First Impressions – Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica

A segment of the Dungeons & Dragons' fan base have been clamoring for setting releases and while Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica won't appease those who want a 5^th Edition update of an older setting like Greyhawk, Planescape or Spelljammer, it is a fresh setting that Wizards of the Coast clearly hopes will bring the Magic the Gathering crowd to D&D.

View attachment 102999
​

So what's my first impression of Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica? Fresh and familiar at the same time. Now don't take that as an insult MtG players. This is a first impression article. A more nuanced review will follow after I have read the entire book. This is based on an overall skim of the book and reading of selected passages.

For any veteran D&D player, Ravnica is new but has enough overlap with classic D&D that it won't be a shock to the system. For example, races include humans, elves, goblins, minotaurs and centaurs along with new-to-D&D races Vedalken and Simic Hybrid. Charts break down which classes work best with the 10 guilds, though you can be guildless.

Ravnica is a fantasy world with the magical technology flavor of Eberron. That's not to say it's derivitive of Eberron. Both settings offer modern conveniences through magic but get there and express them in different ways.

The introduction and first three chapters focus, understandably, on Ravnica as a setting and how to create a character and it gives you a lot of meat with which to work. Chapter 4 is about creating adventures, with some broad adventure ideas at the start of the chapter and then each guild section has more adventure hooks, specific to that group. I like the “Cross Purposes” charts and “Complications” for ways to make a villain affect the players without doing a blanket “you have to stop X” approach. It feels more organic. Having done similar things in my own home games for D&D and other RPGs, it can work really well.

Guild intrigue is, of course, a part of the adventure seeds. With 10 guilds and Ravnica's backstory, including the broken Guildpact and how things function now that it's been restored, intrigue really should be a key story driver in Ravnica adventures.

One odd note for those who might buy Ravnica on D&D Beyond is that you really want to tap the “View Welcome” button on the upper right instead of diving directly into chapter 1 and the rest of the leftside sidebar links. “View Welcome” actually takes you to the book's Introduction, which has a LOT of useful, downright essential, material for anyone new to Ravnica and even MtG players wanted to learn how the popular setting has been adapted to D&D. It covers everything from the history of Ravnica, both in-game and as part of MtG, to its currency and calendar.

Obviously readers of the physical book will naturally go to this essential chapter and all of the D&D Beyond editions of the hardcover books have the “View Welcome” button that separates the introduction from the chapters, but it's an odd layout issue. I handed my tablet to a friend who has played both MtG and D&D for years but never used D&D Beyond, and he was confused by the lack of introduction until I pointed out the “View Welcome” button.

I like the precinct by precinct breakdown in Chapter 3. The people and rumors tables in each section are a nice way of adding flavor, misdirects and possible adventure hooks as your players wander the city of Ravnica.

The art is very good and provides the context for this new (to D&D) world. It as much as anything helps to set a different tone than Forgotten Realms' adventures.

Really, I'm going to pay Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica the highest compliment I can in a first impressions article – that I can't wait to dive in and read the entire book.

This article was contributed by Beth Rimmels (brimmels) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!!

 

[Azzy]

I don't understand why many people are against detailed settings.

Some people find too much detail stifling and off-puting, wanting just enough detail to make the setting useful but not so much that they feel they have to fight the setting in order to play the games they want to play. Too often, large detail settings are have their details geared towards DMs and are from a god's-eye perspective. For players, that level of detail is intimidating and not usful, making them feel as if they have to read an encyclopedia just to play a character in a game—but where much of the information isn't actually useful (and sometime hampering) to them as a player in gaining the perspective of a character in the setting and knowing what that character would know.

 

[gyor]

Thanks for the review--very helpful. I want to get a little farther in Creature Collection before I pick up this or Mad Mage.

I am actually kind of surprised they haven't given us more leader-style legendary monsters where some of the monster's legendary actions boost the monster's minions. It seems like it would be a good gimmick for high level devils and angels (harkening back to 4e pit fiends and angels of command) or other monsters you would expect to have an entourage.

The one thing the new Boros Angels are good at, aside from Firemanes, is giving allies attacks. With the right allies that could be very powerful.

 

[flametitan]

It's interesting that I too very much saw the parallels to Sigil in this book, and while reading it thought that using the same format would be just about perfect for a 5e Sigil/Planescape book. The way they did the Guilds here could be easily adapted for the Planescape Factions, for example. Maybe if this book does well (and when I picked mine up Saturday at my FLGS, there were far fewer copies of it left than Dungeon of the Mad Mage, so from personal experience (for all that matters) it looks like it's doing well), we'll see a similar Sigil-centric book in the future.

It's an odd duck. Like, I see parallels to Sigil in how the city iterates upon the Thing of the setting, and I agree the renown stuff here would be useful to the Planescape factions (even though I don't particularly care for them); I dunno if I'd want a Sigil book in the vein of Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, though. I can't shake the feeling that this book is bereft of soul, and that if Sigil copied this formula it'd be lacking as well. It's not even a matter of detail; that's a red herring to the problems I have. I don't like it, but it's not the most criminal thing.

I'm still mostly trying to figure out why I feel Ravnica is lacking soul, and waxing philosophical on it. I have a couple ideas on why, but they're not quite as fleshed out as I'd like (and I've mentioned them in earlier posts, if anyone can help me figure those feelings out.)

 

[Irennan]

Some people find too much detail stifling and off-puting, wanting just enough detail to make the setting useful but not so much that they feel they have to fight the setting in order to play the games they want to play. Too often, large detail settings are have their details geared towards DMs and are from a god's-eye perspective. For players, that level of detail is intimidating and not usful, making them feel as if they have to read an encyclopedia just to play a character in a game—but where much of the information isn't actually useful (and sometime hampering) to them as a player in gaining the perspective of a character in the setting and knowing what that character would know.

That isn't a detailed setting, that's a presentation of a detailed setting that could be improved. Older editions have done this by providing a DM-oriented Campaign Setting and a player-oriented Player Guide. An easy solution would be following that model and splitting the various regions or topics in subsections: one dedicated to "what would the average person know?" (so, a presentation of the topic from the perspective of an explorer, adventurer, citizen, faithful, etc...) and the other dedicated to the secrets and more in-depth details.

The perspective-based presentation could even be gathered in a booklet on its own, sold in pdf form online and/or in softcover/print of demand format (to avoid forcing players to spend money on the in-depth info that not everyone wants to read). That would guarantee a detailed setting that wouldn't force the DMs to homebrew everything (defeating the point of a setting), while also providing all the choice and an easy introduction to players.

With books like Ravnica, according to what I've gathered from this thread, I personally feel like I'm buying flavored smoke, rather than the actual food.

 

[Demetrios1453]

It's an odd duck. Like, I see parallels to Sigil in how the city iterates upon the Thing of the setting, and I agree the renown stuff here would be useful to the Planescape factions (even though I don't particularly care for them); I dunno if I'd want a Sigil book in the vein of Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, though. I can't shake the feeling that this book is bereft of soul, and that if Sigil copied this formula it'd be lacking as well. It's not even a matter of detail; that's a red herring to the problems I have. I don't like it, but it's not the most criminal thing.

I'm still mostly trying to figure out why I feel Ravnica is lacking soul, and waxing philosophical on it. I have a couple ideas on why, but they're not quite as fleshed out as I'd like (and I've mentioned them in earlier posts, if anyone can help me figure those feelings out.)

I don't think it would exactly copy it, but I could definitely see the format used in the Guild section be re-used for a Planescape Factions section. I don't think you would need as much room to detail Sigil as you would even the small part of Ravnica that was detailed, nor do I think you would need as large a bestiary (celestials, heierarch modrons, and a few other scattered missing planar creatures would be all that would be necessary), so that frees up some room for a description of the Outlands and an overview of the Outer Planes (if even that's necessary - honestly that could just go "see the DMG and the DM's Guild").

 

[robus]

Some people find too much detail stifling and off-puting, wanting just enough detail to make the setting useful but not so much that they feel they have to fight the setting in order to play the games they want to play. Too often, large detail settings are have their details geared towards DMs and are from a god's-eye perspective. For players, that level of detail is intimidating and not usful, making them feel as if they have to read an encyclopedia just to play a character in a game—but where much of the information isn't actually useful (and sometime hampering) to them as a player in gaining the perspective of a character in the setting and knowing what that character would know.

What I find stifling about settings is the history, I love learning about peoples and places, but I don’t want to know about a bunch of history that weighs the place down. The PCs are about to make history, they don’t want to wade around in a mire of other people’s doings.

History is background and actually a great thing for DMs to conjure in the moment. Why is this castle here? because of XYZ. Trying to keep up with someone else’s lore is exhausting.

 

[Azzy]

That isn't a detailed setting, that's a presentation of a detailed setting that could be improved.

This wasn't a debate, it was an attempt to help someone understand a perspective that they didn't have. Secondly, you just ignored half of what I wrote to refute the player-facing problem.

Older editions have done this by providing a DM-oriented Campaign Setting and a player-oriented Player Guide.

Older editions have also done that so poorly, IMO, that the complaint remains the same. The first product that I've seen that attempts to address this with any degree of success has been the Wayfare's Guide to Eberron (and that's still not perfect).

An easy solution would be following that model and splitting the various regions or topics in subsections: one dedicated to "what would the average person know?" (so, a presentation of the topic from the perspective of an explorer, adventurer, citizen, faithful, etc...) and the other dedicated to the secrets and more in-depth details.

Absolutely, but that doesn't address that fact that regardless of presentation, some settings go into too much detail for some DMs and players. Sorry, just a fact.

With books like Ravnica, according to what I've gathered from this thread, I personally feel like I'm buying flavored smoke, rather than the actual food.

Sure, you're entitled to feel that way. Personally, I didn't find the premise of the setting to be terribly compelling to me, so I was just hoping that there'd be something that I could repurpose—though, given, this thread, there seems to be little to interest me.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm still mostly trying to figure out why I feel Ravnica is lacking soul, and waxing philosophical on it. I have a couple ideas on why, but they're not quite as fleshed out as I'd like (and I've mentioned them in earlier posts, if anyone can help me figure those feelings out.)

At a guess? It's because

1) You're not comparing like to like. No matter how hard you might try to separate them, your feelings on Planescape are influenced by all the Planescape material with which you're familiar, and also by the community involvement and discussion, and also by any past gameplay. To do a fair comparison, you'd have to compare your reaction to Planescape after just reading the core set.

2) You've had a lot of time to build up what Planescape is and means to you in your own mind. You have ideas and enthusiasms and experiences tied up in it that, again, you simply cannot separate from your initial reaction to just the first box.

(That's not a failing on your part, of course. That's just how the human brain works.)

And of course, all of that's not even taking into consideration the fact that you may simply like one--its concept, its aesthetics, whatever--more than the other; and the fact that you're a different age, under different circumstances, which will impact how you react to things.

 

[Azzy]

What I find stifling about settings is the history, I love learning about peoples and places, but I don’t want to know about a bunch of history that weighs the place down. The PCs are about to make history, they don’t want to wade around in a mire of other people’s doings.

History is background and actually a great thing for DMs to conjure in the moment. Why is this castle here? because of XYZ. Trying to keep up with someone else’s lore is exhausting.

A setting's history can be hit or miss, having things like Greyhawk's Twin Cataclysms in the distant past is great flavor that doesn't intrude on the PCs' daily lives and doesn't get in the DMs' way, as is something to provide the foundation for the setting's political underpinnings (like Eberron's Great War), but it shouldn't be exhaustive—it should minimal and be used to provide flavor, remain in the background, and be usable as a springboard for what the DM and players do. Present too much of it and it becomes forgettable (sometimes literally) and, for some, eyes start to glaze over.

 

[Irennan]

This wasn't a debate, it was an attempt to help someone understand a perspective that they didn't have.
...
Older editions have also done that so poorly, IMO, that the complaint remains the same. The first product that I've seen that attempts to address this with any degree of success has been the Wayfare's Guide to Eberron (and that's still not perfect).
...
Absolutely, but that doesn't address that fact that regardless of presentation, some settings go into too much detail for some DMs and players. Sorry, just a fact.

I understand that you were giving me an explanation, my point was that I still fail to understand aversion to detail because the problem doesn't seem to be with the details themselves (which, in the end, are options), but with the presentation. A different approach could very easily avoid the "I don't want to read an encyclopedia to run or play in this setting" problem.

I know that other editions have done it poorly, that's why I suggested a similar approach, but more geared towards providing different levels of detail for different needs. As for settings going too much into detail, my entire point is that you don't need to know all those details to run the setting, they're options for those who want them, and, for that reason, presentation can heavily influence whether a setting can be palatable to people who don't like too many details. If a DM finds a setting too detailed, if the book both provides an overview and then sections going more in-depth, they can easily read the street level-perspective guide, read info on major movers, and still be able to decently run it. They will only have basic levels of detail to work with, which is what fits their style. Sure, they won't know the history and the likes, but if they don't need it (or want to make up their own) then there's no problem. It's the modular approach that 5e strove to achieve, but that they're entirely overlooking.

In short, I understand that some people can find detailed setting stifling or overwhelming, but what if the setting is presented in a way that makes it easy to choose the level of detail to use (because you're never forced to use details)? Such a book could be useful both to those who like details and to those who don't, while the current approach is only useful to the latter.

Secondly, you just ignored half of what I wrote to refute the player-facing problem.

What did I ignore?