Hi Mark,Regarding "Card Churn", "Power Increase", or whatever you want to call it, do you consider what most enfranchised players incorrectly call "power creep" to be a problem or not really?Is it something that can be mitigated? Is this something you are working on? Why or why not?Personally, I choose to play with friends that avoid strategies and an optimization mentality that emphasizes recent excessively "power increase" aspects of eternal formats like Commander, but that's easier said then done for many players and play groups.It's a complicated issue because players do like playing with powerful cards and players get excited about new powerful cards but many players don't enjoy playing against powerful cards as much. So when Magic suddenly starts introducing more powerful cards at a higher frequency, that can fundamentally affect people's game play experiences.What do you think about this as Head Game Designer? Is this an issue or is it the player's responsibility to solve?

If you don’t like formats that increase in power over time, consider formats that have rotation built into them, or use only a limited subset of cards, like limited formats or cubes.The only thing we control in nonrotating formats is how quickly the churn happens, not if churn will happen.

Huge thanks for reading the selection from Cunningham I agree that player desire needs to be part of design The 3 psychographics might be the most important design factor since the golden trifecta But it seems recently that Mtg has veered too much towards "give the players what they want" and the question 'how does this make the game better?' doesn't get asked enough I saw an ask for UB play doh, your response was 'do people want it?' not 'how does this improve MtG?' I know that's subjective

I, as well as all of R&D, are constantly asking “is this good for the game”. There are plenty of things the players want that aren’t necessarily good for the game. If we listened to the players every card would cost 1 less and could be cast whenever you could cast an instant. : )A great example of this is “once per turn” restrictions. Players generally dislike them (at least when it’s written out), but they make the game play better. Knowing what players want is a useful tool, but we’re but no means beholden to it when it gets in the way of good game design.

I really love the flavor and art of Bloomburrow. (I haven't read the story yet, since I'm still several sets behind on MTG story, but will definitely get to it at some point.) But I am worried that it will end up being a relatively weak set in terms of gameplay/card usefulness outside of limited, especially after today's previews,

We have a whole play design team who works to ensure every set has tournament relevant cards.

Are bite spells that can hit players in-pie for green? Obviously they're in-pie for red... Also on the topic of green spells hitting players (though largely an unrelated question), spells like Hurricane. Which is the bigger issue with them: Hitting players unconditionally being out-of-pie for green, or the "killing everyone" gameplay issue? I assume those are both significant.

They are not in pie for green.

hi a friend walked me through a commander game and I liked it and so I got a couple premade decks. I then went to a couple commander nights and I kinda liked it except for the part where I felt like I was a little kid with floaties in the middle of the ocean trying to sing a little song to myself so I wouldn't think about the things that might be lurking just below the surface that I can't see.

Magic is vast and deep and I don't know how I can enjoy playing when there's just too much. I get that the hugeness is part of its staying power, but it feels too big and too much to even approach beyond playing my premade deck and hoping the people at the table won't look down on me for it (which they often do). Even looking up tutorials and guides is overwhelming because each one of them is sharing a *different* tiny slice of material! I haven't felt this baby-beginner starting something new in a very long time (and I say that as someone that is otherwise well-versed in being a terrible beginner at new things).

Is there a way to play magic without getting absolutely lost in the depths? or is that the nature of the beast and I just gotta "git gud"?

The two formats I would suggest are draft or Cube. Both use a much smaller card pool, one you can more easily learn about.

New stuff is always cool, but classic Magic gameplay really captures my heart. Core and Jumpstart sets have been my favourites in the past, so I'm very excited for Foundations, especially draft/cubing it.

A lot of people have spent a lot of time on it, so I think you’re going to enjoy it.

Hi Mark! What's your favourite mechanic that was in development but ultimately, will never see print due to inherent gameplay problems it promotes.

Bloomburrow had a mechanic handed off from vision design that didn’t make it to print that I really liked.

If/when “your deck can’t contain an odd amount of cards named [cardname], (zero isn’t odd”

If. Restrictions for the sake of restrictions rather than inspiring good gameplay is usually bad design.

Could white get "everyone shuffle their graveyard into their library", and if not, what would the philosophical reason not?

No, it’s not a white ability. Mechanics are isolated into colors to make the game play better, not because we couldn’t come up with a way to justify it philosophically.

Hi, Mark! Do you think letting Disguise use Ward {1} for its face-down creatures may have also led to greater game play and still letting players unmask their creatures? From what I've heard Gavin say about Ward, Ward {2} is good, but can be tough to interact with, especially when faced against multiple creatures. Plus, paying {3} for a 2/2 with Ward {1} is very aesthetically pleasing to me.

I think we need to be careful where we use Ward 2 in general, but I don’t think disguise is where it’s caused problems.