D&D 5E D&D Lore Changes: Multiversal Focus & Fey Goblins of Prehistory

WotC's Jeremy Crawford revealed a couple of the lore changes in Monsters of the Multiverse.

• The big shift is toward the multiverse as the game's main perspective rather than a specific setting. The game is shifting towards a multiversal focus, with a variety of worlds and settings.
• Universe-spanning mythical story beats, such as deep lore on goblinoids going back to 1st Edition, and the gods they had before Maglubiyet. Prior to Magulbiyet unifying them, goblinoids were folk of the feywild in keeping with 'real-world' folklore.
• Changelings aren't just Eberron, but they've been everywhere -- you just don't necessarily know it. Their origin is also in the realm of the fey.

D&D 5E - A Compilation of all the Race Changes in Monsters of the Multiverse

Over on Reddit, user KingJackel went through the video leak which came out a few days ago and manually compiled a list of all the changes to races in the book. The changes are quite extensive, with only the fairy and harengon remaining unchanged. The book contains 33 races in total, compiled and...

www.enworld.org

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Shannon Applecline's history of TSR in Deigners & Dragons Vol 1 is a really illuminating read.

I might look into it.

 

[Dire Bare]

You gotta admit it’s pretty weird for the M:tG settings to have crystal spheres though. The M:tG settings (“planes”) were written as part of a different meta-setting (also called the multiverse), which has its own rules and metaphysics and cosmology. I’m not opposed to crossovers, but there’s a reason crossover events are often considered non-canon to their respective continuities, because of these sorts of setting assumption clashes.

Now, since WotC owns both M:tG and D&D, they do have the power to consolidate their respective meta-settings, and maybe that’s what they’re working towards. What with Universes Beyond and the 50th anniversary revisions… But, if that is the trajectory we’re on, I think everybody had better get ready for some shake-ups to the foundational setting assumptions of both IPs that are going to make “goblins are fae now” look pretty insignificant in comparison.

I don't think WotC has addressed this directly, but I get the feeling the MtG settings are handled a bit differently. WotC isn't consolidating the Magic meta-setting and the D&D meta-setting, they remain different games, different properties, different "multiverses". The various D&D adaptations of Magic settings are just that, adaptations. They don't directly impact "canon" for Magic, and they don't necessarily align with D&D multiverse canon either.

The D&D Ravnica book presents the setting of Ravnica through the lens of D&D. Much like if WotC published a Witcher adaptation for D&D. It doesn't have to follow D&D's meta-setting or canon, it is its own beast.

 

[Dire Bare]

No it didn't. Mismanagement and hubris, not to mention something just on the legal side of embezzlement via Buck Rogers, collided with the collectible games fad to kill TSR. Having multiple settings was not the problem.

Having multiple settings didn't kill TSR . . . but having multiple product lines within D&D was definitely one of the problems called out by Ryan Dancey in his analysis of why TSR fell apart.

In 5th Edition, we have multiple settings . . . but only one product line. The distinction is important.

 

[HammerMan]

I don't think WotC has addressed this directly, but I get the feeling the MtG settings are handled a bit differently. WotC isn't consolidating the Magic meta-setting and the D&D meta-setting, they remain different games, different properties, different "multiverses". The various D&D adaptations of Magic settings are just that, adaptations. They don't directly impact "canon" for Magic, and they don't necessarily align with D&D multiverse canon either.

The D&D Ravnica book presents the setting of Ravnica through the lens of D&D. Much like if WotC published a Witcher adaptation for D&D. It doesn't have to follow D&D's meta-setting or canon, it is its own beast.

this brings up the multiverse/metaveres/omniverse idea

the mutliverse is all worlds 'like' it the metaverse would be all of the multiverses that work on the same basic concept (so all comics are a metaverse of multiverses represented in there own cannons... some movies and cartoons (but not all) can fit in this metaverse)

the omniverse (and there can be only 1 or none no middle ground) is every real and imagined metaverse together

so there can be a Ravnica and a Strixhaven in the D&D metaverese... most likely multi. There can be a Ravnica and a Strixhaven in the magic the gathering metaverese and all of them are in our OMNIVERSE...

 

[Reynard]

I might look into it.

If you are interested in the history of the hobby at all, it's really great.

 

[Zaukrie]

You are right. I assumed a tone that wasn't present. So to answer your question: it doesn't necessarily affect gameplay, but it can still be unpalatable relative to the original conception of Eberron, which was a wholly separate and unique universe, not just another world in the vast Great Wheel cosmology.

Now I'm genuinely curious... What is the difference between a separate universe, and a world in a crystal sphere, or alternate plane? Is it no travel? Different travel? Between universes? My brain might no fully awake, or recovered from yoga this morning....

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you are linking alternative prime material planes, to use 1st edition terminology, The Rock of Bral makes for a better hub.

Sigil is a more interesting location in it's own right, but it's outer planes focus makes it a less useful hub for modern D&D.

I disagree, for a couple of reasons:

1) The Rock of Bral is a nothing location. It's utterly forgettable and generic. You'd literally be better off not using it and making something up than using it. It's fine as a location in Spelljammer, but the nexus of multiversal travel? You might as well make it be Milton Keynes. Except that would actually have some wit to it, so still be better than The Rock of Bral!

2) As I pointed out, you'd necessarily disconnect Sigil from the Great Wheel cosmology. So long as it's still The City of Doors, there's no particular reason to keep it connected to the Great Wheel.

I'm also skeptical that Spelljammer is going to be made the lynchpin of the multiverse, because people didn't like Crystal Spheres enough the last time, they're certainly not going to like the idea that they're around every single setting any better this time! Whereas portals have a long, long literary and media tradition of linking to worlds with "different rules".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Now I'm genuinely curious... What is the difference between a separate universe, and a world in a crystal sphere, or alternate plane? Is it no travel? Different travel? Between universes? My brain might no fully awake, or recovered from yoga this morning....

If one thing is a part of another thing, it cannot be true that the beings in it create “the cosmos” of their own imagination, but instead must be contextualized as part of that “greater” work that is the cosmology the “lesser” work is a part of.

Separate universes that both exist and can be traveled between but not in the same way you can travel from worlds within a universe, allows the two to be wholly separate, and thus the primordial dragons created the universe, and the creatures in it, not as copies or imitations but as genuine creations of their own imagination and Will.

 

[Zaukrie]

If one thing is a part of another thing, it cannot be true that the beings in it create “the cosmos” of their own imagination, but instead must be contextualized as part of that “greater” work that is the cosmology the “lesser” work is a part of.

Separate universes that both exist and can be traveled between but not in the same way you can travel from worlds within a universe, allows the two to be wholly separate, and thus the primordial dragons created the universe, and the creatures in it, not as copies or imitations but as genuine creations of their own imagination and Will.

We'll likely disagree on this, because I can't think of a reason gods couldn't create a separate Eberron within a universe where other planes and worlds exist.

Also, I struggle to understand the difference, if you can travel from one universe to another....it is all part of one multiverse / universe, in my head anyway.

I appreciate we can disagree. Have a great day!

 

[Reynard]

We'll likely disagree on this, because I can't think of a reason gods couldn't create a separate Eberron within a universe where other planes and worlds exist.

Also, I struggle to understand the difference, if you can travel from one universe to another....it is all part of one multiverse / universe, in my head anyway.

I appreciate we can disagree. Have a great day!

Cosmology is by definition universal. Eberron cannot have its own cosmology within the larger cosmology of the D&D Great Wheel. One of the very cool things about Eberron was that it was a wholly new and unique and separate universe for D&D, with its own (much better and more interesting) planar structure, as well as creation story that had deep effects on actual play in the setting (dragonshards, among other things). Of course you can say "that's a demiplane!" or whatever other excuse youw ant to use to but the fact is making everyting a part of the Great Wheel robs Eberron of some of its unique qualities. it was a dumba nd terrible idea when it was Spelljammer crystal spheres, and it isn't any better now.