D&D 4E D&D Fluff Wars: 4e vs 5e

[Parmandur]

Okay. I don't particularly find the question of "why" all that interesting, however. People have their different reasons: emotional attachment, symmetry, hatred of change, use in their campaign settings (whether homebrew or Planescape), sense of tradition or what constitutes D&D, love of the old alignment system, association of the World Axis with the much-maligned 4E, etc. People have their reasons for liking and disdaining things, and it's not really my place to put much weight into why. What matters most is that people can find something that they do like so that we can all have fun playing this hobby together.

But getting to the why can help people understand each other better, and hence play better together: why is it that one edition can change XYZ, but ABC changes in the next edition cause a storm? What does that speak to in terms of peoples priorities, and how does it effect play at the table?

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting. I've read most of the 3.X era stuff, can you list some examples?

I only ever had the PHB, so my reading was from other peoples copies: but I read that bit of advice in a 3.x book years before 4E: either in the DMG, MotP, Deities & Demigods or maaaaybe Arcana Unearthed? Might be something from the 3.5 revisions of one of those books, too: it was advise for a DM tinkering with a custom cosmology (which they were big on in 3.x, table specific cosmologies...).

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a quote from Worlds and Monsters, I believe.

Never read it, but it sounds very cogent to the current thread, as a preview of the 'fluff' of the edition.

 

[Jer]

It's a quote from Worlds and Monsters, I believe.

IIRC that quote is explicitly about the cosmology and somewhat about alignments, not a reference to other possibilities for grid-filling. (Though I would agree with Tony Vargas that asking for a martial controller in 4e wasn't grid-filling for the sake of grid-filling - I would have liked to see it as an option to have the ability to have no-magic parties where everyone is running a martial character.).

 

[Parmandur]

Never read it, but it sounds very cogent to the current thread, as a preview of the 'fluff' of the edition.

It was a pretty neat read, as I recall: sort of broadstrokes Gazetteer with meta-commentary on why they were doing what they were with PoL. I think that booklet has more influence on how people recall the default setting that the 4E core books, even...

 

[TwoSix]

IIRC that quote is explicitly about the cosmology and somewhat about alignments, not a reference to other possibilities for grid-filling. (Though I would agree with Tony Vargas that asking for a martial controller in 4e wasn't grid-filling for the sake of grid-filling - I would have liked to see it as an option to have the ability to have no-magic parties where everyone is running a martial character.).

Oh, I agree it isn't explicitly about that, but it's not hard to extrapolate a conscious desire to leave "spaces" in the design and to avoid obvious patterns.

 

[Jer]

I only ever had the PHB, so my reading was from other peoples copies: but I read that bit of advice in a 3.x book years before 4E: either in the DMG, MotP, Deities & Demigods or maaaaybe Arcana Unearthed? Might be something from the 3.5 revisions of one of those books, too: it was advise for a DM tinkering with a custom cosmology (which they were big on in 3.x, table specific cosmologies...).

Manual of the Planes for 3.x. It was also where the Feywild was introduced into the cosmology (though as I am AFMB at the moment and can't remember if they used that name explicitly) and the demiplane of Shadow got an upgrade. They took their own advice and changed the Forgotten Realms cosmology to a world tree as well in the 3e campaign setting book - and I recall some rending of garments and gnashing of teeth when that became the officially published cosmology for FR. Then in Eberron they threw the Great Wheel planes out entirely and came up with something new that wasn't like any of the previously published cosmologies.

Personally I loved it. It harkened back to the D&D RC/BECMI concept of the planes as "there's no real structure out here except what you impose on it". But I know it irritated people at the time. And that irritation only grew when they tried to make something new with the default campaign world of 4th edition instead of going back to the Great Wheel for it.

 

[Jer]

It was a pretty neat read, as I recall: sort of broadstrokes Gazetteer with meta-commentary on why they were doing what they were with PoL. I think that booklet has more influence on how people recall the default setting that the 4E core books, even...

I actually passed on it originally (why pay Wizards for their marketing materials? was my attitude) and then picked up a copy used later at a local Half Price Books. I was surprised at how useful it was for the Nentir Vale game I ran for 4e - I was only expecting to scratch a completist itch when I bought it, not find something of actual use.

 

[Parmandur]

Manual of the Planes for 3.x. It was also where the Feywild was introduced into the cosmology (though as I am AFMB at the moment and can't remember if they used that name explicitly) and the demiplane of Shadow got an upgrade. They took their own advice and changed the Forgotten Realms cosmology to a world tree as well in the 3e campaign setting book - and I recall some rending of garments and gnashing of teeth when that became the officially published cosmology for FR. Then in Eberron they threw the Great Wheel planes out entirely and came up with something new that wasn't like any of the previously published cosmologies.

Personally I loved it. It harkened back to the D&D RC/BECMI concept of the planes as "there's no real structure out here except what you impose on it". But I know it irritated people at the time. And that irritation only grew when they tried to make something new with the default campaign world of 4th edition instead of going back to the Great Wheel for it.

Yeah, I recall it was just called Farie or something non-Trademarkable, but it was just like the Feywild would be latter.



I think, across the board, the WotC story team was blindsided by seeing themselves in direct continuity with what they had put in 3.x books with the new take on 4E fluff, but not having the community follow along necessarily: "don't overdo symmetry," but people like the symmetry of the 1E cosmos and kept it in their 3.x games, etc...

 

[Parmandur]

I actually passed on it originally (why pay Wizards for their marketing materials? was my attitude) and then picked up a copy used later at a local Half Price Books. I was surprised at how useful it was for the Nentir Vale game I ran for 4e - I was only expecting to scratch a completist itch when I bought it, not find something of actual use.

I think they didn't do enough to really sell people on the new setting material as a new setting, people may have responded differently if it was an option next to the Great Wheel (like the 3.x MotP...).