Article Sink or Swim: Making Cube Approachable

[landofMordor]

Some Cube design trends we take to be unmitigated positives may be the same trends that hinder our cubes' approachability.​

Even once the cards are purchased and the players are seated, Cube still has significant barriers to entry for its drafters. Historically, Cube has optimized for mechanical novelty and replayability above any other metrics, but it’s not always fun to jump in the deep end with unintuitive, unfamiliar, technical, flavorless game pieces, especially for newcomers to the format.

Sometimes I wonder whether I sound like this to a newcomer to Cube: “Want to try a 4-hour session of Magic? I promise every card is a special snowflake once you draft it, grok it, look up the updated Oracle text, and integrate it into a deck you don’t know how to build!” For some groups, that really is all upside ‘cuz everybody in the group is a grizzled Extended washout who’s older than sleeves. But if the Cube format is to spread and diversify, then our cubes will need gentler on-ramps for the Commander player, the Arena free-to-player, or the FNM drafter.

Mark Rosewater recently used the analogy of a “zero-entry pool” to describe a format that can fit any familiarity, and that’s exactly what Cube needs to become if it is to diversify and thrive. Here’s four examples I’m trying to apply in my own cubes:



1. Fewer Darwins, more Jons

Darwin Kastle's Invitational card was more powerful in its Standard format than Jon Finkel's. But that's not obvious on a first read. Echo reads like a colossal downside on an under-rate creature, riddled with sunk-cost fallacy. Sure, it’s “easy” to evaluate the Riders when you reduce it to a little JSON of cost-effect transactions and card advantage: 3 damage and resource denial for is pretty good, and the possibility to buy a 2/2 haste the following turn is mostly bonus. But that dry interpretation of resource exchange ignores the simple psychological fact that it’s not fun to lose your stuff to its own downside.

Contrast the Riders to Shadowmage Infiltrator -- drawing cards is self-evidently cool, and Fear obviously enables the triggered ability in a way that allows the newcomer to grok the ceiling of the Infiltrator's power. And how can one reach that ceiling, you ask? Just… keep it in play, exactly like every other creature in Magic. The “Jons” match the players’ preconceived notions much better than the “Darwins”.

Cubes in the pattern of famous MTGO cubes are already pretty long on the “Darwins”, uninviting designs with counter-intuitive power. That’s not to say you can’t or shouldn’t put downsides or funky text boxes in your cube! Maybe those downsides are super flavorful (I'll get to that later) or provide excellent depth. I'm not saying "Darwins" are strictly bad for a cube, or that this should replace "power" as the sole metric for a designer to optimize; only that the “Jons” are likely to draw in newcomers more easily.

MTGO VC “Darwins”: Sylvan Library, Balance, Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, Dream Halls, Putrid Imp… heck, even Jackal Pups and Goblin Guide

MTGO VC “Jons”: Sower of Temptation, Student of Warfare, Young Pyromancer



2. Fewer Future Sights, more Innistrads

Steamflogger Boss referenced a subtype that wouldn’t be printed for a literal decade. In its Limited format, Boss was surrounded by references to types that didn’t exist yet, vanilla creatures with superfluous types, and either Corinthian architecture or deep-water mollusks (which exactly is hard to say). Future Sight, runaway winner of “most self-congratulatory card file” in Magic, makes me glad I wasn’t playing back then.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Innistrad’s mechanical cohesion was a slam-dunk, launching a new era of Magic set design. Every single card in ISD draft, from common to mythic, gets paid off mechanically (even Stony Silence shuts off 17 artifacts). Every card!

Steamflogger Boss throws drafters into the deep end. Village Cannibals is the gentle slope of a zero-entry pool – players can pursue Level One (humans dying) successfully, and pursue Level Two (Morbid, Aristocrats, etc) as their skill and familiarity develop.



3. Fewer Kais, more Antoines

There’s such a thing as too much mechanical payoff, too. Among the Invitational cards, Kai Budde’s nod stands out as being an oddly specific payoff to the… morphing Wizard-sacrificing control deck? That wasn’t on my 2002 bingo card. On the other hand, Antoine Ruel’s card is no less a Swiss Army knife – it can tutor everything from Zombie payoffs to combo pieces – but crucially, the depth of complexity is entirely up to the player, and the card will function just fine even if you get Savannah Lions. “Antoines” allow you to opt-in to hardcore puzzling, while “Kais” force the issue.

It's easy for Cube owners (myself included) to overindulge the “Kais”, because it’s fun to spiderweb mechanics, but that’s how we end up with Shadowmoor. It's not fun to get beat over the head with synergy signposts (especially for things that aren't fun in the first place). Sometimes players just want something that works, but we cube designers are too busy to notice: we’re scouring Scryfall for an Orzhov gold card that’s more “interesting” than Vindicate.

MTGO VC “Kais”: Rona, Herald of Invasion, Displacer Kitten, Loran of the Third Path, the entire Storm archetype

MTGO VC “Antoines”: Fury, Eternal Witness, Restoration Angel, Lightning Bolt

4. Fewer Tiagos, more Bobs



Tiago Chan and Bob Maher. Both invitational cards are competitive legends at a high power level. Any design-oriented contrast between the two mostly boils down to flavor. Snapcaster is a great game piece, but its story is inscrutable. (Took me a decade to realize its ISD art implies that geist-fueled arm-cannon spells are cast like FMA’s Roy Mustang summons fire.) Meanwhile, Dark Confidant’s mantra of “greatness, at any cost” epitomizes Black’s philosophy, and its gameplay effect enacts that same ethos, adding up to one of the most evocative and intuitive designs of all time.

“Tiago cards” are perfectly functional but evince a missed opportunity to marry mechanics to theme and flavor. “Bob cards” use their flavor to make Magic feel like a proper wizards’ duel, heightening our immersion in and enjoyment of Magic.

MTGO VC “Tiago cards”: Vendilion Clique, Eidolon of the Great Revel, Hellrider, Expressive Iteration

MTGO VC “Bob cards”: Thraben Inspector, Lingering Souls, Ravages of War

---

TL;DR: A focus on thematic cohesion and lenticular appeal can help Cube bring in newcomers and grow the format, like a zero-entry pool can be enjoyed by all swimmers. An approachable, appealing cube will tend to focus on cards which are:

• Intuitively powerful (think Shadowmage Infiltrator),
• Thematically cohesive (think Innistrad),
• Inherently functional (think Ranger of Eos), and
• Flavorfully immersive (Dark Confidant).

These are descriptions, not prescriptions. It's not always possible to optimize for all these qualities at once; sometimes you'll have to weigh one type of success against another kind of shortcoming. But that's the challenge and reward of cube design!

What elements of your cube make it easy or difficult to bring in newcomers? Share in the comments below!

 

[Chris Taylor]

What elements of your cube make it easy or difficult to bring in newcomers? Share in the comments below!

No comment

Edit: Pithy jokes aside, my cube being ~20% custom cards both helps and hurts. When drafting with enfranchised players new to my cube, they haven't had to read in a while: they know what the cards do. Sometimes that leads to them shortcutting over the real rules text of things, or assuming something worked the same way as "Insert constructed staple X".
I have at this point developed a reputation for knowing what I'm doing, so I get a lot fewer "Chris this card is super broken wtf" comments than I used to. (Read: Not zero, just fewer ). In a way, the difficulties are becoming more relatable: people get stuck on their experiences of cards in other formats, or don't know about archetype omissions specific to my cube (look I know you drafted both hierarchs, but there just isn't a ramp deck, I'm sorry).

With actual factual new players, or people who fell off magic years ago, but still want to draft once in a blue moon? A lot of that evaporates. They never shortcut card text because they have to read 90% of the cards anyways. They don't have a great handle on card balancing anyways, so I get a lot more "Oh man that's so cool!" or "I love the vibe of this card" type comments than concerns about power level. In fact, having to give every card a thorough once over leads to them catching a lot of errors other people miss! (Uh hey Chris? I think you forgot to give this creature power and toughness...)
I absolutely love drafting with newer players, can't get enough of it, but the issue is....they do lose. You don't have an inexhaustable supply of people who are willing to go 1-2 on a good day and keep on trucking. That shit gets frustrating, especially if you know the way to turn things around is to put hours into magic you just aren't willing or able to commit to.
There's a few people, dear friends, that I know not to invite to my cubes, even though they would probably be willing to come every now and again because I know they aren't going to have a good time once the games start. I can sit next to them and offer advice when they need it, help with deckbuilding, but this isn't really ever going to "fix" things, just mitigate it.

This is an issue with every game in existence, I fear, but I'm looking for ways to help curb it. I make a point of making sure EVERY card in my cube has reminder text where I can, sometimes inventing reminder text when I think it'll help (See spoiler below). I'm not sure my cube's themes are thematically linked closely enough to have the "set" have a "flavor" the way Innistrad does, but that could be something to try, down the line. And little pieces of tech like the Archetype printouts help mitigate the difference between experienced and new drafters a bit in a way that doesn't compromise the gameplay.

Spoiler: Technically unnecessary reminder text

 

[landofMordor]

I got a great reply from somebody on Discord which I'll respond to here:

1. darwin vs. john category makes sense to me for new players, intuitively powerful cards are easier to understand
2. you can mitigate one-off mechanics but i think a lot of cubes are bound to be future sight, unless you are making a set cube or similar
3. i understand kai vs. antoine in that open-ended synergy is more interesting than tribal cards, but i would think kais are easier for new players. this seems like the opposite of darwin vs. john
4. i don't think you can expect every card to have dark confidant levels of flavor. i've never even considered how snapcaster mage's arm cannon works but its a great design so does it really matter?

another thing to consider is that if someone would rather stick with EDH, is complexity really whats turning them off?

1. No comment

2. I'm in complete agreement. So many cubes try to present novel mechanical space that now, whenever official Limited does wacky bonus sheets or mashup mechanics (think MOM or MH2), that set is approvingly labeled "cube-like". I don't know if it's possible to build a deeply replayable Limited set without incurring some penalties to mechanical cohesion. That said, the goal isn't "0% Future Sight, 100% ISD"; I'm only arguing that the novel elements of FUT which were indulgent and self-congratulatory could benefit from the tempering influence of a super-cohesive set like ISD.

3. Hm... I think there's some misunderstanding here. My issue with "Kais" isn't that they're prescriptive, or that the synergy is creature-type-matters. It's that it's oddly specific, in the same way that Stonybrook Banneret or Kiyomaro, First to Stand or Tazri, Stalwart Survivor is. Just give me a card that works on Level One without beating me over the head with your synergy signposts (especially for things that aren't fun in the first place). Prescriptive tribal cards aren't necessarily "Kais": Goblin Matron is the "Antoine" way to do Goblin tribal like Earwig Squad is the "Kai" way to do it. So I think that's where the confusion is coming from.

4. No, you can't expect every card to be a Bob. (And I love Snapcaster, to be clear.) I'm only stating that cube has historically focused on mechanical function ("Mel" appeal) and completely ignored or sublimated flavor and immersion ("Vorthos" appeal), and that may give Cube designers some blinders when it comes to making their cube appealing for a wider group.

And to your final sentence, I actually think EDH's handling of complexity crutches on 3 facts: 1) the Constructed nature means you are theoretically familiar with your entire deck, 2) the mutliplayer hides if one person isn't familiar with the whole game state, and 3) the casual nature allows take-backs and even "let me give my opponent honest advice on my board state". It's only the most complex Magic format if you're holding yourself to 1v1 Constructed levels of game-state awareness, and I think very few LGS players actually do that.

Thanks, theopolist, for the response!

 

[shamizy]

Managing complexity, maximizing familiarity with resonant designs and mechanics, and making card choices and decisions with different types of players in mind are the most important to me.

My playgroup is full of players who have been with the game for mostly a decade now, but we don't cube in person aside from a few times a year due to work and life commitments all around and with many moving out of the area over the years. Whenever we can get 6+ of us gathered in an area that's an occasion to bust out my cube and make sure I've actually gotten around to the last 5 months of swaps on Cobra, but most of time we're just going to go for EDH with 4 people because it's more convenient and easily manageable. It's a superior format for pick-up and play, that's the greatest appeal of it as well as the social dynamics if you have a group of like-minded people. The proposition of a 4 hour session is hard to get commitments from 8 different people, so once in a blue moon when I do decide to bring my cube we'll have to fill in 2-3 slots with FNM acquaintances who may not be as well versed in the game. I need to create an environment that works for different levels of player skills to accomplish this.

Complexity creep is the biggest problem I see with most cube lists nowadays when a curator gets deep into the weeds. Your cube with ALWAYS be more resonant to yourself as the designer who has put hours upon hours into tweaking and refining and thinking about every single card selection. New mechanics and cards are cool to experience and try out, but there are absolutely diminishing returns if it's just new elements all the time to grok and process with each new text box in a draft pack. To you it might be simple, but that will not be apparent to anyone who is drafting your environment once in a while or for the very first time unless you make it easy for them to follow in the draft process. To that end I avoid unnecessarily wordy cards, avoid external tracking mechanics that require additional physical elements, and I greatly limit any included DFCs. It's just extra work to process information during the drafting portion and I don't believe they provide enough of a gameplay improvement in the long run to be worth the confusion or hassle. It's one thing to fill an individual EDH deck with a smattering of obscure mechanics and interactions, but expecting people to just go along with it in a format like Cube is usually not a good hosting decision unless you're very familiar with a static playgroup.

This is where familiarity and resonant design also factor in with certain inclusions for me. It's easier for players to remember cards that are memorable even if they promote a higher degree of complexity. Stoneforge Mystic, Snapcaster Mage, Dark Confidant, Goblin Rabblemaster, and Thragtusk are all cards that promote resonance for me; they represent a history of Magic designs and play patterns that players remember. Phantasmal Image has extra Illusion text to consider, but people have been playing with Clone variants for years across formats so exposure makes it easy to understand. Recruitment Officer has an extra dig ability to let you gain some card advantage, but at its core it still just a classic aggressive 2/1 for 1. Galvanic Blast does extra stuff with artifacts present and hint at an archetype, but it's just a Shock at its core and is easy to understand. Stuff triggering off specific types of cards being played like Young Pyromancer or card types deployed ala Champion of the Parish? Cool, I've seen that before in Limited and that feels like Magic.

It's harder for players to wrap their heads around the first time they've run into a unique text box or inelegant mechanic in the wild. I want to limit that as much as possible throughout the draft process and use my "complexity points" elsewhere with unique draft mechanics of my own. Planning where to focus the complexity of your design, be it in draft or gameplay, is where you can

And this is where the physical aspects of cards comes into play. I have no issues with unique counters in a limited environment or within an EDH deck, but it is definitely a hassle to contend with in paper. Tracking additional parts of the game that aren't wholly evergreen like +1/+1 counters on creatures is just extra baggage for players. I'll limit it as much as possible though I will make exceptions now and then if the juice is worth the squeeze. For something like Evolved Sleeper I don't like that it doesn't just gain the Deathtouch keyword ala Figure of Destiny or Warden of the First Tree, but in terms of gameplay there is no physical need to ever track that counter in my environment and just dedicated your dice to the MUCH more relevant +1/+1 counter aspect that will matter for other cards. This baggage is the reason why stuff like Dungeons or Initiative or the Ring will never have a home in my cube. It's just not worth it in the long run. I might literally make a Sauron, the Dark Lord EDH deck just for fun with the Ring mechanic, but I don't ever want anyone else to feel obligated to track these unique mechanics in my environment unless it brought a fundamental improvment to the axis of gameplay. But I just haven't seen it yet.

Dexterity also comes in with DFCs which I usually avoid, but have made the exception for the following:



Much like with the Officer earlier, Kytheon is just an aggro 1 drop with some upside and that's good enough for inclusion with decks that want it. Jace is similar in that ilk as looting has become a common feature in every other set and it's just a good solid frontside for the U/x decks to deploy. The fronts of these are good enough to be worth playing on their own and picking up during the draft process; hell I don't even remember 1 specific ability each for the Gideon and Jace backsides but it doesn't matter because it's an upside in the decks that will deploy them. I just know that flipping them into the most powerful card type in this game will be a good idea more often than not. As for Fable? It does a lot, there is complexity when considering both sides, but the Saga mechanic itself is a simplified step-through process and this flips into a version of Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker which is an absolutely iconic card. On its own it brings enough gameplay depth (Treasure token, looting to fix draws, copy shenanigans for creatures with ETBs, etc.) to be worth the DFC complexity for me.

Finally, the most important aspect of cube design to me is making nuanced decisions with card inclusions to ensure a welcoming environment for players new and old. I want it my cube to be an experience that is understandable for a newer player with classic archetypes and cards present, but to have the depth available for exploration of archetypes and interactions that will appeal to a veteran playgroup. Reading the card should explain the card at its base level, but the exploration of interactions with various other offerings is how they will get to experience complexity in gameplay. It's why I make it a priority to fill my cube with relevant humans for Champion of the Parish and Thalia's Lieutenant and get excited for new versions of existing cards that have more relevant creature typing. Luminarch Aspirant and Siege Veteran fit right into a W/x Aggro shell, they have relevant creature typing, and their +1/+1 counter synergies work with Champ + allow me to explore other instances of this with Green cards.

If I see a Daretti, Scrap Savant and Goblin Welder early my immediate reactions are that there must be an artifact component to this cube somewhere and that I'm going to want to find big bodies + pitch them to the grave if I can. That makes this Faithless Looting and especially Prismari Command in subsequent packs more attractive to me. Maybe I should branch into blue now with this Command since it opens me up to looters in blue to pitch artifacts as well as a card like Thought Monitor for extra value. Breya's Apprentice gives me two potential bodies to sac and bring back something. Phyrexian Triniform this late makes a lot more sense now that I know this artifact cheat plan can work. Oh, there's a Utility Land Draft (I have this laid out on the table during the main draft) right after this and it looks like Artifact Lands like Great Furnace and Seat of the Synod are available as a choice and I'm now going to go for it.

I make sure to lay out enough signposts and promote synergy between individual cards to enable players the chance to explore and create their own builds. Archetypes exist, familiar stalwarts like U/W Control and R/G Midrange will always be there, but the small interactions are where the Magic actually happens for players. As long as I can give them the right tools and don't lead them astray, make sure that my card choices for inclusion fulfill a specific purpose, players will leave a cube session satisfied and wanting to try it out again.

 

[landofMordor]

I absolutely love drafting with newer players, can't get enough of it, but the issue is....they do lose. You don't have an inexhaustable supply of people who are willing to go 1-2 on a good day and keep on trucking. That shit gets frustrating, especially if you know the way to turn things around is to put hours into magic you just aren't willing or able to commit to.

So true! A lot of the ways to make Cube more inviting (my 4 proposed examples included) boil down to making losing feel more rewarding, or creating endorphins in Magic gameplay that don't depend on the game's outcome.

You could probably reframe the whole article through a lens of making losses palatable: 1) don't make the losing player feel stupid for not grokking the "darwins", 2) don't make the "FUT" player feel stupid for believing the cards' text, 3) don't lock your drafters into "Kai" big-brain synergy decks that don't work, 4) give players "Bobs" so they have something to enjoy besides the mechanical effect.

 

[japahn]

I'm really sold on draft formats that requires players have to read fewer cards as the most effective way to reduce complexity.

I need to tweak the draft itself for cubes that have more insular archetypes than the Smooth Twin Cube and for player counts > 2, but twinning cards is probably going to be the way forward for me in the next... Years?

Card selection that keeps that in mind is definitely useful, though, and looking at the LotR set made me more aware of how important resonance is.

 

[Seeker]

MTGO VC “Tiago cards”: Vendilion Clique

um excuse me if you read the flavor text on Maralen of the Mornsong it is very clear that the flavor of Vendilion Clique is "the gravest of tasks is fucking with people you don't like"

 

[Nanonox]

I liked the article and will have to reread it with my own cubes in mind. This comes at a good time for me since I had a draft with my playgroup recently and before the draft I realized that my current cube list would be hostile to them. It's too complex on a number of levels:
- The amount of text on the cards.
- The familiarity of the cards (they essentially took a break when the pandemic hit).
- The archetypes available (you can build just about anything you want, so the drafting process can be daunting).

To remedy that, I decided to build a pre-pandemic cube (with a few exceptions). The card pool stops at Ikoria, even though I did make a few exceptions for some MH2 cards that I know they would like (Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer) or some simple ones (Infernal Grasp) that play well.
I also decided to increase the number of generic good cards and lean less on archetypes. The ones that exist are tried and true like Lands, Blink, Sacrifice, Artifacts and GY stuff. There is less cross-pollinisation making the drafting process a bit faster and more intuitive.

I don't love this "compromise cube" nearly as much as my main one, but until we play more frequently, we will stay on the simpler side. That said, the design principles in my pre-pandemic cube are sound, especially compared to my previous efforts from that time. Cards are there for a purpose, there is more fixing and draw smoothing. The curves are leaner and with more mana sinks.

tl;dr: making compromises in cube design to accommodate your drafters is hard and painful!

 

[LadyMapi]

While I feel like this article is pretty insightful... I feel like it misses the biggest reason why cubing isn't a super mainstream thing. And that's that cubes are hilariously huge.

The standard size for a cube is 360 cards and assumes 8 drafters, which is actually, legitimately absurd. If we want more new cubing fans, we should normalize "disposable" cubes for four or less players with strong elevator pitches rather than sticking to the eight player FOREVER CUBE as the format ideal. Because having something novel that you can ask your four-player EDH pod to try out one evening is more likely to see play than something where you have to scramble around and find seven other people that can dedicate their full afternoon to hanging out and drafting your cube sight-unseen.

We can tweak and optimize our card selections all we want, but that's secondary to getting people to the table in the first place.

 

[Rusje]

I agree that we have to make our cubes accessible. However, I do not agree with your points of making it a midrange slugfest. Words on a card does not equip complexity. Examples are keyword soup versus one wordy ability. You are bound to forget a keyword in the soup but not a grokable ability. Similarly, only having midrange good cards do yield less complexity in a draft. But have a very likely cost of complexity on a board state.

 

[Seeker]

While I feel like this article is pretty insightful... I feel like it misses the biggest reason why cubing isn't a super mainstream thing. And that's that cubes are hilariously huge.

The counterpoint I have to this is that having every card in the cube in the draft is not mandatory and can (sometimes) even be a worse experience (think "guaranteed that X deck shows up every time" rather than "oh dear a player might go into Y and nobody opens the right key cards") - cube could stay the same size and then four people can draft half of it! Or 2/3s of it. Or whatever. You know what I mean. It's not always true but it is definitely sometimes true.

 

[shamizy]

The counterpoint I have to this is that having every card in the cube in the draft is not mandatory and can (sometimes) even be a worse experience (think "guaranteed that X deck shows up every time" rather than "oh dear a player might go into Y and nobody opens the right key cards") - cube could stay the same size and then four people can draft half of it! Or 2/3s of it. Or whatever. You know what I mean. It's not always true but it is definitely sometimes true.

True, but it's still a lot of information for a player to process if they aren't familiar with the environment. At least with EDH it's your own deck that you have prior experience with. There will be a lot of crazy stuff and interactions aplenty in a 4 player game, but at least you'll be aware of your own 100 card pile. That isn't true with cubes drafting a new deck every session and the more specific the cube build, the harder they are to parse through and understand. Easier for more invested players familiar with drafting, especially if you're going for more a greatest hits of Magic type of cube, but the more unique the harder it is to get a feel for.

Like I never really play lower powered cubes so parsing through a Peasant or Pauper list is a whole thing that I'm never going to do and I'll just ignore those threads for the most part. I'll go into it blind on a draft as someone that loves drafting, but that isn't everyone's cup of tea with how they play Magic. Even a well-curated cube is going to be a daunting prospect to someone new to it.

I just don't think Cube is a good format for anyone that isn't an experienced Magic player for the most part because live card evaluations in drafting from pack-to-pack, being able to read signals, and finally being able to construct a functional 40 card deck are all skills that aren't easy to master without reps.

 

[landofMordor]

I'm really sold on draft formats that requires players have to read fewer cards as the most effective way to reduce complexity.

I need to tweak the draft itself for cubes that have more insular archetypes than the Smooth Twin Cube and for player counts > 2, but twinning cards is probably going to be the way forward for me in the next... Years?

That rules! I've also been just toying with major singleton breaks as a way to avoid any custom rules, or micro-cubes that use the 15-card deck. Haven't gotten the energy up to put anything into practice except relatively heavy non-singleton.

Card selection that keeps that in mind is definitely useful, though, and looking at the LotR set made me more aware of how important resonance is.

I'm struck by how innocuous the Ring-Tempting is in LotR because it's really the only complex mechanic in the entire set. (Initiative had Adventure in the same file; Venture had dice-rolling; Foretell had Boast and non-matching land cycles; etc etc.) The rest of LoTR's cards just do what they say with very little mechanical complexity, and tons of story resonance (lots of "Bobs" and "Jons" in that card file!)

 

[landofMordor]

While I feel like this article is pretty insightful... I feel like it misses the biggest reason why cubing isn't a super mainstream thing. And that's that cubes are hilariously huge.

The standard size for a cube is 360 cards and assumes 8 drafters, which is actually, legitimately absurd. If we want more new cubing fans, we should normalize "disposable" cubes for four or less players with strong elevator pitches rather than sticking to the eight player FOREVER CUBE as the format ideal. Because having something novel that you can ask your four-player EDH pod to try out one evening is more likely to see play than something where you have to scramble around and find seven other people that can dedicate their full afternoon to hanging out and drafting your cube sight-unseen.

We can tweak and optimize our card selections all we want, but that's secondary to getting people to the table in the first place.

Great point. My writing wasn't trying to identify the reason, but rather discuss cards which contribute or hinder getting those people to the table. (But while we're on the subject, I also think Jumpstart could be a great way to lower our expectations as designers. I might be Jumpstarting my cube after being inspired by @blacksmithy ...)

... I do not agree with your points of making it a midrange slugfest. Words on a card does not equip complexity. Examples are keyword soup versus one wordy ability. You are bound to forget a keyword in the soup but not a grokable ability. Similarly, only having midrange good cards do yield less complexity in a draft. But have a very likely cost of complexity on a board state.

I'm not sure I understand... I didn't mention midrange at all in this article? That's not what I was writing about.

The 4 qualities I mention at the end -- intuitive power, thematic cohesion, inherent function, and immersive flavor -- are mostly orthogonal to the aggro/midrange/control theaters of Magic. For example, Damnation is a control card that is super thematic, functional, and flavorful. Savannah Lions does a similar thing for aggro decks.

But the bigger issue is, I tried not to present these as "Four Qualities Every Single Card Must Have, Or Else Your Cube Sucks"; they're simply card qualities whose value to newcomers may be underappreciated by the ol'heads like me who design the cube. So it's a balancing act. Sure, a card like Juzam Djinn may not grade out super well as a "Jon", but it's so evocative, flavorful, and essentially functional that it's still gonna be great for a huge variety of cubes. I'm only highlighting these particular qualities because they haven't been paid much attention, historically speaking.

I also don't believe I ever mentioned word count or complexity in the article. I'm saying, even if you can find two nearly-identical cards on power level and complexity (say, Snapcaster Mage and Dark Confidant), then it still matters that Confidant does a better job of immersing the new Cube drafter into the classic color-pie flavor of Magic. That's all.

Like, as an example that might come up in your cube, let's say you're trying to choose a new Urza's block 1-drop: Mother of Runes or Tragic Poet. Well, Mom grades out super well on flavor and intuitive power, but maybe gets dinged because she's too powerful, plus she can make your own Auras fall off, which is a nonbo for Saga block's Auras theme. Tragic Poet is just as good on flavor, its power is just as intuitive as Mom's even though there's less of it, and Poet does a better job of cohering with the Auras theme. So maybe Poet's the better 1-drop if you're anticipating a cube night with a bunch of newcomers.

 

[LadyMapi]

The counterpoint I have to this is that having every card in the cube in the draft is not mandatory and can (sometimes) even be a worse experience (think "guaranteed that X deck shows up every time" rather than "oh dear a player might go into Y and nobody opens the right key cards") - cube could stay the same size and then four people can draft half of it! Or 2/3s of it. Or whatever. You know what I mean. It's not always true but it is definitely sometimes true.

That's a valid counterpoint... but there's a reason I called for disposable cubes that will only see play a few times! We have an expectation that cubes are going to see a ton of repeated play, which is incredibly daunting for a new designer — in contrast, going "it's pretty normal to throw together a pile of cards and cube draft them once or twice" cuts down on that barrier to entry.

Granted, I might be a little odd here - I got into cubing after seeing a 90-card Innistrad microcube and going "wait, I don't have to hand-pick 360 cards? Score!" I think the 360+ card, play-it-into-the-ground gold standard of the format is a pretty big obstacle, because whenever you look into cube "from the outside" you only hear about the big projects that have been worked on for years and have been tweaked to perfection.

That rules! I've also been just toying with major singleton breaks as a way to avoid any custom rules, or micro-cubes that use the 15-card deck. Haven't gotten the energy up to put anything into practice except relatively heavy non-singleton.

Funnily enough, I think that custom rules can actually simplify things for players who are new to your cube (of course I'd say that), you just need the right custom rules. I think the good kind tend to be "emblem cubes", where you just give everyone an emblem version of a sweet build-around. That lets players indulge in their natural Timmy/Jenny impulse of going "ooh, this card goes great with my build-around!" without it being a trap.

 

[LadyMapi]

I'm struck by how innocuous the Ring-Tempting is in LotR because it's really the only complex mechanic in the entire set.

Not only is it the only complex mechanic in the entire set, it's the only new mechanic in the set (if you don't count Amass Orcs as "new").

 

[Chris Taylor]

Not only is it the only complex mechanic in the entire set, it's the only new mechanic in the set (if you don't count Amass Orcs as "new").

As well you Should! Shouldn't?
You know what I mean

 

[TrainmasterGT]

1. Fewer Darwins, more Jons

4. Fewer Tiagos, more Bobs

Something interesting I thought about while reading this article is that some cards fit more in the "positive" column of one category and more into the "negative" column of another. Dark Confidant is a great example of this. Bob is a good marriage of mechanics and flavor, earning its status as your namesake card for the category of designs with high mechanical resonance. But it's also a pretty huge Darwin. New players are often turned off by the fact that they will be losing life from their Dark Confidant. Sure, the flavor makes sense, but they don't always understand why the mechanics of the card are actually good. I can recall from the early days of my Cube back in 2017 when it was mostly being played by 11 to 15 year olds at Scout Camp that people actively avoided Dark Confidant because they thought the downside was too big. In a multiplayer game, I was actually mocked for thinking the card was good (before I went on to crush everyone with it)!

My point here is that every card has ups and downs in its approachability. A card might get the flavor perfect but seem a little narrow or have a weird drawback. Likewise, a card could be a great synergy piece for a bunch of decks, but seem a little obtuse to someone who has never played with it before. Food for thought!

 

[Rusje]

Great point. My writing wasn't trying to identify the reason, but rather discuss cards which contribute or hinder getting those people to the table. (But while we're on the subject, I also think Jumpstart could be a great way to lower our expectations as designers. I might be Jumpstarting my cube after being inspired by @blacksmithy ...)


I'm not sure I understand... I didn't mention midrange at all in this article? That's not what I was writing about.

The 4 qualities I mention at the end -- intuitive power, thematic cohesion, inherent function, and immersive flavor -- are mostly orthogonal to the aggro/midrange/control theaters of Magic. For example, Damnation is a control card that is super thematic, functional, and flavorful. Savannah Lions does a similar thing for aggro decks.

But the bigger issue is, I tried not to present these as "Four Qualities Every Single Card Must Have, Or Else Your Cube Sucks"; they're simply card qualities whose value to newcomers may be underappreciated by the ol'heads like me who design the cube. So it's a balancing act. Sure, a card like Juzam Djinn may not grade out super well as a "Jon", but it's so evocative, flavorful, and essentially functional that it's still gonna be great for a huge variety of cubes. I'm only highlighting these particular qualities because they haven't been paid much attention, historically speaking.

I also don't believe I ever mentioned word count or complexity in the article. I'm saying, even if you can find two nearly-identical cards on power level and complexity (say, Snapcaster Mage and Dark Confidant), then it still matters that Confidant does a better job of immersing the new Cube drafter into the classic color-pie flavor of Magic. That's all.

Like, as an example that might come up in your cube, let's say you're trying to choose a new Urza's block 1-drop: Mother of Runes or Tragic Poet. Well, Mom grades out super well on flavor and intuitive power, but maybe gets dinged because she's too powerful, plus she can make your own Auras fall off, which is a nonbo for Saga block's Auras theme. Tragic Poet is just as good on flavor, its power is just as intuitive as Mom's even though there's less of it, and Poet does a better job of cohering with the Auras theme. So maybe Poet's the better 1-drop if you're anticipating a cube night with a bunch of newcomers.

Your examples/text e.g., losing your own stuf to do something, e.g., no voidmage tend to lead to cluttered board states. You are right that nowhere you mentioned make all cards midrange. It could be that I went a bit to far in reading between the lines. My point on number of words does not infer complexity was in reaction to some posters who think that more words is more complexity.

Thank you for thinking on my cube! I am still on the fence about white one drops.
* they are relatively weak (p/t) wise. There is just no weenie possibility. So that leaves utility creatures.
* mother is strong, but surprisingly not too strong
* poet is kinda weird. The utility is only much later (since it takes a while for enchantments to hit the yard). Still, it is nice to trade it for your best enchantment. Sadly, it is severely outclassed by replenish, and even that one is not really strong.

Mark Rosewater recently used the analogy of a “zero-entry pool” to describe a format that can fit any experience level, and that’s exactly what Cube needs to become if it is to diversify and thrive.

Maybe I should have started that this is already “wrong”. There are two different things going on:
* Difference in experience in the game. As correctly stated by many, starting players overvalue life gain and undervalue that life is a resource. Similarly, card evaluation is done differently by starters/experienced players.
* (experienced) players unfamiliar with your cube can get overwhelmed by all the different abilities/cards/etc going on.

What do you want to fix? Yes, I recommend for starters to take the second point into account. However, for experienced players, but new to cube, one does not have to stick to beginner cards.

 

[ellogeyen]

I'm playing a lot more with newish Magic players than I used to. My Jeskai Cube has been simplified a bunch in 2022 and 2023, mirroring the mothods for that listed above. Right, now I'm working on a way to introduce new players to Magic with it, following these steps:

1. I'll make 3 mono-colored 40-card decks, each with around 4 keywords to learn. The cube itself will be simplified enough that I can skip a lot of rules (like planeswalkers, enchantments, the upkeep), and with just 4 keywords to remember for their own deck I think this will be the lowest point of entry to start playing.

2. The new player can pick their favourite 2 decks and combine them in a sealed pool. I'll probably add the multicolored cards for that color pair as well. From there they can construct their first limited deck!

3. Grid-draft the cube with them, maybe excluding a chunk of the cards to make sure all familiar cards will show up and the new player will be familiar with most of them.

4. Four-player draft with all 180 cards of the cube.

5. Profit???

A fifth step might actually be to have them build a commander deck from the cube, as that's the most popular casual format and the only other format I play myself. This could be the way to go teach new players Magic, although I've yet to try this. I feel it transitions nicely from premade decks into deck-construction into cube.

 

[landofMordor]

My point here is that every card has ups and downs in its approachability. A card might get the flavor perfect but seem a little narrow or have a weird drawback. Likewise, a card could be a great synergy piece for a bunch of decks, but seem a little obtuse to someone who has never played with it before. Food for thought!

Totally agree.

Bob is a good marriage of mechanics and flavor, earning its status as your namesake card for the category of designs with high mechanical resonance. But it's also a pretty huge Darwin. New players are often turned off by the fact that they will be losing life from their Dark Confidant. ...

I didn't get to go into detail here, but it's definitely a function of the newcomers' skill. (I implicitly used "newcomer" to mean "to Cube", n0t "to Magic".) Let's say you've played EDH for five years, but never Limited or Cube. Well, maybe you know that life loss isn't a bad thing, but you haven't played with Bob specifically because he's showing his age and isn't even very good in Modern these days. Ok, so you still have to read and grok the card and assess its power level, so the Darwin/Jon thing is still salient, but the worst case scenario (being scared away from Bob) is unlikely here. Contrast to like a Venture card that's still unintuitively powerful even if you've played Arena for years.

This touches on Rusje's point, too:

There are two different things going on:
* Difference in experience in the game. As correctly stated by many, starting players overvalue life gain and undervalue that life is a resource. Similarly, card evaluation is done differently by starters/experienced players.
* (experienced) players unfamiliar with your cube can get overwhelmed by all the different abilities/cards/etc going on.

What do you want to fix? Yes, I recommend for starters to take the second point into account. However, for experienced players, but new to cube, one does not have to stick to beginner cards.

I'm definitely aiming at the second point -- assuming the newcomers know the rules of Magic, and are maybe even Gold/Plat-level Arena grinders, but just haven't tried Cube. I think the 4 qualities I discussed are just helpful for players of any experience level, not just beginners.

Case in point: I've played Magic for a decade, and I'm still turned off by cubes that don't offer me any appeal besides novel mechanical interaction and deceptively powerful cards I've never read before. This article tries to tease out some of those characteristics that make it worthwhile for me: Thematic cohesion or unique flavor, like Rusje's Saga cube (which I'd love to try). Iconic cards and strategies (Bun Magic as an example). Cards that work on Level One with lenticular synergies (Regular Cube). That's not to say every single cube must have all these qualities, or that mechanical novelty is bad. But even experienced Magicians may still appreciate cards which are thematic, intuitive, flavorful, and cohesive -- especially if they're new to Cube.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, all!

 

[Rusje]

Totally agree.

I didn't get to go into detail here, but it's definitely a function of the newcomers' skill. (I implicitly used "newcomer" to mean "to Cube", n0t "to Magic".) Let's say you've played EDH for five years, but never Limited or Cube. Well, maybe you know that life loss isn't a bad thing, but you haven't played with Bob specifically because he's showing his age and isn't even very good in Modern these days. Ok, so you still have to read and grok the card and assess its power level, so the Darwin/Jon thing is still salient, but the worst case scenario (being scared away from Bob) is unlikely here. Contrast to like a Venture card that's still unintuitively powerful even if you've played Arena for years.

This touches on Rusje's point, too:

I'm definitely aiming at the second point -- assuming the newcomers know the rules of Magic, and are maybe even Gold/Plat-level Arena grinders, but just haven't tried Cube. I think the 4 qualities I discussed are just helpful for players of any experience level, not just beginners.

Case in point: I've played Magic for a decade, and I'm still turned off by cubes that don't offer me any appeal besides novel mechanical interaction and deceptively powerful cards I've never read before. This article tries to tease out some of those characteristics that make it worthwhile for me: Thematic cohesion or unique flavor, like Rusje's Saga cube (which I'd love to try). Iconic cards and strategies (Bun Magic as an example). Cards that work on Level One with lenticular synergies (Regular Cube). That's not to say every single cube must have all these qualities, or that mechanical novelty is bad. But even experienced Magicians may still appreciate cards which are thematic, intuitive, flavorful, and cohesive -- especially if they're new to Cube.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, all!

Invite/meet-up send in pm.

 

[landofMordor]

Unfortunately I'm not in Europe, but I do mean it when I say your cube looks like a fun, unique, accessible game experience

 

[burymeinmsg]

I really enjoyed this article. Accessibility it is so important for a growing community. I have many new players and this is a major thing I think about.

Another area outside of game design I would like to add is accessibility in the aesthetics of your cube and few other tid bit observations I've had:

Borders/Art: My players have found cubes way more accessible when the cube designer has a 90%+ consistent border preference. Old Border only/Modern Border only, Low full art / normal border variance, Low special frame treatment etc. I've played some cubes where half the cube is in full art, half in normal frames, a huge chunk in secret lair trippy art. It can be quite jarring. It's okay to throw in spice for your most favourite cards but having a consistent aesthetic and design language helps alleviate information overload for new and old players alike.

Dual Lands: If you're proxying Duals, please proxy any design that has the basic type lines and doesn't have the old paragraph text. This is the number one thing I see players go wtf does this say? and OH I can fetch this? (Unless you're specifically making an old school cube)

No One Wants To Look Up Oracle: This is one that I haven't completely phased out yet but cards that require oracle text knowledge is horrible for new players and is commonly overlooked by cube designers. This includes old burn spells. They've reprinted a lot of burn spells with the new "any target" wording but not all of them. Some of your favourite editions and promos will never get reprinted but if you have many new players, you might have to bite the bullet and put those in the binder and add newer editions or break singleton.
I asked one of my new players that had played the cube maybe 10 or so times if they knew they could bolt a planeswalker, they said nope, doesn't say it on the card so they didn't realise. I've explained this errata once in a while but it never sticks! This is one of those issues where if you don't ask you'll never see it because you'll mistaken your new players are playing sub-optimally because they're new not because they don't understand the card.

Frequency of Cube Changes: It can be exciting to frequently add and swap cards into your cube, especially when a new set is released. If changes are made too often though, your new players will be in a perpetual cycle of not only learning how to draft your cube, but also learning new cards. They need time with your cube to get some footing. Low frequency, Large updates > High frequency, Small updates.
Designers often hate complex individual cards. Throw even the most complex modern card like Cosima, God of the Voyage into a cube where your new player has been playing the same cube for the past 6 months and they'll definitely pick it up quickly, they have less learning to do. Throw Cosima into a cube where your new player is constantly trying to understand the shifting 10% of cards going in and out of the cube each time they draft, and of course they'll find it difficult to understand.

Relationship Factor: Many of my new players are friends of friends that think about MTG maybe once or twice a month if that. Not all players will be entrenched in magic like our core player base that will be happy to show up just for the love of the game. I found more important than game design (not to disregard or minimise this element) is making sure the actual physical/online experience is accessible. My community will go out to eat afterwards, 90% of players will join and I make sure to befriend the newer players. I make sure to introduce them properly to other players. Breaking this ice is so important to having someone come back. Always reaching out afterwards to say hey did you have any questions, how was your experience etc is vital as well. If your new players are showing up, drafting once, leaving, and then never returning and never saying why, this is a flag!

All very small things in the grand scheme of onboarding New Players into the cube but it all culminates to a better experience.
Sorry for derailing a bit but I thought you summed the cube design aspects well enough.

 

[LadyMapi]

"Derailing a bit" assumes that we're ever on rails around here.