What were the design goals of 2nd edition?

[Spatula]

Was this MTG innovation?

From what I've seen, yes. It certainly didn't come from GW. I don't know what WH & WH40k look like now, but at the time that Magic was standardizing its language to avoid confusion (IIRC with the white-bordered "universal" cards vs the black-borded beta cards), GW rules were very vague, ill-defined, and prone to table arguments if you and your opponent didn't see eye to eye.

I never even realized what a helpful innovation it was (despite having played Space Marines/40k Epic for some time and gotten into many heated arguments with my best friend over how to interpret the cheesy eldar rules) until I saw it. We were playing MTG with the black-borderered cards with a stranger, and he adamantly refused to believe what we thought was a plain-english interpretation of one of the cards (I forget which, but we were correct ). A month or two later, the white-bordered set came out with rules that left no room for argument, and I had a lightbulb moment.

 

[Reynard]

Even in earlier editions, though, theives were the only characters whom were provided rules for doing such things. AFAIK, there weren't any actual rules for non-thieves doing things like climbing and hiding. If you wanted to determine what chance a non-thief had of climbing something, hiding from somebody, etc — you had to make it up yourself.

I can't speak for OD&D, as I have never played it or run it, but AD&D certainly did have rules for these things.

 

[pneumatik]

Was this MTG innovation? What about Games Workshop WH40k 2nd ed and perhaps other competitive games that could be played in tournaments one versus one.

I think original point was that MtG forced WotC to get good at creating balanced rules. When WotC bought TSR, the same mindset went to work balancing DnD.

 

[xechnao]

Well according to wikipedia MtG was introduced in 1993. WH40k 2nd ed came out a year before and I remember it was the edition with the idea of building balanced armies to fight against each other. Of course it was not complete but army codexes did follow. There were also two subscription only magazine lines (not White Dwarf) where rule clarifications were discussed.
According to wikipedia other games such as blood bowl are even older. I am not aware about historical facts of wargames such as de bellis and if they used the building of balanced forces drawing from army lists but I could imagine there could have been something like that.

The difference with magic is that these games use miniatures and have more parametres to take into consideration. But the idea of a face to face confrontation by being able to build and use ballanced "forces" against each other in a strategic or tactical way that takes place in turns it is not a MtG innovation I would say. The fact though that MtG and Warhammer became so popular (and that D&D was acquired by Wotc) guided the next step of the evolution of D&D.

 

[Spatula]

Well according to wikipedia MtG was introduced in 1993. WH40k 2nd ed came out a year before and I remember it was the edition with the idea of building balanced armies to fight against each other. Of course it was not complete but army codexes did follow. There were also two subscription only magazine lines (not White Dwarf) where rule clarifications were discussed.
According to wikipedia other games such as blood bowl are even older. I am not aware about historical facts of wargames such as de bellis and if they used the building of balanced forces drawing from army lists but I could imagine there could have been something like that.

? Having point values for wargame units wasn't invented by GW, and predates 1992 in their games. The actual rules language was very casually written in GW products and open to a lot of interpretations (and thus arguments), in application and in interaction with other rules. MTG's contribution was standarized language that was very clear in how it worked. I'm pretty sure this is what CapnZapp was referring to:

MTG improved at a breakneck pace simply because the players demanded it. This was to be an invaluable lesson in structuring, wording and thinking about rules and rules interactions.

 

[xechnao]

? Having point values for wargame units wasn't invented by GW, and predates 1992 in their games. The actual rules language was very casually written in GW products and open to a lot of interpretations (and thus arguments), in application and in interaction with other rules. MTG's contribution was standarized language that was very clear in how it worked. I'm pretty sure this is what CapnZapp was referring to:

Ahh, I see your point. Yes, you are very right I think- at least from what we know.

 

[Erik Mona]

Yes, oh yes. And, it didn't help when you were writing adventures that you were hanging out with said cheeseweasels. Because then your adventures killed everyone else.

Well.... yeah.

My adventures are _still_ pretty deadly, though!

 

[Erik Mona]

? Having point values for wargame units wasn't invented by GW, and predates 1992 in their games. The actual rules language was very casually written in GW products and open to a lot of interpretations (and thus arguments), in application and in interaction with other rules. MTG's contribution was standarized language that was very clear in how it worked. I'm pretty sure this is what CapnZapp was referring to:

More importantly, Games Workshop did not publish Dungeons & Dragons, and Wizards of the Coast did. Design trends at Wizards of the Coast are far more germane to the discussion of the presentation of D&D than are trends from a miniatures country on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[Reynard]

More importantly, Games Workshop did not publish Dungeons & Dragons, and Wizards of the Coast did. Design trends at Wizards of the Coast are far more germane to the discussion of the presentation of D&D than are trends from a miniatures country on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

As if all England had to offer was Warhammer!

Bangers and mash is good too.

 

[Baron Opal]

Well.... yeah.

My adventures are _still_ pretty deadly, though!

As were mine