The Fantastic Fur Semi-Transformational Playing Cards (KS)

[Emmanuel]

====[ A FINAL THOUGHT ]=====

Perhaps one more SuperVillain is called for:

Named "Mr. Mollusk" (or, perhaps, "Dr. Mollusk"), his supervillainous power would be discouraging the hero with pointless and vacuous non-constructive criticism. The hero ends up losing interest in what he or she was trying to accomplish.

Robert, even though MrMollusk has a different opinion about the Fantastic Fur deck than you do, it's not right to make a comment like this.

Also..

I am (generally) NOT a fan of "semi-transformational" decks (those, like this one, in which each card has the right number of pips, but they are located, oriented, sized and skewed in whatever way the artist feels best serves his or her concept for the card)....Appreciating all of that, I tend to think of "semi-transformational" cards as somewhat a product of creative laziness (of course, if I ever designed and created one myself, my appreciation for them might increase tremendously).

From our correspondence (since 2012) about playing cards and transformation decks, this is a bit disappointing to hear. I was supportive of the deck concepts and images you shared with me, but your recent statements make me question how genuine your support was of my work back then. To each his own though.

[RSLancastr]

Robert, even though MrMollusk has a different opinion about the Fantastic Fur deck than you do, it's not right to make a comment like this.

I didn't say it because his opinion was different than mine.  I said it because I think that his opinion was stated in a non-constructive way.

And you say that about MY comment, but say nothing about the several much HARSHER (if memory serves) comments which others made about him above?? Also, note my use of the emoticon, indicating that my comment was meant humorously.

Also..

From our correspondence (since 2012) about playing cards and transformation decks, this is a bit disappointing to hear. I was supportive of the deck concepts and images you shared with me, but your recent statements make me question how genuine your support was of my work back then. To each his own though.

I did enjoy the images from your semi-transformational decks you have shared with me, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do so.

I would be surprised if I have not, somewhere in our correspondence, mentioned that I prefer "full-transformation" decks to "semi-transformation" ones. But that does not mean that I dislike ALL "semi-transformation" decks. In fact, one of my favorite transformation decks of ANY kind is the semi-transformational deck Key to the Kingdom, which certainly puts paid to my above remark about such decks being "creatively lazy" (or however I phrased it). And I think that I included weasel words like "often" and "sometimes" in my remarks above, to (I hoped) show that my personal criticisms of semi-transformational decks were not meant to apply to ALL semi-transformational decks.

Emanuel, Please accept my apologies if my stated opinions here about semi-transformational decks offended or bothered you in any way.

And, for what it's worth, I don't recall any of your designs striking me as "creatively lazy" in the least. Far from it, in fact.

-RSL

[th4mo]

I didn't say it because his opinion was different than mine.  I said it because I think that his opinion was stated in a non-constructive way.

And you say that about MY comment, but say nothing about the several much HARSHER (if memory serves) comments which others made about him above??

Hi RSL,

nice to see you here!
If i might interject my own opinion... I read back through the entire topic, and I think you (RSL) might be confusing Mollusk with Victor/Vjose/CardCollector.

most of the other posters on this thread were reacting to Victor's usual negative and offensive bull$hit. Mollusk, while he did have a pretty negative first post, came back with much more constructive and detailed criticism later.

seems like you got them mixed up, at least that's how it looks to me. Hope that helps clear the air a bit.

[RSLancastr]

Hi RSL,

nice to see you here!
If i might interject my own opinion... I read back through the entire topic, and I think you (RSL) might be confusing Mollusk with Victor/Vjose/CardCollector.

most of the other posters on this thread were reacting to Victor's usual negative and offensive bull$hit. Mollusk, while he did have a pretty negative first post, came back with much more constructive and detailed criticism later.

seems like you got them mixed up, at least that's how it looks to me. Hope that helps clear the air a bit.

Right you are, th4mo - thanks for the correction!

My sincere apologies to any mollusks who were hurt during the making of my first post in this thread.

[newtsgames]

I do like the constructive stuff.  Keep it coming.  I don't agree with it all, but that is fine. Everyone has opinions and we can learn.  Likewise some of the folks on here need to understand that different people like different things.  I must say that some of the more recent comments are a LOT better than somebody putting a blinking fish from Spongebob saying "My Eyes"! 

One thing that RSL does bring attention to that no one else has responded to is that there is a difference between "transformational" art work and "semi-transformational" art and yes, historically the semi-transformational decks are pretty cool too.  MrMollusk seems to think this deck is NOT semi-transformational for some reason.  I guess you could say that is his "opinion" but it is inaccurate.  I teased in one of my post by saying "La-Tee-Da" which was a deck from the mid 1800s that was very much a "semi-transformational" deck.  There are lots of semi-transformational decks out there.  I know that RSL doesn't like the semi ones as much, and that's cool.  Everyone likes different things.  I tend to like both the semi and fully transformed decks.  To me the semi are more fun because they add the dimension of trying to find the pips.
The above is a response to when MrMollusk said...

Also, I'm not understanding the historical significance of semi-transformational decks? How is this even RFEMOTELY historical? It's pretentious to even assume that this decks honors the historical significance of semi-transforational decks. You can't throw a few hearts or clubs into a drawing and say "Hey, look! We're cultured! It's semi-transformational!". The card's aren't designed with the pips or suits in mind. The pips are modified to fit the cards. You completely missed the essence of a true transformation deck. Check out the Clipped Wings deck or the Stranger and Stranger Ultimate deck for some more inspiration.

Sorry, but not only is this not constructive criticism, but it is inaccurate.

BTW, Emmanuel, I just got your transformed "Curator" deck a few days ago.  Nice job!  Another good deck for my collection...and yes, I actually have this one in my hands.   

[Firdawesome]

I am (generally) NOT a fan of "semi-transformational" decks (those, like this one, in which each card has the right number of pips, but they are located, oriented, sized and skewed in whatever way the artist feels best serves his or her concept for the card)....Appreciating all of that, I tend to think of "semi-transformational" cards as somewhat a product of creative laziness (of course, if I ever designed and created one myself, my appreciation for them might increase tremendously).

From our correspondence (since 2012) about playing cards and transformation decks, this is a bit disappointing to hear. I was supportive of the deck concepts and images you shared with me, but your recent statements make me question how genuine your support was of my work back then. To each his own though.

Emmanuel and MrMollusk, I'd like to add that I know Bob a.k.a RSLancastr to be one of the most enthusiastic and genuine collectors on the forums, and a nice guy in general. Also, even though I'm not very familiar with all the transformational / semi-transformational decks in existence, nobody could accuse your beautiful artwork for the Curator, Clipped Wings, Sawdust and Delicious series to be a product of 'creative laziness'.

[RSLancastr]

Thanks, and well said, Firdawesome!

[Emmanuel]

Bob, admittedly it was a little harsh to read your post. Additionally, if I'm being honest, it gets a little tiring to see statements that a semi-transformation deck has less merits than a pure transformation deck (for example, any thread related to the Eclecdeck here). With that said though, I can't fault you for liking what you like, and I apologize if I came across as angry.

Also, thank you to Newtsgames and Firdawesome!

[RSLancastr]

Bob, admittedly it was a little harsh to read your post. Additionally, if I'm being honest, it gets a little tiring to see statements that a semi-transformation deck has less merits than a pure transformation deck (for example, any thread related to the Eclecdeck here). With that said though, I can't fault you for liking what you like, and I apologize if I came across as angry.

Also, thank you to Newtsgames and Firdawesome!

Emmanuel, I don't think I said, nor did I mean to imply, that semi-transformational decks have "less merit" than full-transformational ones.

I just believe that a full-transformational card (say, a six of clubs) is more difficult to design than is a semi-transformational six of clubs, since the full-transformational one has more rules/restrictions placed on the designer/artist (the pips have to be a certain size, in specific places, in specific orientations, whereas, in a semi-transformational card, the artist/designer can make the pips any size, in any location, in any orientation he or she pleases!

I also believe that those limitations make it more difficult for the artist/designer of the full-transformation card to come up with a "scene" for the card which does not look too artificial/posed. For example, I designed a full-transformational ten of spades in which all of the pips were fish. but having all of those fish be EXACTLY the same size, in EXACTLY the same pose, swimming at EXACTLY the same distance from each other... well, it was pretty much a textbook example of a stilted, overly-posed-looking scene! Had I the luxury of making the fish in various sizes, poses, and in various distances from each other, it would have been FAR easier to make the scene look more "natural".

From what I recall of your decks, your designs do not play as "fast and easy" with all of these things as do Peter Wood's semi-transformational decks. so much of what I said of semi-trans decks within the context of my comments about "Fantastic Fur" don't even apply to your work.

But, as I said, if and when I ever design a semi-transformational deck, all of my thoughts about how much "easier" it would be than designing a full-transformational deck may totally change!

Sorry, but I don't recall: are any of your decks full-transformation decks? If so, did you find designing them to be more difficult, less difficult, or just as difficult as designing your semi-transformational ones?

[Emmanuel]

Sorry, but I don't recall: are any of your decks full-transformation decks? If so, did you find designing them to be more difficult, less difficult, or just as difficult as designing your semi-transformational ones?

As whole decks, none are. In every deck, there are individual cards that are full/pure transformations cards. Some decks have more pure transformation cards than others, but it all depends on the theme and concept. Last year's circus theme involved a lot of scenes/settings, so it was difficult to transform every single pip that would match the environment. However, this year's food theme is much more conducive for transformations (based on the cards I've made so far). I'll make a thread for the food deck in the design and development board soon.

[RSLancastr]

Here is an early pass at that aforementioned overly-posed ten of spades I designed back in 2000:

I was going to add a kelp bed behind the fish, and some bubbles in front of them to give it some depth and some randomness to break up the "posed" look somewhat, but never got around to it,

[volantangel]

To me, the key difference does not lie in whether its a full-transformation deck, or a semi-transformation deck. To me it is rather whether the pips are used meaningfully, or simply added on after the fact to make it a transformation deck. The design should definitely revolve around making the graphics work with the pips, rather than simply adding in pips here and there after the fact. There is a vast difference between the two.

Comparing this deck and Emmanuel's decks, we can see the stark contrast with what i just highlighted. Emmanuel's decks are simply in a different world, there is no argument against that.

[RSLancastr]

To me, the key difference does not lie in whether its a full-transformation deck, or a semi-transformation deck. To me it is rather whether the pips are used meaningfully, or simply added on after the fact to make it a transformation deck. The design should definitely revolve around making the graphics work with the pips, rather than simply adding in pips here and there after the fact. There is a vast difference between the two.

Comparing this deck and Emmanuel's decks, we can see the stark contrast with what i just highlighted. Emmanuel's decks are simply in a different world, there is no argument against that.

Well said, Volant! And some of Peter Wood's cards at least give the appearance of what I bolded in your post, when they may, in fact,  have been carefully planned before the first line was drawn on the card.

And, with full-transformational cards, an observer KNOWS that the pips were not just added, slap-dash, after the rest of the card was drawn.

And perhaps THAT is at least part of what I was trying to say above.

Thanks for stepping in and providing some clarity.

-RSL

[newtsgames]

To call Peter's artwork "slap-dash", "fast and easy" or to agree that it is "lazy" is offensive to say the least.  Robert, I am very surprised by your comments!  I know this deck may not be fitting for the high-falutin crowd on this forum, but there are a lot of kids AND adults alike that like this type of artwork AND like the way the pips are hidden.  I also know that we may not be able to reach those people on Kickstarter.  That's cool.  We have spent a LONG time on this deck (since 2004) and I would hardly call it any of the things that some of your have stated and we have no problem waiting longer to bring it to market should it not get funded.  I welcome suggestions (some of which have been very useful) but in my opinion some of you have stepped well over the line and in to some very personal opinions that do not help this project at all.

[RSLancastr]

To call Peter's artwork "slap-dash", "fast and easy" or to agree that it is "lazy" is offensive to say the least.

Jim, please show me, with quotes, where I said these things ABOUT PETER'S ARTWORK.

And, with this post, and perhaps a response to any quotes you come up with, I am done on this forum.

I have apparently lost the ability to make myself clear in a post, and that has resulted in my offending people who I never wanted nor intended to offend in the slightest.

I wish everyone here the best, but I am outta here.

[newtsgames]

Sorry Robert, I did get defensive there.  Since you are replying to a post on a thread for the "Fantastic Fur" deck and said things like...

And, with full-transformational cards, an observer KNOWS that the pips were not just added, slap-dash, after the rest of the card was drawn.

Then referring to Emmanuel you stated...

From what I recall of your decks, your designs do not play as "fast and easy" with all of these things as do Peter Wood's semi-transformational decks.

Then in another comment you tell Emmanuel....

And, for what it's worth, I don't recall any of your designs striking me as "creatively lazy" in the least. Far from it, in fact.

I guess you may have been saying some other deck was "creatively lazy", but again, since you are writing in this thread and we've already had the artwork called "lazy", childish, it looks like a kid drew it, etc. then without a doubt I became more defensive and sensitive.  This forum is already cut throat for the most part and not very open to different forms of art.  I have actually stayed away from it just for that reason.  Instead of just saying they don't "like" something, well, I'm not going to beat a dead bush, we know how some respond.

I agree with you Robert, it's time to move on.  I love to collect playing cards.  I love to create playing cards.  I love to talk about collecting and creating playing cards.  Sadly, on this forum, although it's getting better, it still just does not compliment any of those things...unless you fit in to their niche or art form.

On the Fantastic Fur project, I really don't mind listening to some of the feedback that you and others have given me here.  We've actually been showing followers of the Kickstarter campaign some of those ideas and we are implementing them.  I thank everyone for that.  I was always told not to "engage" your critics.  I guess I should have known better than to engage here.  I should have just read the constructive comments and never replied back to anything.

To everyone, please, go collect some playing cards but also understand that different people like and collect different things.  That doesn't make one worse, lazy, or because it was not drawn on a computer that doesn't mean a child drew it.  There are lots of different forms of art and different types of playing cards to collect.

[MrMollusk]

Named "Mr. Mollusk" (or, perhaps, "Dr. Mollusk"), his supervillainous power would be discouraging the hero with pointless and vacuous non-constructive criticism. The hero ends up losing interest in what he or she was trying to accomplish.

I wrote three paragraphs explaining what's wrong with this deck, in a very rational manner. Don't peg it as "non-constructive" just because I don't think this technicolor abomination has any merit. Is it harsh? Of course. Does that mean it's vacuous? Hell no.

[RSLancastr]

Sorry Robert, I did get defensive there.  Since you are replying to a post on a thread for the "Fantastic Fur" deck and said things like...

And, with full-transformational cards, an observer KNOWS that the pips were not just added, slap-dash, after the rest of the card was drawn.

Yes, this thread is about Fantastic Fur, but I think I was clear in the posts you quoted that I was comparing semi-transformational decks (in general) to fully-transformational decks (again, in general), and NOT Fantastic Fur specifically. I stand by the above quote, and believe it to be self-evident: With fully-transformational cards, an observer sees that the pips are sized, located, and oriented precisely where they are on a standard card. It's part of the charm of them, after all, seeing how the artist "transformed" a regular playing card into a scene, while leaving it still fully recognizable as a card. Whereas, with semi-transformational cards (some more than others, certainly), the pips are in different locations, orientations and sizes than on a standard card, sometimes making it very difficult to even figure out what card you are looking at without checking the indices (I own more than a few semi-trans decks which would be impossible to use in a game of cards). While some semi-trans decks do this in very clever ways ("Key to the Kingdom" being a good example), others do indeed have a very slap-dash look to them. Some (but by no means all) of Peter's semi-trans cards border on this. Back to your quoting me:

Then referring to Emmanuel you stated...

From what I recall of your decks, your designs do not play as "fast and easy" with all of these things as do Peter Wood's semi-transformational decks.

Saying that Peter "plays fast and easy" with the size, orientation and location of the pips on his semi-trans cards is NOT saying, as I believe you said that I said, that his art is "fast and easy". It is, however, a statement of fact, and one I doubt Peter would disagree with.

Back to you...

Then in another comment you tell Emmanuel....
And, for what it's worth, I don't recall any of your designs striking me as "creatively lazy" in the least. Far from it, in fact.

I guess you may have been saying some other deck was "creatively lazy", but again, since you are writing in this thread and we've already had the artwork called "lazy", childish, it looks like a kid drew it, etc. then without a doubt I became more defensive and sensitive.  This forum is already cut throat for the most part and not very open to different forms of art.  I have actually stayed away from it just for that reason.  Instead of just saying they don't "like" something, well, I'm not going to beat a dead bush, we know how some respond.

No, I was not saying that Fantastic Fur was "creatively lazy". I was talking about many semi-trans decks in general.

I agree with you Robert, it's time to move on.  I love to collect playing cards.  I love to create playing cards.  I love to talk about collecting and creating playing cards.  Sadly, on this forum, although it's getting better, it still just does not compliment any of those things...unless you fit in to their niche or art form.

On the Fantastic Fur project, I really don't mind listening to some of the feedback that you and others have given me here.  We've actually been showing followers of the Kickstarter campaign some of those ideas and we are implementing them.  I thank everyone for that.  I was always told not to "engage" your critics.  I guess I should have known better than to engage here.  I should have just read the constructive comments and never replied back to anything.

To everyone, please, go collect some playing cards but also understand that different people like and collect different things.  That doesn't make one worse, lazy, or because it was not drawn on a computer that doesn't mean a child drew it.  There are lots of different forms of art and different types of playing cards to collect.

[RSLancastr]

Named "Mr. Mollusk" (or, perhaps, "Dr. Mollusk"), his supervillainous power would be discouraging the hero with pointless and vacuous non-constructive criticism. The hero ends up losing interest in what he or she was trying to accomplish.

I wrote three paragraphs explaining what's wrong with this deck, in a very rational manner. Don't peg it as "non-constructive" just because I don't think this technicolor abomination has any merit. Is it harsh? Of course. Does that mean it's vacuous? Hell no.

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that, as someone pointed out to me, I had you confused with someone else (victor). What I said about you, really was meant about him.

My humble apologies,

-RSL

[MrMollusk]

Named "Mr. Mollusk" (or, perhaps, "Dr. Mollusk"), his supervillainous power would be discouraging the hero with pointless and vacuous non-constructive criticism. The hero ends up losing interest in what he or she was trying to accomplish.

I wrote three paragraphs explaining what's wrong with this deck, in a very rational manner. Don't peg it as "non-constructive" just because I don't think this technicolor abomination has any merit. Is it harsh? Of course. Does that mean it's vacuous? Hell no.

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that, as someone pointed out to me, I had you confused with someone else (victor). What I said about you, really was meant about him.

My humble apologies,

-RSL

Ohhhh, ok. I was a bit confused with the thread after that :/

Sorry I got sort of snippy. I get defensive really easy.

[Don Boyer]

So, gentlemen, can we call this case settled and get the topic back on track?  It's always good to keep in mind how easily people's words can get misconstrued when your printing a conversation, in essence.

I may not find the deck to be my cup of tea, but it's not hard to see where some people would.  That doesn't mean I need to get into a public shouting match about it.  For my part, I offered Newt some suggestions that might help with marketing his deck, because the fact that I don't like something doesn't make my opinion the majority in a world of over six billion people, or even a forum of several thousand, many of which prefer to silently read along rather than adding their own two cents.

[RSLancastr]

So, gentlemen, can we call this case settled and get the topic back on track?  It's always good to keep in mind how easily people's words can get misconstrued when your printing a conversation, in essence.

Indeed. And, when one has invested many, many hours (not to mention dollars) thinking up, creating, refining and trying to market an idea, it can be all-too easy to get defensive over even the mildest of criticisms of said idea.

I may not find the deck to be my cup of tea, but it's not hard to see where some people would.  That doesn't mean I need to get into a public shouting match about it.

Was this a "shouting match"?  For my part, it was more of a "trying (none-too successfully) to clarify myself" match.

[Don Boyer]

I may not find the deck to be my cup of tea, but it's not hard to see where some people would.  That doesn't mean I need to get into a public shouting match about it.

Was this a "shouting match"?  For my part, it was more of a "trying (none-too successfully) to clarify myself" match.

I was speaking in generalities.

[Rob Wright]

Re-launched with sorta new name.

Newtropolis & The Fantastic Fur Playing Cards

[Don Boyer]

Wow.  OK, I think you know my opinion hasn't changed with this new incarnation of the deck, but that's besides the point.

The real point is how in the hell is he planning to create, package and ship 1,152 decks (that's 8 gross, folks - 96 dozen) on a budget of $1,500?  That's a fraction over $1.30 for each deck - for a run this short I don't even know of a printer that will make the decks that cheap, never mind the fulfillment!  It's either being seriously subsidized or something's fishy in Newtropolis.

Assume everyone gets their decks at the cheapest asking price: $30 for four decks, or $7.50 each, with no international orders.  Further assume that no other more costly add-ons are requested - everyone just wants cheap decks shipped within the US.  It takes only 200 decks to reach the goal.  But if that's it, if the project barely crosses the goal, they have a minimum of 200 decks to pack and ship.  Call it 50 packages, which when added to packing material will come probably close to a pound each.  Media mail rate is $2.69 each package, running to $134.50 just for postage - let's round it to $200 including the packing material.

This means in the best-case, just-met-goal-and-nothing-more scenario, this project has $1,300 left over to print the decks and a commitment to print 1,152 decks - cost per deck can't exceed just below $1.13 per deck.

That's not good.

If every deck is sold, and at the maximum price of $10 (not counting premiums for low serial numbers or autographs), the project will take in $11,520.  Not much more than that, since there's only those premiums I mentioned.  In such a situation, yes, I can see the project being a success at not just reaching the goal but at printing, packing and shipping the decks.   But the odds of that happening?  Let's just say I wouldn't want my life hanging on those odds.

There's a lot of wiggle room between the two extremes, but too many scenarios look like losing propositions to me.