NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ibrandul" data-source="post: 8278131" data-attributes="member: 6871736">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).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.</blockquote>

Verification