Okay, everyone. Today I would like to talk about the storytelling in MtG in general.
I do not doubt that in terms of mechanics, MtG is a fantastic (albeit imperfect) game. However, even to this day, MtG seems to struggle to produce decent stories: I used to read the weekly stories, but not anymore because the writings are, as many have pointed out, less than ideal. I have lately heard about the War of the Spark novel. WoS's trailer was very well-liked on Youtube, but the novel ends up... less than stellar. The review scores were at best mediocre. Based on the above, my impression is that WotC is trying to make good MtG stories. This is certainly a laudable sentiment, but they seem to struggle in achieving this goal. In fact, MtG's storytelling seems unusually bad compared to most other major gaming franchise. This led me to ponder over the question: why are MtG stories not good? As someone who has dabbled in creative writing, here are some problems I notice with MtG's storytelling in general:
I'm not sure if surveys are all that problematic (though Magic seems to conflate popularity for power levels and popularity for lore reasons quite a lot.)
But I do have the feeling that Marketing meddles more with the lore of the game than is good for it. When you treat your characters like brands, rather than characters, it means you can't treat them like characters anymore. They won't have (compelling) arcs, they can't be killed off if the plot calls for it and so on and so forth. We see the same issue with planes. Ever since... New Phyrexia or so, planes have remained fully static. There's no evolution happening, no history, no rise and fall of empires and such. Planes and characters in Magic have become Disney World rides and mascots and the story is off worse for it. You don't need to go full Game of Thrones on your story of course, but a modicum of consistency and consequences would be healthy for the Magic story.
Of course it doesn't help that many players of Magic aren't even into having a living breathing narrative. How often have you heard a post along the lines of "no, they ruined my favourite plane" or "no, they killed off my favourite character, I'll quit magic forever"? I think people fall into three categories: Those who don't care about the lore at all, those who care about the setting of Magic as a whole and those who latch onto individual characters (and sometimes planes). The second and third category are at odds with one another, because the former want change as the setting as a whole is the actor with their own arc, while the latter don't want change or if they do want change then only for planes and characters they don't care about. I'm personally in the second camp, I care for the setting as a whole the most and don't mind if one of my favourite characters kicks the bucket as long as they served a purpose for the overarching story (unlike Rhonas, who died twice in a really lame way...) but I also understand I'm in the minority here.
Unfortunately, you can't cater to both people. There's no real compromise to be had. You can't even alternate between the two each set, because the important bit for those who want to see the setting evolve is changes across multiple sets, not internally contained ones, which would affect recurring characters.
That's basically the problem: Creative has too much control over the characters for there to be organic resolutions.
The management of the story is overall a problem that dates as far back as flavour itself, according to interviews with the authors of Planeswalker and The Thran.
R&D’s choice of words has proven to be a huge barrier to marketing (which has hamstringed storytelling). Specifically the terms “plane” and “planeswalker”. The first both has an already cemented, real life definition and is a homonym. (To make matters worse, it’s a homonym for a basic land type). The second (derived from the first), is a hideous assembly of letters that has no meaning to anyone save the thoroughly indoctrinated. And even then, it’s awkward. I can hear the creative meeting now...
“Skywalker worked, therefore planeswalker will too.”
Hence, in order to compensate, they have to overdo the branding of ‘walkers by cramming them down everyone’s proverbial throats through Disney compliant storylines.
Find it odd that the company who's other flagship product (dungeons and dragons) that is built entirely on creative story telling falls so far from expectations with each iteration with magic.
They could literally walk up the hall and get some fruitful input.
Find it odd that the company who's other flagship product (dungeons and dragons) that is built entirely on creative story telling falls so far from expectations with each iteration with magic.
They could literally walk up the hall and get some fruitful input.
Not to mention Maro tells us nonhumans just aren't popular which is why we have so few compared to Human Walkers...funny and here I thought the most popular character in D&D is a Dark Elf. Funny how they can make it work but MTG just cannot sell nonhumans.
Find it odd that the company who's other flagship product (dungeons and dragons) that is built entirely on creative story telling falls so far from expectations with each iteration with magic.
They could literally walk up the hall and get some fruitful input.
Not to mention Maro tells us nonhumans just aren't popular which is why we have so few compared to Human Walkers...funny and here I thought the most popular character in D&D is a Dark Elf. Funny how they can make it work but MTG just cannot sell nonhumans.
That's an interesting take. Because according to the only sites that claim to track this data Human is twice as popular as the second most popular race which is Elf. It's interesting how people make assumptions and the role with them regardless of how wrong they are.
Right so then we should have half as many Elf Walkers as Human Walkers then right? Certainly we should have more then two one of whom has been dead for like a decade.
Right so then we should have half as many Elf Walkers as Human Walkers then right? Certainly we should have more then two one of whom has been dead for like a decade.
If we want direct correlations we need quite a few more Human Fighters, for some reason mages aren't too popular.
Right so then we should have half as many Elf Walkers as Human Walkers then right? Certainly we should have more then two one of whom has been dead for like a decade.
If we want direct correlations we need quite a few more Human Fighters, for some reason mages aren't too popular.
That is more a factor of every Walker needing a unique powerset or at least unique for their color combination. Even if the level of uniqueness is getting pretty stretched these days. Much easier to do with magic then melee.
T
The management of the story is overall a problem that dates as far back as flavour itself, according to interviews with the authors of Planeswalker and The Thran.
I would love to read this. Do you have a source?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'd rather die speaking the truth than live a lie." --Gix, to Yawgmoth (pre-Phyrexia)
I do not doubt that in terms of mechanics, MtG is a fantastic (albeit imperfect) game. However, even to this day, MtG seems to struggle to produce decent stories: I used to read the weekly stories, but not anymore because the writings are, as many have pointed out, less than ideal. I have lately heard about the War of the Spark novel. WoS's trailer was very well-liked on Youtube, but the novel ends up... less than stellar. The review scores were at best mediocre. Based on the above, my impression is that WotC is trying to make good MtG stories. This is certainly a laudable sentiment, but they seem to struggle in achieving this goal. In fact, MtG's storytelling seems unusually bad compared to most other major gaming franchise. This led me to ponder over the question: why are MtG stories not good? As someone who has dabbled in creative writing, here are some problems I notice with MtG's storytelling in general:
cause it's a marketing dpt concern
even though they could make piles more of money if it was attached to decent worldbuilding and art direction.
but no,
surveys is ALL u need
But I do have the feeling that Marketing meddles more with the lore of the game than is good for it. When you treat your characters like brands, rather than characters, it means you can't treat them like characters anymore. They won't have (compelling) arcs, they can't be killed off if the plot calls for it and so on and so forth. We see the same issue with planes. Ever since... New Phyrexia or so, planes have remained fully static. There's no evolution happening, no history, no rise and fall of empires and such. Planes and characters in Magic have become Disney World rides and mascots and the story is off worse for it. You don't need to go full Game of Thrones on your story of course, but a modicum of consistency and consequences would be healthy for the Magic story.
Of course it doesn't help that many players of Magic aren't even into having a living breathing narrative. How often have you heard a post along the lines of "no, they ruined my favourite plane" or "no, they killed off my favourite character, I'll quit magic forever"? I think people fall into three categories: Those who don't care about the lore at all, those who care about the setting of Magic as a whole and those who latch onto individual characters (and sometimes planes). The second and third category are at odds with one another, because the former want change as the setting as a whole is the actor with their own arc, while the latter don't want change or if they do want change then only for planes and characters they don't care about. I'm personally in the second camp, I care for the setting as a whole the most and don't mind if one of my favourite characters kicks the bucket as long as they served a purpose for the overarching story (unlike Rhonas, who died twice in a really lame way...) but I also understand I'm in the minority here.
Unfortunately, you can't cater to both people. There's no real compromise to be had. You can't even alternate between the two each set, because the important bit for those who want to see the setting evolve is changes across multiple sets, not internally contained ones, which would affect recurring characters.
The management of the story is overall a problem that dates as far back as flavour itself, according to interviews with the authors of Planeswalker and The Thran.
“Skywalker worked, therefore planeswalker will too.”
Hence, in order to compensate, they have to overdo the branding of ‘walkers by cramming them down everyone’s proverbial throats through Disney compliant storylines.
They could literally walk up the hall and get some fruitful input.
Not to mention Maro tells us nonhumans just aren't popular which is why we have so few compared to Human Walkers...funny and here I thought the most popular character in D&D is a Dark Elf. Funny how they can make it work but MTG just cannot sell nonhumans.
That is more a factor of every Walker needing a unique powerset or at least unique for their color combination. Even if the level of uniqueness is getting pretty stretched these days. Much easier to do with magic then melee.
I would love to read this. Do you have a source?
http://multiverseinreview.blogspot.com/