Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6212240" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>I just want to say I agree with the prevailing opinion here.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, that one is total BS. Although it speaks to the ability of Dancey's colleagues instead of the property itself. Maybe THEY can't figure out how to make a game where the players aren't against each other out of the universe that is MtG. I'm sure if they gave it to their writers (whomever actually do the lore of the game) they could figure it out. That then leads to the designers having to figure out how to make a game with 'epic level summoners' which is a little harder. But you are absolutely right that the IP has no such boundaries.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that this would be an incentive. If the campaign books cost the consumer more, and you have a new campaign to pitch, then that seems like extra money in the pocket not LESS. Especially with one so popular as MtG. Heck, think about how well such a book would sell if it was basically just a thorough explanation of how to model the MtG uni/multiverse into the existing rules. Depending on quality I would probably pick that up even if there were few actual rules in it - kind of like how I picked up 3e's manual of the planes even though most of it was just fluff.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Diluted? MAAAYBE. More money and profits? Almost certainly. An excellent pizza place in New York might have the best food around, but McDonald's sells how many burgers a year? The chief issue would be on our side, not the company's. For customers, I would worry that the products would NOT be too diluted that the opposite would happen that they would become too tied. Take a look at the release of 4e. People at the time already called it MtG in sheeps clothing (since it had the cards), now imagine if it had the same universe and perhaps a module that allows you to use REAL cards in the game? It could have become their most successful product by alienating those who didn't MtG play before.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't see how it is a legitimate concern. By all accounts the FR writers disliked the direction 4e took the brand but they're still around and still writing books. If it becomes a real issue just put the teams in different buildings. (I'm reminded of the twix commercials running right now.) The trading card universe guys work in building A, the roleplaying game universe guys in building B. Once a month they discuss and the higher ups decide what crossovers (if any) are necessary - like what long lasting "expanded universe" type stuff exists in the "MtG Expanded Universe."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6212240, member: 95493"] I just want to say I agree with the prevailing opinion here. Yeah, that one is total BS. Although it speaks to the ability of Dancey's colleagues instead of the property itself. Maybe THEY can't figure out how to make a game where the players aren't against each other out of the universe that is MtG. I'm sure if they gave it to their writers (whomever actually do the lore of the game) they could figure it out. That then leads to the designers having to figure out how to make a game with 'epic level summoners' which is a little harder. But you are absolutely right that the IP has no such boundaries. I agree that this would be an incentive. If the campaign books cost the consumer more, and you have a new campaign to pitch, then that seems like extra money in the pocket not LESS. Especially with one so popular as MtG. Heck, think about how well such a book would sell if it was basically just a thorough explanation of how to model the MtG uni/multiverse into the existing rules. Depending on quality I would probably pick that up even if there were few actual rules in it - kind of like how I picked up 3e's manual of the planes even though most of it was just fluff. Diluted? MAAAYBE. More money and profits? Almost certainly. An excellent pizza place in New York might have the best food around, but McDonald's sells how many burgers a year? The chief issue would be on our side, not the company's. For customers, I would worry that the products would NOT be too diluted that the opposite would happen that they would become too tied. Take a look at the release of 4e. People at the time already called it MtG in sheeps clothing (since it had the cards), now imagine if it had the same universe and perhaps a module that allows you to use REAL cards in the game? It could have become their most successful product by alienating those who didn't MtG play before. I don't see how it is a legitimate concern. By all accounts the FR writers disliked the direction 4e took the brand but they're still around and still writing books. If it becomes a real issue just put the teams in different buildings. (I'm reminded of the twix commercials running right now.) The trading card universe guys work in building A, the roleplaying game universe guys in building B. Once a month they discuss and the higher ups decide what crossovers (if any) are necessary - like what long lasting "expanded universe" type stuff exists in the "MtG Expanded Universe." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D
Top