The trouble with abolishing the core set

If you missed Mark Rosewater's article from last week about the newest change to MTG please go read it, I'll wait... Ok welcome back. To make a quick summary MTG is abolishing the core set in favor of a new model whereby there will, nominally, be two blocs a year with a big set in the fall and spring.



My first reaction was to check out Aaron Forsythe's opinion. You see he was responsible for transforming the core set back in 2009. Wizards had a dilemma in that the Core Set has poor sales. They decided to take a new approach to the set and Aaron was the mastermind behind it. The changes ushered in, 50% new cards, returning marquee mechanic, greater focus on engaging the established magic community, etc. Had a great impact on the set and as a result it blossomed into a much better product than it had been in the past. This move was a huge break from tradition and was impressive.

Now the time has come to change the core set again. Presumably the argument is the same; sales are bad. Or rather sales are not as good as they could be. There is no doubt that the Large Sets released every fall are the best sellers, why wouldn't we want to move to a model where that happens twice a year? More sales is what it's all about. In his article Mark Rosewater laid out reasons of bloc structure to push for the new model but I am just too cynical to believe that the motivation was anything other than sales related.

So what's my opinion?

Here's the deal. All I care about is draft. Sealed deck is fun but draft is where it's at. And in recent years the best draft format, hands down, has been the core set. There are two reason why the core set is superior. The first is that the core set is designed to only ever be drafted by itself, there is no need for cohesion in draft with what comes later in the bloc. Nothing is removed from the set because the "small set" needs it. The whole environment is contained in just the one set. It is much easier to develop the environment if no other sets (which don't even exist in a final form yet) have to be taken into consideration. Or put another way, the factors that influence the core set do not reside outside of the core set.

The second reason for the superiority of the core set draft environment is even simpler. R&D knows what it is doing. Whenever we have a new large set there is a mandate to include a new mechanic (or five) never before used in magic. As a result R&D is going through an exploratory period and doesn't understand how the mechanics behave. They simply don't have the resources to get a handle on the new mechanics. Furthermore those mechanics being the new and sexy things are often pushed by development. However with the core set all of the tools are known. When the designers need something for the set they have a pool of mechanics they understand to use.

Thinking about it metaphorically. When they produce a new large set they are exploring a new medium, like Michelangelo using photoshop. When they produce a core set Michelangelo is sculpting in marble. I mean, let's be clear, he's a good artist and can produce some pretty nice stuff with the computer. But let's not kid ourselves Theros was no Pieta.

 is no  

And that's my rant. When the team realizes a draft environment needs something the choice they make is better in the core set because they are building it with known quantities.

Overall I think R&D knows what they are doing and the abolishment of the core set probably good for the long term health of the game. But as a draft junkie I will miss having a brilliant draft environment every year.