Magic: The Gathering Drive to Work Podcast - #1155: Bloomburrow Vision Design with Doug Beyer

Episode Date: July 19, 2024

In this episode, I sit down with Vision Design Lead Doug Beyer to talk about the early design of Bloomburrow.

I'm not pulling my driveway. We all know what that means. It's time to drive to work at home edition. So today we are talking Bloomberg Vision Design and I have Doug Byer with us for lead vision designer. Hey Doug. Hello. Hello. So first let's step a little bit. Now your normal job is not design. So why don't you tell people what you normally do and then we'll talk about how you ended up leading the design. Right. So my regular job is a creative director for Magic Narrative and World Building. So my job is mostly to oversee the strategy and the craft of building Magic's worlds. So going into this set, I had a particular love and excitement for this particular world.

I was one of its proponents. I was really fighting for us doing this world. And that kind of spilled over into I would really like to try my hand at working on vision design for this set. So you had done one of the core sets, correct? at working on vision design for this set. So you had done one of the core sets, correct? Yeah, M13 was a set that I led designed in the past, yeah. And for the audience, if you're aware, you've been on a whole bunch of design teams, you've done a lot of design. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I've worked closely with Magic Designers for many, many sets. I was lead designer of, the original jumpstart. So I've, I've always had my, my hand in design here and there, you and I work closely on a lot of things. So I'm definitely straddling the line between creative and design a lot. Okay, so we go out to the very beginning. We've talked about doing anthropomorphic animal world. I mean, it's been on the list of, like, maybe we should do this. So in my mind, I think Aaron just, like, put his foot down. He's

like, we're doing it. Like, enough talk. We're doing it. So one of my early, so I did a little bit of research and in my mind, there's like two paths. If you go look at the genre, there's two paths. Path number one is kind of the animals replace kind of a whole race of character, like a whole bunch of people. Like these people are the mouse people and these people are the rat people and such. Usually it's set in a biome, usually a more, you know, it's in the woods or it's a more pastoral biome. And the animals usually are in relation, you know, roughly the size they'd be in real life. That, you know, a possum is that much bigger than a mouse, you know, that there's a real relationship to them. And so anyway, that's path one. That's one way to do it. And path two is

That's one way to do it. And path two is animals more represent individual character flaw or character qualities. And then the idea is I'm jumpy, so I'm a rabbit. I rush into things. I'm a rhino that you just sort of takes rough animal qualities. And then on a case by case basis, each individual person is an individual animal. Usually there, it's less biome related. It's more likely to be like in a city or something, a little more human. And the animals, while they'll have some scope to them, like the raccoon isn't as big as the rhino, they're

a lot closer in size that they're not, they're not like the first path, they're really the mouse is equal to the badger is the size of the badger. But here, you know, most of the badger would be a little bit closer. So we talked about path one versus path two. And I'll be honest, path one, I think is easier to build a world around. And path two is a little bit easier to design because path one, you just make a lot of mice and path two, you can make all the animals you want. Right? Path one requires you to start being a biome. So you're really limited in the number of animals. And path two goes, whatever,

giraffes can be next to beavers. Who cares? It doesn't really have that. And so path one clearly, I think it's a little more world building too. And it's based in a biome and stuff like that. Path two from a design standpoint, like it's easier to make the first giraffe than the 12th mouse. And so from a design standpoint, it's easier to make the first giraffe than the 12th mouse. So from a design standpoint, you have more variety.

And I know we did a lot of testing, and ironically we did all the testing, and it came out 50-50, that's what it came out. They were dead even on that. But we had started with, I think the original idea that Aaron had pitched was path one. And so path one went out when it was tied. Yeah, it was, we really like we always do a bunch of focus group testing. And this was one of the biggest early questions for us for this world was like, should we go kind of a lot of different species and it's just kind of like a world but populated by animals or is it a kind of a pastoral place where this is kind of like the size is a huge differentiator between

Whether you're like a monstrous big predator or like a heroic, you know protagonist kind of character and yeah They the the audience was split down the middle. They can see things Good about both sides. So we were like, okay, we just we got to we got to choose a path forward. And yeah, I think the original pitch was closer to the feel of some of that charm of you get to see things mostly from the perspective of smaller animals. That gives the world a charm that is, yes, you're gonna have to explore,

you're gonna have to design six, seven, eight, nine, 10 otters or whatever to be able to make that version. But that let us build around these and assign color pairs to them and really give them identities that way. Yeah, so the thing that Path 1 did really fast for us is it really leans heavy into a typal theme. You know, that it, I think once we figured out we were doing Path 1, it's, the pull of typal is so strong, it's just very hard not to get there. And I think, I mean,

my memory is we started with the 10-2 color pairs like from the beginning right once once we decided was path one from my notes we actually I think at one point had 15 different animal types and trimmed down to 10 which sounds like crazy to me now like we had monocolor yes animal types as well and that was it was too many there was not a way to meaningfully support that many we wanted to feel like whatever goals was the feel of like you come into this world, there's lots of different kinds of animals that are all enjoyable

that you get to see here. But wow, supporting mechanically supporting more than 10 like 10 already was very full and led to all kinds of interesting things to make that work. So yeah, but we had we had focused on, I think people want to be able to put a bunch of mice in the same deck. I think people want to put a bunch of frogs together and then have that be a base assumption

and then figure out how to implement that for limited, for other kinds of things to make sure that it would actually work. Right, and that's sort of the audience. One of the biggest challenges is what we call the math problem, which is if you have 10 different creatures, even if you do nothing else, and we wanted cameos, we wanted other animals to show up, it's just hard getting enough creatures that you can like draft and draft enough creatures that you can draft enough creatures that you can build one deck.

That was one of our initial problems to solve. Yeah. Yeah. That was really huge. If you open a booster pack and this set has 10 different animal species in it and then a couple of other things like a cool big snake at rare work or creepy serpent or spider or something like that. Wow, it's going to be hard to find enough of a certain one certain creature type to be able to fill out your whole like if you're plain

sealed at the pre release. So that was one of the first things we looked at like, okay, let's, let's try to solve this problem. Other typal sets have solved this problem in some ways like we didn't want changelings for this world changelings are a great way to solve how do you get a lot of things for this world, I would say. And so, like, okay, cool. but what else if there's no such thing as a bird frog, what how do you make cards that can support lots of different overlapping creature types at

the same time? So that was one of the earliest challenges we faced. And one of the things that we should point out is, I think we were trying in vision to try to make it work so that you could do that. And I think what ended up happening in set design, and I'll be interviewing Ian in a different podcast, and really the idea, like, when we look back at past sets that had a typo theme,

at one end of the spectrum is Lorwin, where like it went full throttle, like pack one, pick one of these eight creatures and that is what you're drafting. And the other end of the spectrum is what I would say like Innistrad, where hey, we have the four monsters, you know, and humans and like you can make a vampire deck or a zombie deck, but it was very light touch. It was more like I made a zombie deck because I drafted zombies, not because I had a lot of zombie typo cards. And I think we started thinking it'd be closer to Lorwin, and I think the finished product is closer to Indistrad,

where hey, if you just draft frogs, it'll be a cohesive deck. But the number of actual cards that reference frogs is light. I mean, it exists, but it's light. Yeah. Wow. I mean, and ultimately, that's a great endpoint for the set that if you put the blinders on and just sort of like, I'm just going to look for any lizards I find, even if a card never says lizard called out specifically,

wow, your deck is cohesive. It has a theme. It plays like with the lizards. And so you know, you can pursue the thematicness of having that pretty narrow focus on one animal type. But it works out for you. Like if you did so good job, because you have a red black deck that is pretty aggressive and that sort of thing. So I've spent a lot of time on this because I want to get to actual things

we actually did. In the actual handoff, and I'm going to be, as Doug gave me permission, I'm doing an article, in fact three articles, of the handoff. So if you want to see more detail in this, that'll have a lot of detail. We did actually, there were two mechanics that we pitched that we were trying to solve this problem and they ended up not getting used. I just want to touch on briefly. So we did a mechanical fellowship, what was fellowship?

Fellowship was a super interesting idea to try to solve this issue of, we've got a lot of we've a high variety of species, but we want to be able to play multiple species in a deck and how that makes sense. So if we want typal effects that affect all your birds and typal effects that affect all your frogs, how do we have cards that help both? How does that work together in your deck? The fellowship, the idea of fellowship is this. A card might say, I have bird

fellowship, and that means when this creature enters, add bird to your fellowship, add the creature type bird to your fellowship. And now everything that affects things in your fellowship affect birds from then on. So you might later on have a thing that says, all the creatures in your fellowship gain indestructible in turn. Well, now that affects birds because you have added birds into your fellowship. And so fellowship becomes flexible tool to add creature types in. And every card in this set that cares about that's type all, it introduces some animal to the fellowship. And then so let's say you care about frogs and add frogs to your fellowship and then

affect frogs. Then you play the second card, it cares about mice. Well now frogs and mice are in your fellowship. So all the cards that affect one affect the other. So it was a way to glue kind of things together in a way that let you mix and match creatures that's kind of hard normally in type all. Yeah, I believe it was it was Jeremy Geist who had the initial seed of fellowship. And that it really put us on a path that that showed us how we could again, we didn't end up using fellowship. But it was a cool answer to the

to that question of like, how do we have a lot of a lot of a lot of different kind of animals that be able to reward you in of different kind of animals that be able to reward you in limited gameplay. And it had a charming feel, right? Like you can imagine like your mice cooperating with your frogs and they literally are joined together in this kind of like this flavorful bond and like, oh, this game when I play Bloomberg, my frogs and birds are getting along really well together. This other game, it's about lizards and squirrels or whatever. It was very fun, very charming. Yeah, like, so should we talk about like some of the reasons we ended up? Well, yeah, I think the thing that in the end, I mean, I think what we've

realized is that typo sets work better when we're lighter on the typal. That is, like we've made a lot of typal sets. We did Lorwin, we did Onslaught, we did Ixalan. And I think what we've learned as a group for R&D is that there's a lot of complexity that comes with it. There's a lot of weight that comes on it. And I think we decided that, look,

we want to give you tools in construction. If you want to go build a picture animal deck, we'll give you the tools to do that. Limited is just not, limited is going to be more like, hey, draft the frogs and the frogs will play well together. Not that you need to end. We've learned that a little type will go a long way. That just having a couple of cards in your deck

just reference frog, even if it's a small upgrade, makes you feel like, okay, I have a frog deck. And so I think the biggest problem with fellowship, and this is a real common problem, is we played with it for a while. We got really used to it. And once you really understand it, it's a lot of fun. But the barrier to understanding it's pretty high. And whenever they'd have new people play, it just was like, what am I doing? I got to make a list. It was a lot. And I think it, in the end, is sort of like the set didn't need it was why it went away. Yeah. Yeah. It like, if you if we soften the amount of typo, the some of the problem that we were trying to solve for went away. And yeah, it just wasn't pulling its weight by then. But really cool aspiration. You know, we learned

a lot playing around with that. And just so the audience is aware, we there are a couple other ways we solve. But let's talk about the duo is a little bit one of our ways to solve the problem was the duo. So talk about what are the duos? So I mentioned that like, this world it's you know there's no way to be a like bird frog like these these creature types are separate from each other we were trying to make like mutants who were combination creatures of both but the duos are

just cards that represent two animals of two different species cooperating together so you actually could write like mouse rap on the creature type line. The rules treat that card as both a mouse and a rat. And the art just depicts like two buddies who are, you know, in the same color usually, and who are cooperating doing something together. And now this card is helpful for you if you're a mouse deck, or if you're a rap deck, or if you're a mouse deck that has like one little rat focused interaction or something like that. So it gave us a little touch of that like changeling

utility. And they're also pretty adorable and showed, you know, so these animals teaming up to to fight against the calamity beasts or whatever. Yeah, and the duos are something we made in vision design that wasn't like I said, when I talked to Ian, there's some other tools that set Design added, but do also something that we added in Vision. Yeah, they were there pretty early. The one other thing I'll talk in passing, I have another whole podcast I'm doing on batching, and I talk about this and that podcast.

So we did try to make what we called an animal mega batch, which is like, what if all the animals, what if we just refer to animals and it said, hey, is that an animal? And it's really charming and it, on the surface, it felt really cool. It was one of those things where like 95% of the time it works great and 5% it causes problems.

And so, like I said, I go into that in another podcast. We won't get really here, but that is something else that we introduce. But we made some mechanics that did make it to the set. So why don't we talk about some of those. Great. So let's start with the mechanics that I think was the very first thing we put in the set.

Like back in exploratory, like we made it almost like day one and then it just, it never went away. So let's talk offspring. Yeah. I mean, like you said, offspring was pitched mega early and we didn't change the name, we didn't change the function out like as far as I'm concerned, like, like the cards might have changed a little bit, but like, the mechanic was identical. And it was just the feeling of like we were asking ourselves like what do we wanted some mechanics, many mechanics to to go across all the different animal species. So we were looking for ways to express in gameplay something that's common to every animal, which is challenging. Like, what does a raccoon have to do, you know, have in common with a frog? Well, they all very young. They all have children. They all reproduce.

So we wanted something to reflect that. And offspring was pitched so early and it was just like, I think there had been effects in the past that like generate a one one copy of something. Yeah, we so there's a mechanic in Amonkhet. There was in Balm, which were creatures that in the graveyard could make a token copy of themselves. And then we twisted that in our devastation with eternal, or eternalize, and that copied it, but instead of making what it was, it made it a 4-4. And so that was definitely us playing around with like design space of, well, what if I make something, but it's different than what I'm copying? And I think, I think the idea of this was reverse eternalized.

Eternalized generally made it bigger than it was. And so this was like, I mean, this is my memory of it was, we made, on the whiteboard, we'll do this very early in the exploratory, what do you expect? It's an animal set, what would you expect to see? And one of the things was the idea of little animals, right? And I think the idea was just taking it sort of reverse internalized, like, what if we make small versions? And I mean, it was so charming. I don't know, I feel I don't even

remember who someone said this. And we're like, yes, awesome. And then we just started making them and never look back. Yeah. And it did some other things, too. I mean, it was absolutely charming and fit the feel of the world very, very well to just have like, you know, big bird and small bird who like the who's just learning how to fly and has has the abilities of mom or dad, but like, isn't quite as big and strong or whatever. But also also helped because we were looking at a lot of

typo mechanics. We were looking at a lot of mechanics that cared about you having creatures. So offspring helps fill the board with more copies of a bird or a raccoon or whatever. So that did a lot of things functionality-wise for the set as well. And I'm not sure whether this happened in vision or not, but it might have. It pushed us away from doing something. We had a theme, one of our draft themes, Black Red I think, was a Sacrifice Demon. Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. You know, sometimes you type things into a chart or a word document and they seem fine at the time, and then you play them and you're like, this is not feeling right. We found so it's very common for you know, a black limited theme to be

sacrifice a creature for fun and profit like get some kind of benefit out of sacrificing creature. In this set in Bloomberg, one of the kinds of creatures you would sacrifice the most is your smallest weakest, most useless creature, which tends to be these little offspring tokens. And the flavor of offspring tokens is literally baby animals. And so we're like, I don't feel good. This doesn't feel right for this world to have a major part of the gameplay be sacrificed baby frogs or whatever, it was heartbreaking.

We made a decision to now, I think there's still some sacrifice effects in the set, but the philosophy became if there's any sacrificing of creatures in the set, it is the big monstrous predators that do that. They prey on whatever, they are scary, they're supposed to be villainous, but none of the animal folk who are the sentient happy friends who live in valley have mechanics that sacrifice creatures because it just too often became about this poor offspring token being put on the altar. It was heartbreaking. Okay, so another big thing we were trying to do,

I mean, we obviously, we, let's talk real quickly about the animals. So early on, we came up with the idea of having 10 animals, like 10, two color pairs. And then each color pair would have an animal. That was pretty early on. Do you want to talk a little bit about how we figured out what animal made what color?

Yeah, it was such a fun puzzle. Some of the, like we wrote a big list of animals that felt right for the setting. It's kind of a, oh, Europe or North, New England. Like the biome is kind of vague. There's raccoons, but there's also, you know, river otters, there's, but the feel of it what had a particular biome feel to it. So we have a list of animals that

felt correct, that felt right for this world. And we were just like, okay, if what if we put these into the 10 color pair buckets, who goes where, there were some animals that felt right on, or a certain color pair. I feel like we have rabbits, maybe first or second, you know, rabbits latching on to, you know, we knew rabbits wanted to be kind of like a go wide, have a lot of you strategy. That's, you know, a thing about rabbits. And that felt right for green white. And then, you know, kind of as you fill in the table, the slots,

you find out like, okay, I think this could make sense here or there or whatever. I think we had otters as like, they want to be something blue, but they could be sneaky a bunch of different ways. Yeah, I think what we did is we took animals and said, what could they be? And most animals were corn of colors. It's like, well, they have to be this color, but maybe there's some flexibility. We went back and looked at what animals existed previously. For example, with frogs, if you look at the history of frogs and toads, we eventually combined them,

almost all of them are blue or green. And so we're like, well, if we're going to do frogs, it kind of has to be blue or green. We really wanted to stay where they were and not do too much invention of new things, although we did a little bit of that. And then once you start filling them in, then it got harder. The last few were the hardest because, okay, the obvious things went in where they belonged. And then like, so Black Red was one of our tricky ones. I think black red started as weasels, right? Yeah, they were they were originally weasels. Again, kind of like trying to get across that, that charming pastoral world, who like who's who's someone who's aggressive and kind of a little bit of a more antagonist role, maybe weasels. I'm glad they ended up as lizards though, it helped get us not like we have had a lot

of things that were kind of in the rodent II mustelid category. And having lizards got a reptile in there like got something scaly and just look look different on cards, which I thought that was a big improvement. And lizards is a good example where there weren't a lot of black lizards historically, but it was near the end. Like, yeah, there's a lot of red lizards. So that was fine. And the other one that we changed, most of the ones that ended up, I mean, all 10 are what we handed off,

but the other one that we, for a different while, I think we started with Badgers and Red Green rather than Raccoons. Yeah. Badger fit the archetype of the color pair that has the biggest animals that are sentient. Badgers are big and strong. We ended up going to raccoons just for a little more charm. Just asking players and internally, there just were more fans of raccoons even though there you know was wasn't a huge loss there's still i think a badger or two in the set um yeah there's one badger for sure but uh neither neither one had had tons of cards in magic before there's not a lot of raccoons and there's not a lot of badgers. But the art that we got out of the raccoons was kind of the justification. Like, they're still kind of playing that role of they tend to be a little bit on the higher power and toughness end

for all the animals, like compared to mice, you know, red green raccoons tend to be a little bit bigger in size. But they just the charm of getting to have these resourceful, strong, but resourceful raccoons ended up being like much more enjoyable to do that a whole lot of times than doing a whole lot of badgers. Okay, so next, we wanted to obviously spend a lot of time on the animals themselves. But we also wanted to capture the feel of the world. That was really Okay, so next we wanted, I mean obviously we spent a lot of time on the animals themselves, but we also wanted to capture the feel of the world. That was really important. So the next mechanic I want to talk about is the GIF mechanic, which we also came up like in the middle of Vision, I think we came up with that. So explain where the GIF mechanic came from and

why it's important. Yeah, we were definitely looking for things that didn't focus as much on animals per se, but that felt at home in the same world. And gift is a mechanic that basically you hand some kind of resource, you do a favor for your opponent. And if you do, you get a bonus on whatever that spell is, whatever that effect is. And it, it has a, it fits in the

world nicely, because it has this charming feel of like, Oh, I'm doing a little favor, I'm, I'm bringing a gift basket, I'm giving you a fish, or I'm giving you a food or some life or whatever. The funny thing is that when you play the set, whenever someone announces that they're giving you a gift, it's always bad news. Whenever you're getting a gift, it's not like, oh good, I get a free one-one fish. It's like, oh, they're getting the better end of the deal in some way because the spell is better.

Somehow it's powering up and it's to their benefit. So it has that charming feel. But like it like when someone says, I have a gift for you during a game of Wimbro, it's probably not that great for you. And I know we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what you could gift. Like we we tried a whole bunch of stuff. Yeah. We ended up there's three main ones and then set design

added one but um so we ended up I gift you a card, gift you a creature which is a one one tap fish, um or I gift you um food. Those are the main and then I think there's one gifted treasure card that that's in this ad. Um but what else what else do you remember what else we tried in front of what other gifts we tried? Yeah, we sketched out a lot of possibilities. Those ones made the most sense and were sort of the most straightforward. I think we tried bigger creatures as a gift. I think we tried, they get to cast a spell for free, like some plus and plus encounters on your creatures or whatever. We're just looking for

like, you know, something that could be useful to most opponents. So you know, we didn't want to give them something that's, you know, entirely useless, but and it had a feel right? Like I remember we made a rare card that you give to them a turn. It was just so esoteric. I give you a turn. Here you go. It's a turn. Like what does that mean? I wrapped it up in a little wicker basket and inside is a turn. Oh, thank goodness. Why you shouldn't have a turn. Yeah,

I wanted to have a little bit of like an imagery like a card is still abstract, but you can, you can still kind of get the feel of like, oh, I'm being given something, you know, in a in a present and whatever it is, is great for me. Okay, last few just so we're close to under time here, I just wanna hit some mechanics. So one of the things we definitely did was try to look at individual creatures and say, hey,

we wanna give them an identity. For example, one of the ones that I know the audience has been responding well to is we were stumped on frogs for a while, right? What do frogs do? They catch flies. They have a long tongue. And do you remember where the hopping theme came from? Yeah, no.

We were looking for... It was easy to come up with individual frog cards that did like a thing a frog did, but it was hard to come up with something that could persist across frogs that made like a deck. And we knew that although hopping, gaining flying until end of turn is okay for blue frogs, green just doesn't get flying. So like we didn't want that to be the theme that the whole half of the

color pair couldn't participate. But we kind of riffed on this idea of hopping. And it still felt like a frog if they were going in and out of play in some way. For a while, we had a version where the frogs would hop up into your hand like kind of a gating theme if you remember back to Plane Shift that you then they have a lot of ETB abilities and so your the frogs kind of develop this theme of you kind of replay them over and over again and they're they're hopping not by in terms of gaining flying, but in terms of like, hopping off about battlefield, which then evolved in set design to more of

a blinking theme, it still has this feel of they're popping in and out of play. frogs when you play the frogs deck. They're always going somewhere, they are on the move. And it still has this like, hoppy theme that succeeded at being green, blue succeeded at being a theme across a whole color pair, but still felt like frogs, which pretty cool. And in general, that was the for each of the animals we said, we wanted a mechanical identity that just like felt like the animal.

And some were very easy. Rabbits making rabbit tokens. I mean, that was instantaneous. We knew that from the beginning. And there's some birds that birds have to fly. There's certain things that came with it. But let's talk like mice, for example, like. Mice, I mean, for example, we were we're doing a genre. And for whatever reason, mice love to be the protagonists of this.

Not always, but much of the time, like in this genre, like and the protagonist is a mouse with a sword, usually. Right, right. And so I know that we were like, OK, we want mice with swords. What does that mean? How do we do that? Do you have any memory of like how we got how we got to the valiance? Remember how we got there? Yeah, no, like, I think it was reinforced a lot by mice ending up in red white. Also, it gave them this feel of we knew mice

were generally going to be pretty small. That in itself is not exactly what the that kind of heroic mouse archetype is. But once we kind of identified that the mice are not just small, they are brave. They rush into combat, they defend each other, they help each other out. They will face down a giant wolf or something that wants to eat them. That kind of gave us this feeling that like, oh, yeah, they're the they're the heroic little mouse knights that without their sword, don't, you know, don't, you know, power from danger. And so it got this kind of combat tricks, red, white, you know, rush at you with small

creatures and then just do amazing things in combat kind of theme. And that's how we led to Valiant, which was kind of like riffing on, you know, heroic in the past. And we started right. I think we started with heroic memories. Yeah, I think I think we've been really on them. And then I mean, heroic. We it's a mechanic I made back in Theros and it's a fun mechanic it's like oh okay you you you target something and it gets better um and I think that was just us trying to fix the problems of heroic um yeah and the big thing was back in Theros um the reason

we didn't let abilities target you was they were just like equipment you could equip for zero. Like there's just things you could endlessly. And so like we ended up not including them because of that. And so Valiant was like, well, what if we go the other direction? What if we let you do that? And then we limit it so that those cards can't break things. And then that was super fun. I as a guy who made heroic, it's fun when you take a mechanic, you make it and then make a better version of it, that it just plays better.

So I really like how Valiant ended up playing. So we are almost out of time here, Doug. Any final thoughts on, I mean, as I said, this is your first sort of big premiere set, I mean, non-core set at least. How did you feel making your first set? I feel so excited. I'm eternally thankful to you being a mentor for me through that process on my first big design there,

to Ian Duke who took the vision of the set and knocked it out of the park, to Emily Tang and Neil who worked so hard on bringing the world building to life, and just, you know, Zac Stella on the art direction. It was a group effort to, and everyone we talked to on the set saw and understood how charming this world could be, and work to to bring it out. So just so excited about this world. Excited for people to play it. I

want people to have it in their hands. Yeah, yeah. No, it's, it's fun to finally talk about it. There are definitely sets that because for the audience, like we make a set in for two years, We can't talk about it Whatever. This is definitely a set that I was excited for people to see so Well, anyway dog, I want to thank you for joining us today talking through the making of Bloomberg Well, thanks so much for having me So everybody else I'm now at my desk

I guess so we all know that means this is the end of my drive to work So instead of talking magic it's's time for me to making magic. So thanks for joining us guys and I will see you next time. Bye bye.