Dragon 370 - Design & Development: Cosmology

[Shemeska]

Its no dumber than forcing the Great Wheel on Athas or Krynn.

There's a difference between using a cosmology for a world that otherwise didn't have one already fully fleshed out, especially when those worlds had very little to no interaction with the planes at large. The cosmology wasn't intrusive there, and each world retained its unique features, even such things as Athas's Gray and Black.

WotC is happily retconning settings into their shiny new cosmology, and in the process stripping setting unique elements in order to have everything stuck into that 4e default core cosmology. That's horrible design.

 

[The Little Raven]

...so I can't have a world modeled after the Norse cosmology because you want to sell more copies of the Manual of the Planes?

Do you have a secret decoder ring that extracts secret messages noone else can see to turn a statement about the cross-utility of their products into a declaration that you cannot do something you want in your home game? Where can I get one of those?

Shouldn't it have been more of a toolkit (a la the 3e MotP) and less of a "Now Everyone Needs Dragonborn" moment?

I don't have the 4e MotP, so I dunno how much space it devotes to non-World Axis cosmologies, but the 3e MotP only has 20 pages of non-Great Wheel toolkit. If the 4e one devotes 10% of its page-count to other cosmologies, then it's an equivalent toolkit.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've actually read multi-page threads about the nature of the infinite plans and it made my eyes bleed. I shall never go down that road again.

Excepting that this is the internet and all the weirdness that entails, I am curious as to how and why this is the case. I mean, the infinity always seemed pretty straightforward "you travel at the speed of plot"-ness to me. In PS it was given some more specific treatments and ramifications, but everything was given that in PS. As a general nature, why did it boggle you?

It is entirely possible that I am just totally ignorant as to how or why that may be a problem (or how changing "infinite" to "finite, but for all intents and purposes still containing anything and everything you want" fixes it).

As for your second complaint, well, I see your point and if it makes any difference, I think that I read somewhere that the 4e MotP does give some guidance to DMs in creating their own cosmologies (isn't there where the Great Wheel part comes in?), but I also understand that WoTC is also in the business of selling books and they need to maximize their audience. Though they specifically mention monster origin and spell effects, they're biggest concern, given the reference to the FC series in relation to Eberron, seems to be how the fluff impacts sales. IMO, they're in a bind, as if they don't anchor planar content in at least some kind of fluff, they get flack, and if they do anchor it to fluff, it is less appealing to people who use specific settings that differs from the initial fluff. While I personally really like the World Axis cosmology based purely on the fluff, I can immediately see the benefit of a unified but extremely flexible cosmology (with the flexibility coming in through individualized Astral Domains, for instance).

It's a bind, but it's not a new one. It's the same puzzle that has faced every single edition before it, and it is that balancing act between being a game (with a specific, limited field) and being a system (broad enough to accommodate very different games).

It should be trivial for D&D to not hardwire the cosmology in. Heck, in a lot of ways, it's easier in 4e than it is in 3e. What does your campaign loose if you ditch the Shadowfell? You maybe change some origins on the fly and re-fluff a ritual or two if you need to, but most of the time, it won't even affect anything.

So what's the big deal? Why tell me I can't/I shouldn't/you won't? If it's even easier in 4e, and 3e decided to do it (to much acclaim, no less!), the only other answer this article seems to give is a financial one: because at some point, we want to sell you a book about the Shadowfell, and if you don't use it (or if our published settings don't use it), that means that less people will buy it.

That answer blows. Rather than a book on the shadowfell, give us a book about Realms of the Dead (including the shadowfell as the penultimate example, but giving us alternates and letting us see in your toolkit how you made it). Any book that is too narrow in focus to appeal to every group almost regardless of campaign setting style probably needs to have its focus broadened, anyway.

I don't mind the World Axis cosmology as a generic fantasy/D&D cosmology. It's fine for that. It works, it's good with Planescape, I'm content with it. But to pretend that it's appropriate for every setting is absurdly misguided, it robs DM's of one of the more enjoyable aspects of world-building, and the arguments against it don't hold up under scrutiny. It doesn't match the way people actually play the game. It doesn't match the way the world actually works! It robs vitality and variety from the game.

It's a bad idea in so many ways.

Its no dumber than forcing the Great Wheel on Athas or Krynn.

This I totally agree with. I think 3e's method of "multiple cosmologies" was an awesome thing. It meant I could have my Great Wheel Olympus in Planescape and that some greek-inspired campaign setting could have a more authentic Olympus that worked better for it, and we'd all be happy about it. The bits on cosmology in the 3e Deities and Demigods were awesome. The alternate cosmologies in the Manual of the Planes were awesome. They even had great traction! Eberron's dream world and the Orrey setup were very popular, and they came basically right from the 3e MotP!

I don't like shoehorning every cosmology into one. Forcing the Great Wheel on everything is as bad as forcing the Great Bobbin on everything.

 

[The Little Raven]

I don't like shoehorning every cosmology into one. Forcing the Great Wheel on everything is as bad as forcing the Great Bobbin on everything.

I completely agree with this. I understand why they want to do it, for cross-utility purposes, but I like different cosmologies for different worlds.

 

[Shroomy]

Excepting that this is the internet and all the weirdness that entails, I am curious as to how and why this is the case. I mean, the infinity always seemed pretty straightforward "you travel at the speed of plot"-ness to me. In PS it was given some more specific treatments and ramifications, but everything was given that in PS. As a general nature, why did it boggle you?

It is entirely possible that I am just totally ignorant as to how or why that may be a problem (or how changing "infinite" to "finite, but for all intents and purposes still containing anything and everything you want" fixes it).

Oh, I don't have a horse in the infinite vs. finite race (and for all practical purposes, as you say, the planes as experienced by the players were finite anyways), it was the just the tedious and endless philosophical navel-gazing, especially over something that doesn't mean anything.

It's a bind, but it's not a new one. It's the same puzzle that has faced every single edition before it, and it is that balancing act between being a game (with a specific, limited field) and being a system (broad enough to accommodate very different games).

It should be trivial for D&D to not hardwire the cosmology in. Heck, in a lot of ways, it's easier in 4e than it is in 3e. What does your campaign loose if you ditch the Shadowfell? You maybe change some origins on the fly and re-fluff a ritual or two if you need to, but most of the time, it won't even affect anything.

So what's the big deal? Why tell me I can't/I shouldn't/you won't? If it's even easier in 4e, and 3e decided to do it (to much acclaim, no less!), the only other answer this article seems to give is a financial one: because at some point, we want to sell you a book about the Shadowfell, and if you don't use it (or if our published settings don't use it), that means that less people will buy it.

That answer blows. Rather than a book on the shadowfell, give us a book about Realms of the Dead (including the shadowfell as the penultimate example, but giving us alternates and letting us see in your toolkit how you made it). Any book that is too narrow in focus to appeal to every group almost regardless of campaign setting style probably needs to have its focus broadened, anyway.

I don't mind the World Axis cosmology as a generic fantasy/D&D cosmology. It's fine for that. It works, it's good with Planescape, I'm content with it. But to pretend that it's appropriate for every setting is absurdly misguided, it robs DM's of one of the more enjoyable aspects of world-building, and the arguments against it don't hold up under scrutiny. It doesn't match the way people actually play the game.

It's a bad idea in so many ways.

I make more allowances for financial considerations, but I don't think it is as bad as you say. Is it as good as creating a planar tool-kit or presenting multiple cosmologies? Probably not, but overall, I felt that the 3e approach was more or less paying lip service to those ideas instead of actively supporting them, given the general level of support for non-Great Wheel planar material (I really liked Eberron's planes, but other than Xoriat and Dal Quor, you never really got to know them very well). If anything, the approaches you favor are probably too niche to justify an entire book (at least one published in the way WoTC needs to do business); Dragon articles and 3PP publications would probably better serve your needs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do you have a secret decoder ring that extracts secret messages noone else can see to turn a statement about the cross-utility of their products into a declaration that you cannot do something you want in your home game? Where can I get one of those?

If I'm Playing By The Rules, I can't change the cosmology.

the 3e MotP only has 20 pages of non-Great Wheel toolkit. If the 4e one devotes 10% of its page-count to other cosmologies, then it's an equivalent toolkit.

False Equivalency, and It Does Not Follow.

I completely agree with this. I understand why they want to do it, for cross-utility purposes, but I like different cosmologies for different worlds.

See, WotC? When TLR and I agree, you know something's up.

I would've said the same for Raven Crowking and I, but we're seeing eye to eye more often since 4e came out.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If I'm Playing By The Rules, I can't change the cosmology.

Nonsense. The MotP has a section on how to do exactly that: Change the cosmology to suit your tastes.

The whole "One cosmology to rule them all" applies to published settings. Yes, that means it's the cosmology that's going to get the vast majority of the details, but the book doesn't even try to claim that it's restricting what you can do in your own game, and in fact gives you suggestions on how to do what you're saying it doesn't let you do.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Now, that said, I admit that I'd have preferred that some of the published settings be permitted to keep their own, unique cosmology. I'm not a huge fan of the "one over all," and I liked the fact that, in 3E, Eberron was completely separate from the other settings.

I understand the reasons behind it, and I like the way they melded the old Eberron with the new World Axis cosmologies. I think it works and works well. But if I ruled the world, I probably wouldn't have gone that route.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Oh, I don't have a horse in the infinite vs. finite race (and for all practical purposes, as you say, the planes as experienced by the players were finite anyways), it was the just the tedious and endless philosophical navel-gazing, especially over something that doesn't mean anything.

Ah. Well, that I mostly just chalk up to "it's the internet..." Philosophical navel-gazing over meaninglessness is rampant.

I make more allowances for financial considerations, but I don't think it is as bad as you say. Is it as good as creating a planar tool-kit or presenting multiple cosmologies? Probably not, but overall, I felt that the 3e approach was more or less paying lip service to those ideas instead of actively supporting them, given the general level of support for non-Great Wheel planar material (I really liked Eberron's planes, but other than Xoriat and Dal Quor, you never really got to know them very well). If anything, the approaches you favor are probably too niche to justify an entire book (at least one published in the way WoTC needs to do business); Dragon articles and 3PP publications would probably better serve your needs.

It was probably the best part of the 3e MotP, and the buzz from where I'm sitting confirmed that. The 3e MotP was largely regarded as an awesome resource, in part because of this. The 3e planar set up was heralded for finally allowing each setting to do a cosmology that made sense for it, rather than being forced into the Great Wheel.

The approach I favor actually wants to broaden the niche. I'd rather have a book on Realms of the Dead that talked about different afterlives and gave us models for them (and creatures and adentures to have in them), as well as how to make your own, than a book on just the Shadowfell. I'd rather have a book on cosmologies that talked about different planar arrangements and gave us models for them (with the Great Bindle as the penultimate example) than a book on the Great Bindle. I'd rather have a book on possibly infinite visions of hell rather than a book just on the Nine Hells.

A book on Realms of the Dead doesn't loose its value if someone doesn't use the Shadowfell. A book on cosmologies doesn't loose its value if you don't play with the Great Bindle.

That allows you to keep a broad appeal for your books, and also lets you embrace the fact that cosmology should be very customizable. WotC should be rushing to give us different ideas for how to build our worlds, not putting up walls and saying "Sorry, Midgard, you're going to have to have a Court of Stars, too!"

 

[doctorhook]

What's a World Axis?

"Anyway, World Axis sounds cooler than the Great Bobbin." - Rich Baker.

That's a really good and interesting article.

Cheers!

Clearly Rich has never experienced the awesomeness of Bobbin Threadbare and the Loom.

Am I the only one whose group refers to this as "The Pokéball Cosmology", on account of the diagrams of it?

It's a term of endearment, really; we quite like the thing!