Unearthed Arcana Crawford On Lots Of Stuff! Release Tempo, Video Games, OGL, Conventions, Unearthed Arcana, 2018, Tia

Crawford confirms the brilliant strategy of the D&D team. Thanks for posting the highlights Morrus. Sales and fans returning to D&D are proof that they are doing something right.

Bravo!

 

[Mistwell]

To me it feels the same as Gandalf showing up in the The Force Awakens to help Luke on his quest to defeat Khan, who failed to defeat his enemy Dumbledore in some other universe.

Cool. I'd watch that too. In fact it sounds like the Parks and Recreation Filibsuter:

[video=youtube;5BBhNkywMJY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BBhNkywMJY[/video]

The choices are being made for monetary reasons, not for the purposes of good story creation.

Well I think money plays an important roll in any big budget endeavor, sure. But I don't think it plays the only role, and I don't think you're privy to the private motives of the people behind this. What he described is a long standing interpretation of the D&D multiverse. It's not invented for this thing.

My argument is that they don't need to bastardize classic lore so frivolously.

It's part of the classic lore.

 

[Shemeska]

Takhisis/Tiamat and Bahamut/Paladine is an old Planescape era piece of lore. Same god worshiped differently on different worlds. Never outright STATED that was true, but it was heavily implied. (Same was true for Tharizdun/Elder Elemental Eye).

Of course, Dragonlance took 30 some turns to make it untrue, but its not something he pulled out of his kiester.

Planescape did its level best to try to keep Tiamat and Takhisis distinct from one another. Without going back and looking specifically, I'm pretty sure that 'On Hallowed Ground' and 'Planes of Law' both make it clear that while mortals have confused them for one another, they're different entities, with different divine domains.

If 5e is retconning that, it won't be the first topic it will have done so with in regards to planar continuity (as it has tried to present an IMO largely cool but sometimes frighteningly awkward middle ground between some mutually exclusive 1e/2e/3e continuity and 4e material).

 

[Mad Zagyg]

Cool. I'd watch that too.

This is why Michael Bay's terrible movies are so successful.

 

[Coredump]

I think it is. "Nimble" means being responsive, which is impossible if you've planned your line years in advance.

Not at all. If you are able to adapt as you develop, that is being nimble, or 'agile' even. Mearls used SCAG as an example, they were developing certain sub-classes a certain way... but based on PHB feedback they changed things up.

That is agile/nimble

 

[Mistwell]

This is why Michael Bay's terrible movies are so successful.

No, he's never done an awesome geek mashup.

 

[Remathilis]

Planescape did its level best to try to keep Tiamat and Takhisis distinct from one another. Without going back and looking specifically, I'm pretty sure that 'On Hallowed Ground' and 'Planes of Law' both make it clear that while mortals have confused them for one another, they're different entities, with different divine domains.

If 5e is retconning that, it won't be the first topic it will have done so with in regards to planar continuity (as it has tried to present an IMO largely cool but sometimes frighteningly awkward middle ground between some mutually exclusive 1e/2e/3e continuity and 4e material).

Well, its muddier that that.

Planes of Law leaves the question open. (Saying they are similar, but leaving it a mystery if they are the same or not). Monster Mythology (2e) says Tiamat's stats should not be used in Dragonlance, since "there Tiamat is strongly identified with Takhisis[...]"

Jeff Grub was quoted on Dragonlance Nexus as saying " Trace very early on wanted Huma / Bahumat as a good dragon god and Takhisis / Tiamat as an evil dragon god. " but that's off the record.

So officially, its been implied but never stated (and I thought it was more strongly implied, but...) so the idea they are the same does have some history, if just weakly...

 

[Wik]

Hm.

Regarding the multiverse issue which seems to be the crux of this discussion:

As a general rule, it's been a part of D&D for a long time. I think it really got ramped up around the time that RIFTS hit the market, and showed what a strong multiverse would do. For TSR, it meant that a strong multiverse concept would allow people that only bought Greyhawk products to dip their toes into Forgotten Realms (or Birthright! or Dragonlance! Or Jakandor! Or whatever else!)

They even went so far as to make not one, but two settings centred around travelling between settings (Spelljammer and Planescape, and if you want to be loosey-goosey, you could argue that 2e Ravenloft was a multiverse-spanning setting as well). What's interesting to me is that Spelljammer got tied into the core of several settings (I believe a Dragonlance product mentioned spelljamming vessels, and there was mention of one somewhere in a Dark Sun book if memory serves), while Planescape got less mention.... despite being a much more successful setting.

Dark Sun, for example, explicitly cut itself off from the Multiverse in a planar context. It had different planes.

Anyways, what this means is that multiverse stuff is not new to 5e. It's a pretty standard move, and what's good about it is, if you don't like it, nothing's forcing you to follow it. I seriously doubt we'll see Dalamar in the Realms, or Dark Sun's Athas invading the Realms (although there's an old Dragon article about precisely that! And it sounded awesome!). What we will probably see are old "Greyhawk" modules being ported over to the Realms, with conversion notes in the back, as we've seen with PotA.

Personally, I'm fine with this approach, so long as WotC avoids its 4e policy of "include everything". So, don't find a way to put Orcs and gold pieces into Dragonlance, goblins into Dark Sun, tieflings into Birthright, and all that. WotC should recognize that settings are as much about what's NOT in them as in what's in them, and that including every designed product into every setting just muddies things up and makes them bland.

I really wasn't a fan, for example, of much of the 4e treatment of Dark Sun. There was some lovely work on the product, and it was the first 4e product I had purchased in around a year when it came out (and until recently, the last). But this drive that WotC had at the time to make it include everything really took off some of the lustre. The intro adventure had goblins! There were tieflings! (Despite the no-planar rule of Dark Sun!) Eladrin and the Feywild! Strangely, though, they also axed the entire Divine Domain, so clerics were no longer in... which, actually, was pretty cool, and my favourite part of the 4e conversion.

If, going forward, WotC recognizes that the individual settings are, in fact, INDIVIDUAL, and respects what they contain and do not contain, I have absolutely no problem with their establishing weak canonical connections between the worlds. I mean, I'll absolutely ignore them, but I'm all for other guys that get into canon having those bonds.

***

Also, "The Wizards Three" are Canonical? Does that mean a stat conversion of Ed Greenwood is in our future?

 

[Mad Zagyg]

No, he's never done an awesome geek mashup.

I've always thought Forgotten Realms needed more Transformers. Maybe they can throw some Warforged in there that can transform into wagons and dragons and stuff. That'd be so sweet.

 

[delericho]

Lets not get hung up on the exact dictionary meaning of a single word again, please, folks. There's too much actual interesting stuff to discuss here. First person to post a dictionary definition of the word loses the internet.

Plus he said at least 9,999 other words, too!

Meh, some of them were repeats.

Damn you WotC, for making me read the same word more than once!

/ragequit

 

[Morrus]

Meh, some of them were repeats.

Damn you WotC, for making me read the same word more than once!

/ragequit

I expect three pages of dictionary definitions of the word "the".