Why Does Mark Rosewater Dislike the Upkeep Step?
General forum
Posted on Feb. 9, 2023, 8:38 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
I just saw this post, and it seems that Mark Rosewater dislikes the upkeep step, despite it having been a part of the game since the very beginning, so I am wondering why that is. It is so named because there were many cards that had upkeep costs, but those have become fewer in number, although there are still plenty of useful abilities that trigger during the upkeep step.
What does everyone else say about this? Why does Mark Rosewater dislike the upkeep step?
wallisface says... #3
Yeah exactly what Delphen7 said. But in addition, Wotc want to move towards players being being able to make more educated decisions - by allowing the player to be able to draw their card first, it gives them more information and so gives the player a better ability to perform the most optimal plays for the turn.
February 9, 2023 9:54 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #4
Simply put: the upkeep step was unnecessary, even in early magic.
Think about it, what purpose does it serve? Anything you can do in the upkeep step can be done during the draw step or main phase.
Any card that says upkeep could be changed to say “draw step” and the game functionally would be no different.
February 9, 2023 11:28 p.m.
The Upkeep Step was the "do things before you active turn starts" step, and was intended for things that automatically happen once each turn. Untap and Draw were (with a couple exceptions), static in nature and they weren't interacted with as much. You untap, you draw. Both of those words have defined actions and you get to do them at that point. Upkeep is more flexible in nature, though the existence of the Upkeep and Cumulative Upkeep mechanics also tie in the name/timing aspect of it.
MaRo likes simplification, and while the use of the Upkeep step hasn't gone away, it has been reduced over the years. But he can go too far, including his stated thoughts that Instants were a mistake, and that they should have been a subtype of Sorcery. Upkeep isn't going to go away either, it's just musings.
February 10, 2023 9:02 a.m.
berryjon - You are incorrect about what MaRo said - he said if he could change one thing, he would make Instant a _super_type (not a _sub_type as you said in your post). As a supertype, the game would still have something functioning exactly like an Instant - Instant Sorcery - but would also allow for things like Instant Creature and Instant Enchantment, rather than taking up valuable text box space with a line reading Flash.
Functionally, this would have no change on the game’s complexity - there would still be instants and flash cards which would function the exact same way, there just would be some shifting of the language. Complexity would not change in the slightest - so this really isn’t an example relevant to the topic of simplification.
February 10, 2023 9:32 a.m.
FormOverFunction says... #7
{engage_grumpy_old_man_engine} I’ve always liked the requirement that you decide between paying the upkeep mana for something and having that mana available for whatever you were about to draw. As we proceed down the MtG road, though, we have seen less and less downsides for cards. The age of “bad things happen to everyone” (such as Copper Tablet) and “you get a STRONG card but it hurts” (such as Gallowbraid) is winding down. Our “is it worth adding this card” decisions are less “can I handle the downside for these upsides” than they are “is this awesome set of benefits better than this other set of awesome benefits”. It does make the game simpler, but it takes a little away from what I liked about magic. Losing the upkeep phase would make me sad, but not by much... because I’m already sad that we’ve almost completely moved into the realm of “everyone gets good stuff all the time”. Booo.
February 10, 2023 11:21 a.m.
Magic in general used to care a lot about the upkeep, stuff like the Fallen Empires Storage Lands are incredibly awkward to play because you have to choose before you draw if you want mana now or later. By the time we got to Mercadia they were doing Storage very differently, Subterranean Hangar is a vastly better card in actual practice than Bottomless Vault, so this isn't a new concern I'd say, it just seems like it's impossible to actually do away with a step that is referenced on numerous cards. I like complex cards like Vault, but Hangar is not only a better card, it's much more fun to play with in practice, it's too easy to set yourself back by saving mana for an extra turn. 'Feels Bad' design space is something Magic has been avoiding progressively more over time (where you end up feeling bad due to design choices, not really play choices that are your fault, other than maybe playing questionable cards), many people consider this 'dumbing down', but I'm sure I still don't know what half of Stixhaven does so you can make a card complex without giving it complicated drawbacks. Still, I'd rather Magic made more cards like Phyrexian Negator, which have a high ceiling but require skill and planning, vs cards like Oko, Thief of Crowns. Both cards were a big deal in their day, but Oko is a challenge to play wrong, Negator is hilariously easy to screw up with.
Huh, just was looking, FE Storage lands are even clunkier than I thought, you originally chose during your untap, which is frankly absurd by modern standards. One of the instances where functional errata made a card strictly better (it now interacts fine with card draw during your upkeep), usually they do stuff like Relic Bind. Maybe I just need to get a R&D's Secret Lair, the Legends copy would then work as originally worded, which is still a bad card but at least qualifies as playable.
FormOverFunction you totally ninja'd me!
February 10, 2023 11:32 a.m.
FormOverFunction says... #9
Lol sorry about that Dread! Your storage lands example is a perfect example of what I was taking about. Make the call: get that extra “free” mana -next- turn, or use what you’ve gotten so far because you’re about to draw that thing you were hoping for. A new version of this would be a land that gets a counter at the end of the turn and it taps for x mana (probably in two or three different color options, honestly) where x is the number of counters on it. No downsides, stronger every turn. Helps make the games end sooner, sure, but it makes me feel like it’s a little more straightforward (to avoid saying “more simple”) and just railroading straight on. Sort of like in Diablo III, where the new axe or whatever that you pick up is either highlighted red (it’s not as good as what you’re holding) or green (better than what you’re holding) and you junk or use it accordingly. Less specialization and nuance, more “just buy that bigger better newer card.” Not what I’m looking for in magic.
February 10, 2023 12:50 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #10
We can't post the clapping emojis here so,
BRING BACK INTER- -RUPTS AND MANA SOURCES
February 11, 2023 4:22 a.m. Edited.
Daveslab2022 says... #11
Interrupts were terrible game design. They made the stack horrendous and don’t actually fundamentally change the game. It’s really just another layer of stuff you have to remember during already complicated stack-states.
February 12, 2023 12:58 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #13
My bad I just thought you were that passionate about it
Delphen7 says... #2
I would imagine it's because a lot of the errors I see new players make involve the upkeep step and its relation to the draw step. So wait. Do I draw before, or after this ability??? MaRo has shown a preference for simplifying the game; and Saga's templating, while a bit bizarre compared to what we're used to, does help to keep the ordering straight.
February 9, 2023 8:58 p.m.