Eugh... Being unwilling to make obscure references because they are obscure is not a good sign. Sure, you have to make sure to resonate with your larger audience, but part of the point of delving into something like European fairytales is just that: delving. You get into some weird interesting stuff pretty fast, and that's what's cool about it.
History suggest otherwise. This is not at all what happened with Kamigawa. They went pretty deep. Most casual observers just found it strange and stayed away.
They did do a better job in Amonkhet though. They also didn't go quite so deep there. I'd probably expect something more like that.
That's a valid point, thank you for it. What we've seen of Eldraine still reads as lazy to me (and in fairness, I'm "meh" on the setting on a conceptual level because I see it as played out and I don't think MtG has the capacity to make it feel fresh), but your post gives me more reason to hope they'll pull off what they're going for.
I think what you're experiencing is another acute case of Lorwynitis. It's one thing for a setting to be derivative if the content that's derived is rich or has some kind of artistic merit that warrants revisiting and re-exploring in a new medium. Old horror tropes fit the bill here because horror never stops being relevant to the human condition regardless of time or place. Fairy tales also have timeless themes in them but they mostly resonate with children, especially if they are interpreted heavily in the Disneyesque context. If they had tipped the scales of the balance towards more Arthurian themes with a smattering of little fairy tale stuff added, instead of the other way around, most likely it would have felt more substantive. But you're right that WotC can still execute the hell out of this concept.
I mean, we'll see if they can. One of the bigger criticisms of the Gatewatch (aside from the "shoved down our throats" argument) was that it felt like an obvious ripoff of The Avengers with a clunky execution so I think the standard for a smooth execution is higher when adapting things audiences have a lot of exposure to. I doubt I'm the only one out there tired of Disney adaptations (which I now this technically isn't, but given the ubiquity of the Disney versions of fairy tales, it's where much of the audience's familiarity will come from), so I think WotC has their work cut out for them.
Well, I didn't mean to imply I was feeling especially optimistic about this outcome. More along the lines that it's at least conceivably possible that Eldraine will be executed well.
So how should they execute this set's story, then?
MTG is a pop culture commodity, so we should all heavily manage our expectations accordingly. But I will say this: the inversion, subversion and playing-straight of tropes are all mere formal differences. The underlying content, the trope itself, remains essentially its tropey self. The slew of dark adaptations that have come to saturate our media as mikeyG alludes to demonstrate that while initially we find this cute and novel, it gets old. The use of tropes in narratives is well executed when they contribute to the quality of that narrative by having their content developed within it. So if a handful of tropes are just dumped on top of a narrative (or, God forbid, a heap of tropes with no overarching coherence is the entirety of the narrative), it's poor execution. They can't just be there as props, they have to help tell the story, to say something. But, it's a card game. We are unlikely to receive a deep contemplation on the meaning of life or even mildly interesting political commentary. It doesn't have to do all that to feel fresh, it just has to tell a story we haven't heard before to a significant extent. And that's a pretty low bar, I think.
So how should they execute this set's story, then?
That's a good question. Arthurian romance as a genre is a well-established hero's journey with a particular focus on courtly love, courage, loyalty, and adventure so that could be a good place to start. I've seen speculation that the set's story could be Rowan going on a quest to save Will, which is an angle with some promise. An area of overlap between Grimm's tales and Arthurian stories is that of a setting with light, love, and chivalry/innocence getting peeled back to expose real darkness. Arthurian legend has courtly intrigues, tragedy, and betrayals and most Grimm's fairy tales have dark and gruesome elements; much of the art we've seen echos those themes so it's a sure thing that we'll see those themes.
I'd probably lean into the storybook theme, maybe make Eldraine a plane where stories literally come to life based on people's belief in those stories, like a NeverEnding Story/tulpa situation. That would make the setting quite distinct from Lorwyn and Innistrad (honestly, what we've seen of Eldraine is a mixing of those two, so the comparisons are natural) and would enable a good rationalization of the on the nose fairy tale references in-world and tell a story in a way we haven't seen in MtG with the 'real' and the fantastic overlapping and denizens of the 'real' having a level of awareness of the stories given form. There's something meta about it because WotC still gets the Disney references for resonance but the characters in-world can undercut and lampshade the silliness. It even provides a built-in MacGuffin for the Kenriths to chase if the stories given form used to be more whimsical and innocent but have turned dark and dangerous for a mysterious reason.
So how should they execute this set's story, then?
MTG is a pop culture commodity, so we should all heavily manage our expectations accordingly. But I will say this: the inversion, subversion and playing-straight of tropes are all mere formal differences. The underlying content, the trope itself, remains essentially its tropey self. The slew of dark adaptations that have come to saturate our media as mikeyG alludes to demonstrate that while initially we find this cute and novel, it gets old. The use of tropes in narratives is well executed when they contribute to the quality of that narrative by having their content developed within it. So if a handful of tropes are just dumped on top of a narrative (or, God forbid, a heap of tropes with no overarching coherence is the entirety of the narrative), it's poor execution. They can't just be there as props, they have to help tell the story, to say something. But, it's a card game. We are unlikely to receive a deep contemplation on the meaning of life or even mildly interesting political commentary. It doesn't have to do all that to feel fresh, it just has to tell a story we haven't heard before to a significant extent. And that's a pretty low bar, I think.
I'm not interested in "meaning of life" contemplations and especially not political commentary, anyway. I just want to play a fun card game. And the story doesn't have to be anything new for that to happen because quite honestly it can't be anything new. We've explored a lot of the story possibilities out there. And when your whole set revolves around tropes people recognize, story tropes in particular, it's inevitable that the canon story is going to be predictable. It's supposed to be, otherwise it doesn't feel faithful to the source material. Cinderella and the other Princesses are going to have happy endings (though I do worry for the Mermaid, since her story didn't originally have a happy ending). The Frog will be turned back into a prince, the Gingerbread Man is probably going to get eaten by a Fox, 2/3 of the Three Little Pigs' houses are going to get blown down by a Big Bad Wolf who will presumably also try to eat a girl in a red hood. The destination is predictable, it's the journey that's interesting.
What I care about is personality. MtG has always been good about exploring tropes through the lens of its personality, which is centered around the color pie. Innistrad and Theros exemplified this when they showed how various creature types fit into different colors, and when they gave us mechanics that summed up their overall feel. Amonkhet also succeeded in this, for the most part (though I resented Bolas' presence overtaking the Egyptian atmosphere). I expect Eldraine will be the same; a host of recognizable tropes in card form, complimented with a handful of mechanics that convey the set's general feel. We have the storybook mechanic, which I honestly expect will be some kind of "Ever after" effect that changes the game state from then on, like an enchantment. Sort of a reward for playing through the card's story.
I can also see some manner of trickster mechanic, as tricksters are common in fairy tales, sometimes serving karmic justice, other times preying on innocence or naivete. Could be something like spell swapping or even a shapeshifting mechanic, swapping one creature out for another (kinda like Ninjutsu, but not focused on combat). For the Arthurian side, besides royalty matters I could see something to do with Knights as they play a big role in Arthurian myth. Could be something like Battle Cry or Exalted, something combat-focused. Many of the tales focus on one particular Knight, so Exalted would make sense there. Or it could be some kind of glory mechanic, where if the creature attacked that turn you can get some kind of reward. Renowned is another possibility, as I'd say the Knights of the Round Table were all renowned to some extent.
And finally I'd love to see pairing return. Friendship and romance are common themes of fairy tales, and pairing represents them well. Take note I'm not talking about Soulbond necessarily as pairing is a creature interaction independent of soulbond. Pairing itself could literally be the mechanic, like spells that say "Pair two target unpaired creatures you control. Then paired creatures you control get [effect]."
The gameplay is where Magic's real story plays out. Tropes are tools, after all, and Magic thrives on letting us play with tropes. The most fun stories aren't the ones the team writes but the ones we experience through playing the game. That's why I look forward to the gameplay each set offers moreso than the story.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
So how should they execute this set's story, then?
MTG is a pop culture commodity, so we should all heavily manage our expectations accordingly. But I will say this: the inversion, subversion and playing-straight of tropes are all mere formal differences. The underlying content, the trope itself, remains essentially its tropey self. The slew of dark adaptations that have come to saturate our media as mikeyG alludes to demonstrate that while initially we find this cute and novel, it gets old. The use of tropes in narratives is well executed when they contribute to the quality of that narrative by having their content developed within it. So if a handful of tropes are just dumped on top of a narrative (or, God forbid, a heap of tropes with no overarching coherence is the entirety of the narrative), it's poor execution. They can't just be there as props, they have to help tell the story, to say something. But, it's a card game. We are unlikely to receive a deep contemplation on the meaning of life or even mildly interesting political commentary. It doesn't have to do all that to feel fresh, it just has to tell a story we haven't heard before to a significant extent. And that's a pretty low bar, I think.
I'm not interested in "meaning of life" contemplations and especially not political commentary, anyway.
That's a conceit, but okay.
I just want to play a fun card game. And the story doesn't have to be anything new for that to happen because quite honestly it can't be anything new.
No, it absolutely can. Something new is created by the story being created, period. Unless what you're saying is that the story should just be a copy of the Brothers Grimm with the MTG logo stamped on it, it can't not be new. The question is, does this new thing stand on its own merits, and does the stuff it references actually contribute to the story, versus just clutter it?
We've explored a lot of the story possibilities out there. And when your whole set revolves around tropes people recognize, story tropes in particular, it's inevitable that the canon story is going to be predictable. It's supposed to be, otherwise it doesn't feel faithful to the source material. Cinderella and the other Princesses are going to have happy endings (though I do worry for the Mermaid, since her story didn't originally have a happy ending). The Frog will be turned back into a prince, the Gingerbread Man is probably going to get eaten by a Fox, 2/3 of the Three Little Pigs' houses are going to get blown down by a Big Bad Wolf who will presumably also try to eat a girl in a red hood. The destination is predictable, it's the journey that's interesting.
I don't think you understood what you were responding to. Predictability is more or less a measure of a trope being played straight. I was pretty clear when I mentioned that's a difference of form only. Although your last sentence here is a platitude, I think it points to an underlying agreement. The details that go into telling the story of the journey are very much a matter of execution.
What I care about is personality. MtG has always been good about exploring tropes through the lens of its personality, which is centered around the color pie. Innistrad and Theros exemplified this when they showed how various creature types fit into different colors, and when they gave us mechanics that summed up their overall feel. Amonkhet also succeeded in this, for the most part (though I resented Bolas' presence overtaking the Egyptian atmosphere). I expect Eldraine will be the same; a host of recognizable tropes in card form, complimented with a handful of mechanics that convey the set's general feel. We have the storybook mechanic, which I honestly expect will be some kind of "Ever after" effect that changes the game state from then on, like an enchantment. Sort of a reward for playing through the card's story.
The gameplay is where Magic's real story plays out. Tropes are tools, after all, and Magic thrives on letting us play with tropes. The most fun stories aren't the ones the team writes but the ones we experience through playing the game. That's why I look forward to the gameplay each set offers moreso than the story.
The discussion, however, was thus far regarding the question (posed by you) of how the story should be executed.
I'd agree that a Magic set should continue to stay true to its basic principles as a game. Applying those principles to this context of a fairy tale world certainly could be interesting. Or not. I, for one, am not terribly concerned about the quality of the game play at this time.
European folk legends and myths and some tropes are scattered between Lorwyn, Ice Age/Cold Snap, Innistrad and even Ravnica to some extent (except in its abominable War of the Sparks crossover). I bet here they will just go to High Fantasy, with that storybook mechanic being a fixed version of Epic.
If we look at the cast of legendary characters of both Innistrad blocks I think not a single one is meant to be the equivalent of anything (I could be wrong).
Olivia Voldaren's design name was literally Dracula, Grimgrin, Corpse-Born is a pretty close approximation of Frankenstien's monster and Geralf his Frankenstien.
Her design name was Dracula but the character is very different. Her looks, personality, role in the setting and sex are different. I think the only strong connection between the characters (aside from both being vampires) is that her signature abilities in her original card is to turn others in vampire and control then which alludes to Stoker's romance.
Grimgrin is no more Frankenstein monster then any other skaab, who are reanimated armies and working industry rather then a singular oddity. The setting makes no allusion to Frankenstein story other then the idea of reanimated corpses stitched together. This part of Innistrad setting is more about stitchers vs. ghoulcallers, a dispute between the newer blue form of necromancy and the traditional black necromancy. That's a completely different story or background.
I think one of the reasons why Innistrad does not feel like a parody is because they didn't make mtg equivalents of well known characters. For example, Invisible Stalker is not a legendary creature, implying there are many other invisible rogues running around Nephalia. Also a invisible man does not feel so out of place in mtg anyway, so it ends being not too much on the nose.
If we look at the cast of legendary characters of both Innistrad blocks I think not a single one is meant to be the equivalent of anything (I could be wrong). Theros blocks however have stuff like King Macar, the Gold-Cursed and Triad of Fates.
This may sound rude and misguided but from what you're saying here and others have said before it really sounds like your saying "The more stuff I recognize the less I like it." Which due to years of scientific studies we know is the opposite of what people actually feel meaning this is probably more accurately "The less I understand the cooler I think it makes me to like it." I'm not going to look that deeply into Theros and Innistrad and count the number of "direct" translations vs "indirect" but I assume its a lot closer than anyone here realizes.
I will just ignore your pretension you can re-frame someone's arguments based on what scientific studies show about the average person. Non-referenced scientific studies, nonetheless. Arguing that would derail the thread too much and honestly it's not point I feel like I even need to argue against, it should be obvious for everyone the level of bull***** in this.
Just to make it clear, what I'm saying is, being too loyal to the original source is not a good thing, for a few reasons.
What mtg player base have in common is that they like mtg. What they don't have in common ? Love for settings other then mtg. Heavily investing in external settings is a serious risk to alienate part of the player base that don't care about that setting or strongly reject it. As means to not alienate part of the player base they have to hedge the risk and keep things within the realm of familiarity and thus use mtg's own tropes rather then going full strength in "external" tropes. This is probably among the reasons why they chose the slightly odd mix of Arthurian myth with fairy tales.
Too much fidelity to external material makes the setting too self-aware. When they construct those trope heavy planes the reason why things are there are players expectations, instead of canonical or creative reasons. It makes the setting as authentic and organic as theme parks. It's quite unbelievable how certain planes are so narrow artistically and aesthetically and the situation gets sillier the more they follow real world references by the book.
The more fidelity to external material more it will feel out of place within mtg whole narrative. I get it adaptive works like Disney is very popular but I think mtg is not the place for that. The idea of adapted characters sharing the same universe as Urza, the Gatewatch, the Eldrazi and Phyrexia is just crazy and looks like a fanfic.
Just to be clear I think WotC so far haven't "crossed" the line for me, not even in Theros which is the most theme-heavy plane so far. I think Theros in some moments were dangerously close and for me the plane is worse for that but not enough for me to dislike it.
Again, familiar settings or characters in MtG is ok.
But a almost DIRECT reference (take the Goldilocks (oh wait excuse me,....flaxen intruder ) or Rapunzel (whats her name going to be?) or almost everything they have showed us already, with just a Garbage Pail Dark or Subverted Twist.....IN MY OPINION.....is NOT appropriate for Magic the Gathering (unless its an Un-Set, then it would be pretty awesome)
We can agree to disagree, but Fairy Tale world sounded pretty awesome....then I saw the Arts and was extremely dissapointed by the Direct correlations and it turned me off.
A local vendor claims Wizards raised the price on all Magic products. As a result he increases the preorder price by roughly 20%. Has anyone else heard about this action by Wizards or is the guy using this excuse to make extra profit?
A local vendor claims Wizards raised the price on all Magic products. As a result he increases the preorder price by roughly 20%. Has anyone else heard about this action by Wizards or is the guy using this excuse to make extra profit?
Edit:this should be from throne onwards.
I'm unsure what you mean by local Vender, is that a store or a warehouse or what? Wizards hasn't sold directly to stores for a year now. There has been no larger mention anywhere that I could find. So likely options are:
Your store's distributor is hiking their prices and your store is passing the costs down to you.
Your store is simply increasing prices because they need/want to.
Your store's manager is terrible and they didn't understand something told to them and then made decisions based on this false information that caused them to raise prices.
This is the first place that is dealing with a roll-out of a price hike and others will follow.
Again, familiar settings or characters in MtG is ok.
But a almost DIRECT reference (take the Goldilocks (oh wait excuse me,....flaxen intruder ) or Rapunzel (whats her name going to be?) or almost everything they have showed us already, with just a Garbage Pail Dark or Subverted Twist.....IN MY OPINION.....is NOT appropriate for Magic the Gathering (unless its an Un-Set, then it would be pretty awesome)
We can agree to disagree, but Fairy Tale world sounded pretty awesome....then I saw the Arts and was extremely dissapointed by the Direct correlations and it turned me off.
That's called Resonance. Did Innistrad make you mad too? We had Frankenstein's Monster, Jekyll & Hyde, The Fly etc.
Actually The Dark had Frankenstein's Monster. Innistrad wasnt nearly as blatant as this, not even close.
As Eldraine? We got in Innistrad dracula, Frankenstein, the fly, the invisible man, the exorcist, van helsing, dr jekyyl and mr hyde off the top off my head, all as original as flaxen intruder.
Also the story of Rapunzel features a maiden locked in a tower by -monster- is found in a lot of stories, similar to how Dracula is the go to gothic vampire but is certainly not the only one. A lot of fairy tale tropes people think of are popularized by one or two stories even if tons of others use the trope i.e. there are Wicked Stepmothers who enslave their stepchild (often a young maiden) found in (or versions of) Hansel and Gretel, the Little men in the woods, snow white, the juniper tree but the story everyone links the trope to is the versions of Cinderella.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Actually The Dark had Frankenstein's Monster. Innistrad wasnt nearly as blatant as this, not even close.
How blatant is too blatant? Obviously, nothing recent is as blatant as Frankenstein's Monster or most of arabian nights because magic does its own thing now. One person in this thread said King Macar, the Gold-Cursed was too blatant but Invisible Stalker wasn't and sighted the fact that one was legendary as the reason it was too blatant while the other was fine. This particular line sounds asinine but I don't think everyone has the same line.
Olivia Voldaren has been sighted as not too blatant because she if female. However, everything else about her was designed topdown as count Dracula. They turn other creatures into vampires and they exert control over vampires, both classic Dracula skills. So why is she not too blatant? Is it the simple yet obvious change? If such an unimportant change is enough to make it not blatant I'll call bull on this line as well. I'll admit that the entire Skabb culture derived from Frankenstein's monster is fairly different, other than the base of a put together body animated via alchemy. One was seen as a monster upon completion while the other is still seen as an art to be perfected and brought to a higher level. Geralf was conceived as a "what if Frankenstien liked his monster and wanted to make more" and then evolved from that and that is a fairly significant change compared to "Female Dracula(Wait, you mean Carmilla{Elizabeth Bathory})"
Flaxen Intruder seems far closer to Geralf than Olivia with a "What if Goldilocks was actually hunting the bears rather than simply wandering" That is a significant twist so why is it being called out as too blatant? I and several people understand that at some point things become too obvious like Frankenstein's Monster, but we also don't understand where the people who are upset at certain things draw their lines because when they give out specifics they appear contradictory to us.
Well, yeah, obviously. Nobody's trying to deprive you of that by reporting your comments or anything. Responding to your opinion with their own opinions is as much as right as you having yours, so that part should come as an expectation when posting your opinions in a public forum.
I hated kaledesh as a location/plane based on style and theme. It gave us a standard environment with dinosaurs piloting mechs/vehicles. I'm not naive enough to think that I was unique in this disdain though. I felt the same way about Arabian nights too. Not every set is going to appeal to every player. Hell initially I thought ravnica was going to disappoint as well considering the description of sprawling cityscape. Turned out I was incredibly wrong and my presumptions were wildly incorrect, just like with a return to zendikar, which I thought would be fantastic, but was let down.
In the same vein that some people are really not looking forward to this, I am very much so.
I think the reason Innistrad didn't feel as derivative is the fact that most of the references were already things that have been bandied about in pop culture, and in Magic. Olivia Voldaren wasn't too blatant not because she was a female, but because the concept of a big important vampire is not singular to Dracula, nor new to Magic. I would never have known she was based on Dracula. Was Baron Sengir based on Dracula too? Or Sorin? They're not any less Dracula-like than Olivia. The only way to say "THIS IS DRACULA" would be to make card called "Count Devulac" or something. In reality, all of them play on a cultural trope largely derived from Dracula (much more than the larger vampire mythos). In a way it's SO derivative that it's not derivative anymore.
It's only when you get really specific that it starts to feel problematic. Civilized Scholar/Homicidal Brute demonstrates this. That could only come from Jekyll and Hyde, or from the Incredible Hulk, which is a direct reference to Jekyll and Hyde.
For these reasons, things like Merlin and Knights of Camelot won't feel all that weird, since we've seen LOTS of cards on that model. We would be fools to not acknowledge the cultural importance of Merlin on existing cards. Heck, our entire western concept of wizards uses Merlin as a base. So their Merlin will actually just feel like yet another legendary wizard. Likewise, our entire concept of the glorious knight comes straight from Arthurian legend. It's not like actual European knights were anything like that. They were basically just drunks who could do as they pleased. Baird, Steward of Argive, Knight of Glory, Knight Exemplar, and Silverblade Paladin are already Arthur references whether they knew it or not. Heck, Innistrad even had a Holy Grail card.
Similarly, we've seen plenty of witches, so the Snow White witch whose art we've seen will really just feel like another when all is said and done. But not the candy house: that's far too specific.
Regardless, these one to one parities are kinda grating.
I think the reason Innistrad didn't feel as derivative is the fact that most of the references were already things that have been bandied about in pop culture, and in Magic. Olivia Voldaren wasn't too blatant not because she was a female, but because the concept of a big important vampire is not singular to Dracula, nor new to Magic. I would never have known she was based on Dracula. Was Baron Sengir based on Dracula too? Or Sorin? They're not any less Dracula-like than Olivia. The only way to say "THIS IS DRACULA" would be to make card called "Count Devulac" or something. In reality, all of them play on a cultural trope largely derived from Dracula (much more than the larger vampire mythos). In a way it's SO derivative that it's not derivative anymore.
It's only when you get really specific that it starts to feel problematic. Civilized Scholar/Homicidal Brute demonstrates this. That could only come from Jekyll and Hyde, or from the Incredible Hulk, which is a direct reference to Jekyll and Hyde.
For these reasons, things like Merlin and Knights of Camelot won't feel all that weird, since we've seen LOTS of cards on that model. We would be fools to not acknowledge the cultural importance of Merlin on existing cards. Heck, our entire western concept of wizards uses Merlin as a base. So their Merlin will actually just feel like yet another legendary wizard.
I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. As long as the Merlin card isn't called something like "Marllin Walld, Magus of the Crown" then because their legend is so pervasive it won't feel like a copy? I can kind of get behind this idea, it feels very fuzzy on how parodied or expanded something has to be to reach that level but I can accept that one or two known popular reboots aren't enough and it has to more feel like a default even if based on a singular item.
By the way, as far as I could find Both the Baron and Sorin were designed around the concept that Dracula has made pervasive, the aristocratic vampire lord. While Olivia was them sitting down and going "we need a Dracula card in our gothic horror set".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
History suggest otherwise. This is not at all what happened with Kamigawa. They went pretty deep. Most casual observers just found it strange and stayed away.
They did do a better job in Amonkhet though. They also didn't go quite so deep there. I'd probably expect something more like that.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
Well, I didn't mean to imply I was feeling especially optimistic about this outcome. More along the lines that it's at least conceivably possible that Eldraine will be executed well.
MTG is a pop culture commodity, so we should all heavily manage our expectations accordingly. But I will say this: the inversion, subversion and playing-straight of tropes are all mere formal differences. The underlying content, the trope itself, remains essentially its tropey self. The slew of dark adaptations that have come to saturate our media as mikeyG alludes to demonstrate that while initially we find this cute and novel, it gets old. The use of tropes in narratives is well executed when they contribute to the quality of that narrative by having their content developed within it. So if a handful of tropes are just dumped on top of a narrative (or, God forbid, a heap of tropes with no overarching coherence is the entirety of the narrative), it's poor execution. They can't just be there as props, they have to help tell the story, to say something. But, it's a card game. We are unlikely to receive a deep contemplation on the meaning of life or even mildly interesting political commentary. It doesn't have to do all that to feel fresh, it just has to tell a story we haven't heard before to a significant extent. And that's a pretty low bar, I think.
That's a good question. Arthurian romance as a genre is a well-established hero's journey with a particular focus on courtly love, courage, loyalty, and adventure so that could be a good place to start. I've seen speculation that the set's story could be Rowan going on a quest to save Will, which is an angle with some promise. An area of overlap between Grimm's tales and Arthurian stories is that of a setting with light, love, and chivalry/innocence getting peeled back to expose real darkness. Arthurian legend has courtly intrigues, tragedy, and betrayals and most Grimm's fairy tales have dark and gruesome elements; much of the art we've seen echos those themes so it's a sure thing that we'll see those themes.
I'd probably lean into the storybook theme, maybe make Eldraine a plane where stories literally come to life based on people's belief in those stories, like a NeverEnding Story/tulpa situation. That would make the setting quite distinct from Lorwyn and Innistrad (honestly, what we've seen of Eldraine is a mixing of those two, so the comparisons are natural) and would enable a good rationalization of the on the nose fairy tale references in-world and tell a story in a way we haven't seen in MtG with the 'real' and the fantastic overlapping and denizens of the 'real' having a level of awareness of the stories given form. There's something meta about it because WotC still gets the Disney references for resonance but the characters in-world can undercut and lampshade the silliness. It even provides a built-in MacGuffin for the Kenriths to chase if the stories given form used to be more whimsical and innocent but have turned dark and dangerous for a mysterious reason.
Regardless, I wouldn't play the setting straight.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I'm not interested in "meaning of life" contemplations and especially not political commentary, anyway. I just want to play a fun card game. And the story doesn't have to be anything new for that to happen because quite honestly it can't be anything new. We've explored a lot of the story possibilities out there. And when your whole set revolves around tropes people recognize, story tropes in particular, it's inevitable that the canon story is going to be predictable. It's supposed to be, otherwise it doesn't feel faithful to the source material. Cinderella and the other Princesses are going to have happy endings (though I do worry for the Mermaid, since her story didn't originally have a happy ending). The Frog will be turned back into a prince, the Gingerbread Man is probably going to get eaten by a Fox, 2/3 of the Three Little Pigs' houses are going to get blown down by a Big Bad Wolf who will presumably also try to eat a girl in a red hood. The destination is predictable, it's the journey that's interesting.
What I care about is personality. MtG has always been good about exploring tropes through the lens of its personality, which is centered around the color pie. Innistrad and Theros exemplified this when they showed how various creature types fit into different colors, and when they gave us mechanics that summed up their overall feel. Amonkhet also succeeded in this, for the most part (though I resented Bolas' presence overtaking the Egyptian atmosphere). I expect Eldraine will be the same; a host of recognizable tropes in card form, complimented with a handful of mechanics that convey the set's general feel. We have the storybook mechanic, which I honestly expect will be some kind of "Ever after" effect that changes the game state from then on, like an enchantment. Sort of a reward for playing through the card's story.
I can also see some manner of trickster mechanic, as tricksters are common in fairy tales, sometimes serving karmic justice, other times preying on innocence or naivete. Could be something like spell swapping or even a shapeshifting mechanic, swapping one creature out for another (kinda like Ninjutsu, but not focused on combat). For the Arthurian side, besides royalty matters I could see something to do with Knights as they play a big role in Arthurian myth. Could be something like Battle Cry or Exalted, something combat-focused. Many of the tales focus on one particular Knight, so Exalted would make sense there. Or it could be some kind of glory mechanic, where if the creature attacked that turn you can get some kind of reward. Renowned is another possibility, as I'd say the Knights of the Round Table were all renowned to some extent.
And finally I'd love to see pairing return. Friendship and romance are common themes of fairy tales, and pairing represents them well. Take note I'm not talking about Soulbond necessarily as pairing is a creature interaction independent of soulbond. Pairing itself could literally be the mechanic, like spells that say "Pair two target unpaired creatures you control. Then paired creatures you control get [effect]."
The gameplay is where Magic's real story plays out. Tropes are tools, after all, and Magic thrives on letting us play with tropes. The most fun stories aren't the ones the team writes but the ones we experience through playing the game. That's why I look forward to the gameplay each set offers moreso than the story.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
That's a conceit, but okay.
No, it absolutely can. Something new is created by the story being created, period. Unless what you're saying is that the story should just be a copy of the Brothers Grimm with the MTG logo stamped on it, it can't not be new. The question is, does this new thing stand on its own merits, and does the stuff it references actually contribute to the story, versus just clutter it?
I don't think you understood what you were responding to. Predictability is more or less a measure of a trope being played straight. I was pretty clear when I mentioned that's a difference of form only. Although your last sentence here is a platitude, I think it points to an underlying agreement. The details that go into telling the story of the journey are very much a matter of execution.
The discussion, however, was thus far regarding the question (posed by you) of how the story should be executed.
I'd agree that a Magic set should continue to stay true to its basic principles as a game. Applying those principles to this context of a fairy tale world certainly could be interesting. Or not. I, for one, am not terribly concerned about the quality of the game play at this time.
Her design name was Dracula but the character is very different. Her looks, personality, role in the setting and sex are different. I think the only strong connection between the characters (aside from both being vampires) is that her signature abilities in her original card is to turn others in vampire and control then which alludes to Stoker's romance.
Grimgrin is no more Frankenstein monster then any other skaab, who are reanimated armies and working industry rather then a singular oddity. The setting makes no allusion to Frankenstein story other then the idea of reanimated corpses stitched together. This part of Innistrad setting is more about stitchers vs. ghoulcallers, a dispute between the newer blue form of necromancy and the traditional black necromancy. That's a completely different story or background.
I will just ignore your pretension you can re-frame someone's arguments based on what scientific studies show about the average person. Non-referenced scientific studies, nonetheless. Arguing that would derail the thread too much and honestly it's not point I feel like I even need to argue against, it should be obvious for everyone the level of bull***** in this.
Just to make it clear, what I'm saying is, being too loyal to the original source is not a good thing, for a few reasons.
Just to be clear I think WotC so far haven't "crossed" the line for me, not even in Theros which is the most theme-heavy plane so far. I think Theros in some moments were dangerously close and for me the plane is worse for that but not enough for me to dislike it.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
But a almost DIRECT reference (take the Goldilocks (oh wait excuse me,....flaxen intruder ) or Rapunzel (whats her name going to be?) or almost everything they have showed us already, with just a Garbage Pail Dark or Subverted Twist.....IN MY OPINION.....is NOT appropriate for Magic the Gathering (unless its an Un-Set, then it would be pretty awesome)
We can agree to disagree, but Fairy Tale world sounded pretty awesome....then I saw the Arts and was extremely dissapointed by the Direct correlations and it turned me off.
Edit:this should be from throne onwards.
Your store's distributor is hiking their prices and your store is passing the costs down to you.
Your store is simply increasing prices because they need/want to.
Your store's manager is terrible and they didn't understand something told to them and then made decisions based on this false information that caused them to raise prices.
This is the first place that is dealing with a roll-out of a price hike and others will follow.
That's called Resonance. Did Innistrad make you mad too? We had Frankenstein's Monster, Jekyll & Hyde, The Fly etc.
Many thanks to DNC at Heroes of the Plane Studios
Many thanks to DNC at Heroes of the Plane Studios
As Eldraine? We got in Innistrad dracula, Frankenstein, the fly, the invisible man, the exorcist, van helsing, dr jekyyl and mr hyde off the top off my head, all as original as flaxen intruder.
Also the story of Rapunzel features a maiden locked in a tower by -monster- is found in a lot of stories, similar to how Dracula is the go to gothic vampire but is certainly not the only one. A lot of fairy tale tropes people think of are popularized by one or two stories even if tons of others use the trope i.e. there are Wicked Stepmothers who enslave their stepchild (often a young maiden) found in (or versions of) Hansel and Gretel, the Little men in the woods, snow white, the juniper tree but the story everyone links the trope to is the versions of Cinderella.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Olivia Voldaren has been sighted as not too blatant because she if female. However, everything else about her was designed topdown as count Dracula. They turn other creatures into vampires and they exert control over vampires, both classic Dracula skills. So why is she not too blatant? Is it the simple yet obvious change? If such an unimportant change is enough to make it not blatant I'll call bull on this line as well. I'll admit that the entire Skabb culture derived from Frankenstein's monster is fairly different, other than the base of a put together body animated via alchemy. One was seen as a monster upon completion while the other is still seen as an art to be perfected and brought to a higher level. Geralf was conceived as a "what if Frankenstien liked his monster and wanted to make more" and then evolved from that and that is a fairly significant change compared to "Female Dracula(Wait, you mean Carmilla{Elizabeth Bathory})"
Flaxen Intruder seems far closer to Geralf than Olivia with a "What if Goldilocks was actually hunting the bears rather than simply wandering" That is a significant twist so why is it being called out as too blatant? I and several people understand that at some point things become too obvious like Frankenstein's Monster, but we also don't understand where the people who are upset at certain things draw their lines because when they give out specifics they appear contradictory to us.
Well, yeah, obviously. Nobody's trying to deprive you of that by reporting your comments or anything. Responding to your opinion with their own opinions is as much as right as you having yours, so that part should come as an expectation when posting your opinions in a public forum.
In the same vein that some people are really not looking forward to this, I am very much so.
It's only when you get really specific that it starts to feel problematic. Civilized Scholar/Homicidal Brute demonstrates this. That could only come from Jekyll and Hyde, or from the Incredible Hulk, which is a direct reference to Jekyll and Hyde.
For these reasons, things like Merlin and Knights of Camelot won't feel all that weird, since we've seen LOTS of cards on that model. We would be fools to not acknowledge the cultural importance of Merlin on existing cards. Heck, our entire western concept of wizards uses Merlin as a base. So their Merlin will actually just feel like yet another legendary wizard. Likewise, our entire concept of the glorious knight comes straight from Arthurian legend. It's not like actual European knights were anything like that. They were basically just drunks who could do as they pleased. Baird, Steward of Argive, Knight of Glory, Knight Exemplar, and Silverblade Paladin are already Arthur references whether they knew it or not. Heck, Innistrad even had a Holy Grail card.
Similarly, we've seen plenty of witches, so the Snow White witch whose art we've seen will really just feel like another when all is said and done. But not the candy house: that's far too specific.
Regardless, these one to one parities are kinda grating.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
By the way, as far as I could find Both the Baron and Sorin were designed around the concept that Dracula has made pervasive, the aristocratic vampire lord. While Olivia was them sitting down and going "we need a Dracula card in our gothic horror set".