WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[glass]

One is that the Great Wheel, as previously mentioned, is bad.

You keep saying that like your personal preference is objective quality. It isn't.

 

[Lanefan]

In 3e, each setting had their own cosmology, with the possibility of traveling between them via the Shadow Plane. Greyhawk had the Great Wheel, the Forgotten Realms had the World Tree, and Eberron had its orrery. But you couldn't plane shift from Eberron to, say, Bytopia.

There are many reasons why settings should keep their cosmologies separate. One is that the Great Wheel, as previously mentioned, is bad. It is far too intertwined with alignments, and is far too check-boxy.

Both of which are fine with me.

Another is that high-level gaming often heads out toward the planes. And that causes all sorts of weirdness if the settings are connected. If a group of adventurers travel from Greyhawk and slay Orcus on his home plane, does that mean that Orcus is also dead in the Forgotten Realms? If Ao strikes Tyr blind, does that mean that Tyr is blind in other worlds too?

IMO yes it does. There's only one Orcus, and if he's dead in one setting he's dead in all of them. That said, if nobody in a given setting realizes he's dead worship of him there might continue uninterrupted for a very long time....

A third is that cross-setting stuff is disruptive. A world where flying spaceships that can travel across the globe in less than a day exist in large enough numbers to make spacefaring civilization viable is going to look very differently from your typical fantasy setting. That's why I say that I don't mind a Spelljammer campaign making a stop in Waterdeep or Huzuz, but Waterdeep and Huzuz should not have to be designed to take spelljamming vessels into account.

Indeed, crossovers should be uncommon; but that's not to say they should never occur. And often the whole point of them is to be disruptive, so no issue there.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Also I think new Ravenloft is better than the old one.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

IMO yes it does. There's only one Orcus, and if he's dead in one setting he's dead in all of them. That said, if nobody in a given setting realizes he's dead worship of him there might continue uninterrupted for a very long time....

Ehh... This is Orcus we're talking about. Even when he's dead, he probably isn't...

 

[Scribe]

I shall inform you this is not true. It’s very much Spelljammer, and is an ok product. It’s main flaw is that it’s short and does not go quite as into detail as it should. Basically it could have used another 30 pages or so.

I've flipped through a set, and it didnt look bad at all.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I've flipped through a set, and it didnt look bad at all.

Exactly it’s greatest flaw is that it should have been longer

 

[Micah Sweet]

It could be because Eberron didn't need as much clean up as Ravenloft or Spelljammer did. It's newer, built on different assumptions, and was designed with modern D&D in mind. It didn't have as many outdated tropes or weird side-rules to consider (though it still had a few, such as how it originally handled the drow of Xen'drik).

Then my answer is just update the mechanics, or don't update at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also I think new Ravenloft is better than the old one.

I don't. There are two sides here, and neither is objectively correct.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I shall inform you this is not true. It’s very much Spelljammer, and is an ok product. It’s main flaw is that it’s short and does not go quite as into detail as it should. Basically it could have used another 30 pages or so.

You cannot "inform" someone that something is or is not a bad product. It is bad, to them.

 

[Remathilis]

Then my answer is just update the mechanics, or don't update at all.

I must admit, I appreciate your consistency in the notion that you'd rather see a setting dead and buried than have one note of it changed.

It's a consistency of the Emerson variety, but still amazing you stick to it even in the face of Armageddon.