Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 195 196 [197] 198 199 ... 202  All

Author Topic: Interview with Donald X.  (Read 978227 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4900 on: March 23, 2020, 02:40:15 pm »
0

You once said:

Today I would have you do the effect without Estate changing, e.g. you can discard Estate to play the set-aside card, leaving it there, and it's limited to non-durations (like Necromancer). That gives you "my Estates do this thing" but cuts out things like "they are Actions for Herald." And the Estates are always just Estates so so much for that.

When you made the Inheritance errata later, I think you explained why it still allows you to do Duration cards, because there was too much backlash against removing the ability to Inherit Durations.

But you also kept the way Estates become actions that can be played; instead of what you suggested before about having you discard the Estate to play the set-aside card. Did you try to make that version work? Clearly you can't just simply discard it, as that would lead to recycling the same Estate multiple/infinite times throughout a turn; but did you try other errata to avoid actually giving Estate the action type?
A big thing about Inheriting Durations was that Adventures itself has so many Reserve cards and Durations in the "up to $4" range. IRL sometimes someone doesn't have very many expansions; sometimes they buy a set and play with just that set for a bit. Inheritance was going to be really sad in those contexts, if it didn't work with Durations.

A lot of discussion went into the errata for Inheritance, and I printed and tested multiple versions. I put in the hours, now I am resting. It's work just looking through the archives at every suggestion and wording. I don't think we tried "discard an Estate"; we did try stuff that didn't make Estates into Actions.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4901 on: March 23, 2020, 02:40:54 pm »
0

Why did you decide to make Horses cost instead of costing like most non-supply cards?

My philosophy changed there, originally I thought "make them $0 so it's clear you must not be able to buy them," now I think "make them a cost that makes sense, so that they interact better with cards that care about costs." Except sometimes there might still be a reason for an exception, e.g. the Spirit Costs are all based on what Exorcist wants.

And then Experiment (which plays a lot like Horse) costs $3, so that's the cost that makes the most sense.
We tried Horse at $2 also, but I liked $3 for making TFB more relevant there.
Logged

Titandrake

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2190
  • Respect: +2814
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4902 on: March 24, 2020, 07:06:38 pm »
+6

Any reason Reap says to play the Gold at the start of your next turn, instead of just putting it into your hand? The two are mildly different, but it doesn't feel like there's a good reason for this to play Treasures in your action phase, compared to cards like Storyteller and Black Market.
Logged
I have a blog! It's called Sorta Insightful. Check it out?

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4903 on: March 24, 2020, 08:43:54 pm »
+2

Any reason Reap says to play the Gold at the start of your next turn, instead of just putting it into your hand? The two are mildly different, but it doesn't feel like there's a good reason for this to play Treasures in your action phase, compared to cards like Storyteller and Black Market.
I considered it both ways. To-play was just trying to be a tiny bit more novel.
Logged

[TP] Inferno

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 177
  • I have no +Buys :(
  • Respect: +159
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4904 on: March 24, 2020, 09:22:39 pm »
+1

Any reason Reap says to play the Gold at the start of your next turn, instead of just putting it into your hand? The two are mildly different, but it doesn't feel like there's a good reason for this to play Treasures in your action phase, compared to cards like Storyteller and Black Market.
I considered it both ways. To-play was just trying to be a tiny bit more novel.
I mean, there are differences of course. The current way means you can't use this to get Apprentice fodder at the start of each turn, amongst other things.
Logged
Counting House is the best card in the game. Change my mind.

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1623
  • Respect: +1277
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4905 on: March 25, 2020, 01:44:35 am »
0

Are there any ideas you have been keen to playtest which require set exclusive mechanics from more than one set (eg a Project that gains Horses)?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4906 on: March 25, 2020, 03:15:39 am »
+2

Are there any ideas you have been keen to playtest which require set exclusive mechanics from more than one set (eg a Project that gains Horses)?
Not really. People are always somehow excited by these things, but for me they're never anything. I don't think about them; I don't feel like I'm missing out. If the mechanics are ever in the same set it will be a thing I can consider then.

The closest to this situation I can think of is, Boons were originally in Empires, where one of the Boons was +1 VP. In Nocturne I had to replace that one (think of it as the Wisp replacing it, since Empires didn't have those). But if Boons had originally been in Nocturne, I wouldn't have been all, oh man if only I could have +1 VP on one of them. And it was fine that I couldn't have one give you a Spoils or whatever.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1623
  • Respect: +1277
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4907 on: March 25, 2020, 08:09:02 am »
0

Very interesting.

When doing a new expansion, when do you decide what mechanics from prior sets are on or off the table? (Eg Events returning in Empires and Menagerie, but not Nocturne and Renaissance)

Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4908 on: March 25, 2020, 02:23:41 pm »
+3

When doing a new expansion, when do you decide what mechanics from prior sets are on or off the table? (Eg Events returning in Empires and Menagerie, but not Nocturne and Renaissance)
The intention is to decide on mechanics first; sometimes the mechanics change while working on the set (e.g. dropping Boons from Empires).

For Empires I thought, Events went great, maybe I always do them. It was hard enough to find good ones that I then thought, let's wait on revisiting those for a while. A big thing being, that they can work with the other set mechanics, and want ones that are good for that. Renaissance had Projects, it wasn't looking for more sideways cards. And then for Menagerie I was planning on Events from early on but it took me a while to actually make some.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7187
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10000
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4909 on: March 25, 2020, 05:29:05 pm »
+3

The closest to this situation I can think of is, Boons were originally in Empires, where one of the Boons was +1 VP. In Nocturne I had to replace that one (think of it as the Wisp replacing it, since Empires didn't have those). But if Boons had originally been in Nocturne, I wouldn't have been all, oh man if only I could have +1 VP on one of them. And it was fine that I couldn't have one give you a Spoils or whatever.

And as you (NoMoreFun) may already know, Wedding was originally: "Gain a Gold. Receive a Boon." Which to be fair, was way cooler. Of course at that time, Boons were all trying to be useful during the part of your Buy phase when you bought cards. I'm not sure it would be so hot with the printed set of Boons.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2020, 05:30:47 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4910 on: March 25, 2020, 06:55:54 pm »
+2

And as you (NoMoreFun) may already know, Wedding was originally: "Gain a Gold. Receive a Boon." Which to be fair, was way cooler. Of course at that time, Boons were all trying to be useful during the part of your Buy phase when you bought cards. I'm not sure it would be so hot with the printed set of Boons.
And I think it was a mistake to do Idol, since people don't like that some Boons will be less good or even bad then.
Logged

[TP] Inferno

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 177
  • I have no +Buys :(
  • Respect: +159
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4911 on: March 28, 2020, 01:23:43 am »
+2

As you would know, several mechanics from Renaissance were touched on in earlier sets, ie Coin of The Realm predicted Villagers, Inheritance kinda predicted Projects, and Lost in the Woods predicted Artifacts. Did you have an intention to explore these mechanics further from the start? Or did you start making Renaissance and decide to revisit them then? Or even, was this completely unrelated?
Logged
Counting House is the best card in the game. Change my mind.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4912 on: March 28, 2020, 04:50:39 am »
+2

As you would know, several mechanics from Renaissance were touched on in earlier sets, ie Coin of The Realm predicted Villagers, Inheritance kinda predicted Projects, and Lost in the Woods predicted Artifacts. Did you have an intention to explore these mechanics further from the start? Or did you start making Renaissance and decide to revisit them then? Or even, was this completely unrelated?
No, the original cards were just whatever idea. Villagers came from 2-sided States, not from Coin of the Realm; some Adventures Events are like Projects, but Projects also came from 2-sided States. Artifacts did come from Lost in the Woods though; States appeared in Nocturne to deal with tracking on some Hexes, and then, surely I could do something with those.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8806
  • Respect: +9598
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4913 on: March 28, 2020, 10:44:18 am »
+1

Experiment clearly followed the theme of Laboratory; making “+2 cards +1 action” cards have a common theme; like how Villages and Trashing cards have a common theme. But now both Horse and Destrier have the same effect with a new theme. Did you consider this connection; and decide it was more important to fit with Menagerie’s theme than it was to fit with the pre-existing theme?

Or course, Stables and Trusty Steed both fit within that same mechanic; while sharing the horse theme. Did that play into it?
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4914 on: March 28, 2020, 12:58:00 pm »
+7

Experiment clearly followed the theme of Laboratory; making “+2 cards +1 action” cards have a common theme; like how Villages and Trashing cards have a common theme. But now both Horse and Destrier have the same effect with a new theme. Did you consider this connection; and decide it was more important to fit with Menagerie’s theme than it was to fit with the pre-existing theme?

Or course, Stables and Trusty Steed both fit within that same mechanic; while sharing the horse theme. Did that play into it?
They were called Horses before the set had a theme. I didn't have to put a lot of thought into that and have no story of what went through my head. They're transportation and get you through your deck; probably something like that. I could have renamed them to fit a different theme; I considered trying to do Vikings, and they would have been boats or something. What happened though is that I picked animals as the theme and kept them Horses.
Logged

King Leon

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
  • Respect: +388
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4915 on: March 31, 2020, 09:53:53 am »
0

Any reason Reap says to play the Gold at the start of your next turn, instead of just putting it into your hand? The two are mildly different, but it doesn't feel like there's a good reason for this to play Treasures in your action phase, compared to cards like Storyteller and Black Market.
Gold in the hand is sometimes better (you can remodel it to a Province or crown it), but sometimes worse, e. g. in combination with Minion or Library.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1623
  • Respect: +1277
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4916 on: April 01, 2020, 03:27:53 am »
0

Was Destrier originally "+1 Action, Gain a Horse to your hand"?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7187
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10000
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4917 on: April 01, 2020, 10:15:58 am »
+3

Was Destrier originally "+1 Action, Gain a Horse to your hand"?

Nope.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1623
  • Respect: +1277
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4918 on: April 02, 2020, 07:23:15 am »
+4

I liked how you made the secret history of Sheepdog a shaggy dog story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1904
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1278
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4919 on: April 02, 2020, 11:14:37 am »
+1

Did playing Reactions (Sheepdog/Falconer/Black Cat/Village Green/Caravan Guard) using Way of the Mouse come up during playtesting? If so, was this something you considered as potentially creating weird or confusing interactions? Or did you mostly see it as a good and fun feature of the card?

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4920 on: April 03, 2020, 12:43:50 pm »
+1

Did playing Reactions (Sheepdog/Falconer/Black Cat/Village Green/Caravan Guard) using Way of the Mouse come up during playtesting? If so, was this something you considered as potentially creating weird or confusing interactions? Or did you mostly see it as a good and fun feature of the card?
It did come up. It's potentially confusing; weighing that against the joy of Mouse, Mouse got to exist anyway.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1904
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1278
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4921 on: April 03, 2020, 01:07:26 pm »
0

Did playing Reactions (Sheepdog/Falconer/Black Cat/Village Green/Caravan Guard) using Way of the Mouse come up during playtesting? If so, was this something you considered as potentially creating weird or confusing interactions? Or did you mostly see it as a good and fun feature of the card?
It did come up. It's potentially confusing; weighing that against the joy of Mouse, Mouse got to exist anyway.

I was thinking more about weighing Mouse that only works during your turns against Mouse that works always. Was that considered? Was it a cool feature that it could be played during other players' turns, that you didn't want to lose?

mxdata

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 453
  • Respect: +466
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4922 on: April 03, 2020, 06:32:59 pm »
0

And as you (NoMoreFun) may already know, Wedding was originally: "Gain a Gold. Receive a Boon." Which to be fair, was way cooler. Of course at that time, Boons were all trying to be useful during the part of your Buy phase when you bought cards. I'm not sure it would be so hot with the printed set of Boons.
And I think it was a mistake to do Idol, since people don't like that some Boons will be less good or even bad then.

Did you ever consider doing what you did with Blessed Village's on-gain Boons with Idol?  I.e., give players the option of receiving the Boon at the start of their next turn?
Logged
They/them

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4923 on: April 04, 2020, 03:54:31 am »
+2

I was thinking more about weighing Mouse that only works during your turns against Mouse that works always. Was that considered? Was it a cool feature that it could be played during other players' turns, that you didn't want to lose?
I didn't consider it, but the card already drops the word "card" in order to fit the text. It sure wasn't getting another clause. It's not a great clause either. It makes it different from other Ways in a way that makes no sense at first; it's more complex all the time in exchange for simplifying some specific cases. What you could do is limit all Ways to your turn. Again I am thinking, extra rules for not much gain.

It wasn't a cool feature; it was just how it goes.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5816
  • Respect: +23445
    • View Profile
Re: Interview with Donald X.
« Reply #4924 on: April 04, 2020, 03:57:02 am »
+1

Did you ever consider doing what you did with Blessed Village's on-gain Boons with Idol?  I.e., give players the option of receiving the Boon at the start of their next turn?
What I should have done with Idol is not have it give Boons. The basic premise of the card would have still been doable.

I am not a fan of adding more words to Idol to deal with how you'd rather save some Boons for later. We may have considered that. We considered stuff; it was clear that some Boons were not great with Idol. One direction is tweaking the Boons, but the Boons could only do so much to deal with this.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 195 196 [197] 198 199 ... 202  All
 

Page created in 0.097 seconds with 21 queries.