Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 2705560" data-attributes="member: 633">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>