Today's Latest Developments column on the Magic: the Gathering site, by guest author Ken Nagle, raises a lot of interesting points about scaling power levels in game design. His article is a defence of a card in the new set commonly described as 'bad' as it's a functional reprint of an existing and somewhat under-played card. Much of it will be lost on those who don't play Magic, but the following excerpts convey the gist of his argument:

To put it another way, in any role-playing game you've played, you can find a sword with bonus +1 damage. I guarantee you that any game with a +1 damage sword also has a +2 damage sword. Why? Because unequipping your +1 damage Sword for a strictly better +2 damage sword feels great! It's what players want—it's absolutely the correct play, and you feel (and are) more powerful within the rules of the game.

Now, it is possible to design games without "strictly betters," where every player choice fits inside an intricate puzzle of "maybes" with tons of rock-paper-scissors involved. The possible choices would be closer to something like:

• Sword of +1 damage
• Shield of +2 defense, -1 speed
• Dagger of +2 speed, -1 defense

But in the end, the player satisfaction gained from replacing a +1 damage sword with a strictly better +2 damage sword far outweigh the unjustified derision of "strictly betters" existing.

I found the tone rather smug in its supposition of self-evidence, but he does raise a valid point - beyond the obvious one of a linear progression of power versus selecting the right tool of several for the job - of what purpose a lower-end feature serves. He argues that it's to make the better examples seem better;

"Why print it if it's bad?" is its own conundrum. Why do poker decks have 2s in them? Since deuces are the worst cards in the deck, how about not printing them? Doing that makes 3s the worst cards in the deck, etc. All this logic does is effectively decrease the power level gamut of cards.

Even now, only a few hours after it went up, discussion on it is getting heated. TeamCharleZ sums it up the counter-argument succinctly if perhaps a little unfairly:

''You will put it into your deck if you don't have anything better''

If I would have got something better instead of it (say, because it wasn't printed), I wouldn't have to bother putting it in a deck.

sammysamurai deconstructs the roleplaying analogy;

I want to point out that Ken's RPG/equipment metaphor is, although clever, flawed. When you play an RPG, you've already spent your money on the game(I'm talking about real life dollars here). To get an in-game +2 sword, you don't have to spend any more real-world money. However, with magic, you are spending real money with each and every pack you buy. It is highly discouraging when I crack 6 packs of the newest set only to find that about 1/4 of the cards "remind me" that I already own cards that are strictly better. If you're playing an RPG and own a +3 sword, don't you think it would be a little odd to go to the shop and purchase a +1 sword?

It'll be interesting to see what response Mr. Nagle has, if any - I'm sure there's a lot left to be said on this subject.