Everyone comes together and plays through the adventure, using the abilities of their characters, their wits, and various levels of improv theatre to do so. Characters will become more powerful over time via the awarding of experience points for taking part in adventures. One player becomes the DM and assembles adventures the others assemble characters, usually in consultation with the DM. In D&D, players buy big expensive books and supplemental materials, including dice.
There is strategy, there is randomness, there is cash outlay, there is a winner. In general, the interaction of the cards is straightforward and resolvable through both players adhering to the rules of the game. Decks may become more powerful over time via new purchases, trades, or winning cards in a duel. In M:tG, players buy cards and assemble decks designed around certain strategies, and then sit down opposite each other and play the game, which is won by one player defeating the other. Isn't MtG just a more carefully monetized & structured version of D&D? I know I'm glossing over a whole bunch of detail, but I'm asking about functional differences. Really? As a casual observer (I've played two D&D games in my life) and parent/funder of two MtG players, I find this to be kind of a stretch. They're both a great deal of fun as long as everyone involved is interested in not being a jerk, but they are extremely different. Magic is much more about concrete problem solving and competition and everything you do is about getting to a concrete predetermined endpoint. Magic, on the other hand, is completely a game, and honestly aside from the sharing of broad fantasy concepts (and a publisher now) almost couldn't be more different from D&D. We only have the game nomenclature at all because Gygax and Arneson came to the design from a wargaming background and didn't know what else to call it. D&D is an exercise in improvisational theater and cooperative narrative building and also it's wonderful (play RPGs, everyone!), but it is definitely not a game. There's no win state and there's no fail state. I would say it's much clearer than that: D&D is definitely not a game. Posted by griphus at 11:14 AM on Apĭ&D being a game is arguable, as there's no real rules for winning. You can strip the flavor off, but you're left with very, very little to actually work with. You can take all the flavor off the cards and still play M:TG just fine as an abstract card game (this is how we played online in the Old Days of dial-up connections and Apprentice.)ĭ&D is much, much more asymmetric: there are different base rules for each class and how they interact is often as much creativity of the DM as it is following of the rules. I get the same as my opponent unless I cast a spell modifying something. For instance, just because I'm playing a green deck doesn't mean I get more mana from green land. Just about all of them come out the same way (tapping mana) and the base rules of how the cards interact are symmetric for the players. The card game, as you might be aware (not sure how much interest you take), revolves around discrete, one-shot effects: spells, creatures, whatever. I know I'm glossing over a whole bunch of detail, but I'm asking about functional differences.įunctionally they're pretty different because one is a Card Game and one is a, for the lack of a better term, Imagination Game.
0 kommentar(er)
