D&D 5E Ed Greenwood's 'Death Masks' and Greyhawk

Mercule · Oct 21, 2016

Parmandur said:
I dunno, from the Knights of Myth Drannor and the Venturing Company, down to Acquisitions, Inc. I would day the average FR character is fairly shady, or at least not somebody I would care for in a neighbor?

I'll admit to not really following the nuances of the Realms, especially for the last decade, or so. It was a nice enough setting, when it was one of many, and I even played in it a few times. I strongly object to having things crammed down my throat.

NotRussellCrowe · Oct 21, 2016

Mirtek said:
It's also written somewhere, can't remember where, that Elminster is the reason why Fistandandilus is staying away from Toril

Is there some sort of cross-over novel that goes into this? I must read it. Love Dragonlance, can't get enough.

Parmandur · Oct 21, 2016

Mercule said:
I'll admit to not really following the nuances of the Realms, especially for the last decade, or so. It was a nice enough setting, when it was one of many, and I even played in it a few times. I strongly object to having things crammed down my throat.

I'm no expert myself, only got into it in 5E; but, really, nice guys are pretty thin on the ground from what I can tell?

I think Ed Greenwood's continued involvement is what has made FR the go-to high fantasy setting, combined with media attention; WotC is moving into other settings, slowly.

My hope is that the next MMO that replaces Neverwinter is a Sigil-based game: that would allow them to follow the same model, but with zero setting restrictions.

Have an AP set in Eberron, no problem, just get the key to that door to go to that plane.

Mercule · Oct 21, 2016

Parmandur said:
My hope is that the next MMO that replaces Neverwinter is a Sigil-based game: that would allow them to follow the same model, but with zero setting restrictions.

I'm not actually a fan of the Planescape setting. I know it's (relatively) popular, but I see it as giving too much detail to something that should be remote and undefined. I can't say that I think it's done poorly, I'm just not the target audience for it -- and I'd prefer for it to not become too core canon.

Have an AP set in Eberron, no problem, just get the key to that door to go to that plane.

Ha. I'd love to see an AP in Eberron. Of the published settings, this is the one I like best. It really doesn't work well with Planescape, though. Eberron has a totally custom cosmology (which, IMO, every setting should).

My concerns with an Eberron AP are two-fold:

1) As with Curse of Strahd, they may put a bunch of Realms hooks in that don't actually need to be there. If you're going to do Eberron, then do Eberron.

2) Because Eberron isn't totally vanilla D&D, they may skimp on some of the flavor. I want to see some Dragonmarked House action, along with fallout from the Last War, and some tension between the shifters and the Church of Eternal Flame. Some of that just can't be ported to a homebrew or another published setting easily. That didn't really seem to stop them with the Realms elements in Tyranny of Dragons, so it might not be a show stopper.

Basically, whatever they do after the Realms, I want them to actually move out of the Realms and embrace whatever they do. Trying to straddle the fence won't make anyone happy.

Parmandur · Oct 21, 2016

Mercule said:
I'm not actually a fan of the Planescape setting. I know it's (relatively) popular, but I see it as giving too much detail to something that should be remote and undefined. I can't say that I think it's done poorly, I'm just not the target audience for it -- and I'd prefer for it to not become too core canon.

Ha. I'd love to see an AP in Eberron. Of the published settings, this is the one I like best. It really doesn't work well with Planescape, though. Eberron has a totally custom cosmology (which, IMO, every setting should).

My concerns with an Eberron AP are two-fold:

1) As with Curse of Strahd, they may put a bunch of Realms hooks in that don't actually need to be there. If you're going to do Eberron, then do Eberron.

2) Because Eberron isn't totally vanilla D&D, they may skimp on some of the flavor. I want to see some Dragonmarked House action, along with fallout from the Last War, and some tension between the shifters and the Church of Eternal Flame. Some of that just can't be ported to a homebrew or another published setting easily. That didn't really seem to stop them with the Realms elements in Tyranny of Dragons, so it might not be a show stopper.

Basically, whatever they do after the Realms, I want them to actually move out of the Realms and embrace whatever they do. Trying to straddle the fence won't make anyone happy.

So, one of the big reasons the APs are set in FR is to allow them to tie into Neverwinter: the game itself is free, but they sell access to areas that tie into the APs. So, since the hub is the city of Neverwinter, the FR is where the tie-ins need to be, hence the APs.

If the hub became Sigil, they could sell tie-ins on any established or conceivable world, limitless possibilities open themselves up for the books.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Planescape is already the default setting and has assumed Eberron into itself: the PHB and DMG devote a lot of space to gazetteers to multiverse setup and specifically link Eberron in (which they will probably explain at some point). There is one unified official cosmology moving forwards, which is what will allow for other settings to be embraced fully.

Mercule · Oct 21, 2016

Parmandur said:
So, one of the big reasons the APs are set in FR is to allow them to tie into Neverwinter: the game itself is free, but they sell access to areas that tie into the APs. So, since the hub is the city of Neverwinter, the FR is where the tie-ins need to be, hence the APs.

Fair enough. One of the reasons I don't play the video game is because it's set in the Realms. Also, I tried it and it's not D&D, nor is it a particularly good MMO.

If we're talking about video games, though, I could live with centering things around Planescape. I may not be a fan, but it's an acceptable way to say "Hey, there are all sorts of worlds out there." I'd still view it as a change to Eberron canon, but things like that happen as plot devices. I'd probably be less sanguine about kender, muls, and warforged running around Greyhawk, but I don't take MMOs too seriously.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Planescape is already the default setting and has assumed Eberron into itself: the PHB and DMG devote a lot of space to gazetteers to multiverse setup and specifically link Eberron in (which they will probably explain at some point). There is one unified official cosmology moving forwards, which is what will allow for other settings to be embraced fully.

I missed the specific Eberron link -- probably because I skipped all the planar stuff. I am aware that Planescape has been part of the implicit canon for quite some time. I've always disliked it. For the most part, I can ignore it, though, so no big deal. If it's now explicit, so be it. Probably not a big change, for me.

DMZ2112 · Oct 22, 2016

Mecheon said:
Y'know how it goes. Sort of like how Thunderfury (From Warcraft) and the axe of Sankis (From Dwarf Fortress) ended up in Diablo

Did somebody say [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]?

I actually really enjoy Neverwinter (the MMO), but you do need to take a step back and acknowledge that it is trying to capture the feel of D&D without actually using any of the mechanics. It was based on D&D4 and even then the rules translation was pretty loose.

Also you need to not get caught up in the lockbox economy. The occasional store purchase is not the end of the world, considering that the game is free otherwise, but if you get sucked into the Pokémonesque companion and mount collecting all is lost.

As for Planescape being the default setting, I'm not sure I agree. I own all of AD&D2 Planescape, and was really into it once upon a time -- the "core cosmology" of D&D5 is definitely based on those ideas, in the same way that Planescape itself was based on the ideas of the AD&D1 Manual of the Planes, but it's had three editions to evolve through. The only clear reference I've seen to Planescape since 2000 has been the continued existence of Sigil and the use of the term 'yugoloth,' and even Sigil has undergone iterative changes from its original concept.

If you look at the D&D5 map of the cosmos, the elemental planes in particular are substantially reinterpreted from their Planescape versions, and Planescape never made effective space for a Plane of Shadow/Shadowfell or Realm of Faerie/Feywild.

If, on the other hand, you mean that it is the D&D5 default that all worlds should have the same cosmology, that does appear to be the intent, at least for the official settings. This I have always believed is for the best, although I'm the first person to agree that cosmology should not look like a '90s White Wolf fever dream.

Parmandur · Oct 22, 2016

Mercule said:
Fair enough. One of the reasons I don't play the video game is because it's set in the Realms. Also, I tried it and it's not D&D, nor is it a particularly good MMO.

If we're talking about video games, though, I could live with centering things around Planescape. I may not be a fan, but it's an acceptable way to say "Hey, there are all sorts of worlds out there." I'd still view it as a change to Eberron canon, but things like that happen as plot devices. I'd probably be less sanguine about kender, muls, and warforged running around Greyhawk, but I don't take MMOs too seriously.

I missed the specific Eberron link -- probably because I skipped all the planar stuff. I am aware that Planescape has been part of the implicit canon for quite some time. I've always disliked it. For the most part, I can ignore it, though, so no big deal. If it's now explicit, so be it. Probably not a big change, for me.

Yeah, don't play the game myself; only interested insofar as it affects what we get on tabletop!

They go out of their way to have their cake and eat it too in Core; they describe the default, but present it as a hypothetical model held by some mages, and present some alternatives. Enough to supply a base multiverse for their products, bit leave it explicitly open for the DM.

Parmandur · Oct 22, 2016

DMZ2112 said:
Did somebody say [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]?

I actually really enjoy Neverwinter (the MMO), but you do need to take a step back and acknowledge that it is trying to capture the feel of D&D without actually using any of the mechanics. It was based on D&D4 and even then the rules translation was pretty loose.

Also you need to not get caught up in the lockbox economy. The occasional store purchase is not the end of the world, considering that the game is free otherwise, but if you get sucked into the Pokémonesque companion and mount collecting all is lost.

As for Planescape being the default setting, I'm not sure I agree. I own all of AD&D2 Planescape, and was really into it once upon a time -- the "core cosmology" of D&D5 is definitely based on those ideas, in the same way that Planescape itself was based on the ideas of the AD&D1 Manual of the Planes, but it's had three editions to evolve through. The only clear reference I've seen to Planescape since 2000 has been the continued existence of Sigil and the use of the term 'yugoloth,' and even Sigil has undergone iterative changes from its original concept.

If you look at the D&D5 map of the cosmos, the elemental planes in particular are substantially reinterpreted from their Planescape versions, and Planescape never made effective space for a Plane of Shadow/Shadowfell or Realm of Faerie/Feywild.

If, on the other hand, you mean that it is the D&D5 default that all worlds should have the same cosmology, that does appear to be the intent, at least for the official settings. This I have always believed is for the best, although I'm the first person to agree that cosmology should not look like a '90s White Wolf fever dream.

Well, yeah, not maybe the full setting from the 90's, but that multiversal model is the default setting.

EthanSental · Aug 23, 2017

Irennan said:
In that book there are a lot of side plots that lays the basis for future things to happen. Resurrection wasn't effectively removed tho, it's now only granted if the deity says so.

Back from the dead - I wonder if the lack of Raise dead/resurrection from the temple was a nod to Tomb of Annihilation plot line of resurrection magic not working?

D&D 5E Ed Greenwood's 'Death Masks' and Greyhawk

Mercule

Adventurer

NotRussellCrowe

Explorer

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Mercule

Adventurer

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Mercule

Adventurer

DMZ2112

Chaotic Looseleaf

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Parmandur

Book-Friend

EthanSental

Legend

Similar Threads