When a Guidline isn't a Guideline.
Aaron Forsythe at Magicthegathering.com is too forthcoming about the way they do things. We have talked before about how we like the fact that these columnists give us insights into how Wizards do their stuff, but it's easy to say too much when you're doing that.
He says in this article: Eh, so we changed our minds. We do that a lot. I know Mark Rosewater and I both like to write about all these little rules and guidelines that R&D makes for ourselves and how those rules guide our philosophies and decisions. Well, I'll let you in on a little secret: those rules and guidelines tend to apply fully the day they were created, a little less the next day, then a little less, and so on, until we've changed our minds completely.
Which says to me, "All those decisions we've made that we said we'd never go back on, well never mind. We might just reprint the Power Nine tomorrow, sorry you spent a thousand dollars. Things change, you know." What I'm talking about here is not the reality, but how it's represented to the consumers. Of course I'm a stickler for making rules and following them, so you know where I stand on this issue.
10 comments:
Could be how they're covering their keesters if they ever do. "Well, we said we might some day."
Sure I understand that, but this kind of statement seriously erodes the strength of any statement they make like, "This is a list of cards we'll never reprint." Faith in a company's statements is an important thing for a consumer.
Well, for what it is worth, I'd rather have faith that they are thinking through any given decision, and making an effort to be proactive. That is what would keep my faith up. Things change, and as long as they are learning from the past, I'd rather they not be slaves to past decisions. But we've whacked heads on this one before Sho :)
I think they are good about not getting caught in ruts, and I think ruts are the things that will really kill a TCG.
Remember that a lot of similar comments have been made by the designers in their articles and they all have a certain flair to them. I suspect that a lot of this is just to make for an interesting read and to make the designers sound more interesting. So, while there may be some truth to what they are saying here, I doubt that they will completely throw caution to the wind with respect to the important stuff.
To me, this is liking playing Magic with Aaron Forsythe and he asks me, "Hey is it okay if I play two lands this turn? Just this once. I really need two right now." But then, I AM a Rules Nazi.
Shoulda told Forsythe that was fine, as long as you could draw an extra card or two if you couldn't find the one you needed.
Better yet, see if he wanted to play Monopoly with you later, as long as you could take extra money from the bank if you needed it that turn.
(Tell me he was kidding...)
K- That was just a hypothetical on my part, sorry for the confusion.
J - Agreed, exactly my point.
Well, I agree with one of the original points: Aaron Forsythe reveals far more in his article than I think is wise. He's done it pretty regularly.
As to this specific point, I generally come down on the side of "make design rules and stick to them."
But I also believe that rules are made to be challenged, sometimes. Every now and then, it's okay to examine an old rule. If it was a good rule, or is still relevant, you ought to be able to still explain the justification for why it was made in the first place and/or explain how it's relevant today.
If you NEVER question old rules once they're made, well... that's how you have those stupid old laws that have never been scrubbed off the books that make for typical chain e-mails.
If only shocho could have given us his recent insight while he worked at Decipher!
Well, I could have given you some of that, but not all of that. Anyway, leaving changes your perspective.
Post a Comment