First Impressions – Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica

Azzy · Nov 14, 2018

Irennan said:
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.

Then you have failed to see the perspective of someone that doesn't like information overload. If there's too much detail, it doesn't matter how you present it, it still exists.

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.

So, you'd create a product that has gated over-detail with the gated bits being worthless to those that don't like the over-detail—which devalues the product to such people because they're still paying for the bits that they don't want? If you were going to gate information (which can still be off-putting to some), you'd be better off putting it into a different product that supplements the first.

What did I ignore?

"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. "

Irennan · Nov 14, 2018

Azzy said:
Then you have failed to see the perspective of someone that doesn't like information overload. If there's too much detail, it doesn't matter how you present it, it still exists.

So, you'd create a product that has gated over-detail with the gated bits being worthless to those that don't like the over-detail—which devalues the product to such people because they're still paying for the bits that they don't want? If you were going to gate information (which can still be off-putting to some), you'd be better off putting it into a different product that supplements the first.

That's very similar to what I suggested in my previous post (publish a complete setting book, then also sell the overview or street level view sections of that book as separate pdf or print on demand books, to avoid extra production costs). This kind of presentation would erase the information overload problem. It'd be the same as approaching a real topic and, if you're not interested in the details, reading only a source that provides an overview. That would become even easier with digital platforms (like D&D beyond), because you'd be able to only purchase the content that you want to use.

I don't think that I failed to understand the perspective of someone who doesn't like info overload (nor that I ignored the part that you mentioned), because the info overload wouldn't be forced on them. A more in-depth treatment of the setting would merely be an option that anyone may or may not choose to use. What I failed to understand is why a modular approach wouldn't be preferable (it would give everyone more substance for their money).

Of course, my point is about settings that already are already large (like the Realms or, from what I gather, Ravnica, that is far more extensive than what presented in this book), not about adding details to lighter settings. I mean, WotC's current approach is basically doing half (the overview booklet) of what I described above, and people who don't like details are apparently still running detail-heavy settings like the Realms while only using the part of info about the setting presented in the SCAG, and not the full details, so I take that it's possible for what I describe to be palatable to both crowds.

gyor · Nov 14, 2018

Demetrios1453 said:
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").

Honestly Ravnica is more isolated from other D&D Settings, so it's extremely powerful guild backgrounds don't distort other settings. If they made the Planescape factions like that it would distort other settings like FR because Planescape is one of the connective settings, like Spelljammer.

Plus Planescape is a lot more then just the factions and Sigil. To me exploring the planes is far, far more important, Sigil is just useful as a home base.

And I think people overstate the similarities between Ravnica and Planescape. Factions have some similarities to Guilds, and both cities have demons and Angels the live in the same city. But Planescape factions don't govern the city, they merely administer it's functions, the Lady of Pain rules the city. The Guilds of Ravnica rule Ravnica outright.

And the natures of Angels and Demons between the two settings are different mostly. Most of Planescape's Angels are created by Gods, and it's demons spawned in the Abyss. In Ravnica Angels and Demons except Rakdos and Razia are made in the world by spells, not from the essence of Gods. Of course the nature of Planescape means that some of the Ravnica style demons and angels can find their way to Sigil.

And the biggest different is that Planescape is more diverse then Ravnica by far. Ravnica is more diverse then say a more xenophobic human or elf city, but it's no more diverse then Waterdeep, actually a lot less, both in species and religions. FR have access to dozens of PC races and dozens of monsters, Planescape includes cities like Sigil that are even more diverse, that likely has creatures from almost EVERY setting and most religions.

So you would have all Elven subraces, from different worlds, beside Orcs from Toril, beside Kender and Draconians from Dragonlance, beside Dragonborn from Nerath, beside Thrikreen, beside Shifters and Changels, beside Inevidibles, beside Empyreans beside Pit Fiends, beside Slaadi, beside Gith, beside Tabaxi, beside Tritons, beside Modrons, beside dragons, beside Barbaurs, beside Devils, beside Archons, beside elementals, beside just about anything (except "powers" like Gods). And hundreds if not thousands of religions and philosophies.

Still the biggest difference is outside Sigil, the Planes! Most people from Ravnica don't know the Planes exist, everyone in Planar Cities of Planescape knows the Planes exist and many travel between them.

Remathilis · Nov 14, 2018

Irennan said:
I don't understand why many people are against detailed settings. It's almost like preferring to pay more and get less. Generic campaign ideas can be found aplenty on the web, no need to spend $50 for them.

If this was true, why wasn't Kingdoms of Kalamar the most popular D&D setting even made?

gyor · Nov 14, 2018

Remathilis said:
If this was true, why wasn't Kingdoms of Kalamar the most popular D&D setting even made?

Because FR has it beat when it comes to details. The only fantasy/Sc-Fi setting that comes close to FR in detail is likely Star Trek and maybe Golarond, which is basically Pathfinder's Forgotten Realms, clearly inspired and shaped by FR, to the point of using Ed Greenwood for some of it.

flametitan · Nov 14, 2018

Mouseferatu said:
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.

That is possible, perhaps. Previous experience with it might play into it, via getting part way through Torment (Actually, I really need to finish that; I never got past the pregnant street). That said, I also had investment into Ravnica via Magic, and I've read up on the Magic side of things to get a feel for it before the book came out (Like apparently Ravnica has two moons. It's not mentioned in GGR, but at least one of the cards references it.)

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.

Also possible, and I likely agree there. I learned of planescape almost as soon as I got into D&D (Winter 2014), perhaps even in the months prior, while my investment into Ravnica is via learning of this book and playing a couple drafts in the recent set.

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.

That's the thing. I did like the concept of Ravnica, the aesthetics of it, before the book came out. I was sold on it being a potential D&D setting. I've been enjoying it in Magic as of right now. But there's a certain je ne sais quoi that feels missing in the D&D incarnation.

Parmandur · Nov 14, 2018

gyor said:
Honestly Ravnica is more isolated from other D&D Settings, so it's extremely powerful guild backgrounds don't distort other settings. If they made the Planescape factions like that it would distort other settings like FR because Planescape is one of the connective settings, like Spelljammer.

Having read through them, I wouldn't say that the Guild Backgrounds are "extremely" powerful, even with the expanded spell lists. WotC is openly suggesting just using them in normal settings with the serial numbers filed off, and I don't see that this would cause any major issues.

flametitan · Nov 14, 2018

Parmandur said:
Having read through them, I wouldn't say that the Guild Backgrounds are "extremely" powerful, even with the expanded spell lists. WotC is openly suggesting just using them in normal settings with the serial numbers filed off, and I don't see that this would cause any major issues.

Yeah, the expanded spell lists aren't all that powerful, as the wording implies they aren't auto-known or auto prepared. It's mostly a flavour element, and to be honest, one that I wish I had thought of myself. The actual renown benefits are mostly in line with what AL has done with the feature prior to this. So it's nothing revolutionary, but it sets a good foundation for future ideas, I'll give it that.

Parmandur · Nov 14, 2018

flametitan said:
Yeah, the expanded spell lists aren't all that powerful, as the wording implies they aren't auto-known or auto prepared. It's mostly a flavour element, and to be honest, one that I wish I had thought of myself. The actual renown benefits are mostly in line with what AL has done with the feature prior to this. So it's nothing revolutionary, but it sets a good foundation for future ideas, I'll give it that.

Yeah, the spells are just added to the spell list of whatever Class for the purposes of Guild members. This is cool and flavorful, but WotC has said on numerous occasions that spell lists are about flavor and not balance, so it makes sense as a flavor option.

Mouseferatu · Nov 14, 2018

flametitan said:
That's the thing. I did like the concept of Ravnica, the aesthetics of it, before the book came out. I was sold on it being a potential D&D setting. I've been enjoying it in Magic as of right now. But there's a certain je ne sais quoi that feels missing in the D&D incarnation.

*nod*

"Aesthetics" includes presentation. It could be down to stuff as minor as the writing style--or even how you were feeling that afternoon.

I mean, I'm not saying you shouldn't analyze your responses, and there could well be more significant reasons. Just that it could be influenced by stuff that minor.

Brains are weird.

First Impressions – Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica

Beth Rimmels

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ

Irennan

Explorer

gyor

Legend

Remathilis

Legend

gyor

Legend

flametitan

Explorer

Parmandur

Book-Friend

flametitan

Explorer

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Mouseferatu

Hero

Similar Threads

Related Articles