Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Your source actually says "For now, we're reserving the Universes Beyond branding for worlds outside those built by Wizards of the Coast." However, for D&D, given the number of 3rd party products that fit under that definition and don't have anything like that branding, I suspect the actual concept is "worlds that were not originally conceived as D&D settings"
Universes Beyond seems very clearly for bringing non D&D IPs into D&D. Note I'm not saying non-WotC IPs, but non-D&D. Critical Role is a D&D IP. Star Wars and WoW are not. I would speculate that if the MTG settings released now, they might very well be Universes Beyond books
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yeah, calling Honor Among Thieves "Universes Beyond" would seem to completely miss the point of that branding. It would be like calling the Baldur's Gate video game franchise Universes Beyond
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The fact one can make an argument for considering Honor Among Thieves Universes Within is irrelevant. The reality is that Wizards considered it Universes Beyond and uses UB branding on the Honor Among Thieves MTG cards.
Which just goes to show that the lines are not as clear cut as folks would like them to think. It is very clear cut for things like Star Wars and WoW, but there are compelling arguments to be made on both sides of properties like MTG, Exandria, or other edge cases. We know how Wizards would handle those things in MTG. But I highly expect Wizards will use a different definition of UB and UW for D&D.
Ultimately though, it is not worth arguing about what is UB or UW in D&D. It will be what it will be, and the only official definition we have is from MTG. As it is the only definition with probative weight (even if not entirely strongly weighted), rather than speculation, I think it is sensible to use that definition until an official statement or release evidences a different one being used, while also recognizing it might not be fully accurate and could change.
But for MTG Honour Among Thieves would be Universes Beyond, it's not a Magic property it's D&D, but it's perfectly possible that for D&D it won't be UB because it is D&D IP. It's also possible as someone suggested that future MTG settings transported into D&D might be classed as UB
We're not talking about MTG Universes Beyond. We're talking about D&D Universes Beyond. That you're having trouble grasping that difference is, frankly, baffling
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In part of the quote I had omitted for sake of brevity of the quote chain, I pointed out that WotC considers D&D generally Universes Within when utilized in Magic. Honor Among Thieves is a weird case that has other considerations and thus is part of D&D (Universes Within) but superseded by its Universes Beyond elements, such as actor likeness not being owned by Wizards. Notably, I agree it might be UW in D&D - and because of how rights are set up, it is entirely possible D&D and Magic could use the exact same dividing line on UB vs UW and arrive at different outcomes for this edge case. Which is part of the reason I brought up this particular IP - it goes to show how murky the dividing line between UW and UB can get, and shows that speculation without a more definitive definition is a bit fruitless.
Speaking for myself, that is why I am going to apply the Magic dividing line until D&D gets a more clear division, either through an official statement or an edge case where we can derive a line. Contrary to the demonstrably false accusation in the post below yours at the time I posted this, I do recognize and have acknowledged that MTG and D&D are different games with different concerns, and that I fully expect UB will mean different things in each game.
But we do not know those dividing lines yet for D&D, and while the usage in MTG is obviously not binding on D&D, it is the only official information from Wizards we have at the present time that gives us some information on how they might treat more complex cases. Is it binding on D&D? No. Is how Wizards handles something in other contexts more informative than me guessing what Wizards might do? Obviously. The reality is that, until we have a definition specific to D&D, we can either speculate on what the definition might be.. or we can use as a temporary rule a bright line rule adopted by WotC and extrapolate onto another WotC property.
The gross reality underlying my decision to adopt the only WotC rule available when engaging in these conversations is that these discussions of UB vs UW are fraught with “no real Scotsmen” arguments on what is or is not true D&D. Adopting a bright line rule that was established based on probative evidence instead of a speculative and personal drawing of the line, and based entirely on rights ownership instead of “was this true D&D at its start?” means my own personal opinions, speculations, and biases do not factor into any stage of the conversation about what is or is not UB. The rule was based on WotC’s divisions, not my own; the application of the rule is based on rights ownership, not my own opinion.
I think that makes sense. I think it is the only evidence-based definition we have available. And I really look forward to seeing more from WotC on the D&D front so I can receive a definition based on directly applicable fact rather than probative fact.
Others are welcome to draw the line differently - but this thread has already shown that the more speculative, individually-drawn lines on issues like Exandria and MTG get a little messy and can lead to back and forth that, ultimately is just two folks stating their personal opinions.