|
Home Decks Combos Articles Visual Spoilers Art Features Links Search Forum |
|
|
|
|
Over the course of the last four years, I have been busy telling you about my perspective of how things were and how things are. The evolution of Magic from its infancy until now has sparked many conversations. You may have noted that recently our own Luthervamplord stepped up and voiced his opinion about the most recent changes in Magic’s policies. In this article, I will not be giving you my perspective; instead I will bring to you the perspective of another veteran of Magic. Who? I guess you will have to take a step inside to find out. I promise it won’t be a letdown… [Chris Newton] Today is a big day for Magic Deck Vortex (MDV). Today we stop playing patty cake with ourselves and we look outside of our own community for answers. We have plenty of questions, we always have questions. We spend a lot of time and effort asking each other questions and then speculating on what the answer to those questions could be, but I decided to really, truly find an answer to the question… Why? Joining me today via email is a special guest that I am sure many of you are typically unhappy with as he is the guy who makes all of those nasty cards that annoy you so much. He is the person responsible for all of those pretty little Kithkins as well as the mighty, fearsome Dragons. He is the man credited with making Magic what it is today and will be tomorrow. My guest is Magic’s Head Designer Mark Rosewater. Mr. Rosewater, it is truly a pleasure to talk to you. I played Magic from 1994 until around 2005, so you have had a huge impact on my life, and I would be lying if I said it was not a positive impact.
[CN] I don’t want to just jump into the current state of Magic, as I have wanted to pick your mind, if it’s ok with you, about some older things that have been with me for years. [MR] It’s your interview. That means you get to ask whatever questions you want. [CN] I always wondered, from a Designer’s perspective, if you guys know while you are creating a set, which cards will be good in the competitive tournament environment, or have you been surprised at how often a card exploded onto the scene and was heavily used? [MR] This is a common misconception people have about design. Design doesn’t figure out what is good and what isn’t. That’s all done during development. Our job is to create new and interesting environments. We come up with neat mechanics and cool individual card designs. Design is focused on how everything works together much more than things like power level. [CN] I imagine a block being like a trilogy where the problem is presented in the first book, and the solution in the last, yet lately it seems to be just fill the sets equally with cycles. Why does every color have to be ‘equal’? What I mean is, why does each color need to be involved in a cycle that is pretty much the same card with a color specific trait, like the Ultimatums for example. Why can’t a color just get some good cards now, and balance them out as time passes (like Odyssey Block for example)? [MR] I think you have a bit of misunderstanding of the reason for cycles. I wrote an article about why design uses cycles during Cycle Week (“Zen and the Art of Cycle Maintenance” - [link]). There are numerous reasons but the biggest are the following:
The article doesn’t go into it, but there are some additional reasons:
In short cycles do a lot to improve players’ abilities to absorb and play with sets and in general, they are very popular. As far as color balance, all sets (save Torment and Judgment) have the colors balanced by percentage within the set. [CN] I recently played the game Shandalar for the first time in many years. Has Wizards considered making another run at Shandalar or another game similar to it? [MR] We are currently working on a game for the Xbox 360 and PC called Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers. It has plenty of actual Magic game play like Shandalar but no roleplaying (although you do get to unlock cards as you win). The buzz here in R&D and among players who have gotten a chance to demo it at shows is very positive. [CN] While playing Shandalar, I got to see how Banding really works and how devastating it can be. Being a fan of mechanics like it, Phasing, and other old school, obscure mechanics, I was really happy to see Morph and Cycling being re-used. Should I hold my breath on seeing the return of Banding and Phasing? Also, have you considered adopting Cycling and Morph into the Core Set since it has been re-printed numerous times now? [MR] I wouldn’t hold your breath for either banding or phasing to make a return. They both have proven too wordy (remember current policy requires us to write out reminder text of all non-evergreen keywords) and too confusing to be worth reprinting. I also wouldn’t expect to see cycling or morph show up in the core set. We think of our expert mechanics as tools that we can come back to time and again, but don’t want to further complicate the base set by having them always be there. [CN] I think the MDV guys are going to shoot me if I horde all of your time with my personal questions, so let me get to the questions that they are want to know the answers too. First, let me tell you about who the MDV Guys are. They are the Casual Players of Magic. Guys who are in college, nearing graduation from high school, working class guys who have a family and don’t have time to spend on tournaments. Normally our guys have been players for a long time and now just casually keep track of Magic, but at the same time we have guys who are linked to Magic and our community as they grew up with it as a part of their lives. The reason I even thought to request this interview was to get your response to an article written by Luthervamplord, which actually generated a lot of response and those responses were generally in agreement with the author. My first question for you is this: Luther implies that Wizards is conceeding that Yu-Gi-Oh! is the biggest game in the market now and Magic is slowly absorbing pieces from that game in order to keep pace. Do you feel that this is true, and if so, how do you explain to your loyal fans that Magic is adopting someone else’s identity instead of embracing its own? [MR]Let me officially say that we are not conceding any such thing. What I have said is that many trading card games have come along since Magic (this kind of thing happens when you’re first and successful) and that we have learned a number of valuable lessons by watching what others have done. It would be very arrogant of us to assume that the only advances in trading card game technology have come from Magic. That said, Magic is the leader of the genre and we have no plan of giving up that berth. What you are seeing recently (with such things as mythic card in Shards of Alara) is us using what we’ve learned from other TCG’s to continue to improve Magic and keep it relevant to today’s audience. I believe we’ve been successful in doing this in a way that very much is keeping within our own identity. [CN] The next item that Luther touched on is evangelism. His point is that Wizards does not do a good enough job of encouraging the established players to teach newer players and take the game out into the world to attract new players. What is your opinion of this, and does Wizards have a plan in the works that would bolster this? [MR]Let me start by saying that this is an issue of great
concern to us. There are few things as important to a game as keeping a steady
stream of new players coming into the game. (Keeping the established players is
mutually important.) [CN] Mark, Luther has a very strong opinion on the loss of a common in favor of a basic land in booster packs. Having had a little time to see how the public has reacted to this change, do you feel that this was the correct decision? Also, Luther offers a counter measure of releasing a basic land booster pack. I spoke with him later about this and the idea was proposed to release these booster packs prior to spoiler season. Is this something that Wizards may have discussed as a possible means of generating interest in a new set? [MR]I can’t get into the details but a separate land pack does not work for numerous business reasons. Having a land in the booster pack was the only solution that did work to what we felt was a serious problem (new players having issues acquiring lands). I should also point out that the logic behind the land in booster packs stems from the fact that land should trickle down through players. That is, players who don’t need the land will pass it along to fellow players more in need. Did this decision upset some subset of players? Yes, but as if often the case, we made the decision which we felt was best for the overall health of the game, which in the end really is what is best for all players. [CN] Mark, as a customer, I agree with Luther about the new Fatpack. My problem is different than his though. While Luther is upset about the pamphlet replacing the novel, I am a little concerned that you replaced about 200 pages with of book for a pamphlet and the price of the product remained the same. Since you reduced the product, shouldn’t you also reduce the price of the now inferior product, keeping in mind Luther’s qualm being that I can look at the pamphlet for free on the internet at any time? [MR]I wish we were able to put a novel in every Fat Pack but we simply have changed how we are doing our Magic novel line and as such we no longer have one novel per set. If we did, we’d gladly keep them in the Fat Pack. Why haven’t we dropped the price? Simply put, because our costs (as the manufacturer) hasn’t changed. The changes to the Fat Pack are a direct response to consumer feedback. While some players prefer the old fat packs, many more players had requested more boosters instead of some of the other inserts (such as the dividers and novel). Additionally, by disassociating the novels with each TCG set, we have created a much stronger story arc that players will enjoy. The first Planeswalker novel – Agents of Artifice – releases this Winter and will feature Jace. [CN] Luther’s last point is one that I actually disagree on. I think you guys are right in this regard, but I would like to get your response to his account of reducing the count of cards in circulation. [MR]Our change was motivated by one thing – our audience asked for it. We do a lot of market research and the message was loud and clear, we were printing too many cards. So we listened and changed how we do things. Ironically, Luther feels as if shrinking the set makes less work for R&D when the reality is that the smaller set size (for design at least, I can’t speak for anyone else) makes more work. The famous quote I use is “I would have written you a shorter letter if I had more time.” We have deliver as much as we always have yet we have less slots to do it in. It’s a challenge we’re up to but it definitely adds additional complexity to Magic design. [CN] Before I let you go, is there anything you would like to tell the Casual Fans while you have their attention? [MR]I want to tell them how much we value what they have to say. My email link is at the bottom of every “Making Magic” column. I read every email I get (although I don’t have the time to respond to most letters) so anyone who takes the time to write gets my ear. And as I share many of the letters with the rest of R&D, sometimes you get all of R&D’s ear. This is your game. Let us know what you do and don’t want. [CN] Thank you for your time Mr. Rosewater. I’m sure the MDV Guys will appreciate the enlightenment. [MR]I’m always happy to talk with our fans. [CN] What are you waiting for MDV? Let’s hear what you have to say in the forums.
You can discuss this article in the MDV forums
here.
Articles
Spotlights from 2008: |
|
