[The Prefect]

Hey all. Nick started a thread like this also, and I think it's a good idea. So, what questions do you have more me as a candidate?

Here's the article containing my interview and application. Here's the thread containing an outline of my priorities.

[T-Ricks]

Do you feel it will be a challenge for you NOT to favor your choices and decisions for the game, towards any personal preferences you have? Be that a favorite affiliation, faction, deck strategy or development priority?

[monty42]

Do you feel it will be a challenge for you NOT to favor your choices and decisions for the game, towards any personal preferences you have? Be that a favorite affiliation, faction, deck strategy or development priority?

Are you hinting that could soon become the new gold standard?

[The Prefect]

Do you feel it will be a challenge for you NOT to favor your choices and decisions for the game, towards any personal preferences you have? Be that a favorite affiliation, faction, deck strategy or development priority?

Are you hinting that could soon become the new gold standard?

That's my "Trek Square Deal" - a Dukat for every set!

[The Prefect]

Do you feel it will be a challenge for you NOT to favor your choices and decisions for the game, towards any personal preferences you have? Be that a favorite affiliation, faction, deck strategy or development priority?

That's a good question. The honest answer is yes, it's always a challenge for anyone in a leadership position not to favor their own ideas. I hope the fact that I am cognizant of that reality will help make me more open to constructive criticism or dissent and more self-critical of my own ideas.

Another way to avoid falling into that trap is to resist the temptation to micromanage departments or let my authority bleed over into other roles. Managers need to have the creative freedom to manage their departments without me second-guessing their every move. Also, if I am a designer working on a set, for example, it would be totally inappropriate for me to insist on the inclusion of a card or a group of cards because I am also the 2E Director.

Instead, I intend to foster a production culture in which volunteers feel secure enough to do their jobs and challenge me when they think I am making a mistake.

The bottom line is this: if I get the job I'll ultimately be the one accountable for the product we put out. I don't want my name attached to something bad anymore than you all want a bad product.

[T-Ricks]

Do you feel it will be a challenge for you NOT to favor your choices and decisions for the game, towards any personal preferences you have? Be that a favorite affiliation, faction, deck strategy or development priority?

Are you hinting that could soon become the new gold standard?

Just deciding how much Ketracel-white to stock up on is all.

[monty42]

...Ketracel-white...

Da hell!? How come we never had that stuff in 2E anyway?

[The Prefect]

...Ketracel-white...

Da hell!? How come we never had that stuff in 2E anyway?

There's a possibility it's on someone's do-to list.

[Clerasil ToB]

I have a question that I know is quite difficult to answer:

Beginning with Phase II we saw different playgroups answering to the new cards in a complete different way. Especially with the latest sets it was obvious that some playgroups really love the new cards, some hate them (some of them hate them even that much that they think about quitting the game there).

How do you think you can find a balance between those playgroups? When are you gonna interfere with Design / Errata / whatever to ensure that (almost) no one is really pissed off?

I know it is impossible to make everyone really happy, but it was possible in the past that (almost) no one was really pissed off. Do you have any idea how we can get back to this state?

[The Prefect]

I have a question that I know is quite difficult to answer:

Beginning with Phase II we saw different playgroups answering to the new cards in a complete different way. Especially with the latest sets it was obvious that some playgroups really love the new cards, some hate them (some of them hate them even that much that they think about quitting the game there).

How do you think you can find a balance between those playgroups? When are you gonna interfere with Design / Errata / whatever to ensure that (almost) no one is really pissed off?

I know it is impossible to make everyone really happy, but it was possible in the past that (almost) no one was really pissed off. Do you have any idea how we can get back to this state?

Thanks for asking this question. It's an important one. Right now, it's lunch time here and I'm away from my desk. So, please know I've read your question, i recognize the importance of answering it, and I'll do so as soon as I'm back at my desk.

[The Prefect]

I have a question that I know is quite difficult to answer:

Beginning with Phase II we saw different playgroups answering to the new cards in a complete different way. Especially with the latest sets it was obvious that some playgroups really love the new cards, some hate them (some of them hate them even that much that they think about quitting the game there).

How do you think you can find a balance between those playgroups? When are you gonna interfere with Design / Errata / whatever to ensure that (almost) no one is really pissed off?

I know it is impossible to make everyone really happy, but it was possible in the past that (almost) no one was really pissed off. Do you have any idea how we can get back to this state?

It took longer for me to get back to my desk than I anticipated, but I'll try to answer your question as best I can.

It's true that it's possible for difference playgroups to perceive sets, even the overall meta, differently. One playgroup can be on the verge of quitting, while another can be happier than they've ever been. I think part of the explanation for this phenomenon lies within the groups themselves, and part lies with the CC.

When I took over primary TD duties for the Atlanta playgroup, it was dying. My perception was that the group had been dominated by a core cadre of players for so long that less experienced, casual players had lost interest in showing up to events where they knew their fate was to serve essentially as "stepping stones" for one of the few inevitable winners. What we tried to do, as a group, was to change that by asking more experienced, more competitive players not to bring their A decks to locals. We also started organizing game nights away from tournament settings where players could come and try new ideas and just have fun. This made players better. Eventually, even when more experienced players brought their better decks, they still faced competition at events. We also became friends by prioritizing the experience of playing together over the results of the event itself. Now, ours is one of the most active playgroups in the US. So, part of keeping a group happy and engaged lies with the group dynamic itself - if a group isn't having fun it doesn't matter much what kind of product the CC is putting out.

But, no amount of effort can compensate if a playgroup feels their needs and/or perspective are being neglected. I think at least some of the dissatisfaction from some groups comes from the perception that their voices aren't represented at the design-level. To remedy that, I would make it a priority to try and recruit a more diverse set of designers and open up the design process to more voices. Working with Alexey on the upcoming "set 50" was quite an experience, and I can remember several times when he brought a perspective from his own playgroup or regional meta to a card that wouldn't have occurred to me. Now, just like in any creative endeavor, there were times when we had to compromise on some cards - I didn't get everything I wanted exactly the way I wanted it and neither did he - but what we've ended up with we're both proud of. That experience taught me the value of having perspectives from different regional metas and/or playgroups at the table during the design process. That's a lesson I intend to take with me if I'm appointed to this position.

So, to summarize my answer: keeping a playgroup happy and engaged is a recipe with two primary ingredients. First, the group itself has to be internally healthy - players have to enjoy playing with one another yet feel challenged enough to improve and grow. Second, the group has to feel it has a voice in the design process, or at the very least that their interests and priorities are on the radar. That way even on occasions when they don't get everything they want, they're confident enough in the fairness of the process itself that they have hope for the future.

I hope this answers your question.