Adding Complexity: The Setup

There is a formula for writing in which authors pen in character or plot events that they themselves don't know how to end. They leave loose threads dangling in the hopes that it will be useful there. How many ominous shadows have you counted in your favorite TV-shows, only to have them be explained away simply or never mentioned again? How many dangling plot threads seem to be hanging off, never explained? Now how many of those ominous shadows or mysterious threads came back to grand effect, making the entire affair seem like a brilliantly orchestrated concerto?

This is a simple technique in which I will call 'the setup.' It is a method of opening up the complexity with a tiny bit of extra work at the outset.

Take this card from the World of Warcraft trading card game:

Arcane Blast deals one arcane damage to each opposing ally and player. Draw a card for each damage dealt this way.

The first part of this ability is a generic ability that anyone could think of. Hit someone for one point of damage. Then, you draw a card to replace the card you just used. However, compare that ability to this one:

Lunge deals one damage to an ally or player. Draw a card.

In a vacuum, Arcane Blast and Fire Bolt do the exact same thing. They both do a single point of damage to the opposing player and allow the user to draw a card. However, games are not played in a vacuum.

There are four key differences between the two cards. One is obvious, the other three, far less so.

1) Mutiplicative Effects: Area of Effect

The first obvious difference is that Arcane Blast deals one point of damage to every opposing ally. This makes the spell an Area of Effect spell. However, note that you draw a card for each point of damage you do, thus, not only is it better to hit multiple enemies with the Arcane Blast, it lets you draw a card for each damage dealt, significantly increasing the reward if there is more than one target to hit.

This kind of setup asks the question: Should I wait or should I apply the effect now? Maybe there will be greater payoff later.

2) Additional Clauses: Negation or Boosting

Consider if your opponent has the following effect:

Negation: Prevent all damage that would be dealt from the next source that would deal damage.

Now playing Arcane Blast becomes a little more tricky. In order for you to draw a card with Arcane Blast, you must *deal* damage first. The little "setup" clause enabled a deeper interaction with other effects in the game. Will you play some other card first to absorb the negation? Will you simply wait the shield out before blasting him with Arcane Magics?

Even better, if my opponent attempts to cast Arcane Blast against me, in the hopes of drawing a card, if I can somehow prevent that damage with a shield, I will prevent that player from drawing a card. Arcane Blast as a card also creates more interesting choices for your opponent as well as the player playing Arcane Blast.

This kind of setup asks the question: Is there some sort of interaction can happen *at the moment* to boost or negate my move?

3) Keyworded Damage Types: Arcane

Alternatively, consider if your opponent has the following effect:

Weak to Arcane: Takes double damage from Arcane Sources.

Because the damage type was keyworded, it was able to be referenced by other sources. This is a fairly intuitive concept that is very easy to miss. The ability to reference damage types allows for crazy interactions later on down the line. For example, one could now create this card:

Reckless Arcane: Whenever you deal damage with an arcane source, double that damage and you lose 3 life.

Note that casting Arcane Blast with this card active will most likely kill you. But then, you'd also double the amount of cards you draw and the amount of damage you deal. Trade-offs and choices...

This kind of setup asks the question: What kind of scenario will I be in? What kind of planning and synergy can I add to boost my effects.

In all fairness, this kind of effect could be done with Lunge, it's not hard to imagine a card like:

Weakness to Damage: This card takes twice as much damage from all sources.

But on the other hand, this kind of card is generic and all too often involves too many uncontrolled interactions. Additionally, it also feels kind of bland and overdone on the complexity side. It is also harder to justify from the perspective of flavor as, what exactly is a weakness to damage? If he was weak to damage, wouldn't he just have lower health? Weakness to Arcane fits better and 'feels' more right.

4) Targeting Restrictions: Limiting or Expanding Choices

Arcane Blast is actually *less* interactive in one regard, than Lunge. It has the choice of limiting your targets to Opposing ones. Arcane Blast doesn't actually let you kill off friendly allies.

Although, most of the time this is very desirable, it is interesting to note that by making the card more user-friendly, we have also limited the interactivity of it somewhat. A quick example should illustrate the point well enough:

Let's say I have just cast Arcane Blast upon my opponent's character while he has a character with one hit point. If the opponent has lunge, he has the option of destroying his *own* character with lunge before my Arcane Blast hits him, by responding to my Arcane Blast with his Lunge. He can do that because Lunge allows you to hit anyone, not just opposing allies. Since his character dies before I did damage to it with Arcane Blast, I don't draw a card for damaging him.

A simple setup can inspire a lot more interactions and complexity. Later on, I'll discuss my own musings for transporting this mechanic into other game types and take it out of the context of card games.