D&D 5E 4E Cosmology

[dave2008]

Playing a game is a thing that an actual person is doing, in their leisure time. I agree with @AbdulAlhazred that the GM keeping the fiction obscure does make it harder to play the game.

I've played FRPGs - both D&D and Rolemaster - in which cosmology has mattered quite a bit.

It absolutely can be, but it is not a requirement to play the game.

 

[TwoSix]

It absolutely can be, but it is not a requirement to play the game.

I'd say that's broadly true, but depends on the game. Games like Mage and Werewolf would be pretty much unplayable if delinked from their cosmology, as an example.

 

[dave2008]

This is incredibly backwards IMHO.

PS - This was a response to Aldarc (they don't show up on my screen any more, but wanted to remind myself as it looks odd when I look at it )

I often do things that appear backwards to others. I often even walk backwards when taking a walk with a group (so I can face the people I am talking too)!

I was quick to abandon the Great Wheel because it is inorganic, tidy, tight, and neat. It is concerned with the aesthetics of symmetry. In contrast, the World Axis is messy and organic. The domains of the gods exist in the Astral Sea, but who can say how many domains there are? They don't follow symmetry. Neither does the Elemental Chaos. It is chaos.

Yep, I that remains as part of my WA + GW mash up. Much of that is part of WotC. You will notice that spelljammer as divine domains and dead gods floating around the astral sea.

It sounds more like the World Axis didn't work from your human love of symmetry and, in particular, the Great Wheel so you just shoehorned the Great Wheel into your cosmology.

I have no love of symmetry and my WA + GW mash-up is not symmetrical. I never said that so why did you assume that?

You traded one "tidy cosmology / lore" for an even tidier cosmology / lore, and you didn't make it less comprehensible, as you traded it for a model that makes it more comprehensible with very little resembling the World Axis that you claim to love. LoL. What a joke.

Not a joke and I did no such thing, you assume to much. Maybe read what I wrote and ask questions instead of assuming you have the answers. I should clarify that I loved a lot of the lore from WA, I don't love a cosmology as I don't view them as something that is true and correct. I do like the cosmology of the WA a lot, more than the GW, but truth be told "love" is to strong a word and if I used it, that was an error.

FYI, I have also mashed the blind eternities and MtG settings into my cosmology. If you would like to learn more about how I view the cosmology of my setting I am happy to discuss it.

 

[dave2008]

I'd say that's broadly true, but depends on the game. Games like Mage and Werewolf would be pretty much unplayable if delinked from their cosmology, as an example.

I was really only speaking about D&D. I haven't played Werewolf or Mage.

To me, D&D us fundamentally about creating your own game. There are no rules or settings beyond what you accept into your game. That, to me, is the essence of D&D.

 

[the Jester]

I would argue both are wrong if--exactly as I constructed it--they claim that it is EXCLUSIVELY a wave or a particle and never even slightly the other. Which is why I went out of my way to make that abundantly clear...and then every single person just completely ignored that.

I offered a different construction exactly to point out that it is possible for them both to be right while arriving at different conclusions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would argue both are wrong if--exactly as I constructed it--they claim that it is EXCLUSIVELY a wave or a particle and never even slightly the other. Which is why I went out of my way to make that abundantly clear...and then every single person just completely ignored that.

Sometimes, I wonder why I even write things if folks are just going to pretend I never did so.

So do I which is why I am going to be more explicit. When you insert the word "completely" into there you are as far as I can tell making a strawman' argument. And I pointed this out in my reply to you. I just didn't use the explicit word strawman.

And even if you aren't making a direct strawman based on your misunderstanding of other peoples' positions it appears that what you are banging on about is a position that (a) no one currently replying to you hold and (B) is a common misrepresentation of positions people present do hold. And you seem to be making no attempt to separate the two.

And the reason it feels like you are trying to derail the thread with a strawman' is that you were at one point claiming there were only three possibilities. I pointed out explicitly that there was a fourth (which happens to be what I consider to be the correct one about this world) - and everything you have said since (especially insisting on the word "complete") appears to be an attempt to define this fourth possibility out of the discussion.

Light is a particle. Light is a wave. Anyone who says that light is exclusively a particle or exclusively a wave is one of the just over eight billion living people on this planetwho is wrong about something. Why is "there exist people who are wrong about something?" a remotely interesting thing to discuss?

(I consider metamodernism worth discussing because I think it the best model of reality we have and because too many people haven't heard of it)

And I keep telling you, I was told that ALL of that is 100% pure perspective, that any perspective is equally and fully correct BECAUSE perspective is reality in the planes.

[Citation needed]

It honestly sounds like a mangling of both Mage: the Ascension and Planescape where perspective makes reality. Which doesn't"t mean "all beliefs are correct" but "with enough power we can make our belief the objectively correct one"

 

[Aldarc]

It honestly sounds like a mangling of both Mage: the Ascension and Planescape where perspective makes reality. Which doesn't"t mean "all beliefs are correct" but "with enough power we can make our belief the objectively correct one"

I personally hate this too for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I personally hate this too for all sorts of reasons.

Likewise. I think it horrible - and it doesn't even really add stakes to situations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I offered a different construction exactly to point out that it is possible for them both to be right while arriving at different conclusions.

"I'm not going to respond to your argument, but rather my reconstruction of your argument, which makes me right" is not going to impress me any more than just flat ignoring what I've said.
Edit: Corrected to quote the right person.

 

[dave2008]

I have removed this comment because @EzekielRaiden explained that their comment I was responding to was intended to be for another post/poster. They have corrected their original comment, so I am removing my response.