3 ms·

The story isn’t about the rules of the game. It is about a card that has a literal name and illustration of a flower. That it is what the game terms an “artifac

by danso 8y ago

The story isn’t about the rules of the game. It is about a card that has a literal name and illustration of a flower. That it is what the game terms an “artifact” is not a fundamental aspect of the story, which does not purport to be a “how to play MTG” type story. The audience, who is interested in the economical angle, does not become smarter or better served by hearing unnecessary details.

kbenson 8y ago
I would say the story is less about a specific card, which is only used as a focusing example, and about the managed economy of MTG cards in general. It's not that they need to explain the rules of the game, it's that they are imparting some of the value on the basis of rarity, and some on the basis of it being a flower or dragon, when in reality it's a function of rarity and utility in the game. They do touch on this in the article, as they note the power of some of these rare cards (equating it to buying extra aces in poker), so it's not that they haven't explained it, it's that they chose poor wording in that specific sentence which could cause confusion or misunderstanding. It's only worth mentioning because the story went to lengths to explain the reason how the market functions as it does for these cards, and then throws in extra attributes into a sentence either as a mistake or because they wanted to use words such as "flowers" and "dragons" to impart something to the reader (familiarity? Oddness of those in a game? I dunno). It's unfortunately one of the few problems Planet Money suffers from that has persisted over the years. They'll do a great job of explaining some topic, and in their wrap-up they dumb it down a tad too much or choose form over function in their prose and actually hurt some of the understanding they've built over the last 15-30 minutes by introducing new ambiguity.
- danso 8y ago
  The rarity and economic value of the Black Lotus card has nothing to do with it being of the "artifact"-type category. And imparting the detail that this most valuable card is a flower is of value to the non-MTG-playing audience. Because it imparts an unexpected quirky detail to the layperson audience -- in a game about dueling wizards and summoned monsters, the card that excites players (and their wallets) the most is a card that depicts a flower. Hence, the use of the word "even" -- e.g. "even rare flowers" -- to denote what the authors think is an interesting quirk about MTG/WoTC's lore/eco system. There is no claim that "flower" is an actual category in the game, or details about how certain spell cards are sometimes limited to affecting a certain category. Such a simplification/summarization is only "dumbing down" if the story purported to be a helpful guide on how to play MTG.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I think I'm somewhat in the wrong here, as while I think my general point has merit, I don't this it does in this case on this story. I made the mistake of going partially from memory on this story, since this is at least my fourth time encountering is (twice in audio form, once on a prior submission here I believe). Upon reviewing it closer, they do revisit the visual note later while noting the reason the card is useful is because it allows for easily beating an opponent, clearly correcting any misinterpretation that might have been earlier introduced. So... sorry for wasting both our time. :/

by danso 8y ago

kbenson 8y ago

I would say the story is less about a specific card, which is only used as a focusing example, and about the managed economy of MTG cards in general. It's not that they need to explain the rules of the game, it's that they are imparting some of the value on the basis of rarity, and some on the basis of it being a flower or dragon, when in reality it's a function of rarity and utility in the game. They do touch on this in the article, as they note the power of some of these rare cards (equating it to buying extra aces in poker), so it's not that they haven't explained it, it's that they chose poor wording in that specific sentence which could cause confusion or misunderstanding. It's only worth mentioning because the story went to lengths to explain the reason how the market functions as it does for these cards, and then throws in extra attributes into a sentence either as a mistake or because they wanted to use words such as "flowers" and "dragons" to impart something to the reader (familiarity? Oddness of those in a game? I dunno). It's unfortunately one of the few problems Planet Money suffers from that has persisted over the years. They'll do a great job of explaining some topic, and in their wrap-up they dumb it down a tad too much or choose form over function in their prose and actually hurt some of the understanding they've built over the last 15-30 minutes by introducing new ambiguity.

danso 8y ago
The rarity and economic value of the Black Lotus card has nothing to do with it being of the "artifact"-type category. And imparting the detail that this most valuable card is a flower is of value to the non-MTG-playing audience. Because it imparts an unexpected quirky detail to the layperson audience -- in a game about dueling wizards and summoned monsters, the card that excites players (and their wallets) the most is a card that depicts a flower. Hence, the use of the word "even" -- e.g. "even rare flowers" -- to denote what the authors think is an interesting quirk about MTG/WoTC's lore/eco system. There is no claim that "flower" is an actual category in the game, or details about how certain spell cards are sometimes limited to affecting a certain category. Such a simplification/summarization is only "dumbing down" if the story purported to be a helpful guide on how to play MTG.
- kbenson 8y ago
  I think I'm somewhat in the wrong here, as while I think my general point has merit, I don't this it does in this case on this story. I made the mistake of going partially from memory on this story, since this is at least my fourth time encountering is (twice in audio form, once on a prior submission here I believe). Upon reviewing it closer, they do revisit the visual note later while noting the reason the card is useful is because it allows for easily beating an opponent, clearly correcting any misinterpretation that might have been earlier introduced. So... sorry for wasting both our time. :/