|
5 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2008 - 11:19AM
#1
|
|
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Making Magic, which goes live Monday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2008 - 10:18PM
#2
|
- BCP5 Worldbuilding Lead
- I'll take Dreamblade for 200, Alex
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2002
|
I wonder what " The Troubled One" has to say. And if it ever forgave Mark for writing that article. 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2008 - 10:48PM
#3
|
- BCP5 Worldbuilding Lead
- I'll take Dreamblade for 200, Alex
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2002
|
Oh, and here's a sneak preview:
"I like white because we're both working toward the betterment of civilization, but white's just too stubborn and hidebound to listen to my new ideas. Black, on the other hand, has no fear of the unknown and will gladly pursue new knowledge with me, but it can sometimes go too far or lose sight of why the knowledge was important in the first place. Green just doesn't get me; can't it see I'm just trying to make the world a better place? And red is constantly either changing or destroying the very systems I'm working so hard to understand, and I'll never get any decent work done as long as they continue to breathe! No respect for their betters, I tell you."
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2008 - 9:30PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2008
|
Green's not irrational. That would imply capacity for higher intelligence. Green just runs on instinct, something like emotions that has no base in logic. Some of it is biological. There's group dynamics involved. I've studied it. I've tried to understand Green, but in the end, it's just as unpredictable as Red. And while it's not as chaotic as Red it's more ferocious. Red might accidentally blow you up; Green, on the other hand, goes for your throat. Interestingly enough, that's not even Green's biggest threat.
It's funny, but I was watching a thing on TV about how fractals can be used to "draw" natural systems mathematically just a couple of hours ago.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2008 - 9:34PM
#5
|
- Warm, wet and squishy inside
|
Is that exhilarating or frightening?
Both. Things that are one are often the other as well. Part of what makes something exciting is the sense of danger involved. Things that are safe are not exhilarating.
Wait a second, I thought that's what red did, not blue. I didn't think blue was a "risk taker". It sits back and calculates, it doesn't do things that aren't "safe". It sits and thinks until it figures out how to do it, and only then acts. The inherent assumption that "anything is possible" means there is nothing that's truly unsafe.
First, you need the desire.
That still sounds red to me. Why does red do what it does? Because it wants to -- in a really pure not-necessarily thinking kind of way.
And I wouldn't say Chess takes only a moment to learn. Chess takes a bit of time to pick up all the movements of the pieces correctly. I'd say Go is much, much simpler to learn (though I'll admit most of your audience probably isn't familiar with the game).
Red is insane. I'm not using hyperbole here. I honestly believe Red is mentally unstable. Red's actions defy any logical understanding. Red will do things that are not only destructive to everyone else but are equally destructive to Red. Red, for example, will light itself on fire to try and burn you. My arsenal is cerebral. I use reason and logic. It doesn't work with crazy people.
I think blue doesn't understand how Red works.
I also think that red has a bit more going on in it's head than Blue thinks it does. When the odds are stacked against you and everyone "knows" you're going to fail, the best thing in the world you can do is sow chaos. Especially if you're really, really good at navigating said chaos. The exact unpredictable results of what you achieve is irrelevant; whatever comes up is something you can deal with when the time comes. What's important is that your certain demise become much less certain.
Lastly, the bit about change is a bother. There's always things about change that are completely unforseen. "Computers are wonderful", except that whenever a computer goes down, nobody seems to be able to do their job anymore. And you have to spend a significant amount of time just to learn how to use the computer in the first place. Oh, and now that everyone spends their time sitting in front of a desk, you don't get the exercise you need. Hey, thanks computers! You've made life a lot better. Computers aren't entirely bad, but they're not all roses and candy, and my parallel is that changes computers brought were sometimes helpful, but sometimes not so great.
And I wouldn't call Black "short-sighted", and not just because it might kill you. The whole point of belonging to a society is to get something you want or need from it; if you can't get what you need from it, or that society is what's coming between you and what you're trying to get, it makes perfect sense to find a way to make do without the group. People don't like it when you turn their back on them, but if they've basically turned theirs on you first I think Black won't see the problem.
I also don't think red is insane.
I was disappointed in green's philosophy, since we're on that topic. I think every color should have a coherent philosophy, and probably several of them. I don't think self-contradiction is a good thing.
What I'm trying to say is that there are smart people of every color, and that I believe every color should have a completely coherent world view. Pretending any color is "stupid" or "willing to accept self-contradiction" means that the color doesn't have a coherent view. (And seeming-contradictions is not the same as a real contradiction; lacking the understanding to see the non-exclusivity of two statements doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive).
I've rambled on too long. I guess that means it was a good article.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2008 - 9:36PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2008
|
I was up late working on some problems for a mathematics competition and, thus, I was one of the first to view this interview on Blue's philosophy. That seems appropriate. Blue's philosophy has weaknesses in the real world. The problem with gathering knowledge to solve problems is that the gathering is an extra step and slows down the solution. Thus, Blue's weakness is that it is slow. A fast aggro deck can overcome it. That match between the real-world weaknesses of Blue's philosophy and the game weaknesses of Blue shows the R&D team's success in visualizing a meaningful viewpoint for Blue.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2008 - 9:48PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2005
|
Personally, I'm against Mythic Rares. Whenever the topic comes up, I'm the first to say that they were a mistake. Why do I bring them up now? Because it is curious, intellectually, that my most hated Mythic and the one I actually like very much are both Esperian, from the Blue shard. They are Sharuum the Hegemon  , which I despise with a passion because it's basically a "One Shot White Bringer  ," and Sphinx Sovereign  , which, I feel, drew a disproportionate amount of hate at it's debut. As a Johnny, I've always had a soft spot for the runt of the litter. I just know that, given a chance, they can shine as brightly as their siblings. Which, I think, is a very Blue way of looking at it. Looking back on it, I just noticed that they're both sphinxes, as well. Curious.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2008 - 9:59PM
#8
|
- BCP5 Worldbuilding Lead
- I'll take Dreamblade for 200, Alex
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2002
|
This was definitely an entertaining article. Blue sounds a little like a self-help book, doesn't it. I was definitely thinking of all of blue's former preferential treatment in the colour pie when it talked about "the capacity to do anything, to be anything". Now we know why it can be so hard to keep in line sometimes. You know, maybe a month from now you can flip the table and have the colours interview you, namely about how their philosophies are reflected mechanically on actual cards, and where these philosophies start to feel a little strained or awkward. Maybe you could discuss whether anything needs to be done about these disconnects, or if fixing the problem would mean weakening the game. That would not only be an interesting capstone to the series, but also provide an answer to the lack of design-flavoured meat that turns a number of vocal readers off of these articles.
Blue's philosophy has weaknesses in the real world. The problem with gathering knowledge to solve problems is that the gathering is an extra step and slows down the solution. Thus, Blue's weakness is that it is slow. A fast aggro deck can overcome it. That match between the real-world weaknesses of Blue's philosophy and the game weaknesses of Blue shows the R&D team's success in visualizing a meaningful viewpoint for Blue.
Definitely. However, it seems odd that the colour purports to embrace change yet is the only one that has the tools to stop change directly ![](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name="Cancel"&type=card) . Perhaps it only wants to change the world in ways that support its own goals of progress and not dying to burn spells, but philosophically it seems counterspells make more sense in green than blue. Or at least counterspells make sense in green and blue.
I'm not seriously arguing for green counters, I'm just poking at a little ad absurdum.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2008 - 10:00PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2008
|
Wait a second, I thought that's what red did, not blue. I didn't think blue was a "risk taker". It sits back and calculates, it doesn't do things that aren't "safe". It sits and thinks until it figures out how to do it, and only then acts. The inherent assumption that "anything is possible" means there is nothing that's truly unsafe.
I agree. Blue dabbles in the risky because it is confident that it knows enough to contain the risk.
I was disappointed in green's philosophy, since we're on that topic. I think every color should have a coherent philosophy, and probably several of them. I don't think self-contradiction is a good thing.
What I'm trying to say is that there are smart people of every color, and that I believe every color should have a completely coherent world view. Pretending any color is "stupid" or "willing to accept self-contradiction" means that the color doesn't have a coherent view. (And seeming-contradictions is not the same as a real contradiction; lacking the understanding to see the non-exclusivity of two statements doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive).
Green takes an evolutionary approach. It tries several methods, some contradicting the others. Some will succeed, some won't, and green will stick with one or more of the methods that succeeded.
Both blue and green embrace knowledge in their own way. Blue strives of pure knowledge, exemplified in the pure card-drawing of Courier's Capsule  , and likes planned lines of research. Green strives for knowledge as a side effect of life experience, exemplified in the cantrip card-drawing of Elvish Visionary  , and goes for unplanned experience.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2008 - 10:32PM
#10
|
|
|
Definitely. However, it seems odd that the colour purports to embrace change yet is the only one that has the tools to stop change directly .
So you want to control the world?
Let's just say that I don't want anyone else controlling it. What I really want is to understand the world. I want to know all its secrets.[/quote]
Green wants to stop change, but it can't. It doesn't know how. White legislates to control change, but isn't as quick on its feet - it lays down the rules ahead of time, instead of reacting case-by-case (tangent: I want a White counterspell named Line-Item Veto). Black can mess with other people's plans, but it understands that there's a price, so generally it doesn't bother. Red just likes to screw with people. Blue is the only color with both the motivation and the ability to keep people from doing something Blue doesn't want them to do as they try to do it.
@Dragon Bloodthirsty: The difference between red's desire and blue's desire is, ironically, that desires are less significant to red. Red will hurl itself 100% from moment to moment into totally different pursuits as the thought occurs to it - one moment it will be spoiling for a fight, another moment it will be writing poems under the window of a loved one. EVERY color is very intense about what's important to it - it's just that what's important to Red is "doing what I feel like now." Blue, in contrast, has definite long-term goals in sight that are solidified ahead of time and worked for throughout the duration of the plan.
And yeah, I think it's interesting that Blue loves the thrill of risk. But it makes sense. Blue's enemies each have something that's important to it that's important to them, but turned on its head (which is probably why Blue dislikes them so much). Green and Blue are both fans of personal growth, but in completely different ways. Green wants to pit everyone against each other so the strongest side will win. Blue and Red love change, but where Blue changes things as they suit it, and gets the smug satisfaction of a plan well-executed when it does in fact work, Red changes things because it's bored. It rides the high of risk all the time, which is intolerable to Blue (and to White, for that matter).
Sure, Blue's take on the other colors, and on progress itself, was a little biased. But that's the point of these articles - the color explains itself, in its own words.
|
|
|
