D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Hussar]

Dear WotC,
If you ever produce a 6th edtion, sell two versions of the core books. The first one should be the 5e PH and MM, with full art and tons of references to old lore. The second should just be pages and pages of stat blocks; no art, no desriptive text, no proper nouns, nothing but pure game rules devoid of fluff or explanation. Call it "developer edition" and sell it to DMs who want absolutely no D&D in their D&D.

Yes, because anyone who plays Dnd differently than you, isn't really playing Dnd. Nice bit of tribalism you've got going there.

Note that they did exactly that in 3e. It is called the SRD and some people even think that games based on it are still DnD.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, because anyone who plays Dnd differently than you, isn't really playing Dnd. Nice bit of tribalism you've got going there.

Note that they did exactly that in 3e. It is called the SRD and some people even think that games based on it are still DnD.

Nonsense. Since no one can agree what fluff deserves to be in it; nuking all of it should insure the widest potential audience. It would solve a lot of headaches as to what belongs in the "core books" and what doesn't.

And yes, the SRD did do that, so perhaps its time WotC makes an "SRD-style" one-volume that has all the stats, none of the fluff. Nobody explaining what a kobold is, does, worships, or looks like; just pure AC/HP/Saves/Attacks and little else. (It'd look not unlike the DM Basic Guide, I'd wager).

That would solve both problems: a complete game for people who like, use, or safely ignore the fluff and a quick-and-dirty one-volume that has all the stats that the DM can flavor however s/he wants.

 

[pemerton]

As for the philosophical viability of PS - regardless of whether the setting's conceit is philosphically viable - can't peple still use it as a vehicle for exploring the factions' beliefs? I mean, I don't find it philosophically viable, but (for example) Quickleaf's description of his Sensate campaign sounds like it was interesting and fun, even if the background of "belief shapes reality" isn't particularly sound.

In one of my first posts setting out my reasons for disliking Planescape, I called out Quickleaf as someone who I thought would be able to do interesting stuff with Planescape, getting stuff out of it that pesonally I can't see in it and get out of it myself. And I agree that Quickleaf's campaign sounds interesting and fun! I've said as much upthread, and XPed all his actual play reports.

For me, the discussion over the past 500-odd post confirms that (i) Planescape is not a setting I have much enthusiasm for, and (ii) if I was able to play in a Planescape campaign GMed by Quickleaf then that would be an exception to (i).

Perhaps the "power of belief" was subtle in my example and not readily evident, but what distinguished my example from my other non-Planescape experiences with D&D was that the players were making decisions about the nature of reality (in this case, about the nature of memory).

<snip>

In my example of play, the PCs made some conclusions about the nature of memory and self that later were reflected back at them. They decided that the same person would always react the same way to severe enough an experience...but what defines a "same person"? Since both PCs were Sensates, they tended to believe more in experience over innate nature in defining a person. So, if the same person had a different life experience then they might respond differently to the same severe trauma.

<snip>

The PCs were in conflict with the erinyes and ended up killing her, turning the three versions of the NPC against them (possibly charm magic was involved, can't remember exactly). However, the PCs argued with the NPC for their belief that the different life experiences of the three versions allowed them to respond differently. As a result of that belief (which the PCs had proven themselves believing in), two versions of the NPC relented and sough peace, though one version persisted in fighting and was destroyed by the PCs.

<snip>

The power of belief may not have been directly obvious in the sense of "I imagine a spoon! *POOF* A spoon!" But my players and I definitely felt the world state had changed as a result of their PCs' beliefs, and in more than just an instrumental sense.

To me, this sounds like one of the options I mentioned upthread: "say yes"-style GMing, with the GM incorporating the players' conceptions of the backstory and setting into the game, except conceived of as operating within the fiction rather than just at the metagame level.

Is that fair?

 

[Aldarc]

Nonsense. Since no one can agree what fluff deserves to be in it; nuking all of it should insure the widest potential audience. It would solve a lot of headaches as to what belongs in the "core books" and what doesn't.

And yes, the SRD did do that, so perhaps its time WotC makes an "SRD-style" one-volume that has all the stats, none of the fluff. Nobody explaining what a kobold is, does, worships, or looks like; just pure AC/HP/Saves/Attacks and little else. (It'd look not unlike the DM Basic Guide, I'd wager).

That would solve both problems: a complete game for people who like, use, or safely ignore the fluff and a quick-and-dirty one-volume that has all the stats that the DM can flavor however s/he wants.

Nonsense, indeed. Do you know how your past few posts have sounded?

[please pause your reading now to review them]

So do you actually have an argument to make or do you just plan on sounding like a petulant manchild engaging on a scorched-earth policy against anyone who isn't playing the make-belief game your way? "DMs who want absolutely no D&D in their D&D."? Are you for real? Is that really the silly sort of condescending argument you're going to slap against people who dislikes setting-specific flavor text? Right now, you're basically saying that it's your way or no way at all. That the only way for it to be "D&D" is if it meets your narrow conception of the fluff. That's not a helpful attitude at all, and it's certainly not one I would expect for a game that's supposed to be about cooperative gameplay in fantasy worlds. If I sound livid, it's because I HATE others trying to pretend that my D&D preferences are badwrongfun.

 

[pemerton]

You've already stated they can be a means for disregarding good or evil

No I haven't. You keep misdescribing what I say.

Here is what I said - cut and posted from your reply to me!

I said that "law and chaos were presented as different means to the ends of good (or different ways of disregarding good, for evil characters)". My statement was incomplete, but the epxansion is obvious - law and chaos are also ways of disregarding good for LN, CN and True Neutral characters.​

In other words, law and chaos are means towards good, or (for evil, LN and CN characters), ways of disregarding good. (Gygaxian true neutral is its own peculiar thing, associated with druidism and "the balance".)

How do LN characters disregard good? By pursuing and enforcing organisation for its own sake. They are order-fetishists. How do CN characters disregard good? By pursuing their own whims without regard to the consequences for social order and stability and the long-term plans of others. They are selfish, and potentially destructive, but not viciously so in the way that evil characters are.

what is that good or evil replaced with? A dedication to law or chaos, thus logically they are values that serve as a replacement for good and evil when those values are discarded.

This isn't logical at all. For instance, instead of pursuing humanitarianism, a person might spend all his/her time trying to improve his/her skill at tiddliwinks. This doesn't show that tiddliwinking is a value on a par with human wellbeing. It just shows that some people live silly, even pointless, lives.

Elric very much tries to change the morality of Melniboneans

But that is not an attempt to change the nature of goodness. It's an attempt to free them from error - ie to get them to turn from what they (wrongly) think is good, to what is really good.

Moral reform is a real thing, but it generally makes sense only within the framework of an objective, not a subjective, conception of value.

 

[Remathilis]

Nonsense, indeed. Do you know how your past few posts have sounded?

[please pause your reading now to review them]

So do you actually have an argument to make or do you just plan on sounding like a petulant manchild engaging on a scorched-earth policy against anyone who isn't playing the make-belief game your way? "DMs who want absolutely no D&D in their D&D."? Are you for real? Is that really the silly sort of condescending argument you're going to slap against people who dislikes setting-specific flavor text? Right now, you're basically saying that it's your way or no way at all. That the only way for it to be "D&D" is if it meets your narrow conception of the fluff. That's not a helpful attitude at all, and it's certainly not one I would expect for a game that's supposed to be about cooperative gameplay in fantasy worlds. If I sound livid, it's because I HATE others trying to pretend that my D&D preferences are badwrongfun.

I think you're missing what I'm asking.

You are allowed to change the game in any way you see fit. You cannot dictate to WotC what they should or shouldn't print in their core books, however.

If you don't like that kobolds have a draconic tie in, for example, you can either use it and grumble or change it, but you can't complain that WotC should never have put it in the MM at all. That's what I've taken issue with all along; people who think that D&D books should be bland and flavorless to accommodate their visions without contradiction. You can use the stuff as is or change it, but don't turn the books into dull and unifying uninspiring cardboard.

Use it or don't, but don't spoil it for the rest of us.

 

[Hussar]

It's been a while since I read the Elric stories, but, isn't Elric's first act to pretty much exterminate the Melniboneans? I'm thinking he's not so much of a "hearts and minds" kinda guy.

 

[Imaro]

It's been a while since I read the Elric stories, but, isn't Elric's first act to pretty much exterminate the Melniboneans? I'm thinking he's not so much of a "hearts and minds" kinda guy.

No, this is incorrect. Elric is pretty much THE "hearts and minds" guy of Melnibonean society.

 

[Aldarc]

I think you're missing what I'm asking.

You are allowed to change the game in any way you see fit. You cannot dictate to WotC what they should or shouldn't print in their core books, however.

If you don't like that kobolds have a draconic tie in, for example, you can either use it and grumble or change it, but you can't complain that WotC should never have put it in the MM at all. That's what I've taken issue with all along; people who think that D&D books should be bland and flavorless to accommodate their visions without contradiction. You can use the stuff as is or change it, but don't turn the books into dull and unifying uninspiring cardboard.

Use it or don't, but don't spoil it for the rest of us.

If "you're allowed to change the game in any way you see fit," then how are we ruining the game for you? Furthermore, lack of setting-specific material (particularly planar) does not necessarily make the D&D books "bland and flavorless." Anymore strawmen you want to construct?

 

[Hussar]

No, this is incorrect. Elric is pretty much THE "hearts and minds" guy of Melnibonean society.

Ok, doing a bit of background reading. I totally misremember these stories. It's been so long since I read them. I remember liking the Corum stories and some of the other stuff quite a lot more. But, yeah, that was decades ago and my fuzzy memory is failing me badly.