Travis
WOTC already owns an excellent fantasy setting from magic the gathering, and I would love to see 4ed D&D setting in WOTC's other award winning and highly imaginative universe. ...ok, you can all start throwing heavy objects at me now.
Can someone help me with this boulder? :P
I get what you're saying, it does make a certain practical sense and might very well bring many new players to the game. That said I hate the idea completely.
No MTG in DnD. Ever. No matter what.
I have no good reason for this point of view. No reasoned or intelligent arguments to make. But I will not and cannot be moved from this stance. And I doubt I would be the only one to feel this way if WotC did something like this.
... Again, it's not that you don't have a point. :D
No MTG in DnD. Ever. No matter what.
I feel you bootmobile. What about...if Wizards made a stand-alone Dominaria RPG as a standalone d20 System game without using the D&D brand? It would stand in relation to 4E D&D like the Wheel of Time RPG stood in relation to 3E D&D. How does this feel?
Travis
Anyway, we were Fallen Empires fans from way back, and it was more nostalgia than anything, but it was a lot of fun.
D&D wizards are level based and although they can shatter the earth it takes a very different form. The world's (back when I played Magic) had very little in terms of civilization, unity, or peace. And although that sounds kind fun (like points of light) a state of near all out war from every race and faction seems like it would become tiresome if the only civilized land is Benalia and they are a true power of light and good.
I'm most worried that if WotC goes from magic to D&D they would try the exact opposite and a Greyhawk M:tG game makes my purist skin crawl.
I feel you bootmobile. What about...if Wizards made a stand-alone Dominaria RPG as a standalone d20 System game without using the D&D brand? It would stand in relation to 4E D&D like the Wheel of Time RPG stood in relation to 3E D&D. How does this feel?
Travis
If they want to build a d20 rpg based on MtG I am cool with that. I think it would satisfy MtG fans better than shoehorning MtG flavour into DnD rules anyway. As a previous poster mentioned a MtG rpg would have to have a very different magic system than DnD. And a separate game would still draw new fans to rpgs.
Can someone help me with this boulder? :P
I get what you're saying, it does make a certain practical sense and might very well bring many new players to the game. That said I hate the idea completely.
No MTG in DnD. Ever. No matter what.
I have no good reason for this point of view. No reasoned or intelligent arguments to make. But I will not and cannot be moved from this stance. And I doubt I would be the only one to feel this way if WotC did something like this.
... Again, it's not that you don't have a point. :D
My sentiments exactly. Magic is cool and all, but it and DnD, should remain forever separate from each other.
My sentiments exactly. Magic is cool and all, but it and DnD, should remain forever separate from each other.
I really don't see why all the fluff generated for the Magic players can't be put to use in D&D. Some of it is very good.
WotC might publish a small, 15-20 dollars, ~150 pages book every time an expansion block comes to an end with all the pertinent setting info and important NPCs.
It can be fan-made, of course, but it's a moving target - by the time I manage to gather and organize all the information, there's a new block with new shiny stuff waiting in the sideline.
Bye.
So, Dominaria? I'm in. After all, for what I can remember and I read on Wikipedia, it is a fairly developped setting (although it fares better at the “grand chronology” department than at the “well-described local places where adventures could really work”).
That would extend the userbase even further and would surely help mutual promotion (the trading card game Spellfire never worked, but MtG does for more than a decade).
Let me troll that if you want a real RPG (you know a ROLEplaying game), you don't play DnD anyway. Troll over.
Two multiverses:
Dominia - (Dominaria is but one plane in the multiverse of Dominia) obvious bridges with MtG, fast-paced, videogame-like. Big money, main setting, focus on action, its is a Game.
Great Wheel - Primary plan (FR/Greyhawk/Eberron/whatever and Spelljammer too) and Planescape. Detailled settings and intrigues, they can update a setting per year, since they all are of secondary importance now (the primary importance being the Great Wheel as a whole). Primarily intented for those stoopid adults with nostalgia about Role.
Just my two gold coins.
I know Magic players who sold their decks and bought D&D books and never went back to MTG.
If they made a Magic based D&D world, they would lose some(a minority as far as I can tell) MTG players for sure. They may get more D&D players though..
:evillaugh
No MTG in DnD. Ever. No matter what.
I have no good reason for this point of view. No reasoned or intelligent arguments to make. But I will not and cannot be moved from this stance. And I doubt I would be the only one to feel this way if WotC did something like this.
... Again, it's not that you don't have a point. :D
Uhm, InQuest magazine did a whole M:tg to AD&D conversion back in 1998, so its already happened.
Producing a Dominaria campaign guide is a win/win situation, I know many M:tg players who would love to play in Dominaria. On top of this, its a campaign book, so no one will feel obliged to buy if it they don't want to.
Hey, Greyhawk to be honest was made as a semi-JOKE at first. I means, things like Gygaxified names, joke characters, etc...
It's not like it's a worse joke.
what would be next, collectible settings material?
buy a booster of pages and trade them with your friends to get the next adventure set in Dominaria.
The setting itself doesnt seem to be anything special though.
Havard
I never liked MtG, but the cards were beautiful and many portrayed really interesting creatures. I wouldnt mind if some of those appeared in future Monster Manuals.
The setting itself doesnt seem to be anything special though.
Havard
I'm with Havard. I could take or leave Dominaria as a campaign setting, but a monster manual of all its wonderful creatures would be cool.
I'm with Havard. I could take or leave Dominaria as a campaign setting, but a monster manual of all its wonderful creatures would be cool.
OOOOOOOH!
i want the Miracola Monster Manual!
maybe instead of ooh i should have said mmm.
maybe even the Myrfors Monster Manual.
deep shadow elves.....
like D&D needs more of those stupid MAgic players and their attitudes in it.
Bravo for the maturity.
I used to play Magic. It was fun, and it is not a communauty more or less stupid rpers by example. (For the record, I dropped because I was a LOUSY player, so I got bored one day.)
Just my
Why not Dominaria?
Because Ravnica would make a FAR better D&D setting. It completely and utterly destroys Dominaria on the RPG scale.
WOTC already owns an excellent fantasy setting from magic the gathering, and I would love to see 4ed D&D setting in WOTC's other award winning and highly imaginative universe. ...ok, you can all start throwing heavy objects at me now.
Sorry, I don't like Magic: The Gathering in my Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, and I don't like my Dungeons & Dragons in their M:tG trading card game.
A detailed well balanced "Summoner" class to go with those monsters might be interesting, then that would also be cool. But thats as much magic is I would ever care to see in my D&D.
My group once played a Fallen Empires campaign for 4 or 5 quests. We even statted out many of the FE cards into D&D stats. There was a surprising amount of story info just from the flavor text to get us going.
That's actually an interesting idea. Fashioning a campaign using MtG cards. I still have all my FE cards.
Or maybe designing an campaign world based on a set or two? Not Dominaria in total, just using it more for inspiration. hmmmm
I'd give it a look at least....
Hey, Greyhawk to be honest was made as a semi-JOKE at first. I means, things like Gygaxified names, joke characters, etc...
It's not like it's a worse joke.
What are you basing that on? I still have my old Greyhawk boxed set and it doesn't read that way to me. I agree that some of the modules are silly (Castle Greyhawk anyone?
) but the setting as a whole isn't silly.What are you basing that on? I still have my old Greyhawk boxed set and it doesn't read that way to me. I agree that some of the modules are silly (Castle Greyhawk anyone?
I think he's talking about the propensity to add an O to the start of a lot of words that begins with vowels, because they're on Oerth and that sort of thing. I don't have Greyhawk stuff myself, so I can't come up with more examples than that and the Alice in Wonderland level, but that's my guess. Actually I think Dominaria would likely be more intolerably goofy than Greyhawk, with cutesy-poo monsters with anagram names mixed in with the interesting ones, in addition to not really having any story to back it up, just a random collection of cards.
1) All spells, talents, and feats should be tied to a discipline (or color) from the card game. Positive energy effects are white, negative energy effects are black, nature effects are green, invocation effects are red, etc.
Players should have to choose a color affiliation (single or mixed) during character creation. Rules for later changing/mixing color affiliation will have to be included. A character's color affiliation will determine what feats, spells, and talents he/she can select.
2) Include the organizartions from Ravnica. The Orzhov, the Dmir, the Golgari, etc.
What are you basing that on? I still have my old Greyhawk boxed set and it doesn't read that way to me. I agree that some of the modules are silly (Castle Greyhawk anyone?
A lot of the names are anagrams of real names. Some of them blatant.
A lot of the names are anagrams of real names. Some of them blatant.
They're in-jokes, not semi-jokes. May sound cheesy but then it was back in 1974. And the last time they used something cool -- like "hobbits" -- they got a nice legal letter from Tolkien Estate demanding they stopped using it in their D&D products.
And Ravnica should definately be soon after.
As for the other settings, (Kamigawa, Mirrodin, Lorwyn, etc.) each new setting based expansion should be released with a short sourcebook featuring those new creatures and a basic overview of the world. Nothing too big, tho. Something that'll appeal to RPGers and Magic players alike.
Popular settings could be revisited in the future with their very own fleshed out Campaign Setting book.
I mean, WotC is already paying M:TG creative teams to come up with this stuff, why not hand it off to D&D development when their done?
I personally like the idea of world hopping like in Planescape and feel that any semi-fleshed out setting can't be a bad thing to get my hands on.
I mean, WotC is already paying M:TG creative teams to come up with this stuff, why not hand it off to D&D development when their done?
Because the R&D folks are too busy with three RPG lines.
I personally like the idea of world hopping like in Planescape and feel that any semi-fleshed out setting can't be a bad thing to get my hands on.
Not a fan of Planescape or any setting that relies on "bridge-crossing" (from FR to GH, for example).
Not a fan of Planescape or any setting that relies on "bridge-crossing" (from FR to GH, for example).
Yeah, I would never cross these regularly anyhow. Settings that big and fleshed out and established deserve respect enough to leave them as separate stand alone settings.
And they may be too busy and it may not be a finacially viable plan to make MTG/D&D crossover supplements right now or ever. I don't work there so I don't know. But if they made them I would surely buy them.
If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. And it existing should have no negative effect on your own D&D game.
(Really, I am surprised there hasn't been a WarHammer or WarHammer 40K D20 setting yet, but Games Workshop tends to be hardheaded, stubborn and stupid about a lot of marketing ideas.)
If EverQuest, WarCraft, and Legend of the Five Rings can all be made into D20 settings, I see no reason whatsoever that Magic the Gathering can't be made into its own D20 setting as well.
EverQuest and World of WarCraft are videogame-based franchise making a crossover to pen-n-paper RPG by third-party publisher, not WotC.
L5R is a franchise with an already-established RPG. WotC made a terrible mistake of including L5R in the new OA. And even more terrible mistake of selling the IP (initially acquired through Ryan Dancey's FRPG company) to AEG. Now they can't collect royalties.
And as I posted earlier, WotC is already maintaining three RPG lines with so few people on their payroll.
1. Release individual CS books for some of the more popular blocks (Urza's Saga, Kamigawa, Ravnica).
2. Release a book focusing more on the "Planeswalkers" aspect ("world hopping", like theonlyjett suggested). Or maybe world breaking. Dominaria would be one of the major world-planes, o'course.
3. Give us a book with the tools to convert the sets ourselves, with some general standards to give it some sort of regularity between groups... Dunno how well that would work, but it'd give us a bit more options (and since pretty much everyone likes a set that other people can't stand, it'd make more people happy. Homelands campaign, anyone?) ;)
As for "the magic system being different". Well, it doesn't have to be... If I remember correctly, Planeswalkers are the only "wizards" (not all Walkers are casters) that drain the land of its energy. They're not your average PC, since they have what amounts to a divine spark. You play the role of a Planeswalker when you play Mtg.
The wizard-characters on the cards are, for the most part, your typical D&D wizards, with maybe an "elemental" focus. It depends on how you want it to work, though.
I say go for it, Wotc!
I say go for it, Wotc!
I say hire someone outside of the company, who have absolutely no (zero, nada, zilch) idea what Dominaria is all about.
:evillaugh
It would be interesting to see. Dominaria has quite a full history...
Where is this history? I've never heard any significant history; all I thought there was as far as history goes was a very minimal bit in the names and flavor text of some of the cards, but nothing really resembling any actual geography, politics, story, etc... just names of monsters and characters and an occasional quote or sentence fragment about some event.
2. Release a book focusing more on the "Planeswalkers" aspect ("world hopping", like theonlyjett suggested). Or maybe world breaking. Dominaria would be one of the major world-planes, o'course.
...
As for "the magic system being different". Well, it doesn't have to be... If I remember correctly, Planeswalkers are the only "wizards" (not all Walkers are casters) that drain the land of its energy. They're not your average PC, since they have what amounts to a divine spark. You play the role of a Planeswalker when you play Mtg.
The wizard-characters on the cards are, for the most part, your typical D&D wizards, with maybe an "elemental" focus. It depends on how you want it to work, though.
As far as the planeswalkers go, I thought that they were pretty much off-screen and so virtually non-existent in whatever hint of a story Magic had; they definitely wouldn't really be mentioned on the cards, since the conceit of the game is that the players are planeswalkers. If they aren't on the cards, it seems to me that they don't actually show up in the on-screen part of the game. If this is the case, it seems like there's no reason to not just cut the idea of planeswalkers from any RPG attempt.
Maybe there's a lot more story here than I've had reason to gather, but I haven't seen much of one anywhere. If I am and there is, I was wondering where are the stories of the game written down?
Where is this history? I've never heard any significant history; all I thought there was as far as history goes was a very minimal bit in the names and flavor text of some of the cards, but nothing really resembling any actual geography, politics, story, etc... just names of monsters and characters and an occasional quote or sentence fragment about some event.
Every set comes out with novels. And these are just the main characters which hardly ever make up even 10% of the whole set. Dominaria has a rather large history, both in story terms and in terms of having been fleshed out significantly over the years.
As far as the planeswalkers go, I thought that they were pretty much off-screen and so virtually non-existent in whatever hint of a story Magic had; they definitely wouldn't really be mentioned on the cards, since the conceit of the game is that the players are planeswalkers. If they aren't on the cards, it seems to me that they don't actually show up in the on-screen part of the game. If this is the case, it seems like there's no reason to not just cut the idea of planeswalkers from any RPG attempt.
They are cards. They are both cards and the player. The cards just represent planeswalkers who are less powerful than the player and become allies with the player during the course of the game. I would probably agree to not worry about them for the RPG setting, however. But I believe all that Grandpa_Gort was saying was that you really don't have to use some hodge-podged five color mana system to make the creatures and spells and whatever faithful.
Maybe there's a lot more story here than I've had reason to gather, but I haven't seen much of one anywhere. If I am and there is, I was wondering where are the stories of the game written down?
Much of the setting is already concieved and stories written during the design stage of the set. Is there geography for every setting? Most likely not. But I do seem to recall that they have made a map for Dominaria, which is supposedly quite a bit larger than earth. As for every other setting, I don't need a whole fleshed out world exactly, just stats for new creatures, and maybe some flavorful add-ons like turning a couple MTG card spells into D&D spells where appropriate or a new feat or two (like for the bushido mechaninc) and stuff like that. I don't feel that the book made for each set has to really be any bigger than 20 or 30 pages and it's not like they have to come up with any new art.
To be fair, I don't have to have a complete setting with maps detailing every town and cave on the planet or anything like that. I just like the raw ideas and the being able to use MTG creatures and ideas in already existing games. So I'm not really arguing for a complete campaign setting for each MTG world. It could be done with Dominaria, but I honestly don't really see it happening. Ravnica would be a great setting to revisit and make into a full setting, also.
I say hire someone outside of the company, who have absolutely no (zero, nada, zilch) idea what Dominaria is all about.
:evillaugh
You looking for a job? :P
Where is this history?
Well, like theonlyjett mentioned, many of the sets have novels that help flesh out the backstory. But even some older sets have enough flavor text for one to design a setting. dadocollin posted that he ran a Fallen Empires campaign (nice one, by the way!), and I think all he had to go on was flavor text.
Here's a list of just place-names of Dominaria... you can see, there's enough material for a good start. And there are more worlds they could develop, like Kamigawa. People have been clamoring for a Kamigawa setting for years...
As for the Planeswalkers, it varies. Most of them are off-screen, found only in flavor text and card names. There are many Walkers that are recurring characters, like Urza and Serra, who are integral to the plot of many sets. The latest set introduced Planeswalker cards, like this badass Druid.
Personally I'd keep the Planeswalkers in, as they have a lot of game plot potential. They war against other god-like beings, and against actual gods. A PC could *concievably* defeat one and steal their "spark"; or a Walker could surrender the spark voluntarily; or a PC could merely be born able to walk the planes, a latent gift to be discovered.
You'd just have to figure out how to make "Planeswalker" mean something more than "High-level Wizard/Cleric"... Well, at least it'd eliminate your Gate-abuse problem!
But I believe all that Grandpa_Gort was saying was that you really don't have to use some hodge-podged five color mana system to make the creatures and spells and whatever faithful.
You're right, that's what I meant. Guess I didn't express it well, sorry. Its up to the developers how they want to do the mana-magic thing.
I'm merely casting my vote that this would be a worthwhile venture for Wotc.
Ravnica would be a great setting to revisit and make into a full setting, also.
You're damn right it would. :D
You looking for a job? :P
No experience necessary? No English degree? Low verbal SAT score? Prefers reading Penthouse Letters over A Song of Ice and Fire series?
Sure!
EverQuest and World of WarCraft are videogame-based franchise making a crossover to pen-n-paper RPG by third-party publisher, not WotC.
........
And as I posted earlier, WotC is already maintaining three RPG lines with so few people on their payroll.
So to make a setting where everything in the Magic Cards over the years exists in some form, all they have to do is hire a couple D&D fanatics who like it, a couple Magic fanatics who love the fluff and give someone from each current division to overlook the material created as editors (putting the person who makes the fluff for Magic in the first place in charge) and you have your division. Maybe 7-8 people and then turn the stuff over to the playtesters.
If it is profitable for a third party to take the D20 liscense and create books based on another setting, it would be profitable for WotC to make a small division to work on a setting they already own.
Furthermore, it would encourage Magic players to learn D&D and D&D players to play Magic.
It is a win for them on every level. And if you particularly dislike the Magic setting, you don't have to buy the books.
So to make a setting where everything in the Magic Cards over the years exists in some form, all they have to do is hire a couple D&D fanatics who like it, a couple Magic fanatics who love the fluff and give someone from each current division to overlook the material created as editors (putting the person who makes the fluff for Magic in the first place in charge) and you have your division. Maybe 7-8 people and then turn the stuff over to the playtesters.
I think if they made a complete campaign setting for Dominaria, then they would just do it as one of the "settings per year" and not hire anybody else to do it.
As far as when new MTG expansions come out, I don't think they'ld have to hire anyone for this, either. The fluff is written already. All they need to do extra is edit some of the fluff for the book, write some crunch, layout the booklet with art they already have, and minimal playtesting as well. We do know that these people like to play games and playtesting would be done on personal as well as company time, even if they didn't have to take it home, so I really don't see that being a big issue. I bet there's more than one WotC employee who would love to head up this project in addition to whatever else he's doing.
Somebody's probably going to give me a hard time for this part. I think the biggest additional cost would be publishing and distributing. I would rather have a book of it in my hands, but they could put these adaptions online as part of Insider. I would probably pay just for this. Well, at least on the months that they came out.
Of course, I'm not expecting a complete setting for every expansion, either. Nor should there be one. Mirrodin for instance would be a boring place to campaign I think. But some of the creatures there could be fun to play with in your own home setting.
So to sum up, minimal additional cost to labor and potentialy minimal cost of distributing.
Furthermore, it would encourage Magic players to learn D&D and D&D players to play Magic.
It is a win for them on every level.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Of course, I'm not expecting a complete setting for every expansion, either. Nor should there be one. Mirrodin for instance would be a boring place to campaign I think. But some of the creatures there could be fun to play with in your own home setting.
Well, the only thing here is that I don't think it would do well to have a different campaign setting for every setting they have had so far.
Instead, they should go back to the beginning with their creatures and such and simply do each different 'world' that Magic the Gathering has visited enveloped into a single campaign setting where the characters can travel from world to world. In the monsters book they could note which world each of the monsters is from.
Perhaps a more important question might be exactly what the PCs are going to be playing in the setting and how to integrate the concept of there being these very powerful world-shaping wizards battling over the land which are the roles one takes when playing Magic the Gathering.
I don't think it would make for a very good RPG if the PCs are the creature-summoning, armageddon causing wizards one plays in the card game. Instead I think the PCs would have to start off as basic people in the worlds who may or may not be at odds with these powerful 30th level wizards that reign throughout the worlds.
So which creatures in the Magic the Gathering worlds would make for solid beginning level PCs?
I don't think it would make for a very good RPG if the PCs are the creature-summoning, armageddon causing wizards one plays in the card game. Instead I think the PCs would have to start off as basic people in the worlds who may or may not be at odds with these powerful 30th level wizards that reign throughout the worlds.
So which creatures in the Magic the Gathering worlds would make for solid beginning level PCs?
Hehe, I agree, bad idea to have all PCs start as epic characters.
The races from Kamigawa (Fox-folk, Snake-folk, etc) would be a lot of fun.
I think all of the 3.5 PHB races live in Dominaria besides gnomes (the only gnome cards I remember are constructs. But I could be wrong). Centaurs, minotaurs, goblins, and kobolds could easily work (depending on how 4th Edition handles the level adjustments). So the easy way out would be to just use those...
No experience necessary? No English degree? Low verbal SAT score? Prefers reading Penthouse Letters over A Song of Ice and Fire series?
Sure!
Hehe. I think I'd rather read me some George R. R. Martin, but to each their own.
So which creatures in the Magic the Gathering worlds would make for solid beginning level PCs?
Aven (birdfolk)
Cat Warrior (um... duh)
Leonin (lionfolk)
Centaur
Cephalid (squidfolk/octopusfolk)
Dryad
Dwarf
Elemental (Flamekin)
Elf
Human (generic)
Humans of Mirrodin
Auriok
Neurok
Moriok
Vulshok
Sylvok
Metathran
Kithkin
Kitsune (foxfolk)
Loxodon (elephantfolk)
Merfolk (generic)
Otarian Merfolk
Rootwater Merfolk
Saprazzan Merfolk
Vodalian Merfolk
Merrow (also a type of merfolk)
Nantuko (insectfolk)
Nezumi-bito (ratfolk)
Orochi (snakefolk)
Soratami
Vedalken
Viashino (reptilefolk, really look like raptors, only smarter)
I still may have missed a few.
Perhaps a more important question might be exactly what the PCs are going to be playing in the setting and how to integrate the concept of there being these very powerful world-shaping wizards battling over the land which are the roles one takes when playing Magic the Gathering.
Planeswalkers are not really all powerful like they used to be. The "spark" they have just gives them the ability to screw with space so they can jump between worlds and summon creatures as well. It's unclear to me if it makes them stronger with other magic or not. This means that you could just have a Planeswalker prestige class which counts as caster levels. They would get summoning and teleporting spell-like abilities spread out over 10 levels in place of other class abilities.
The world-shattering planeswalkers of old are gone now in favor of the younger bunch of far less powerful walkers. Though, at lvl 30, you are still getting up there.
Instead, they should go back to the beginning with their creatures and such and simply do each different 'world' that Magic the Gathering has visited enveloped into a single campaign setting where the characters can travel from world to world.
This would be a great idea as far as the whole of it being one setting. I would still want to get new D&D material released simultaneously with each Magic expansion.
Hehe. I think I'd rather read me some George R. R. Martin, but to each their own.
Meh. The incest part was pretty lame and tame compared to Penthouse Letters.
If EverQuest, WarCraft, and Legend of the Five Rings can all be made into D20 settings, I see no reason whatsoever that Magic the Gathering can't be made into its own D20 setting as well.
If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. And it existing should have no negative effect on your own D&D game.
(Really, I am surprised there hasn't been a WarHammer or WarHammer 40K D20 setting yet, but Games Workshop tends to be hardheaded, stubborn and stupid about a lot of marketing ideas.)
It's funny that you say that ;)
Not everyone should jump on the d20 bandwagon because of the OGL. As much as a few of us gamers would desire it, it's up to individual IP owners to determine if it is profitable to do so.you can check out the new planeswalker info from here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/planeswalkers/week1
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/planeswalkers/week4
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/planeswalkers/week5
seems to me like a suspicious change in the background fluff of a pretty core aspect of MtG... I think they're gearing up for it.
I'm still unclear if the spark gives them other magic abilities. It is stated, however, that there is a link between the spark and natural magical abilities.
This whole idea is pretty sweet. I would hope that WotC if they were going to do something like this or not soon. This is the sort of thing that fans might want to do if they don't want to.
seems to me like a suspicious change in the background fluff of a pretty core aspect of MtG... I think they're gearing up for it.
I think you're right!
To me, this quote from your first link says it all (bolding mine):
...the link between the spark and natural talent in magic remains, as does the potential to walk the planes. Planeswalkers now age normally, however, and although their spells protect them from far more harm than a normal being could endure, they can be wounded, and they can die. Planeswalkers must eat, drink, breathe, and sleep. They cannot inherently change shape at will, and they must draw mana from the land like any mage...
Sounds like a PC to me, heh. ;)
Should we take this change as a good omen for a 4th Edition campaign setting?
WOTC already owns an excellent fantasy setting from magic the gathering, and I would love to see 4ed D&D setting in WOTC's other award winning and highly imaginative universe. ...ok, you can all start throwing heavy objects at me now.
Never understood the appeal of the game (or had the money to get into it), and I lost a lot of gamer friends for years because that's all they did, but throwing aside my own dislike of the Magic the Gathering 'phenomena,' I'd be all in favor of seeing a game world based on the setting.
The 'wizards' of the setting would see to rely fairly heavily on summoning spells, and there would have to be some development of the non-wizards of the setting (since the card game doesn't really deal with them as anything other than expendable minions that are summoned and discarded), but the lore of the world is rich and varied, and game supplements write themselves, really. Core books would detail the basic races, classes and spells / monsters from the first card series. The next supplement, Arabian Knights (or whatever, I don't remember that far back), could detail the new spells, creatures and magic items available in the 'new lands,' and so forth.
Back when MtG first came out, the idea was bandied around a lot, but never seemed to go anywhere. Instead WotC focused on the Everway game, which, as I understand it, didn't exactly sell like hotcakes.
Instead, I believe the core concept here is that the settings that were developed in the process of Magic: the Gathering development aren't half bad and would make good settings to roleplay in. Instead of being an almighty wizard/Planeswalker, you'd be one of the poor saps wandering around on the face of the world in Benalia or maybe Keld. If your characters are really lucky, they'll never meet a Planeswalker. Especially not that Urza guy...
Dominaria, in my opinion, is too polluted by the MtG game to serve naturally as a setting. You could use it and it would work, but you'd see common problems arising. For instance, due to the nature of the MtG game, Green is psychotically dominant in an area like Llanowar, while Red is just as dominant in Skirk Ridge and black is just as dominant in Urborg. These 'single-color' areas cover vast stretches of land and are, for the most part, uniform in theme thoughout the whole area. Every red area is going to have goblins and every black area is going to have zombies ect ect.
Dominaria is workable as a setting in my opinion, but too much of the setting would end up feeling forced. The card game has spent too much time with the world.
Earlier in the thread, I suggested Ravnica but I didn't discuss why I feel it would be superior to the other MtG settings in terms of making it into a roleplaying setting. There are a couple reasons in my opinon:
[1] It is different. Dominaria at its heart is a fairly generic fantasy world. It has elves and goblins and humans and ect ect. It has some significant factors to differentiate its cosmology from most fantasy worlds, but I don't think it truly separates from the pack. Ravnica, on the other hand, has built-in features that would immediately separate it from other fantasy worlds. It's a city and nothing else...there's NO major wilderness areas anywhere. It's like Cityscape on steroids. That alone is enough to make it look absolutely nothing like Tolkein's works. The Guildpact only serves to complete the process.
[2] It is multicolor. While it might be weird to describe Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms as multicolor or monochrome, it has a lot of meaning when referring to a MtG setting. Vast stretches of the world aren't white or black or blue in flavor. The fact that the guilds are all combinations of two of MtG's colors helps to subdue the sense that the MtG colors ever existed in Ravnica. It's only my opinion, but a monocolor setting element feels forced in my opinion. Few to none of Ravnica's major story elements are monocolor and they feel much more natural.
[3] Less has happened in the world. I'm not personally familiar with the Ravnica novels, but while most MtG blocks tell a plot or story of some kind in the cards themselves, there was relatively little of this in the Ravnica block. Each of the expansions was primarily focused on introducing the 3-4 new guilds for that expansion. This leaves you with a world that is ripe with tension and conflict waiting to be unleashed upon the world, but nothing has happened yet. (It may be necessary to ignore the novels to gain this advantage)
Ravnica does have some problems as a campaign world, and I think the project of making it into a roleplaying setting would be better done if some of the canon could be ignored. The set designers allowed elements from other MtG planes to leak into Ravnica, making it a crossroads world moderately like Sigil, but I'd personally find Viashino and Vedalken intrusions obnoxious in the context of a roleplaying game. On the other hand, if I stopped planar travel, I wouldn't be able to use Phyrexians......
Yeah, Dominaria is too cluttered for my tastes, and I understand what you mean by the sorta forced monocolor flavor in each area.
But I think, if they were going to make Magic into a campaign setting, that Dominaria would have to be detailed in the core book as it would have to have the most written about it to cover everything going on in it. I'm assuming that all of Magic would be a setting together.
Release the Domina Campaign Setting which details the central world of Dominaria as well as any important races, classes, and monsters not already in the PHB and MM(of which, I don't think there's that many in Dominaria itself, tho, maybe I just don't remember anything that stands out right now). Then there only needs to be suplement books of the various realms.
Ravnica would be next as it's own plane book. Maybe call it Ravnica: City Plane of Domina.
Put Mirrodin, Phyrexia, and Rath (which technically doesn't exist by itself anymore) together in a book titled Artifacts of Domina, thematically centered on artifacts and artifact creatures.
Kamigawa, Lorwyn, and Wildfire in Spirits and Elementals of Domina, focused on spirits, elementals, dijnn, and efreets. Arguement could be made to give Kamigawa and Lorwyn their own books instead, but I going on the assumption that they are not really going to add too much not already in these settings and thought that, thematically, they would fit together. If they added a lot of new information to these planes, then do each of them separately and throw Wildfire into the next book.
There are several other older realms to cover, but most of them should be covered in the same book titled Planes of Domina which could get into the cosmology aspect but is really mostly a monster book. They are really just subplanes in relation to the other main planes. Most of them really don't have much in the way of roleplaying opportunities unless you are playing a world hopping campaign.
Ok, so that's 5 or 6 decent sized books just to cover what's already out.
After that, I want to see at the very least, one more book per year to cover the expansion released that year. You could probably skip that, too if the setting for that year goes back to a previous plane like Time Spiral. Also, some books for these settings could be pretty small, unless they try to keep in mind to make all these planes RP friendly.
I don't know, this whole post is just wishful thinking and me brainstorming.
Ravnica's always been my favorite world (with Kamigawa and a time-battered Dominaria coming second). I have at least one of every card and the three novels themselves. Gamewise, in the long run I found out that it's not really that difficult to run a Magic-based world. My players easily found it fun to play members of the nine--no, ten--guilds in Ravnica, with each of the nine "known" guilds representing a D&D alignment:
LG - Boros
NG - Selesnya
CG - Izzet
LN - Azorius
N - Simic
CN - Gruul
LE - Orzhov
NE - Golgari and Dimir (the secret guild)
CE - Rakdos
Memberships in the guilds are based on rules I created which were borrowed from the "Affiliation" scores found in the Player's Handbook II.
The creatures, artifacts, and small scale places of MtG have been a staple of my campaigns for the past several years. (the ‘Squirrel Father’ had a guest appearance just last week and the Minotaurs in my campaign strongly resemble the character from the Weatherlight)
WotC has had such an aggressive publishing history, frankly I am surprised that WotC haven't cashed in on this. They wouldn't have to commission new art (just pay the artist to use the pieces on the cards). I think the mono mana lands that were mentioned earlier could even be gotten around simply. 'theonlyjett' has the right idea. The only thing I can think off is some how they are restricted by licensing… but that doesn’t make much sense.
But to the converting M:TG from card to DnD
Most of the races are in the core anyway (IE. Kithkin = Halfling), the few that are not can be moved over easy. Nezumi are a classic race and not much work has to be done there. And that stands true for most of races used in M:TG.
For the most part when they list a class on a card it is a class in DnD. There are a few like Spellshaper that can likely be Paragon Paths. Plus there are a few like Druid, Monk, etc that will need to come out in the PHB 2/3 but that is just a matter of time.
The only real worry about classes is wizards. For the most part only one thing needs to be worked on and that is summoning.
The best mix of fluff and crunch I can think off is Wizards power their spells off tapping into mana/lay lines for power, They can do this in two ways. First they can tap into the lines around them (make a spellcraft check to find a line while casting the spell to find the line and power your spell) so that they are never without mana (tho some times can be limited by kind of mana). And later they can tap into lay lines they have marked, using an arcane mark they can be linked to a mana line (Lands >.>) so that they can tap into it anywhere. But their mark can be erased by higher powered wizards so you have to leave a defense of your mark or have legal "Mana" rights to it.
Then for spells you have Instants (At will), Sorceries (Per encounter), Enchantments (per day), at least for the most part. The big one, summoning is tossed in with the mix based on what kind of summoning you want to do. Weaker monsters are "at will" (random goblins and such, mostly they show up for a round or two then go away) where things like powerful artifacts will be per day (like Armageddon Clock dealing more damage to people in the area each turn). With the Revisionist fluff summoning random stuff works well as you are not summoning the thing it's self just a
I don't think they would have to pay the artist's again either. I'm pretty sure when they buy the piece, they own all rights to it. It's just less complication for reprinting cards. Plus, I know that sometimes they end up with extra unused art that they sometimes try to place with cards later, as well.
You’re probably right. I didn’t give it much thought. I would think some of the more successful artists might have clauses for their art to be used in different venues (i.e. anything other than cards or promotional material). But then again I’m not a commercial artist… SO I’m just talking outta my…… well you know.