Dragon 370 - Design & Development: Cosmology

[SkidAce]

I'll rephrase: a design flaw in the existing spells that were supposed to allow you to adventure underwater.

Got it now....didnt understand your intent at first. Thank you.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I don't see why the Feywild has to be wooded. To me, the Feywild is about wilderness. For most pseudo-european settings, wilderness means forests, because that's what was there before the place was settled. But you also have majestic mountain peaks, oceans, savannahs, and, yes, deserts. They're just "more" than the mundane versions.

Exactly. The Feywild is a 'concentrated' reflection of the natural world. Athas is a land of desert, until you hit the jungles. Thus, the Feywild version is a 'more pure' form of that desert. It's days are hotter, and the nights are cooler. The colors are more vibrant and the vegetation that does exist is larger and also more dangerous. And the fey? You dont want to know about the fey.

I rather like the idea someone had...the Feywild is nature 'turned up to 11'

 

[avin]

What if Feywild and Shadowfell are just blocked or mortally dangerous (except for quick teleports) for people stay in?

Eladrins are banned to normal Arthas.

 

[vagabundo]

What about Athas' The Black: Shadowfell would become The Gray. But The Black is a pretty significant part of Athas as the domain of the Shadow Giants, the (eventual) prison of Andropinis, and the location where The Hollow (Rajaat's prison) is found. Does the World Axis allow published setting to invent something to tack on when a world's cosmology calls for it? If so, then again, there is room for World Axis in Athas.

Sounds like it might fit in the underdark of the shadowfell, but I'm not up on the Cosmology of Athas.

 

[justanobody]

Oh goody! Every campaign setting is the same, and it seems that the designers think everyone wants to play in their games....NOT!

The different cosmologies is what makes some settings good and others bad. Having the same just means that each setting will look a slight mirror reflection of the next. Might as well just remove all settings and make one global setting.

 

[pemerton]

What bothers me is the attitude, a return to the idea of central control, a "shared world" which every gamer is expected to play in, the hard-coding of setting assumptions into the rules -- a very strange thing indeed, when the rules go out of their way to not attempt to "simulate" any kind of reality.

"We're going for a very abstract, narrative-based rules system...but you have to have the Feywild/Shadowfell to use it properly." Huh?

HeroWars and The Dying Earth both fit this description: abstract, narrativist-facilitating rules each tied to a specific world (Glorantha and Vance's Dying Earth respectively).

why is a mandated cosmology necessary? Were people REALLY confused by switching between Eberron and Forgotten Realms? Why is the "backstory" of the gods warring with titans written into the very structure of the universe? Why do we need an "origin" for devils?

It makes the game playable out of the box. This, in turn, makes the game more accessible to more players.

And what's wrong with having a baseline cosmology for new DM's who want to just run some adventures, not build a whole cosmos? What's wrong with having a default origin and story to tie things like Giants and Elementals together? This baseline helps published material be consistent and able to expand/explore the core assumptions. People complain about lack of fluff in 4E... how much less would there be still if there was no core metaphysical model and mythology to reference flavor-wise for spells, creatures and adventures?

Agreed. I actually find the "lack of fluff" criticisms odd. It's true that there is less zoological information about monsters (feeding habits, size of brood, etc). But for me at least this is more than made up for by the increased amount of information (eg monster descriptions, monster lore suggested encounter groups) that expressly reveals a world of fantastic adventure.

I guess being told that rage drakes lay 4-6 spotted eggs a year suggests the possibilty for a slightly zany adventure involving a mad aristocratic collector and a large number of Dex checks. And it's true that 4e lacks this sort of thing.

But being told that Baphomet and Yeenoghu are rivals straight away sets up a coflict between minotaurs and gnolls that my PCs can get involved in (if the players read the MM they can even have their players set out to get involved in this conflict, sandbox style). I don't have to build a conflict around some zoological fact. The conflict has been provided for me - I just have to implement it.

Assume I have my own ideas for a cosmology for 4e, that uses stuff close to what I alredy use (Feywild/Shadowfell are more or less the way I've done that stuff for ages; ditto "Domains" instead of planes, all my gods had their own worlds floating in the Astral, some large, some small, none infinite), what does MOTP offer me? What's in it for people NOT interested in the default cosmology, and how easy is it to use without it?

I just got it today. I haven't read it yet. But I'd assume that, like earlier MotP, it's best approached as a campaign module. There's probably stuff in there that's interesting, even if you want to tweak it or adapt it rather than use it outright.

There's also some mechanical stuff that looks interesting (monster, paragon paths, rituals, items).

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I rather like the idea someone had...the Feywild is nature 'turned up to 11'

*bows*

 

[TheWyrd]

My absolute two favorite books for 3e were 'The Manual of the Planes' and 'Deities and Demigods'. What was best about these books was the toolkit nature of them. MotP had several example cosmologies in addition to the basic 'Great Wheel'. The Gods book took that and expanded it, building universes around each of the Pantheons it showcased. This was great.

The move to a single official cosmology saddens me, though I understand why they are doing it. Part of the marketing strategy is get people feeling that they are 'D&D Players'.. rather than 'Eberron Players' and 'Forgotten Realms Players'. This wasn't ever a problem for me, but if you're in sales and trying to get the most people possible to buy each of your books, I can clearly see where this would be a problem.

This is where the 'everything is core' idea is coming from as well. There used to be a WotC psionics board where people who played psionics would go to complain about how disenfranchised they are because other D&D players hate 'sci-fi' themed psionics. Clearly, there were people who weren't buying psionics books. Best to make them 'core' so that more people will buy the books.

Personally, I don't see anything bad in that. Do what you can to sell books and make them the best books you can so that more people will want to buy them. Throw in the things that people like and you'll make more sales. That's why both Spelljammer and Planescape have been given nods in the new MotP. Will I buy it? Only if someone doesn't give it to me for Christmas. And then I'll rip open the plane rules and write up my own cosmology.

 

[The Little Raven]

The different cosmologies is what makes some settings good and others bad. Having the same just means that each setting will look a slight mirror reflection of the next. Might as well just remove all settings and make one global setting.

Yeah, because sharing the Great Wheel made Planescape and Greyhawk exactly the same, right?

 

[justanobody]

Yeah, because sharing the Great Wheel made Planescape and Greyhawk exactly the same, right?

Avoided Planescape like the plague so wouldn't know. Never visited the Flaness either.