"It varies mechanic to mechanic, but they don’t score any lower as a group against other mechanics. Some, like Monarch, are quite popular."People are criticizing the helper card mechanics because they are very complex, require specific varied tracking and they are virtually impossible to play with unless you constantly refer to helper card (compared to most cards that you can understand by simply reading its oracle text or reminder text).The Monarch doesn't have any of those issues. It's an elegant and masterfully designed mechanic.

The Monarch is very simple and straightforward, so much so that the oracle text from The Monarch token could fit as reminder text on several monarch cards. That can't be said about Day/Night, The Initiative, Venture in the Dungeon, Rad counters or Tempted by the Ring.

I've probably looked at the double sided Tempted by the Ring helper token over 100 times and I can't confidently tell someone exactly how the mechanic works if I don't have the helper token to read from. It's an extremely complex and multifaceted mechanic. I would say more complicated and wordy than 98% of other Magic mechanics. Can you please make more "outside of the game" helper card style mechanics that are easy to comprehend and intuitive?The Monarch and Ascend are examples of mechanics like this. More of that please!

The more complex mechanics that create outside of the game elements are intimidating (i.e. Venture into the Dungeon, Tempted by the Ring, The Initiative, Day/Night) and in my experience, they slow down the game because players can't understand them easily.Lastly, I'm offering this feedback as a major Magic enthusiast and long time veteran player who also plays with experienced players regularly. I can't even begin to imagine how daunting these types of mechanics must feel for novice players!

I talk a lot about how different players enjoy different aspects of the game. What I talk far less about is different players struggle with different aspects. Some can’t handle excessive processing; some have issues with sequencing; some don’t understand the nuances of the rules; some aren’t good with memory. My best guess with you is you internalize (aka work from memory) card abilities most of the time, so cards which exceed your ability to memorize cause you issues.Because players see the game through the lens of their own experience, the feedback they tend to give is “stop doing thing X” because thing X is the element that they personally struggle with. The challenge is there are players that don’t struggle with that element of the game and thus enjoy thing X. For example, my biggest note on this blog about dungeons isn’t they’re too hard to process, but there aren’t enough of them. So, it’s a balance. We need to understand the ways in which people struggle and help accordingly where we can. I agree that we need to be cautious how complex and wordy we are on elements off the card. And we have to be careful how often we use that tool. Now there is a threshold where enough players struggle, that we have to question if a particular aspect is worth it. I don’t think we’re there yet with external game pieces, but I do loudly hear the note that we have to be better with as-fan of the helper cards showing up. The note that we need to auto-include more helper cards in the prerelease kits is also a strong one.So yes, I’m aware that outside game pieces come at a real cost for a certain type of player, and it is something we have to keep in mind when designing them. I personally think we could have simplified Tempted by the Ring a bit, for example, but I do think it was right to include in the product. Thanks for your feedback.

Echoing what that other guy said, I have felt a rise in complexity recently. With so many new cards that not only make you read and remember what they do, but what the tokens they make do, then what the tokens that that token makes does, it really adds to the mental load. Some examples would be Ring Tempts You, daybound/nightbound, initiative, Venture into the dungeon, stickers, attractions, and many more.
For instance, had a vindicate, and was debating between killing Frodo, sauron’s bane and Nahar, selfless paladin, I would have to read a total of 6 cards. Each of the original creatures, plus the 3 dungeons and the Ring card. And this problem gets worse the more effects you add on, many of which don’t go away as the game continues. If someone introduces the initiative, I now have to worry about nahar exploring the underdark. This scaling complexity as the game continues now means there’s an insane amount layers of the game, which while fun, is also very daunting, and somewhat of a headache.If nothing else, I’d really like if “reading the card explains the card” was true, not “reading the card, then the three different extra cards that it makes explains the card”I do appreciate your listening, and generally a lot of the new stuff has been cool. However, this push for many “outside the game” mechanics is not great for paper play, and I would prefer less of it.

Here’s the core problem. A huge part of Magic is that we keep making new cards. When we do that, the audience wants new mechanics. (Market research shows again and again that one of the biggest draws to new sets is new mechanics.) We’re thirty years in. We’ve made a *lot* of mechanics, so we have to go to new spaces to make new things. It’s not as if there’s lots of simple, elegant, non-complex design space that we’re actively choosing not to do.What this means is if you want to play constructed formats that don’t rotate, complexity will rise with time. There’s literally no way around this. Every new card we create, every new mechanic we make, every set we put out adds complexity to the system. So if you’re finding the mental load too much, there are ways to play Magic where this isn’t an issue. Limited formats and rotating constructed formats limit complexity. Or you can choose to build your decks such that you focus on less mechanics you have to track.That said, I don’t think there’s a way for me to do my job (aka keep designing new things) that isn’t going to raise complexity. We can look at how many things we add to any one set. Maybe slow down the rise in complexity a little. But can we do so in a way that the audience is getting what they want? I’m not sure.One of the mechanics I get asked most to bring back is mutate, and that’s confusing even without the rest of Magic, so there are many forces pulling in different directions.I do like hearing the specific things that cause you all problems, because it’s possible I can figure out the style of designs that cause people problems. But the idea that we just stop making mechanics that reference things not on the card is a tough one given where Magic design technology is currently at.I do appreciate all the input, and I hope the dialogue helps me better understand what specific things are causing problems.

How does Venture into the Dungeon and Initiative interact? If you're into any dungeon both will make you advance or Venture into the Dungeon doesn't make you progress the Undercity dungeon?

If you get the initiative, and you aren’t in a dungeon, you need to enter the Undercity dungeon. If you’re already in a dungeon, due to venturing in a dungeon, you may advance in that dungeon. Cards that care about completing a dungeon will count completing the Undercity.

Hey mark! I noticed the Venture into the dungeon mechanic shared some similaries with the abandonded Skirmish from WAR, showing a seperate mini game you could advance with rewards upon having completed one! Did the latter influence the former?

Jules Robins, who lead the set design team that made venture into the dungeon, was on the War of the Spark vision design team that made skirmish.

If venture into the dungeon returned in a non-D&D set, would you want it to use the same dungeons or new ones? If it had new dungeons would the mechanic have to be changed as well (to something like "venture into the cave" or "venture into the crypt") so that it was clear to players they'd only being using the new cards?

Yes, if it was venture into the dungeon, any dungeon could be used.

With the three set mechanics of AFR: multiple dice rolling outcomes, modal flavor word spells, and "venture into the dungeon." Is it safe to say that Adventures if the Forgotton Realms is possibly the most modal Magic set to date? Maybe even the most mechanically complex?

It is pretty modal, but far from the most complex. Also, previews aren’t over yet. : )