Explain Magic: The Gathering

[Zappo]

You can make a deck with rares only, but this won't help much by itself. Rarity isn't directly related to power; you generally won't find a rare card that is exactly the same as another common one but better. Rather, good rare cards tend to produce specialty effects that can't be replicated otherwise, or to have just the right balance of mana cost and power to make them statistically good. Many of these are only good in the right conditions, making it your job to provide those conditions. And many, many rare cards just suck; they are rare just because they have some strange but useless effect.

That is not to say that money wins the game, though. High-level Magic is a game of skill. Back when we played, my brother would beat me literally 9 times out of 10, regardless of who used which of the decks we built, and I'm not a bad player. A couple of those decks were relatively cheap. When playing Magic, skill will beat either money or luck every time.

It's pretty expensive... but on the other hand, you're asking in this forum, so I'll tell you that 3.X was based largely on the card game. So you could look at it as a two-player 3.X game.

This is highly debatable. Note that while both games were produced by WotC, Magic's original creator has nothing to do with D&D at all and the two dev teams are known not to like each other (something that has killed the idea of a M:tG D&D setting, which would be way cool IMO - Magic has a rich background too).

 

[ARandomGod]

Huh? I respectfully disgaree.

(Re: Magic's similiarity to 3.X)

You mean you've never heard it refered to as "Magic: The Dungeoning"? That used to be such a common joke, too. Feat combo's and card combo's are somewhat similiar... and you can't disagree that

1) 3.X came out after MtG

2) WoTC made it big with MtG, then bought the TSR logo, and the "dungeons and dragons" game, then used that purchase to make a completely different game in the same genre, one they trademarked as d20 (for little reason that I can determine, that's far from the only dice used)....

The game was created/modified by WoTC, they incorporated a lot of their MtG experience into the game. They could hardly have avoided it, that was their experience in the fantasy genre. And it worked so very well.

They revivified the game, I'm not complaining there. But the MtG influence on the 3.X game is pretty evident (IMO).

Of course:

... Magic's original creator has nothing to do with D&D at all ...

Can't be completely true. After all, it's the same genre. I could support an arguement that DnD spawned the MtG game too. It definitely layed the groundwork and a lot of the concepts. Then again, authors like Tolkein helped create DnD. Magic's "creator" bought the system. Whether it be the original creator or the subsequent company and staff... they would clearly have a lot of influence over it's development.

Buying TSR was a good move, it helped to consolidate their stonghold on the genre. And you really can't argue that 3.X is NOT extremely different than TSR's version of the game. Many of the similiarities in thought and construction between MtG and 3.X are pretty evident. However...

and the two dev teams are known not to like each other (something that has killed the idea of a M:tG D&D setting, which would be way cool IMO - Magic has a rich background too).

Of course they would develope animosities. 3.X would want to pull away from the "stigma" of being created by a card game. While those same card developers were likely pushing their ideas on the RPG designers. If there were no influences there, why would they feel animosity? There's all sort of room there for 'interoffice' politics and similiar issues to crop up. However they are the same company, and will inevitably be influenced with similiar goals.

MtG the role-playing game could be a cool concept. I tried to help a friend incorporate the MtG feel into a d20 setting once. Very difficult, but fun.

 

[comareddin]

I can't resist furthering comment on this
I've also got a single color deck for every color... except white. Too booring for me. You just can't (in my opinion) build a "strong" all white deck.

You haven't seen the white weenie world champion deck of many years ago with those white knights, swords to plowshares, paladin en-vecs etc...

Com

 

[Eternalknight]

(Re: Magic's similiarity to 3.X)

You mean you've never heard it refered to as "Magic: The Dungeoning"?

I can honestly say I haven't.

That used to be such a common joke, too. Feat combo's and card combo's are somewhat similiar... and you can't disagree that

1) 3.X came out after MtG

True

2) WoTC made it big with MtG, then bought the TSR logo, and the "dungeons and dragons" game, then used that purchase to make a completely different game in the same genre, one they trademarked as d20 (for little reason that I can determine, that's far from the only dice used)....

True again. But if they are the only facts you are basing that point of view off, it's a pretty thin argument.

The game was created/modified by WoTC, they incorporated a lot of their MtG experience into the game. They could hardly have avoided it, that was their experience in the fantasy genre. And it worked so very well.

Except that I don't recall Monte Cook, Skip Williams or Jonathan Tweet ever being one of the Magic designers.

They revivified the game, I'm not complaining there. But the MtG influence on the 3.X game is pretty evident (IMO).

And your opinion is as equally valid as mine. I still disagree though

Of course:

... Magic's original creator has nothing to do with D&D at all ...

Can't be completely true. After all, it's the same genre. I could support an arguement that DnD spawned the MtG game too. It definitely layed the groundwork and a lot of the concepts. Then again, authors like Tolkein helped create DnD. Magic's "creator" bought the system. Whether it be the original creator or the subsequent company and staff... they would clearly have a lot of influence over it's development.

Excpet one thing: You have mixed up Magic's creator (Richard Garfiled) with the man who actually 'bought the system', Peter Adkison. So, Magic's creator didn't have anything to do with D&D after all.

Of course they would develope animosities. 3.X would want to pull away from the "stigma" of being created by a card game. While those same card developers were likely pushing their ideas on the RPG designers. If there were no influences there, why would they feel animosity? There's all sort of room there for 'interoffice' politics and similiar issues to crop up. However they are the same company, and will inevitably be influenced with similiar goals.

Actually, the reason they developed animosities stemmed from the fact that they wanted to a Magic setting for D&D. The Magic guys hated the idea, and didn't want their product tarnished/diluted by an RPG.

MtG the role-playing game could be a cool concept. I tried to help a friend incorporate the MtG feel into a d20 setting once. Very difficult, but fun.

This we can agree on

 

[Zappo]

No, I have't heard about "Magic: the Dungeoning"; honestly, I never heard about this derivation theory at all, except in a strictly humoristic sense or as a way of unsubstantiated mockery from 3.X bashers.

I do disagree that feats and cards are similar. The only thing they have in common is the possibility of combos, and even that is extremely limited in feats (the vast majority of them are valuable by themselves). That hardly proves derivation.

Similarly, the facts that one came after the other, or that one was bought with the money from the other, do not imply or suggest derivation in any way. The fact that, as you pointed out, both are in the same genre, is an extremely tenuous link as well.

The only thing that 3.X and MtG really have in common is the fact that they were designed in a rational, highly modular way, based on solid analysis. Obviously this results in some convergence, but I could draw parallels between, I dunno, 3.X and Windows XP by following this reasoning.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I won't reply on the 3.x vs mtg topic after this post; feel free to start another thread though.

 

[Zappo]

While we're talking about card games - check out Vampire: the Eternal Struggle. It's a second generation game, when compared to Magic; it fixes some of the (few) structural problems of the first. V:tES can be played by an arbitrary number of people, works fine without the four-card limit, and has a somewhat more intuitive turn structure. It obviously doesn't have as many players, though.

 

[kenobi65]

Just a few thoughts on ARandomGod's theories:

one they trademarked as d20 (for little reason that I can determine, that's far from the only dice used)....

Perhaps because the basic mechanic *always* uses a d20?

The game was created/modified by WoTC, they incorporated a lot of their MtG experience into the game. They could hardly have avoided it, that was their experience in the fantasy genre. And it worked so very well.

Perhaps it would be good to have a little review of WotC's history here.

WotC was originally a small RPG publisher, before Magic ever came along. Peter Adkison (WotC's founder) was a long-time D&D player. WotC's big game in the pre-MtG days (i.e., the early 1990s) was called Talislanta.

Around 1993, a mathmatician and amateur game designer named Richard Garfield approached WotC, hoping that they'd be interested in marketing a board game he'd designed. Adkison told Garfield that WotC wasn't really set up to publish board games (at that point, they were only doing books), but Adkison did think there might be a market for an easily-portable game that people could play as a "pickup" game at conventions. Garfield went away and developed Magic: the Gathering, and the rest was history.

Once Magic made WotC (and, by extension, its primary stockholder, Adkison) richer than God, Adkison was able to buy the bankrupt TSR, in order to save one of his favorite games (D&D) from the scrapheap.

They revivified the game, I'm not complaining there. But the MtG influence on the 3.X game is pretty evident (IMO).

I think that last acronym is the key. I just don't see enough connections between MtG and D&D to agree or believe that MtG had any significant influence on the development of 3E. Yeah, you can have combos of feats, but if that's the strongest evidence you have, I think it's pretty weak evidence. Were D&D really based on MtG, I think you'd see more things like:
- Spellcasters not being able to predict which spells they'd have available at any one time
- A mana-based magic system
- More emphasis on counterspelling and mage duels
- More emphasis on summoning creatures to fight for you

 

[CarlZog]

The game represents a duel between two powerful wizards....

Thanks, Caliban, for the explanation that began as quoted. I've never understood the basic premise and structure of this game, 'til now, and I have to tell you that was the clearest, most concise explanation of this game I've read.

Carl

 

[ThirdWizard]

That's also a good point.

In earlier editions, there were rare cards like "Goblin King."

He granted bonuses to every goblin you had in play. The trick is that the Goblin King was creature type "Lord." So, a Goblin King didn't grant bonuses to himself - you needed actual goblin cards (usually commons) in order to make the rare Goblin King useful.

The same trend continues.

Totally out of the blue, but did you know they've errataed (through reprint in the latest set) the Goblin King to actually be a goblin?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Really? Sweet. I'll need to resurrect my "Mon's Disposable Speedbumps" deck!