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

[Hussar]

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...

Ummm, that earlier picture isn't from D&D. It's from AD&D. Second edition specifically. The second picture is from 1st edition.

 

[Hussar]

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...



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?

Ok, let's get specific here. What would make me, personally, the happiest? The following:

1. A series of books, in the vein of the 3e Environment books (Sandstorm, Frostburn, Stormwrack, Dungeonscape and City Scape) detailing more different environments - a book of Planes, a book of Forests, a book of this, that and the other.

2. A second series of books detailing campaign styles. A book of Horror, a book of political intrigue, etc.

3. A series of books specifically detailing The Planes setting - all the lore of the Great Wheel from the last 30 or 40 years all collected and updated for your viewing pleasure.

4. The core books would limit flavour elements to biological stuff mostly. What does the creature eat, what kinds of places does it live in, what motivates the creature. Virtually no proper nouns and information beyond that basic stuff would be presented from a very unreliable viewpoint. Salamanders are said to be slaves of efreeti (That's where I got mixed up with kobolds, sorry, my bad), sages believe that there may be ties between kobolds and dragons, though none have been definitively proven. That sort of thing.

That, right there, would make me a happy monkey.

 

[Nivenus]

While I have been arguing that 5e should try to accommodate different tastes I do think, to a certain degree, Remathilis is correct. WotC only has so many designers and asking them to produce both a series of generic planar sourcebooks and a series of books devoted to the core D&D planes is asking a bit much. I think a single planar sourcebook that elaborates on the Wheel as presented in the PHB, along with instructions of how to craft your own cosmology from the same material, much as the 3e Manual of the Planes would be plenty.

Likewise, I don't really seen any reason for WotC to support both Ravenloft and generic gothic horror... or Kara-Tur / Rokugan and generic East Asian-themed fantasy. At some point you're spending extra resources to produce very similar material. Just adding a foreword at the beginning of a book like the MotP noting the material can be included, left out, or changed as the DM likes along with a chapter described how to do so seems much more efficient.

I mean, is there anything stopping you from reimagining the Nine Hells and the Abyss as you like? Rich Burlew certainly did for Eberron.

 

[Remathilis]

Ok, let's get specific here. What would make me, personally, the happiest? The following:

1. A series of books, in the vein of the 3e Environment books (Sandstorm, Frostburn, Stormwrack, Dungeonscape and City Scape) detailing more different environments - a book of Planes, a book of Forests, a book of this, that and the other.

2. A second series of books detailing campaign styles. A book of Horror, a book of political intrigue, etc.

3. A series of books specifically detailing The Planes setting - all the lore of the Great Wheel from the last 30 or 40 years all collected and updated for your viewing pleasure.

4. The core books would limit flavour elements to biological stuff mostly. What does the creature eat, what kinds of places does it live in, what motivates the creature. Virtually no proper nouns and information beyond that basic stuff would be presented from a very unreliable viewpoint. Salamanders are said to be slaves of efreeti (That's where I got mixed up with kobolds, sorry, my bad), sages believe that there may be ties between kobolds and dragons, though none have been definitively proven. That sort of thing.

That, right there, would make me a happy monkey.

1.) No problem. Loved the environmental books. Not sure you need a lot of them, but sea, arctic etc.

2.) I also loved the Heroes of genre books. Again, some lend themselves better than others.

3.) Sounds like 3e MotP, no problems there.

4.) Problem. While I don't need "Bael Turrath" level specific, I do enjoy the lore. The dragon connection to kobolds makes them more interesting then the "lower hp goblin" they were in 2e. Similarly, if you're going to deferenciate between demon, devil, and daemon as being separate rather than synonyms, I want the lore why. Then again, I want to play Dungeons & Dragons, not Generic Fantasy Simulator.

 

[Imaro]

Ummm, that earlier picture isn't from D&D. It's from AD&D. Second edition specifically. The second picture is from 1st edition.

Ah, I was mistaken then, I thought it was from BECMI.

 

[Hussar]

1.) No problem. Loved the environmental books. Not sure you need a lot of them, but sea, arctic etc.

2.) I also loved the Heroes of genre books. Again, some lend themselves better than others.

3.) Sounds like 3e MotP, no problems there.

4.) Problem. While I don't need "Bael Turrath" level specific, I do enjoy the lore. The dragon connection to kobolds makes them more interesting then the "lower hp goblin" they were in 2e. Similarly, if you're going to deferenciate between demon, devil, and daemon as being separate rather than synonyms, I want the lore why. Then again, I want to play Dungeons & Dragons, not Generic Fantasy Simulator.

Whereas I view D&D as a toolbox for creating my own worlds and stories, rather than being forced to play in someone else's ideas.

I mean, there are many ways you can differentiate demons from devils other than the way they do it in The Great Wheel. AD&D and 3e both managed to do it quite nicely in the Monster Manual without a single reference to The Great Wheel or The Planes setting. Don't forget that the Politics of Hell articles were printed in Dragon (well, The Dragon to be fair) and not in the core books.

See, kobolds connected to dragons might be more interesting to you, but, to me, it's simply intrusive. Why does that have to be stated as a fact, rather than a possibility? Why do salamanders have to slaves to efreeti? Why can't that simply be one option of many? I don't have Hoard of the Dragon Queen, for example . Are there kobolds in that module anywhere? If there are, dollars to donuts, they will be the "linked to dragons" type kobolds. For those of us who would like an adventure featuring kobolds where they aren't linked to dragons, I'm concerned that WOTC will simply leave us out in the cold because "linked to dragons" is far easier to brand.

 

[pemerton]

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

What is the goalpost shifting? It's simply not true that D&D (eg Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, even RC) have significantly different lore from AD&D.

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)...

As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out, he didn't.

He posted pictures from two different AD&D monster manuals. But even if he had posted a picture of a kobold from Moldvay Basic (which is where the picture below comes from), so what?

The lore of the Moldvay Basic kobold and the AD&D kobold was descended in both cases from Chainmail and then Book 2 (Monsters and Treasures). In looking for the picture I found this thread, which quotes some of the earlier rulebook entries and has a few more pictures.

 

[Campbell]

For my part I love setting material that is directly relevant to game play, leads to conflict, and provides players with a meaningful tools to make an impact. I love the presentation of 4e material, but am not particularly wedded to it. Where Planescape material fails to excite me is that it hides the meaningful content and realization of setting themes behind walls of text that are not directly relevant to play. Don't make me suss out themes, and make me determine best how to express them. Tell me how to make a given element relevant to players. If belief shapes reality give me tools to show how that happens in play. Don't give me ecology - give me narrative material that is directly relevant to player interests.

 

[Sadras]

Whereas I view D&D as a toolbox for creating my own worlds and stories, rather than being forced to play in someone else's ideas.
(snip)
See, kobolds connected to dragons might be more interesting to you, but, to me, it's simply intrusive. Why does that have to be stated as a fact, rather than a possibility? Why do salamanders have to slaves to efreeti? Why can't that simply be one option of many?

You must have really disliked the 4e Monster Manual given that the below were stated as facts therein and lets not get into the entire cosmology of 4e which was HEAVILY "intrusive", by being baked into at least all the books that I have read.

Aboleth Lore: In many of these places, kuo-toas serve them.

Balhannoths Lore: Kuo-toas commonly raise balhannoths in this way, while drow, grimlocks, and minotaur cabalists do so less often.

Basilisk Lore: Basilisks are strangely evolved drakes.

Cyclops Lore: Cyclopses are the willing subjects of fomorians, whom they view as the rightful lords of the Feywild. Indeed, cyclopses believe that fomorians are divine. Thus cyclopses are the fomorians’ most valued subjects, serving as bodyguards, soldiers, and artisans—roles that fomorians consider beneath them, but which they don’t trust to faithless subjects or slaves.

Earth Giant Lore: Many of the dwarves who were enslaved by the earth giants were transformed as galeb duhrs. Some of them continue to serve earth giants, while others escaped and view giants (and earth giants in particular) as bitter enemies.

...etc

How did you get over your feelings of being forced to play someone else's ideas? The complaint about Planescape/Great Wheel/World Tree..etc being forced, intrusive and whatnot seems utterly rediculous considering that 4e was the most intrusive cosmological edition ever, yet that passes as acceptable???

 

[Nivenus]

Actually I think Hussar has said they didn't care much for 4e's lore either. It was mostly pemerton who said they preferred and that was because it was more "dynamic" and "dramatic" (two labels I disagree with here but that's neither here nor there).

Mostly Hussar's comparisons to 4e have been for the purpose of claiming fan put planat lore on a higher pedestal than other stuff. Again I don't really agree but that's the comparison that's being made I believe.