D&D 5E L&L 1/7/2013 The Many Worlds of D&D

[Li Shenron]

If I said what I think of this decision, I'd probably be banned from EN World. And possibly the Interwebs.

...what part of the decision? Or you just mean the whole approach to planes in 5e?

 

[MerricB]

...what part of the decision? Or you just mean the whole approach to planes in 5e?

There are lots of things I disagree with (and there are parts that aren't that bad), but when I can strike through "loved" in his article and put in "hated" and have it still be true, then you may see one of my major problems.

This is very much Mike trying to have his cake and eat it too. There are cascading issues that come from redesigning the D&D cosmology, and that we could identify one immediately after reading the article isn't good. What other booby traps are hidden away?

 

[Nymrohd]

There are lots of things I disagree with (and there are parts that aren't that bad), but when I can strike through "loved" in his article and put in "hated" and have it still be true, then you may see one of my major problems.

This is very much Mike trying to have his cake and eat it too. There are cascading issues that come from redesigning the D&D cosmology, and that we could identify one immediately after reading the article isn't good. What other booby traps are hidden away?

Why solve the issues when you can hand wave them!

 

[steeldragons]

Basically...my few thoughts, since I have my own cosmology for my own homebrew world and whatever D&D publishes as "the way i'tiz", I'm still going to use that. If I like something enough, I will find a way to include it...but I think, as many here have said, planar-jumping adventures are very very rare with my people/campaigns. Other than that...

1) I concur that the plane should be referred to as Plane of Shadows or Shadow Plane with places like "the Shadowfell" and "Ravenloft" being pocket dimensions/demi-planes within it...just as you could have the Plane of Faerie and have "the Feywild" and an irish/celtic style "sidhe/people under the hills type faeire land" and a norse-style "Alfheim" all separate faye dimensions/demi-planes within it.

1a) I will, however, also agree with the assertion that this is likely a marketing/branding issue and getting the name "Ravenloft" out there, front and center, is the thinking here for cross-promotional product.

2) I concur that a more modular approach was what I was hoping to see. However, there being a default does not preclude the possibility that they will offer various interpretations [great wheel, 4e, heaven/hell, etc...] and guidelines to incorporating them into your play. A Planar Appendix is something I completely expect to see.

3) That said, the game itself requires a default and since there will be a default setting, there needs be default cosmology for when the books need to talk about/explain planar things. Will it be plastered all over everything? I certainly hope not. I would expect they have learned their lessons there. But when speaking about planar topics, there needs to be a baseline/point of reference on which to write. We'll have to wait and see.

4) All in all, as I said above and others have said...it's the cosmology. It's really not that big of a deal. It is, possibly moreso than any other elements of the D&D game-verse, just fluff...alter it at will! There will be no ramifications...it is not going to destroy any of the crunch.

Want your Archons from Nirvana but not the Twin Paradises...or somewhere else entirely that's just "the Plane of Light"? Have archons come from there? Need a Tarterus-type gloomy land of dead...but not evil...or a flamy plane of pain and cruelty named Tarterus...[outrage]"But the book says that's Hell #6.3! [/outrage]...Initiate imagination for .00002 nanoseconds and there ya go. Fiery Tarterus for a party of 6. Devil stats stay the same. Angel stats stay the same. Planar spells...ya know, move you between planes. *shrug* What's the issue with any cosmology they present?

If you are going to play in one of their video games...then, yeah, you will be bound by their creative decisions/constraints. Will the novels tell stories with allllll the details just the way you want them? No it won't. [necessarily]. Those would be the fictional novels written by individual folks telling fictional stories about fictional places. Again, big shrug. Enjoy the story they tell or don't.

But for the actual D&D RPG? Really doesn't matter.

 

[Alzrius]

In support of this I also wanted to mention Dark Sun being far from immune to planar interference in the form of the mists of Ravenloft snatching up a portion of it and creating a domain in one of the 2nd edition books.

I must be slipping, to have forgotten Kalidnay (from Forbidden Lore and then again in Domains of Dread).

Btw, is there any other way to do multi quote? I've just been using meta tags.

I input the tags manually, so I can't help you too much here.

 

[King in Yellow]

I must be slipping, to have forgotten Kalidnay (from Forbidden Lore and then again in Domains of Dread).



I input the tags manually, so I can't help you too much here.

Thanks Li Shenron answered my question.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That said, the game itself requires a default and since there will be a default setting, there needs be default cosmology for when the books need to talk about/explain planar things.

I don't really agree with this point.

First, the idea of the game needing a "default setting" is suspect. These books are supposed to be instruction manuals for D&D, and if they are that, then part of how you play D&D is by creating your own setting. The instruction manuals should be showing you how to do that. There doesn't need to be a default. There should be example settings, but examples are different from defaults because there is no assumption that you will be using the example. The Great Wheel is a good example. Is is not a good assumption.

Second, whatever example they use doesn't need to be the assumption for EVERY D&D WORLD ALWAYS. It's one thing to have a solid and flexible example cosmology. It's quite another to deploy that as a requirement for all of your settings, as this seems to be. The one is a useful model to follow and for DMs who don't want to think about it to opt into. The latter is pointless hegemony for the sake of it. If I want to set a game in Ravenloft, I shouldn't have to worry about where that sits in relation to Ysgard and the Elemental Plane of Vacuum and whatnot. If I set a game in Eberron, I shouldn't have to worry about where Ravenloft is and how to get to Bytopia.

Third, when the books talk about extraplanar things, they don't have to be very specific. Okay, maybe the Demons are from Hell, but is this the Nine Hells a la Planescape, or Hell a la Christian mythology or Hel like Old Norse myths or Xibalba a la the Mayans or maybe Naraka from certain flavors of Buddhism. Maybe it's Hell as envisioned by comic books, or Hell like the Baha'i faith describes in which case, devils might just be creatures that were spiritually far from god -- humans, just twisted. Which one is it? Doesn't matter. It could be any of them. It could be ALL of them. It could be some of them and not others.

And this is assuming the DM even uses devils in their game. For those that don't, it's even less necessary to make a specific, monolithic "hell" that they can come from.

So I don't buy that it's necessary, design-wise.

I also can't see how it's profitable. For every make-believe Hellscape the dev team thinks up (or shamelessly appropriates from other media or twists from history), that's a unique IP. That's a new potential hook for characters, enemies, settings...new worlds, new art, new fiction, new comics, new movies...all safely within your own proprietary version of Hell. Why settle for just one?

I suppose I can sort of see a branding argument, but I think some of 4e's biggest missteps showed us all the harm that putting branding ahead of your design can do to a game (the GSL's infamous "you can't redefine elf" clause). Repeating 4e's (and 2e's) insistence on one overarching cosmology would be putting that branding ahead of the gameplay experience, harming the latter in pursuit of the former. There's millions of hours of games and adventures and settings and motifs that reinforce the D&D brand. A cosmology is not necessarily a strong addition to that (though I'm hardly a brand analyst, so maybe I'm way off base here).

 

[gyor]

Why are some people assuming thier won't be tools for creating your own cosmology\setting?

The default is just an example and so they have something basic to design extraplanar monsters, spells, and the like around.

A tool box approach to setting/cosmology design will likely be in the DMG. So people should stop reading to much into this.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Just because most DMs eventually make their own worlds doesn't mean the publishers want it that way. Ultimately, they want you to buy the official products, official adventures, and official world maps so that their coffers are the most full. World-building guidelines and freedom are what WE want, not really what the Hasbro-owned WoTC wants.

Wouldn't it be fun to read Mike Mearls' mind (and that of others) to find out what they'd really like to do with D&D if there were no suits to report to?

 

[steeldragons]

I don't really agree with this point.

First, the idea of the game needing a "default setting" is suspect.

No argument here. But they've said there is/will be a default...so there it is. To argue they shouldn't have one when they've already said they will is...well...pointless.

These books are supposed to be instruction manuals for D&D, and if they are that, then part of how you play D&D is by creating your own setting. The instruction manuals should be showing you how to do that. There doesn't need to be a default. There should be example settings, but examples are different from defaults because there is no assumption that you will be using the example. The Great Wheel is a good example. Is is not a good assumption.

Agreed. But see above. It's there. Refuting it being there when it already is...pointless.

Second, whatever example they use doesn't need to be the assumption for EVERY D&D WORLD ALWAYS. It's one thing to have a solid and flexible example cosmology. It's quite another to deploy that as a requirement for all of your settings, as this seems to be.

They are, as you note, their settings. If you don't like how they're doing it...as you say, make your own. What's the issue?

The one is a useful model to follow and for DMs who don't want to think about it to opt into. The latter is pointless hegemony for the sake of it.

And, again, initiate imagination for .00002 nanoseconds and make it what you want. If you can't be bothered [I personally would say then you probably don't have the time to play D&D], but assuming you want to, follow what the books say if you have neither the capacity nor desire to alter it to your own preferences.

If I want to set a game in Ravenloft, I shouldn't have to worry about where that sits in relation to Ysgard and the Elemental Plane of Vacuum and whatnot. If I set a game in Eberron, I shouldn't have to worry about where Ravenloft is and how to get to Bytopia.

I fail to see how any of this is impeded.

Third, when the books talk about extraplanar things, they don't have to be very specific. Okay, maybe the Demons are from Hell, but is this the Nine Hells a la Planescape, or Hell a la Christian mythology or Hel like Old Norse myths or Xibalba a la the Mayans or maybe Naraka from certain flavors of Buddhism. Maybe it's Hell as envisioned by comic books, or Hell like the Baha'i faith describes in which case, devils might just be creatures that were spiritually far from god -- humans, just twisted. Which one is it? Doesn't matter. It could be any of them. It could be ALL of them. It could be some of them and not others.

(emphasis mine)

Just so.

And this is assuming the DM even uses devils in their game. For those that don't, it's even less necessary to make a specific, monolithic "hell" that they can come from.

So I don't buy that it's necessary, design-wise.

I am not, I don't believe anywhere, asserting it is "necessary design-wise". I certainly don't believe it is. The powers that be in the WotC continuum, be they design driven, marketing/brand driven, product driven, whatever, seem to have decided this is what they want to get the results they desire.

I also can't see how it's profitable. For every make-believe Hellscape the dev team thinks up (or shamelessly appropriates from other media or twists from history), that's a unique IP. That's a new potential hook for characters, enemies, settings...new worlds, new art, new fiction, new comics, new movies...all safely within your own proprietary version of Hell. Why settle for just one?

How, again, is what they release saying you MUST APPLY THIS SET UP TO ALL OF THE GAME WORLDS WE PRODUCE! They cannot make "ALL MYTHOLOGICAL INFINITIES, in perpetuity, to the end of days, IP, copyright and registered tm WotC."

They are saying they are using those default assumptions. I guarantee you, the game will make clear you don't have to use them all verbatim or SO GODS HELP YOU the Wizard of the Coast Bounty Hunters are gonna come to your house and take all your D&D stuff away for violating transdimensional inter-planar licenses!

I suppose I can sort of see a branding argument, but I think some of 4e's biggest missteps showed us all the harm that putting branding ahead of your design can do to a game (the GSL's infamous "you can't redefine elf" clause). Repeating 4e's (and 2e's) insistence on one overarching cosmology would be putting that branding ahead of the gameplay experience, harming the latter in pursuit of the former. There's millions of hours of games and adventures and settings and motifs that reinforce the D&D brand. A cosmology is not necessarily a strong addition to that (though I'm hardly a brand analyst, so maybe I'm way off base here).

I get the feeling you just read up to the line you objected to and then ignored everything else I said. That's fine. No scales off my back. I'm not a "brand analyst" either, but have my share of production, marketing and advertising experience. And an understanding that, even in the development of fantasy worlds, the real world business-side of things versus the creative side of things are rarely [if ever] on the same page. They does what they does, for better or worse, for their own products/goals. Does that, hopefully, run in line with a majority of what a majority of their target audience wants? yes, of course. But as history has shown, that is not always the case.

Long post, short [too late, I know], a default cosmology is not going to somehow RUIN your conceptions of your own. Want to disagree it is a "good" decision. Fine. But that's not going to change anything. They made it...for their settings...their products. Have fun with yours.