Analysis of Design :: *Warning - Friggin Long.

[PoundFFFFFF]

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
  Alright~ I've been waiting on an opportunity to lecture fellow newcomers of design. The urge started when horrible cards began flooding the market and people seemed to think that printing a deck is a no brainer. As long as they use the word "limited", the collectors will come rolling in and sweep their run empty. So here is some personal advice to both designers and buyers. As well as an... evaluation sheet of sorts to analyze the value of a deck's design.
 
  Now everyone knows that there are two aspects to a deck - quality of handling and quality of design. Quality of handling can be essentially split into Stock and Finish, both very straightforward topics that I'm sure you already know. Design, however, is a much more sophisticated element. It is unique in that it doesn't seem to add or take away from the price of the cards, if that were the case the JAQKs and the Artifice would be around 30 bucks each and you should be able to get all Stephen Rook's goods for free. But, the design on a deck dictates the time spent producing the actual deck itself. You can spend a week on a deck or nine months - while you are not likely to be able to charge more for your cards, you can build up good credibility and ensure that people will continue to love your work, and it also helps raise the bar for custom cards on the market and make the world just that much of a better place. -Of course the reverse is also true. Rumours around that the guy who did Crimson Gate will continue to make cards. However, I for one would like it if he goes into the mountains and meditates for a couple years first. So how does one analyze the design of playing cards?
 
  Many of you probably don't think the way I do. But if you did, why am I wasting my time typing this sentence? So this is how the design of a deck is broken down. I would say that it also splits into two categories, named CONCEPT and EXECUTION. Now, what do they mean?
 
  CONCEPT is the "Theme" of the deck, if you will. There really is no way to put a grade on concept, because it is always viable to opinion. I know that the forum likes to shun BBM for their excessive use of skulls and skeletons, but they still sell out quite easily. You can hate a theme but someone else may love it. But it is important to HAVE a theme. It makes a design interesting and unified. Themed decks usually win out over bland ones. So unless you can produce a design as timeless as the Tally-Ho's, get to brainstorming.
 
 EXECUTION is the main, main aspect of a design and it separates flowers from weeds. It is a tell to whether thought and effort was put into this project or not.Before one can judge the theme, if the execution is sub-par, a deck and its designer will gain little credit.
 What execution is is how well one carries out design. It is the overall layout as well as the minor details. The decisions as well as the craftsmanship. The judgement of execution is based on: One - a designer's creativity and knowledge of principles, such as is the design too busy, is it too shallow, is it too cartoony or too drafty. Are the placements aesthetically pleasing, are cliches being avoided,

  And Two - His/Her actual skill at handling the programs, whatever that maybe, hand-drawing, even, to create the design he/she envisioned. Things such as - are the lines straight? Are your spirals of
consistent width? Are the proportions right on your figures? Are lighting and shadows where they're meant to be? Is the colour balance asthetically pleasing? Are the pips and indices pleasing to look at?
That sort of thing. To better explain, I will use some examples.
 
  Here are examples of good execution.
 
1. The Outlaws are designed terribly well. The scripture is a forceful touch and the use of unorthodoxical layout proved to be very effective. The entity of the deck is consistent and flowing. Clearly well thought out and a lot of effort went into their production. One down side is that they failed to capitalie on the borders - which is what one looks at around 25% of the time cards are handled.
2. Russel's Americanas are flawless in their design. You can tell that not a single detail was left untouched, from the backdrop to the tone of colour to the accessories, are all perfectly combined with the original court card, as though they were supposed to be there in the first place. The theme is consitent throughout and shows heavy research.
3. The JAQK Cellars have got to be the forerunners of masterful card design - I don't know a company which did custom court cards before JAQK - nor any that made them as well as they did. The faces are just abstract enough to be comfortable to the eye, yet with enough complexity to show a tipsy expression. The outfits are decorated with much detail and colour and yet are not overpowering. The pips and indices suit classy wine excellently, and be it the Jokers, Box, Ace of spades or back, the Cellars maintain consistency and bring an air of class about them. My favourite design up to date.
4. Theme-wise, the dose are loathed by a majority of people. However, I cannot deny it the credit of execution. Though the theme is distasteful, they did a damn good job injecting it. In a simple looking back there is more detail than dozens of decks around the market today. The tape is photo-realistic, the grit and scratches really bring out the flavour of an asylum, and you can tell that the border has been worked to perfection. All the court cards were not only recoloured, as all lazy producers do on the market nowadays, but tweaked, modified and had things added to better deliver the concept. Though Sam Hayles`s design sense is very apart from my own, his skill is currently atop all those who design cards, I would say (Unless you count Si Scott, of course).
 
  And now, here are some examples of bad execution.
 

1. Lance. T. Miller is a force in the world of custom cards - the Gargoyles were a solid deck, undoubtedly the best in Diavoli`s lineup (Which sadly isn`t saying much), and the Actuators have certainly taken
quite a bit of but Lance seems to have little idea of what Steampunk is - gears are SO much a small part in Steampunk art but it has become a stereotype. One cannot just draw gears in brown and say its Steampunk. Were you to look at the king of Hearts above, the head is a WWI pilot, the clothing looks like an arcade machine in the 80`s, and what on earth is he holding? A space-pistol with a spade on it? Research is CRUCIAL to good design. Do NOT go lightly on it.
2. It's no surprise that the examples of bad execution should come from the custom card companies - The Style Deck has certainly hammered down my expectations. First by showing that the back design is actually two large logos, and second by providing an enlarged shot of the court card, when I noticed that it looked like the Sentinel courts done on Microsoft Paint by an 8 year-old. And then when I thought of it, the back looks a heap like the Sentinels too. Sorry for saying that, Hatch.
3. The Crimson Gate - just what happened there? Came home after work and took 20 minutes to draw up a design and decide to try and have people pay for it? One it is hideously monotone, two, the middle is filled with SOLID GEOMETRICAL SHAPES,  and three, the stuff, I can't call them symbols, on the border are stupidly shallow, I know they don't mean anything, but they don't even APPEAR to mean anything. There, have I said everything you wanted to say? Oh right, the actually put a star next to the Ace of spades to cover up the copyright symbol, looks like someone doesn't know how to delete.
4.  These are the cards I have nightmares about as a designer. Were I to go on about its nature it would take an entirely new thread.
 
Some final notes -
Importance of research
  Just having good skill is not all! If you know your subject you will have much more success. Here is a comparison -
 
Both are of the Samurai Theme, but the one on the right, a deck that was European which I found on the WWW playing card museum, despite not having nearly as good graphics, stands higher for me than Sam Hayles Samurais. Because it gives a distinct Japanese feeling with its use of colour and symbolism.
 
Importance of Layout
Don't crowd your design. Examples of crowded designs -
 
See? Busy busy bad bad.
 
Importance of theme.
  A deck with better execution isn't a better deck. Here is the comparison.
 
Dead Eyes are one of the most detailed decks ever to hit the market, there is so much effort that I shudder even thinking about it. But I'm sure the majority would rather opt for the JAQKs, as you can see in the image clearly less sophisticated but more elegant. Pick your theme carefully.
 
P.S - "Elegance" is NOT a theme.
 
 
In conclusion, when you make a deck, make sure it's something that you'll be proud of. If you make it solely on wanting to join the game and make some money, you'll get kicked out and none will come your way. And there is no need to moan about a new deck or a new company. It is their own job to prove themselves or be broke and removed. All for the advancement for the card community, and there will be, I'm certain, mind-blowing decks to come.

[xela]

Beautiful post that will hopefully shed some more light on how playing card design is perceived. The Crimson Gate deck actually got featured by a very popular card site, which absolutely baffled me. It's the epitome of awful design. It's objectively bad as far as art goes.

One thing I would like to add is the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. If a design looks cool to you, or anyone else - that fact is 100% insignificant as far as whether or not the cards are good art. Believe it or not, every field of art has specifications that must be followed. For example, take a look at the Blades. The tuck box breaks some huge rules in art, such as consistency of typography. You can't go around throwing 20 different fonts on your deck. It makes it look like it was designed by someone in middle school.

Dan & Dave actually had a huge mess up on their Smoke & Mirrors v6 decks. The font at the bottom is a serif font, in a size and color that is completely mismatched with the rest of the box. Ironically, their past decks accomplished typography perfectly.

[PoundFFFFFF]

Dan & Dave actually had a huge mess up on their Smoke & Mirrors v6 decks. The font at the bottom is a serif font, in a size and color that is completely mismatched with the rest of the box. Ironically, their past decks accomplished typography perfectly.

 Is that right? I know the v6s had a load of weird stuff in it.. like all the clubs on the indices were 30% smaller... the spades were thinner... the hearts were shrunk etc.

[xela]

I believe what you are referring to is the "perfect pip" design from USPCC. These were introduced when the plant first moved to KY, but are now discontinued. D&D continue to use them, probably because perfect pips look way better.

[PoundFFFFFF]

I don't know about you, but Perfect pips should at the very least be consistent in size.
 
  Also, don't dis designers in middle school 

[dmbaggs]

Very well written! I enjoyed reading it and it had a lot of valuable information. I know I relate to a great deal of what you said. I won't go into detail since it was a long post and my response could end up being just as long.


Hopefully those thinking of designing a deck (or even thinking about spending money on a "rare" deck) reads this before they do, because it does hold a great deal of truth. Thanks for posting it!

[Paul Carpenter]

A great article, thanks for writing down your critiques and ideas. Doing a card design right is a challenge, to be sure. I hope that the people that do it right come out on top, and the market weeds out the people that don't have passion for it.

As someone in the middle of designing a deck, I can say that it takes a LOT of thought. It would also be so very easy to say 'screw it' and use the standard faces and crank something out in a hurry, but to me at least, that feels like complete and utter cheating. If you are going to put your name on something, you have to put in the effort, do something new, and make it the best you can. Maybe it won't be perfect and maybe not everyone will like it, but I think you can tell when someone really tries hard.

[AceGambit]

I thoroughly enjoyed this post.  I think most of the information contained within is very accurate.  I do however slightly disagree with Alex.  I agree that to produce a quality product that you have to follow certain standards of art.  Art, however, is by nature, and extremely subjective subject.  If you choose to produce a product that the majority of the world considers bad (Crimson Gate), then that is your prerogative.  Perhaps you are catering to a small niche.  If you create something truly awful that only 4000 people in the world like (for whatever reason), then did you not create art of appreciation for those people?

[xela]

I thoroughly enjoyed this post.  I think most of the information contained within is very accurate.  I do however slightly disagree with Alex.  I agree that to produce a quality product that you have to follow certain standards of art.  Art, however, is by nature, and extremely subjective subject.  If you choose to produce a product that the majority of the world considers bad (Crimson Gate), then that is your prerogative.  Perhaps you are catering to a small niche.  If you create something truly awful that only 4000 people in the world like (for whatever reason), then did you not create art of appreciation for those people?

The very definition of art requires intent on the creator's behalf. If you intend to make something bad, or cater to a very small niche, then you did not make "bad" art. However, with the CG deck, I don't think that was the goal at all. With such a huge funding goal, they would have to impress the entire deck community. I feel as though their intent was to make a deck of cards that is amazing. When you shoot to create something that already has preset standards of what is and is not good, then failing to achieve those standards on every level ends up in bad art.


I don't buy into the whole "as long as it has an audience, it's art" funny business. Like it or not, there is science behind good design. Design is a category of art, but design is 100% objective. There is a reason that some movies are rated terribly by critics even if the movies are viewed by an audience that enjoys it.


In the case of a card design, there are certain things that make up the science behind the design. It is why you will never see Ellusionist make a purple and green, super-contrasted deck. It breaks color matching rules.


The CG deck breaks just about every design rule there is. No color matching, no depth to the design, unmatching themes, and a gaff card that I myself can recreate in 10-15 seconds via Photoshop's Distort tool.


There are plenty of other decks out there that do a worse job - I am just harping on this one because PoundF brought it up.

[AceGambit]

By that statement, you are implying that if I set out to make something amazing, and what I produce violates every rule and standard in the business, then I have failed at my goal?  I feel like this is not the case.  In some scenarios, this may be the case, in the Crimson Gate example, this IS the case.  You are probably right, the artist set out to create a deck of cards that everyone loved, and at this task, he has failed miserably.


However, if you set out to produce something amazing, and what you make violates all the rules and standards, making a blanket statement declaring it 'bad art' I feel is unfair.  Just because it violates an established set of standards does not mean the art cannot delve into a new type of awesome that everyone will like.


This type of genius, be it accidental or intentional, is extremely rare, and the Crimson Gate deck certainly does not qualify, but I feel we need to acknowledge its existence. 

[xela]

So what you're saying is if something violates a rule but ends up being universally adored, it hasn't failed? I agree, and that's because clearly that art has redefined a rule we may be used to.

However, a pink, white, neon green and bright red website will never, ever be considered good art. If it is done tastefully, and someone can look at it and say "it would NOT be better if it had better colors" then clearly the rule has been redefined.

Again, breaking one rule doesn't make something "bad art." Breaking a rule due to ignorance, and the product suffering as a result - that is bad art. Breaking a rule that you did your best not to break, that negatively impacts your work as well. Breaking more rules than you have followed, while claiming your piece of work set out to be amazing *as defined by modern day standards* - that's bad art.

However, making a deck of cards that challenges the rules and breaks them in a way that is positively received - that's good art. Making a deck of cards that breaks a few rules but for the most part is excellent - that is good art. You will never find an example of art that set out to do X, which everyone would have loved, accomplished Y (something everybody typically dislikes), and got praised for their artistic talent.

The funny thing about CG is that simply modifying the colors to fit the rules of good color schemes would make the deck infinitely more interesting. They broke a rule, either due to ignorance or lack of skill, and the cards suffer for it.

[AceGambit]

So you're saying that art is bad if no one likes it?  Or that art is bad if no one likes it because the artist is a hack?

[xela]

So you're saying that art is bad if no one likes it?  Or that art is bad if no one likes it because the artist is a hack?

Art is bad if 2/2 of the following apply:

People versed in the art community do not like the art
The artist's intent was not to challenge what people like


You have to understand that if something is marketed as a product, it's simply not the same as something that is created for the sake of creating. When you create a product such as a website or a deck of cards, there are rules that must be followed that enrich the consumer's experience.

[PoundFFFFFF]

Oh look, a debate. How interesting.

  Rules in design are nothing but guidelines. What they should say is not "follow without question" but rather "Break carefully", as doing so will risk your product looking like crap. Such rules are made to suit people with good taste such as ourselves. They are not your enemies. Unless you are sure that when going unorthodox you add to the purpose of your design, better suiting your design. Don't break them just to feel like a rebel.

[xela]

PoundF, have you seen the Absolute Vodka deck? Also includes custom court cards, and I believe it was release far before the Jaqk decks, adn teh cards themselves handle much better (than the original Jaqks, anyway).

On top of that, their back design uses great contrast, something totally absent from Jaqk.

[PoundFFFFFF]

Oh of course, the Vodkas. Was that a USPCC Deck? I wouldn't consider it one... the stock and finish and design are so out of character that I don't really even group it together with the rest of the flock. It looks kinda like one of those vintage European decks, and if you add those into the mix the history is far longer. But, still, I find the Vodkas not as refined nor as well thought out.

[lancetmiller]

Hey Guys,

I think it's time I weigh in on some of this.

First Pound, this a great article and I totally agree with your standpoint about design standards and execution. 

As everyone else knows, I encourage everyone to contact me with questions and concerns and in this instance, I really would have loved to chat with you before being thrown under the bus. It's a moot point as this is an opinion piece on a card forum. However, I do feel that I need to offer some points that you may not be aware of or at the very least you have not asked for clarification on my side of things before posting.

1) You are referencing a very initial draft of the King of Hearts where I hadn't quite figured out what I wanted to do.

Here is the most current version that is getting printed:


2) I am very in touch with the Steampunk community and know quite a bit about the genre, and its people. Further, the Steampunk community has been very aware of the development of this deck and have weighed in on it several times with thoughts and concerns, as well as praise for execution of the theme. You see, I am not a deck designer who happens to have chosen Steampunk as a random topic, I am a Fantasy artist that was asked to create a Steampunk deck based on my knowledge of the industry. Aviators and warring nations are a very common theme in the Steampunk genre which is the general placement of this theme. The houses, or court cards, are warring factions each of them has a rank and position and their clothes resemble this. The Kings are the Aviators, the Queens are the commanders of the miltiary forces, and the Jacks are the spies or ilfiltrators which is why they are younger and more suave in appearance.

3) When you asked what is going on with his clothing articles and rendered your opinion, you are making vast assumptions. I have indeed done my research on many levels and I take the research portion of any project very seriously. However, seeing as I am hand drawing this and I was trying to create clothing that wasn't directly ripped off from the Steampunk community and their creators, I had to take some liberties in clothing design. His hat may resemble a WWI pilot but that was not the intention, it was an idea I dreamed up and that's where I simply have to say oh well, I guess it wasn't original after all. :/

4) His chest looks like an 80's arcade game... interesting. If you'll please go and grab a red or blue standard BICYCLE^® deck, go on..I'll wait, you'll note the middle of this king of hearts resembles the lines of the original king of hearts which is exactly what I was going for. This is after all a BICYCLE^® branded playing card. In fact on all of the court cards of my Actuators deck, the base lines and structure are that of their original BICYCLE[/size]^®[/color] counter parts which had to go through lengthy discussion with the custom team and the legal departments before being approved.


5) I mentioned this before, but I'll lay emphasis on this again, I am hand drawing these cards This project was in progress over a year and a half. Several of the other cards that you cited in your examples of "good execution" are nothing more than light illustration or basic graphic design combined with mash-ups or Photoshop filters. I may not be the best artist in the world, but I am an artist. All the highlights and shadows, graphic elements and the like were hand drawn and colors carefully chosen to create an experience for the communitiy (Steampunk enthusiasts, cardistry, and magicians) not to try to line my pockets with money as you seem to imply in your closing statement.

In closing I would like to say that I have not "arrived" in design or in illustration. I am only beginning, having debuted only 2 years ago as a fantasy artist. I take feedback and critiques very seriously. I encourage and ask you in the future to be an integral part in my art and card development as you are obviously well versed in design and art and I believe that you could provide valuable input. Please come and join me in the live sessions and voice your opinion and ideas so that it will be added to the experience. At the end of the day, I just want to make some cool looking cards, advance the playing card community, and create decks we can all enjoy.

Most Humble Regards,


- Lance T. Miller

[PoundFFFFFF]

  Alright - here are a few comments - not going to quote the above because it would make the page a little too long for comfort. Understand that you do not have to read this - just as I did not have to write it. It is my personal opinion and that only.

  1. Fair enough - The way that your information was released gave me the impression that you were going to release it. Surely you know yourself that a deck deserved to be better.

  2&3. I will stand my case - were you to understand the genre you would understand the setting. Steampunk is the glorification of 19th century engineering, set majorly in Europe, or some Fantastical world. A kind of Utopia where astounding mechanics break the norm of current-day technology. It originates from the like of Jules Verne and H.G Wells, in that it indulges limitless depth in society and art. It is possible that your understanding is different from my own, as the design suggests clearly, but there certainly is no depth nor backstory to putting gears on brightly coloured clothing. You certainly had the opportunity to step away from the standard bicycle routine, which is what an art-oriented deck needed,  but took the choice not to. The Ace of spades, Jokers, Box, Brick Case, gears gears gears. Steampunk art includes as much dials, cooling vents, bolts as well as regal rustmetal floral as gears. I saw the decision to overlook all that as lack of research and execution.

4. Apparently I've already covered that. The standard USPCC courts are good for certain occasions. They are recognizable, eye-friendly, and generic enough for 90 percent of the designer circle to take advantage of. And the original King of hearts, albeit it had a much more messy colour scheme, the use of diamonds and victorian patterns on sashes made it suit the face well. After all they had over 100 years to get it right. The originals were less than amusing. But when you've got a very defined theme that Steampunk is, it's a thumbs down to simply build off the base of that which wasn't meant for your purpose. By the amount of work you've put into it, you could have scrapped the original and develop one yourself that would infinitely improve your theme. The standard courts are a comfort zone that many are afraid to leave.

5. Hand drawing is encouraged - it is used to bring a human quality that vectors often could not. And "Good Execution" is not "Most Effort", not in ANY means. Wynns have better execution than Templar Knights, since they are such a treat to look at. How much time is in this case irrelevant, all that matters is the overall quality. When your portfolio is evaluated to be insufficient, you cannot say "But I've spent two years on preparing it!"
   The willingness to put up effort on your part is fantastic and should be an example to all the wannabes out there. But I will go back to my comment atop - Research is CRUCIAL. Before I settle and start a design I will find movies of the type (By the way have you watched Steamboy? It's overwhelming.), create playlists, hoard pictures and inspiration, and fill up a sketchbook. I will live the subject before I express it. That's why being a designer is so much fun.

  In my closing response, master the art. In my own opinion, if you are going to sell a product, make sure that no one can complain. I'd like to complain about the Dose, or the Artifice, but I just can't. There is no flaw to pick out. Like making a movie - before you release it, make sure you don't have any mistakes in it. People support you, and those who do deserve the best you can offer. I believe that you can do more, don't prove me wrong.

  P.S(s)

  I can't join you for your online sessions because I'm either in school or asleep when they're on. What a pity

  Before you tell me to get off the sidelines and onto the playing field so that you can have something of mine to yell at, I'm in it but I can't tell you. Oh look, I did. 

  Best of Luck Lance.

[Don Boyer]

If you ask me, I think that finished Actuators King looks a lot better than I thought it would.  Perhaps there was more that could have been done with the theme, but personally, I'm a fan of steampunk and I rather like the image of that King - though I still hate the big curl of a serif under the "K"!  I find it very, very hard to judge a deck that I haven't actually held in my hands - unless it was made by Merz67!  But that's another story for another thread.

Thanks for coming out and expressing your piece, Lance.  I eagerly await the cards I pledged for on both Actuators projects.

[Lara Krystle "Lane"]

I think this thread deserves a bump up because it has really really valuable information on deck designing and what not. If I had not gone to the last pages of the D&D Forum I would not have found this. So here is a free bump!

[Kanped]

After re-reading all of this, my only conclusion is that I must prefer bad design.  I think Sam's Samurai's look far better than the Euro ones, I like the Transducer back, I'd take Dead Eyes over Jaqk any day of the week.  One thing I do know for sure, though is good writing and criticism and while Pound does have a lot of that in there, he also does make sweeping generalizations and incorrectly identifies subjective view-points as objective viewpoints (I mean, saying that the Dose theme is 'loathed by a majority of people'?  Come on).

You can certainly argue about convention and teaching techniques, about ways of thinking about art but you can never argue that following all those conventions is a good thing.  People have different tastes in any art form and while following conventions may virtually guarantee acceptance and admiration from a large group of people, defying all of those conventions can create works that are equally, objectively good.

[dmbaggs]

After re-reading all of this, my only conclusion is that I must prefer bad design.  I think Sam's Samurai's look far better than the Euro ones, I like the Transducer back, I'd take Dead Eyes over Jaqk any day of the week.  One thing I do know for sure, though is good writing and criticism and while Pound does have a lot of that in there, he also does make sweeping generalizations and incorrectly identifies subjective view-points as objective viewpoints (I mean, saying that the Dose theme is 'loathed by a majority of people'?  Come on).

You can certainly argue about convention and teaching techniques, about ways of thinking about art but you can never argue that following all those conventions is a good thing.  People have different tastes in any art form and while following conventions may virtually guarantee acceptance and admiration from a large group of people, defying all of those conventions can create works that are equally, objectively good.

Well it's one person's opinion. I think some of the designs Pound didn't like and bashed aren't all that bad. Some of it depends on a person's taste.

Parts of his post are good but there a great deal of generalizations, like you mentioned. I really only agreed with a small portion of what he said.

[Don Boyer]

This is a topic that's certainly worth a revival - I'd love to hear what people, designers in particular, think of the analysis and the resulting dialogue.

For me, I'd say that yes, PoundFFFFFF makes many valid arguments, but that some of these are indeed flawed - and I wish that he's uploaded the photos instead of linking to them, because now some are missing. 

I'd say it's that some of his generalizations are invalid.  He makes a sweeping assumption that most people on the forums dislike Big Blind Media/Karnival decks because of all the skulls and skeletons.  Personally, that's what I love about them!  I can't imagine that I'm alone in this, since they are indeed selling these decks and a hefty chunk of the collectors out there "reside" here in this forum.

I also don't share his opinion about the Bicycle Outlaw deck being "designed terribly well".  At least my deck is printed so dark that many of the details are lost in the mess.  I saw this with early runs of the Arcane deck - the back of the deck was saturated in black, disguising or destroying most of the detailed work done in gray.  Subsequent printings had a lighter amount of black ink, allowing the details to really pop but also making the blacks more like very dark grays.  This happened as well with the Bicycle Venom and Bicycle Venom Strike decks.  The point is that when you have a great deal of black in your design, you need big contrast in your details or they'll just vanish into the ink cloud.  I'm guessing this applies for many other low-contrast color prints - they'll look gorgeous on the computer screen, but WYSIWYG printing doesn't happen on the playing card presses.

C'mon, folks - what are your thoughts?  I want to hear from designers in particular about their thoughts and theories on design in general and deck design in specific.

[Lukeout]

I had the great luck of working as a game designer inside a very well known fantasy artists studio. He put it this way...

There is are you like and art you don't like
There is good art and bad art.
Those two aren't always connected the way you think.

I do think that success is also not connected the way you think. Terrible art has a history of doing well (cough...disco...cough)

But art can be art done for an audience who might have different standards of good/bad. If you get inside that audiences head, figure out what THEY like, and then deliver good art, you have an excellent chance of success (as you have both good art and satisfied what they like).

But it's a bit strong for an audience to assume that what they like defines good - even if that audience is dominant. Especially when it comes to a product that is both art and utility like a playing card.

[Don Boyer]

But it's a bit strong for an audience to assume that what they like defines good - even if that audience is dominant. Especially when it comes to a product that is both art and utility like a playing card.

While I do agree on the whole "art is subjective" thing, there are some elements to playing card design that aren't as subjective.  You hit it yourself when describing a playing card as both art and utility.  The utility aspect of playing cards can't be overlooked or ignored.  This is some basic stuff I go over with my clients.  Like any rule of design, the utility of a playing card can be played with a bit and the rule can be broken, but you really do need a good excuse for it or it will just not hit the right note.

For example, let's consider something as simple as an index of a USPC standard deck face design.  There's practically a scientific method to how they're designed.  In your basic off-the-shelf pack of standard-index cards (as opposed to custom twelve ways to Sunday), you'll note a certain consistency of design from deck to deck, even from different manufacturers.  The value is a specific height, the suit is usually just a bit more than half as high, and the width is standardized - it's why in most common deck typefaces, the letters have some serifs, but the "1" in the numeral "10" is just a plain line, making the numeral narrow enough to be the same width as the single-digit numerals.  The "Q" in the Queen's index has a line through the oval, but it's not a descender, ending right on the alignment line rather than below it.  Both the "Q" and the "0" are very simple, skinny ovals, while the other numbers are a bit more rounded.  For the "Q", it's because of the line cutting through the circle being as wide as it is and the reason for the "0" being so narrow are listed above.

Indices are made with such consistency because they need to be quickly and easily understood when read.  Additionally, if they were different widths, you could reveal certain cards in your hand to a sharp player just based on how far apart you spread your cards, much the same way that in the days of the "single-headed" court cards, rotating a card in your hand was usually a sign that the card in question is a court card.

Now, can people make indices that break these rules, that are non-comformist and different?  Of course they can, but if it's just arbitrary and in no way supports the design, you're not doing yourself any favors.  For something like the Ornate deck by Randy Butterfield, his indices didn't conform to width standards, but it was conforming to the overall style of the cards, large and filled with detail.  For a polar opposite, check out the Kickstarter projects for the failed "Mirrored by Design" deck - each number is a custom drawing, and they don't even look like they're in the same style, with widths all over the place.  But even for hewing to his design aesthetic, the Ornate deck would never appeal to a hardcore poker player - as well it shouldn't!  That's more about knowing your audience, probably the subject of a different post...

BTW: Luke, I remember your work from the early '90s.  Your name was on the household level (in households that played with and collected CCGs, that is)!

[sastian]

LOVE THIS ARTICLE!

[Don Boyer]

LOVE THIS ARTICLE!

You must have more to say than just that.  What are your thoughts on it?

[variantventures]

Thank you for the original post and the discussion that followed.  It's been very informative and I'll be looking back at this frequently.  I think the best advice I read was 'Know your market and design for it'.  I think that's very true.  I design for a historical market that's very different than the mainstream market.  Non-poker and bridge sizes, single-side backs (even blank backs), non-standard suits, no indices, duller colors, and absolutely none of the handling characteristics cardists/magicians look for. What makes for a good card in my world probably horrifies most modern collectors and card users. Good design principles still apply and must be obeyed, however, as is evident in even the very earliest historical card designs.

[Pip Nosher]

A great and brave post, Pound. Sorry to see that half the images have been removed. But it still reads well.

Here's something that no one has really touched on yet: symmetry, which actually relates to the broader issues of the history and science of playing cards. There are others who know far more than I do about how cards have evolved, but there are certain principles that are integral to what cards are today, and foremost among these is symmetry. Once upon a time, court cards were one-way and, as Don observed, this provided a tell to others when you turned the card right-side up in your hand. Often, back designs were one-way, too. The first trick I learned as a kid was if you simply turned a card around before returning it to a deck with a one-way design, you could easily find it. Discerning card players always insist on a symmetrical back design.

There are two kinds of symmetry in cards: 1) what happens when you draw something and hold a mirror to it, and 2) a more sophisticated interlaced symmetry, most commonly seen on court cards. Within category one, there are important variations. To my mind, the worst offenders literally draw a line and cut and paste the top to the bottom. Sorry, but that's what the Jaqk deck does, and I think that is the least pleasing form of symmetry for a deck of cards. The second variant of category one is the design that still passes the mirror test, but does so with a central design element. Here's a bold example, Bicycle Allwheel:
[http://www.bicyclecards.org/Bicycle/02_Allwheel/red.jpg]

But some of the best card back designs feature symmetry that does not pass the mirror test. Because this is what I am most familiar with, I will again cite Bicycle cards: Acorn, Chainless, Thistle, and Wheel #2. Cupid and Motor #1 accomplish this in a very subtle way. Mobile #1 is arguably the most freakishly spectacular.

I guess my message to prospective card designers is: be aware of all of the design elements of your deck, and, following on Don's advice, pay particular attention to those that are peculiar to playing cards. Know your history, which may well give you the freedom to boldly dismiss it and do something innovative and hugely successful.

[Don Boyer]

Thank you, Pip, that was an excellent contribution.

On the topic of symmetry, it is a common mistake of some designers to use mirror symmetry when creating their deck of cards, along either the vertical or horizontal axes.

Simple but functional symmetry for cards can be achieved when using mirror symmetry, but along BOTH axes, vertical and horizontal - in essence, the simple repeating of a corner design, "flipped" from corner to corner around the card, insuring that the points meeting the axes will have "counterpart" points on the other side of the axes.

But the true nature of symmetry for a deck of cards, as I see it, is achieving "rotational" symmetry, and not necessarily along an axis, as can be seen in Pip's excellent design examples.  In essence, you create a half-card design with an "interlocking" edge, in that when taking the design and rotating a copy of it around the center point 180 degrees, the edges will perfectly fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces.  This feat is a challenge even for artist utilizing modern design tools (a.k.a. computers and design software) - I can only imagine how difficult it was to achieve in the pre-computer era of print design.  I would venture to guess that if carefully analyzed, some of those handmade designs are actually inadvertently asymmetrical in very subtle ways.

Using mirror symmetry alone along a single axis can still result in a design that's one way.  For example, I could take a picture of some object or scene, use it for the top half of a deck back, then mirror that image on the bottom half.  Alternately, I could do the same but creating a left half and mirroring it to the right.  But if the image itself isn't made up of two symmetrical halves, the end result will be a card design that's completely different in appearance when spun 180 degrees while lying on the table.  But if you have mirror symmetry along both axes, you have in essence created rotational symmetry as well, albeit it with a somewhat simple design compared to the ones with a more complex, "interlocking" edge to them.

[Pip Nosher]

Thanks, Don. I took the vertical axis symmetry for granted, but you are entirely right that an image that is mirrored on a single axis can still be one way. Thanks also for teaching me the great term, "rotational symmetry." That's what I'm looking for in a card back design. Here are two more examples of rotational symmetry (non-USPC bicycle cards). While I find the first design quite pleasing, the interlocking of the puzzle pieces is not as complex as it could be. The second is actually technically a one-way design, because the tires don't interlock in the center. But, it is otherwise quite literally rotational.

[Don Boyer]

Thanks, Don. I took the vertical axis symmetry for granted, but you are entirely right that an image that is mirrored on a single axis can still be one way. Thanks also for teaching me the great term, "rotational symmetry." That's what I'm looking for in a card back design. Here are two more examples of rotational symmetry (non-USPC bicycle cards). While I find the first design quite pleasing, the interlocking of the puzzle pieces is not as complex as it could be. The second is actually technically a one-way design, because the tires don't interlock in the center. But, it is otherwise quite literally rotational.

You're welcome.  That term may or may not be the correct technical term, but it works well enough for me so I use it!

These two examples you provided are excellent examples.  The first one is a textbook case of complex rotational symmetry.  The card could have been constructed along a curved, bisecting line running right through those tires and the big center sprocket.  It's exceptionally difficult to achieve this even with the use of modern tools because of all the points along the way that have to have a counterpart point on the other side.  Off by just a millimeter and it's visible.  It's hard enough doing it along a straight line axis, but this is an order of magnitude harder as I see it.  A still-available, more common back using this type of symmetry would be the Hoyle Shellback.

The second one, if you disregard the non-interlinked tires in the center, is a very good example of mirror symmetry along both axes.  Imagine if you would, having created the top left corner of the design, then mirroring it to the right side, then mirroring both corners from the top to the bottom - it's nowhere near as complex as the first example of symmetry, but many, many card designs are done in a symmetry style just like this, including the still-common Bicycle Rider Back, Bee Diamond Back, Tally Ho Original Fan Back, etc.

At one time in history, the Tally Ho Original Circle Back would have been considered as having dual-axis mirror symmetry - but not any longer.  I noticed that with newer examples of the design, there's a slight alteration that was made to the design which keeps the vertical axis symmetry, but not the horizontal-axis symmetry.  There are two small "petaled flower blooms" resting on the y-axis (vertical) of the design.  The alteration is that for one of these two flowers, the gap between the two petals closest to the short side of the rectangle (top or bottom, depending on orientation) was increased just a small amount, enough to render it a one-way mark!  Honestly, it looks more like a printing error, but with Tally Ho being a popular deck with magicians, anything is possible.  I do know that the error didn't exist on a vintage pack I have from the 1970s but that most every iteration of the design I see today has the error built into it - the "off the shelf" model, the Tally Ho Titanium decks from Theory11, the Tally Ho Circle Backs made for Japanese magician Tomohiro Maeda, the black Tally Ho deck, etc.  I'm pretty sure from memory that the Ellusionist Tally Ho Vipers also have this error, at least until the point where the Circle Back version was discontinued from their product line perhaps a year or two ago; presently only the Fan Back version (with all-silver faces and backs on a black background) is in print.

[Pip Nosher]

Actually, the second card is also an example of rotational symmetry. Note that while the bicycle wheels are perfectly mirrored on both axes, the bicycle frames are not.

After a few moments on Google, here's what I know: Generally speaking, an object with rotational symmetry, also known in biological contexts as radial symmetry, is an object that looks the same after a certain amount of rotation. The degree of rotational symmetry is how many degrees the shape has to be turned to look the same on a different side or vertex.

The purple card, above, is an example of a dyad, or an object that must be rotated 180 degrees to look the same. Another familiar example is the yin and yang symbol.

The blue card, above, is an example of a tetrad, an object that must be rotated 90 degrees to look the same. Another familiar example is the swastika.

The Wheel No. 2 card in my earlier post (3rd card) is actually a combination of a dyad (the high-wheel bicycles) and a tetrad (the winged wheel in the center of the card). The Mobile No. 1 (4th card) is a combination of mirror symmetry on both axes (the background and motor cars) and a tetrad (the four tires in the center).

Some might think that this sidebar into the science of symmetry is a digression in this thread. I strongly disagree. Any designer of playing cards should understand these principles, as they are fundamental to the art of playing card design. All the examples above also show that it is possible to use these different types of symmetry, alone and in combination, for some very pleasing and successful designs.

[Don Boyer]

Actually, the second card is also an example of rotational symmetry. Note that while the bicycle wheels are perfectly mirrored on both axes, the bicycle frames are not.

After a few moments on Google, here's what I know: Generally speaking, an object with rotational symmetry, also known in biological contexts as radial symmetry, is an object that looks the same after a certain amount of rotation. The degree of rotational symmetry is how many degrees the shape has to be turned to look the same on a different side or vertex.

The purple card, above, is an example of a dyad, or an object that must be rotated 180 degrees to look the same. Another familiar example is the yin and yang symbol.

The blue card, above, is an example of a tetrad, an object that must be rotated 90 degrees to look the same. Another familiar example is the swastika.

The Wheel No. 2 card in my earlier post (3rd card) is actually a combination of a dyad (the high-wheel bicycles) and a tetrad (the winged wheel in the center of the card). The Mobile No. 1 (4th card) is a combination of mirror symmetry on both axes (the background and motor cars) and a tetrad (the four tires in the center).

Some might think that this sidebar into the science of symmetry is a digression in this thread. I strongly disagree. Any designer of playing cards should understand these principles, as they are fundamental to the art of playing card design. All the examples above also show that it is possible to use these different types of symmetry, alone and in combination, for some very pleasing and successful designs.

The second is almost an example of radial symmetry - the wheels in the center overlap rather than interlink, taking away the symmetry and rendering the design as a one-way back.

Only a portion of a standard poker or bridge playing card, such as specific design elements, can be described as being a triad or a tetrad - it's the rectangular shape of the card that prevents the whole back design from being a triad or a tetrad.  As a whole, the most you'll get with a playing card is a dyad.

A prime example of a card with a triad design element would be the Bicycle League Back deck, with a center element of a bicycle tire with three wings emanating from the center spoke.  The rest of the card's design, however, is a dyad.  The purple card's center element, a round pedal gear cut in a cross pattern in the center, would qualify as a tetrad, but the remaining back elements are all one big dyad - and of course, anything that's a tetrad is also a dyad.

The closest you'd get to tetrad radial symmetry is that each quadrant of the card will either be identical to or a mirror image of the other quadrants.  But turning the card ninety degrees will not give you an identical image to the one you started with unless your cards happen to be either round or square.