Magic: The Gathering Drive to Work Podcast - #1389: Setting Up Downstream Teams

Episode Date: October 16, 2026

Exploratory design and vision design are the first steps in the design process. There are many teams that do work after we're done, and it's important that we set them up for success. This podcast episode talks about the many ways we do that.

I'm pulling on my driveway. We all know what that means. It's time for their drive to work. Okay, today I'm talking about one of the important jobs of vision design setting up downstream. So what do I mean by that? So essentially the design process is one long, ongoing process. That there are different teams working on something, but you have to think of it as just one design with that sort of hands off from team to team. So, for example, before we have vision, we have exploratory design. The job of the

exploratory design team is the setup of the vision design team. Well, the job of the vision design team is to set up the set design team. And there's a bunch of different ways we do that, that thinking about the team that you're handing off to and doing things to allow them to make the back set is a really important part of vision design. So today, I'm going to talk about all the things we do to set up set design and some other downstream teams for success. That is the topic. So I'm going to begin talking about set design specifically, and then I will get into some other teams that we also work on.

Okay, so first and foremost, what exactly is vision design doing to make set design successful? The first thing I would say is we are setting the vision. What does that mean exactly? Well, one of the important things about design is it's very easy for you to go in a lot of different directions. That one of the problems that designs can have is if the team members aren't sort of working in conjunction, you can spend a lot of time in energy doing things but not advancing very often. So one of the goals of the vision is to get everybody on all the teams downstream on the same path. I sort of call it the same bullseye.

Everybody has the same target they're aiming at, meaning that everybody's work is working alongside each other and advancing towards something and not making things at odds with each other. So that's probably the most important thing is that we are trying to set a vision. A lot of the vision design handoff is talking about what the vision is.

What are we trying to do? And normally what I like to do is a couple of things. One, I have a top line. This set is trying to do thing acts. This set is about this thing. What's the theme? What are we trying to do? Normally, there's some sort of emotion we're aiming at.

And I tend to divide into buckets. Usually, I divide sets into three parts. Like the most famous ones, when I handed off pharos, there was gods, heroes, and monsters. Gods were all about devotion and the enchantment subtype. Heroes were about the heroic mechanic, and monsters were about monstros. or monstrous.

And the idea of all of them was, oh, this is a set about adventure. This is a set about advancement. You are going to grow your devotion. You're going to grow all of... Now we did a devotion. We also had a mechanic that could either be creatures

or creature enchantments. So the idea is I am growing in my devotion. I'm growing my creatures both through the enchantments and through heroic. Or I'm growing my monferential. by the one-time upkeep cost to make them bigger.

But the idea is, as I advance, as I go on this adventure, there's a sense of growth, there's a sense of discovery, there's a sense of adventure. And so when I'm handing off Theros, I'm saying, hey, God's, heroes, monsters,

a sense of adventure. Like, I'm giving all these things that I want that come together in one singular vision. And that means the people who I'm handing off to go, oh, okay, I see what you want, I see what you're aiming for,

and then what they're aiming for, and then what they're, job to do in set design is they want to take the vision that vision is created and optimize it, make the best version of that vision. But if they're going a lot of different directions, you know, one of the big challenges about design in general is that you can spend a lot of time kind of going in circles. But if vision design says, here's what we're aiming to do, and here's our shot of mechanics, and, you know, here's what we're trying to do, it allows set design to then focus on, okay, we are optimizing this.

We are making this the best that it can be. And it puts everybody in the same direction. And that's really, really important. That, like, the number one job coming out of vision really is getting everybody to understand what the set is doing. Now, there are many component pieces to that. Like, we do create mechanics, and it's important that we create the mechanics. The mechanics can change, but that we are sort of giving a sense of, here's what we're, what we're trying to do. Here's how we're trying to do it. Here's the ways in which we're trying to do it.

And that is super important. So let's talk a little bit about the mechanics. So we give a theme, we give a focus, but also we are actually trying to make the mechanics that we think that they're going to use. Now there's a couple things that go on. Number one is, traditionally, you want to deliver more mechanics. Oh, maybe I just realize, since reality fractures out, let me use reality fracture as my through line. I talked about there. Let me talk about reality fracture real quickly.

So what is reality fracture about? What is the vision of reality fracture? Reality fracture is about, it's a what-of-set, it's a capstone event, that Jace is in trying to deal with all his trauma, is trying to make a better multiverse. and in his misguided attempt, he is planning to sort of destroy everything we know and replace him with what he thinks is a better version. The rest of our heroes, the rest of the Lorwyn-5 and Braska,

have to stop him. And the set is all about sort of looking at this alternate reality. And we did that by giving an alternate reality setting. We have our mechanics leaned into alternate reality, or not ulcer, sorry, we'll lean into the what if, I should say, that there's a what if setting, there are what if mechanics. One of the, and one of the core centerpieces of our set is the paired creatures. Okay, so now let's get into the next part, which is, okay, we're giving you a theme,

we're giving you something to work with, we're giving you this idea of, here's the through point. And like I said, we not only gave you a theme, we not only gave you mechanics, we now gave you sort of a centerpiece, the pair of creatures, but even a general vibe of what we're trying to do. Now, we normally want to hand off more than the set design team needs. And the reason for that is, let's say a set needs four mechanics. And sets can vary, but let's say a set needs four mechanics, and I give you exactly four mechanics.

Well, you can just do those four mechanics. And if one of the mechanics doesn't work out, now you're on the hook to make another mechanic. But if, let's say we think the set needs four mechanics and we hand over five mechanics, now you have some options. For example, let's say I hand you five mechanics for the set needs four mechanics.

You now have five different options of how to design the set without need, you know, like the idea is you could drop any one mechanic and there's five. So that means there's five different ways to go. There's the not one, not two, not three, not four, not five version. So, for example, when we handed over reality fracture, we actually handed some things they didn't end up using.

I'm going to either, by the time you hear this, I probably posted the article already, but if I haven't yet, I have written a vision design handoff document for reality fracture. I show the document and then I walk through things. So we had a mechanic that we, sort of two mechanics, we pitched the thing that used. One was something called,

what was it called? It was called Make History, I believe it was called. And it sort of was landfall-ish. It says, whenever a legendary creature enters or attacks, so tighten me, I guess. Whenever a legendary creature enters or attacks,

it would trigger and do something. And that thing wasn't a super big thing, but the idea was one of the key things about the set is the pair of creatures. That means we have more legends than normal because all the paired creatures are either legendary creatures or are plainswalkers. And so there's a little bit higher of as found in legends.

There's a lot of uncommon paired creatures too. And so the idea was there's just more legendary creatures than normal. Empower Jace also makes a plainswalker, which is legendary. So the idea is whenever something legendary enters or attacks. So it did trigger off you playing planeswalkers. Planesworkers can't attack unless you turn them into creatures. But it did trigger, for example, when you power Jace, it would trigger this was the idea.

But anyway, it was called Make History, and it just was some extra texturing we gave. When designing the set, they realized they didn't need it, but it was something extra we gave them. We also gave them a saga tweak. I forget what we called it. The way it worked was that one of the chapters, often the third one, had an alternate.

So it's one, two, or three A, or three B. And what that meant is whenever you got to the alternate chapter, you could choose which version you wanted. And the idea was it was trying to show off how the two versions of worlds were different. Like here's Zendikar

and here's Echoverse Zendikar and like, well, they were similar up to the point where things were different. It ended up not quite we really wanted Echoverse to be separate and it sort of blended them

in a way that we ended up not wanting to do. So the idea is when we make something, we make some extra things because we want to make sure that if you have enough tools

the way I like to think of it is we design tools for the toolbox and if the toolbox has a few extra tools it just makes it easier for the set design team to make things like one of the things that's really important is when we make the set and vision design we're not making the actual set we are making sort of a proof of concept set meaning we're making cards to show our thought

of what the set looks like a lot of stuff will change set design in theory can change 100% of the cards they tend not to there are plenty of things they have made in vision usually actually end up in print just because we'll make cards that are good and they keep them sometimes they tweak them sometimes they make it you know it gets through as is but we want to make sure that there's a little bit extra there

also the other big thing that's important is if we do a mechanic that we think there might be challenges with that mechanic what we need to do is we need to give backups This came about The Lost Caverns of Ixelon was a set I led where I really went down a very different path in design.

For example, we made sort of tokens that were kind of like treasure but they only produced one color of mana. So they were make a pearl, make a sapphire, make a jet, make a ruby, make an emerald.

They were named after the moxes. And they were kind of like moxes in a sense that you could sack them for one. I mean, moxas you don't stack, but they were kind of like one-shot moxas, essentially. We ended up not going quite that direction. I mean, if you remember the story of Las Cabrales, Ixelon, after handing off from Vision, we decided to go to Ixelon.

That wasn't the movie we had decided in Vision, so the set went through a whole bunch of changes. But anyway, I didn't do a good job in that handoff of having enough of a backup. That I gave something that was very, I was pushing a new territory. I handed off to Eric Lauer. He tried to make it work he couldn't and they really had to redo the set and a lot of stuff had done. I didn't give enough backup and that was really a lesson of

when we do something if we think that thing might not work out. And there's a couple different ways. Sometimes we do backup. We're like, well, this mechanic doesn't work. Here are other mechanics we tried. You see, I've handed off a lot of handoff documents.

You'll see in some of my handoff documents. I'll just give whole other mechanics. Like, we like this mechanic, but if this mechanic doesn't work out, other times, it's more about here's what we want to do. So I actually give you one from an upcoming set, only because we've already told you about this. But when I handed off Noctus, one of the things about Noctus, and one of the few things we've already said is there's no flying.

So in my handoff document, I actually said, look, I understand no flying might be a problem. We're handing off no flying. you know, like vision design in general wants to be aggressive. We want to push boundaries. We want to do things that may or may not work out. But we'd rather push boundaries, try that thing. A good example that's from Reality Fracture was when we made Empower Jace,

in our version of Empower Jace, you could put the tokens on any Jace, not just a Jace token, but any Jace. You could put on other Jace Plainswalkers. our thought was, oh, this makes it more backward compatible. You're now more encouraged. You know, you want to play in power Jace and decks that also have JAS in it. And in the end, we handed that off, but we said in the document, I said, you know, my handoff, look, if this is a problem, it's a switch.

You can turn it off. If, you know, if this doesn't work out. And usually if the answer is just you can make a change, we'll do the more aggressive thing and just make the note, look, you can just turn it off. And they did. The reason they did is it turns out if you cost the cards to allow you to put counters on Jace counters,

they get more expensive. That's the most powerful thing to do constructed. So you now have to cost the cards for their constructed value and now it makes them super, super weak and limited. But by making them the token jases, it allows you to be more aggressive and limited. Also, I think there are two jases

that do make Jase token. So there is some more back-combatability. but not as much, obviously, his first handoff. Anyway, so in Doctus, sorry, I'm jumping around. In Doctus, we said no flying. So in the handoff document, I said, hey, I get that no flying might be a problem. We are trying the adventurers of some.

Here are some fallback plans. Fallback plan number one is, okay, we need flying. We can't, you know, all the things we tried to make it work didn't end up working out. If you need to have flying, my first recommendation is only do activate

flying with the flavor of, well, these are all fish, but they're jumping out of the water. So the idea is, oh, there's fish that jump out of the water. So if we really need flying, okay, the way that it gets by you is you're still, you still have underwater creatures, but they can leap out of the water. And then I said, if that doesn't work, okay, look, there are birds that are themed to the ocean, there's seagulls and things. If you really, really have to have birds, you could do, you know, sea-themed birds that at least will feel connected to the water world.

But the idea was, we want to do this. This is what we handed off. Here is one backup. Here's second backup. And like I said, sometimes the backup is here's whole other mechanics. Normally what happens in the set is we try different things. And then things that don't work out, we pull out of the file. But sometimes there are things we pull out of the file that we like.

It just wasn't space for it. And so oftentimes the way we do backup, up is saying, okay, look, we pulled the, you know, here's mechanic A. We pulled mechanic B in the set because A and B wouldn't both fit in the set. But if you have a problem with A, you could put B in. Another thing that we can do is we can structure the set such that elements can be removed easier. A good example, that was companions from Icaria, layer of the behemus.

I understood that there was that companions. were a challenge. Obviously, they ended up being a little more challenge than we thought. So when we built the file, I didn't, like, sometimes you make, often you make a file and you interconnect all the elements of the file. Meaning,

if you take A, B, and C, they're all intertwined, it's a lot harder to take A out if B and C are dependent on it. So with Companions, I designed the file such that it wasn't dependent. That if you wanted to take out companions, yeah, you had a space to fill, but the connective tissue wasn't there. And that's because I understood

that companions was a lot to ask for and I wanted to make sure that in my handoff document like, look, if this is a problem, we've designed the set such that it can be extracted much easier than normal. That's an other thing we can do. When there's something that we know is an extra challenge,

we can also make it so it's not, we can lessen the connectivity so that it's easier to remove if you need to remove it in set design. The other thing that's very common, to do is sometimes we have a mechanic and we will attempt many things with the mechanic, meaning, oh, here's a cool thing. For example, the paired creatures. We in our handoff experimented a lot with a different kind of pair of creatures we could do. We did some that were direct mirrors. We did

some where we changed car types. We did some, like we tried a lot of different things. And the idea being is, look, you may not need all these different ways to do this, but we're going to give you a lot of options. And a lot of times in the handoff document, I will say, here's the mechanic, here are five or six different ways to use the mechanic. And the idea is not that they need to use it in all five or six ways. It's we spent time and energy sort of mapping out what you can do with it. Like, this is another version of giving you extra mechanics. Is I'm giving you extra ways to use the mechanic. No. that, look, you'll find the ways you want to use it. Maybe I give you six ways to use it,

you need two. But I'd rather give you extra uses and extra, like, I'd rather give you extra utility. That's a lot of handing over is we're giving you tools and we want to make sure the tools have flexibility for the job. And there's, like I said, as I'm explaining, there's a bunch of ways to do that. Okay, so that is the core mechanics. Oh, the other thing that we tend to do is if we've learned of danger spots in design, we also sort of warned it. Sometimes we've learned them exploratory, sometimes we've learned in the design.

The idea is, hey, we've been messing this mechanic for a while. Not only can we give you things to do, we can give you things not to do. This area is a problem. We wouldn't do this area. Nothing is coming to mind right now, but oftentimes when we're working on something, sometimes we do a heads up of,

we've been experimenting with this. and sometimes, for example, there's something that's complex, and we smoothed it over to make it more, less complex. We might talk about this can be a bit overwhelming. In order to keep it from being overwhelming, we've made these restrictions. You could change the restrictions, but we do believe without restrictions, this mechanic is problematic and stuff like that. So we also will give warnings of lessons we have learned.

Okay. Now, set design is not the only people that we have to worry about. So let's talk a little bit about other people. Play design. So one of the challenges of play design is when play design comes along, they need the ability to fine-tune things to make sure that we get things the best they can. One of the things that we need to do with our mechanics is make sure they're fine-tunable. One of the things you can do is sometimes you can make mechanics that in order to function have such requirements that it becomes a pinch point to design with them.

For example, one of the ones where we got in the little trouble, though it worked out, was in original Kaladesh Fabricate. So Fabricate was a mechanic where you make a creature and then you choose whether or not to put plus one plus one counters on it or to make one one. tokens. And it turned out that mechanic was a lot narrower in balance because we are trying to make cards in which you might want to put plus one on the creature or make tokens. If 100% of time you want to do plus one plus one counters or you want to make tokens, that's not ideal. Like making a mechanic we'll never do one of the two things is not ideal. And one of the challenges of that particular thing is trying to line it up and balance it. Another mechanic that's falling in that trap can be proliferate.

Proliferate is hard to do in a set with a lot of plus one plus one counters. Because plus one plus one counters are very powerful, often more powerful than whatever else you're doing with proliferate. And that if you make plus one plus counters a major part of proliferate set, then you have to cost all the proliferate off the plus one plus one counters. And then the other uses of it are they tend to give you very weak. And so you'll notice that sets with proliferate counters. with the proliferate mechanic,

either don't have plus and plus one counters. For example, the original set that had as scars meridian and had minus one minus one counters. Ferexia all will be one had oil counters. And the one set that did have plus one plus one counters, which was War of the Spark, the main way to use them was a mass in which one single creature got the counters.

So, yeah, you made the mass creature one bigger, but it's not as if I spread them across all my creatures and grew my entire army bigger. I use the word army, my entire team bigger. So normally the way we do this is we have a play designer in vision design, a competitive play designer to make sure that we are making mechanics that are tweakable. And we get a lot of notes during vision of, oh, well, if you do that, we don't have the flexibility

or it would be more flexible to do this. We get a lot of notes from somebody from play design while we're building. A similar thing, and this is a little more recent, not super recent, but, is we also tend to have a casual play designer on our team. Not only do we want to make sure that the set is tunable for constructed, but also has the things we need to make it fun in casual play, especially Commander. And that one of the things about mechanics is certain mechanics can be problematic in Commander. The two biggest ways is either they're playing in Space where Commander, has trouble interacting with, like lesson learned, for example. There's no way to get cards from outside the game in Commander,

so that mechanic isn't usable. The other thing sometimes is it's very linear, and this set is introducing the things you care about, meaning here's a cool new thing, but there's just not enough cards to be able to build around it in Commander. If it's something typal, we have tools like change them, maybe that'll help you,

but there's other things in which here's a cool thing, but the volume just doesn't exist and make it usable yet in Commander. And those are things we have to pay attention to. Another thing we have to care about, reality fractures a great example of this is maybe we're doing something that will require, like maybe we are working or playing in space that could cause problems elsewhere.

And that one of the things of vision is, it's not that we have to check in in spots to make sure we're not causing problems. The example I used from reality fracture was the paired creatures. We had come up with the technology we believed worked. The idea is pulling three from a sheet so that you would get two consecutive. And so no matter where you pull from with three in a row, you get two paired creatures. That worked theoretically.

I do know had we done that 20 years ago on the technology we had 20 years ago, I believe it would have worked. But one of the things you got to check is, hey, maybe I'm making assumptions, maybe some things of how printer print has changed. I mean, you know, there's an evolution. Printing constantly changes. And so I had to go to the printing team and say,

okay, here's the idea of what we want to do. Is this feasible? Can we do this? I don't always go, like, a lot of times we're making things are just, it's a card we can print on a card. Like, they're not issues we have to worry about if it's, But another example was when we made the original Indistrade,

we made double-faced cards. Originally, we wanted to pair the double-face cards with a single-face card that fetched the double-face card. Could we do that? Turns out we couldn't do that, and we had to change the mechanic based on that. The paired creatures, we did check and found out that it was possible, we could do it, and that let us advance with it.

And once again, in vision design, it's not that we check on everything, but we need to check on things to sanity check things. For example, let's say we're doing something that we know requires a frame, a new frame. The actual working in the new frame doesn't happen. Usually the set design, but we want to make sure, we want to sanity check. So I'll go talk to people who know frame design to say, here's what we're trying to do. Do you spot problems?

I know it needs a new frame, but are we asking something of the frame that maybe the frame can't do? And that's the thing that's really important to understand is there are always limitations that I know it's easy to think whatever we come up with, obviously it can be done. But often know it can't be done or sometimes. And there's actually two guys. There's it can't, you're doing something that for some reason just literally can't be done. Another good example might be we want to do a mechanic. We need to template it. We go to editing ahead of time to get sort of what we call, like a rough template, not the final

template, but just to see, like, can it fit on the card? And sometimes they'll come back and go, look, maybe we can solve this a little bit later, but right now it does not fit on the card and it doesn't fit by a little bit or it doesn't fit by a lot. And so, you know, they can sort of, like, and if it doesn't fit by enough, they can say to us, look, I mean, normally when they work on a template, they can shorten it some. So if they're a little bit over, they can work to try to maybe make it fit. But if they're significant amount over, they're like, look, we can do our tricks, but

we can reduce it by 10, 20%, we're not reducing it by 50%, you know, and that there are mechanics that I've been told, okay, we don't think this will fit on a card. Or another real common one is, we can make it fit, but you have room for nothing else, and then there's not a left design space, or you have, you have, you have a real, one line or something. Like, okay, can we make enough cards? We have one line, which means we can do like keyworded things. Like, is that enough, do we have enough design space there?

Another standard check will do with rules. Sometimes we want to do something. And rules, like I said, there is the, sorry, I started talking about something that's going on. Sometimes the answer is we can't do this. Sometimes the answer is we can do this, but is it worth? Is it worth the resources it takes to do it? Rules might say to us, okay, this is going to be a challenge.

And usually if it's a challenge for rules, it's a challenge for digital, because digital is very, very reliant on the rule system. Like, things that don't work in the rules really don't work on digital. And so if we're doing something, one of the things that might come back to us is saying, look, yes, you can do it, but this is going to eat up all the complexity, meaning in order to do this, you're going to have to accommodate in the rest of the set. Another good example is, let's say we want to do

something that adds some component to the set. We're doing double-faced cards, for example, or we have to make more pre-release boxes or, like, there's this, we're doing something that's going to, the way every set works, and I did

a whole podcast on this, we have a budget. And part of the budget is, hey, here's the normal things we normally do, and there's an extra budget for us to do things a little bit differently. And there's a lot of way to spend that extra budget. But in R&D, we have to know once we do something that uses that budget, well, then we've used that budget.

Like, if I want to make double-faced cards, that's going to probably use the budget. So now I have less budget for other things. Like, I can't do three different things that require extra budget. I mean, it depends on what they are. I guess if they're small things. But if I want to do two big things that both use the same budget, I can't. So that's another thing that we want to do early on is check in with the

with architecture of, like the set architect of, okay, here's what we're thinking. Can we do this? And that is important because sometimes, like we have a great idea, but oh, for practical reasons or it's, you know,

it eats the budget in such a way. And then another big thing is, right, it's not always no. Sometimes it's yes, but. Yes, you can do that but. And the but is, okay, that yes comes with restrictions. In order to do that, like, for example, let's say we have a complicated mechanic

that we know will cause problems for rules and digital. We might say, okay, rules and digital are signed off and doing that thing, but that means that you can't make any other problematic mechanics. So either you're doing reprints or you're doing, new things, but new thing in clean, clear space we understand. Likewise, one of the things we do for play design is whenever we do something we know it's going to be hard for play design, we don't do two

things. Like one of the problems of Icoria, that are the behemus, was we did both mutate and companions. Those are both very, very complicated mechanics and required a lot of development time or play design time because they're brand new. We've never done anything like them. And there's a lot of moving pieces and they're difficult to do. We really only can hand over one of those. That was the problem by Corey. We handed it over two.

And obviously, part of companions sort of breaking was they just ran out of time. And that's on vision. That's another resource. There's resources we have access to and we can use the resources, but then that limits what else we can do. And that's another big part of vision is, I want to create a vision and make sure,

you know, I, or whoever the vision design lead is, and we want to make sure that the thing we're asking of the people done stream of us is a doable thing. Because if we ask you to do something and it's not doable, that's a lot of work on your end. And really, the other big thing about this is magic design or game design or design, I guess, is iteration.

We want to do something. We want to learn about it. We want to prove upon. it. Every moment that set design is spent on not iterating what exists, but trying to replace things, is chewing up a lot of valuable iteration time. That if we hand something over and that thing works, they get to spend all of set design fine-tuning and making that the best that it can be. If that doesn't work, then they got to spend time replacing it, and that means there's less iterative time. And so that's another important thing is we want as much as we can, to do the advance work

so that set design gets to spend all their time making the thing that we've done as best as it can be and not spend their time trying to replace it and find the other thing. That happens and I will stress that making a magic set is very difficult

a lot of ideas that seem very cool in a vacuum when you actually go to build it don't work. You know my metaphor I always use is hey I can have the greatest floor plan in the world but when you go build your house, and all of a sudden there's sheet rock somewhere that you don't know it's there

and they're like, oh, we can't remove it. Well, guess what? We're changing the house. The bearing wall can't go here, whatever. Building the house, they have to adapt and something, you know, and I'm not going to say that nothing, like, we do want to push boundaries, we do want to try cool things. You know, from time to time things we want won't work out.

But that is why we also build in backups and we build an extra repetitive. Like, that's why you want to build a set. So if they have issues, if they have problems, you've given them solutions already and don't make them search for solutions. There are other I've talked about...

See, I talked about editing. I talked about rules. I talked about digital. Sometimes we need to go and talk with organized play. Maybe like when we first made double-face cards. What does that mean for drafting?

Here's something you can't hide the information. Is that okay? Is that going to cause a problem? And we want to walk through and figure out what that means. We also sometimes need to talk to the creative team. A classic example there might be we figure something out, but it's going to require a need of them. For example, in original Indistrade, we realized that we had this cool design where we could have all the ally colors

have a typo theme. But that required that red and green were were were wolves. Originally green were were werewolves. So we had to go back to creative and they had to adapt to that. You know, we want to make sure we check that. ahead that things we're doing aren't going to cause problems with creative down the road. Make sure we're in alignment on creative. Creative works with us.

The one thing we do creative is sometimes there's back and forth of each team asking the other team. We want to do this. Can you do that in response? And they can say yes. But anyway, guys, that part of doing vision, today's theme, is not just making something, but making something and future-proofing it, making sure that the people you're handing off to and the teams downstream of you are set up for success. That a big part of working on a multi-step project is making sure that all the later

steps in the project have the tools they need, have the vision they need, and you stand and you check the stuff you're giving them, and doing extra work to make sure that if they need the tools down the road, that you design this for them. So anyway, guys, I hope you found this interesting, but I am now at work. So we all know what that means. it's my end of my drive to work. So instead of talking magic, it's time for me to be making magic.

I'll see you all next time. Bye-bye.