D&D 5E Are D&D Ravnica and MtG Ravnica the same?

Paul Farquhar · Nov 3, 2018

gyor said:
No that isn't WotCs position there has always been a canon for both FR and Eberron for example, it's just that DMs have always been free to ignore it if they choose and go in their direction, but that is NOT the same as there being no being no canon.

Wrong.

That used to be WotCs position. They abandoned it with 5e.

Jester David said:
What creates confusion is when one book says "King Zog the Mighty was king of Cormyr in 1254 DR" and another book states "Bloglov the Stupid was king of Cormyr in 1254 DR". Because then the DM has to reconcile to contradictory facts because a writer couldn't be bothered to do their research.

And this is one of the reasons why*. There is so much contradictory stuff in obscure difficult to find sources that trying to reconcile it is a fool's task.

And then the DM is on the spot to make a decision.

You're in Ravnica. A devil appears before you, accidentally summoned when the players complete a ritual. What does that mean? Can it be bargained with? How do your players react?

The DM makes a spot decision. That is the DM's job. From that point the decision is canon for that game.

*The other reason is WotC has little interest in regurgitating old fluff. The reason for this is simple and purely commercial. They don't expect many people to be willing to pay for stuff that can be found for free (even if illegally) on the internet.

Jester David · Nov 3, 2018

Paul Farquhar said:
And this is one of the reasons why*. There is so much contradictory stuff in obscure difficult to find sources that trying to reconcile it is a fool's task.

And yet there's no shortage of people who enjoy doing so.

And one of the best reasons to buy new books is for their attempts to reconcile the lore. To have the work of a professional writer who did their research laying down what is canon and what is no longer canon.

Paul Farquhar said:
The DM makes a spot decision. That is the DM's job. From that point the decision is canon for that game.

Which is great... if the players know what to expect.

You're playing in a Ravnica adventure. The DM knows how they want devils to act. But if the players approach it thinking devils look and act differently, they might enter that situation very differently, and make a poor decision.

How would you respond to the DM announcing that a devil appears before the party?

Paul Farquhar · Nov 3, 2018

Jester David said:
And yet there's no shortage of people who enjoy doing so.

Yes, there is a shortage. There might be some veteran lore obsessives who might be willing to pay for such a book, vast majority of new players that 5e brought to the game really don't care. Researching, writing and publishing such a book would be very expensive (more so than creating something from scratch). Unless you can be confident that your sales are going to get into the tens of thousands of units it isn't worth doing, and even if you could sell that many creating new stuff is still easier and will sell better.

And then you have the issue that I have already alluded too - trying to dictate canon can actually drive players away from the game, as happened with 4e.

Which is great... if the players know what to expect.

You're playing in a Ravnica adventure. The DM knows how they want devils to act. But if the players approach it thinking devils look and act differently, they might enter that situation very differently, and make a poor decision.

How would you respond to the DM announcing that a devil appears before the party?

Players are not supposed to know what to expect when a new monster appears. If they make a poor decision it serves them right for trying to use metagame knowledge that wouldn't be available to their characters.

dave2008 · Nov 3, 2018

gyor said:
No that isn't WotCs position there has always been a canon for both FR and Eberron for example, it's just that DMs have always been free to ignore it if they choose and go in their direction, but that is NOT the same as there being no being no canon.

Does WotC have a stated position on "canon"? I have never seen one, but it is not something I seek out.

EDIT: To be clear, have they issued a statement of some kind about their stance on canon? I am not asking for anyone's belief. I am wondering if they have written out an official position somewhere?

Jester David · Nov 3, 2018

Paul Farquhar said:
Yes, there is a shortage. There might be some veteran lore obsessives who might be willing to pay for such a book, vast majority of new players that 5e brought to the game really don't care. Researching, writing and publishing such a book would be very expensive (more so than creating something from scratch). Unless you can be confident that your sales are going to get into the tens of thousands of units it isn't worth doing, and even if you could sell that many creating new stuff is still easier and will sell better.

The people who don’t care, won’t care if its new or canon. So why not stick to established lore?

(Plus, describing people who enjoy canon as “lore obsessives” is derrogatory and unnecessary. Just because someone enjoys something you don’t doesn’t make them “obsessive”.)

And it’s actually much, much easier to build something based on an estimating world or update something than have to create everything from scratch.
It frees up creative energies for the new content. For example, rather than creating an adventure AND a region AND new characters, the author can focus on the first and just copy existing lore, editing when necessary.
(There’s a reason stuff like the Marvel movies tend to be based on the best of existing stories rather than creating entirely from scratch.)

Paul Farquhar said:
And then you have the issue that I have already alluded too - trying to dictate canon can actually drive players away from the game, as happened with 4e.

Which makes my point for me. It wans’t just dictating canon. It was changing it.
And look how that worked out.
The people who didn’t care... still didn’t care. The people who did care felt turned off. It was nothing but a loss.

Paul Farquhar said:
Players are not supposed to know what to expect when a new monster appears. If they make a poor decision it serves them right for trying to use metagame knowledge that wouldn't be available to their characters.

Characters should know the lore of their world.

dave2008 · Nov 3, 2018

Paul Farquhar said:
That used to be WotCs position. They abandoned it with 5e.

How do you or [MENTION=6670153]gyor[/MENTION] know what is WotC's stance on canon fluff? Can you point me to a post, statement, tweet, video, etc. where one of the designers comments on the their approach to canon in 5e? I the two of you just guessing or inferring?

Umbran · Nov 3, 2018

gyor said:
The MtG players do seem to care about the canon a lot, perhaps because of the novels and stories.

I was noting that the *GAME* does not. The canon is irrelevant to play.

So, then, I return to the question - Why do we care if they are the same?

gyor · Nov 3, 2018

Umbran said:
I was noting that the *GAME* does not. The canon is irrelevant to play.

So, then, I return to the question - Why do we care if they are the same?

canon enhances immersion for people like me, we enjoy it.

cmad1977 · Nov 3, 2018

The only canon I abide by is the canon I use to fire ‘canonites’ off of my table.

Irennan · Nov 4, 2018

Paul Farquhar said:
No it doesn't, it creates confusion.

The DM says "King Zog the Mighty was king of Cormyr in 1254 DR", and a smart ass player says "but it states in [obscure out of print FR publication] that Bloglov the Stupid was King in that year".

By this logic, lets just avoid giving any info on worlds altogether, because any statement from WotC might cause confusion. Don't fool yourself, when someone reads an official D&D product and gains info from it, they're going to assume that it's the default, i.e. canon, not some random inspiration for DMs to write an adventure. So, each and every bit of info about a world would lead to the "confusion" that you mention. I mean, players who have some knowledge about that world might expect certain things to be true and certain others to be false, and that would be "confusing" by your logic. You know what? Lets just stop making assumptions about basic D&D concepts like races, because players might expect something from certain races, and DMs might want to do something else instead.

Or maybe, the DM could just state at the beginning of the campaign that they're just borrowing some elements from a setting, rather than 100% adhering to it...

Detailed worlds aren't confusing, they're indeed more immersive than bare-bones settings.

The official WotC position is that "canon" is whatever the DM of that game says is canon. Every game has it's own canon, and there is no super-canon that overrules that. The material WotC publish is just source material that DMs can use as is, use altered, or ignore completely.

Canon may be irrelevant at certain tables (like mine, btw) but it's needed by game designers to provide a coherent portrayal of a certain world, and WotC do have their own world bibles and canon. So there's a canon, a default assumption, and that's the info that you read in their books. Every designer needs to be on the same page for extremely obvious reasons: anything else and you get a bunch of random contradicting info, rather than an organic and coherent presentation (and the internet already provides plenty of adventure ideas without the need to pay for anything).