D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Worlds of D&D

[Mercurius]

The Default Effect is huge. To dismiss it by saying "you can always change anything you want!" means you don't appreciate how actually huge it is. This isn't about a rejection of authority, this is about D&D being a game for each of us to build and create with as we see fit, or about D&D being one particular game that has a specific flavor of multiverse/dwarf/goblin/etc. A Default Dwarf puts it firmly into the later camp, even if the Fun Police ain't around. And that's not what D&D is to me.

Humor me. Why is the default effect huge? Or specifically, how does having a default mountain dwarf (which has always been the case, at least in the core game) inhibit you in any way from building and creating as you see fit?

There is never any such thing as "generic". All lemonade is local.

SNIP

Again, I don't see how any of what you describe can't be largely accounted for by fluff. You're focusing on things like culture and history and biology, etc - context, as you say - most of which doesn't require actually mechanically distinct sub-races.

Taken in a vacuum outside of what James Wyatt said, I actually agree with you - I like that Athasian dwarves are different from Greyhawkian dwarves. But Wyatt clearly says that Gold dwarves and Hylar can be different, but the difference is one of culture, not in terms of species - and thus presumably not mechanical. Most of what you describe is more towards the cultural end and thus can be differentiated by fluff.

Even if you want to add mechanical differences to dwarven sub-races in your game world, what's to stop you from doing so?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Grand Unified Plane Theory works for me, but only because of how I viewed past cosmolgies. Each, IMO, is a representation of how the people of the world picture these other planes/worlds. These infinite planes can't be mapped in the traditional sense, but to make rational sense of it each society feels the need to create their own representation of how the planes are laid out.

An approach in Next that unifies the rules for the DM while making mention of how different cultures/worlds view them differently would be optimal for me.

 

[Tovec]

With all these threads (most of them started by [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]) I'm starting to lose track of what the specific arguments are now.

I have long understood what KM has been saying about the default effect but from what I'm reading it doesn't seem like this necessarily applies here. That is I don't think it applies to the various subraces of dwarves (or other races) because there is an easy option NOT to show a single unified version of them. I think Wyatt is wrong in this regard, that mountain dwarves are NOT the same as gold dwarves (or whatever variation they were), but I think my problem is I don't see what that has to do with what we are actually discussing here OR what it has to do with cosmology in general.

Humor me. Why is the default effect huge? Or specifically, how does having a default mountain dwarf (which has always been the case, at least in the core game) inhibit you in any way from building and creating as you see fit?

I think the problem is less about having multiple options and more about which one is presented as default. If something is default people are going to use it as such and give it unfair weighting when it may not deserve it. A default presumes a certain amount of normality in something that may not be normal. It is automatically 5/6 of the reason why I personally HATE using the gensai, aasimar/tieflings, and warforged in my games. I enjoy some aasimars but they should be exceedingly rare, rarest of the races my players are allowed to use - even though they are a fairly common race of Faerun (from what I have read).

Again, I don't see how any of what you describe can't be largely accounted for by fluff. You're focusing on things like culture and history and biology, etc - context, as you say - most of which doesn't require actually mechanically distinct sub-races.

Again, I think you are missing the mark here a little. For my mind, I don't see what the problem is with having different races (subraces; different fluff, stats, and what not) in a SETTING book. I do see what problem it can lead to if you have gold, shield, mountain, hill, grey, wild, sun, moon, cucumber dwarves all in the PHB/MM/Core book. That would be chaos if every race did that. In that way, I think the default is hugely important if you say that hill dwarves are the standard/default or if shield dwarves are. I think that has long been the case, but again it is a case for the core material and not for the setting material. There is no reason why in the setting there is any reason a gold dwarf should ever be considered a mountain dwarf; racial stat blocks aren't just their physical bits they are physical, mental, social, cultural all rolled into one. There are other ways around this, certainly, but they don't seem to be heading in that direction yet. So, I think in general it would be best to clearly mark off whatever setting the proposed creature is from and go from there - so you can add in other bits, not be contradictory, and still allow people to pick while being consistent. Maybe the mountain dwarves are traditional greyhawk dwarves, indicate that they are. Then later if you want to have gold dwarves DO NOT mention they are mountain dwarves in disguise, but instead give gold dwarf stats and explain they are from faerun. Same should go for kender, or cannibalistic halflings, warforged, and even more monstrous monsters should follow this outline - I think it is the best way to let people have a default without giving it special preference.

Taken in a vacuum outside of what James Wyatt said, I actually agree with you - I like that Athasian dwarves are different from Greyhawkian dwarves. But Wyatt clearly says that Gold dwarves and Hylar can be different, but the difference is one of culture, not in terms of species - and thus presumably not mechanical. Most of what you describe is more towards the cultural end and thus can be differentiated by fluff.

So what if the differences are cultural only? Outside of the athasian dwarf and the greyhawkian dwarf meeting on mount celestia what difference would that make? I think KM's point is that all dwarves, athasian, greyhawkian, mine, yours; are different. I personally hate the free search of secret doors that elves get in 3.5 so I've long removed it, if my elves were meeting your elves in a neutral setting/game then there is no reason why my elves should gain secret doors, or yours lose them, or for us to even question whether secret doors is cultural or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but that doesn't matter in the slightest. I would HATE to see "stock default dwarf/elf, add 3 items from column B and two from column C" because that would be suck. (Yes be suck.) So, the differences aren't just cultural. There is no reason to have non-cultural race, reflavour for setting. You should have setting race, change to other setting race if in that setting.

Even if you want to add mechanical differences to dwarven sub-races in your game world, what's to stop you from doing so?

I don't think KM is saying that he can't. I think he is saying there is a strong bias against doing so, that changing races or anything (monsters, cosmology, anything) has players asking why the default isn't adhered to. The default effect is a strong one, it counts and reinforces and punishes those who don't follow it. It is a deterrent to making things up. I've said before how I'll NOT use things rather than change them, more often than not, and the reason for this is the default effect. I'd rather say, "No, that specific thing doesn't exist in my setting," because players will accept that not everything can exist in a given setting. If I instead change lots of fiddly little details that they won't remember then it becomes a much larger issue. For example, if you took the 3.5 races (as written) and then altered the dwarven mindset (not the rules or anything) to that of burning wheel, that is a huge change. Suddenly they are cutthroat and willing to betray the party just for some gold trinkets. If the player is into that, that's cool. If they aren't then they won't understand why everyone in the game world treats them with such paranoia. It is a little change, but it has huge effect to change from the default. Whereas, in this case, if I dislike gold dwarves I could just not use them, or if I prefer grey dwarves (from faerun, IIRC) yet I'm playing in athas then I can also use them. The issue is still to make sure that all players don't expect burning wheel, or athasian dwarves, in my modified game. They probably still will, if I'm running a clear (athas is dark sun right?) dark sun game but that is something I'll have to keep consistent.

Anyway I've rambled long enough and even kind of I've lost the point I'm trying to make. I just wanted to say that I'm confused over what we are discussing at this juncture - what everybody is trying to propose that is bad in everyone else's opinions.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Humor me. Why is the default effect huge? Or specifically, how does having a default mountain dwarf (which has always been the case, at least in the core game) inhibit you in any way from building and creating as you see fit?

(those of you tired of my droning on about this topic can skip to the next quote. )

One of the papers I keep going on about is this Columbia University study. The meat of the thing is organ donation, where the form people fills out either presumes consent (ie, is "opt-out") or requires explicit consent (ie, is "opt-in"). Figure 2 in that paper tells, graphically, what the consequences of assuming a default is.

The point here is that it doesn't matter if people can choose otherwise or not: the default effect means that most people won't choose other than the default.

Since they do it when the stakes are much higher and the decision is much easier (organs save people's lives, and it's literally a box on a form), I don't see much reason to believe they won't do it when the stakes are this low. In a D&D 5e with, say, a default cosmology, I imagine it will have this effect: most people won't make their own cosmology. They'll gravitate strongly toward the default.

For me, that's pretty bad. I'm a lover of diversity, and a believer in the power and authority of every individual D&D group to tell the perfect story for themselves. If some DM somewhere doesn't make their own version of Hell and their own pathway between that and some Heaven because the game defaults to One True Cosmology, that's a loss for the game as a whole. If WotC publishes a new setting that has to fit into the existing schema rather than having its own unique multiverse at its disposal, that's a loss for the brand, for the game, and for everyone who picks up the book. If a table I join in the next 5-10 years has a DM who feels like making a new idea for the elemental planes is too much effort, that's a direct injury to my own game experience. If I can't get a 5e book that helps me design my own cosmologies for my own purposes because WotC can't publish one because they all must adhere to the One True Cosmology vision, that's going to be a drag on my own personal games.

Again, I don't see how any of what you describe can't be largely accounted for by fluff. You're focusing on things like culture and history and biology, etc - context, as you say - most of which doesn't require actually mechanically distinct sub-races.
...
Wyatt clearly says that Gold dwarves and Hylar can be different, but the difference is one of culture, not in terms of species - and thus presumably not mechanical. Most of what you describe is more towards the cultural end and thus can be differentiated by fluff.

It requires some mechanical distinction, because these differences should result a different play experience. I could totally be on board for a different module that adds those mechanics other than "race," but I'm not seeing that so far in what WotC is presenting to us, so I'm left trying to make it clear that I want a Gold dwarf and a Hylar to play differently, because they are different stories, and saying they are all the same dwarf works against that.

Even if you want to add mechanical differences to dwarven sub-races in your game world, what's to stop you from doing so?

It's not about stopping me personally so much (though no question, my campaign would feel this choice). It's about D&D as a game of imagination, as a brand that speaks of creativity, and as a toolbox to tell our own stories. One True X is more about instructions for playing with someone else's toys, lessons on how to appreciate their creativity, and a game of others' stories.

I mean, I can take this Batman Play Set and make a any game my imagination can think of from it. No one's gonna stop me. But if I want to play with something that is going to be whatever I imagine it to be, why the heck would I pick up a specific Batman Play Set to do it with?

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I think you're over thinking this a whole lot. The baseline "dwarf" works pretty well. I'm not sure we really have to start getting that nitty gritty with differentiating generic dwarves. And, yes, I do think that there is a generic dwarf in D&D. Now, once you start getting into specific settings, sure, you can start having more differences.

The problem I see, is that once you start making all these little tweaks and changes, it becomes much easier to break the game. It's easier for people to start cherry picking different options in order to power game. I'm not a dwarf, I'm a super duper sun dwarf which adds to my class of choice and so on and so forth.

Keeping it simple is a better approach IMO.

 

[pemerton]

Wyatt mentioned there were "some problems" with a 3e-style model of the planes that allowed for different cosmologies and different multiverses. I'm willing to listen to what he thinks those are (and I'd hope that he'd be willing to hear other ways of solving those problems!). He thinks it's for some reason really important to homogenize the differences between D&D creatures? Okay, why?

Here’s another excerpt of unedited text that might or might not appear, in some form, in some unspecified future rulebook.

<snip>

it stresses the idea that dwarves are dwarves, across the multiverse, and more specifically, that mountain dwarves are mountain dwarves, whether they’re called shield dwarves, Hylar, Daewar, or something else entirely. Mountain dwarves are a part of D&D, and all the worlds of the multiverse are a part of D&D. Not all those worlds have mountain dwarves, but where they do appear, they’re the same mountain dwarves

The reason seems reasonably clear to me (and others have mentioned it upthread): when I buy the PHB, and it tells me what a mountain dwarf is, I now have a game element - just like a sword or plate armour or the fireball spell - which is mechanically the same whatever gameworld I am playing in.

It makes learning the rules, and porting them into different fictional situations - gameworld, modules, etc - easier.

I'm not an easy sell on this, but I'm sure they're thinking about this more than I am. Tell me how this is going to be better for my game.

I don't think Wyatt thinks he's is making your game better. I think he is thinking about (i) new customers who want to be able to use the game elements they learn about in the rulebooks they buy in the gameworlds that they also buy, and (ii) about WotC's ability to sell game elements to people who will be confident in buying them because they know they can be used.

 

[DMZ2112]

I mean, I can take this Batman Play Set and make a any game my imagination can think of from it. No one's gonna stop me. But if I want to play with something that is going to be whatever I imagine it to be, why the heck would I pick up a specific Batman Play Set to do it with?

I have more to say on this topic but it is late and I just deleted my post. So I will be concise:

What about those of us who buy Batman Play Sets specifically because we like Batman, and the Joker, and Gotham City? Why should we be denied a full Batman experience simply because you think it is limiting?

 

[Mercurius]

The point here is that it doesn't matter if people can choose otherwise or not: the default effect means that most people won't choose other than the default.

Since they do it when the stakes are much higher and the decision is much easier (organs save people's lives, and it's literally a box on a form), I don't see much reason to believe they won't do it when the stakes are this low. In a D&D 5e with, say, a default cosmology, I imagine it will have this effect: most people won't make their own cosmology. They'll gravitate strongly toward the default.

For me, that's pretty bad. I'm a lover of diversity, and a believer in the power and authority of every individual D&D group to tell the perfect story for themselves. If some DM somewhere doesn't make their own version of Hell and their own pathway between that and some Heaven because the game defaults to One True Cosmology, that's a loss for the game as a whole. If WotC publishes a new setting that has to fit into the existing schema rather than having its own unique multiverse at its disposal, that's a loss for the brand, for the game, and for everyone who picks up the book. If a table I join in the next 5-10 years has a DM who feels like making a new idea for the elemental planes is too much effort, that's a direct injury to my own game experience. If I can't get a 5e book that helps me design my own cosmologies for my own purposes because WotC can't publish one because they all must adhere to the One True Cosmology vision, that's going to be a drag on my own personal games.

You're arguing something very similar to what I argued in this post/essay, so I don't disagree with you with a big picture kind of way. In some ways, what you describe explains the problem I have with the AEDU paradigm in 4e: because there are a plethora of "default options" in the form of powers, players are less likely to think creatively and improve an maneuver out of their own imagination.

That said, we can't expect everyone to want to create their own worlds or cosmologies. What you're saying can be extended to campaign worlds as a whole - and it isn't fair for folks like you and I, who love the process of world building (including cosmologies) to expect others to love it as well, or even be able to do it. Some don't have that ability, or at least it is latent. Some prefer using a pre-published setting and cosmology and I'm fine with it.

As far as what approach WotC actually takes in the DMG and Manual of the Planes, let's remain open-minded. Chanced are they won't provide detailed options for cosmology design, but they might at least give guidelines.

It requires some mechanical distinction, because these differences should result a different play experience. I could totally be on board for a different module that adds those mechanics other than "race," but I'm not seeing that so far in what WotC is presenting to us, so I'm left trying to make it clear that I want a Gold dwarf and a Hylar to play differently, because they are different stories, and saying they are all the same dwarf works against that.

But that's like saying a human from Greyhawk and a human from Faerun need to be mechanically different in order to get the feel of them "playing differently," when I think you can go along way by looking at culture, background, etc. I suppose a human from Calimshan and one from the Silver Marches might have subtle differences, and certainly different backgrounds, but they've always been treated as essentially the same. Why is this issue about dwarves worse?

On a side note, I've always seen the differences between sub-races (e.g. hill and mountain dwarves) to be similar to the difference between the major racial groups in our world: North American Indians, South American natives, Australian Aboriginals, Africans, Northern Europeans, Slavs, East Asians, Indians, etc. Assigning mechanical differences between real world racial-ethnic groups would not only be hugely problematic but simply very difficult, mainly because if there are general differences, there are always exceptions that go against those differences (i.e. some white men can jump ;-)).

But again, my approach to all this is that WotC will offer archetypes: hill and mountain dwarves, and then individual DMs can customize them to their own world. It sounds like in the core books at least all hill dwarves across worlds will be the same, but it remains to be seen how this actually works when setting books start coming out.

It's not about stopping me personally so much (though no question, my campaign would feel this choice). It's about D&D as a game of imagination, as a brand that speaks of creativity, and as a toolbox to tell our own stories. One True X is more about instructions for playing with someone else's toys, lessons on how to appreciate their creativity, and a game of others' stories.

I mean, I can take this Batman Play Set and make a any game my imagination can think of from it. No one's gonna stop me. But if I want to play with something that is going to be whatever I imagine it to be, why the heck would I pick up a specific Batman Play Set to do it with?

I hear you. But I don't think this problem will be solved, or that this issue about races or cosmologies is really that significant in the larger picture. I think of Lego's. I haven't owned or bought a lego set in almost 30 years, but remember when I would get a new set for Christmas or some such, I would follow the directions and make the "default" creation, then when it was finished say "Cool," and break it up and mix it in with the rest of my Lego's and make up my own stuff.

Some DM's never get past the point of just following the default directions. Sometimes this is because they don't have that creative bug in them, but sometimes its because of time. So we can think of D&D providing default options as a way to unite the D&D multiverse, to give a sense of community and consistency. But this isn't meant to, as far as I can tell, prohibit any individual DM's creativity. It simply provides a common language, a main theme or melody...but we can always improvise.

But I will agree with you, in that I hope that WotC is explicit about the approach that you and I prefer so that the next generation of DMs will be as creatively empowered as we were/are.

 

[Hussar]

One way of looking at this is, should the rules provide a Lingua Franca that everyone playing D&D can use? This has been on my mind a lot of late since it's something that's getting applied to second language teaching. English as a Lingua Franca is taught significantly differently than English as a second or foreign language. We don't worry so much about the more complex language constructions but instead focus on clarity and ease of use.

Humans have always been like this in D&D. Regardless of setting, humans are pretty much identical mechanically. Athasian humans don't have dark vision and, AFAIK, are identical to Forgotten Realms humans. So, why not apply the same concepts to races? Sure, if the race is significantly enough different (ie. gully dwarves or Mul's) then they might need more mechanical differences. After all, a gully dwarf is probably closer, physically, to a halfling or a gnome than a dwarf. But, an Athasian Dwarf, other than being bald, isn't all that much different than a standard PHB dwarf.

How much mechanical tweaking do we need to do here?

Do we really need fifteen different kinds of elf, each with its own mechanical benefits and restrictions? Really?

 

[HeroForge]

I also like the idea of providing a deep interconnectedness between all D&D worlds, published and homebrew. Individual DMs can make of it what they want, but it gives everyone the sense that we're all playing D&D, all in the same multiverse, which actually legitimizes our own individual styles and takes on things.

Exactly. What better way to empower a DM than to basically say "Your world is as legitimate a part of the universe as ours." Probably makes people more likely to buy other books even if they're home-brewing a world, too.