Dear Mike & Monte

BryonD · Jan 1, 2012

I hope they are not even thinking about whether or not to include the Great Wheel.

If they make an awesome fundamental system that is flexible and appeals to a large range of people then groups will add and remove the setting elements that work best for them.

But people won't play a game that they dislike mechanically just because the setting assumptions fit their preference.

avin · Jan 1, 2012

Aldarc said:
Preface: I honestly do not want to be flamed for this or even want to start another debate on this matter, but it is my own personal preference.

Dear Mike & Monte:

Do not return to the Great Wheel Cosmology.

Too late

Well, I may live without the Great Wheel, but want all planes back and get rid of Elemental Chaos as a separated plane. I'd rather have a new cosmology for 4E than 4E's... maybe a bit more parallel planes such as Mirror and Ethereal.

UngainlyTitan · Jan 1, 2012

avin said:
Too late

Well, I may live without the Great Wheel, but want all planes back and get rid of Elemental Chaos as a separated plane. I'd rather have a new cosmology for 4E than 4E's... maybe a bit more parallel planes such as Mirror and Ethereal.

Well actually i mostly like and use 4e's planar cosmology but I never previously used the planar cosmology for pretty much any rpg I ever ran. I can never get the concern about planar cosmology.

I guess the Great Wheel is D&D IP, but I do not see any reason why WoTC could not publish a great Wheel setting book. There certainly seems to be a demand for it.

JeffB · Jan 1, 2012

I've no issue with 4E's cosmology- it was refreshing after 33 years of the Great Wheel (goes all the way back to The Strategic Review folks). I don't have any big issue with them going back to TGW either.

What I have isssue with is that they should be worrying alot more about other things than the Cosmology, which should be on the backburner. It's become some kind of big deal since 2E (or perhaps the original MOTP) and I cannot for the life of me figure out why people are so anal about it. Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X didn't even HAVE a cosmology and it was not an issue. Throw a AD&D Demon or devil into the game, no-one blathered on about who it's allied with or who it fights for all eternity or what 12 planes you need to travel to find it's Fortress of Nasty Bloody Doom & Despair where it collects the tortured souls of gnomish children for all eternity.

AFAIC, A core D&D game really doesn't need much more development than where the gods, demons and devils live/come from and a couple pages at best devoted to it in the DMG. All that planescape esque level of detail is better off for supplements down the road for the people who care or feel the need for such levels of detail.

Hussar · Jan 2, 2012

TheAuldGrump said:
I hate to admit it, but those make me wish that I hadn't paid as much attention to the text in those books, and had spent more time looking at the pictures....

That bottom one says Spelljammer to me....

The Auld Grump

I would point out that that bottom picture graces the back of either the PHB or the DMG (I forget which).

Zelligars Apprentice · Jan 2, 2012

the Jester said:
YES. The 4e Red Box was really cool, except for the fact that it did nothing to prepare someone to actually play D&D. At the end, you don't even know how to make a character! D&D shouldn't try to teach the game to new players by using a choose your own adventure format; it should try to teach new players how to play D&D, including such extremely basic elements as how to make a character.

Again: There's no point in releasing a "Basic Set" that doesn't teach the basics.

Quick anecdote: I gave my nephew a copy of the 4e Red Box for his birthday. We played through it and had fun. Today, the only part of it he continues to use is...the box. He uses it to store stuff unrelated to gaming. The contents, I assume, have long since been thrown away.

:.-(

Plane Sailing · Jan 2, 2012

JeffB said:
I've no issue with 4E's cosmology- it was refreshing after 33 years of the Great Wheel (goes all the way back to The Strategic Review folks). I don't have any big issue with them going back to TGW either.

What I have isssue with is that they should be worrying alot more about other things than the Cosmology, which should be on the backburner. It's become some kind of big deal since 2E (or perhaps the original MOTP) and I cannot for the life of me figure out why people are so anal about it. Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X didn't even HAVE a cosmology and it was not an issue. Throw a AD&D Demon or devil into the game, no-one blathered on about who it's allied with or who it fights for all eternity or what 12 planes you need to travel to find it's Fortress of Nasty Bloody Doom & Despair where it collects the tortured souls of gnomish children for all eternity.

AFAIC, A core D&D game really doesn't need much more development than where the gods, demons and devils live/come from and a couple pages at best devoted to it in the DMG. All that planescape esque level of detail is better off for supplements down the road for the people who care or feel the need for such levels of detail.

Keep cosmologies for the campaign guides, which is the right place for them!

Then Eberron can keep its wonderful and cool orrery cosmology, Nerath can enjoy its astral sea (which I hate as I find it uninteresting)' greyhawk can have its great wheel and so on.

Cheers