#gds3

My plan to answer them worked as follows. First I read each question and then noted them on my phone. I spent the next day just considering each question and talking to myself about it. That night I made notes of possible answers for each as well as a few bullet points of how I could defend those answers. The next day I recorded myself talking about my best potential answers (it was a point where I was stuck in my car for about an hour, so I channeled Drive to Work and talked about Magic). When I got home I listened to that stuff and took some more notes, then set to work writing essays.First draft done, I went to bed.

The next day I reread my answers and then reread the questions, and then reread my answers. Then I rewrote my essays from scratch after considering what about them should change. I was very happy with the second draft I had for each of the essays and I made more minor revisions and corrections on the next day before submitting them. I'm quite pleased with the overall answers.

My strategy in answering them was to showcase a wide range of abilities; I touched on design and development issues, the integration of creative, player reception, and the larger (standard) environment created that each set is a part of (barring supplemental products of course). Some questions naturally focused on individual mechanic and card design, while others allowed me to talk about bigger concerns with a design (for better or worse, and with one answer in particular I definitely dropped the ball in pursuing this strategy).

Question 1

I sought to emphasize my design skills though they are all currently “amateur.” I don't and have not had a career as a professional in any aspect of design, though my hobbies and passions all revolve around it. I also put great weight on my ability and desire to work with a team in collaborative processes. I'd love the opportunity to expand on these things during a face to face interview.

Question 2

I don't think any non-evergreen mechanic currently satisfies the demands of being made evergreen. Due to that, this was the hardest question of the ten from my perspective. I made the argument for skulk, shifted into green to act as evasion on green's smaller creatures where trample doesn't make sense. I'd make it primary in green and tertiary in black and blue, only to be used there when none of their other evasion makes sense somehow. This would hopefully allow the mechanic to see some good use despite its small design space.

Question 3

This felt like the easiest question to answer. Defender is strictly a downside mechanic, there are no issues with writing out the effect defender has since walls are never crowded with text, and mimicking Propaganda text on cards that lose defender actually saves space and simplifies cards that currently have defender. For example I'd drop defender from Hightide Hermit and write its rules text as “Hightide Hermit can't attack unless you pay EE.” Even in a world where defender remains evergreen, that's a good change to make to cards like that.

Question 4

I've taught a few people to play Magic so I feel really good about my answer with this. I even write it out as a bit of a story to help them see how that first game with a stranger would go. I defined the best possible outcome as the stranger wanting to play Magic after I taught them and that the best way to ensure they want that is for them to have fun. I'd grab two planeswalker decks and we'd start playing. First game open handed so I can look at their cards and advise them directly and they can ask questions without feeling like they're giving up information that should remain hidden. I explain just rules relevant at the time and stay away from any complicated stuff or technical terminology that might trip them up or overwhelm them. When we're done with that first game I ask if they want to play again and then we play a normal game with hands hidden. I haven't always taught players this way, but my methods for teaching the game improve each time I do it (one of the first people I taught was my fiancee and I regret that because I did not do a good job at all, but it gave me a better idea of how to teach Magic by making what not to do clearer).

Question 5

The answer to this question is fun, no doubt in my mind. People come to the game because it's fun and they stick with the game because it's fun. You have to make sure it remains fun. Making a fun experience isn't easy, but I also touched on how there are a lot of different players and each of them gets something different from Magic. So the real trick is learning about all the different ways people enjoy Magic and then making some aspect of the game for each of them. In other words, you aren't just designing for yourself.

Question 6

My answer to this question is complexity. I clarify that complexity isn't all bad; some of it is absolutely needed to make the game as enjoyable as it is. But too much complexity or complexity employed the wrong way, ruins the game. Complexity needs to be watched and it always needs to be in service to a fun experience. I think this answer is solid but it felt a bit rote to me as well. I've read and listened to a lot of Rosewater's stuff on design and I never set out to rehash his ideas here, but he has an incredible understanding of design philosophy and since I'd consider myself a student of his in many respects, that comes through in my answers anyway.

Question 7

I wanted so much more from Cipher. I think its shortcomings are that it was difficult to develop, confined mechanically (it couldn't be used on combat tricks and they chose not to use it on instants due to confusion), and it used weird terminology with encode. My solution is a mechanic I called Spellstrike which I believe has more tools to develop it fairly, works on instants and sorceries and as combat tricks, and used only existing and commonly used Magic terminology. That's all I'll say about it here as I hope to design some of these cards in a challenge later.

Question 8

This is where my strategy in answering really bit me. I've talked about specific card and mechanic design in previous questions so I thought this was a good space to expand to block and larger environment design, as well as creative. I answered that I loved Eldritch Moon but that its reception by the larger player base was soured because it followed Battle for Zendikar block. I didn't touch so much on design issues in the set itself here, nor on what I would change because it would have made the set better for me. Instead I focused on how design and creative failed to recognize that the general flavor of Eldrazi would cause fans to conflate Innistrad and Zendikar Eldrazi as being essentially the same thing even though the designs are literally worlds apart. Delaying Shadows Over Innistrad block I believe would have resulted in better reception of it. Still, my answer here is the biggest miss I had among these questions though I still believe it showcases an ability to learn from every aspect of a design.

Question 9

I considered Aether Revolt and Dragons of Tarkir for this. Dragons of Tarkir took away the best mechanic part of Khans of Tarkir, the clans, but introduced a lot of cool dragons. Ultimately I decided I had more to defend in talking about Aether Revolt instead and could better showcase an eye for design with a specific circumstance I'll mention below. Aether Revolt for me just didn't do much that Kaladesh wasn't already doing and better. I didn't include this in the question as I didn't think of it at the time, but now I wonder if that's because it suffered from the blob problem where decks could too easily just play good stuff so not as many cards had the chance to shine in constructed. In limited it just wasn't doing enough to change draft to make it more enticing to draft this than it was to draft triple Kaladesh. I'm not clear on what could have changed that.

But for the actual question, the aspect I think worked best, was the mechanic Revolt. I went on to discuss how it's not simply a Morbid clone and specifically that it forces you to reassess how you play something as simple as Evolving Wilds. Any mechanic that makes you rethink an aspect of the game that you usually take for granted is doing good work.

Question 10

This is the question I had the most potential answers for: use they/their instead of gendered pronouns in rules text, introduce “discard” to red in the form of “impulsing” cards out of opponent's hands, use draw as terminology to describe moving a card (not permanent) from any zone to a player's hand and discard to describe moving a card from any zone to a player's graveyard, getting rid of the legend rule, making enchantment creatures evergreen, and probably a few others I can't think of now.

I opted to defend removing the legend rule. It allows more fun and I believe it's the one design decision that you can most directly connect to a financial business decision because of the huge market evidenced for Commander players. Again, the answer here played into my goal to show a breadth of vision in my design abilities.

1. Introduce yourself and explain why you are a good fit for this internship.

2. An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?

I am presuming the following:

I cannot change the mechanic anyway, not even in name. (Otherwise, this question may as well ask me to invent a mechanic.)

I can’t choose ability words, as they’re not the same as keyword mechanics. (Similarly, I couldn’t pick hybrid mana.)

I can pick keyword actions. (I’m being pedantic, but since the hypothetical is asking me to make choice, I’d rather know what my options are... or are not.)

So I’m picking Crew.

There’s no good candidate for a Blue/Black keyword (an obvious circumstance for selecting a keyword), and really the two mechanics that ought to be evergreen are Crew and transform for this same reason:

Every Magic world needs them.

It’s why Equipment became evergreen; mechanics are either necessary to gameplay or creative (or both). Some story elements cards ought to capture, such as swords and shields. But Magic cannot capture other basic creative needs because the evergreen keywords needed to represent them don’t exist. I can think of five such tropes currently absent.

Vehicles remained absent until Crew.

Transform carries logistical issues and walks the tightrope of being too broad, like Kicker.

The complexity of Crew may be a concern, but that can be offset by its intuitive and independent natures; the mechanic piggybacks on creative resonance and doesn’t need to appear more than once or twice, nor even at common, to do its job.

And it’s so much fun.

3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why.

Defender.

It’s a downside mechanic that does nothing.

It can just be written out, the game text is three words.

It’s annoying because creatures with defender don’t count as creatures in design skeletons, and they wheel in draft because they can’t attack. And sometimes they’re a trap; newer players take them and miss that one little keyword without reminder text and end up with a dud in their decks.

And R&D don’t even use it when they could: most effects that stop a creature attacking don’t even give the creature defender. Pacifism-auras say “it can’t attack”, not “it gains Defender”. Auras that say “it can’t attack or block” can’t give defender because it would look counterintuitive; “it gains defender and can’t block”.

It’s a keyword that got grandfathered in because of walls, and really, that’s this keyword’s purpose: to consolidate a tribe around specific gameplay.

Walls are cool. Buffing your walls/creatures with defender remains silly fun and was a theme in Iconic Masters. One of my best friends loves doing this. I made a commander deck I adored which sat behind lots of walls and forced everyone’s creatures to attack (this was before goad).

So write the mechanic out, de-keyword it, and create a new creature type. “Guardian” will do. Then make creatures that say, “Guardians and Walls you control...”.

Yes, other evergreen keywords might be a problem, such as Hexproof, but Defender demands players actually remember what it does; the actual number of evergreen keywords MtG can sustain remains precious, and Defender doesn’t need to be one of them.

4. You’re going to teach Magic to a stranger. What’s your strategy to have the best possible outcome?

I’d ask them to pick two of the following:

Soldiers and honourable knights

Wizards of water and air

Necromancers and zombies

Goblins and pyromancers

Elves and big monsters

Then I’d get the two welcome decks they picked and tell them to shuffle them together. I’d then pick two other decks they didn’t pick and shuffle them together and start explaining how the game works with broad strokes, animating the game’s rules by picking up cards and focusing on the fun.

I want to focus on why I’d make them pick decks: I want a new player to immediately notice the personal customisation of the game by making them pick two colours and smooshing them together. After one game they will immediately wonder what would’ve happened if they combined two other decks together or one of their chosen decks with a deck they didn’t pick, because once a player realises how much customization Magic has, they’re hooked.

I was the first person in my town to play MtG so I taught most of the people in my area.

That’s how I did it. They picked two colours (no sample decks back then) and I gave them what cards I could in those colours so they could have a deck.

5. What is Magic’s greatest strength and why?

As I pointed out in my previous answer, the customization Magic offers. Players can truly make Magic their own in a way almost no other game has. Thanks to the versatility of the mana system and the faction distinction in the colour pie, players get to essentially compose the colours of their deck, making it an intensely personal game.

Right now, one of my best friends is getting hooked to this game, and this is what’s drawing him in. We draft and he loves playing colours he’s not played before, combining them in new ways, finding new strategies to explore.

The modularity of the game creates the opportunity for players to invest themselves in it.

6. What is Magic’s greatest weakness and why?

The community.

Players can customise Magic so completely that what matters to them becomes the only thing about the game that really matters and anyone who disagrees isn’t “really” playing Magic.

Players will happily dismiss cards as rubbish if they won’t hit their chosen format. That negativity drives people away because, hey, that card might be a lot of fun in another format.

Other players, deciding Magic must be serious, don’t like silly cards, and so cards that aren’t powerful or even sensible get mocked.

And that’s if you can even find players who want to play the same format as you.

Players who take the time to invest in Magic can easily become stubborn, and won’t play outside their comfort zone. My (now former) playgroup was at first, all about serious tournament constructed play. Then it became about Commander, playing their decks against each other, but the politics was always very Spike-y. But I I loved diversity of format. I loved trying new things: Planechase, Archenemy... just recently I played my first ever Pauper tournament. I don’t like constructed formats, but I’ll play if that’s what everyone wants. My new playgroup, amusingly, made of friends in the same group who were put off Magic because they “weren’t good enough” and never found it that much fun, are finding it to be fun precisely because I show up with different sets to draft and different formats to try; Wizard’s Tower, Explorers of Ixalan, and they’re getting hooked as I show them that Magic isn’t just one game.

And then there’s the community that doesn’t even play Magic but their existence drastically affects other people’s capacity to get cards: Investors oft-times turn Magic from a card game into a stock market game, that casual players now find themselves embroiled in as unwilling participants. You can’t play Magic without playing the market anymore... which is why I make decks for my friends.

As I cultivate my new gaming group, I’m simultaneously inoculating them from the community’s problems.

7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?

Tribute.

It’s not fun in a standard-legal set pushed for competitive play because no one wants to do that at tournaments, or even in 1v1 games.

But Conspiracy sets would love it. It’s the kind of mechanic you absolutely want to debut and delve into in Conspiracy or Commander because the whole joy is you get to pick who pays tribute. You get to make a great deal, “pay the tribute and I promise you [blah].” It causes players to make alliances, break alliances, create grudges, end grudges...

That’s what you want in a keyword for multiplayer Magic.

8. Of all the Magic expansions that you’ve played with, pick your favourite and then explain the biggest problem with it.

My favourite expansion is probably Khans of Tarkir.

I love Morph. I love the creative behind Khans, a war-torn dragon graveyard makes it so unique. I love the real world influences for the clans. I love the five clans. I love the enemy-three-colour combinations more than any other colour combinations. And my favourite clan might be the Temur.

My biggest problem with it... Ferocious.

The Temur deserve better than that mechanic. I remember spoiler season: we’d seen the creative for each of the five clans, but the last clan mechanic to be spoiled was the Temur. I was expecting something to fit the art for Savage Punch because lookatit.

Bushido!

That’s what I expected. The finally renamed Bushido. “Duelling” maybe. It would work when they attacked, blocked, or fought. It would be perfect.

And instead we got this reprint of the Naya mechanic from Shards, which was boring back then too.

Ferocious. And then in Dragons of Tarkir you failed me again ad gave them the way too similar in both name and function keyword, Formidable...

It still drives me crazy.

9. Of all the Magic expansions that you’ve played with, pick your least favourite and then explain the best part about it.

Dragons of Tarkir.

That list I made of why I loved Khans? Yeah, you got rid of all that. Except Morph. And it managed to make Dragons boring.

But the best part? There are four cards I love.

Zurgo Bellstriker because I love how he plays and I love the character.

Dragonlord Silumgar because he is fat and cute and he steals things while on his chez-long being petted and adored.

Narset Transcendent because this one of the most beautiful pieces of art in the game.

Sarkhan Unbroken because he is the most metal planeswalker and it’s about time he got back to being a badass and look at the art shut up.

10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?

Some things I would love to change remain to speculative on my part because they restructure the way in which certain decisions regarding story or reprints are made. But... since I’m not privvy to those discussions, I’d rather save those suggestions for another time.

Instead, I’ll look at a problem that needs solving.

Commander.

MaRo’s blog continually floods with the demands of Commander players that fights against the demands of every other format. These demands basically stem from two issues:

The Legendary rule

The colour identity rule

A “Tribal Commander” showcases both of these issues.

Commander players want a legendary creature that grants a tribal bonus so it can lead that tribe, and the commander needs to be in all the colours of that tribe.

But Non-Commander players want the creature to not be legendary, so its tribal bonuses can stack, and in few colours as possible, so it can go in different archetypes of that tribe.

I have some suggestions for fixing the colour identity side, but since Wizards doesn’t control the format, I’ll focus on the change Wizards could implement: get rid of the Legendary rule.

I was expecting the rule to go when Ixalan debuted Legendary Planeswalkers, yet it remains. The Legendary rule has changed multiple times and it’s gone from being a cool bit of flavour to an irrelevant nuisance.

What formats actually care about the rule?

Limited players don’t care, neither for cube, draft or sealed, since most cubes are singleton and Legends are rare or mythic, appearing infrequently.

Constructed formats like standard or modern don’t want to care. Constructed formats want to be able to make their decks as consistent as possible and the legendary rule aggravates.

Most damningly, Commander itself, the format that cares most about whether a card is legendary or not, doesn’t actually care about the legendary rule. You’re only allowed one copy of any card.

The rule just gets in the way; people ignore it but enjoy the flavour behind it.

I’d argue the flavour of legends would survive and does not rest in that rule.