Some interesting insight from Mark Rosewater (Magic's Head Designer)

[Giltonio_Santos]

Wizards produces some great games that I enjoy, not only D&D. One of them is Magic: The Gathering, which has a weekly column, written by head designer Mark Rosewater, about the making of the game. It's really an interesting read, and I'd like to share this week's column with you, for what I believe may be a worthy thread.

Disney Magic : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering

For those who won't read it, Mark talks about how creating a magic set connects with his experience on a Disney cruise with his family.

What I find really interesting about the article, though, is how he talks about the things they're aiming at while creating the game, and I see such a great difference between that and the strategy that seems to be used by the D&D team. The same company, two real different ways to look at things!

I'd like to highlight some of his points, as I connect them to discussions we saw here in enworld about the making of D&D:

- Mark talks about how it's important to have something for each one in your audience. I find this interesting, because we know that some of us felt like D&D left us behind with the focus on creating the best tactical experience possible. While one of the games tries to suit all its fanbase, the other made a crystal clear option.

- He also writes about how details really matter. Now, not everybody is connected to details, but I remember seeing a discussion around here about spine colors in books and how they were a mess for someone who cared about it. One more time, what seems to be an important part of making magic means nothing to the D&D team.

- Another interesting point is the "find solutions for problems, not reasons", which I connect with another recent discussion around here: the problem of magic items that are not cool at all, and why Wizards cannot publish cool magic items because they'll mess with the careful balance achieved in the tactical aspect of the game.

Well, I cannot recommend it enough, since Mark has a lot of insight into the general aspects of creating a great gaming experience. What I'd like to know, though, is: do you believe those things should apply do D&D?

I know that what is good to Magic is not always good to other brands of the company, but some of those pieces of advice seem generic enough to apply to D&D. What do you all think?

Cheers,

 

[Fifth Element]

Mark talks about how it's important to have something for each one in your audience. I find this interesting, because we know that some of us felt like D&D left us behind with the focus on creating the best tactical experience possible. While one of the games tries to suit all its fanbase, the other made a crystal clear option.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Magic is a card game with very clear rules, and as such there actually is one right way to play it. Your audience is therefore very self-selecting. So he's looking at subsets of a group that enjoys playing a certain type of card game in a certain way.

The fanbase for D&D is much more broad. People play it in a great variety of different ways. The designers decided that rather than try to be everything to everyone, they'd focus on a certain playstyle that they thought would appeal to the greastest number of players.

He also writes about how details really matter. Now, not everybody is connected to details, but I remember seeing a discussion around here about spine colors in books and how they were a mess for someone who cared about it. One more time, what seems to be an important part of making magic means nothing to the D&D team.

I'd ask for a better example of this. If spine coloration is the best example, I'd suggest they (Wizzards) have better things to spend their time on.

 

[Markn]

Whether it applies to D&D or not is debatable. However, I would be very curious at Mark Rosewater's design of D&D if he had the reigns. I wonder if WotC ever does this? You know, switch departments and brainstorm ideas/mechanics. 4e obviously has some elements of Magic within it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the brainchilds of the current Magic team were involved.

And before anyone freaks out, I don't want D&D to become Magic, just that certain design elements could benefit D&D.

 

[Thanlis]

Whether it applies to D&D or not is debatable. However, I would be very curious at Mark Rosewater's design of D&D if he had the reigns. I wonder if WotC ever does this? You know, switch departments and brainstorm ideas/mechanics. 4e obviously has some elements of Magic within it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the brainchilds of the current Magic team were involved.

Yes. E.g., both Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet spent time on the miniatures side of the house.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Magic is a card game with very clear rules, and as such there actually is one right way to play it. Your audience is therefore very self-selecting. So he's looking at subsets of a group that enjoys playing a certain type of card game in a certain way.

The fanbase for D&D is much more broad. People play it in a great variety of different ways. The designers decided that rather than try to be everything to everyone, they'd focus on a certain playstyle that they thought would appeal to the greastest number of players..

Well, the point here is that Magic design could opt to focus on the hardcore tournament player or the casual one; the one who likes chaotic multiplayer duels or the one who only play the standard 2-people match, but they choose to have something for everybody.

As such, I believe D&D could also be designed with more than a kind of player in mind and still be successful.

As a side point, I don't know if you're a M:tG player yourself, but my own experience with the game points to an audience as broad as the one who plays D&D. I don't believe the same could be said, though, if we placed M:tG in face of RPGs in general.

I'd ask for a better example of this. If spine coloration is the best example, I'd suggest they (Wizzards) have better things to spend their time on.

That's complicated. To me, the fact that the Character Builder doesn't support new classes/races/powers/etc is a detail, which take nothing from the usefulness of the tool, but it seems to be a deal breaker to some poeple around here.

A good example of the 3.5 days (I don't know the current state in this regard) is the editing and number crunching. It never detracted from my experience with any of their books, but from what I read from Enworld reviewers, they used to be a mess.

That said, I took an example of something that surely is a detail. It's not a deal breaker, but 1) the thread about it had a lot of people saying they would prefer a more pleasant pattern on their bookshelves; 2) It's not something you spend your time on, it's something you observe or not, based on your desire to have everything absolutely perfect.

Cheers,

 

[Asmor]

- Mark talks about how it's important to have something for each one in your audience. I find this interesting, because we know that some of us felt like D&D left us behind with the focus on creating the best tactical experience possible. While one of the games tries to suit all its fanbase, the other made a crystal clear option.

I don't have much to say about your other points. I either agree with them or don't specifically disagree. But I do disagree with this one.

Every step of the way, there have been people who were vocally against all the changes in Magic just like there have been such people for D&D. Changing the color pie, re-balancing colors, re-balancing mechanics, even purely cosmetic changes like the introduction of foils and mythic rares or changing the sizes of sets.

The big difference, of course, is that Magic's basically always been the same game, and it hasn't had to fracture its player base.

Dungeons & Dragons is not a single game. I don't know enough about the older versions to comment on them, but 2nd edition, 3rd edition, and 4th edition are completely different games with absolutely nothing meaningful in common aside from some names and flavor. The difference between any two editions of D&D is like the difference between Magic, Magi Nation, or Yu-Gi-Oh. Ostensibly they're similar in that all three are CCGs with a fantasy theme where you summon monsters and cast spells to deplete your opponent's life... But that's where the similarities end.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Magic is a card game with very clear rules, and as such there actually is one right way to play it. Your audience is therefore very self-selecting. So he's looking at subsets of a group that enjoys playing a certain type of card game in a certain way.

No, not really. Casual play can be very different from tournament type play. Edition-based play can be different from more open formats.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

- Mark talks about how it's important to have something for each one in your audience. I find this interesting, because we know that some of us felt like D&D left us behind with the focus on creating the best tactical experience possible. While one of the games tries to suit all its fanbase, the other made a crystal clear option.

You misunderstand. Disney has made a crystal clear choice of who their audience is. They cater to families. A young single guy looking to hook up would *hate* a Disney cruise. The creators of 4E had to decide which audience they wanted to cater to. Trying to cater to fans of all previous editions in addition to their new target audience would create an unfocused mess of a game. And would be redundant. If you are already a fan of an older edition and not in the overlap of the audiences of said older edition and 4E, you don't need a new game, you already have the game you love.

- He also writes about how details really matter. Now, not everybody is connected to details, but I remember seeing a discussion around here about spine colors in books and how they were a mess for someone who cared about it. One more time, what seems to be an important part of making magic means nothing to the D&D team.

They should be more aware of the details. But, as I undertsand it, the Magic R&D teams are given more time and manpower to focus on each set of cards. And even they make missteps along the way. For example, the design teams are dismayed that their choices have allowed a single deck type to dominate tournament play. They wish that they had designed sets that allowed for more variety. Given what the D&D teams have to work with I would say they do a slightly above-average job of paying attention to detail, but I would love to see them do much better.

- Another interesting point is the "find solutions for problems, not reasons", which I connect with another recent discussion around here: the problem of magic items that are not cool at all, and why Wizards cannot publish cool magic items because they'll mess with the careful balance achieved in the tactical aspect of the game.

"Cool" is a nebulous term. Magic items are a good point and hard to peg down for the target audience. Many factors feed into this topic. 1) Many gamers feel that magic used to be cooler due to nostalgia. 2) Much of the "magical feel" of magic items was destroyed by 3E Wealth By Level design and could only be restored through means considered "stingy" by many players. 3) Magic items could be cool again by proper use of fluff (search Piratecat's posts for many great examples). 4) Part of the audience wants more fluff, part of it wants less fluff. 5) I see constant complaints that the fluff that does exist "sucks." 6) Etc.

I agree with your overall premise that D&D designers could benefit from the customer service skills of Disney. Disney gets alot of flak for its priciness, but they have the best customer service model I have ever seen and truly believe in empowering every single one of their employees to follow through in making sure that their geusts are kept happy.

 

[Dire Bare]

Wizards produces some great games that I enjoy, not only D&D. One of them is Magic: The Gathering, which has a weekly column, written by head designer Mark Rosewater, about the making of the game. It's really an interesting read, and I'd like to share this week's column with you, for what I believe may be a worthy thread.

In broad terms, I agree. As others have stated, Magic and D&D are very different games and situations.

I don't see a problem with the D&D team lacking a focus on details, but I do like the "find solutions, not reasons" issue. There is something lacking about magic items in 4e, and I'd love to see a "solution" at some point that maintains balance and brings back the cool. But, of course, not everybody agrees that there is a problem with magic items in the current edition.

Overall, while I do think that the D&D team is doing a great job at WotC, it would be cool for the Magic team and D&D team to "switch jobs" for a day for some creative brainstorming. Heck, maybe they do that!

 

[MrGrenadine]

Dungeons & Dragons is not a single game. I don't know enough about the older versions to comment on them, but 2nd edition, 3rd edition, and 4th edition are completely different games with absolutely nothing meaningful in common aside from some names and flavor.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I've played every edition except for the OD&D box, and this has absolutely *not* been my experience.

I currently play Pathfinder and 4e, (and prefer Pathfinder), but in spite of all of the changes in 4e, it still retains a lot of what makes D&D D&D--character creation, 6 abilities, buying equipment, starting adventures, role- and roll-playing, gaining experience and treasure, growing in power, and above all, a sense of adventure and "whats behind that door/over that hill"--its all there. Tactics and mechanics have evolved, for sure, but that in and of itself isn't enough for me to call them "completely different".

Pardon, if I threadjacked there. Carry on.