log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Adventures in the Forgotten Realms MtG set Planeswalkers confirmed.


log in or register to remove this ad

Dire Bare

Legend
In the '90s, there were Star Trek / X-Men crossover comics and a novel. I confess I never managed to be much of a fan of either the X-Men or Star Trek—but if I had been a fan of either or even of both, I would have HATED those crossovers.

But I guess someone must have loved them. Maybe it was your D&D group?

I prefer there to be some uncrossable boundaries—or rather, boundaries that should be crossed only with great care, and if you can't cross them with that much care then it's best not to cross them. I loved the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics, but I don't want D&D to work that way.

And not all "inclusive" multiverses are created equal. Here's a line from that Ixalan appendix on color mana in D&D: "Color is a fundamental organizing principle of the Multiverse, closely linked with everything from physical geography to human personality." If that's not true of the Multiverse (in its entirety, no exceptions), then you're not playing in the MTG Multiverse. And if it is true of the Multiverse, then you're not playing in the D&D Multiverse.
You actually bring up a good example of a way WotC could treat D&D and MtG crossovers.

In the Star Trek / X-Men crossovers, the stories aren't canon in the Star Trek universe, nor are they canon in the X-Men universe . . . the crossover takes place in it's own mini-verse. It would be easy for WotC to treat their properties in the same way. If fans want them to crossover, they have products for that. Those that don't, can simply ignore the crossover products.

Right now, if you skip the Ravnica and Theros books . . . there is no crossover for you to worry about. From the other direction, Magic fans can skip the upcoming D&D set, if it bothers them.

A toolkit approach works well for fans also. If you hate the idea of Magic (the Gathering) in your D&D, but love elephant-people and the other crunchy Ravnica and Theros bits . . . it's easy to take what you like from the settings and ignore the rest. Heck, you can even appropriate the entire settings without the "fundamental organizing principle" of the Magic multiverse. The setting books don't mention planeswalkers, the color wheel, or other planes at all. Likewise, a Magic player can purchase singles from the upcoming D&D set and easily avoid anything "too D&D" for their tastes.
 

In the '90s, there were Star Trek / X-Men crossover comics and a novel. I confess I never managed to be much of a fan of either the X-Men or Star Trek—but if I had been a fan of either or even of both, I would have HATED those crossovers.

But I guess someone must have loved them. Maybe it was your D&D group?

I prefer there to be some uncrossable boundaries—or rather, boundaries that should be crossed only with great care, and if you can't cross them with that much care then it's best not to cross them. I loved the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics, but I don't want D&D to work that way.

And not all "inclusive" multiverses are created equal. Here's a line from that Ixalan appendix on color mana in D&D: "Color is a fundamental organizing principle of the Multiverse, closely linked with everything from physical geography to human personality." If that's not true of the Multiverse (in its entirety, no exceptions), then you're not playing in the MTG Multiverse. And if it is true of the Multiverse, then you're not playing in the D&D Multiverse.

You really haven't given us a reason why you think it will hurt D&D and MtG setting beyond NPCs run amok which can already happen.

And a better comparsion would be a cross over between Star Trek and Andromeda and Earth Final Conflicit as they are closer together, then the Marvel Universe (btw I support a crossover between these universes born from the mind of Gene Roddenberry, but not the Marvel Universe).
 

jeremypowell

Adventurer
Yep. In the last 10 years I've done the occasional pre-release or draft and that's all I've spent on Magic. I'm going to be buying 2 boxes of this set, which will probably meet or exceed that 10 year total. Depending on the set, I may buy a 3rd box. I plan on doing the same with the Lord of the Rings set they announced.

For all that I love mixing D&D and Lord of the Rings into Magic the Gathering, I don't want Magic the Gathering mixed into my D&D. I'm not sure why I feel so strongly in different directions on the mixing, but I do.
I'm in the same boat. In fact, I was on the fence about buying any of the Adventures in the Forgotten Realms MTG cards, because as much as I like the basic mechanisms of MTG, as much as I love the art, and as much as I adore the idea of having another fun little kitchen-table card game with Forgotten Realms characters, I really, really don't like the lore of MTG or—especially—its business model.

It was when they announced the Lord of the Rings license that I decided I wanted to pick up some AFR. Because as much as I want a fun little kitchen-table card game with Forgotten Realms characters, I really want a fun little kitchen-table card game with Forgotten Realms characters facing off against Lord of the Rings characters.

But I would never, ever play in an RPG where Elminster and Gandalf both exist, nor in one where Jace exists (regardless of who else does or doesn't coexist alongside him).
You really haven't given us a reason why you think it will hurt D&D and MtG setting beyond NPCs run amok which can already happen.

And a better comparsion would be a cross over between Star Trek and Andromeda and Earth Final Conflicit as they are closer together, then the Marvel Universe (btw I support a crossover between these universes born from the mind of Gene Roddenberry, but not the Marvel Universe).
I don’t think NPCs run amok is the problem, and it wasn’t me who mentioned that. I brought up Star Trek and the X-men in response to the notion that the D&D multiverse, being an “inclusive multiverse,” should include every other imaginable universe, a notion I understand and respect but respectfully disagree with and don’t want used as a justification for cramming MTG lore (which I deeply dislike) sideways into the Forgotten Realms (which I love).

I have given reasons for thinking this move could damage the lore of both IP’s, which I’ll restate here. The foremost one is that the two sets of lore entail fundamentally different suppositions on the nature of their multiverses. Others have said that they don’t think those suppositions are irreconcilable (I disagree), or that they don’t think lore matters (I disagree), or that they specifically don’t think metaphysical suppositions matter (strong disagree), or that it’s inevitable so we might as well enjoy it (this one is a little more persuasive to me, but I still hope it’s not inevitable).

Of course merging MTG and D&D lore wouldn’t preclude my running a game in the “old” multiverse. And I do take the point that metaplot—or canon in general—isn’t WotC’s focus anymore. But saying I haven’t given any reasons (whatever you think of those reasons) for thinking this is a bad move is inaccurate. The MTG multiverse is all about color mana and planeswalker sparks. There are no planes of existence that aren’t about that. In MTG lore you can’t go from Dominaria or wherever to the Nine Hells or wherever. It’s just not a possibility that exists. If they merge the lore, suddenly it will—as will a whole slew of other worlds where there is no color mana or spark, etc. (or at least, where there had better not be).

Indeed, while I’m invested in the D&D multiverse and not at all in MTG, arguably this is much more damaging to MTG lore than vice versa; the two fictions may be in similar genres but they present very different metaphysics, and MTG’s is much simpler and more unitary (or more “high concept,” or whatever).

You may say the metaphysics don’t matter to you, or to most players, etc.; but they do matter to me as a DM and player of D&D, and as a longtime fan and follower of the canon.

I don’t expect everyone here to agree with me that this change would damage the coherence of the lore (though there are several other internet fora where what I’m saying appears to be the most common sentiment rather than an outlier, as here) but surely it’s not that difficult to understand the perspective I’m putting forward?

I said a while back that I thought I had said enough about this, but apparently not. Now I think I’m done.
 
Last edited:

I'm in the same boat. In fact, I was on the fence about buying any of the Adventures in the Forgotten Realms MTG cards, because as much as I like the basic mechanisms of MTG, as much as I love the art, and as much as I adore the idea of having another fun little kitchen-table card game with Forgotten Realms characters, I really, really don't like the lore of MTG or—especially—its business model.

It was when they announced the Lord of the Rings license that I decided I wanted to pick up some AFR. Because as much as I want a fun little kitchen-table card game with Forgotten Realms characters, I really want fun little kitchen-table card game with Forgotten Realms characters facing off against Lord of the Rings characters.

But I would never, ever play in an RPG where Elminster and Gandalf both exist, nor in one where Jace exists (regardless of who else does or doesn't coexist alongside him).

I don’t think NPCs run amok is the problem, and it wasn’t me who mentioned that. I brought up Star Trek and the X-men in response to the notion that the D&D multiverse, being an “inclusive multiverse,” should include every other imaginable universe, a notion I understand and respect but respectfully disagree with and don’t want used as a justification for cramming MTG lore (which I deeply dislike) sideways into the Forgotten Realms (which I love).

I have given reasons for thinking this move could damage the lore of both IP’s, which I’ll restate here. The foremost one is that the two sets of lore entail fundamentally different suppositions on the nature of their multiverses. Others have said that they don’t think those suppositions are irreconcilable (I disagree), or that they don’t think lore matters (I disagree), or that they specifically don’t think metaphysical suppositions matter (strong disagree), or that it’s inevitable so we might as well enjoy it (this one is a little more persuasive to me, but I still hope it’s not inevitable).

Of course merging MTG and D&D lore wouldn’t preclude my running a game in the “old” multiverse. And I do take the point that metaplot—or canon in general—I sn’t WotC’s focus anymore. But saying I haven’t given any reasons (whatever you think of those reasons) for thinking this is a bad move is inaccurate. The MTG multiverse is all about color mana and planeswalker sparks. There are no planes of existence that aren’t about that. In MTG lore you can’t go from Dominaria or wherever to the Nine Hells or wherever. It’s just not a possibility that exists. If they merge the lore, suddenly it will—as will a whole slew of other worlds where there is no color mana or spark, etc. (or at least, where there had better not be).

Indeed, while I’m invested in the D&D multiverse and not at all in MTG, arguably this is much more damaging to MTG lore than vice versa; the two fictions may be in similar genres but they present very different metaphysics, and MTG’s is much simpler and more unitary (or more “high concept,” or whatever).

You may say the metaphysics don’t matter to you, or to most players, etc.; but they do matter to me as a DM and player of D&D, and as a longtime fan and follower of the canon.

I don’t expect everyone here to agree with me that this change would damage the coherence of the lore (though there are several other internet fora where what I’m saying appears to be the most common sentiment rather than an outlier, as here) but surely it’s not that difficult to understand the perspective I’m putting forward?

I said a while back that I thought I had said enough about this, but apparently not. Now I think I’m done.

Okay now I get where your coming from, you think D&D Colour Pie and D&D lore is like oil and water. It really comes down to how the merge occurs if this is a problem.

As for damaging MtG lore, that already happened with the Mending, merging the settings would allow/give them the excuse to fix glaring issues with MtG cosmology.

In a merged setting the MtG worlds/planes would still be shaped by the colour pie.

The real question is what form should the merger take and what should the goals and epectations for such a merger be?
 


MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Divine Magic = White, Shadow Magic = Black, Psion Magic = Blue, Elemental Magic = Red, Primal Magic = Green, Arcane = Colourless.
Not really with Arcane magic, every class has a unique approach to magic. For example, wizards are definitely blue (shairs could be green?), Sorcerers are mostly red (dragon and chaos), some are green (elementalists), some are blue/white(cosmic), and warlocks are either black (infernal) or green (fey), bards are definitely red. On the whole arcane is gold colored, but each class has its own colors.
 

Not really with Arcane magic, every class has a unique approach to magic. For example, wizards are definitely blue (shairs could be green?), Sorcerers are mostly red (dragon and chaos), some are green (elementalists), some are blue/white(cosmic), and warlocks are either black (infernal) or green (fey), bards are definitely red. On the whole arcane is gold colored, but each class has its own colors.

Hence why I linked it to colourless, its not primary in any colour.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Not really with Arcane magic, every class has a unique approach to magic. For example, wizards are definitely blue (shairs could be green?), Sorcerers are mostly red (dragon and chaos), some are green (elementalists), some are blue/white(cosmic), and warlocks are either black (infernal) or green (fey), bards are definitely red. On the whole arcane is gold colored, but each class has its own colors.
I think that’s the thrust of the argument for Arcane being colorless - it’s kind of a nonspecific catch-all for magic that isn’t divine, primal, shadow, or psionic (“elemental” wasn’t a power source in 4e though). Characters who use it run the gamut of colors.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
You may say the metaphysics don’t matter to you, or to most players, etc.; but they do matter to me as a DM and player of D&D, and as a longtime fan and follower of the canon.
Now, metaphysics do matter to me, in real world terms. But because I know enough about metaphysics, it's hard to take D&D or Magic metaphysics seriously, particularly if they get in the way of a fun time.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Hence why I linked it to colourless, its not primary in any colour.
No magical source is primary in any one color. Commune would be blue. Control Water would be blue. Flamestrike would be red. Contagion would be black. For arcane Fireball is red. Light would be white. Mirror Image would be blue. Divine, arcane and even psionic power would have all colors, depending on what the focus of the spell/ability is.

The classes would have colors based on their focus. A cleric of Cyric would be black. A Cleric of Oghma would be blue. A cleric of Tyr would be white. A cleric of Chauntea would be green. Necromancers black. Diviners blue. And so on.
 

No magical source is primary in any one color. Commune would be blue. Control Water would be blue. Flamestrike would be red. Contagion would be black. For arcane Fireball is red. Light would be white. Mirror Image would be blue. Divine, arcane and even psionic power would have all colors, depending on what the focus of the spell/ability is.

The classes would have colors based on their focus. A cleric of Cyric would be black. A Cleric of Oghma would be blue. A cleric of Tyr would be white. A cleric of Chauntea would be green. Necromancers black. Diviners blue. And so on.

Its a general concept.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I think that’s the thrust of the argument for Arcane being colorless - it’s kind of a nonspecific catch-all for magic that isn’t divine, primal, shadow, or psionic (“elemental” wasn’t a power source in 4e though). Characters who use it run the gamut of colors.
I think that it being so much catch-all prevents it from having a meaningful coding to a color. What is more, colorless has a higher meaning of lack of intentional lack of alegiance or even of being an aberration to nature and what we know. The far realm is colorless, and that is scary.
 



Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I think that it being so much catch-all prevents it from having a meaningful coding to a color. What is more, colorless has a higher meaning of lack of intentional lack of alegiance or even of being an aberration to nature and what we know. The far realm is colorless, and that is scary.
Well, yes, colorless-specific costs have the meaning of being an aberration to nature, or to be more precise, they’re associated with Kozilek. But colorless as in mana of no specific color has no such connotations.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
Lolth looks to be getting a card.

1621527786036.png
 



Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top