I think I see what you're getting at, but the...weirdness, if you want to call it that...that I perceive in Magic's system is that, while your lands (and I suppose a vague concept of "territory") increase over time, there's no interplay between your creatures and that happening. Well, there's an interaction between them, but it's usually in one direction only - once you get more lands, you can cast more creatures, but the creatures never really help you get more lands (there are exceptions, like Fertilid and Burnished Hart, but those are unique card functions, rather than the general role creatures play in the game). Whereas with Catan, it's more of a feedback loop. You use the resources generated by the lands to physically expand your presence on the gameboard, allowing you to use more land, allowing you to generate more resources, etc. I don't view Magic's setup as a *problem*, by any means - its a lighter-weight game design, and obviously I love the design as a whole. I view it more as an interesting quirk.

@@ManaCritics So casting permanents using the mana resources you get from land isn't a physical expansion of your presence of the board then?

@@Dynoboot It's just one directional - more lands means you can cast more creatures, but more creatures doesn't help you play more lands (again, with a few exceptions, but not as a rule). Whereas in Catan, and I think most games where land/territory is a factor, it's in more of a self-reinforcing system - more lands help you get more resources, AND more resources help you get more lands. I suppose you COULD argue that more creatures means increasing your likely number of future turns, and hence opportunities to DRAW more lands, but that's a bit more abstract. EDIT: Rereading your comment, maybe this is more what I'm trying to get at...it seems like, if you're playing a game most of the metaphorical actions in game are taken by creatures, and where getting more lands is one of the major mechanisms of the game, its just kind of funny that you never send the creatures TO the lands. If someone was pitching the concept of the game to me in the first place, I might have assumed the creatures were used to go discover/conquer new lands.

I think its definitely coincidence, in that Garfield's original design as told through this short stories implies a duel/game being something that occurs on the scale of minutes, maybe hours. But, from where we stand now with tens of thousands of cards, and the work of hundreds(?) of different designers, there's a definite ambiguity to what any given thing represents that, as you suggest, can imply a lot of different stories - and that's just really cool.

I've heard Sorcery mentioned a few times on Reddit, but this might be the detail that piques my interest enough to investigate further.

We take it you're a fan? Julie's played it, but Derek hasn't. Would you recommend getting into at this point in time?

Valid, and the more I think about this, I think this is an interesting aspect...possibly a strength, possibly just a neutral attribute...of a game designed at this level of abstraction. Similarly, you could come up scenarios to plausibly explain a turn as representing minutes, or years. The scope of a given duel might be the size of a football field, or move across planes (as evidenced specifically by Battlebond and Planechase, respectively). In any case, "ludonarrative" was not in my vocabulary, and now I'm following that rabbit hole, so thanks for introducing me to it.

@@ManaCritics I'd say at least in Commander this malleable scope is not just a strength but possibly a major part of why it's as big as it is and why all the IP crossovers kind of work. Each player gets to create their own narrative lense with their deck. Each game will in effect create four different stories that are equally valid. Nobody sits down afterwards to agree on what that game represented but those who care will have a story in their mind.

I wish we could include images in comments, because I would absolutely reply with the Unfinity "Blue Ribbon." Alas, I cannot, but the sentiment is there.