So why didn't WotC release a setting based on Magic the Gathering?

Hussar said:
Out of curiousity, why not? Golems and other "mechanized" monsters have been a staple of D&D since the beginning. Every edition has had lots of "robots" (and I'm using the term to mean any sort of quasi-magical construct). To me, these are a staple of the game.
It's mostly a personal preference, based on semantics. Golems to me are magical constructs, and magic keeps 'em going. Robots are purely physical constructs, and need fuel or power to run. Golems I don't mind. Robots I do, ditto for things like Eberron's warforged. I've had such things appear in my campaigns in the past, and they just never quite...fit, for lack of a better term.

Lanefan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Pramas said:
There were multiple attempts to do a Magic RPG. Two of them pre-dated WotC's acquisition of TSR and two came after. When I was hired at WotC it was to work on attempt #3. The plan was to do a stand-alone AD&D variant set in Dominaria. Jonathan Tweet was designing the rulebook, I was designing the world book, John Rateliff was handling editing duties, and Jesper Myrfors was doing the art direction. The problem with that project was that it was only happening because Peter Adkison wanted it to. Neither the Magic team nor the TSR team really wanted it to move forward. Within a couple of months of my being hired, the project was cancelled.

About a year later there was another, more limited attempt. This time the goal was to simply do a monster book filled with critters from Magic. Magic has a ton of great color art so this seemed like a fine idea. The Magic team, however, didn't like it and they kept pitching objections until they finally came up with one that stuck. With 3E in the works, they argued, surely we should wait to do this product under the new rules. Peter accepted that and the project was put on hold. After 3E released, I don't recall anyone trying to revive the idea.

Later I was involved in an attempt to do a Magic miniatures game and that died a quiet death for similar reasons.

Tell me something: Are you thrown out of the magic team once you turn 18? :lol:
 

pawsplay said:
I imagine it's because the setting for MtG isn't conducive to a conventional roleplaying game. You would have to do something Amber-like... in any case, it would take a lot of development and would never sell as well as the cards themselves.

I think you are right. Surely there is potential for some kind of RPG but it is not clear it would turn out to be a reasonable fit for D&D.

Obviously we could have "Urza's War" as a campaign setting. But that is neither really MtG nor is it necessarily compelling to either camp of existing players.
 

Lanefan said:
It's mostly a personal preference, based on semantics. Golems to me are magical constructs, and magic keeps 'em going. Robots are purely physical constructs, and need fuel or power to run. Golems I don't mind. Robots I do, ditto for things like Eberron's warforged. I've had such things appear in my campaigns in the past, and they just never quite...fit, for lack of a better term.

I'm always curious about the hate for the warforged. They are, as far as anyone can tell, created using magic, and powered by magic. They are, basically, intelligent golems with a couple quirks. I just don't see what makes them so offensively different from, well, almost anything that has been thought up for D&D before.
 

Lanefan said:
It's mostly a personal preference, based on semantics. Golems to me are magical constructs, and magic keeps 'em going. Robots are purely physical constructs, and need fuel or power to run. Golems I don't mind. Robots I do, ditto for things like Eberron's warforged. I've had such things appear in my campaigns in the past, and they just never quite...fit, for lack of a better term.

Erm... although I personally buy the 'warforged as robots' argument because they explore the same thematic territory, by your magical/mechanical definition, they're 100% 'golems.'
 

Storm Raven said:
I'm always curious about the hate for the warforged. They are, as far as anyone can tell, created using magic, and powered by magic. They are, basically, intelligent golems with a couple quirks. I just don't see what makes them so offensively different from, well, almost anything that has been thought up for D&D before.
I guess I've just been there, done that (in my old game I dreamed up a type of monster that was essentially a half-organic, half-mechanical thing with enough brains to function somewhat independently, and really hard to kill) and wasn't that thrilled with the result.

Lane-"just call me jaded"-fan
 

Lanefan said:
I guess I've just been there, done that (in my old game I dreamed up a type of monster that was essentially a half-organic, half-mechanical thing with enough brains to function somewhat independently, and really hard to kill) and wasn't that thrilled with the result.

So, your dislike of the warforged is based upon a thing you invented a while back that was completely unlike the warforged? Interesting.
 

Kae'Yoss said:
The next OA, for 4e, should be Kara-Turan again (though it might make people shy away - it would be FR material after all).
The less Rokugan and Eberrron fans putting their 2 coppers in on how to make OA more useful for them, the more useful OA shall be for Kara-Tur and OA fans.

*evil laugh* :] :] :] :]
 

BlueBlackRed said:
Because it would have turned off too many people from the game.

But then again, they released Eberron and people still play the game...

1.jpg
<-----rimshot
 


Remove ads

Top