What exactly would a Rome-only plane look like? What factions and elements would differentiate it from Ravnica, Theros, or even that Battlebond plane? What is the gimmick? I can imagine a lot of crossover of thematic elements with existing planes but what would be completely unique and the main draw?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Protection from reason (Decadent_Creed can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by reason.)
I'm... really confused. You think that Ravnica, explicitly a bottom up plane not built to emulate Rome, somehow means that they're acknowledging the differences of Greece and Rome in a meaningful sense? When in terms of cultural influences the only thing it really has directly is Slavic? If you want to claim they built Ravnica to be a Rome plane feel free, but unless you're going to actually cite where WotC did that at best you're arguing something to the effect of subconscious influences which is very wishy washy territory.
And I'm not really sure why referencing Gladiators/Spartacus somehow invalidates my "Empire/Gladiator" bit with regards to pop culture.
This argument seems to ignore the fact that the phrase "Greco-Roman" pretty much exists in the first place because in popular culture they're largely conflated, a conflation of those cultures which occurs because of their perceived similarity, and the point that Theros can be characterized as purely Greek in its source material is the kind of nit-picking detail that the general audience doesn't care about. Probably why people were calling Theros "Greco-Roman" to begin with.
This argument seems to ignore the fact that the phrase "Greco-Roman" pretty much exists in the first place because in popular culture they're largely conflated, a conflation of those cultures which occurs because of their perceived similarity, and the point that Theros can be characterized as purely Greek in its source material is the kind of nit-picking detail that the general audience doesn't care about. Probably why people were calling Theros "Greco-Roman" to begin with.
They can not care about it and still be wrong. How does one stop being wrong if nobody takes the time to correct them, nit-picky or otherwise? We’ve all got our prerogatives.
If you want to claim they built Ravnica to be a Rome plane feel free, but unless you're going to actually cite where WotC did that at best you're arguing something to the effect of subconscious influences which is very wishy washy territory.
You're right, it's either 100% intentional or completely coincidental. Pretty sure I could have just stopped at the senate and legions in my comparison above and it would have clicked for most people, though.
This argument seems to ignore the fact that the phrase "Greco-Roman" pretty much exists in the first place because in popular culture they're largely conflated, a conflation of those cultures which occurs because of their perceived similarity, and the point that Theros can be characterized as purely Greek in its source material is the kind of nit-picking detail that the general audience doesn't care about. Probably why people were calling Theros "Greco-Roman" to begin with.
They can not care about it and still be wrong. How does one stop being wrong if nobody takes the time to correct them, nit-picky or otherwise? We’ve all got our prerogatives.
It's not so much wrong as it is less precise language, something we usually tolerate in colloquial contexts. You're right that people wont ever learn to be more precise if they aren't corrected, that is, assuming that they need to be corrected and aren't just using broad language.
Ravnica is clearly not a Rome inspired plane so it doesn't really change things.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Real world influences are used every block because part of world building is getting a sense of world and using real world references are a key to create cohesion.
Sometimes that real world source is a means of top down inspiration and sometimes it’s more of a veneer to help make a world have a cohesive feel. The Slavic component of Ravnica is much more veneer than top down influence.
-Maro
It is explicitly not an opinion that Ravnica is not Roman but Slavic. Being wrong isn't a crime but being smug and wrong should be.
I still think that decision not to have it be Greek and Rome is kind of silly. While I can see a Rome world being different from Greek world I feel they'd simply overlap a bit too much without some other major draw.
Please no more this.
MaRo (and most other content creators) are already presuming that most of their audiences are idiots. Please dont encourage them.
Greece and Rome are nothing alike, except one day a bunch of militant rapists decided that they might need some cultural values if their cartel was going to last more than a generation or three after achieving a comfortable amount of assets, so they went and conquered a country which had some and took that too.
You sure about that? Throne of Eldraine was created after Lorwyn was disliked as it remained too true to the source material and not as trope-y as players would have liked or known about. The player base proved their idiocy than anything else. MaRo et al were just responding in kind.
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
I still think that decision not to have it be Greek and Rome is kind of silly. While I can see a Rome world being different from Greek world I feel they'd simply overlap a bit too much without some other major draw.
Please no more this.
MaRo (and most other content creators) are already presuming that most of their audiences are idiots. Please dont encourage them.
Greece and Rome are nothing alike, except one day a bunch of militant rapists decided that they might need some cultural values if their cartel was going to last more than a generation or three after achieving a comfortable amount of assets, so they went and conquered a country which had some and took that too.
You sure about that? Throne of Eldraine was created after Lorwyn was disliked as it remained too true to the source material and not as trope-y as players would have liked or known about. The player base proved their idiocy than anything else. MaRo et al were just responding in kind.
'buster
Please justify this. Precisely what source material do you declare was used for Lorwyn?
(just because MaRo was quoted on something, and MTG wiki repeats it without justification doesnt make it true.)
There have been more lies told about that set then many others I remember. Dont just keep repeating them please.
Folks mention the slavic elements like they weren't by and large influenced by the roman empire territory they bordered or settled in.
I think it would be hard to do an explicitly roman set without contextualizing it as a large rapacious empire that ruled with a relatively light touch and little cultural cohesion and then establishing the franks and gauls (and veneti) as the barbarous peoples who lead to its split. There's a lot of religious history in there too that's a little hard to sell. It's also honestly just not a very magical point of history to try and draw references from. The lack of cultural cohesion and the cynical repurposing of local divinity robbed it of a lot of mysticism.
Here's what I could see: Theros having abandoned its previous polis and the straight-faced worship of its gods under a charismatic new leonin leader who establishes an empire and profanes the gods themselves by changing their names and messing with em.
But overall I think we would see an akkadian set before a roman one. Or like a new west asia focused set with silk road aesthetics.
As said before wizards feels like they could use Rome or another world and really that all that matters. A number of ways the trope space of rome could be used, imo not as its own world but as the flavor for a bottom up set (Kaladesh) or part of a faction (Tarkir). Similar to pirate troops I think Rome has enough for a section of a world but not as the only focus.
Hopefully we get some better mechanics this time around. Constellation and Devotion were good, but the rest were hot garbage in my opinion.
I will always fight that monstrous, bestow and heroic are good as well, just got nerfed by development and strive is decent as a add on for heroic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
It's not so much wrong as it is less precise language, something we usually tolerate in colloquial contexts. You're right that people wont ever learn to be more precise if they aren't corrected, that is, assuming that they need to be corrected and aren't just using broad language.
I'm fine with calling it either; the distinction doesn't bother me.
It is explicitly not an opinion that Ravnica is not Roman but Slavic. Being wrong isn't a crime but being smug and wrong should be.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, but MaRo tells you it's an elephant, are you still capable of making up your own mind? Never mind that what you quoted isn't remotely mutually exclusive with my analysis. Eldraine is pretty clear (if recent) proof that a set can have more than one inspirational component.
Once again, another forum corrupted by the bickering of nerds.
Is that not what internet forums are for? Apart from trolling, I guess. I'm sorry that our friendly debate wasn't as enriching as the raw positivity you so clearly bring to the table.
Just a friendly reminder to keep things civil. A few things have been borderline, or maybe even edging over. Going to just ask once that people try to keep things polite, even in disagreement. It's ok to disagree - it's not ok to insult someone or get mad at them because they disagree. We all have different frames of view.
It's not so much wrong as it is less precise language, something we usually tolerate in colloquial contexts. You're right that people wont ever learn to be more precise if they aren't corrected, that is, assuming that they need to be corrected and aren't just using broad language.
I'm fine with calling it either; the distinction doesn't bother me.
I'd say the distinction is important though, because it relates to the rules of logic and we need it to evaluate your argument. To wit, is the proposition
"Theros is Greco-Roman" of the form "X is A and B" or of the form "X is A or B"? If it's the former, then I'm inclined to agree with you. Theros as a setting is pretty much pre-Roman Greece, right? There's overall an absence of overt, distinctly non-Greek Roman content in the setting to support the first claim. If it's the second, though--which I think is both a probable and charitable interpretation--then it's basically correct. It would be better to say it's not necessary to call Theros "Greco-Roman" since it can be described as just Greek.
I also think that this distinction can come back to haunt you since the claim you're calling wrong is technically just imprecise. And it's imprecise to call something which is imprecise, wrong. So by your own standards, you'd be wrong.
Finally, I think there are some nuances to this situation which are in need of further analysis. It seems that everyone accepts that Theros is pretty much a pop-culture, "resonance" depiction of Greek culture. This version of Greek culture that we modern people remember are selections of the Greeks which in a huge way were passed to the west by the Romans, and from the west into modernity. They are the aspects of Greek culture that the Romans thought were important. To say nothing of the process of distortion which occurs with this diffusion. Is the Roman influence at this level something we can discount even if Theros is specifically about Greek culture, given the way it's about Greek culture is at least a little Roman as a consequence of it being extremely pop culture? E.g., we have examples of Zeus elevating a heroic champion in many myths, and examples of Zeus striking down mortals, but does Zeus ever strike down his own champion as Heliod does Elspeth? I'm not an expert on Greek mythology, but I can't think of a myth where this happens. This narrative element actually gives me some paterfamilias vibes, which suggests Roman influence at a more covert level in Theros. That might be too subtle to make the term "Greco-Roman" feel justified, but I think that comes down to subjective aesthetic considerations.
1. Pop culture isn't about right or wrong. If pop culture thinks that kraken are a Greek thing then pop culture thinks they're a Greek thing. The point is not that pop culture is right about how similar Greece and Rome are, but that they consider them to be, at best, two sides of the same coin. Not something as different as... I don't know, Greek and Norse mythology or the like.
2. Because planes in Magic are now being built primarily around pop culture I don't think that the pop culture take of Rome has enough to stand on its own legs. This, again, is because in pop culture the two overlap very heavily, and the areas they don't overlap are not enough, again in my opinion, to make an interesting set.
3. Ravnica is not a set inspired by Rome. You could argue it is a set that looks like Rome and that is much more subjective, but it is not a top down Rome set, there isn't any room for debate on that matter unless you are going to cite Maro saying otherwise. The story for it goes that they started with mechanics, ten two color pairs, and then the Creative team came back with the idea of Guilds and went from there.
4. Regardless of how similar you thin Ravnica is to a top down Rome set, the question is not whether you think it is. You are far, far, far, far from general pop culture understanding of Rome, you're not even in the ballpark. So the important question then is does the layperson, the not a student of Classics, think Ravnica is a top down Rome set. And I would be willing to say with confidence that the majority would not think it is. If you have to point to specific things and say "these are things of Rome", then you've failed at the pop culture aspect. You don't need to point at mummies in Amonkhet for people to get it's Egyptian.
5. I didn't once say that mythology was needed for a Rome set. What I said is that outside of mythology the only things of note from a pop culture standpoint are gladiators and empires. Your examples only emphasize that point, not detract from it.
6. None of this is to say that WotC can't do a Rome set. But as I said I don't think that it stands on its own, as a whole plane ala Theros, very well from a pop culture standpoint. Because again, the pop culture understanding is fairly shallow and Wizards doesn't want to do anything too deep.
7. If Maro does not say that Ravnica is inspired by Rome then it's not, barring someone from Creative (or higher than Maro I suppose) contradicting him. We can explicitly say that Ravnica is not a top down Rome set though, so regardless of how much of a duck you think it is Ravnica is not a duck. It's also pretty disingenuous to call it a duck when it's more a series of traits that ducks have that other animals can have as well.
I find it both strange and fascinating that you would demand of me evidence that Wizards has admitted Ravnica has Roman inspiration (which I don’t believe is necessary for my point to be valid), and at the same time continue to insist that there is public consensus about how “pop culture” has defined Greece and Rome to be ostensibly the same without any evidence whatsoever. Who are all these people, besides yourself, loudly proclaiming them to be “two sides of the same coin”? It honestly feels like you’re putting a whole lot of words in other people’s mouthes, and believing it justified with your repetitive, nebulous use of that expression. I’d prefer something a little more substantive than an assumption that other people share your exact perspective.
Look, we can continue to disagree about the source material that inspired Ravnica, but it ultimately doesn’t matter. The biggest hurdle facing Wizards, if they choose to move forward with a Roman themed block, will be dissociating it from each of those myriad elements I discussed before. If they can craft another plane with a senate, the legions, blood sport, barbarians, the church, etc, and have it not be easily mistaken for Ravnica, then more power to them. The gods and monsters of Theros really needn’t be a consideration, at all.
Greece and Rome are nothing alike, except one day a bunch of militant rapists decided that they might need some cultural values if their cartel was going to last more than a generation or three after achieving a comfortable amount of assets, so they went and conquered a country which had some and took that too.
It's funny that many roman philosophers think that the corruption of roman culture started with the assimilation of some greek principles
By the way, the whole real roman VS real greek it's kinda of moot. This is a fantasy game based primarly on mechanics, they can do a roman set if they won't.
Theros is strictly a top-down set with a strong gods/heroes VS monsters.
If you want to do a roman set, just focus on a different thing, for example the war between Saskia and Licia.
By the way i don't why Kylem should be Rome when it's clearly more based on modern sports and e-sports.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
1. Pop culture isn't about right or wrong. If pop culture thinks that kraken are a Greek thing then pop culture thinks they're a Greek thing. The point is not that pop culture is right about how similar Greece and Rome are, but that they consider them to be, at best, two sides of the same coin. Not something as different as... I don't know, Greek and Norse mythology or the like.
2. Because planes in Magic are now being built primarily around pop culture I don't think that the pop culture take of Rome has enough to stand on its own legs. This, again, is because in pop culture the two overlap very heavily, and the areas they don't overlap are not enough, again in my opinion, to make an interesting set.
3. Ravnica is not a set inspired by Rome. You could argue it is a set that looks like Rome and that is much more subjective, but it is not a top down Rome set, there isn't any room for debate on that matter unless you are going to cite Maro saying otherwise. The story for it goes that they started with mechanics, ten two color pairs, and then the Creative team came back with the idea of Guilds and went from there.
4. Regardless of how similar you thin Ravnica is to a top down Rome set, the question is not whether you think it is. You are far, far, far, far from general pop culture understanding of Rome, you're not even in the ballpark. So the important question then is does the layperson, the not a student of Classics, think Ravnica is a top down Rome set. And I would be willing to say with confidence that the majority would not think it is. If you have to point to specific things and say "these are things of Rome", then you've failed at the pop culture aspect. You don't need to point at mummies in Amonkhet for people to get it's Egyptian.
5. I didn't once say that mythology was needed for a Rome set. What I said is that outside of mythology the only things of note from a pop culture standpoint are gladiators and empires. Your examples only emphasize that point, not detract from it.
6. None of this is to say that WotC can't do a Rome set. But as I said I don't think that it stands on its own, as a whole plane ala Theros, very well from a pop culture standpoint. Because again, the pop culture understanding is fairly shallow and Wizards doesn't want to do anything too deep.
7. If Maro does not say that Ravnica is inspired by Rome then it's not, barring someone from Creative (or higher than Maro I suppose) contradicting him. We can explicitly say that Ravnica is not a top down Rome set though, so regardless of how much of a duck you think it is Ravnica is not a duck. It's also pretty disingenuous to call it a duck when it's more a series of traits that ducks have that other animals can have as well.
You're arguing against things which are pretty far afield from what your rhetorical "opponents" were actually saying. He didnt say Ravnica was an intentionally designed top down Rome emulation. He said that if you were to do such a thing, it wouldnt look very different from Ravnica.
I on the other hand, didnt say what qualifies or does not qualify as pop culture. I argued (very briefly) that it is a depressing target for modern storytellers and content creators to shoot at. From a marketing standpoint, they're undeniably right to do so. It is still a sad statement about we, the fanbase.
The one thing from this list that I will continue to oppose is number seven. Just because MaRo says something doesnt mean it is true. Even if he is telling you WotC policy or history, or even what he had for breakfast on a given day. He is a salesman before anything else. He will, can, has, and maybe even should say anything to sell his product, without regard to actual facts. You would be a fool to trust him.
I think the Rome aspect is intended to be more about emperors, government, having a republic defended by gladiators and so on, and less about gods, mythology and tropes. I still would have had “Rome” just be a different part of Theros that the main Polis conflict with at times, just as Troy should have been it’s own city in Theros and not Akros, which was intended to be Sparta. Theros should have been “Mediterranean World” with a main focus on it being Greece as the core landmass, and various cities and locations from Greek mythology From the region included. With those cities worshipping the same pantheon, but having other names for the same gods (in lore only. Like Magendi and Ula for example)
How awesome would it be if we visited “Rome world” for example only to discover it was a distant part of Theros? It would be so unique to do that. Perhaps too complex for marketing purposes, but still cool
Fiore is already based on Rome. Maybe not the time of gladiators and such but i doubt they'll make two planes based on the same real world location just different eras.
I’m actually looking forward to Ikoria: Lair Of Behemoths a lot more (despite not even having a clue what’s in I:LoB)than a return to Theros. I think I:LoB has what I want
Once again, another forum corrupted by the bickering of nerds.
Hopefully we get some better mechanics this time around. Constellation and Devotion were good, but the rest were hot garbage in my opinion.
Im totally on your side, bro.
Im comin here to see so many comments in this post, lookin forward to read about Elspeth.
Then all posts about personal disagreements on random topics.
I really hope Elspeth remains mono white. Maybe 3 mana this time & the Planeswalkers powalevel of Eldraine. Cuz they are all super playable !
WEll this whole conversation could have been avoided if people did a quick research of Slavic culture and historical politic sistem. Guess “I think in my guts” is a better argument.
Do a research on Romans too. It is not because azorious senate law makers looks like a bunch of greek philosophies that they are clearly a Roman inspiration. The argument of pop culture don’t fit that much either but we can agree that for a only movies fan of Rome it may look like it.
There are some parallels and there are a lot of differences to actually make a Roman set.
And I'm not really sure why referencing Gladiators/Spartacus somehow invalidates my "Empire/Gladiator" bit with regards to pop culture.
They can not care about it and still be wrong. How does one stop being wrong if nobody takes the time to correct them, nit-picky or otherwise? We’ve all got our prerogatives.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
You're right, it's either 100% intentional or completely coincidental. Pretty sure I could have just stopped at the senate and legions in my comparison above and it would have clicked for most people, though.
Because they’re prime examples of how pop culture depictions of Rome has absolutely nothing to do with the Greek mythology you keep espousing.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
It's not so much wrong as it is less precise language, something we usually tolerate in colloquial contexts. You're right that people wont ever learn to be more precise if they aren't corrected, that is, assuming that they need to be corrected and aren't just using broad language.
Hopefully we get some better mechanics this time around. Constellation and Devotion were good, but the rest were hot garbage in my opinion.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
You sure about that? Throne of Eldraine was created after Lorwyn was disliked as it remained too true to the source material and not as trope-y as players would have liked or known about. The player base proved their idiocy than anything else. MaRo et al were just responding in kind.
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Please justify this. Precisely what source material do you declare was used for Lorwyn?
(just because MaRo was quoted on something, and MTG wiki repeats it without justification doesnt make it true.)
There have been more lies told about that set then many others I remember. Dont just keep repeating them please.
I think it would be hard to do an explicitly roman set without contextualizing it as a large rapacious empire that ruled with a relatively light touch and little cultural cohesion and then establishing the franks and gauls (and veneti) as the barbarous peoples who lead to its split. There's a lot of religious history in there too that's a little hard to sell. It's also honestly just not a very magical point of history to try and draw references from. The lack of cultural cohesion and the cynical repurposing of local divinity robbed it of a lot of mysticism.
Here's what I could see: Theros having abandoned its previous polis and the straight-faced worship of its gods under a charismatic new leonin leader who establishes an empire and profanes the gods themselves by changing their names and messing with em.
But overall I think we would see an akkadian set before a roman one. Or like a new west asia focused set with silk road aesthetics.
I will always fight that monstrous, bestow and heroic are good as well, just got nerfed by development and strive is decent as a add on for heroic.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I'm fine with calling it either; the distinction doesn't bother me.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, but MaRo tells you it's an elephant, are you still capable of making up your own mind? Never mind that what you quoted isn't remotely mutually exclusive with my analysis. Eldraine is pretty clear (if recent) proof that a set can have more than one inspirational component.
Is that not what internet forums are for? Apart from trolling, I guess. I'm sorry that our friendly debate wasn't as enriching as the raw positivity you so clearly bring to the table.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I'd say the distinction is important though, because it relates to the rules of logic and we need it to evaluate your argument. To wit, is the proposition
"Theros is Greco-Roman" of the form "X is A and B" or of the form "X is A or B"? If it's the former, then I'm inclined to agree with you. Theros as a setting is pretty much pre-Roman Greece, right? There's overall an absence of overt, distinctly non-Greek Roman content in the setting to support the first claim. If it's the second, though--which I think is both a probable and charitable interpretation--then it's basically correct. It would be better to say it's not necessary to call Theros "Greco-Roman" since it can be described as just Greek.
I also think that this distinction can come back to haunt you since the claim you're calling wrong is technically just imprecise. And it's imprecise to call something which is imprecise, wrong. So by your own standards, you'd be wrong.
Finally, I think there are some nuances to this situation which are in need of further analysis. It seems that everyone accepts that Theros is pretty much a pop-culture, "resonance" depiction of Greek culture. This version of Greek culture that we modern people remember are selections of the Greeks which in a huge way were passed to the west by the Romans, and from the west into modernity. They are the aspects of Greek culture that the Romans thought were important. To say nothing of the process of distortion which occurs with this diffusion. Is the Roman influence at this level something we can discount even if Theros is specifically about Greek culture, given the way it's about Greek culture is at least a little Roman as a consequence of it being extremely pop culture? E.g., we have examples of Zeus elevating a heroic champion in many myths, and examples of Zeus striking down mortals, but does Zeus ever strike down his own champion as Heliod does Elspeth? I'm not an expert on Greek mythology, but I can't think of a myth where this happens. This narrative element actually gives me some paterfamilias vibes, which suggests Roman influence at a more covert level in Theros. That might be too subtle to make the term "Greco-Roman" feel justified, but I think that comes down to subjective aesthetic considerations.
I dunno, interesting topic, though.
2. Because planes in Magic are now being built primarily around pop culture I don't think that the pop culture take of Rome has enough to stand on its own legs. This, again, is because in pop culture the two overlap very heavily, and the areas they don't overlap are not enough, again in my opinion, to make an interesting set.
3. Ravnica is not a set inspired by Rome. You could argue it is a set that looks like Rome and that is much more subjective, but it is not a top down Rome set, there isn't any room for debate on that matter unless you are going to cite Maro saying otherwise. The story for it goes that they started with mechanics, ten two color pairs, and then the Creative team came back with the idea of Guilds and went from there.
4. Regardless of how similar you thin Ravnica is to a top down Rome set, the question is not whether you think it is. You are far, far, far, far from general pop culture understanding of Rome, you're not even in the ballpark. So the important question then is does the layperson, the not a student of Classics, think Ravnica is a top down Rome set. And I would be willing to say with confidence that the majority would not think it is. If you have to point to specific things and say "these are things of Rome", then you've failed at the pop culture aspect. You don't need to point at mummies in Amonkhet for people to get it's Egyptian.
5. I didn't once say that mythology was needed for a Rome set. What I said is that outside of mythology the only things of note from a pop culture standpoint are gladiators and empires. Your examples only emphasize that point, not detract from it.
6. None of this is to say that WotC can't do a Rome set. But as I said I don't think that it stands on its own, as a whole plane ala Theros, very well from a pop culture standpoint. Because again, the pop culture understanding is fairly shallow and Wizards doesn't want to do anything too deep.
7. If Maro does not say that Ravnica is inspired by Rome then it's not, barring someone from Creative (or higher than Maro I suppose) contradicting him. We can explicitly say that Ravnica is not a top down Rome set though, so regardless of how much of a duck you think it is Ravnica is not a duck. It's also pretty disingenuous to call it a duck when it's more a series of traits that ducks have that other animals can have as well.
Look, we can continue to disagree about the source material that inspired Ravnica, but it ultimately doesn’t matter. The biggest hurdle facing Wizards, if they choose to move forward with a Roman themed block, will be dissociating it from each of those myriad elements I discussed before. If they can craft another plane with a senate, the legions, blood sport, barbarians, the church, etc, and have it not be easily mistaken for Ravnica, then more power to them. The gods and monsters of Theros really needn’t be a consideration, at all.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
It's funny that many roman philosophers think that the corruption of roman culture started with the assimilation of some greek principles
By the way, the whole real roman VS real greek it's kinda of moot. This is a fantasy game based primarly on mechanics, they can do a roman set if they won't.
Theros is strictly a top-down set with a strong gods/heroes VS monsters.
If you want to do a roman set, just focus on a different thing, for example the war between Saskia and Licia.
By the way i don't why Kylem should be Rome when it's clearly more based on modern sports and e-sports.
You're arguing against things which are pretty far afield from what your rhetorical "opponents" were actually saying. He didnt say Ravnica was an intentionally designed top down Rome emulation. He said that if you were to do such a thing, it wouldnt look very different from Ravnica.
I on the other hand, didnt say what qualifies or does not qualify as pop culture. I argued (very briefly) that it is a depressing target for modern storytellers and content creators to shoot at. From a marketing standpoint, they're undeniably right to do so. It is still a sad statement about we, the fanbase.
The one thing from this list that I will continue to oppose is number seven. Just because MaRo says something doesnt mean it is true. Even if he is telling you WotC policy or history, or even what he had for breakfast on a given day. He is a salesman before anything else. He will, can, has, and maybe even should say anything to sell his product, without regard to actual facts. You would be a fool to trust him.
How awesome would it be if we visited “Rome world” for example only to discover it was a distant part of Theros? It would be so unique to do that. Perhaps too complex for marketing purposes, but still cool
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Im totally on your side, bro.
Im comin here to see so many comments in this post, lookin forward to read about Elspeth.
Then all posts about personal disagreements on random topics.
I really hope Elspeth remains mono white. Maybe 3 mana this time & the Planeswalkers powalevel of Eldraine. Cuz they are all super playable !
Do a research on Romans too. It is not because azorious senate law makers looks like a bunch of greek philosophies that they are clearly a Roman inspiration. The argument of pop culture don’t fit that much either but we can agree that for a only movies fan of Rome it may look like it.
There are some parallels and there are a lot of differences to actually make a Roman set.
Ok? Finish?