More Mtg possibly? Zendikar? Zendikar would e awesome! They would need kor and merfolk in the book.
It is supposedly 3 classic D&D settings. That means that none of these would be an MtG setting. Thankfully.
The three classic settings does not preclude them working on setting book for none classic settings and they even said more MtG D&D collaborations were coming, so its almost certain there are going to be more MtG D&D setting books coming. I think there is a good chance for a Zendikar Setting book early 2021, Zendikar had D&D as one of its inspirations.
I doubt that. They've already covered Ravenloft in Curse of Strahd and rarely do repeat books like that. My money is on Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Dark Sun.
I guess I just don't get the appeal of Dark Sun...
I see such empassioned support for it and all I keep wondering is 'am I missing something?'
It let us play on Barsoom. If they had been any more on the nose about it Burroughs’ estate would have sued TSR and Gugax just as badly at the Tolkien estate did for decades.
I doubt that. They've already covered Ravenloft in Curse of Strahd and rarely do repeat books like that. My money is on Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Dark Sun.
Curse of Strahd is an adventure. Ravenloft is the campaign setting in which that adventure takes place.
More Mtg possibly? Zendikar? Zendikar would e awesome! They would need kor and merfolk in the book.
It is supposedly 3 classic D&D settings. That means that none of these would be an MtG setting. Thankfully.
The three classic settings does not preclude them working on setting book for none classic settings and they even said more MtG D&D collaborations were coming, so its almost certain there are going to be more MtG D&D setting books coming. I think there is a good chance for a Zendikar Setting book early 2021, Zendikar had D&D as one of its inspirations.
My comment only pertains to these three classic settings. Other projects that they may be working could be MtG settings, but none of these three classic settings could be MtG settings.
Per the Celebration video the three classics were being developed for possible publication from 2021-2022. Within that range there will evidently be some Magic the Gathering content as well. They also spoke of going "even further afield" into areas that push the game into new space. One angle would be sort of "anthology" work using a lot of new design talent, or design talent new to professional work. Another would be focused works on a some new aspect or exploring the game in a new light, which could be settings or could be (my inference) a crunch options or even a crunch reduction option. The bottom line is there's a lot going on in the D&D studio, among them 3 "classic" campaign worlds are being developed for reintroduction to D&D through 5e.
To speak to the poll being introduced in this thread, does the community ever get access to the data from WotC's player survey? Like I said, they asked a lot about campaign worlds, as well as veteran designers, in it, and it would likely be more telling to their direction than what we generate in this forum.
I tend to agree, if you are going to re-hash a setting, the question to ask then is, what is different about the material of the rehashed version of the setting that differentiates it from the material for that setting that came before it? Like with Mystara, I mean sure it would be cool to see the setting updated, but the old Gazateers are amazing and still available today and since its largely system agnostic, it begs the question of what would be the point of re-creating something that already exists. Its more likely if they did that they would upset existing fans if they changed or diverged from the setting in any way and I tend to agree that just doing cataclysms to reset the setting is a really boring and overplayed cliché.
I remember when they released Eberron, I mean that was the most exciting to happen to D&D in quite a while and while of course not everyone loved it, it was far more interesting then reading version 8 of The Forgotten Realms with someone describing Baulders Gate for the millionth time or worse trying to re-invent the setting by blowing it up.
New settings are always a risk, but I think Wizards of the Coast for all their flaws as a company has some really great, very capable writers and personally I see no harm in letting them lose and just letting them get creative without the typical strings attached when re-writing an existing setting.
I agree that D&D needs a new setting. I understand that the Magic: the Gathering worlds and Wildemount are technically "new D&D settings" that have never had sourcebooks in previous editions, but those don't count. M:tG should not be in D&D, and Wildemount is cool, but was not created by Wizards of the Coast. Currently they're just publishing official versions of popular homebrew worlds, combining to IPs that should not be combined, or redoing settings from previous editions.
D&D 5e needs a unique setting. Eberron was created for 3.5e due to a contest. They could do something like that again if they don't have ideas for a new setting, but I do think WotC should actually make their own new unique setting on their own. Eberron was created by a collaboration of WotC and Keith Baker. The Magic: the Gathering settings were not created with the original intent for becoming D&D settings. Wildemount was created by Matthew Mercer.
It is my opinion that Wizards of the Coast should take a risk and create a completely new D&D setting on their own. They should do polls to figure out what kind of setting D&D players would like to see, but that's all the help they should get. D&D should get a new setting that is like nothing we've seen before, like how Eberron was in 3.5e. If they do it correctly, it could be a massive hit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't see why they can't work on creating a new setting for us to explore while releasing older, classic settings as well. Grant it I can only imagine what an undertaking that would be, inventing a whole new setting that is both rich and different enough from what came before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
It is wrong. D&D is a hobby that depends on creativity and imagination. The designers of the hobby have more than enough of both of those, as well as experience making world books. They should use their experience, creativity, and imagination to create a new setting. It would be refreshing for the community.
I recommend that they do a poll not on what kind of setting should be in the game, but one that asks what specific parts of popular settings they like the most, and use that information to create a new world. Eberron is so popular because it's so different from standard D&D, using magic and artifice as the world's technology. Wildemount has a fallen civilization of mages and god-hating spellcasters that lived on top of floating cities, which were without a doubt inspired by the Netheril from Forgotten Realms. A new world could take specific cool aspects of different settings and blend them, taking inspiration from different world, but not being a clone of a different world with a new skin on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I have to disagree with you a little Third. I think Wildmount is as valid as any other setting. (Well, the M:tG settings can go away as far as I’m concerned.) Just because someone from WotC did not work on Wildmount does not make it “not count.” The people who work at WotC are just that, people. They are as fallible as the rest of us. Mercer has earned his stripes as far as I’m concerned. He got his bona fide on.
In fact, I prefer Wildmount to Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and a bunch of other settings. (Most of those just never grabbed me.) WotC was smart to take a setting that they knew people already liked and bring it into the fold. Besides, the world got to see Mercer craft Wildmount in weekly installments for years. We as a comunity got to vet his cred. It was that very cred that contributed to WotC seeking out a collaboration with him.
You weren’t around back then, but a lot of people wrote Eberron off as “not real D&D” when it came out. Now, a couple of editions later and it has the same validity as the older settings. Come 7e, Wildmount will be the same.
I don't see why they can't work on creating a new setting for us to explore while releasing older, classic settings as well. Grant it I can only imagine what an undertaking that would be, inventing a whole new setting that is both rich and different enough from what came before.
It would be difficult, definitely. Also, I do want some older settings (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer), while still wanting a new setting. Those settings would probably be the most rewarding of the previous settings to come to 5e. They could actually build on their previous concepts, instead of just being remakes (a bit like how Rising from the Last War expanded upon Eberron, instead of just being a 3.5e-5e translation).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I have to disagree with you a little Third. I think Wildmount is as valid as any other setting. (Well, the M:tG settings can go away as far as I’m concerned.) Just because someone from WotC did not work on Wildmount does not make it “not count.” The people who work at WotC are just that, people. They are as fallible as the rest of us. Mercer has earned his stripes as far as I’m concerned. He got his bona fide on.
In fact, I prefer Wildmount to Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and a bunch of other settings. (Most of those just never grabbed me.) WotC was smart to take a setting that they knew people already liked and bring it into the fold. Besides, the world got to see Mercer craft Wildmount in weekly installments for years. We as a comunity got to vet his cred. It was that very cred that contributed to WotC seeking out a collaboration with him.
You weren’t around back then, but a lot of people wrote Eberron off as “not real D&D” when it came out. Now, a couple of editions later and it has the same validity as the older settings. Come 7e, Wildmount will be the same.
Oh, I'm not saying Wildemount doesn't count as a new setting, it definitely does. It is a great setting. I prefer it to all those worlds you mentioned, as well. It's similar enough to them while also being different enough to be unique and flavorful. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is one of the best 5e books that has come out, beyond the Core Rule books, in my opinion.
But, Matthew Mercer and his team deserves the credit for the new, amazing setting, not WotC. Wizards of the Coast did barely anything (if they did anything at all) when it came to designing the world. My point is the Wizards of the Coast has never truly created their own D&D world. Exandria is Matt Mercer's world, M:tG settings weren't made to be D&D worlds, and Eberron was created because of Keith Baker.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would love to see these older setting revived becuase with the new surge in players it would be great!
I'd also love to see another new setting created just for 5e like Wildmount that springs from the minds of Chris and Jeremy. I think they could really make a good world.
Apparently it seems like I'm in the minority in seeing the MtG settings as good. I frankly don't understand this from listening to people say "I want new and different worlds to play in" but look at the two worlds we got from MtG and say "Those shouldn't be in the D&D, stick to your own lane." Like how interesting is it to have Ravinica and Theros - two worlds unlike anything in D&D to this point. What if they made these worlds and didn't attach the MtG name to them, would you like it more? I mean they didn't even make the worlds behave like magic, they made them behave like D&D so I really don't understand why a want for new and different worlds is wanted but these new and different worlds are so heavily shot down.
What ever they make setting book wise is useful to me, because it gives me more to add to my homebrew world
I have to disagree with you a little Third. I think Wildmount is as valid as any other setting. (Well, the M:tG settings can go away as far as I’m concerned.) Just because someone from WotC did not work on Wildmount does not make it “not count.” The people who work at WotC are just that, people. They are as fallible as the rest of us. Mercer has earned his stripes as far as I’m concerned. He got his bona fide on.
In fact, I prefer Wildmount to Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and a bunch of other settings. (Most of those just never grabbed me.) WotC was smart to take a setting that they knew people already liked and bring it into the fold. Besides, the world got to see Mercer craft Wildmount in weekly installments for years. We as a comunity got to vet his cred. It was that very cred that contributed to WotC seeking out a collaboration with him.
You weren’t around back then, but a lot of people wrote Eberron off as “not real D&D” when it came out. Now, a couple of editions later and it has the same validity as the older settings. Come 7e, Wildmount will be the same.
Oh, I'm not saying Wildemount doesn't count as a new setting, it definitely does. It is a great setting. I prefer it to all those worlds you mentioned, as well. It's similar enough to them while also being different enough to be unique and flavorful. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is one of the best 5e books that has come out, beyond the Core Rule books, in my opinion.
But, Matthew Mercer and his team deserves the credit for the new, amazing setting, not WotC. Wizards of the Coast did barely anything (if they did anything at all) when it came to designing the world. My point is the Wizards of the Coast has never truly created their own D&D world. Exandria is Matt Mercer's world, M:tG settings weren't made to be D&D worlds, and Eberron was created because of Keith Baker.
Yeah, the last new setting that Wizards of the coast made themselves (at least I think this is the newest setting but I could be wrong so apologies if it isn't) was Nentir Vale, the default setting of D&D 4e, which I though was a pretty fun and interesting world. Everything in 5e (by Wizards) has either been conversions of older setting or setting based of M:tG.
It would be cool to see the current team at Wizards create something wholly new, and I think the reception of Wildemount (at least from what I've seen) shows that new settings can be worth the investment. It would also be a setting that the members of Wizards have complete control and freedom over, instead of having to work with established lore and risk the responses of long time fans of those settings whenever they change or add to these worlds.
Nah, I didn’t even like Ravnica as an M:tG setting. I just don’t like Ravnica. Of course, a number of people in my group think it is the best, most interesting setting for bot M:tG and D&D. They invited me to play in Ravnica, but I just couldn’t. I tried to make a character for it twice, but the only characters I could come up with either wanted to either destroy Ravnica or just get the hell offworld by means of the first Planeswalker they met.
Theros is okay I suppose, but just not interesting to me personally. 🤷♂️ I guess that puts Theros in the same category as the vast majority of D&D settings for me, which is to say “meh.”
Nah, I didn’t even like Ravnica as an M:tG setting. I just don’t like Ravnica. Of course, a number of people in my group think it is the best, most interesting setting for bot M:tG and D&D. They invited me to play in Ravnica, but I just couldn’t. I tried to make a character for it twice, but the only characters I could come up with either wanted to either destroy Ravnica or just get the hell offworld by means of the first Planeswalker they met.
Theros is okay I suppose, but just not interesting to me personally. 🤷♂️ I guess that puts Theros in the same category as the vast majority of D&D settings for me, which is to say “meh.”
Yeah I get all that. Ravinica excites me due more to my erra of loving Steampunk... I mean Magipunk. So it tugs at my memories and heart strings. Theros is the same. I love Mythos, and if they made a D&D world of any ancient mythological world I would also love it (Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Celtic, etc.)
It's funny becuase I feel "meh" about FR, but based my homebrew off of Ebberon, Exandria, and Theros for world (with a large Fae influence) and Ravinca has done a lot for Society building for me. So I guess it's more they excite me over how I can use them Vs the actual world itself.
To be fair, my relatively well-known ferocious hatred of Ravnica comes less from the magicpunk megacity physical-location setting and more from the fact that every last single 'guild' in Ravnica feels flat, artificial, one-note, and exceptionally forced. They are all FANATICALLY devoted top their one ridiculously narrow concept or idea with absolutely no give for anyone or anything else, which works great when you're trying to engineer strong deckbuilding themes in a TCG whose lore is more-or-less completely ignored by the strong majority of its playerbase. It works significantly less well when trying to build a living, cohesive world, as 'strong deckbuilding themes' turn into 'awful shitty caricatures of actual people'. I could never really bring myself to feel anything for any given Ravnica guild save a strong sense of "please just go **** yourselves already, you're inviting eighty percent of your problems onto yourselves with your obnoxious boneheaded policies".
Theros was honestly a pleasant surprise, as I figured every Magic-inspired setting was going to be more of the same toxic tire fire that was the Ravnica book. Theros actually feels like a world somebody build to be a game world, with people that make sense. Yeah, the gods are still obnoxious one-note jackholes, but frankly? That kinda works for a Greek Hero Myth-inspired setting, and even then there's just enough flex and give in most of the gods for people to believe they're real and not just cardboard standees somebody's using because they ran out of writing budget. I could see myself playing in Theros, though it's not my favorite setting.
That said? M:tG settings are a difficult proposition from the start because of that issue of over-forced stereotypes. In the original card game, the designers have to basically punch the players in the face with extremely strong and equally divisive deckbuilding themes in order to get players to pay attention, as well as encourage diversity of strategies rather than just cherrypicking all the best stuff. That same level of Forced Theming, in a D&D setting, feels like the worst sort of tacky pandering and completely lacks any nuance or depth. Ravnmica suffered badly for it; Theros managed to squeak by via containing all the Forced Theming in its gods who're kinda supposed to be giant one-dimensional *****. Any other Magic setting feels like it's a lot more likely to go the way of Ravnica than Theros, sadly.
Oh gosh yes. The only thing about Ravnica I dislike more than the megacity concept are those stupid effing guilds. I couldn’t make it through the whole first paragraph of any of them without “swiping left.” The only character I actually started to get behind was one who wanted to tear the whole damned system down to rubble and set it on fire.
Well said, Yurei. I agree completely. Ravnica is not real enough to be a D&D setting. Sure, D&D is meant to have some extent of suspension of disbelief, but the people should seem like people in D&D worlds, or you cannot relate to the characters there.
Theros was well designed, and is a fine D&D setting. I don't love it, as I prefer real Greek mythology to the bastardized version in Theros, but the myths and gods are Greek enough to pass as that one "greek mythology" setting in D&D. At least the people in Theros behave in ways that make sense in a D&D world, with Leonins who reject the gods, Minotaurs who serve the god of savagery and destruction, and Satyrs who revel and are party animals.
There are very few Magic: the Gathering worlds that I believe could actually function as true D&D settings. Dominaria is huge and could contain many D&D adventures, but it has the same problem as the Forgotten Realms. There's too much backstory, too much lore, and too many places and things you can do. Innistrad is too close to Ravenloft, and so I think we're either going to get Ravenloft or Innistrad (most likely Ravenloft due to this announcement and it being a popular and well loved setting). Ixalan could be interesting, but is far too similar to Chult, and also relies on cartoonish generalizations of real world people (the Spanish vampires, etc).
I would way rather have older D&D settings come back in the place of whatever Magic: the Gathering settings they have in store for us. Sadly, I doubt WotC will end up doing what I wish they would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The three classic settings does not preclude them working on setting book for none classic settings and they even said more MtG D&D collaborations were coming, so its almost certain there are going to be more MtG D&D setting books coming. I think there is a good chance for a Zendikar Setting book early 2021, Zendikar had D&D as one of its inspirations.
I doubt that. They've already covered Ravenloft in Curse of Strahd and rarely do repeat books like that. My money is on Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Dark Sun.
It let us play on Barsoom. If they had been any more on the nose about it Burroughs’ estate would have sued TSR and Gugax just as badly at the Tolkien estate did for decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Princess_of_Mars
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Curse of Strahd is an adventure. Ravenloft is the campaign setting in which that adventure takes place.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am very curious about Ravenloft beyobd Strahd. Would love to see some more horror adventures dealing with other Dark Lords.
My comment only pertains to these three classic settings. Other projects that they may be working could be MtG settings, but none of these three classic settings could be MtG settings.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Per the Celebration video the three classics were being developed for possible publication from 2021-2022. Within that range there will evidently be some Magic the Gathering content as well. They also spoke of going "even further afield" into areas that push the game into new space. One angle would be sort of "anthology" work using a lot of new design talent, or design talent new to professional work. Another would be focused works on a some new aspect or exploring the game in a new light, which could be settings or could be (my inference) a crunch options or even a crunch reduction option. The bottom line is there's a lot going on in the D&D studio, among them 3 "classic" campaign worlds are being developed for reintroduction to D&D through 5e.
To speak to the poll being introduced in this thread, does the community ever get access to the data from WotC's player survey? Like I said, they asked a lot about campaign worlds, as well as veteran designers, in it, and it would likely be more telling to their direction than what we generate in this forum.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I agree that D&D needs a new setting. I understand that the Magic: the Gathering worlds and Wildemount are technically "new D&D settings" that have never had sourcebooks in previous editions, but those don't count. M:tG should not be in D&D, and Wildemount is cool, but was not created by Wizards of the Coast. Currently they're just publishing official versions of popular homebrew worlds, combining to IPs that should not be combined, or redoing settings from previous editions.
D&D 5e needs a unique setting. Eberron was created for 3.5e due to a contest. They could do something like that again if they don't have ideas for a new setting, but I do think WotC should actually make their own new unique setting on their own. Eberron was created by a collaboration of WotC and Keith Baker. The Magic: the Gathering settings were not created with the original intent for becoming D&D settings. Wildemount was created by Matthew Mercer.
It is my opinion that Wizards of the Coast should take a risk and create a completely new D&D setting on their own. They should do polls to figure out what kind of setting D&D players would like to see, but that's all the help they should get. D&D should get a new setting that is like nothing we've seen before, like how Eberron was in 3.5e. If they do it correctly, it could be a massive hit.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't see why they can't work on creating a new setting for us to explore while releasing older, classic settings as well. Grant it I can only imagine what an undertaking that would be, inventing a whole new setting that is both rich and different enough from what came before.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
It is wrong. D&D is a hobby that depends on creativity and imagination. The designers of the hobby have more than enough of both of those, as well as experience making world books. They should use their experience, creativity, and imagination to create a new setting. It would be refreshing for the community.
I recommend that they do a poll not on what kind of setting should be in the game, but one that asks what specific parts of popular settings they like the most, and use that information to create a new world. Eberron is so popular because it's so different from standard D&D, using magic and artifice as the world's technology. Wildemount has a fallen civilization of mages and god-hating spellcasters that lived on top of floating cities, which were without a doubt inspired by the Netheril from Forgotten Realms. A new world could take specific cool aspects of different settings and blend them, taking inspiration from different world, but not being a clone of a different world with a new skin on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I have to disagree with you a little Third. I think Wildmount is as valid as any other setting. (Well, the M:tG settings can go away as far as I’m concerned.) Just because someone from WotC did not work on Wildmount does not make it “not count.” The people who work at WotC are just that, people. They are as fallible as the rest of us. Mercer has earned his stripes as far as I’m concerned. He got his bona fide on.
In fact, I prefer Wildmount to Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and a bunch of other settings. (Most of those just never grabbed me.) WotC was smart to take a setting that they knew people already liked and bring it into the fold. Besides, the world got to see Mercer craft Wildmount in weekly installments for years. We as a comunity got to vet his cred. It was that very cred that contributed to WotC seeking out a collaboration with him.
You weren’t around back then, but a lot of people wrote Eberron off as “not real D&D” when it came out. Now, a couple of editions later and it has the same validity as the older settings. Come 7e, Wildmount will be the same.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It would be difficult, definitely. Also, I do want some older settings (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer), while still wanting a new setting. Those settings would probably be the most rewarding of the previous settings to come to 5e. They could actually build on their previous concepts, instead of just being remakes (a bit like how Rising from the Last War expanded upon Eberron, instead of just being a 3.5e-5e translation).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Oh, I'm not saying Wildemount doesn't count as a new setting, it definitely does. It is a great setting. I prefer it to all those worlds you mentioned, as well. It's similar enough to them while also being different enough to be unique and flavorful. Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is one of the best 5e books that has come out, beyond the Core Rule books, in my opinion.
But, Matthew Mercer and his team deserves the credit for the new, amazing setting, not WotC. Wizards of the Coast did barely anything (if they did anything at all) when it came to designing the world. My point is the Wizards of the Coast has never truly created their own D&D world. Exandria is Matt Mercer's world, M:tG settings weren't made to be D&D worlds, and Eberron was created because of Keith Baker.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I would love to see these older setting revived becuase with the new surge in players it would be great!
I'd also love to see another new setting created just for 5e like Wildmount that springs from the minds of Chris and Jeremy. I think they could really make a good world.
Apparently it seems like I'm in the minority in seeing the MtG settings as good. I frankly don't understand this from listening to people say "I want new and different worlds to play in" but look at the two worlds we got from MtG and say "Those shouldn't be in the D&D, stick to your own lane." Like how interesting is it to have Ravinica and Theros - two worlds unlike anything in D&D to this point. What if they made these worlds and didn't attach the MtG name to them, would you like it more? I mean they didn't even make the worlds behave like magic, they made them behave like D&D so I really don't understand why a want for new and different worlds is wanted but these new and different worlds are so heavily shot down.
What ever they make setting book wise is useful to me, because it gives me more to add to my homebrew world
Yeah, the last new setting that Wizards of the coast made themselves (at least I think this is the newest setting but I could be wrong so apologies if it isn't) was Nentir Vale, the default setting of D&D 4e, which I though was a pretty fun and interesting world. Everything in 5e (by Wizards) has either been conversions of older setting or setting based of M:tG.
It would be cool to see the current team at Wizards create something wholly new, and I think the reception of Wildemount (at least from what I've seen) shows that new settings can be worth the investment. It would also be a setting that the members of Wizards have complete control and freedom over, instead of having to work with established lore and risk the responses of long time fans of those settings whenever they change or add to these worlds.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Nah, I didn’t even like Ravnica as an M:tG setting. I just don’t like Ravnica. Of course, a number of people in my group think it is the best, most interesting setting for bot M:tG and D&D. They invited me to play in Ravnica, but I just couldn’t. I tried to make a character for it twice, but the only characters I could come up with either wanted to either destroy Ravnica or just get the hell offworld by means of the first Planeswalker they met.
Theros is okay I suppose, but just not interesting to me personally. 🤷♂️ I guess that puts Theros in the same category as the vast majority of D&D settings for me, which is to say “meh.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah I get all that. Ravinica excites me due more to my erra of loving Steampunk... I mean Magipunk. So it tugs at my memories and heart strings. Theros is the same. I love Mythos, and if they made a D&D world of any ancient mythological world I would also love it (Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Celtic, etc.)
It's funny becuase I feel "meh" about FR, but based my homebrew off of Ebberon, Exandria, and Theros for world (with a large Fae influence) and Ravinca has done a lot for Society building for me. So I guess it's more they excite me over how I can use them Vs the actual world itself.
To be fair, my relatively well-known ferocious hatred of Ravnica comes less from the magicpunk megacity physical-location setting and more from the fact that every last single 'guild' in Ravnica feels flat, artificial, one-note, and exceptionally forced. They are all FANATICALLY devoted top their one ridiculously narrow concept or idea with absolutely no give for anyone or anything else, which works great when you're trying to engineer strong deckbuilding themes in a TCG whose lore is more-or-less completely ignored by the strong majority of its playerbase. It works significantly less well when trying to build a living, cohesive world, as 'strong deckbuilding themes' turn into 'awful shitty caricatures of actual people'. I could never really bring myself to feel anything for any given Ravnica guild save a strong sense of "please just go **** yourselves already, you're inviting eighty percent of your problems onto yourselves with your obnoxious boneheaded policies".
Theros was honestly a pleasant surprise, as I figured every Magic-inspired setting was going to be more of the same toxic tire fire that was the Ravnica book. Theros actually feels like a world somebody build to be a game world, with people that make sense. Yeah, the gods are still obnoxious one-note jackholes, but frankly? That kinda works for a Greek Hero Myth-inspired setting, and even then there's just enough flex and give in most of the gods for people to believe they're real and not just cardboard standees somebody's using because they ran out of writing budget. I could see myself playing in Theros, though it's not my favorite setting.
That said? M:tG settings are a difficult proposition from the start because of that issue of over-forced stereotypes. In the original card game, the designers have to basically punch the players in the face with extremely strong and equally divisive deckbuilding themes in order to get players to pay attention, as well as encourage diversity of strategies rather than just cherrypicking all the best stuff. That same level of Forced Theming, in a D&D setting, feels like the worst sort of tacky pandering and completely lacks any nuance or depth. Ravnmica suffered badly for it; Theros managed to squeak by via containing all the Forced Theming in its gods who're kinda supposed to be giant one-dimensional *****. Any other Magic setting feels like it's a lot more likely to go the way of Ravnica than Theros, sadly.
Please do not contact or message me.
Oh gosh yes. The only thing about Ravnica I dislike more than the megacity concept are those stupid effing guilds. I couldn’t make it through the whole first paragraph of any of them without “swiping left.” The only character I actually started to get behind was one who wanted to tear the whole damned system down to rubble and set it on fire.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well said, Yurei. I agree completely. Ravnica is not real enough to be a D&D setting. Sure, D&D is meant to have some extent of suspension of disbelief, but the people should seem like people in D&D worlds, or you cannot relate to the characters there.
Theros was well designed, and is a fine D&D setting. I don't love it, as I prefer real Greek mythology to the bastardized version in Theros, but the myths and gods are Greek enough to pass as that one "greek mythology" setting in D&D. At least the people in Theros behave in ways that make sense in a D&D world, with Leonins who reject the gods, Minotaurs who serve the god of savagery and destruction, and Satyrs who revel and are party animals.
There are very few Magic: the Gathering worlds that I believe could actually function as true D&D settings. Dominaria is huge and could contain many D&D adventures, but it has the same problem as the Forgotten Realms. There's too much backstory, too much lore, and too many places and things you can do. Innistrad is too close to Ravenloft, and so I think we're either going to get Ravenloft or Innistrad (most likely Ravenloft due to this announcement and it being a popular and well loved setting). Ixalan could be interesting, but is far too similar to Chult, and also relies on cartoonish generalizations of real world people (the Spanish vampires, etc).
I would way rather have older D&D settings come back in the place of whatever Magic: the Gathering settings they have in store for us. Sadly, I doubt WotC will end up doing what I wish they would.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms