Magic: The Gathering Drive to Work Podcast - #856: Parasitism

Episode Date: July 30, 2021

In this podcast, I talk about what the term "parasitism" means in Magic design and then look at the mechanics in Standard and talk about how parasitic they are.

I'm not pulling away driveway. We all know what that means. It's time to other drive to work. Coronavirus edition. Okay, so today's podcast was inspired by some talk online. A term I use in magic design called parasitism. So it has a very specific meaning when I talk about it, and I think a lot of people have been misusing it. And there's been a lot of discussion on my blog and other places about what exactly it means. So I thought I would do a whole podcast explaining what it means, and then I'm going to go through a lot of mechanics in standard to sort of talk about are they or aren't they parasitic and why. Okay, so first let me define parasitism.

So parasitism is basically the opposite of backward compatibility. Basically it says, how much does the things in this set need other things in this set? Like, how much can this be played with existing magic versus only played with itself? Sort of the classic parasitic mechanic was from Champions of Kamigawa, Splice onto arcane.

So the idea was they were cards that had a cost, that you can cast them normally, but if you use the splice into arcane, if you cast a spell that had the subtype arcane, you could pay this cost to sort of staple it onto the spell. The effect would go off, but the card would stay in your hand. Now, the problem with splice into arcane was you could only splice into a spell

that was a subtype Arcane. But the only subtype Arcane cards that existed were in Kamigawa as well. Champions of Kamigawa, the block. So the idea there is if I open up a single Splice into Arcane spell and I have no other cards from the set, I can't maximize the utility of the spell. Part of parasitism says you can't play the

card and maximize its functionality without having other cards from the same set. Now, I do want to stress that parasitism is a scale in the sense that, or it's a spectrum, you know, that it's not as if something is either parasitic or not. Things can be kind of parasitic or very parasitic or not parasitic. So part of me walking through Standard Day is going to talk about that. The reason I use the term, the reason I brought it up, is you have to be careful how parasitic you get in any one set, because if the set's not backward compatible enough, it's just not that playable, you know, with people who want to play it in especially larger formats.

So, and it's not that being parasitic is bad. There are fun parasitic mechanics. We just have to be careful about how many we have. Not that we can't have one, just, like Champs-Élysées was kind of famous for most mechanics were pretty parasitic. And that is a problem. When you really can't play... One of the big tests we'll see as we talk about mechanics today is,

can you take one card of that mechanic and put it in a deck and play it? The more you can do that, the less parasitic it is. The less you can't do that, the more parasitic it is. Okay, so we're going to start with a mechanic that I think created all this controversy in the first place of people talking about what is 2 and not Parasitic, which is Venture into the Dungeon from Adventures in Forgotten Realms. Okay, so the idea is I have a card, I play it, it says go venture in a dungeon, and there's external game pieces, there's three different dungeons, that you can bring in. Now, technically, this card requires other

cards that happen to be from this set, so that's where I think the idea of it being now technically this card requires other cards that happen to be from this set so that's where I think the idea of it being parasitic comes from the big difference is the game pieces that you're generating get generated by the card that ventures what I mean by that is

if I draw a splice into arcane card I have to then draw the arcane card to make it work but when I draw Ventured into the Dungeon card, the Dungeon cards for all intents and purposes are kind of stapled to this card. Like, you can just go get them. They don't have to be in

your deck. They're kind of... It's really in some level, when you say Ventured into the Dungeon, that mechanic has built into it this complex thing that goes on and there's just this outside game component to help you to make it easier to process. But the fact that it's all part of the one card is a very different animal than I need to interact with a different card that also has to be in my deck. Now, that said, so let's take our test. Can I take one Venture into the Dungeon card and put it in a

deck and play it? Yes, I can. When I play it, I have one of three choices, basically, the first room of each of the three dungeons, and hey, that might be a card that's fun and I can play it. But the reason it's somewhat parasitic, this is kind of the middle for me, is the more, the farther down you get in the dungeon, the more powerful the effects are. So, two venture into the dungeon cards are stronger than than one. So one of the things we definitely look at parasitism, and this is where it gets a little more complex, is certain mechanics get strength in having more card of that mechanic. And that makes the card somewhat parasitic in that you need to have more of that mechanic

to maximize the strength of the card. Not maximize its utility. It works. If I play one Venture of the Engine card, it's not that I don't get full range of what that one card does, but the reason there's some parasitism to it is to maximize the meta strength of the card, of the mechanic. It does encourage you to play more. Now, the funny thing is there's another term that I use, which is linear and modular. Linear says the card that gets you playing other cards like it, or other cards in particular, and modular says it just works in a vacuum.

A lot of what people confuse is when things are linear as when they are parasitic. Things that are linear, and those linear things that it cares about only exist in the set, yes, those are also parasitic. But when you're linear, and the things you care about pre-exist in magic,

then it's not parasitic. A good example're linear and the things you care about pre-exist in magic, then it's not parasitic. A good example of that would be the party mechanic from Zendikar Rising. So the party mechanic says, hey, I want to have warriors and wizards and clerics and rogues. Well, magic has 28 years

worth. I mean, alpha includes all of those. And there's been many, many since, I don't know if rogues was been many, many since, since, all right, I don't know if Rogues was in Alpha, but Wizards and Warriors and Clerics were in Alpha. And anyway, we've made a lot, we've made a lot of Rogues. We've made a lot of, all four of those. So when you say, oh, I want to play my party thing, if I have a single party card and I have no other cards from Zendikar Rising, I could go make a potent party deck. Sorry, I can make a deck that can maximize that party card. Now, party has a little bit like venture in that it's linear

in that it pushes you to want to play certain things. So once I'm playing one party card, hey, there's incentive to play more party cards. So the mechanic has a little bit of parasism to it in that, hey, party cards beget other party cards. But the reason that it's less parasitic than, say, Venture into the Dungeon is there are a lot of things pre-existing in Magic,

for example, that care about those creature types. Most of them care about a particular one rather than a combination of them. But it is much, much easier to take one party card, play it, and have it work in a deck. But once again, like I said, I think Zendikar Rising is a little bit parasitic. Party is. Not as much as Venture, and not as much as other stuff we'll talk about. But it's a little bit because, right, once my deck can play party, there is some encouragement to want to play more party cards.

There's some synergy between the mechanics that will do that. Okay, so let's take another mechanic that sort of falls squarely there. Ikoria had Mutate. So Mutate, basically, the idea of Mutate is, when you put it on a card, it just combines that card and this card together. Now, the reason... Now, in a vacuum, if that's all Mutate did, it wouldn't be very parasitic,

because you can just play one Mutate card and mutate one thing. The reason that Mutate cards sort of get somewhat parasitic is that a lot of the Mutate cards want you to mutate, that they have mutate triggers. So the more times you mutate it, the more powerful it becomes. So this is a lot like Venture in that regard, in that there is some, you know, for example, let's see.

Let me give you an example of a mutate card. So what's a good example? Okay, so Essence Symbiote, one green for 2-2 Beast. Whenever a creature you control mutates, put a possible counter on that creature and you gain two life. So, for example, well, actually, that card doesn't care about you mutating with this card and mutating with other cards. But the mutate mechanic, the one thing it definitely does is, A, there are a lot of mutate triggers, so that encourages you. But also, there's a lot of inherent synergy that can happen.

So, you can play a single mutate in a card. Mutate will work. I mean, it's not totally parasitic in the fact that mutate can work. Okay, let me talk a little bit as we bring up mutate. Let me bring that up. Actually, I realize that Essence Symbiote brings up a different issue that gets intertwined with this. that Essence Symbiote brings up a different issue that gets intertwined with this. Just because a mechanic has individual cards that encourage you to play more of that mechanic, that doesn't inherently make the mechanic parasitic.

Let's talk about cycling. Cycling shows up in Ikoria as well. Cycling is a mechanic where you pay two mana and can discard a card in your hand to draw a card. You can put a cycling card in any deck. Any deck can use cycling, right? Cycling... Having one card with cycling

is easy to use. It's a very non-parasitic mechanic. But, we make cards that care about cycling. You know what I'm saying? I mean, probably the most famous one. This wasn't in Standard, but, like, Astral Slide is something that flickers things whenever you throw a card. The whole decks have been built around it.

Lightning Rift was another one that did direct damage. We've made cards that the entire deck archetypes have been built around. But just because you have a card that makes something super linear doesn't inherently mean... Or a card that says, hey, maybe you want to play a lot of things together. Like Adventure is another good one. So like Adventure was a mechanic in

Throne of Eldraine. And so the innkeeper is whenever you cast a creature spell that has Adventure draw a card. So Adventure are cards, ghost and creatures, there are spells you can cast. When you cast a spell,

you exile the creature, and then you can cast the creature from exile. So a bunch of people are like, oh, adventure, well, that's very parasitic. Look at Edgewall Innkeeper. But the issue of Edgewall Innkeeper is that card is parasitic. And look, that card is strong,

so yes, there are decks that... There are adventure decks. But that doesn't mean that Adventure of the Mechanic is parasitic. You can just play a single adventure card just fine. It's not something that you... When you're looking at something that's parasitic or not, the one thing you really want to look at is, does the Spaghet other cards like it?

Does it require other cards like it? It's like Bonecrusher Giant. Two and a red, four, three, giant. Whenever Bonecrusher Giant becomes the target of a spell, Bonecrusher Giant deals two damage to that spell's controller, and then it's stomp one R instant. Damage can't be prevented this turn. It deals two damage to any target.

Bonecrusher Giant saw a lot of play in decks that didn't care about adventures, that didn't have other adventures. Like, it's a good adventure card. And that's a good example where adventures is not particularly parasitic. You can just have

one adventure card and a strong adventure card and work in your deck. Yes, Innkeeper exists. Yes, there are adventure decks. But don't confuse the fact that we make cards that allow you

to play them together with a necessity as in needed to be played together. You know what I'm saying? That, I think, is where some of the confusion comes from. Okay, so let's talk about a different mechanic. Let's talk about Lesson Learn. This is another sneaky one. Okay, so Lesson Learn is a lot like Venture in that, yes, Lessons...

I'm sorry, learn needs lesson cards. You can't play learn without lesson cards. So on the surface, I might see, oh, that's a lot like, um, um, Champs of Kamigawa, right? That, you know, if you're going to put it on a arcane card, well, don't you need arcane cards? Uh, the big difference, and this, the big difference between both venture and arc Gain and Lesson Learn that is different is the cards you need aren't in your deck. You can go get them.

I understand in tournaments that you have to use sideboard space, and so it's a little bit different in tournaments. In sort of casual play, you're just going to go get them. Casual play doesn't tend to use sideboard, so it's just like, hey, go get whatever lesson card you want. So the idea that a learn card gets a lesson

and that lesson isn't tied to the deck, that it's tied separately, in my mind, treats it a little bit differently. Like, you can play one learn card in your deck and then go get whatever you want. I understand in tournaments, because you have to dedicate sideboard space to them, once you play one learn card,

it encourages you to play more learn cards. So in tournament setting, yes, there definitely is some pressure. Like I said, like with Venture into the Dungeon, there's a little bit of pressure to say, oh, well, once I'm committed to playing one, I have incentive to play more.

And that is true. So, I mean, lesson learned is play more. And that is true. So, I mean, lesson learned is a little tricky because that is true in tournaments with sideboards, where that pressure isn't true outside. I mean, there is a little bit of, I go through the trouble of getting all the lesson cards, and I have them, and there's logistics of having them. So, hey, as long as I'm doing that, maybe I want to have more cards that care. So there's a little bit of logistical pressure to maybe play more of them. But the big thing is lesson learned is, as far as how parasitic it is, it is not as parasitic as other things can be. I mean, there's some parasitics too. Once again, it's a scale. Okay, let's dive into some other mechanics.

Okay, let's dive into some other mechanics. So let's talk about Constellation. So Constellation would be very parasitic if... For those that don't know, Constellation is a trigger that says whenever you play an enchantment, something happens. It's an ability word. And so if enchantments didn't exist if this was the very first set, if Theris Beyond Death was the very first set that ever had enchantments, then yes

that would be a parasitic card but it's not, magic has 28 years worth of enchantments there are thousands of enchantments there are a lot of enchantments so when I say, oh I got a single constellation card hey there's a lot I can do with it.

Now, I do understand that Constellation, like some other things, so, I've been saying how something like Party, once you set your deck up for Party, well, maybe you want to play more Party cards because it's encouraging to play Party. The reason Constellation's a little bit different than that is Enchantment

Mattering exists. We've made a lot of other cards that care about enchantments. In fact, Constellation isn't even for the first time in this deck. Oh, let me talk about that in a second. But Constellation is returning in Theros Beyond Death.

So it's not even the first time Constellation exists. And there are other ways to have enchantments. So you could have one Constellation card and other cards that care about enchantments because we've cared about enchantments over time. So that, one of the things to look at is, when it begets you to play things, are the things

that's begetting you to play something that is inherently there or not, right? Like, enchantment mattering is broad enough that we've done that in other places. So even if you only have one Constellation card, you could use it along with other things from the past to make a deck that encourages you to have lots of enchantments.

Like, even Alpha had a creature that drew you a card when you played enchantments. So, like, enchantment mattering goes all the way back to the very beginning of the game. Okay, but I do want to bring something up with Constellation, which is the returning of a parasitic mechanic. So,

my example of a popular parasitic mechanic is Slivers. So Slivers first showed up in Tempest. There are cards that say they grant all other Slivers an ability. There was one Artifact Sliver in Tempest that didn't. Story-wise, it wasn't a real Sliver.

It was Volrath had made a Sliver to spy on the other Slivers. That's why, by the way, it didn't grant anything. You just watch them. But anyway, barring a few weirdos like that one card, Slivers have a mechanic that care about other slivers. That's why, by the way, it didn't grant anything and just watch them. But anyway, barring a few weirdos like that one card, slivers have

mechanics that care about other slivers. There's not a lot of reason to put one sliver on deck and not have more slivers. Like, one sliver, I mean, I'm not saying you would never do it, but it is slivers really beget other slivers. They're very linear and when they first came out in

Tempest Block, that was the only place you could get them. They were super parasitic. Now, they were a lot of fun. People really enjoyed Slivers. People liked them. Now, the interesting thing is, in Lesions, we brought Slivers back. And then in Time Spiral, we brought them back again. Like, you know, and in Modern Horizons 1, we brought them back.

Like, Slivers have shown up numerous times. And interesting, every time you bring back a mechanic, it gets less parasitic. In fact, I would argue the second you bring it back the second time, it's not at all parasitic, because there exist ones from before. So, even mechanics that are parasitic

can sort of not become parasitic with time, in the sense that later things can do more with them. That, while slivers were parasitic when Tempest came out, they're not parasitic now time in the sense that later things can do more with them. That while slivers were parasitic when Tempest came out, they're not parasitic now in the sense that there's lots of places to get slivers. So parasitic mechanics don't even need to stay parasitic. Okay, so let's talk about some other mechanics from Devotion. So Devotion is a good example of

there is some pressure when you play Devotion. So, Devotion is a good example of... There is some pressure when you play Devotion to play more Devotion. So, the first time we did Devotion... So, interestingly... Okay, so Devotion in Theros of Beyond Death was brought back. The first time we used Devotion was in original Theros. But even Devotion was itself a redoing of a mechanic called Chroma from Eventide. So, the idea is, the very first time we did Devotion, even then it wasn't completely parasitic. I mean, it's not totally parasitic in the sense that it cares about mana costs, and there's a lot of creatures that have a lot of mana costs. So

you can play a Devotion card in a deck that's not dedicated to Devotion, because Magic has had lots of mana, you know, there's lots of cards with lots of mana symbols throughout the history of Magic. So it's not parasitic in that way. There's a little bit to say that, okay, well, Devotion maybe makes you want to play more Devotion cards. But in this case, Devotions are repeating mechanics, so there are previous Devotion cards, and even

before Devotion, there were Chroma cards. So, Devotion's not particularly parasitic A, because there's a lot of stuff before that did it, and B, the things it cares about is something you can care about external to it. And that's, by the way, I think... The reason we talk about parasitic, it's funny.

We use it in R&D because we're talking about how is the set we're making right now going to be perceived. One of the things that's important, and it's only become more important as more formats with larger and larger card pulls become, you know, popular, is when we make a set, we know that the current set is going to be mixed in with past sets.

And it's okay to have some stuff that goes, you know what? You want to play this theme? You really need this set to play this theme. That is fine to do that. It's not that we don't like doing that, but we want to make sure that there's a lot of backward compatibility. We want to make sure when you buy a magic set that there are previous magic sets and previous cards that you can play with it. So the idea essentially is, if I open up a single booster pack, I want to have cards that

instantaneously can mean something, and I can throw them in decks and play with them. It is fine if some of those cards say, you know what, you want to maximize me? Hey, open up some more packs. That is okay. You want sets to have themes. You want mechanical identities. Like, it is okay for sets to say, in fact, not just okay.

We like it when sets say to players, hey, there's something new to do, and you want to do this thing? Hey, this set's going to help you do this thing, and you probably need a bunch of cards from this set to do this thing, because it's a new thing that we're doing. But we also want some do this thing, hey, this set's going to help you do this thing. And you probably need a bunch of cards from this set to do this thing because it's a new thing that we're doing. But we also want some themes that say,

hey, we're doing a new thing, but you know what? You can mix a lot of old things with this new thing. Sometimes we say we're doing something that, in fact, enhances some old thing, you know, that really will take an old thing and make it better. Like, we love making cards

that take old themes and old formats and all of a sudden strengthen them. That maybe there's a format in Modern or Pioneer, you know, that isn't quite all the way there competitively. But with this card, all of a sudden, now maybe it's better. We love doing stuff like that. So, the reason that the term came up in the first place was, like, one of the big things about design is, and this is through not just design, but the importance of language is people can't think about things that they're not concentrating on, right? If you don't have a word for a concept, people aren't going to talk about that concept,

or it's very hard to talk about it. But the second you take a concept and put a word to it, all of a sudden there's vocabulary to talk about it, which makes people talk about it. And that's very, very important. If you ever follow sort of my career, I've coined endless, endless vocabulary for R&D to use and for the public to use, because I share all of my information with you as far as vocabulary.

But it's done a lot so that R&D can talk about things and so the player base can talk about things. And so that's where parasitism comes from. It's a tool for R&D to understand about things, and so the player base can talk about things. And so that's where parasitism comes from. It's a tool for R&D to understand an important thing to us. The reason this whole conversation came up is I think people, I think they're saying something different, but trying to use this vocabulary. So one of the things I try to explain to people is

it's fine to say something and try to explain something, but you have to be careful when you co-opt vocabulary that has a different meaning because then what happens is you get in the argument

over what you're trying to say rather than the point that you're trying to make. And so when you co-opt language you have to be very careful because if the language is still a potent language meaning it's still being used

in the previous way like sometimes language changes but when that language is still getting used, it causes confusion because different people are meaning different things. So that's why I'm trying to really define parasitism. I think the thing that people are trying to say,

so me trying to read between the lines, is there are some players that dislike when mechanics get too linear. Meaning that mechanics really beget you playing other cards of a certain type. And my answer to that is linear things are fun for a lot of players.

That a lot of players really enjoy getting a card that says, hey, go make a deck with Thing X. I will loudly tell you, I will help with Thing X. Go get Thing X. I'll make this mechanic better. I'll make this creature type better. You know, there's a lot of players

that really like a loud card that's directive that says, hey, here's what you want to do. Now, there are other players that hate that. They're like, don't tell me what to do. I want to make my own deck. And so I think one of the things

that's coming up here is we've made a bunch of linear mechanics. Like, when I look at mechanics in Standard right now, Venture into Dungeons is pretty linear. Lesson Learned is pretty linear. Party's pretty linear. Constellation's pretty linear. There are a lot of... Devotion's pretty linear. There are a lot of mechanics that are pretty linear.

And even then, even something like Adventures, which isn't linear, we make individual cards that make it linear. And even then, even something like Adventures, which isn't linear, we make individual cards that make it linear. And once again, like, there are a lot of players when we make a new mechanic that want to have the ability to sort of make a new deck about that new mechanic. So the reason we make linear cards, so the reason we make cards that are sort of a parasitic card, if you will, for mechanics that aren't even parasitic, is there's players that enjoy that experience. Now, one of the challenges is, if you're a tournament player,

what we make that's good might influence. Now, it turns out with adventures, stuff like Bonecrusher Giant is played, but there definitely are things where sometimes Mutate might be a good example. In order to play Mutate competitively, you kind of really have to go all in on Mutate might be a good example. In order to play Mutate competitively, you kind of really have to go all in on Mutate. So Mutate, from a competitive standpoint, is a little bit more parasitic

than it would necessarily need to be outside the constraints of what's powerful. And so some of the comments... I mean, I have to interpret the comments I get. I think some of it is, you're being very linear, I like things being more modular. Some of it is, you've made a lot of competitive things be linear.

I like some of my competitive things being less linear. I think that's what's going on is sort of through the lens that people are playing, how are they experiencing it and how can we change it? That's one of the reasons also I want to do podcasts like this because I want to help form vocabularies so that people can explain what actually is bothering them. If linearity is bothering you, if you don't like things being too linear, you don't like cards beginning other cards, that's what to complain about. It's too linear. Not that it's too parasitic, but it's too linear.

Okay, I have a little bit of time, so I'm just going to quickly go through some other mechanics in Standard and talk about their parasitism. Kicker. Very non-parasitic. Because you can just play one kicker card and kick it. I mean, every once in a while we'll make cards that encourage you for kicking things. I mean, we make individual cards that encourage you to play kicker. But kicker as a mechanic is very parasitic.

Landfall. Landfall's mostly parasitic. Obviously, we've made lands at the beginning of time. So, I mean, okay. This way. Landfall is completely non-parasitic in the sense that Landfall exists. Like, Landfall might get you to play

more Landfall, but this is the third time we've made Landfall. And if you to play more Landfall, but this is the third time we've made Landfall. And if you count, like, Time Spiral and stuff, Landfall and Time Spiral? Landfall wasn't in Time Spiral. But it was, it's shown up in Modern Horizons and stuff.

So, Landfall is not parasitic in that many, many Landfalls have appeared before. And the things that care about land, there's a lot of way it cares about land. So it's not particularly parasitic. Fortel from Kaldheim. Fortel's one of the things that's not parasitic. You can clearly play one Fortel card. There's a little bit of...

Because there's some mystery Fortel playing multiple Fortels, there's a little tiny bit of synergy. There are not tons. So, I mean, it's really not parasitic. Maybe a teeny tiny bit, but very not much. Oh, MDFCs, modal double-faced cards. Those are

pretty non-parasitic. In fact, one of the problems I used it as a means to tie the year together, and one of the problems we had with that was it really wasn't remotely linear, right? Having one MDFC didn't make you need to play another NBFC. So the fact that we did different things with different NBFCs actually wasn't

as mechanically cohesive as it could have been. So ironically, the lack of linearity probably, part of me putting it across the year was to give some cohesion. It would have more cohesion if I picked something that was linear, more linear. Or linear, I don't think it's particularly linear. Companion. So Companion is Mechanic from Ikoria. Companion. I mean, it's not Parasitic in that Companion doesn't get more Companion,

nor does it get anything inherent from the set. It's just saying, here's a strategy. You have to build your deck around it. Most of those, if not all of them, are things that you can just, like, if I open one Companion and no other cards from Ikoria, I can build a deck just fine with a Companion. Normal Magic cards prior to

Ikoria can meet the needs of that just fine. Escape. Escape is not super parasitic. You can play just one Escape card, it works just fine. Escape has the same thing where actually, escape here's something interesting.

Escape has sort of a negative parasitism to it, if you will. Dredge is another mechanic that does this. Sometimes you make mechanics that use the same resource in both cases, both escape and dredge, is using cards in the graveyard as a resource. So you don't want too many of the mechanic

like having an escape card might make you play less escape cards because and the same with dredge, that because you're using it as a resource too many cards using the same resource will fight each other so it's also possible mechanics push you away from playing other mechanics

that is possible as well adamant, which is in throne of eldritch so adamant rewards you away from playing other mechanics. That is possible as well. Adamant, which is in Throne of Eldraine. So Adamant rewards you for paying for a cost with a lot of three or more of the same color mana. Non-parasitic, you easily can do that. Magic

can support it. There's a little bit of time and pressure that Adamant may make you play other Adamant cards, but not a huge pressure. So it's pretty non-parasitic. Boast. So Boast is from Kaldheim. When you attack, it's an ability you can only use when you're attacking and only once.

Very non-parasitic. You attack in games. That's a very common thing. There aren't creatures that can attack. And a Boast card doesn't even really beget lots of Boast cards. I mean, there are individual cards that might make you want to do that, but as a mechanic, it doesn't inherently. So hopefully what you'll see today is that I want a better understanding. The reason that I create vocabulary is so people can talk about it. I want people to talk about it when things are parasitic

and people don't like that. I want people to say, it when things are parasitic and people don't like that. I want people to say, hey, this is too parasitic, if that's a problem for them. But I want to make sure that the reason I'm doing this podcast is to give you the proper vocabulary so you're using it correctly, right? So that you are actually saying what you mean and not trying to...

And so the important takeaway here is I think the biggest complaint that people are having where they're using the term parasitic is they need linear. You're worried that things are too linear, that cards are too much begetting us playing other cards. That's a fine complaint if you want to make it. But that is the complaint I think people are making is they would like us to do less linear things or maybe less linear things at a constructed level. I think is the complaint that's going on. Or people are being curmudgeonly.

I don't know. But I think that is the core of what people are complaining about, which was on this whole podcast. But anyway, I hope you guys found it interesting. I like diving deep into small incremental things, and I love diving into language. And so I hope today sort of gave you a better idea of what parasitism is, kind of what the spectrum of parasitism is,

and what it means to us and why we care within design about it. Anyway, I can see my desk, so we all know what that means. This is the end of my drive to work, so instead of talking magic, it's time for me to be making magic. See you guys next time. Bye-bye.