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

 

[Tovec]

That would probably have been its best niche, but I doubt WotC would have wanted to dilute things further with yet another game to compete for consumer dollars within their own shop. And that means they'd have to have licensed out Magic intellectual property - and I don't see them doing that.

I don't really see that as true either.

As a brand, if it were true they would have no reason to create either d20 modern or star wars d20 (at least SAGA). Don't those dilute the brand too? As long as the MtG setting is consist with what monsters it needs as the regular DnD settings I don't see this as a valid argument. Especially since they already own magic and don't need to rent it out like they would star wars.

Were they losing money .. to themselves and having to fight to compete.. with themselves for consumer dollars with star wars as well? I don't really think so, those who like the classic DnD rules bought them and those who liked star wars would pick up the saga book. I'm assuming magic would have something related to that, its own systems and subsystems.

Step 1, release setting book to test the waters. Step 2, release material to turn DnD classic rules (or replace those rules) with something more like the summoning and powers in line with MtG. Step 3, profit.

 

[Stormonu]

I really don't buy the reasoning other than an over-protective attitude of not wanting D&D to "mess" with Magic's success. Heck, D&D did a Diablo crossover, I can't see that a Magic crossover product or two would have hurt.

Of course, I would never have bought it. I loathe MtG.

 

[Kinak]

Look around the internet and you'll already see people all over the place building custom campaign settings around Zendikar, Ravnica, Innistrad, and Mirrodin as these were some of the most evocative and "D&D-able" settings ever. I've personally run an entire campaign set in Innistrad.

Yeah, I'd cheerfully take any of the four you listed. Well, I'd probably do Ravenloft instead of Innistrad, but I'd also add several eras of Dominaria to the list.

Heck, even Fallen Empires could make a great "stand against the rising tide of darkness" game. Weatherlight stuff aside, the settings tend to be wide enough to tell multiple stories, but aren't crammed with the details in dozens of supplements.

Hmm. They're actually sort of built for a Planescape/Spelljammer World of the Week game: simple hooks, with a couple of obvious things going on, clear factions, and a few secrets to dig up if you decide to spend the time.

Heck, Pathfinder is almost a straight ripoff of Ravnica with its guilds and what not.

Could you unpack this? As a fan of both Pathfinder and Ravnica, I can't even guess what you're saying the parallels are.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[DaveMage]

I really don't buy the reasoning other than an over-protective attitude of not wanting D&D to "mess" with Magic's success. Heck, D&D did a Diablo crossover, I can't see that a Magic crossover product or two would have hurt.

Of course, I would never have bought it. I loathe MtG.

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.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

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.(snip)

My mum is the same. She still thinks that about D&D... while my niece/her granddaughter plays Skyrim in front of her.

 

[Morrus]

A relative of mine (who knows nothing about D&D other than the name) today still believes D&D is related to satanic practices,

Really? Man, is it 1980 again?

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

This is exactly the brand dilution that Dancey was talking about, and it's a very real problem. Even if Magic was just a campaign setting, elements would bleed together. The closer two pieces of IP are to each other, the harder it would be to keep them separate.

The fear was Magic co-opting the DnD brand. Dragons would be Shivan Dragons instead of Red Dragons. Elves would all be from the Llanowar tribe. Merfolk as a standard race, etc. Those fears, as I said, were obviously unfounded.

Magic has a rich setting and history. It has numerous interesting planes: Mirrodin, Phyrexia, Kamigawa, Dominaria. It has a rich history, especially on Dominaria. It has interesting characters: Urza, Nicol Bolas, Yawgmoth, Karn. It has unique mechanics that should be introduced into the rules of any setting: Color for Alignment and Mana for Spells and Special Abilities.

It's also one of the reasons why they projected that sales of the crossover would be low: fans of both sides would eat it up, but others would completely shun it. The backlash from the crossover might even hurt sales of other books.

This is operating from a position of fear. If the product is good, people will embrace it.

IMNSHO, the only way that Magic could have been successful as an RPG is if it was a completely separate d20 product, like Warcraft.

This is what I'd like to have seen from WotC. I think the setting would use two major rules modifications from the 3.X core to capture the feel of Magic.

Color: Use the five colors for alignment instead of the Good-Evil Law-Chaos axis. The Color Pie provides an excellent alternative alignment system and allows you to build upon one of the major tropes of Magic. Instead of Protection from Good / Chaos, you'd have Protection from Blue or Red.

Mana: Mana must play a role for every class. It must power spells, special abilities, and artifacts. Wizards and Fighters should both need and want mana to power their abilities.

If you can nail those to things, most of the setting work is already done for you. The base setting would be Dominaria pre-Weatherlight Saga. The art is all their (presumably WotC owns all the Magic Artwork). Assuming any level of success, I'd introduce more Planes as time goes by (either as source books or in Dragon). I'd support the game by releasing adventures (either stand alone or paths) in Dungeon (my goal would be a Magic adventure in every other issue or about six a year).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Really? Man, is it 1980 again?

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

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

 

[Zaran]

There is absolutely no way that a MtG Monster Manual wouldn't sell.

 

[SkidAce]

There is absolutely no way that a MtG Monster Manual wouldn't sell.

+1 for cosmic truth.