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

[ccs]

I meant is there two separate canons.

At least two.
There's the one written by the MTG team & revealed through cards, books, etc
There's the one written by the D&D team.
And there's however many variations of either will occur once DMs & players start using the stuff to tell their own stories.

 

[Umbran]

If you are playing a role playing game, what is canon for that game is important, as it impacts play - if you are playing in the Forgotten Realms, whether Elminster exists or not can make a difference to how the game turns out. Whether you are playing in a world that went through the Time of Troubles or not may matter. The canon story helps determine what is in play.

In play of M:tG, the fictional canon is irrelevant. You have a deck of cards - that determines what it in play. The canon story is merely a pleasing entertainment that runs alongside the game play, inspirational only - you can't reach into the canon to pull things that aren't in your deck.

Since one of these games doesn't actually care about the canon, why do we care if they are the same?

 

[cmad1977]

Canon is silly.

 

[gyor]

If you are playing a role playing game, what is canon for that game is important, as it impacts play - if you are playing in the Forgotten Realms, whether Elminster exists or not can make a difference to how the game turns out. Whether you are playing in a world that went through the Time of Troubles or not may matter. The canon story helps determine what is in play.

In play of M:tG, the fictional canon is irrelevant. You have a deck of cards - that determines what it in play. The canon story is merely a pleasing entertainment that runs alongside the game play, inspirational only - you can't reach into the canon to pull things that aren't in your deck.

Since one of these games doesn't actually care about the canon, why do we care if they are the same?

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

 

[gyor]

Canon is silly.

Heathen! Blasphemer! to the Dungeons of Orzhov with you, where the Angels of Despair and the Zombie can "teach" you the value of canon!

Mawhahahahahaha!

(On a more serious note it enhances immersion)

 

[Remathilis]

Are D&D Ravnica and MtG Ravnica the same?

Because MtG fans don't think so, they say GGR isn't MtG canon, but as far as I know at this point it is apart of the D&D multiverse, so that makes it D&D canon along with FR, DL, Darksun, Greyhawk, and so on.

Which means there has to be two different Ravnica's? Doesn't it?

This could end up confusing.

I see it like this...

Middle Earth is a setting that has had multiple games made for it (MERP, MECCG, TOR, etc) and each time the game emphasizes different elements of the setting. It changes the nature of combat, magic, races, and monsters, but the fundamental setting remains the same; it's still Middle Earth, just the mechanics used to emulate it are different.

Ravnica is the same, but the order is different as it was a game setting first and then generalized into a multimedia project later. It's one setting, but what MTG emphasizes (guild color pairs, Planeswalkers) is different than what D&D emphasizes (adventuring and native characters) but they are essentially looking at the same thing. It's still Ravnica, just the mechanics used to emulate it are different.

So I'm not going to worry about trying to make both versions fit together anymore than I would making Star Wars: Saga Edition's and Age of Rebellion's versions of the same topics fit. Render unto MTG what is MTG's, render unto D&D what's D&D's.

 

[Jester David]

Are they the same?
No.
Just five seconds or googling shows that Magic the Gathering has its own Hell, Abyss, Demons, Devils, and other cosmological elements that are very different from those in D&D. And I’m sure many other ceatures are very different as well.

I’m the past I’ve compared it to this:



Where for one comic both take place in the same world and everyone handwaves away all the vast differences and zero effort is made to reconcile the lore.

You can fanwank out an explanation easily enough. Parallel multiverse or something. This is the Ravnica of Reality-D.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Heathen! Blasphemer! to the Dungeons of Orzhov with you, where the Angels of Despair and the Zombie can "teach" you the value of canon!

Mawhahahahahaha!

(On a more serious note it enhances immersion)

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".


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.


If a DM is playing a Ravnica campaign, they are free to use the MotG cosmology, the D&D "Great Wheel" cosmology, or any other cosmology they like.

 

[gyor]

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".


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.


If a DM is playing a Ravnica campaign, they are free to use the MotG cosmology, the D&D "Great Wheel" cosmology, or any other cosmology they like.

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.

 

[Jester David]

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".


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.


If a DM is playing a Ravnica campaign, they are free to use the MotG cosmology, the D&D "Great Wheel" cosmology, or any other cosmology they like.

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.
Canon is what is used to keep things consistent between editions and writers so they're not just making up brand new lore whenever convenient and changing the world because it's easier for their story. Because contradictions suck.

Or, worse, one player shows up expecting X to be true based on the lore while another shows up and expects Y to be true. 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?