What happened to Gleemax when the Wizards forums were retired? Did the alien brain retire to its home planet? Is it still in the basement at Renton, endlessly playtesting eight draft seats in its mind? Is it depicted on the card Elder Brain? Are you its human avatar?

Eeway on’tday alktay outabay eemaxglay.

I really love animals and how many different species there are. When you started talking about Bloomburrow's mechanics not being directly typal, I was hoping that there'd be a lot of one-off animals. But almost all of the cards revealed so far are one of the main 10 animals, with the main exceptions being the calamity beasts.Was there ever a point in development where the focus was more on showcasing a lot of different animal species rather than selecting a smaller number that act as draft archetype groups?

I talked about this in my first Bloomburrow preview column. Here’s a snippet:“Once it was on the schedule, I did a little advance work on the genre to familiarize myself with it. I realized that there were two ways it’s traditionally done.Take #1 – Animals represent groups of people. These people are mice, those people are badgers, and these people are otters. Each animal type has qualities that are consistent among that group, usually things that feel resonant with the real-world animal. In this version, the setting is usually a biome, and all the animals in it are ones who would live in that biome. The animals are roughly proportional to what they would be in the real world.Take #2 – Animals represent individual people. This person’s jumpy, so she’s a frog. That person’s sneaky, so he’s a fox. This other person rushes into things, so they’re a rhino. Each animal is used to represent personality qualities. In this version, the setting is usually something more human in structure, often a city, and the variety of animals is much larger. The animal selection here is not limited by biome, so you can have animals living together that normally would never see each other in the real world. The animals are loosely related in size (a racoon is smaller than an elephant), but the scope of scale is compressed.Take number one is easier for worldbuilding. There are less unique types of animals, and they’re organized by creature type. Because animals are used to express groups of people, they tend to act more similarly to traditional species creature types, like Elves, Goblins, or Merfolk. This pushes us more toward a factioned typal theme.Take number two is easier for design because the designers have access to a lot more animals and can make more individually cool designs. The twelfth Mouse card, for instance, is a lot harder to make different than the first Giraffe. This approach pushes us more toward mechanics that tie into a larger animal theme. It’s more likely we’d create an environment that was about a lot of different animals working together, putting the focus more on individual top-down card design.Aaron was more interested in doing take number one, while I was more interested in doing take number two. So, we did a bunch of market research. It came back exactly even. Half the people we polled preferred take one, and half preferred take two. In a tie, Aaron’s original vision won out, so we did take one. (Also, I believe more people internally wanted to do take one.) I do want to stress that both takes would have allowed us to make a cool set. They just head down different paths and would have ended up in very different places, mechanically and creatively.”

Do the animals on Bloomburrow have super-strength? Like, many of them are small mice/frogs/etc, yet they have power/toughness higher than humans from other planes.

Making all creatures have fractional power and toughness wasn’t on the table. : )

Is Bloomburrow Lorwyn 2.0?The hybrid mana is what’s hitting it for me in addition to the tone

There are some similarities (such as no Humans), but they are distinct from one another.

Hey Mark, I just wanted to say you've always seemed like a really cool guy. I've played magic for over 4/5ths of my life, since the early 2000s when I was only five years old, I even met most of my long time friends through it. But I think I finally feel alienated enough by it to drop it entirely.I always enjoyed every aspect of this game, from the deckbuilding, to the flavor, to the color pie and the possibilities it presented. I loved the fantasy of it, of planeswalkers and wizards, dragons and castles.Universes Beyond really was the end of it, all the way back then. When i heard the announcements I was terrified, I knew where it would lead even then. I loved the world of Magic, and it feels silly to say about a card game but I truly felt immersed in the world when I played, even with the different planes, everything cohered to an internal set of rules that seemed unbreakable.For a while I continued, our local scene created a variant format that banned Universes Beyond cards so I was able to ignore them, but then came Neon Dynasty. It felt strange to me, like it was breaking what I had come to expect out of the game. Most people disagreed, said it was still Magic enough, but I wondered just how far it would be pushed before Magic lost any identity of its own, anything that separated it from Fortnite or any other crossover soup known entirely for the things it borrows rather than the things it is.When I saw the first spoilers for Duskmourn, I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. When I play at the table with my friends, I enjoy the fact that all the cards feel like part of one larger universe. And when I see cards with televisions and smartphones in them, with modern clothing and internet references, I just can't fit them together in my mind. It seems like a cool world, much like a lot of the crossovers are cool worlds, but I play Magic for well... Magic. If I wanted to play Fallout or Warhammer 40k, or watch Insidious or Walking Dead, then I would. But when I play Magic, I want to see magic.And it's canon, just as canon as Innistrad or Alara. We can't excise it like we can Universes Beyond, and if we can't, then what's even the point of trying to "protect the tone" with those bans? What tone are we protecting, that's already been shattered from within?More and more it feels like the game just isn't for me, doesn't want the kind of player that feels strongly about cohesion and immersion. And that's fine, it doesn't have to cater to me, and the current approach seems to bring in more people than it drives away. But it still just makes me sad, on a deep personal level, to give up on what has been such a major part of my life.In all likelihood, I'm an outlier, and you could easily say that Magic getting even broader in what it covers is only a positive thing. Take my critiques only as the lamentations of a single person. But when you can put anything in a piece of media, when there's no unifying idea of what is and isn't possible, then it just starts to feel meaningless.I'm sorry, I know you'll probably never read this, I mostly just needed to get it off my chest- and you're the closest thing to a human face Magic the Gathering has. Thank you for all the work you've put into it over the years, and I'm sorry that I can't enjoy it anymore.

Thanks for writing. From a big picture, Magic excels at creating variety and does poorly at consistency. The core idea of a trading card game is we make lots and lots of pieces you can play with and then you, the player, customize your game as you see fit. History has shown us, the wider we spread the potential of what Magic can be, the more people find something they enjoy and are attracted to the game. Think of it this way. Each player has a different sense of what Magic is to them. There’s no cutoff point where we make the majority of players happy. In fact, for many players, it’s the ever-expanding quality to the game that they enjoy most.This does mean though that we might make choices that don’t connect with what you personally enjoy, and I respect that. If Magic isn’t providing what you want out of it, that’s okay. My only recommendation is don’t get rid of your cards. Many Magic players rotate in and out of the game, and the number one complaint I hear from players who rotate back in is them having gotten rid of everything when they rotated out. Magic might not be what you need right now, but maybe a few years from now you’ve changed in ways which makes it something you will enjoy. Or maybe Magic will evolve in a way that speaks to you. The only constant I know is you and Magic will both change. Just leave yourself the possibility of reconnecting. Thanks for playing all these years, and I hope to see you again.

When visitors like Ral leave Bloomburrow, they turn back into Humans right? Or whatever their species is?

Correct. Ral doesn’t stay an Otter.

if or when: Menace against certain creature types? As in, "Spooky Scarecrow can't be blocked by only one Human."

If. It’s pretty narrow.

Bit of an odd question. Do you know if the Magic card back in the running for the most printed image in human history?

My gut it’s far from the most printed image, but I do think it’s in the running for top 100. Maybe.

I understand why you changed Cephalids, but why don't they get the Human type as well as the Octopus type?
Other "part X, part Y" creatures get both types — Bubble Smuggler is both an Octopus and a Fish. And Cephalids are closer to Humans than Octopi — their bodies are a mix of both, but their minds (and therefore the role they play in stories) are clearly far closer to Humans.

Because Humans are so prevalent, we’d usually don’t put Human on things that are half Human, half something else.

Hey MaRo! I recently watched a really interesting video about Innistrad recently. The thesis is that there is a subtle “missing” creature type of UG wizards that were cut for some reason, probably for thematic reasons within Innistrad.I was wondering if you could give any insight if that was the case? Here’s the video, it’s 13 minutes long but it’s very solid and it convinced me soundly as a viewer.https://youtu.be/12X5wgYikqk?si=WW2i_Hr4cZrDHZ_SI also love the idea that the wizards were explorer/pirate wizards in the Hinterland harbor a lot

I haven’t watched the video, but as the guy who led the design, I know that the only five creature types we cared about were the four monster creature types (Spirits, Vampires, Werewolves, and Zombies) and Humans. No other typal themes were ever part of the design.