Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D

Hi! I was the brand manager for Dungeons & Dragons and the VP of Tabletop RPGs at Wizards of the Coast from 1998 to 2000. I can answer this question.

There were plans to do a Magic RPG and several iterations of such a game were developed at various times. After Wizards of the Coast bought TSR, there were discussions about making a Magic campaign setting for D&D.

After the release of 3rd edition, we had planned to do a Monstrous Compendium for Magic monsters which would have been a tentative cross-over product to see what the interest level was for such a book.

In the end, the company made the decision to keep the brands totally separate. Here's the logic.

D&D and Magic have fundamentally incompatible brand strategies. This is was once expressed as "asses, monsters & friends".

D&D is the game where you and your friends kick the asses of monsters.

Magic is the game where you kick your friends' asses with monsters.

(Pokemon, btw, was the game where the monsters, who were your friends, kicked each-other's asses.)

There was no good reason to believe that a D&D/Magic crossover book would sell demonstrably more than a comparable non crossover book. And such a book should be priced higher than a generic D&D book - in the way that Forgotten Realms books cost more than generic D&D books (that's the price premium for the brand). There's a fear in sales that the higher the price, the less volume you sell.

The brand team for Magic didn't want to dilute the very honed brand positioning for Magic as a competitive brand, and the brand team for D&D didn't want to try and make some kind of competitive game extension for D&D.

In the end, I think the company was well served by this decision. It eliminated a lot of distraction and inter-team squabbling at a time when neither team had the resources to fight those battles.

Today you might argue there's a different reason. The #1 hobby CCG doesn't want to be entangled with the problems within the D&D brand.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...-Many-Arrows-Can-An-Archer-Fire#ixzz2jgoO0Whj

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A sliver incursion in Eberron...Thayans & Thrulls...


A Goblin horde with pet lhurgoyfs...

 

[Stormonu]

A relative of mine (who knows nothing about D&D other than the name) today still believes D&D is related to satanic practices, but has no problem with his kid playing World of Warcraft.

The D&D brand has baggage from the 80s that Magic simply doesn't have.

Yes, it's stupid, but the perception is still out there.

I live in the South, where I still run into that perception. However, I don't believe its even a consideration for Wotc, as their logo is on every D&D book since the buyout. If they were concerned about being tainted, they either would have sold D&D to someone else or print it under a subsidiary so it couldn't be associated with the company.

In short, I don't buy that excuse for a minute. Heck, even magic has had several demonic cards - Lord of the Pit and Demonic Tutor, to name two. Magic may not have the association, but its no different from D&D in content.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

First, the price premium that a M:TG themed D&D book would command has nothing to do with licensing fees. It's about communicating that the name "Magic: The Gathering" means something and has value, in the same way that "Forgotten Realms" does.

But the central issue here is brand identity. Statements such as "Magic is no different from D&D in content" would make a brand manager sad. I think it's worth asking the question, "Why is WotC releasing D&D boardgames but not Magic boardgames or Magic sourcebooks for D&D?"

I used to play Magic. For a brief while I tried to role-play duels. It didn't work. Every card has flavor and story elements, but in Magic you are ripping these creatures and artifacts from whatever plane to win a duel. That's the quote-unquote narrative. The culture of Magic (the lucrative portion) is based on tournaments, drafts, competition.

When I play the Lords of Waterdeep or Castle Ravenloft boardgames, we're vying for political power or delving into a dungeon, in the same way that in the core D&D game we're battling monsters and pursuing a quest. The D&D and M:TG brand identities are very different, and I couldn't blame WotC for not wanting to dilute them. It's not just a question of whether any hypothetical crossover product would be intrinsically profitable; it matters how it affects consumers' perception of the brand. It could be as simple as not wanting to confuse newcomers who arrive at the game store, see this crossover book, and not know what the heck kind of game Magic is.

 

[GSHamster]

This thread feels like a lot of people are imagining a past where we had all of 3E + Magic D&D.

But in reality, Magic D&D would have taken resources from another project. Considering the timeline, the most likely project would have been Eberron and the whole campaign setting contest.

Would you have rather had Magic: the Gathering D&D instead of Eberron? Perhaps it would have been better, but I think it could have easily been worse. I really like Eberron, and the setting contest generated significant excitement among the player base.

The expected gain from a M:tG D&D setting is less when you consider what would have been cut to make room for it.

 

[DaveMage]

I live in the South, where I still run into that perception. However, I don't believe its even a consideration for Wotc, as their logo is on every D&D book since the buyout. If they were concerned about being tainted, they either would have sold D&D to someone else or print it under a subsidiary so it couldn't be associated with the company.

In short, I don't buy that excuse for a minute. Heck, even magic has had several demonic cards - Lord of the Pit and Demonic Tutor, to name two. Magic may not have the association, but its no different from D&D in content.

Well, like I said, the same person who has a problem with D&D has no problem with World of Warcraft. *facepalm*

The difference is that the media of today is not reporting that those who play World of Warcraft (or Magic) are also involved with satanic rituals (like they were in the 80s about D&D).

 

[Weather Report]

This thread feels like a lot of people are imagining a past where we had all of 3E + Magic D&D.

But in reality, Magic D&D would have taken resources from another project. Considering the timeline, the most likely project would have been Eberron and the whole campaign setting contest.

Would you have rather had Magic: the Gathering D&D instead of Eberron? Perhaps it would have been better, but I think it could have easily been worse. I really like Eberron, and the setting contest generated significant excitement among the player base.

The expected gain from a M:tG D&D setting is less when you consider what would have been cut to make room for it.

I would easily take some of the M:tG settings (Kamigawa) over Keith's home-brew.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

First, the price premium that a M:TG themed D&D book would command has nothing to do with licensing fees. It's about communicating that the name "Magic: The Gathering" means something and has value, in the same way that "Forgotten Realms" does.

This is an interesting point.

But the central issue here is brand identity. Statements such as "Magic is no different from D&D in content" would make a brand manager sad. I think it's worth asking the question, "Why is WotC releasing D&D boardgames but not Magic boardgames or Magic sourcebooks for D&D?"

I used to play Magic. For a brief while I tried to role-play duels. It didn't work. Every card has flavor and story elements, but in Magic you are ripping these creatures and artifacts from whatever plane to win a duel. That's the quote-unquote narrative. The culture of Magic (the lucrative portion) is based on tournaments, drafts, competition.

The theme is high fantasy (or whatever the block has brought in). The theme doesn't matter to the mechanics of the game. The game is about reducing your opponent to 0 health. The game isn't a roleplaying game.

In an RPG though, setting is one of the most important things. You want NPCs, Locations, and Story Hooks. Magic has made a ton of these which are wasted upon those who only play the competitive card game.

When I play the Lords of Waterdeep or Castle Ravenloft boardgames, we're vying for political power or delving into a dungeon, in the same way that in the core D&D game we're battling monsters and pursuing a quest. The D&D and M:TG brand identities are very different, and I couldn't blame WotC for not wanting to dilute them. It's not just a question of whether any hypothetical crossover product would be intrinsically profitable; it matters how it affects consumers' perception of the brand. It could be as simple as not wanting to confuse newcomers who arrive at the game store, see this crossover book, and not know what the heck kind of game Magic is.

Lords of Waterdeep is the perfect example here. The theme of Lords of Waterdeep could have been trucking. You are a trucking company that is looking to full orders. You send your various vans (Agents) to pick up goods about town (Waterdeep), place those goods in your warehouse (Tavern), and then ship them when you have filled the order (Quest). You can invest in new business (builder's hall) or engage in politics (the Intrigue cards).

Has your perception of the DnD Brand been hurt by Lords of Waterdeep? My perception certainly hasn't. Waterdeep is a good game with a theme I very much enjoy.

I merely suggest that allowing DnD to do the same with the Magic setting is appropriate. Dancey argues that it would have diluted the Magic brand or caused some sort of brand confusion. I think this is a paper tiger.

Would it have sold? That's a better question. Though I believe that Magic, as an IP, has so much more to offer then the mechanics of reducing an opponent to zero life.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Don't know why I'm so passionate about this subject

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Jack Chick is still active and revising his stuff, I kid you not.

Oh yeah, and he's going after Islam and Catholicism, too.

His website is banned in Singapore for promoting racial hatred (and, yes, I know the difference between race and religion but the two are tightly intertwined in Singapore so his site is banned).

 

[delericho]

First, the price premium that a M:TG themed D&D book would command has nothing to do with licensing fees. It's about communicating that the name "Magic: The Gathering" means something and has value, in the same way that "Forgotten Realms" does.

Ah, of course. I forgot for a moment that the universe is insane. (Edit: and please note - I'm not disagreeing with you, just lamenting the state of the world!)

What I mean by that is this: the name "Magic: The Gathering" has value... to WotC. To the customer, it has no value by itself - it serves only to indicate what is inside the covers. It's advertising. And in a sane universe, you don't buy the advertising, you buy the product being advertised - you don't buy Coke for the while lettering on the can, but because that white lettering tells you what is inside the can. The brand is useful to the producer, but it's really not something, by itself, that the customer should pay for.

But, of course, the universe is indeed insane - people will quite happily pay a price premium for a white t-shirt with the Nike "swoosh" on it, over an identical t-shirt without. Michael Bay gets to keep on making movies. Twitter exists. And a "Magic"/"D&D" book would have a price premium attached to it because people will pay more for the branding... even though the fear that they won't is the very argument used against making that book.