D&D 5E Strixhaven Twitter Previews

[Paul Farquhar]

I have no doubt there are real-world analogues. J.K. Rowling got her ideas from somewhere.

But I cannot think of any analogues among pre-Potter fantasy wizard schools. Unseen University doesn't have this kind of deep factionalism going on, and UU's wizard sports consist of Extreme Napping and Competitive Eating. The wizards' school at Roke has none of this either, nor does Miss Cackle's Academy for Witches. The last item is notable because the "Worst Witch" books were precursors to the Potterverse in many ways; but there is nothing resembling the House system and its all-encompassing division of the school, and the closest it comes to Quidditch is broomstick shows at Halloween.

Rowling actually doesn't like/read the fantasy genre. But Potter is very heavily influenced by Enid Blyton's Mallory Towers and St. Claire's series. Which are identical but without magic.

The Worst Witch is also based on Mallory Towers, and so is very similar to Potter, despite not being the direct influence. They share a common ancestor.

Many traditional British boarding schools have a house system in real life. I know, I went to one. The houses where largely so sport's teams would have someone to compete against - sport is a very big thing at a traditional British boarding school. But the houses acquire reputations, just like in Potter. Crabbe was academic, Romney was sporty, Tallis was full of dossers and Scott (my house) full of also-rans.

 

[pukunui]

If you're buying all their books, it sounds like you ARE in their target market!

You can buy stuff without being in the target market for it.

That said, I’m thinking more of WotC’s marketing of D&D. I’m not into live streaming, cosplay, etc. None of that appeals to me.

I don’t feel like D&D is being marketed towards me. That doesn’t mean I can’t still buy the products and enjoy them.

 

[see]

I have no doubt there are real-world analogues. J.K. Rowling got her ideas from somewhere.

But I cannot think of any analogues among pre-Potter fantasy wizard schools. Unseen University doesn't have this kind of deep factionalism going on, and UU's wizard sports consist of Extreme Napping and Competitive Eating.

That's the post-Ridcully UU. The pre-Ridcully UU . . . well, any house factionalism was somewhat hard to see under the dog-eat-dog murderousness, but they get mentioned.

 

[Dire Bare]

Well, both the Ravnica and Theros books seem to take extra care in avoiding any mention of how those worlds connect to the Multiverse. Neither mentions the Blind Eternities, Ravnica mentions Planeswalkers once (specifically around Jace Beleren, the living Guildpact), Theros doesn't mention Planeswalkers at all. Ravnica doesn't mention the Multiverse at all, Theros does briefly to say that it is its within its "own "pocket of the Multiverse."

There certainly hasn't been any language within either book saying their part of the D&D Multiverse, but not the MTG Multiverse. Jeremy Crawford has said they are the same thing, but it was an Sage Advice interview not an official printing.

Good points, and I apologize, that's not quite what I meant. I'm not concerned with canon. How exactly do Theros, Ravnica, and Strixhaven connect to the larger Magic and/or D&D multiverses canonically? I don't know or care, honestly.

Rather, what I was driving at (unclearly, sorry) was reinterpreting a setting for a new medium. When we adapt a story from a novel to a movie, or a comic to a TV show, or even reimagine an older film into a newer film . . . differences arise. WotC is adapting settings designed for a card game to a new medium, the roleplaying game. Both are games, both are fantasy properties, both take inspiration from similar sources and from each other, but . . . each game has different needs and structures.

The MtG multiverse setting doesn't have a Feywild. The D&D multiverse setting doesn't have planeswalkers (in the same sense Magic does) and the nature of the planes differ. The Strixhaven in the card game is different, if not by much, than the Strixhaven in the D&D game. For me, there is no dissonance with that, and no need to reconcile anything.

Over concern with canon, IMO, is antithetical to creativity. It burns a lot of brainspace obsessing over small, trivial details that don't impact the overall enjoyment of an art piece.

It reminds me of when Dragon Magazine, back in the day, used to publish D&D articles about fantasy settings from famous authors. There were some great articles statting creatures and characters from Terry Brook's Shannara series . . . . with no worry about the ties of canon between Brook's novels and the D&D articles interpretation of them.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Good points, and I apologize, that's not quite what I meant. I'm not concerned with canon. How exactly do Theros, Ravnica, and Strixhaven connect to the larger Magic and/or D&D multiverses canonically? I don't know or care, honestly.

Rather, what I was driving at (unclearly, sorry) was reinterpreting a setting for a new medium. When we adapt a story from a novel to a movie, or a comic to a TV show, or even reimagine an older film into a newer film . . . differences arise. WotC is adapting settings designed for a card game to a new medium, the roleplaying game. Both are games, both are fantasy properties, both take inspiration from similar sources and from each other, but . . . each game has different needs and structures.

The MtG multiverse setting doesn't have a Feywild. The D&D multiverse setting doesn't have planeswalkers (in the same sense Magic does) and the nature of the planes differ. The Strixhaven in the card game is different, if not by much, than the Strixhaven in the D&D game. For me, there is no dissonance with that, and no need to reconcile anything.

Over concern with canon, IMO, is antithetical to creativity. It burns a lot of brainspace obsessing over small, trivial details that don't impact the overall enjoyment of an art piece.

It reminds me of when Dragon Magazine, back in the day, used to publish D&D articles about fantasy settings from famous authors. There were some great articles statting creatures and characters from Terry Brook's Shannara series . . . . with no worry about the ties of canon between Brook's novels and the D&D articles interpretation of them.

Canon in art buiod consistency while builds immersion, it's a boon to creativity, it gives it structure and internal logic, without that things increasingly stop making sense, and eventually it turns into a muddled mess.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Well, both the Ravnica and Theros books seem to take extra care in avoiding any mention of how those worlds connect to the Multiverse. Neither mentions the Blind Eternities, Ravnica mentions Planeswalkers once (specifically around Jace Beleren, the living Guildpact), Theros doesn't mention Planeswalkers at all. Ravnica doesn't mention the Multiverse at all, Theros does briefly to say that it is its within its "own "pocket of the Multiverse."

There certainly hasn't been any language within either book saying their part of the D&D Multiverse, but not the MTG Multiverse. Jeremy Crawford has said they are the same thing, but it was an Sage Advice interview not an official printing.

Theros does mention the material plane, saying it's smaller then most in the material plane.

Honestly in lore, mechanics, and magical physics Theros and Ravnica's D&D versions feel like they fit better mechanically into the Greater Wheel Cosmology of 5e then they do in the Blind Eternities. I think this will be far, far more true of Strixhaven given its designed so you can drop it into any D&D Campaign World from the Forgotten Realms, to the Domains of Desire, to Greyhawk, to Eberron, to Homebrew settings, etc..., I mean they've already added flesh and blood gnomes to Strixhaven. Honestly some or Strixhaven's fluff like being the best Mage School in the Multiverse makes way more sense in D&D then in MtG given how much easier it is to travel between planes and worlds in D&D, especially in groups of none planeswalkers. then it is in the blind eternities, where your stuck if you have no spark.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's the post-Ridcully UU. The pre-Ridcully UU . . . well, any house factionalism was somewhat hard to see under the dog-eat-dog murderousness, but they get mentioned.

The direct ancestor of UU is Porterhouse Blue by Tom Sharpe. I don't think Terry Pratchett read Mallory Towers, and he was a Grammar School boy.

 

[Bolares]

Canon in art buiod consistency while builds immersion, it's a boon to creativity, it gives it structure and internal logic, without that things increasingly stop making sense, and eventually it turns into a muddled mess.

I think our ursine friend was trying to say that worrying about canon, in the sense of trying to marry MTG's theros, ravnica and stryxhaven with D&D's versions is moot. It's kind of a waste of time to worry and ask about how the two products connect togheter, because really, it doesn't matter... You can have different versions of this worlds for different media products, and we don't need to be beholden by any canon for that.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think our ursine friend was trying to say that worrying about canon, in the sense of trying to marry MTG's theros, ravnica and stryxhaven with D&D's versions is moot. It's kind of a waste of time to worry and ask about how the two products connect togheter, because really, it doesn't matter... You can have different versions of this worlds for different media products, and we don't need to be beholden by any canon for that.

Exactly.

I don't think canon needs to be ignored entirely, or that it isn't important at all . . . . I certainly enjoy the connected MCU, Star Wars, and other ginormous franchises . . . . but sometimes, the obsession with canon gets ridiculous and unnecessary.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Theros does mention the material plane, saying it's smaller then most in the material plane.

Honestly in lore, mechanics, and magical physics Theros and Ravnica's D&D versions feel like they fit better mechanically into the Greater Wheel Cosmology of 5e then they do in the Blind Eternities. I think this will be far, far more true of Strixhaven given its designed so you can drop it into any D&D Campaign World from the Forgotten Realms, to the Domains of Desire, to Greyhawk, to Eberron, to Homebrew settings, etc..., I mean they've already added flesh and blood gnomes to Strixhaven. Honestly some or Strixhaven's fluff like being the best Mage School in the Multiverse makes way more sense in D&D then in MtG given how much easier it is to travel between planes and worlds in D&D, especially in groups of none planeswalkers. then it is in the blind eternities, where your stuck if you have no spark.

Well, I definitely don't agree with Theros/Ravnica feeling more at home in the D&D Multiverse (if we are arguing it is distinct from the MTG one), unless you are scrubbing those two worlds of big chunks of their history.

In Theros' example, a big chunk of its recent history has been impacted by Elspeth Tirel. Although one could just treat her like a person who knows Planeshift and is not a Planeswalker, she definitely doesn't have much in common with D&D wizards and is much more martial focused.

Ravnica's history is much more intertwined with Planeswalkers, so much so it would simply be nonsensical for that world to be part of the D&D Multiverse and not reference the Outer Planes. Its literally a extraplanar, diverse city much like Sigil, with travelers from everywhere. It being in the D&D Multiverse but not referencing anything from it doesn't make a whit of sense.