Magic as a D&D Edition Setting

[Almaz]

If our game only is going to go to 10, and we hand out bonuses relatively sparingly, there's no reason we couldn't use a d20 or a 3d6 or a 2d10 for the resolution mechanic. Which entirely depends on how much you like curves. I suggest we keep all combat rolls fairly simple because there's lots of add-ons that are going to be flying around. Rolling for accuracy but handling damage automatically with relatively flat values (possibly modded by accuracy, definitely modded by powers).

[BearsAreBrown]

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.

For anyone still interested in the reality of the question.Source.

[Username17]

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).

Wat.

Licensed products cost more than original material because they have to pay licensing fees. If they own the IP outright, it's not a licensed product. If any brand manager thought that they should charge more money for a product saying "Forgotten Realms" on it than they did for a product that said "Dungeons & Dragons" they were dangerously insane.

No wonder the Forgotten Realms books were such shitty deals. Except of course, it's not fucking true.

• Faiths and Pantheons - 224 pages hardcover, copyright 2002, suggested retail $32.95
• Book of Vile Darkness - 192 pages hardcover, copyright 2002, suggested retail $32.95

Forgotten Realms books didn't have a bizarre "branding" markup, because that would be retarded. What happened was that WotC priced most of their books within a fairly narrow range, so if your book happened to be Monsters of Faerun (96 pages softcover, color interior, suggested retail $22.95) or Song & Silence (96 pages softcover, B&W interior, suggested retail $19.95) that was obviously and always going to seem like a shittier deal in terms of book per dollar than something like the Epic Level Handbook (320 pages hardcover, color interior, suggested retail $39.95). I mean, you're getting more than three times the book for less than twice the price, and it comes with hard binding, glossy pages, and more art. Actual writing quality of those books aside, the bigger books obviously cost less as books than the smaller ones did.

But that has 100% to do with the fact that WotC had a fairly narrow price range they offered books at, and 0% to do with any mythical "brand premium" for one of the settings.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

I don't understand what the dilemma is. Add M:tG monsters to fight and M:tG spells to cast and M:tG worlds to explore with PrC's based on M:tG iconic stuff.

Nowhere does it say "it turns into PvP dueling", just let me fight some slivers and find the Black Lotus artifact.

[virgil]

I don't understand what the dilemma is. Add M:tG monsters to fight and M:tG spells to cast and M:tG worlds to explore with PrC's based on M:tG iconic stuff.

Nowhere does it say "it turns into PvP dueling", just let me fight some slivers and find the Black Lotus artifact.

This. Magic doesn't have such a strong setting/backstory that the majority would rebel if they weren't given the tools to control magic academies and entire goblin tribes in a geo-political assault against their fellow players. Yes, some would, I will not deny that. But if you use the same quality of art as the cards, import names and places from the cards, and color-code your magic (maybe make it geometer-influenced?); enough people will be happy to rake in money.

[Prak]

Well... this apparently happened shortly after they acquired TSR. So the late 90s. I really think that WotC had a lot of trouble understanding their customers in that time, and would be interested in what they determine now.

[MisterDee]

I would expect that to be "Mike Mearls is not allowed in the MtG area for fears of contagion, so forget about a crossover."

[Prak]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they were afraid of D&D staff horribly mismanaging a Magic product and poisoning the well.

Them actually saying that without a good half dozen shots in them on the other hand would be surprising.

[ishy]

Well, this is what they said in 2011:

Matt Sernett was recently on a design team for a Magic: The Gathering set. What are the chances of a crossover between M:tG and D&D (either using a D&D campaign setting as the backdrop for a Magic expansion or using a M:tG plane as a D&D campaign setting)?

Back in 1997, when Wizards of the Coast acquired TSR, we took a long look at the idea of D&D and M:tG crossovers. We even did some early concept work. Ultimately we chose not to pursue crossover products. Basically, we feel that D&D and Magic: the Gathering are two different experiences aimed at different audiences. We want to be careful not to make either game into something that it isn’t in an attempt to increase its appeal in the other category—if adding trappings of Magic to a D&D setting impinged on the “D&Dness” of that setting, or vice versa, it would just dilute what each brand does best. If our thinking on that changes or if we find an opportunity to explore a crossover, you’ll be the first to know. After us, of course.

We do trade personnel back and forth between the D&D and M:tG R&D teams, as the opportunity presents itself; there’s a lot each team can teach the other. That’s why Matt was involved in some recent Magic work, and we’ve had folks like Tom LaPille, Robert Gutschera, Ryan Miller, Mike Donais, and Mons Johnson involved in D&D projects over the years.

[codeGlaze]

ARISE CHICKEN!
CHICKEN ARISE!

So... Planeshift: Zendikar, anyone?

I'm actually very surprised to be seeing this.

[Username17]

So... Planeshift: Zendikar, anyone?

I'm actually very surprised to be seeing this.

Coming as it does just after the head of WotC got sacked and before the new chief exec takes over, my impression is that it's something that was busted out in a hurry because there was no one to tell them they couldn't do it. The fact that it's an incredibly short and hastily hashed together bit written by one person, compiled mostly from copy/pasta of out of date world guide bits, and edited by no one and not even proofread by someone even passably familiar with the last two card sets with the word "Zendikar" on them seems to lend credence to this view.

Basically you got something that was obviously written by one person in very little time and on very little notice. It is inconceivable the you wouldn't be able to find someone in WotC Headquarters who could give the ~14k word project a glance over and tell you that Sea Gate was destroyed in the last big event and isn't a center of guilds of any sort any more. The fact that no such person was involved means that it was compiled entirely in secret and without ever letting the Magic people know that they were doing it. And by "they" I really just mean "James Wyatt" because he is literally 100% of the people who actually wrote that thing.

-Username17

[codeGlaze]

So... Planeshift: Zendikar, anyone?

I'm actually very surprised to be seeing this.

Coming as it does just after the head of WotC got sacked and before the new chief exec takes over, my impression is that it's something that was busted out in a hurry because there was no one to tell them they couldn't do it. The fact that it's an incredibly short and hastily hashed together bit written by one person, compiled mostly from copy/pasta of out of date world guide bits, and edited by no one and not even proofread by someone even passably familiar with the last two card sets with the word "Zendikar" on them seems to lend credence to this view.

Basically you got something that was obviously written by one person in very little time and on very little notice. It is inconceivable the you wouldn't be able to find someone in WotC Headquarters who could give the ~14k word project a glance over and tell you that Sea Gate was destroyed in the last big event and isn't a center of guilds of any sort any more. The fact that no such person was involved means that it was compiled entirely in secret and without ever letting the Magic people know that they were doing it. And by "they" I really just mean "James Wyatt" because he is literally 100% of the people who actually wrote that thing.

-Username17

Ha, thanks Frank.

edit: Side note, someone did a really nice job with the format. It was at least pretty to look through.