Planescape Planescape IS D&D Says Jeremy Crawford

Planescape is Jeremy Crawford's favourite D&D setting. "It is D&D", he says, as he talks about how in the 2024 core rulebook updates Planescape will be more up front and center as "the setting of settings".

​

 

[Charlaquin]

say's "we" who don't even know how basic particles in the universe truly work.....It's all guesswork and theory and none of us really know.

No, “we” have very reliable, consistently verifiable descriptions of how these things work (which is what a “theory” is in a scientific context). And we have a very good understanding of infinity, which is a mathematical concept. It is absolutely possible for a set to be infinite and to still not include everything that exists or could conceivably exist.

 

[Charlaquin]

but if inifinity is everything then it shouldn't be repeatable.

Well here’s where you’re getting mixed up. Infinity doesn’t mean everything, it means unending. You can have infinitely many of something while still having none of something else.

 

[Charlaquin]

yeah it is… what your link shows is that you cannot have a function where any value in R is mapped to exactly one value in I, with nothing in R left unmapped, which would show that I and R contain the same amount of numbers.

I can always find a function which does map any set of ‘things’ to I where everything in that set is mapped to a unique number in I, and still have infinite numbers in I left for more. So if there are several infinites than R > I > any set you can imagine

I didn’t provide any link and I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

 

[Azzy]

come on. the minute the devs use the term Multiverse they are opening that door. Problem is some of you are arguing copywright and some of us are pointing out that Multiverse means ANYTHING and EVERYTHING are now part of the game. Both side's are right amd both sides are wrong, and both sides don't exist, because MULTIVERSE

No. That is not what it means.

 

[Charlaquin]

The usage of universe you’re insisting on is only “correct” in the context of defining a multiverse as multiple universes and forcing that meaning. The actual meaning of the word is “everything. Full stop.”

I’m sorry, but no, that is not what universe means. The universe is a real thing that exists, and it contains all things that exist. Multiverse is a term for a hypothetical concept of “what if other universes existed that contained things the real universe doesn’t contain?” People often extrapolate this concept to imagine infinitely many multiverses, containing everything that could conceivably exist, and a lot of scifi and fantasy media plays with this idea to incorporate “what if?” scenarios within their settings into their canons. This does not necessarily imply crossover must exist between different IPs, though it has in some cases been used to allow for it. This whole pedantic tangent spawned because @Maxperson made the argument that D&D’s multiverse can’t be considered a setting because it contains all conceivable things, but that’s just not true. D&D’s multiverse has certain specific setting conceits, such as the great wheel cosmology, which are not compatible with the setting conceits of other scifi and fantasy properties, including some with their own multiverses.

Could a DM choose to run a D&D/Marvel crossover? Of course! Would that be within the scope of the D&D multiverse as a setting? No.

 

[Incenjucar]

Universe does actually mean everything. Comic book writers don't get to change that.

The universe can be a multiverse.

 

[Charlaquin]

Universe does actually mean everything. Comic book writers don't get to change that.

The universe can be a multiverse.

It doesn’t though. The universe is a real thing, and its contents are finite. It contains all extant matter, space, and time. Space and time might be infinite, we don’t really know, but matter is most definitely finite. Also, the universe functions under certain physical laws. It could conceivably function under different physical laws, but it doesn’t, and if it did, things would look very different, if things even existed. We can imagine other universes with different physical laws, and in fact that is a necessary conceit of string “theory” (which I would argue is not actually a theory because it has not made any verifiable predictions; it should really be called “string conjecture” IMO.) So, while the universe does contain everything that actually exists, it cannot contain everything that could conceivably exist. This isn’t just a comic book writer thing, this is a real physics thing.

 

[Incenjucar]

We can imagine fictional universes, yes, but a fictional universe contains everything in that fiction.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m sorry, but no, that is not what universe means. The universe is a real thing that exists, and it contains all things that exist. Multiverse is a term for a hypothetical concept of “what if other universes existed that contained things the real universe doesn’t contain?” People often extrapolate this concept to imagine infinitely many multiverses, containing everything that could conceivably exist, and a lot of scifi and fantasy media plays with this idea to incorporate “what if?” scenarios within their settings into their canons. This does not necessarily imply crossover must exist between different IPs, though it has in some cases been used to allow for it. This whole pedantic tangent spawned because @Maxperson made the argument that D&D’s multiverse can’t be considered a setting because it contains all conceivable things, but that’s just not true. D&D’s multiverse has certain specific setting conceits, such as the great wheel cosmology, which are not compatible with the setting conceits of other scifi and fantasy properties, including some with their own multiverses.

Could a DM choose to run a D&D/Marvel crossover? Of course! Would that be within the scope of the D&D multiverse as a setting? No.

None of this changes what universe means. The “real thing” you keep referring to is just the universe as we know and understand it. If an alternate reality presented itself, it would be part of a new understanding of the universe.

 

[Charlaquin]

None of this changes what universe means. The “real thing” you keep referring to is just the universe as we know and understand it. If an alternate reality presented itself, it would be part of a new understanding of the universe.

I’m sorry, but you are just wrong about this. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario, real physicists do really talk about multiple universes right now, and they don’t use the word the way you are trying to use it here. We can’t currently verify or falsify the existence of other universes, but there are valid models that describe them, and those models treat them as separate universes from the one we inhabit.