Why hasn't Magic: the Gathering been made into a Role Playing Game? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Why hasn't Magic: the Gathering been made into a Role Playing Game?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
americanlord
May 31, 2008 0:30:37 Or is it also a Role Playing Game in addition to being a card game?
#2
gamileo
May 31, 2008 1:29:11 Well there are books out there based upon the worlds of Mtg. I can see an RPG for it, heck, there is one for WOW. Probably Wotc doesn't want to saturate its own market.
#3
Kommando
May 31, 2008 2:21:30 Heh, people have been talking about this since Wizards bought TSR back in the 90s. There's probably a good reason why the IPs are kept separate, though I have no idea what that would be.
#4
adidamps2
May 31, 2008 2:56:24 4e?
#5
jrscott
May 31, 2008 3:23:33 Probably to keep the IPs seperate, in case they ever wanted to sell one off. If they mixed them it would make it more complicated.
#6
lord_karsus
May 31, 2008 17:47:54 -You'd think it'd be an obvious choice, eh?
#7
atanakar
Jun 01, 2008 7:26:10 It would probably be a mistake. Not because Magic doesn't have a rich world full of fun spells and creatures. Making Magic into a RPG setting would undermine the CCG. Why buy tons of booster packs (or singles) when you can fight the (common/uncommon/rare/legendary) creatures for 40$ when you buy a Monster Manual? And then they would have to do the minis .... Clearly that would create too much conflict between the two brands. Bad marketing can kill a company...
#8
Greyson
Jun 01, 2008 10:53:24 I think a bigger reason we don't see a M:TG role playing game is because Wizards of the Coast has and continues to move away from the multi setting model in its RPG lines. Remember, the person that play Dungeons & Dragons is being compelled to be just a mindless, docile D&D player - not Greyhawk players or Eberron players. Magic: The Gathering has a lot of "worlds" that would need to be accommodated, like Ravnica, Dominaria, Lorwyn, etc. It's a long list, and it does not easily fit into the disappearing multiverse WotC is deliberately shrinking.

And, as noted above, I don't think wotC wants to dilute the most popular CCG ever with a line of RPG products. It might only confuse newcomers and alienate established M:TG players.
#9
atanakar
Jun 01, 2008 12:08:40
Remember, the person that play Dungeons & Dragons is being compelled to be just a mindless, docile D&D player - not Greyhawk players or Eberron players.

Hum... no so shure. I have the impression that WoTC is doing a big relaunch of the game not just a new edition. Eberron and Forgotten Realms are in for new material. There is also the «Points of lights» setting mentionned in H1. That's 3 setting right there. It may be that we are only seeing the point of the iceberg.

Excerpt from the PHB (History of D&D): Now we’ve reached a new milestone. This is the 4th Edition of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. It’s new. It’s exciting. It’s bright and shiny. [B]It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play.[/b] Whether you were with the game from the beginning or just discovered it today, this new edition is your key to a world of fantasy and adventure.
#10
kelsen
Jun 01, 2008 12:33:08 The 4th edition is not bad, is jut a different genre of game.

Maybe it would be best for WotC to have both lines in production:
- the 3.5e or d20 system for mature players (as the old AD&D - Advanced Dungeons and Dragons)
-the 4th edition line, that I would not call 4th edition, but the "Strategy D&D tabletop Game", targeting the teenagers (from 14+ years old). (as the old D&D - Dungeons and Dragons).

Leaving the 3.5e behind, and adopting only the 4e concept, WotC is leaving the door open for its competitors (like Paizo´s Pathfinder) that will take the old 3.5e concept, improve it, and continue to release products for the mature RPG players. WoTC will lose market share.
#11
atanakar
Jun 01, 2008 14:17:44 WOTC is trying to merge three genres into one with 4e:

-Role play
-Miniature play
-Virtual play

For this to work they had to rewrite everything from top to bottom in such a way that everything fits together nicely and can be programmed «as is» in the virtual plateform. What appears to be a less mature game on the surface may become a model to follow if they've worked it out properly. Only time will tell...

Personally I have high hopes for virtual play of D&D. By original RPG group (1982) is now spread out across america. It would be nice to do a Monday night event every week with the old gang...
#12
mourn_dup
Jun 01, 2008 16:46:12
For this to work they had to rewrite everything from top to bottom in such a way that everything fits together nicely and can be programmed «as is» in the virtual plateform.

Well, the virtual platform does not adjudicate the game for you. It merely provides the miniatures representation combined with a dice roller and chat program. You still have to do all the rules stuff yourself.
#13
atanakar
Jun 01, 2008 17:36:24
Well, the virtual platform does not adjudicate the game for you. It merely provides the miniatures representation combined with a dice roller and chat program. You still have to do all the rules stuff yourself.

I understand. Wouldn't want a system that does everything. Its a RPG not a computergame. On the other hand it would be nice to have a minimal amount of programming input by the DM and players. For exemple when you cast a spell with a burst 5 effect will it automatically create the effected area after the player has marked the square?

Were can I find more info about this?
#14
avador
Jun 02, 2008 13:30:04 I really don't know very much about Magic period, but I do recall hearing on some other forums ages ago about a Magic RPG that was in-production and nearly finished shortly before WotC acquired TSR in 96, The entire game was then canceled. The point of the post if I'm remembering right was that one of the main authors had contacted wotc about releasing the unfinished rules online, but his request was declined.

Does anyone else know anything about this? I honestly don't even remember where or when I read about it.
#15
jrscott
Jun 03, 2008 6:43:25
I never read the MtG novels, but maybe the flavor of MtG (like mana, artifacts, summons, etc) does not transfert well in a RPG.

How do you work mana in your RPG? Again maybe the solution is in the novels.

Game mechanic wise it would be easy to duplicate in HERO system, it would be more difficult in d20 mainly because you'd have to redo how magic functions in the game mechanics.
#16
Nathreet
Jun 03, 2008 8:37:15
Leaving the 3.5e behind, and adopting only the 4e concept, WotC is leaving the door open for its competitors (like Paizo´s Pathfinder) that will take the old 3.5e concept, improve it, and continue to release products for the mature RPG players. WoTC will lose market share.

Wait Pathfinder is a serious competitor to WoTC? I read their rulebook all the way through - which for some odd reason is available for free, btw - and it was pretty lame. It was more like 3.5e with some popular yet mostly pointless houserules. Seems more like a joke than anything; just a small company or a handful of DM's saying, "Hey! Lets' make our own d&d! Wouldn't that be cool."

I like 3.5e more than the 4e I've seen from the previews so far. But if 3.5e needs to rely on private efforts to keep improving, I'd say it's pretty much doomed to 2e-hood.

If you like magic the gathering then take a look at 4e. You might see some things you like.
#17
lost_hybrid
Jun 03, 2008 11:11:28 As someone who has wondered the same thing in teeth-gnashing anguish for almost 10 years, I have formulated some theories.

They all come back to one, however:

MONEY.

Despite Wizards of the Coast purchasing TSR and thus having access to a licensable IP that has thousands upon thousands of brilliant minds chomping at the bit to help develop such a theoretical product, they have chosen not to for no reason I or anyone else I know can divine. Therefore, we must look to the most practical reason: money.

The people who make the decisions about what get funding and what doesn't in this company have probably thought about the MTGRPG as a concept (if they haven't, they should fire someone), and run the idea by their logistics and market research guys, and the answer from them was "It will not be profitable enough, boss. It is inadvisable that we move forward." And the boss went "Que sera." and tossed the idea into the Great File Bin of Lost Dreams.

If this idea is entertained, we must face the possibility that it is (unfathomably to us) true. That the market research asked MTG players if they wanted to play RPGs, and RPGers if they were interested in a MTG setting, and there were too many "No."es on both sides.

I myself am guilty of trying to convert 3.0 to be Magic-friendly, and it was utter failure. The systems do not play well together. Additionally, the sheer volume of work that would need to be done -- even limiting a campaign setting to one continent on one plane makes the task staggering. Consider the different races of elves on Dominaria alone:

Llanowar
Quirion
Skyshroud (postInvasion)
Yavimaya
Argoth (for historical games)
Wirewood
Sarpadia

This was probably a case of cost vs. effectiveness scenario. Since most of us gamerfolk are geeks with a high degree of internet fluency, especially the youngest generation (shakes fist at the whippersnappers), WOTC generally gets lightning-fast feedback on their products, and if the last few months of 3.5 are any indication, they've learned the all-important lesson of maintaining quality of work in their products. (It's a strange concept -- everyone THINKS they understand it, but only a few truly do.) And given the time and money that would have to be poured into a MTG setting, they have decided it would not be cost effective, based on those market research surveys.

Now, it's not to be said that all hope is lost. A concentrated, highly supported, deeply motivated initiative on behalf of the fans (or smiling sacks of money, as we're called in business school), demonstrating interest in a MTG setting or complete game that must be NECESSARILY SEPERATE from generic D&D will turn heads. The Internet is a powerful tool for communication, and those with a cause like this one would be foolish not to employ it. But there has to be organization and there has to be real passion. Otherwise, we will see status quo.
#18
boarstorm
Jun 03, 2008 12:05:53 You are a company that produces a fantasy roleplaying game -- arguably THE fantasy roleplaying game, in fact.

Why on EARTH would you split your own market share by creating another one? In creating a new FRPG, you pull customers away from your own product for... another of your products.

Twice the production costs, same profit = less net profit.

It's just bad business.
#19
americanlord
Jun 03, 2008 22:34:10
You are a company that produces a fantasy roleplaying game -- arguably THE fantasy roleplaying game, in fact.

Why on EARTH would you split your own market share by creating another one? In creating a new FRPG, you pull customers away from your own product for... another of your products.

Twice the production costs, same profit = less net profit.

It's just bad business.

That is a very good point.

Is that why WOTC is focusing only on Forgotten Realms and Eberron?

I really enjoy Dragon Lance and Dark Sun.

The others like Ravenloft, Mystara, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Birthright, Planescape, Spelljammer, and Alternaty could be very good too as they might cover some other aspects not covered by the two that they seem to be focusing on.
#20
bushidowarrior
Jun 07, 2008 6:20:49 There is a rpg...it's called Dungeons and Dragons.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 americanlord May 31, 2008 0:30:37	Or is it also a Role Playing Game in addition to being a card game?
#2 gamileo May 31, 2008 1:29:11	Well there are books out there based upon the worlds of Mtg. I can see an RPG for it, heck, there is one for WOW. Probably Wotc doesn't want to saturate its own market.
#3 Kommando May 31, 2008 2:21:30	Heh, people have been talking about this since Wizards bought TSR back in the 90s. There's probably a good reason why the IPs are kept separate, though I have no idea what that would be.
#4 adidamps2 May 31, 2008 2:56:24	4e?
#5 jrscott May 31, 2008 3:23:33	Probably to keep the IPs seperate, in case they ever wanted to sell one off. If they mixed them it would make it more complicated.
#6 lord_karsus May 31, 2008 17:47:54	-You'd think it'd be an obvious choice, eh?
#7 atanakar Jun 01, 2008 7:26:10	It would probably be a mistake. Not because Magic doesn't have a rich world full of fun spells and creatures. Making Magic into a RPG setting would undermine the CCG. Why buy tons of booster packs (or singles) when you can fight the (common/uncommon/rare/legendary) creatures for 40$ when you buy a Monster Manual? And then they would have to do the minis .... Clearly that would create too much conflict between the two brands. Bad marketing can kill a company...
#8 Greyson Jun 01, 2008 10:53:24	I think a bigger reason we don't see a M:TG role playing game is because Wizards of the Coast has and continues to move away from the multi setting model in its RPG lines. Remember, the person that play Dungeons & Dragons is being compelled to be just a mindless, docile D&D player - not Greyhawk players or Eberron players. Magic: The Gathering has a lot of "worlds" that would need to be accommodated, like Ravnica, Dominaria, Lorwyn, etc. It's a long list, and it does not easily fit into the disappearing multiverse WotC is deliberately shrinking. And, as noted above, I don't think wotC wants to dilute the most popular CCG ever with a line of RPG products. It might only confuse newcomers and alienate established M:TG players.
#9 atanakar Jun 01, 2008 12:08:40	Remember, the person that play Dungeons & Dragons is being compelled to be just a mindless, docile D&D player - not Greyhawk players or Eberron players. Hum... no so shure. I have the impression that WoTC is doing a big *relaunch* of the game not just a new edition. Eberron and Forgotten Realms are in for new material. There is also the «Points of lights» setting mentionned in H1. That's 3 setting right there. It may be that we are only seeing the point of the iceberg. Excerpt from the PHB (History of D&D): Now we’ve reached a new milestone. This is the 4th Edition of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. It’s new. It’s exciting. It’s bright and shiny. [B]It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade* of play.*[/b] Whether you were with the game from the beginning or just discovered it today, this new edition is your key to a world of fantasy and adventure.
#10 kelsen Jun 01, 2008 12:33:08	The 4th edition is not bad, is jut a different genre of game. Maybe it would be best for WotC to have both lines in production: - the 3.5e or d20 system for mature players (as the old AD&D - Advanced Dungeons and Dragons) -the 4th edition line, that I would not call 4th edition, but the "Strategy D&D tabletop Game", targeting the teenagers (from 14+ years old). (as the old D&D - Dungeons and Dragons). Leaving the 3.5e behind, and adopting only the 4e concept, WotC is leaving the door open for its competitors (like Paizo´s Pathfinder) that will take the old 3.5e concept, improve it, and continue to release products for the mature RPG players. WoTC will lose market share.
#11 atanakar Jun 01, 2008 14:17:44	WOTC is trying to merge three genres into one with 4e: -Role play -Miniature play -Virtual play For this to work they had to rewrite everything from top to bottom in such a way that everything fits together nicely and can be programmed «as is» in the virtual plateform. What appears to be a less mature game on the surface may become a model to follow if they've worked it out properly. Only time will tell... Personally I have high hopes for virtual play of D&D. By original RPG group (1982) is now spread out across america. It would be nice to do a Monday night event every week with the old gang...
#12 mourn_dup Jun 01, 2008 16:46:12	For this to work they had to rewrite everything from top to bottom in such a way that everything fits together nicely and can be programmed «as is» in the virtual plateform. Well, the virtual platform does not adjudicate the game for you. It merely provides the miniatures representation combined with a dice roller and chat program. You still have to do all the rules stuff yourself.
#13 atanakar Jun 01, 2008 17:36:24	Well, the virtual platform does not adjudicate the game for you. It merely provides the miniatures representation combined with a dice roller and chat program. You still have to do all the rules stuff yourself. I understand. Wouldn't want a system that does everything. Its a RPG not a computergame. On the other hand it would be nice to have a minimal amount of programming input by the DM and players. For exemple when you cast a spell with a burst 5 effect will it automatically create the effected area after the player has marked the square? Were can I find more info about this?
#14 avador Jun 02, 2008 13:30:04	I really don't know very much about Magic period, but I do recall hearing on some other forums ages ago about a Magic RPG that was in-production and nearly finished shortly before WotC acquired TSR in 96, The entire game was then canceled. The point of the post if I'm remembering right was that one of the main authors had contacted wotc about releasing the unfinished rules online, but his request was declined. Does anyone else know anything about this? I honestly don't even remember where or when I read about it.
#15 jrscott Jun 03, 2008 6:43:25	I never read the MtG novels, but maybe the flavor of MtG (like mana, artifacts, summons, etc) does not transfert well in a RPG. How do you work mana in your RPG? Again maybe the solution is in the novels. Game mechanic wise it would be easy to duplicate in HERO system, it would be more difficult in d20 mainly because you'd have to redo how magic functions in the game mechanics.
#16 Nathreet Jun 03, 2008 8:37:15	Leaving the 3.5e behind, and adopting only the 4e concept, WotC is leaving the door open for its competitors (like Paizo´s Pathfinder) that will take the old 3.5e concept, improve it, and continue to release products for the mature RPG players. WoTC will lose market share. Wait Pathfinder is a serious competitor to WoTC? I read their rulebook all the way through - which for some odd reason is available for free, btw - and it was pretty lame. It was more like 3.5e with some popular yet mostly pointless houserules. Seems more like a joke than anything; just a small company or a handful of DM's saying, "Hey! Lets' make our own d&d! Wouldn't that be cool." I like 3.5e more than the 4e I've seen from the previews so far. But if 3.5e needs to rely on private efforts to keep improving, I'd say it's pretty much doomed to 2e-hood. If you like magic the gathering then take a look at 4e. You might see some things you like.
#17 lost_hybrid Jun 03, 2008 11:11:28	As someone who has wondered the same thing in teeth-gnashing anguish for almost 10 years, I have formulated some theories. They all come back to one, however: MONEY. Despite Wizards of the Coast purchasing TSR and thus having access to a licensable IP that has thousands upon thousands of brilliant minds chomping at the bit to help develop such a theoretical product, they have chosen not to for no reason I or anyone else I know can divine. Therefore, we must look to the most practical reason: money. The people who make the decisions about what get funding and what doesn't in this company have probably thought about the MTGRPG as a concept (if they haven't, they should fire someone), and run the idea by their logistics and market research guys, and the answer from them was "It will not be profitable enough, boss. It is inadvisable that we move forward." And the boss went "Que sera." and tossed the idea into the Great File Bin of Lost Dreams. If this idea is entertained, we must face the possibility that it is (unfathomably to us) true. That the market research asked MTG players if they wanted to play RPGs, and RPGers if they were interested in a MTG setting, and there were too many "No."es on both sides. I myself am guilty of trying to convert 3.0 to be Magic-friendly, and it was utter failure. The systems do not play well together. Additionally, the sheer volume of work that would need to be done -- even limiting a campaign setting to one continent on one plane makes the task staggering. Consider the different races of elves on Dominaria alone: Llanowar Quirion Skyshroud (postInvasion) Yavimaya Argoth (for historical games) Wirewood Sarpadia This was probably a case of cost vs. effectiveness scenario. Since most of us gamerfolk are geeks with a high degree of internet fluency, especially the youngest generation (shakes fist at the whippersnappers), WOTC generally gets lightning-fast feedback on their products, and if the last few months of 3.5 are any indication, they've learned the all-important lesson of maintaining quality of work in their products. (It's a strange concept -- everyone THINKS they understand it, but only a few truly do.) And given the time and money that would have to be poured into a MTG setting, they have decided it would not be cost effective, based on those market research surveys. Now, it's not to be said that all hope is lost. A concentrated, highly supported, deeply motivated initiative on behalf of the fans (or smiling sacks of money, as we're called in business school), demonstrating interest in a MTG setting or complete game that must be NECESSARILY SEPERATE from generic D&D will turn heads. The Internet is a powerful tool for communication, and those with a cause like this one would be foolish not to employ it. But there has to be organization and there has to be real passion. Otherwise, we will see status quo.
#18 boarstorm Jun 03, 2008 12:05:53	You are a company that produces a fantasy roleplaying game -- arguably THE fantasy roleplaying game, in fact. Why on EARTH would you split your own market share by creating another one? In creating a new FRPG, you pull customers away from your own product for... another of your products. Twice the production costs, same profit = less net profit. It's just bad business.
#19 americanlord Jun 03, 2008 22:34:10	You are a company that produces a fantasy roleplaying game -- arguably THE fantasy roleplaying game, in fact. Why on EARTH would you split your own market share by creating another one? In creating a new FRPG, you pull customers away from your own product for... another of your products. Twice the production costs, same profit = less net profit. It's just bad business. That is a very good point. Is that why WOTC is focusing only on Forgotten Realms and Eberron? I really enjoy Dragon Lance and Dark Sun. The others like Ravenloft, Mystara, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Birthright, Planescape, Spelljammer, and Alternaty could be very good too as they might cover some other aspects not covered by the two that they seem to be focusing on.
#20 bushidowarrior Jun 07, 2008 6:20:49	There is a rpg...it's called Dungeons and Dragons.