WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[glass]

How good it is at housing adventures is about playability, I agree. But "setting consistency" had nothing to do with my post. I did not mention it. I just said that something was better at supporting adventures, which is important to D&D. Nothing more.

You were talking about the introduction of a whole new cosmology significantly different from the previous cosmology (or cosmologies in FR's case). Whether you care or not, that is a significant setting inconsistency.

And that is the whole point, you decided that your post that was literally about a vast setting change had nothing to with setting consistency, because it is not a thing you care about. And that is fine for you, but neither @Micah Sweet nor I are required to care about the same things that you care about (and vice versa).

(Except for not harming actual real people - we should, and hopefully do, all care about that.)

 

[AnotherGuy]

I wasn't even thinking of time-travelling, but that's also true.
(snip)
And I've had two time-travel adventures as well, one intentionally mined from the setting's history and one by sheer random accident.

I have not done time-travelling per say but I did run an adventure set in a particular period of a nation heading towards independence (Mystara - Soderfjord's gaining independence from Ostland). The PC were a set of teenage characters that by chance found themselves thrust in the midst of much political turmoil where differing factions were at play. They got their hands on a very important underground manuscript with important persons signatures attached which they brought to The Thing (annual Viking meet). They were integral in setting in motion the talks that led to the nations eventual independence.

EDIT: This is like 50 or so years before the start of the actual Gazetteer timeline.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You were talking about the introduction of a whole new cosmology significantly different from the previous cosmology (or cosmologies in FR's case). Whether you care or not, that is a significant setting inconsistency.

No, I wasn't. I was replying to another poster that mentioned how 4e's planes of existence (Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Sea) had more adventures and detail in 5e than the Outer Planes do (just Avernus is detailed).

And that is the whole point, you decided that your post that was literally about a vast setting change had nothing to with setting consistency, because it is not a thing you care about. And that is fine for you, but neither @Micah Sweet nor I are required to care about the same things that you care about (and vice versa).

It was about how 5e adventures more commonly use planes of existence from 4e to house their "extraplanar adventures" than the Great Wheel Planes. And I tried to add to another person's post by giving an explanation for that: the fact that World Axis's planes (including planes it borrowed and changed from previous editions' cosmology) are used more often in official D&D 5e adventures than the Great Wheel planes are.

(Except for not harming actual real people - we should, and hopefully do, all care about that.)

Of course.

 

[glass]

No, I wasn't. I was replying to another poster that mentioned how 4e's planes of existence (Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Sea) had more adventures and detail in 5e than the Outer Planes do (just Avernus is detailed).

1. You were talking about the World Axis.
2. The World Axis replaced the Great Wheel* as the cosmology of the 4e version of the Realms (and the default setting, but that was new).
3. This was a significant change to the Realms' cosmology.
4. Therefore, 4e Realms cosmology was inconsistent with the previous editions' cosmology.
5. Therefore, by talking about the World Axis (regardless of why you were talking about it or who you were responding to), you were talking about a setting inconsistency. QED.

(* Technically, the World Axis replaced the World Tree which replaced the Great Wheel, but that does not matter for our current purposes.)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

1. You were talking about the World Axis.
2. The World Axis replaced the Great Wheel* as the cosmology of the 4e version of the Realms (and the default setting, but that was new).
3. This was a significant change to the Realms' cosmology.
4. Therefore, 4e Realms cosmology was inconsistent with the previous editions' cosmology.
5. Therefore, by talking about the World Axis (regardless of why you were talking about it or who you were responding to), you were talking about a setting inconsistency. QED.

(* Technically, the World Axis replaced the World Tree which replaced the Great Wheel, but that does not matter for our current purposes.)

That is utterly unhelpful to discussions. If every time someone mentions the World Axis cosmology it starts a stupid tangent about setting consistency versus playability, the person in the wrong for that dumb tangent isn't the person that mentioned the cosmology, it's the person that felt the need to chime in and start a debate about how much they hate that the Great Wheel was replaced over a decade ago in the previous edition.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane and would prevent any discussions of the cosmology or its virtues. I do not accept that it's somehow my fault that someone else said that settings consistency and playability are in conflict with one another just because I mentioned a cosmology that they don't like.

 

[glass]

If every time someone mentions the World Axis cosmology it starts a stupid tangent about setting consistency versus playability, the person in the wrong for that dumb tangent isn't the person that mentioned the cosmology, it's the person that felt the need to chime in and start a debate about how much they hate that the Great Wheel was replaced over a decade ago in the previous edition.

The post you seem to be referring to is this one:

I know this sounds insane to many of you, but I value setting consistency over raw playability.

But that was not in response to you, and in any case the thread had been talking about what should or should not be done when updating classic settings for a while at that point. In any case, it was nothing to do with your talking about the World Axis; AFAICT you first post in this thread mentioning it was yesterday, but search seems to be a bit screwy so I might be missing something. So you might want to check your history.

In any case, this "dumb tangent" is not about the World Axis. It is about whether it is OK for you to call Micah Sweet's preferences and mine "stupid" and "detrimental", and now "insane". Stop doing that and there is no tangent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I love that one can pick a place and TIME in a setting's history to play.
Time travelling without actually time travelling.

Also great. This is why I never had a problem with the Dragonlance timeline moving forward, because you can start your game whenever you want, and now you have options.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is utterly unhelpful to discussions. If every time someone mentions the World Axis cosmology it starts a stupid tangent about setting consistency versus playability, the person in the wrong for that dumb tangent isn't the person that mentioned the cosmology, it's the person that felt the need to chime in and start a debate about how much they hate that the Great Wheel was replaced over a decade ago in the previous edition.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane and would prevent any discussions of the cosmology or its virtues. I do not accept that it's somehow my fault that someone else said that settings consistency and playability are in conflict with one another just because I mentioned a cosmology that they don't like.

I like it fine for Nerath.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One of my partner's favorite gifts I got her was a four disc album full of Bob Dylan covers. For her it was the best of both worlds; songs written by Bob Dylan and sung by literally anybody except Bob Dylan.

I've been thinking about that a lot in relation to Monte Cook...

I will never get over the juxtaposition of:

1) Numenera's overall vibe, concepts and ideas, which were astonishing, cool, wild, modern and just really rocking.

2) Numenera's default setting, which was basically just bog-standard "medieval fantasy" (in the same sense D&D is) with a few bits of super-tech or high-tech laying about. Nothing amazing, nothing cool, just really weak.

It was like two entirely different people wrote them, but the reality is, both those people were Monte Cook. Ah the Duality of Monte.

 

[Voadam]

Also, real people get raped and abused. Real people don't get attacked by evil fae or eaten by ghouls. Most people don't get involved in actual demon-cults. There are plenty of ways to do horror without resorting to things that hurt people in real life.

I don't think that is the line you want to draw here. Real people can be attacked by real people. Real people can be eaten. Having a villain attack a PC is generally OK. Having a great white shark threaten to eat a PC is generally OK. Having someone be abused by an evil fae or an undead would not make it OK.