are choices, and taking the choices has a cost.

I made a mistake earlier by talking about this in terms of "defaulting to 'you may'".  I was really talking about triggered side-effects, not central things like +Cards, +Actions, attacks, etc.  I mean, the discussion started about Inn, which has a relatively-awkward triggered side effect, not about Smithy, which is clear and concise.  I did a poor job of framing the conversation at the beginning and I apologize about that.

As I've alluded to before, I don't object to requiring effect when playing the types of cards you mention; I think it it makes the cards more interesting and balanced.  Also, note that the card there that significantly benefits from "you may" is Bishop, where you could get a $ and a point without trashing anything.  Two of those cards have options that you could choose and ignore if you wanted (Steward, Pawn with +money, +actions).  Vault has an effective "you may" in its triggered ability.  And Torturer... drawing cards is almost always a benefit; the rare cases where you want to attack but don't want the cards do make things more itneresting.  How does this relate to Inn?  Purely shuffling your deck is almost never relevant and so I don't think it should be required.

Also, I meant it more as a design philosophy.  Donald's policy is "don't put a may unless you really need it"; I think my policy would be "put a may unless removing it makes things better".  There are lots of general cases where removing it makes things better, but I'd want to start with the wider set of interactions and narrow down as I test.  And, obviously, somebody with Donald's experience quickly gets a sense of what should / shouldn't start with may.  I just think Inn is an example where the restrictive default policy is a poor one that yields an unintuitive interaction (and, in general, has other negative side effects which I've beaten to death).

Also, I really do think "you may" is equivalent to adding a mana cost of 0.  You still have to choose the ability; it doesn't just happen.  You have to take responsibility for remembering your abilities and you also have the power to control which ones take effect.

[eHalcyon]

I agree with GigaKnight regarding Inn specifically, in that I didn't expect you'd have to reshuffle if you choose to leave your action cards in the discard.  But as far as "you may" goes, I think it's better that it isn't the default.  Saying "you may" do something is not similar to putting a mana cost on an ability.  "You may" means that there is no cost.  You can use it or not, and there is no downside to the "option" (to use the terms given in the article).  It's more interesting if you make it an actual "choice" as per Steward, Pawn, Torturer, Vault, Bishop.  Those are choices, and taking the choices has a cost.

As I've alluded to before, I don't object to requiring effect when playing the types of cards you mention; I think it it makes the cards more interesting and balanced.  Also, note that the card there that significantly benefits from "you may" is Bishop, where you could get a $ and a point without trashing anything.  Two of those cards have options that you could choose and ignore if you wanted (Steward, Pawn with +money, +actions).  Vault has an effective "you may" in its triggered ability.  And Torturer... drawing cards is almost always a benefit; the rare cases where you want to attack but don't want the cards do make things more itneresting.  How does this relate to Inn?  Purely shuffling your deck is almost never relevant and so I don't think it should be required.

In the case of Pawn and Steward, choosing one option has the opportunity cost of NOT choosing another option.  For example, if I play Pawn for +1 Card, +1 Buy and draw an action card, that card is dead (barring villages).  On the other hand, maybe I just use +1 Card, +1 Action but draw a Bank with a big hand.  Now I really wish I had taken the extra Buy.

With Bishop, Vault and Torturer, I actually was more focused on the choice given to the opponent.

And this isn't necessarily related to Inn.  Was just opining on options vs. choices.

[Donald X.]

Maybe a better rephrasing is that I would start design with all cards having "you may" for triggered abilities.  I would remove that "may" if doing so actively served the gameplay, and I would feel comfortable doing that because of all the bullets Rosewater laid out in the "target" article (it's well understood, yadda, yadda, crystallization, yadda).

So for example, Border Village should say "you may gain a card etc.?" That's crazy talk.

With respect to the "Decisions" article, putting "may" on a card is not the same as adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card.  It's more akin to putting a mana cost on an ability instead of saying "this always happens".

Makes no sense. Mana costs are costs, they are vastly different from non-costs. Why would you say "mana cost" when in a subsequent post you clarify it to "a mana cost of zero?" Also Wizards doesn't like mana costs of zero, they are confusing. "Adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card" wasn't being discussed or compared to anything. If you are referring to the article, it's not focused on triggered stuff as opposed to whatever else.

In the article, note the bit about Expunge. Expunge has cycling 2 - you can discard this valuable creature-killer and get a new card. Mark thought that was a poor use of cycling because you are so unlikely to want to cycle it. You somehow see this as confirming your viewpoint, that "you may" should be ubiquitous?

Going back to the example of Inn, we agree that "may" doesn't particularly change the usefulness of the card.  But it does preserve game integrity and, IMO, it makes the card more intuitive.  Do you disagree about the intuition?

Giving players an option they never use makes cards less intuitive. They wonder why that option is there.

[Donald X.]

Also, I meant it more as a design philosophy.  Donald's policy is "don't put a may unless you really need it";

At last we agree on something! That *is* my philosophy.

Here is another angle.

Let's say I have an awesome Dominion card. There isn't really room for it in this set though. As it happens it's a duration card and this set is Seaside, so that's that, this card is never happening.

If you're a playtester, maybe you are really sad. I liked that card! But Dominion doesn't *need* any particular card. It needs good cards, but it can have some other good card instead.

This is the extreme case. Normally, the card is not awesome, there is no room for it because it is not awesome, but someone liked it. There is other stuff for them to like, the fact that this card provided "thing they liked" does not mean that it's the only thing that does that, or that the expansion no longer has enough joy for them. It is easy to focus on that individual loss, which the public will never see, rather than considering the whole. It's a mistake though, and I will take out a card I like to make an expansion better, every time.

Okay so.

Adding "you may" to a card adds a decision. Even if the decision is almost always "why yes I will," it's still a decision. Maybe you value decisions. Therefore we need this decision! But we don't. We don't need any particular decision. The game needs decisions and has plenty of them. Any particular decision is not necessary.

Furthermore the game should focus on the best decisions. The ones that are interesting, that people enjoy. Pointless decisions are awful. They are so bad that I considered not putting a decision on Spice Merchant, that's how different my position is from yours.

[DG]

Furthermore the game should focus on the best decisions. The ones that are interesting, that people enjoy. Pointless decisions are awful.

Anyone who disagrees should try playing "Miskatonic school for girls".

[GigaKnight]

Maybe a better rephrasing is that I would start design with all cards having "you may" for triggered abilities.  I would remove that "may" if doing so actively served the gameplay, and I would feel comfortable doing that because of all the bullets Rosewater laid out in the "target" article (it's well understood, yadda, yadda, crystallization, yadda).

So for example, Border Village should say "you may gain a card etc.?" That's crazy talk.

Crazy talk, huh?!   Actually, I specifically said to eHalcyon there are many cases where I like the lack of choice, that I think it makes the cards more interesting.  Border Village is one of them, as is Haggler.  But Haggler is also a card where I relatively-frequently *want* to skip gaining the extra card.  It's not uncommon for me to have played a Haggler, have an extra buy for $3 and not want anything that costs less than it; it happened in a random game last night, actually.  So what I'm saying is that wouldn't approach these saying "they have to earn the may"; I'd put it there and see how often it mattered.  With Haggler, I think it matters with non-negligible frequency and the only reason to remove the may, IMO, is card balance (and it think it works quite well as-is).

With respect to the "Decisions" article, putting "may" on a card is not the same as adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card.  It's more akin to putting a mana cost on an ability instead of saying "this always happens".

Makes no sense. Mana costs are costs, they are vastly different from non-costs. Why would you say "mana cost" when in a subsequent post you clarify it to "a mana cost of zero?" Also Wizards doesn't like mana costs of zero, they are confusing. "Adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card" wasn't being discussed or compared to anything. If you are referring to the article, it's not focused on triggered stuff as opposed to whatever else.

The "Design" article has a section about whether to add both trample and first strike mana cost abilities to a creature.  Rosewater says he doesn't like adding another because the choices don't generally interact in interesting ways (as a side note, if the example creature had a toughness >1, then I think the abilities would interact in more interesting ways).

Anyway, I'm saying that's a different dimension of game design than "you may".  "You may" is deciding whether to just give the card first strike or requiring the user to take some action for it.  The closest analogy to "you may" would be putting a mana cost of 0 on activating the first strike.  But the analogy breaks down there because you always want first strike on your creature.  "You may" is a release valve for things you don't want or don't want to care about.  Inn is a good example of where players don't necessarily want to care about whether they shuffle their decks.

In the article, note the bit about Expunge. Expunge has cycling 2 - you can discard this valuable creature-killer and get a new card. Mark thought that was a poor use of cycling because you are so unlikely to want to cycle it. You somehow see this as confirming your viewpoint, that "you may" should be ubiquitous?

No, I don't see that as confirming my viewpoint.  I think that's a separate issue, as is the ability example above.  And I tried to clarify that I don't think "you may" should be ubiquitous; I think it should be the default.  Removed for good reason instead of added for good reason.

Going back to the example of Inn, we agree that "may" doesn't particularly change the usefulness of the card.  But it does preserve game integrity and, IMO, it makes the card more intuitive.  Do you disagree about the intuition?

Giving players an option they never use makes cards less intuitive. They wonder why that option is there.

So, it has seemed obvious that you disagree with Rosewater about "target" on draw cards.  How do you reconcile his positions on "decisions" and his position on "target"?  He outlined the bullet points at the end of the article and I think they all apply to "may".  Do you disagree with that or do you think he just didn't make a strong enough argument to include "target"?

Also, I feel like you totally ignored:
  1) My point about grokking cards and Inn.
  2) My point about making a player responsible for their own play.
  3) My point about how making mistakes and learning can be fun, too.

And, if I may be so bold, I think that's because you're taking an unnecessarily-dogmatic approach to choices.  You seem to hate them so much you don't care about the positives they can bring.

Furthermore the game should focus on the best decisions. The ones that are interesting, that people enjoy. Pointless decisions are awful. They are so bad that I considered not putting a decision on Spice Merchant, that's how different my position is from yours.

I really think I understand your perspective.  Honestly.  And I truly don't want to add decisions everywhere; I agree the game should focus on the best decisions.  But I think it would do that even with "may" on a lot more cards.  Maybe that's because I don't have trouble ignoring decisions I don't care about; perhaps other players find them to be a distraction.

But what has been the negative impact of having a decision on Spice Merchant?  This is anecdotal, but that card has never confused me or anybody I talked to.  Never.  I didn't even realize it was a choice because it doesn't generally matter, because I grokked the purpose of the card and moved on.  But now I have the ability to play a Spice Merchant and not trash and buy a cheaper Peddler.  I can play a Spice Merchant, not trash, and activate a Conspirator.  These are uber-rare case, but it comes at absolutely no cost that I have ever seen and it lets players feel clever.  You did it because requiring trashing was unenforceable, but it has other benefits that I don't really see you addressing.  I assume that's because you think they're irrelevant, but they're also kind of the focus of my argument.  And unless we're arguing about the same thing, we're just talking at each other.

We've probably come full circle here, maybe even multiple times.  I genuinely appreciate your continued response and I apologize if you think I'm just being dense.  I tend to be... let's call it "tenacious" about these kinds of things but it's not my goal to exasperate anybody.  And I definitely don't want to be the guy that nobody responds to because he won't shut up.   I guess I've made my point as well as I can make it; I'll try not to respond again unless I have something genuinely new to add.

[Donald X.]

So, it has seemed obvious that you disagree with Rosewater about "target" on draw cards.  How do you reconcile his positions on "decisions" and his position on "target"?  He outlined the bullet points at the end of the article and I think they all apply to "may".  Do you disagree with that or do you think he just didn't make a strong enough argument to include "target"?

I'm not going to re-read those articles to work this out for you. Again you could ask him yourself, he's around, and he knows himself better than I do. He's the one who said, Expunge was a poor use of cycling, Divination should be target player. Again note that R&D is against him on the target player thing, he lost that battle to multiple sensible people. You cannot ask those people though, Mark is the only one who is question-answering-crazy.

I do not think those cards should say "target player." "You draw 2 cards" is better than "target player draws 2 cards," and as Zac noted they still do use "target player" when it's X cards, where you actually use it to deck people. They let people have that fun in places where it makes sense.

Also, I feel like you totally ignored:
  1) My point about grokking cards and Inn.
  2) My point about making a player responsible for their own play.
  3) My point about how making mistakes and learning can be fun, too.

1) Inn is one of the more complex cards in Hinterlands, but also a hit for certain players. If I were making Hinterlands today I would strongly consider simplifying a few cards - I did not expect the set to be viewed as a complex one. Inn and Mandarin are really the two cards where I can say, I dunno, I would like these as is but maybe I change them (as opposed to complex cards I def. leave as is, like Noble Brigand, and complex cards I def. simplify, like Trader). Nevertheless the problem is not that Inn is hard to grok, it is straightforward that when you get one you shuffle cards from your discard pile into your deck. I have never seen it confuse anyone. "Yeeha!" they would say, and shuffle in five cards, utterly unconfused.

2) I addressed this.

3) I don't know what this is referring to, but man, if making mistakes is awesome, then I want to put in awesome mistake-generating things, not lousy ones. Any particular mistake generator is not essential. See previous essay.

And, if I may be so bold, I think that's because you're taking an unnecessarily-dogmatic approach to choices.  You seem to hate them so much you don't care about the positives they can bring.

wtf dude, choices are awesome. Useless choices are what's bad. Pawn is my favorite card in Intrigue, etc. etc. If you expect a lack of choices in Dark Ages then you are in for a surprise. But putting "you may" on something where I'm rarely picking "I will choose not to" is just so obviously stupid.

But what has been the negative impact of having a decision on Spice Merchant?

Well people think Hinterlands is a complex set. And I struggled to make it simple enough to be a standalone. So I mean. It should have been simpler. And that simplicity has to be somewhere, some cards need to lose text to get that. There's nothing confusing about Spice Merchant, that's not the issue there. And I went with the choice version. Oh man I see, you are misunderstanding me here. I am talking about, Spice Merchant could have been "You may trash a treasure from your hand. If you do, +2 Cards +1 Action." No Woodcutter option. It appears that you are talking about the "you may." That "you may" is like the one Throne Room doesn't have, it keeps you honest without adding a more cumbersome "or reveal a hand with no treasures."

[GigaKnight]

Ok, I think I failed to convey my point to you, as I'm pretty sure it's not "obviously stupid", just different than your tastes.  But time to call it quits.  Thanks Donald.  No so much for insulting me, but for at least continuing to discuss it. 

Also one quick thing:

And, if I may be so bold, I think that's because you're taking an unnecessarily-dogmatic approach to choices.  You seem to hate them so much you don't care about the positives they can bring.

wtf dude, choices are awesome. Useless choices are what's bad. Pawn is my favorite card in Intrigue, etc. etc. If you expect a lack of choices in Dark Ages then you are in for a surprise. But putting "you may" on something where I'm rarely picking "I will choose not to" is just so obviously stupid.

I want to apologize for my misrepresentation of you here.  I realize how it sounds now that I read it again and it's ridiculous to say you don't like choices.  Part of my poor communication, I suppose.  Maybe it's more accurate to say I think you're too quick to judge choices as useless or dismiss the value and potential satisfaction in exploiting low-frequency cases.

[WanderingWinder]

If you expect a lack of choices in Dark Ages then you are in for a surprise.

I just wanted to cut this out and shout with joy.

That is all.