D&D General Manual of the Planes: The Switch to a Standard Multiverse, and Why it Matters (Part 2)

[Snarf Zagyg]

With respect ...

We disagree. No worries. I’m not here to argue. What I have to say is a explained in my main posts (three and soon to be four)

 

[dave2008]

We disagree. No worries. I’m not here to argue. What I have to say is a explained in my main posts (three and soon to be four)

If your not here to argue, i.e. discuss ideas and interpretations of the evidence, then why the heck are you posting?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If your not here to argue, i.e. discuss ideas and interpretations of the evidence, then why the heck are you posting?

Personally, I think that there is a difference between arguing on the internet, and discussing ideas. I think some people enjoy reading about the history of the game, seeing a little effort in research, and appreciate some thought on the subject matter. But I am not obligated to argue with every single person who feels very strongly that I am wrong, am I?

Now, if you'll notice the first post made by Umbran was basically, "Hey, you ignored all this, and you're totally wrong." Which is fine, that's a great opinion to have! I can be completely wrong.

Thing is, that post was in this, and didn't account for the fact that I had already posted a whole third post that accounted for what he said.

Shortly thereafter, he made another post saying, "WIth respect, ..... (you're still totally wrong.)" I mean ... why do I even bother writing with sources. If I put effort into the OP (which I do), then they should speak for themselves. I don't have any strong need to defend it when I read what he wrote because it just wasn't interesting to me - it's already answered in the three posts I have written, so I don't think explaining it again is going to make a difference.

His disagreement and dislike of what I wrote is totally fine! I am sure he has a strong opinion on things that he wants to argue! I'm not very interested in arguing, however. If someone wants to discuss something, I'm more amenable. For example, I really enjoy discussing the history of the game, and I've been thinking about the particular changes that occurred re: the multiverse early on. But that's not an invitation to argue about things being "good" or "bad" or about editions or what happened with 4e or 5e or 3e; it's beyond the scope of what I was thinking about.

If people want to argue about things being good or bad or what should be, I am sure that there are many people that love arguing. Just not me.

 

[dave2008]

If I put effort into the OP (which I do), then they should speak for themselves. I don't have any strong need to defend it when I read what he wrote because it just wasn't interesting to me - it's already answered in the three posts I have written, so I don't think explaining it again is going to make a difference.

However, just because you think the questions are answered by your post doesn't mean they are or that it is clear to others. You responded to one of my questions with a quote from your post that I didn't feel answered the question, but you clearly did. That at least is a good place to start if you feel you have already answered the question. Ultimately I don't care, but if you want to improve on your thesis, the getting and respond to feedback should do help that goal.

Just a reminder I have enjoyed the post, but they just seemed ripe for discussion and thus debate,which some construe as arguing.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the problem that you're running into, @Snarf Zagyg , is that you're not only talking about the history of the game, you're also saying "Gygax had it right, and then they messed it up--and here is why it matters."

If you assert such a position, you're going to get some push-back.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

However, just because you think the questions are answered by your post doesn't mean they are or that it is clear to others.

This is true. I will have to live with the possibility that I, or someone on the internet, is wrong. Or both!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think the problem that you're running into, @Snarf Zagyg , is that you're not only talking about the history of the game, you're also saying "Gygax had it right, and then they messed it up--and here is why it matters."

If you assert such a position, you're going to get some push-back.

That’s the position you are ascribing to me, which is why I am not engaging.

Pushback is not a discussion.

 

[Mercurius]

That’s the position you are ascribing to me, which is why I am not engaging.

Pushback is not a discussion.

Pushback doesn't have to be an attack--it is simply questioning or disagreement. I don't see anyone attacking you, but I do see almost everyone disagreeing with some of what you are saying, and in a generally civil manner. That is a form of discussion, which you seem unwilling to engage with. If so, why post at all? If you don't want people discussing your ideas--or if you don't want people critiquing or disagreeing--maybe this isn't the right place? We're an opinionated bunch.

Don't get me wrong: I like your posts and am glad you put the time into it. I think you have a valid perspective and I appreciate your love of the Gygaxian multiverse. I just don't agree with some of the conclusions you've come to, and I don't see a problem with posting to that effect.

 

[dave2008]

That’s the position you are ascribing to me, which is why I am not engaging.

Pushback is not a discussion.

But your statements like:

"But in my opinion, that missed the original brilliance of the Prime Material. The Prime Material is, quite literally, everything you could ever imagine. "

and

" but the focus leads to a dearth of excellent published material because, in my opinion, they no longer use the design space that they have with the PMP. "

and

"The inner and outer planes are a forced expansion. They don't .... really .... add very much. "

and I am sure there is more.

So you do have opinions and biases, and that is OK. But it is a bit unfair to dismiss people who question those opinions and biases

 

[Stormonu]

I guess this whole discussion is going over my head. I don't see the multiple prime planes vs. having different "worlds" be in the outer planes as being superior in any way.

All I can say is that my encounters with alternate worlds in D&D were mostly in adventures, and there were a few I shied away from because the plane-hopping sequences didn't sound fun to DM (such as IM1, The Immortal Storm where you end up in a magic-less New York)

I always saw the Manual of the Planes as a great boon that opened up the concept of plane traveling because it was a book full of ideas and hints on how to frame these strange and distant worlds. Personally, I never saw it as detracting from world jumping but rather it encouraged plane-skipping as well as world jumping.

To me, it was Planescape that changed the nature of planar travel by trying to define the planes too much. With it, all your outer plane travelers had to talk in berk-speech and the planes contains these specific, mapped features (I'm thinking of the marvelous Planes of Law/Chaos/Conflict, Guide to Ethereal, Guide to Astral books/boxed sets). Even the Outlands were no longer an ever-changing place but fixed, with the torus Sigil thrust upon us whether it was wanted or not.

Still, in the end the designers were smart enough to treat Planescape as just one view of the outer planes. They still designed campaign worlds with different cosmologies (Birthright, Dark Sun, Eberron to name a few) and even decided to shake up the whole cosmology for 4E.

If anything, I would say resistance to using reality hopping, plane hopping or whatever is a DM/play group issue - if at all. Just like whether one decides to use Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk and have Mordenkainen pop over to have tea with Elminster.