8
\$\begingroup\$

Simply put, the tag is for edition-agnostic questions about Dungeons and Dragons. By default, should questions about the worlds and/or lore of Dungeons and Dragons in general without specifying a particular world include the worlds and lore of Magic: the Gathering?

I ask this question because over the last few years, Wizards of the Coast has been releasing a series of pseudo-official PDF documents titled Plane Shift that focus on playing Dungeons and Dragons 5e in those worlds, and they recently released a hardcover supplement named The Guildmaster’s Guide to Ravnica, which was a book about playing Dungeons and Dragons 5e on Ravnica.

As a result, whether we should consider the worlds of MtG as a part of the worlds of DnD seems ambiguous to me. If so, it also raises the question of if questions on the lore or worlds of MtG specifically are on-topic for this StackExchange site, or if the tabletop games site has jurisdiction over them (they obviously have jurisdiction over questions about the game itself).

\$\endgroup\$
16
\$\begingroup\$

No, Ravnica Is Not Part Of The Default D&D World Lore

I don't think everyone else is getting what your question is.

You're saying that some people ask lore questions they just tag with because there are certain commonalities between the assumed D&D default settings over time that makes "How do bugbears reproduce" or "Why do Asmodeus and Belial hate each other" answerable largely with information from any edition. So does the Magic: The Gathering milieu count as part of that since it's a published D&D setting?

The answer is no. The reason this kind of "generic D&D lore" question is valid at all is because of the commonality of that core assumed D&D setting that is a milieu unto itself. It's a bit of a weird thing - Dragon magazine articles about "the ecology of this" or "race that" often didn't bother to be beholden to Greyhawk or the Realms or anything, they were presented as "you know - that's how it works in D&D." When game worlds gain stronger character that takes them away from that "Tolkien-lite" Gygaxian-heritage format, however, then questions crossing edition/setting don't make sense at all.

This is the case for the M:tG setting. It's a very distinct setting based on a rich IP of its own. How elves work there is not highly relevant to how Player's Handbook D&D elves have worked across editions - they're not going to worship Corellon Larethian, etc. This is the case for other settings too; Eberron and Dark Sun were deliberately created to be non-core settings that don't share that base lore assumption. Asking a generic question about what halflings like to eat that gets answered "Well, they're cannibals of course" (because they are in Dark Sun's world of Athas) is pointless. That's not what anyone is asking.

Being able to ask lore question about base D&D is a somewhat unique exception to lore being about campaign worlds and rules being about rulesets (of course many non-D&D games just publish one set of rules tied to one campaign world...) because of the odd "default D&D world" that emerged early in the game and has been continually embraced. Distinct campaign worlds that deliberately set up their own lore in opposition to "core D&D" lore are not useful answers for "core D&D" lore questions.

But It's An RPG Campaign Setting So Ask About It

But it's a published RPG campaign setting, so feel free and ask about it specifically here. Some questions might better be asked on B&CG to get an answer, especially if you're looking for lore from the card game not the RPG, but eh. Use just like you'd use or whatever. Game system isn't really that helpful of a tag in that case but you might use it to keep people who don't understand that it's a D&D setting from bugging you about "take that to B&CG!!!"

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This answer also doubles as a good explanation for why D&D lore questions can be system-agnostic in the first place. There's a continuity that makes relying solely on info published within the edition you're playing less crucial, which I didn't understand when I first started. \$\endgroup\$ – SirTechSpec Jul 31 at 5:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Hmm I wonder if that's worth a separate meta Q for ease of reference. "How can there be generic [dungeons-and-dragons] lore questions anyway?" \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Jul 31 at 16:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk We do have this very good one you asked last year. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Aug 2 at 13:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah well even better. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Aug 2 at 17:57
4
\$\begingroup\$

If it is relevant

Lets, go through the relevant tags and their intended use:

  • is for the set of systems of D&D, it does not itself describe a setting, but there are questions which spans both multiple systems and often multiple settings and so this tag is applicable.

  • Any setting can have its own tag, such as and . These setting tags don't have to be exclusive to one family of systems either, such as 1 which exists for Savage Worlds, Pathfinder, and Fate.

So, questions about MtG worlds would have their own tag (AFAIK only exists at the moment), and may have the tag if it is relevant to multiple editions of D&D.

Whether lore from MtG is applicable to questions about D&D is going to have to be up to askers, and possibly more so answerers, similarly to how it is up to them to mix lore between editions and settings (or care at all, but if they take part in questions its probably safe to say they do).


1: Chosen because I interacted with a question on it today and no other reason.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Magic does have an “oversetting” that connects the various planes (which is rather important since planeswalkers are such important drivers of plot in that game), so it is plausible for questions about that to come up, which would need something other than just Ravnica or Zendikar tags. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 24 at 1:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Yes, and the appropriate tags could/should/will be made when those questions are asked. I think it is perfectly fine for us to have a [magic-the-gathering] tag for the overarching setting, should there become a need for it. \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Jul 24 at 1:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ For reference, based on my search, the only other MtG planes explicitly referenced in WotC's D&D material (by way of James Haeck's Plane Shift PDFs) have barely any questions about them. Ixalan has 2 about its Vampire race; Amonkhet has 1 about a build that uses its Zeal Domain for clerics; Innistrad has 1 about a term mentioned in it ("living wood"), and 1 just about homebrewing a monster based on the MtG setting; and Kaladesh has 1 about the Aetherborn race, and 1 that very briefly mentions its Pyromancer sorcerer subclass. Only Ravnica has multiple questions about it, likely due to GGTR. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 24 at 1:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ That matches my suggestion, yeah; I just suggested dnd-magic-the-gathering to try to preempt questions about the card game. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 24 at 1:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast There are also a few that would fall under a MtG tag, but specific planes, such as this and this. \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Jul 24 at 1:21
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan That's a fair concern, but I don't think limiting the tag to D&D is good practice for the stack. While it may seem unlikely now, it is possible a MtG setting is published for a different RPG system (it's own system, another published by WotC, or something entirely). \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Jul 24 at 1:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Someone_Evil: Also this and this about official conversions or homebrew conversions of specific MtG stuff to D&D. And this question and this one, but both are closed (former = idea-gen, latter = rec-request). \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 24 at 1:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Particularly with the point raised by @V2Blast, I’m convinced about the dnd- prefix and dropped it from my suggestion... which I think makes our answers equivalent now. Oh well, +1 either way. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 24 at 1:32
4
\$\begingroup\$

Magic: The Gathering lore in D&D questions

If someone asks about D&D lore with the tag, and someone answers with Magic: The Gathering lore that accurately answers the question, more power to them, I think. I think if it were me asking the question, there is a good chance that such an answer wouldn’t be the one I accept—but I probably would upvote. Obviously, it would be a better answer still if they connected the Magic lore to other D&D lore, or referenced D&D Magic products, but I don’t think either is absolutely necessary.

Questions about Magic: The Gathering lore

Note that we do not have any questions of this sort yet, and we should do nothing until we do. Still, some thoughts on how to handle it if such questions get asked.

If someone wants to ask about Magic: The Gathering lore, they should use an appropriate tag—probably to emphasize we’re talking about it within the context of D&D. (Magic does refer to its setting as “the multiverse,” but that name is far too generic to use for this purpose.) Such questions could probably also be asked at Board & Card Games, but it’s OK for a question to be on-topic at two different Stack Exchange sites—being on-topic there doesn’t automatically make it off-topic here. Of course, questions about the actual cards and rules of Magic: The Gathering are and always will be off-topic here and should be migrated to Board & Card Games.

I don’t think it would be necessary to use for questions about Magic lore; that combination should probably be reserved for questions dealing with how Magic’s planes are embedded in D&D’s multiverse, campaigns traveling between Magic planes and traditional D&D planes, and so on. On the other hand, we do tend to use et al. for other D&D settings, so maybe we should.

Questions about individual Magic: The Gathering planes

The problem with then becomes, if someone wants to ask about the lore of any particular Magic plane, like Ravnica or Zendikar, that would imply they should use which is super problematic when there are only 5 tags allowed on a question. Tags should not be “nested” like that. I would be inclined to say they really ought to just use for that—but again, that’s inconsistent with how and the like are used.

Honestly, it’s beyond the scope of this discussion, but I’d actually push for eliminating “redundant” uses of with D&D setting tags. Probably deserves its own question.

Until then, though, since we have no and no real need for it, using is fine.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ If we’re going to have to make a tag for DND-related MtG questions, we’d probably want to leave it open for mechanics questions regarding the RPG stuff but not the cards, right? \$\endgroup\$ – nick012000 Jul 24 at 1:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nick012000 Yes, that was unclear and I’ll revise. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 24 at 1:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ Some context from memory re the inconsistency. Early on I think we were leaving off the system tags for questions mainly about setting lore. Since then though, the trend has been to throw both [dungeons-and-dragons] and [lore] on top. (This rest is editorializing. I feel like that trend is well-meaning but essentially just a tag tax that isn’t adding anything except filled tag spots, when the bare setting tag already covers it fully. I’d like to see the tax reversed.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jul 24 at 4:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .