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

[I'm A Banana]

Oh. I guess we have differing views on what counts as "campaign specific"; I've always seen the story of Correlon putting out Grummush's eye as being a generic, universal story true in every campaign setting where elves and orcs exist. (The 2nd edition book "Monster Mythology" basically says as much.) What I mean when I say "campaign specific" is stuff like "In Ebberon, halflings ride dinosaurs" or "In Dark Sun, halflings are cannibals", whereas a statement like "The halflings worship the goddess Yondalla" I consider generic.

See, statements like this, and folks wonder why I harp on about the Default Effect so much.

In reality, of course, "halflings ride dinosaurs" is no more campaign-specific than "halflings worship Yondalla" (debatably, less!) or even "halflings live in cozy burrows and enjoy pipeweed and gardening."

EVERY kind of halfling is really a specific kind of halfling. Those treated as presumed in various e's of D&D are just a specific kind of halfling that has been privileged above others by being treated as the "default" (making everything else a "variant").

Which means it involves some effort to change what "halfling" means in your game, as you work against the default assumptions of whatever edition you're working in and any natural resistance to change your group might have.

5e, FWIW, mitigates this by using subraces. While it still exists to some degree, it's easy to understand that your homebrew world has its own "subrace" of halfling that has its own story.

Of course, it doesn't look (so far) like there is such a mechanism for those who don't want 5e's default cosmology. There is a privileged cosmology, and everything else is a "variant," an "homebrew," some sort of lesser, less important, less relevant cosmology.

 

[Desdichado]

Oh. I guess we have differing views on what counts as "campaign specific"; I've always seen the story of Correlon putting out Grummush's eye as being a generic, universal story true in every campaign setting where elves and orcs exist. (The 2nd edition book "Monster Mythology" basically says as much.) What I mean when I say "campaign specific" is stuff like "In Ebberon, halflings ride dinosaurs" or "In Dark Sun, halflings are cannibals", whereas a statement like "The halflings worship the goddess Yondalla" I consider generic. In other words, if it's true in only one campaign setting, it's specific; if it's supposed to be true in every D&D campaign, it's generic. That's why I considered Planescape to be generic material; all the worlds (Oerth, Toril, etc.) in 2nd edition shared the same set of planes, so that whatever was true about, say, Yugoloths, was true in all of those worlds, not just one. Halflings, Minotaurs, and such could vary from world to world because they each adapted to the world they lived in. But (until 3e) there's only ONE Abyss, ONE Nine Hells, etc, so the creatures inhabiting said planes couldn't have multiple differing stories, just one. You couldn't say that there both was and was not a Blood War, for instance, because it'd be contradictory.

Occasionally people wonder why I say that D&D is almost it's own subgenre of fantasy, unconnected to any other. This is a big part of the reason why...

 

[Hussar]

Oh. I guess we have differing views on what counts as "campaign specific"; I've always seen the story of Correlon putting out Grummush's eye as being a generic, universal story true in every campaign setting where elves and orcs exist. (The 2nd edition book "Monster Mythology" basically says as much.) What I mean when I say "campaign specific" is stuff like "In Ebberon, halflings ride dinosaurs" or "In Dark Sun, halflings are cannibals", whereas a statement like "The halflings worship the goddess Yondalla" I consider generic. In other words, if it's true in only one campaign setting, it's specific; if it's supposed to be true in every D&D campaign, it's generic. That's why I considered Planescape to be generic material; all the worlds (Oerth, Toril, etc.) in 2nd edition shared the same set of planes, so that whatever was true about, say, Yugoloths, was true in all of those worlds, not just one. Halflings, Minotaurs, and such could vary from world to world because they each adapted to the world they lived in. But (until 3e) there's only ONE Abyss, ONE Nine Hells, etc, so the creatures inhabiting said planes couldn't have multiple differing stories, just one. You couldn't say that there both was and was not a Blood War, for instance, because it'd be contradictory.

Anyhow, the reason I want Planescape material in the core rulebooks is because I have no expectation or promise from WOTC that a Planescape campaign setting is actually coming. Didn't get one in 3e, 3.5, 4th or Essentials. So basically if it ain't in the monster manuals and the Manual of the planes, Planescape fans get zip. If I had an ironclad guarantee of a hardcover Planescape book for 5e, I'd say "Fine. Remove all Planescape references from the monster manual." I just don't see one coming, is all...

Yeah, just to pile on here, I gotta go with KM and Hobo here. See, I would never consider "Monster Mythology" to be anything remotely close to a core assumption, although, that specific example did become a core one in 3e. But, the existence of specific, named deities? That's not generic at all. That's a very, very specific campaign element.

Which, again, is why I consider Planescape to be such a bad thing. It took very specific campaign elements and then told everyone that played D&D that every single setting had to default to those elements. There is only one Abyss? Why? And, really, how? After all, Tiamat is both a demon, a dragon and a goddess depending on setting. Only one Nine Hells? Again, why? Isn't that pretty much exactly what I've been complaining about - stifling creativity in favour of a single view of the cosmologies even when it doesn't fit?

Yeah, I have to admit, I like the AD&D take on monster manuals. The 2e monster books contained almost no proper nouns and virtually no over setting. You had different takes on every single creature based on different settings. I really don't want D&D to become that specific in its story.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Which, again, is why I consider Planescape to be such a bad thing. It took very specific campaign elements and then told everyone that played D&D that every single setting had to default to those elements. There is only one Abyss? Why? And, really, how? After all, Tiamat is both a demon, a dragon and a goddess depending on setting. Only one Nine Hells? Again, why? Isn't that pretty much exactly what I've been complaining about - stifling creativity in favour of a single view of the cosmologies even when it doesn't fit?

Except, again, this is just AD&D's version of the planes you're describing - not Planescape specifically.

 

[The Shadow]

Occasionally people wonder why I say that D&D is almost it's own subgenre of fantasy, unconnected to any other. This is a big part of the reason why...

No 'almost' about it, it definitely is.

Back to the topic... I don't know why the core rules have to make *any* default assumptions about cosmology, other than the bare existence of transitive planes (for the sake of certain traditional spells).

It's almost like saying, "Your campaign's home continent must have a north-south mountain range down the middle of the map that is the tallest in the world. Dwarves come from there."

If it's not necessary to dictate the geography of the game world, why is it necessary to dictate the structure of the planes?

That's not to say there's no room for example cosmologies, just as there's room for example campaign settings. But I'd like to see each campaign setting have its own cosmology.

There's also room for settings like Planescape and Spelljammer. But I would like to see emphasized that they are their own settings with their own cosmologies. And I would very much prefer not to see existing settings tied into them by default.

That is, if a GM wants Krynn to have its own crystal sphere, let him homebrew Krynnspace by all means. But let's not have that in an official product, as it basically subordinates Dragonlance to Spelljammer, in a way injurious to the former.

 

[Elderbrain]

I must respectfully point out that the back stories everyone here seems to regard as an intrusion and as disposable fluff, are what many fans considered an indispensable element of what they LIKE about D&D and made the game attractive to them in the first place! D&D is not a fantasy version of GURPS, and people shouldn't try to make it fit that mold. Hussar would probably LOVE GURPS - nothing but character/monster creation rules and zero backstory. But I believe that the reason D&D has outlived so many imitators is precisely because of STORY... backgrounds that make the game come alive. Don't think so? Look at the outcry when 4e ditched almost every traditional piece of lore and substituted a new background and a new set of planes. Planescape fans weren't the only ones crying foul. And the lore about the demihuman deities goes back further than "Monster Mythology", FYI... at least as far back as 1e's "Deities and Demigods". For many players and dms, the story of the epic fight between Correlon and Grummush is as much a core part of D&D as character classes and spells.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Where are people running into all these players who cause problems with their initial assumptions?

I'm not denying they could exist, but in 30+ years of playing, I've never met anyone--experienced player or newbie, 9 years old or 39--who didn't just say, "Oh, okay" when informed that orcs don't worship Gruumsh in this campaign, or that kobolds are more dog-like than draconic in that one. (Or whatever.)

 

[Nivenus]

I must respectfully point out that the back stories everyone here seems to regard as an intrusion and as disposable fluff, are what many fans considered an indispensable element of what they LIKE about D&D and made the game attractive to them in the first place! D&D is not a fantasy version of GURPS, and people shouldn't try to make it fit that mold. Hussar would probably LOVE GURPS - nothing but character/monster creation rules and zero backstory. But I believe that the reason D&D has outlived so many imitators is precisely because of STORY... backgrounds that make the game come alive. Don't think so? Look at the outcry when 4e ditched almost every traditional piece of lore and substituted a new background and a new set of planes. Planescape fans weren't the only ones crying foul. And the lore about the demihuman deities goes back further than "Monster Mythology", FYI... at least as far back as 1e's "Deities and Demigods". For many players and dms, the story of the epic fight between Correlon and Grummush is as much a core part of D&D as character classes and spells.

This is a very good point. I remember well the bitter fights over whether the elf/eladrin split made any sense and the change to "core" tieflings' backstory (it's worth remembering pre-4e tieflings weren't unique to Planescape - 3e Forgotten Realms had them too). A lot of the animosity to 4th edition was a result of the rules changes, yes, but the lore changes upset a lot of people too.

As with the mechanics, there were parts of the 4e lore that I liked and other parts that I disliked. I don't mind and even like a little the idea of gods vs. primordials; as others have pointed out it has a very mythical feel to it. And I feel like the Shadowfell and Feywild have more personality than the Plane of Shadow or the Realm of Faerie. That being said, there are other changes I wasn't very comfortable with. The reduction of alignment to a simple LG vs. CE axis was one of them. I preferred old school planetouched approach to tieflings and aasimar than 4e's tieflings or devas (not that I wholly dislike either of the latter). And the messy and unclear distinction between "high elf" eladrin and "celestial/noble" eladrin was just confusing. And so on.

Either way though, it's actually a lot harder to separate the "core" lore of D&D from the game's appeal than I think some people are assuming. I do feel WotC might have done a better job accommodating those who preferred 4e's style to 3e's, but they do seem to be (on the surface level at least) a minority.

 

[Elderbrain]

Where are people running into all these players who cause problems with their initial assumptions?

I'm not denying they could exist, but in 30+ years of playing, I've never met anyone--experienced player or newbie, 9 years old or 39--who didn't just say, "Oh, okay" when informed that orcs don't worship Gruumsh in this campaign, or that kobolds are more dog-like than draconic in that one. (Or whatever.)

But that's exactly my point... you had to inform them that your campaign differed from the default assumption in that Orcs didn't worship Grummush in your world. The very fact that they HAD that assumption shows that people DO consider such details as part of the core game! A willingness on the part of the players to abandon certain assumptions IN YOUR SPECIFIC CAMPAIGN WORLD does NOT translate into indifference about such details or a willingness to see them deleted from the actual books.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But that's exactly my point... you had to inform them that your campaign differed from the default assumption in that Orcs didn't worship Grummush in your world. The very fact that they HAD that assumption shows that people DO consider such details as part of the core game! A willingness on the part of the players to abandon certain assumptions IN YOUR SPECIFIC CAMPAIGN WORLD does NOT translate into indifference about such details or a willingness to see them deleted from the actual books.

I know. I'm not one of the people wants to see that material taken out. I was responding to those who do.