Battle for Zendikar: Insights from Mark Rosewater

Mark Rosewater has been quite vocal about the development, success, failures, and the intricacies involved in designing Battle for Zendikar (BFZ). His insights cover a wide variety of topics, including mechanics, design philosophies, player feedback, and behind-the-scenes stories. Let's dive into some of the most frequently discussed aspects and learn more about this intriguing set through his lens.

The Mechanics and Their Reception

One of the most discussed elements of Battle for Zendikar are its unique mechanics, particularly Devoid, Ingest, and the Processor mechanics. Mark highlights that while Devoid was well-received in gameplay, players found the keyword itself less impactful. To address this, Mark acknowledges that the design team might have been better off writing it out instead of giving it a keyword.

• Devoid: Represents colorless Eldrazi cards even when they have colored mana in their costs.
• Ingest: A mechanic that exiles the top card of the opponent's library when the creature deals combat damage.
• Processor: Eldrazi creatures that could utilize cards exiled by Ingest to produce powerful effects.

Players didn't find Processors particularly engaging, as they required setup that often didn't pay off in a satisfying way. Processors rank among Mark's least favorite mechanics, and he has been open about this in various forums, including listing them in his "Worst Mechanics" list.

Player Feedback and Market Research

One of the critical aspects that affects whether a mechanic or theme returns is player feedback. Rosewater emphasizes that understanding why players didn't like a specific mechanic is crucial. For instance, the relative unpopularity of Processors and Devoid has made their return less likely, at least in the same form.

Mark reiterates that market research heavily influences decisions, noting that Battle for Zendikar did well in sales but received mixed opinions from players regarding its design. According to him, the critical metric isn't just how much something is liked or disliked but understanding the reasons behind those sentiments. This comprehensive approach helps shape future sets.

Design Challenges and Mistakes

Mark has expressed numerous times that Battle for Zendikar is one of the sets he's least proud of, primarily from a design standpoint. He attributes part of the struggle to the transition from a three-set block to a two-set block, which happened during the design phase, causing significant disruptions.

One of the significant mistakes, according to Mark, was focusing too much on the Eldrazi war and not enough on what the players loved about Zendikar. The adventure world aspect got overshadowed by the conflict, leaving players yearning for the original feel of the plane. Despite these challenges, Battle for Zendikar succeeded commercially, showing that a well-designed set and a successful set aren't always the same.

Design Philosophy and Set Structure

Mark discussed the reasoning behind splitting the man-land cycles between Battle for Zendikar and Oath of the Gatewatch. The design strategy aimed to balance the good stuff across both sets, addressing how to manage each set's strengths without overwhelming one over the other. This strategy also helped maintain players' interests throughout the block.

Another notable design decision was the exclusion of mechanics like Sunburst and Threshold. These were considered but ultimately left out because they didn't fit the set's needs or core themes. Instead, returning mechanics from the original Zendikar block took precedence to evoke the right feel and narrative consistency.

Full-Art Lands and Masterpieces

Full-art lands returned in this block to much acclaim, leveraging nostalgia while also adding a visually appealing component to booster packs. This choice was part of the set's marketing strategy, tapping into a beloved element from the original Zendikar block.

However, the set's Masterpieces, particularly the Zendikar Expeditions, received mixed feedback. While they were visually and conceptually appealing, there were concerns about their impact on pack values and player perceptions. Mark and the team at Wizards of the Coast continue to evaluate the balance between adding exciting chase cards and maintaining set value integrity.

Trivia and Behind-the-Scenes Stories

Mark's responses also sprinkle delightful trivia and behind-the-scenes stories, such as birthday trivia about Kiora or how Ugin's influence was represented through colorless magic in the set. According to Mark, every Eldrazi colorless card in Battle for Zendikar focuses on the Eldrazi, showing the extent to which lore influences design mechanics.

Fans of the set might find it amusing that one of Mark's favorite design jokes during the set's creation was naming Ulamog-related cards with puns. His favorites include "Ulamog Fanatic" and "Ulamog Flunkie."

In summary, Battle for Zendikar stands as a set with numerous layers of design decisions, market strategies, and player feedback considerations. Mark Rosewater's openness about the set's successes and failures offers invaluable insights into the complex and intricate world of Magic: The Gathering's design and development. As with all of Mark’s work, the set reflects a balancing act of innovation, fan service, and continuous learning, essential for the game's evolution.