Name-based archetypes are an interesting design space in card games. A "name-based archetype" is when part of a card's importance is derived from some part of its name being used in other cards. The most infamous example of this kind of design is Yu-gi-oh, where the whole modern game is largely structured around names.
In Yu-gi-oh, "Blue-Eyes" and "Red-Eyes" are name-based archetypes. There are dozens of cards that explicitly say things like "search your deck for a Blue-Eyes monster" or "send 1 Red-Eyes monster from your hand or deck," etc. The game has become heavily reliant on this mechanic.
I bring it up now because we just covered the first few sets in the Pokémon TCG that use name-based archetypes. "Dark" is a name-based archetype. So are the gym leader themes. Brock, Misty. Lt. Surge, etc. There are cards in the game that explicitly care about the prefixes attached to your 'mons.
So now let's do a deep dive on the benefits and drawbacks of name-based archetypes.
Carving Out Compartments
The primary function of a name-based archetype is to compartmentalize some section of the game, cutting it into a smaller chunk. This can keep cards from being too powerful, or can contribute to theming. It doesn't make sense for "Brock's Training Method" to apply to any Pokémon that doesn't belong to Brock.
You can also print an extremely powerful effect, like Misty, and only have to rebalance a handful of cards around it.
Rain Dance Blastoise created an issue where every water-type had to be designed around it, which is why you don't see many water-types that can hit for 50+ damage. Misty, by stark contrast, can only break a very small subset of 'mons from two sets.
Another advantage is clarity in design. A card like Misty's Wrath does get the gears turning for advanced players, but its purpose might not seem obvious to newer players, who are much more averse to discarding several cards from their deck.
Players instinctively like to have access to their cards, and especially hate discarding unrevealed cards, so they might see this seemingly monumental cost and just accept that this card "isn't for them."
But by naming it Misty's Wrath, we encourage the player to think about how it would fit into a Misty deck, specifically. In Misty's deck, the most powerful card is Misty herself. This teaches the player how the card works. Misty's Wrath exists to search for your most powerful and important cards, like Misty.
Names Can Be Guides
If I want to make a "Koga" deck, I don't need to scour all of the hundreds of cards that existed at the time. I first need to focus on cards that feature "Koga" in the name or card text, then work my way outward from there.
This will lead to me seeing Koga's Ninja Trick, Koga, and Fuchsia City Gym before I see any other trainers. By stripping away all of the distractions, the game shows me my intended playstyle.
Koga's Ninja Trick and Fuchsia City Gym are all about repositioning. Koga inflicts poison. So I'm a Poison-themed deck that cares about getting my 'mons in and out of the Active Spot. The names ultimately teach me about the deck.
Too Much or Not Enough?
Just like any mechanic in a card game, name-based archetypes are ultimately tools for the designers. And tools can be misused. The main misuses that people attribute to name-based archetypes is that they're either "too much" or they're "not enough." Allow me to explain.
"Too much" is when the deck largely builds itself. This is a deck that doesn't give the player much creative freedom in the deck-building process, and will often be so synergistic that it feels like it plays itself.
The player feels like an accessory to these decks. You're not the star of the show anymore. You didn't get to 'solve' an obscure deck. This playstyle does appeal to some people, but not to everyone.
Modern Yu-gi-oh is all about "too much." It's a game that often feels like it was designed to be over the top and extreme in its implementations, to make you feel like an anime character. Some players bounce off of it completely, because they don't feel enough agency when building and playing decks.
While Pokémon usually does a good job of avoiding this issue, the closest thing I can think of to a "too much" deck is the Team Magma archetype. It's extremely obvious that Team Magma's Groudon is meant to be the star of the show, and its restrictions essentially lock you into only playing with a small subset of cards.
This is intentional, of course. You're meant to role play as Team Magma. Your goal is to "awaken" Groudon and use it to overwhelm your opponent. That's the point.
But it ended up being too synergistic, too powerful, and too cut off from the rest of the game. The end result was that it completely swept a world tournament. While you might be fine with that occasionally happening, I don't think it should ever be a design goal.
"Not enough" is when an archetype feels half-baked. Vermilion City Gym references Lt. Surge's 'mons, but it's the only card that directly calls them out by name.
It almost feels pointless for them to have names, because his cards don't do anything with the naming mechanic.
His deck wants to be all about manipulating intel, but it isn't executed well. None of his Pokémon actually benefit from the niche effects of the "Lt. Surge's" trainer cards.
As a result, you have a whole group of cards that are only really united by this one unusual support piece. It doesn't really feel like you're playing as Lt. Surge.
Implicit Synergies
Another thing you can do with name-based archetypes is that you can make subtle synergies more obvious because of the associations. While Lt. Surge's Trainer Cards mostly miss the mark, he does have a pair of Pokémon cards that feel great together.
Lt. Surge's Electabuzz has two versions. One version attacks while moving energy to your bench. The other version does massive damage based on how much energy it has attached to it.
The obvious design here is that you're supposed to use the first one to charge up the second one. They did both end up losing out to the original Electabuzz, but that's not super important to me. What matters from a design standpoint is that they executed an interesting concept in an interesting way.
Long-Term Consequences
Going too deep into name-based archetypes can have long-term consequences, for better and for worse. One common complaint about modern Yu-gi-oh is that you "can't make generic decks anymore" because everything is an archetype.
What players really mean by that is that they don't feel agency when deck-building and playing. Cyber Dragon has a specific series of cards that go in a Cyber Dragon deck, and it only ever plays out in the Cyber Dragon playstyle.
It's objectively worse to make a generic deck themed around "machine beatdown with a splash of Cyber Dragon" or "Cyber Dragon with a splash of fairies." This can put creative players off, as they feel like their creativity isn't being rewarded by the space that the game gives them.
The limits of name-based archetypes are meant to be fences that keep the player from straying too far out into the fields, but it should still be possible to climb over the fence and grab a few stray sheep and wild horses from a neighboring field to add to your flock.
Name-based archetypes fail when they become brick walls, completely impassable and impenetrable. You can circumvent this issue to some extent by having generically good engines that can be splashed into any deck, but if you want to reward creativity and critical thinking then you do have to give the player some space to peer out past the confines of your fenced-in enclosures.
I think Pokémon has largely done a very good job of avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits. The designers tend to understand that having "not enough" is better than having "too much," and they're careful to err on the side of caution.
If an archetype is "not enough" then it's quickly forgotten and the game moves on. But if it's way, way too much? Well, that's your game now. You either put up with it until the archetype rotates out, or combat the problem by creating increasingly complicated and synergistic archetypes to compete with it until you end up making Yu-gi-oh.
Closing Thoughts
A card game doesn't strictly need name-based archetypes to function. Magic the Gathering offloads this task to its robust type and subtype system, for example.
But if it is going to exist, then it's important to know the purpose of this tool, the risks of using it, and all the ways that it's succeeded or failed in the past.
It can be a great way to add a whole new feeling to your game, since there are inherent roleplay elements woven into the mechanic. But always remember that while players may want to roleplay every now and then, they should ultimately have the freedom to be themselves within your game.
We don't always want to role play as someone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment