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

[Aldarc]

Which is great for games where the planes factor in significantly. You can really expands the planes.

However, barring planar adventures or campaigns, how much does the planes really affect the game? Not much I wager. Just a place monsters and summons come from for most games. Unless you plan to go there or fight monsters from it, most pcs don't care if its the Nine Hells, Baator, Ferria, or simplely the Pit.

One of the reasons the Great Wheel works is because for many, it's so generic and out of the way it doesn't matter much. Surely, the difference between City of Greyhawk, Waterdeep, or Sharn is a much bigger impact than what hell is like.

This logic seems circular. The planes don't feature in many campaigns and therefore the Great Wheel should be detailed? 4E's Axis cosmology also strikes me as far more generic than the Great Wheel, especially if we do take your logic above in mind.

 

[Imaro]

Going from the Kobold Preview: http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_Kobold.pdf

Where does it say they are a slave race?

Since when did Kobolds worship dragons? That's nowhere in 3e core, AFAIK. It certainly wasn't in 2e or 1e. Since when do Urd get wings from Tiamat? Where does it say that in any core rule book? I'm looking at my 3e Monster Manual right now and while it does mention Kurtulmak, it certainly doesn't mention anything about dragons or Tiamat. In fact, there was no link to dragons at all that I could see.

The connection to dragons started in 3.5... though I honestly don't think it was core now that we're making that distinction. But really out of all the things I listed you found a single thing that wasn't consistent with kobolds as they've always been? Seriously... this is the great sweeping changes monsters go through as opposed to the smaller increments of the planes and planar monsters? Nothing has been invalidated, the mythos of the kobold has stayed consistent with how i'ts been presented in nearly all editions of D&D (as opposed to the Eladrin and Tieflings of 4e) and instead it's lore has been added to... as opposed to invalidated as you seem to want done to the planes and planar creatures...

I'd also like to point out that the Urd wings being a gift from Tiamat is not presented as truth, but as how kobolds view it... again a pretty minor change that invalidates nothing from previous editions and can easily be ignored if necessary.

Hey, let's not forget, THIS is a kobold:

Short, reptilian guy with horns... yeah my 5e Kobold is the same thing...

Edit: The only difference is yours is a picture of a rogue kobold while mine is a picture of a savage barbarian kobold...

 

[Remathilis]

This logic seems circular. The planes don't feature in many campaigns and therefore the Great Wheel should be detailed? 4E's Axis cosmology also strikes me as far more generic than the Great Wheel, especially if we do take your logic above in mind.

Because the people who use the planes in any measure is fairly small group, so they get the luxery of a fairly fleshed out setting. Most people don't use the planes, so creating dozens and dozens of variants (rather than continuing to flesh out the ones they have) is pointless. How many variants of Hell does one need?

I mean, its the equivalent of saying "I love gothic horror, but I hate Ravenloft. I wish WotC would produce a series of non-connected gothic realms I can mix and match." Or "I love Arabian myth, but hate Al-Qadim." At a certain point, it behooves them to try to do a few things well rather than produce endless variants of the same material.

Speaking of which...

For me, though, it's kind of circular. I don't use The Planes because I don't like them. So, The Planes don't affect my game very much in the same way that, say, Ravenloft has zero effect on my games - I'm not a big fan of Ravenloft either. If I actually got planar material I could use, then I'd probably use the planes a lot more in my games.

Which is why this argument always cycles back to "Why doesn't WotC produce products that I want!?"

The problem is, this argument can be stretched out ad-infinitum. Someone somewhere is going to dislike something about D&D, so they shouldn't make it "core". Barbarians, Flumphs, Dragonborn, Monks, Tieflings, Death Knights, Halflings, Rogues, Orcs. If it exists in D&D, someone has wished it wasn't in the core books.

WotC gave you the resources, yet you complain they didn't build them already for you to your exact specifications. You have a pre-made set (one thoroughly detailed, others lightly sketched) and you have the tools to build your own. What, that this point, would make you happy other than an Official Hussarscape Sourcebook?

 

[Nivenus]

The connection to dragons started in 3.5... though I honestly don't think it was core now that we're making that distinction.

Actually, it dates back at least to The Sunless Citadel, which was the first D&D adventure I ever played. The kobolds in the adventure (which was released in 2000) venerate a juvenile white dragon. It's not quite worship, as the adventure describes the dragon as the kobolds' "mascot" but they're clearly devoted to it and the kobold leader, Yusdrayl, is a sorceress with draconic affectations, including her "dragon throne" (and remember, sorcerers had an implied association with draconic blood even in 3e). Subtle, minor stuff, none of which really changes the underlying kobold lore from 2e, but which builds upon it.

The popularity of the kobolds in the adventure (particularly Meepo) eventually led to further elaboration on these small details. Deekin, the kobold bard in Neverwinter Nights' two expansions, eventually becomes a dragon disciple. In 2006, the Races of Dragon supplement for 3.5, a more conclusive link between dragons and kobolds was established. By 4e, the draconic nature of kobolds was assumed as normal. This was a series of changes which started in 2000 and progressed over a course of eight years, rather than in one major shift. Again, that's a fairly big difference from the abrupt shift in tieflings' backstory from 2007 to 2008 (which unlike the addition of kobolds' draconic nature, actually conflicted with earlier information).

 

[Aldarc]

Because the people who use the planes in any measure is fairly small group, so they get the luxery of a fairly fleshed out setting. Most people don't use the planes, so creating dozens and dozens of variants (rather than continuing to flesh out the ones they have) is pointless. How many variants of Hell does one need?

You can't seem to escape your circular logic that basically cannot see past justifying the privileged position of the Great Wheel. This is where I would quote Hussar's post that mirrors my own thoughts:

For me, though, it's kind of circular. I don't use The Planes because I don't like them. So, The Planes don't affect my game very much in the same way that, say, Ravenloft has zero effect on my games - I'm not a big fan of Ravenloft either. If I actually got planar material I could use, then I'd probably use the planes a lot more in my games.

Which is why this argument always cycles back to "Why doesn't WotC produce products that I want!?"

Which is why this argument always cycles back to "I don't care about anyone else so long as WotC keeps catering to what I want!" The blade cuts both ways.

WotC gave you the resources, yet you complain they didn't build them already for you to your exact specifications. You have a pre-made set (one thoroughly detailed, others lightly sketched) and you have the tools to build your own. What, that this point, would make you happy other than an Official Hussarscape Sourcebook?

Probably about the same could be said about an official 5E Great Wheel or Planescape sourcebook, could it not?

 

[Mirtek]

Speaking of changes in game history and how the great wheel and unified cosmology makes them impossible is kind of ironic now that we see how many changes the 5e MM has now made (I particular dislike the changes to Aboleths and Gnolls).

And yet only very few oppose these changes, despite trampling all over previous Great Wheel / unified D&D cosmology canon.

Thus it's clear that the things that "can't be changed" are not that way because adherences to Great Wheel canon for it's own sake, but because a great many people like these things because they just like these things.

Wheel canon only liked (or maybe even known) by a few people gets changed all of the place and no one opposes it just because it's non Wheel canon

 

[pemerton]

However, barring planar adventures or campaigns, how much does the planes really affect the game? Not much I wager. Just a place monsters and summons come from for most games.

I can't speak for most games, but for some games at least the planes aren't as important for geography as they are for cosmology, mythic history and hence a basis for the dramatic conflict that drives the game.

For instance, an AD&D game influenced by Roger E Moore's classic "point of view" articles doesn't care about the geography of Olympus and The Nine Hells (I think it is in MotP that the orcish pantheon got relocated to Acheron). It cares about the story of the orcs being tricked out of a homeland by the other pantheonic leaders, and about the story of the conflict between Corellon and Gruumsh.

Speaking of changes in game history and how the great wheel and unified cosmology makes them impossible is kind of ironic now that we see how many changes the 5e MM has now made (I particular dislike the changes to Aboleths and Gnolls).

And yet only very few oppose these changes, despite trampling all over previous Great Wheel / unified D&D cosmology canon.

Thus it's clear that the things that "can't be changed" are not that way because adherences to Great Wheel canon for it's own sake, but because a great many people like these things because they just like these things.

My own view is that the role of marketing is important here. When 4e was launched, WotC asserted that they were making changes. They were proud of them. They even published a book to explain and herald them (Worlds & Monsters).

With 5e, WotC has denied that it is making changes. It has characterised its treatment of the lore as conservative.

I think that it is reasonably clear that the core D&D fanbase react more favouraby to a rhetoric of conservatism than to a rhetoric of change.

please don't compare D&D vs. AD&D as they were meant to be separate games, with their own lore

Both D&D (Holmes, followed by Moldvay, followed by Mentzer) and AD&D are consolidations and continuations of original D&D. They don't have their own lore except for a few specific instances (eg in Moldvay Basic gnolls becomes offshoots of gnomes and trolls, an idea derived presumably from a desire to explain their gname).

 

[Imaro]

Both D&D (Holmes, followed by Moldvay, followed by Mentzer) and AD&D are consolidations and continuations of original D&D. They don't have their own lore except for a few specific instances (eg in Moldvay Basic gnolls becomes offshoots of gnomes and trolls, an idea derived presumably from a desire to explain their gname).

That have alot of differing lore, especially looking at the final incarnation of D&D (Rules Cyclopedia) vs. the edition of AD&D that was out at the same time...including monsters that were specific only to D&D or AD&D and separate cosmologies. There are no Immortals in AD&D, spheres, etc...

 

[pemerton]

That have alot of differing lore, especially looking at the final incarnation of D&D (Rules Cyclopedia) vs. the edition of AD&D that was out at the same time...including monsters that were specific only to D&D or AD&D and separate cosmologies. There are no Immortals in AD&D, spheres, etc...

And what bearing does this have on the nature of kobolds, which is what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was discussing?

 

[Imaro]

And what bearing does this have on the nature of kobolds, which is what @Hussar was discussing?

Riiight... So you make a statement, are proven wrong and now the goalposts shift, got it.

It has bearing because a kobold in D&D is not an AD&D kobold (and earlier @Hussar posted a D&D kobold picture as an example of how the kobold had changed in AD&D)... again they are two separate games with different lore, in other words showing me a pic from BECMI/RC D&D and claiming it shows how much the kobold in AD&D and it's later editions changed... doesn't actually do that... I thought I was clear enough in my first statement...