Let me say this. I finished this and turned it in at 3am, and I was tired by the time I finished. I wasn't thinking straight and turned this in without revising it at all. I just noticed that I didn't even introduce myself in question one (ACK!). Oh well, it says a lot of vital things, and they'd probably get close to a million applications, and they have to cut THAT down to 50. I've viewed their forums, they have some really good people, who don't work for WOTC and deserve the position a lot. Having said that, I hope for those of you who read this, enjoy?
1. Introduce yourself and explain why you are a good fit for this internship.First of all, I'm open minded, very considerate of others, and very careful. I have few ties to hold me down, so moving from Los Angeles to Washington isn't a problem for me. I use to play magic, but at a younger age, I didn't have the income or understanding of the game to really be drawn in or excel in it. In recent years, I've re-established my understanding and interest in Magic, and have read a lot of articles about R&D, designing cards, blocks, etc (Thank you Rosewater), and am often working with many of my peers with discussions about balencing cards, expansions, blocks, and more.
I want to work for Wizards (of course), and I want to learn. I've always wanted to work in the field, and have always designed and created games and custom rules on my own and with my freinds (For Card Games, RPGs, home-brewed games). I want to work for Wizards, I have a passion for the game, I have a huge respect and understanding for the color wheel, and I am very careful about what I say. I try to look at everything (everything) from any, and all angles, no matter how obscure. What does this mean? I'll try and think of new, unherad of concepts, and consider any of them, but also also consider the fact that they may be unusable.
If I had to pick pick what color I think I am, I would say I'm bipolar, and would be White/Blue, and Red. I'm not very selfish (black) and have no real ties to nature (green), but on the one side of the coin, I have a strong sense of community, self sacrifice, understanding of greater good, morals and ethics, focus in technology, order, and can plan long term and prepare for things. However, on the 'flip' side (har har) I'm very open minded, creative, emotionally driven, passionate, considerate, flexible, and fun loving. (I worked on this list for a long time because the color wheel is very important to me and I wanted to make sure I did it justice).
2. Explain three positive ways "mana screw" affects Magic.a) Forces you to design a tighter, better designed deck. You have to have a well balenced mana curve and balence your mana production accordingly. You have to make sure you have enough early game drops to sustain you until you can play your late game spells, and take careful consideration of cards with more than one colored mana in it’s casting cost, and activated abilities.
b) It definately makes mana sources (a key part of the game) more important. With this, it also helps emphisise what each color does. Green definately has an advantage, and should when it comes to mana production, and is the ‘multi-color friendly’ part of the wheel. A easy way to balance out cards from a 5 costing spell is to change the colored mana. If it’s too strong, change it from 4C to 3CC. If it’s still too strong, 2CCC could be done (however, still taking into consideration the power level of running it mono-colored).
c) Balence. There will never be a deck that is the 'ultimate' deck. Everyone can, and will be affected by it. Everyone will fall victim to it, but those who design with it in mind, are less likely to. It's the "1" that even the most proficient player can roll, but poorly deisgned decks will have it happen at a higher threat.
Anyone can draw a hand full of red spells and only a single forest, but was it because you made your deck too red heavy and not enough mountains to back it up? Was it because you have too many spells with RR or RRR in it, and not enough mountains? “Mana Screw”, while painful, is a big part of the game. It’s risk vs reward. Do you run fewer lands for more spells? You want those extra spells that you’re able to cast in the deck, but what if you don’t get enough mana to cast it? Mana screw is a penalty for poor deck building, and bad luck. You can’t blame mana screw for bad luck though, luck is a big factor for any game.
3. Name a popular, existing mechanic and explain how you would make it better.Wow, tough call, there are many popular mechanics that interest me that I thought to have tweaked myself. Phasing could be made better. Wait, you said popular, my bad. *smacks self*. Right, let’s see. Threshold? Affinity? Probably one of those two… both are popular existing mechanic, and both are very powerful… too powerful in my opinion. One is suppose to give you a ‘buff’ after several game turns, but it’s been made quite easy to get threshold. Affinity, is suppose to make certain spells easier to cast, if you have the right cards and enough of them. However, affinity for artifact was way, too easy to get off. Free creatures left and right, which, upon entering play, makes it easier to play more free creatures. I think Affinity is a bigger problem, and by ‘making it better’, I mean to say, making the environment where it’s legal, more fun and challenging to play in.
Perhaps rather than the complete spell be able to be free, you could make it something like:
Greater Frogmite – 6
Artifact Creature – Frog (yes!)
Affinity for artifacts
When Greater Frogmite comes into play, pay 2 or sacrifice it.
2 – Greater Frogmite gains islandwalk until the end of turn.
“Greater than it’s smaller cousin, it actually has a working amphibious mode.”
4/5
This way, it’s still capable of being close to free, but you’re still going to have to invest some mana into casting it, rather than just play a handful of free creatures and spells. This does make it slightly more complicated and wordy, but I think the benefit outweighs it. You might want to change the flavor text to simply “Ribbit.” I think the players would get the joke.
4. From a design standpoint, what was the best thing about the Champions of Kamigawa block?While I didn't play much of the Kamigawa block, what I did play, I enjoyed. I liked how 'Spiritcraft' and Arcane. Each were powerful and very useful, and each were abilities that every color could use. Both abilities powered the other one, so while they were sepearte abilities that could function individually, they could function equally as well (sometimes better) together. Arcane spells had a lot of flavor and was mechanically well designed, and while Soulshift wasn't as interesting, it was mechanically an ability that was flexible and easy to use, but in the right hands, it could be very powerful. Unlike some previous abilities, like Double Strike or Trample, which are very 'Red' and 'Green' abilities, respectively (however, not exclusively for them... though I don't think any creature has Double Strike that's not red), Spiritcraft and Arcane was very well balenced and helped each color, while still being able to work well with each other color, and often worked better if you combined it with other colors.
I think Kamigawa, in this sense, was a very balanced block (unlike Torment, which was Black heavy, for example). I had a hard time deciding what color I would like to play, and often found myself playing any, and all of them (not at the same time though, it wasn’t too fond of running 5 colors at once… though I have done it before). Initially, red was my favorite color, and it usually is, it use to be my favorite color. I wanted to have fun, and red was fun. However, as I have come to appreciate the color wheel and learn the game at a much deeper level, I’ve come to love all the colors. I think that Kamigawa did this very well, and Spiritcraft working hand in hand with Arcane spells helped make it happen.
5. From a design standpoint, what was the worst thing about the Ravnica block?Too many abilities. While I do enjoy the flavor of 10 abilities, one for each guild, it didn't allow any of the abilities to grow much. Each were very limited so you never really played any single guild, you really can't. Each ability, while nice, never had a chance to be pushed to it's full potential, and only a few of them were allowed the versatility that it deserved. Some abilities, however (Transmute for example) couldn't expand much. Too many cards would have just made it redundant, or allowed too much power in the tutoring ability. Each guild had it's own small section of the set, so to speak. Each had a guild leader, a monstorous guild leader, a unique artifact and a handful of spells and creatures. It was different, yes, and while I did like it, it felt very limiting to each of the abilties. Also, with this guild template, these abilities are pretty much attached to these colors forever, these guilds, this block. They’re pretty much ‘blacklisted’ from being reused. banding, phasing, shadow, fading, and a bunch of other abilities are likely to not reappear, but they can still be used without much problem.
Also, what goes hand in hand with this, is gold cards. You have to run multicolored, you can’t run mono colored in Ravnica. Sure, theoretically you could, but it’s just not nearly as effective (such as running a white weenie deck with 2 plains). You were forced to play a guild or two (and often three or more) in any given deck, not just a splash, but usually a bit more than that. However, I understand the need to shift the focus for each block and expansion, so I do understand the reasons for it, but I do think that a lot of good abilities from Ravnica are probably never going to see the light of day again because of the way the block was designed, for better or worse.
6. We design cards for three player psychographics: Timmy, Johnny and Spike. In the average set, who should the most cards be designed for? Why? Who should the fewest cards be designed for? Why?"For Timmy, the entire reason to play is having a good time", "Johnny wants to express something", "Spike gets his greatest joy from proving something by winning", are the three highlights in the "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike Revisited" article.
I think that in the average set, the most cards should be designed for Timmy. Why? Because they are at every level of the game, from professional, to casual, and in more numbers (in my opinion) than any of the three. Sure, there are those who play to win, and want to express their creativity, but ultimately, you want to have fun when you play magic. Win or lose, you should enjoy the game, and it doesn’t matter if you’re running at Pro Tour, Friday Night Magic or even just a couple of friends playing constructed, it should be fun.
I think the fewest cards should be designed for Spikes, because while winning is very satisfying, it’s a hard audience to target. “A card that helps win?” That will often border on Timmy and Johnny too. “A card that’s fun to play with?” Timmy. “A card that’s part of an intricate combo that’s so obscure only you thought of it? Will it help you win? Who cares!” Very Johnny. “A card that helps you win?” That’s a bit blurry.
Also, because ‘win’ cards are often powerful and will often change the face of the game, they’re not printed without a lot of thought, and a lot of play-testing. However, combo cards are probably put through the most testing, in comparison to ‘win cards’, but they’re often just one piece of the winning combo, not the single ‘win’ card itself. (Am I rambling? It’s getting to be late, I wonder if I’m still making sense).
6. Imagine you must eliminate a card type (artifact, creature, enchantment, instant, land or sorcery) from Magic. Which one would you choose and why?If I had to choose one, I would choose Artifacts, though Enchantments come a close second. I won't cover why I think it should be eliminated, but rather why each other one CAN'T be eliminated. Creatures are essential, without them, the game would be completely changed, color wheel would be thrown off, and Green would be a very sad color. Instants and Sorceries are very vital to the survival of the game. Each depends on the other for functionality, game balence and power level. Instants make combat interesting, but if every spell was an instant, they would hold no meaning. Sorceries must still be included because they are the powerhouse spells. It's the anchor that holds down spells like Wrath of God from being overly powerful, yet still allowing them to be playable. Enchantments stay, because while they are not 'vital' to the game, they are far more useful (flavor and mechanics) compared to artifacts. Lands are too important, on so many levels. It helps set the tempo of the game, and determines a lot of things (mana cost, mana production, activated abilities, land drops, land searches, land destruction, etc). Removing lands would be a fatal wound to Magic.
Artifacts can be made into enchantments with little to no problems. The only problem would be that red would be thrown off (with it’s smash smash machine go boom), it would no longer be able to take care of artifacts. But, that can be balanced in other ways. I think Artifacts are the best choice on many levels. It’s doesn’t hurt the color wheel (but weakens Blue a bit) and it doesn’t require redesigning the whole game (well, relative to any other card type). Not because it’s not important, but because it’s just not as ‘vital’ to the game as creatures, instant, sorceries, enchantments, and lands are.
8. You stumble upon a time machine and travel back to the early 90's. What is the one change you would recommend Richard Garfield make with Alpha? (You must recommend a change.)"Streamline, Simplify." There are many things that overcomplicate the game, which (in recent years) have been taken care of. Mono and Poly artifact, Global and Local enchantment, Creature types (Elf, Elves, etc) and ‘summon’ spells; everything was overcomplicated and too wordy. In recent times, it's been revised and the complete game had a make over, and it’s been simplified. Mono/poly are gone, global/local are gone, creature types have been consolidated, and wording for cards now have a standard format to follow.
While this may ‘appear’ to be a small change, it’s quite a drastic one, bigger than the changing of the card format (but probably not as big as the stack). While the card format was mostly cosmetic, all those small changes are purely mechanical. Small details like “Elf and Elves” changed how useful Extinction or Engineered Plague was. Making them have a race (and possibly class) helped shape the creature types out. Not just a Berserker, but also Human. Not just a Zombie, but also a Priest.
Global and Local are now Enchantments and Enchantment – Auras, which makes the game much easier. Summon spells are now Creature spells for the same reasons. Global Enchantment and Local Enchantment were a hassle, where as Enchantment and Aura are far easier to work with, less wordy, and easier to remember. Summon spells were nice, except they were creature cards, and they didn’t say creature anywhere on it. For spells that say “Target creature”, you had to just ‘know’ that summon spells were creatures, rather than have the spells say ‘creature’. While you could just let these mistakes be overlooked, it would have been better if they were fixed early on.
Oh, and watch out for the Moxes, Free mana breaks the game.
9. You are forced to move counterspelling out of blue. What color do you move it to and why? I would move it to White because white is about control... maybe. I orignially went out and thought "Black, or maybe Red", I considered how they handled enchantments. I see spells that are being cast, as pure magic that has yet to be materialized. Enchantments, are pure magic that has materialized, but is still pure magic. Black and Red can't touch enchantments. My original thought was "Black can do anything, but at a cost", and "Red likes chaos and trickery". So I'm conflicted. I also thought that each color should have it's own counters.
If I could divide it among the other four colors, I would say that White would inherit the most flexible counters and be the best, green would be anti-enchantment and artifacts, red would be anti-artifacts and creature, black would be anti-creature and graveyard (Counter target spell targeting any card in a graveyard, etc), and white would be mostly anti sorcery and instant, but still able to handle enchantments well. Artifacts would be in the hands of Green/Red.
If I wasn’t given this option, White, definitely. You control what comes into play, and control the board once they get in. White is the most control-oriented color next to blue, and permission resonates with it well also (Such as Propaganda moving to white). Who better to decide what is allowed in this world, than a white mage, who decides what’s best for the world anyways? Just make sure you follow these laws, rules, fill out these forms, and then we’ll see if this spell will be acceptable to be cast, thank you.
10. What is Magic design currently doing wrong? How would you do it right?I don't know really, I don't think it's doing anything wrong. However, I do think there are some things that it's doing that may become a problem in the future. R&D is focusing a lot on each block, and how it interacts with the previous block, tournamet, draft, etc. However, I think there's not enough focus on casual play. Not saying it's being completely neglected, but obviously, there's not enough profit from casual play, I know, I'm a casual player. While I understand it's a buisness, there's definately more focus on tournaments in general, than casual. I do see many of my casual freinds less interested in buying cards from the new sets, and are often only interested in a handful of cards, if that. While they are dedicated magic players, they're set in their play style and decks, and rarely find new cards that are all that inticing. They don't buy packs, and don't really buy singles either, though are more likely to than packs. While not a big concern, and not 'wrong', it's one of the few things I would say, could be considered 'wrong', just potentially damaging to the game.
However, the market has become quite large in the competitive department that even leaving out a small portion of casual players wouldn’t hurt. Not saying you neglect them completely, I think how you’re currently dealing with them seems to be working just fine. Just don’t forget about them, they WERE the magic player-base before it was competitive. We’re still faithful to the game, don’t forget us.
