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

[Elderbrain]

Hussar, I have some good news for you... there's NOT ONE WORD about the Blood War (or Demons and Devils fighting each other) in either the Demon or Devil entries in the new Monster Manual! The entries read a lot like the 1st edition ones (including the bit about controlling demons/devils by obtaining their amulets/talismans). Mariliths, for instance, are not described as Blood War generals, but just as being smart demons who sometimes lead demonic hordes (to do whatever.) Nalfeshnees act as judges of deceased mortal spirits in Planescape, determining what type demon they become. Not in this book. Now, the Yugoloth entry does contain two brief references to Ultroloths leading Blood War mercenaries (on the second page), but (oddly) never states what the Blood War IS or who is involved (other than Yugoloths, obviously.) Naturally WE all know what it is, but newbies will likely be confused. If they weren't going to explain it, they might as well have left it out. Other than than, zip. And the origin given for Yugoloths blatently contradicts Planescape canon; whereas in Planescape Yugoloths are said to be the creations of the mysterious Baernaloths, the MM says that a covey of Night Hags created them, possibly at the behest of Asmodeus, and that the hags controlled them until they lost the Books of Keeping which had the 'Loths true names written in them. Therefore, 'Loths are now free agents... unless someone finds one or more of the books. (A Planescape article written by Ed Bonney did suggest that Night Hags could promote Yugoloths to more powerful and unique forms, but didn't posit the hags as being their original creators. Still, it could have given the authors of the current MM the idea... and hey, the 'Loths are known liars, so who knows? Maybe this is the truth! )

Now, there IS other, non-Planescape lore in the book that may bug you (and, for that matter, me... see the Harpy entry!) But at least you have a clear path before you with Demons and Devils (and Angels, for that matter, authough they are all now Lawful Good for some reason rather than "Any Good"... go figure. Still serve all the gods of Good, though.)

 

[Hussar]

I think you may have a point here. (I'll think on it some more.) I think your comparison about orcs vs. drow and their respective baggage is apt.

I do suspect this is another example of a continuity/shades-of-gray issue where the line of division between the two is set differently for different people.

Oh, very much. I can totally see that. For me, my mistake was putting The Planes completely as a resource when it really isn't. Like Remalthalis says, there's 30 years of canon built on the The Planes. That's not a resource, that's a setting.

So, like, "Orcs worship Gruumsh" is setting, but "Orcs worship gods of violence and destruction" is resource?

I think the distinction is a little artificial. They're all shades of the same thing.

My own preference would go, "Orcs of the Sword Mountains follow their chief, Brath Ukrypt, who honors the one-eyed god Gruumsh, a god of slaughter." So you could import those orcs into your game, or run an orc with nothing in common with those orcs and not be violating someone's canon.

Sure, the line is blurry. But, in your two examples, the first would be a setting element if the Sword Mountains were a defined element of a given locale. If the Sword Mountains exist in, say, Forgotten Realms, then it's a setting element. If the Sword Mountains are undefined and meant to be dropped into any setting with mountains, then it's a resource.

At least, that's where I would draw the line. The Planes are a setting because not only do they define individual aspects, but they also define how all those individual aspects fit together into a unified whole.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Sure, the line is blurry. But, in your two examples, the first would be a setting element if the Sword Mountains were a defined element of a given locale. If the Sword Mountains exist in, say, Forgotten Realms, then it's a setting element. If the Sword Mountains are undefined and meant to be dropped into any setting with mountains, then it's a resource.

Depends on how much definition is given or assumed. For example, the Barrier Peaks (in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) is very clearly a location in Greyhawk. But it's not really a defined location with story elements, it's a generic place on a map.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, I have some good news for you... there's NOT ONE WORD about the Blood War (or Demons and Devils fighting each other) in either the Demon or Devil entries in the new Monster Manual! The entries read a lot like the 1st edition ones (including the bit about controlling demons/devils by obtaining their amulets/talismans). Mariliths, for instance, are not described as Blood War generals, but just as being smart demons who sometimes lead demonic hordes (to do whatever.) Nalfeshnees act as judges of deceased mortal spirits in Planescape, determining what type demon they become. Not in this book. Now, the Yugoloth entry does contain two brief references to Ultroloths leading Blood War mercenaries (on the second page), but (oddly) never states what the Blood War IS or who is involved (other than Yugoloths, obviously.) Naturally WE all know what it is, but newbies will likely be confused. If they weren't going to explain it, they might as well have left it out. Other than than, zip. And the origin given for Yugoloths blatently contradicts Planescape canon; whereas in Planescape Yugoloths are said to be the creations of the mysterious Baernaloths, the MM says that a covey of Night Hags created them, possibly at the behest of Asmodeus, and that the hags controlled them until they lost the Books of Keeping which had the 'Loths true names written in them. Therefore, 'Loths are now free agents... unless someone finds one or more of the books. (A Planescape article written by Ed Bonney did suggest that Night Hags could promote Yugoloths to more powerful and unique forms, but didn't posit the hags as being their original creators. Still, it could have given the authors of the current MM the idea... and hey, the 'Loths are known liars, so who knows? Maybe this is the truth! )

Now, there IS other, non-Planescape lore in the book that may bug you (and, for that matter, me... see the Harpy entry!) But at least you have a clear path before you with Demons and Devils (and Angels, for that matter, authough they are all now Lawful Good for some reason rather than "Any Good"... go figure. Still serve all the gods of Good, though.)

Heh. Thanks for that.

But, again, I would like to make it absolutely clear what my objection is. It's not necessarily The Planes, but rather the intrusion of too much setting in the core books. I brought up the Kobold entry some time ago as another example where I think they cross the line from resource to setting canon. Another would be the Salamander entry where it states quite clearly that salamanders are slaves to Efreeti. Again, that's a pretty strong setting element because they also mention the City of Brass in there and a number of other details. In other words, they are tying things together in a unified whole.

There's a thread on the forum right now http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365827-Monster-Relationships talking about mapping out all the explicit relationships detailed in the Monster Manual. I admit, I'm leery of this kind of thing because it becomes a step on the way to creating a unified setting that can overtake large swaths of the game. In the same way that the planes detailed in the 1e PHB became The Planes setting with 30 years of canon and a setting in its own right.

I really don't see D&D as a game with a single setting. It never has been. It's not a generic game, true, but, it's never been tightly tied to a single setting either. I mean, even 1e, which probably is the most closely knit game to Greyhawk saw the birth of Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance under the same system. 4e, which is also tightly wound around a single setting concept, still saw a fair bit of diversity ranging from Gamma World to Nentir Vale to En World's own Zeitgeist and Santiago.

I believe that 5e will not become too tightly wound around a single vision setting. I don't think they'll go that far. But, it does alarm me to a degree that they look like they're walking down that path. If I wanted a D&D tied to a single setting, I'd play Pathfinder. That's one of the many places Pathfinder really excels. But, I don't want 5e to go down that road.

 

[Hussar]

Depends on how much definition is given or assumed. For example, the Barrier Peaks (in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) is very clearly a location in Greyhawk. But it's not really a defined location with story elements, it's a generic place on a map.

Yeah, I agree with that. Barrier Peaks might be a location in Greyhawk, but, it's pretty much generic enough to plug and play into any setting you want. And, again, since it's pretty much just proper nouns tying it to Greyhawk, it's not that big of a deal.

OTOH, if I wanted to move or change Waterdeep, I'd have a might steeper climb of it. A city resource might say, "Here are the things you might expect to find in a fantasy city. Here are a bunch of examples of how these things might work together." A city setting is Ptolus.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, the line is blurry. But, in your two examples, the first would be a setting element if the Sword Mountains were a defined element of a given locale. If the Sword Mountains exist in, say, Forgotten Realms, then it's a setting element. If the Sword Mountains are undefined and meant to be dropped into any setting with mountains, then it's a resource.

So, what does it matter if the Sword Mountains are, I dunno, some actual location in Dragonlance, or if you just take exactly that sentence as printed in the MM and just jam it into your own game?

How does what some other hypothetical table miles away might do with the word "Sword Mountains" affect what you're doing at your own table?

And from a publishing standpoint, this gives WotC a lot of flexibility. If they want to describe the Sword Mountains more in some adventure or something, they're free to, and if they want to do something ELSE with orcs, they're free to, and if they want to stipulate that other orcs share some things with these Sword Mountain orcs and are different in other ways, there's no Canon Police there to tell them no.

OTOH, if I wanted to move or change Waterdeep, I'd have a might steeper climb of it.

If I wanted to drop it into any other pseudo-european fantasy world basically as-is, nobles and wards and all, I can't see what would stop me.

In fact, if I wanted to drop it into Dark Sun, I could basically do it with this one change: replace the water with silt. BAM.

I dunno, I just think the distinction is kind of subjective and that makes it basically arbitrary.

 

[SkidAce]

OTOH, if I wanted to move or change Waterdeep, I'd have a might steeper climb of it.

Nah, I stole Waterdeep and plunked it in the middle of one of my homebrew kingdoms. To be fair, there were accommodations made, so that might be the "climb" you speak of.

 

[Remathilis]

In fact, if I wanted to drop it into Dark Sun, I could basically do it with this one change: replace the water with silt. BAM.

I dunno. "Siltdeep" lacks a certain majestic ring to it...

 

[pemerton]

The difference here is between a resource and a setting.

With allowance for the fact that the distinction can be a matter of degree (eg as per your drow example), I think it's a fair distinction.

The Planes (not Planescape, but all the Planes) are a single setting, not a resource.

I use the planes as a resource

My approach is closer to SkidAce's, although in my current (4e) campaign I'm mixing and matching a bit less than SkidAce is.

all settings are defined by their canon.

<snip>

without canon, you cannot have a setting. Settings are defined by canon.

I don't agree with this, though. A setting can be defined by canon, but needn't be. A setting can be defined by trope and theme. I think this is what 4e's PoL was based on. (Again, the detailed reasoning is set out in Worlds & Monsters.)

To turn from RPGs to literature, REH's Hyborian Age is defined much more by trope and theme rather than canon.

Many Arthurian-themed stories also focus on trope and theme, rather than canon, as their essence.

I think settings characterisd by trope and theme are particularly well-suited for RPGing, because (i) they provide strong, shared hooks for players and GMs, and (ii) they allow scope for creativity by all participants without needing to worry about bumping into the constraints of canon.

You enjoy the Nentir Vale

I don't think I've read the entry on Fallcrest and the Nentir Vale in the 4e DMG. (My memory is hazy - I may have skimmed over it once to see if there was anything interesting in it. I don't remember anything, so presumably there wasn't.)

I enjoy the 4e cosmology. In Hussar's terms, it is a resource, not a setting - it is a collection of elements exhibiting fairly clear mythical/fantasy tropes and their associated themes.

For my map of the Prime Material Plane I am using the B/X Module Night's Dark Terror, which presents a fragment of the Grand Duchy of Karameikos. (As well as the places on the module map the game has included the occasional reference to The Black Eagle Barony and to Specularum.)

For my history of the Prime Material Plane I combine my own stuff with some ideas from the 4e books (eg the NW of my module map, at least, was once part of Arkhosia butthe location of Bael Turath has never been considered) as well as Night's Dark Terror and other modules I have used.

For my mythical history I combine my own stuff with various episodes described in MotP, The Planes Above and Below, Underdark, Open Grave and the Demonomicon. Quite a bit of it is made up as we go along.

I've attached my backstory document to this post. Some of it is established (because it has come out in play). Some of it is conjecture, and some of it I think is likely to be departed from in actual play.

View attachment History (relations between gods, minotaurs, Nerath, Iron Hand, NPCs).doc

 

[pemerton]

Your asking "Why is the official version the cube version?"

<snip>

The issue then is why WotC chooses to use its own unique version of the cosmology with 30+ years of pedigree as its default version. Question seems dumb when you put like that, right? Paizo uses its own special planar layout, nobody's demanding they re-write Axios or the elemental planes. Why NOT build on the lore of decades?

"Because I don't like it!" Is the only answer I've heard.

No one is asking for the "official version" to be changed. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is complaining that departures from the "official version" don't get published. And I'm arguing that changes to the "official version" are certainly permissible, and often desirable, and hence when they occur don't amount to "disrespect" or a failure of "integrity" on the part of the designers.

there's NOT ONE WORD about the Blood War (or Demons and Devils fighting each other) in either the Demon or Devil entries in the new Monster Manual!

<snip>

the Yugoloth entry does contain two brief references to Ultroloths leading Blood War mercenaries (on the second page), but (oddly) never states what the Blood War IS or who is involved (other than Yugoloths, obviously.) Naturally WE all know what it is, but newbies will likely be confused.

in your two examples, the first would be a setting element if the Sword Mountains were a defined element of a given locale. If the Sword Mountains exist in, say, Forgotten Realms, then it's a setting element. If the Sword Mountains are undefined and meant to be dropped into any setting with mountains, then it's a resource.

I agree with Hussar here. And I like the idea that, in the new MM, the Blood War has become a resource for new D&Ders to make of as they wish. (A bit like Bahamut's home, in the original MM, being beyond the East Wind.)

So, what does it matter if the Sword Mountains are, I dunno, some actual location in Dragonlance, or if you just take exactly that sentence as printed in the MM and just jam it into your own game?

How does what some other hypothetical table miles away might do with the word "Sword Mountains" affect what you're doing at your own table?

And from a publishing standpoint, this gives WotC a lot of flexibility. If they want to describe the Sword Mountains more in some adventure or something, they're free to, and if they want to do something ELSE with orcs, they're free to, and if they want to stip

And part of that flexibility is that WotC can publish Book A in which the Sword Mountains are this one thing, and Book B in which the Sword Mountains are this other thing.

It is the apparent reluctance to do this for planar elements that is at the heart of Hussar's complaint about Planescape's dominance of planar material. And it is objections to this that I see as at the heart of complaints about 4e.

Because I agree with the flexibility point, I don't feel the force of the objections to 4e, and claims about "invalidation"; and I tend to sympathise with Hussar's complaint.