WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Micah Sweet]

No, I said that the World Axis is a better cosmology for D&D because it was designed for adventure.

That doesn't counter anything I said. Whether or not you like a cosmology has nothing to do with if it's good for the game. My favorite cosmology is Eberron's, but I fully recognize that it would be a bad fit as the core cosmology of D&D and that the World Axis is better for adventures.

Since the game at the table is about PCs having adventures, I think its fair to assume that a vote for World Axis on the grounds of it being better for adventures is a vote for playability.

 

[Faolyn]

Not in so many words. But it is implicit in the whole line of argument that faithful adaptation = unplayability.


Of course it needs to be playable. But since it definitionaly already is, how much you value marginal increases in it compared with how you value other things (like setting consistancy) is a sliding scale or personal preferences, not a dichotomy and definitely not a matter you can be "objectively wrong" about.

A faithful adaptation can be unplayable (in the "shouldn't be played" sense, not in the "bad rules" sense) if the original contains outdated or bigoted tropes.

Sometimes, fixing those tropes means rewriting things to the point that an adaptation can't be faithful--like with 5e Ravenloft, which @Micah Sweet doesn't like. I believe that a lot of Ravenloft's tropes were so outdated or bigoted that the only way to fix them was to completely rewrite large sections of the setting. And Micah has been saying that, in their opinion, settings shouldn't be adapted to 5e if they have to be changed so much they don't continue with the old lore--that they should be left unchanged, even if it means nobody will ever play them again.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Since the game at the table is about PCs having adventures, I think its fair to assume that a vote for World Axis on the grounds of it being better for adventures is a vote for playability.

And isn't a vote against setting consistency. 4e's base setting and cosmology were different from previous editions'. You said earlier that you were fine with newer settings and additive changes. Or was that a lie and you actually think that the Great Wheel has to be the default cosmology every edition, even if the base setting is different?

 

[Micah Sweet]

A faithful adaptation can be unplayable (in the "shouldn't be played" sense, not in the "bad rules" sense) if the original contains outdated or bigoted tropes.

Sometimes, fixing those tropes means rewriting things to the point that an adaptation can't be faithful--like with 5e Ravenloft, which @Micah Sweet doesn't like. I believe that a lot of Ravenloft's tropes were so outdated or bigoted that the only way to fix them was to completely rewrite large sections of the setting. And Micah has been saying that, in their opinion, settings shouldn't be adapted to 5e if they have to be changed so much they don't continue with the old lore--that they should be left unchanged, even if it means nobody will ever play them again.

True. I don't see any reason to retroactively change existing stories. Just tell a new story with similar themes that appeals to your current customer base.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And isn't a vote against setting consistency. 4e's base setting and cosmology were different from previous editions'. You said earlier that you were fine with newer settings and additive changes. Or was that a lie and you actually think that the Great Wheel has to be the default cosmology every edition, even if the base setting is different?

Replacing the Great Wheel with the World Axis wasn't an additive change. It was a replacement. Just like bringing the Wheel back in 5th ed was also technically a replacement.

If Nerath was its own world with the World Axis as its cosmology, that would be fine. But they used it for all the other 4e settings too, all of which predated the edition.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

True. I don't see any reason to retroactively change existing stories. Just tell a new story with similar themes that appeals to your current customer base.

Ravenloft isn't a story. It's a setting. A place where stories happen.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ravenloft isn't a story. It's a setting. A place where stories happen.

Its both, actually. A lot of in-game history in those books.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Replacing the Great Wheel with the World Axis wasn't an additive change. It was a replacement. Just like bringing the Wheel back in 5th ed was also technically a replacement.

So replacing the World Axis with the Great Wheel is bad because it's not additive, right? Or does that guideline only apply to things you like?

If Nerath was its own world with the World Axis as its cosmology, that would be fine. But they used it for all the other 4e settings too, all of which predated the edition.

No, they didn't. Not for Eberron.

And, again, that's besides the point. My point was that the World Axis is better for D&D. It wasn't even tangentially about setting consistency.

This tangent was originally about why there are more 5e adventures for the planes taken from 4e (Shadowfell, Feywild, Astral Sea) than there are for the Great Wheel's planes (Avernus). And it's because the planes from 4e are better designed as adventuring locations, and thus better for D&D.

I don't care if you like the Great Wheel, liking a cosmology doesn't make it well designed for the game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Its both, actually. A lot of in-game history in those books.

Backstory isn't setting.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

No, they didn't. Not for Eberron.

Eh, they kind of did in 4e... They more or less mapped the 3e Eberron Cosmology onto the World Axis and called it a day.

They even pulled Xoriat out of the "official" cosmology so it could function as their "realm from beyond known reality" Far Realm equivalent, and shoehorned in Baator to keep the number of Eberron's "actual" planes at the traditional 13 - one of the only things from 4e Eberron that I actually didn't like.