Dragon 370 - Design & Development: Cosmology

[Sir Brennen]

I'm not dismissing them, I'm saying I never encountered them -- BEFORE the designers announced "These are the problems, we're fixing them!" Then, all of a sudden, we have this great surge of people saying "Oh yeah, I always hated that!" and "Woo! At long last!"

I think that's a bit of a mis-representation. I'll be the first to admit that I hadn't noticed or given much thought to some of the things which were changed. But once they were, and we got a peak behind the curtain of the designer's reasoning behind them, I've found my reaction is quite often "Oh, yeah. I guess it does make more sense to do it this way. Huh. Cool."

My guess is many people that support particular changes in the game had a similar experience.

 

[Lizard]

What is so tightly bound to the rules that you can't easily pry the existing cosmology apart and substitute your own? Really?

Since the reason given for having a unified cosmology is precisely that, I'd have to say so.

And what's wrong with having a baseline cosmology for new DM's who want to just run some adventures, not build a whole cosmos? What's wrong with having a default origin and story to tie things like Giants and Elementals together?

I'm all for samples, and if someone wants to use a sample as written, go for it. I'm against an "official" cosmos, especially one which is tied to the rules. (I also tend to dislike the way monsters are now tied together with each other, but that's another thread...)

Really, the 4E cosmology is very modular, more-so than the Great Wheel, which was slavishly - and at times, nonsensically - tied to the Aligment game mechanic. Look at the World Axis: World, Astral Sea, Elem. Chaos, Domains (which the Abyss could be considered) and a couple of co-existent planes. You could arrange these in any way you want, remove elements, add elements... what changes?

Apparently, the words "I never used the Great Wheel" are invisible when I type them, since people keep telling me how much better the current system is to it...

I like toolkits. I like examples showing how to use the toolkits. I don't like pre-built, "You VILL use zis und you vill LIKE it!". 4e has far more of the latter than it needs, and saying, "Well, just ignore it!" leads to the question "Why buy it?"

Assume I have my own ideas for a cosmology for 4e, that uses stuff close to what I alredy use (Feywild/Shadowfell are more or less the way I've done that stuff for ages; ditto "Domains" instead of planes, all my gods had their own worlds floating in the Astral, some large, some small, none infinite), what does MOTP offer me? What's in it for people NOT interested in the default cosmology, and how easy is it to use without it?

(Honestly, the 4e cosmology is closer to my homebrew than any previous 'official' cosmology; I was just hoping for something so cool or inspiring I'd say "Wow! I HAVE to add/use this!" What it sounds like from the preview is I'll mostly be mining Crunchy Bits and ignoring the rest.)

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'm all for samples, and if someone wants to use a sample as written, go for it. I'm against an "official" cosmos, especially one which is tied to the rules. (I also tend to dislike the way monsters are now tied together with each other, but that's another thread...)

But if WotC makes material, what "sample" do they use? A different one each time? None? Neither of these solutions is very appealing. Choosing one and using it consistently makes more sense, so that one sample becomes the "official" cosmos.

Apparently, the words "I never used the Great Wheel" are invisible when I type them, since people keep telling me how much better the current system is to it...

I was just pointing out that the World Axis is a toolkit compared to the rigid Great Wheel cosmology.

I like toolkits. I like examples showing how to use the toolkits. I don't like pre-built, "You VILL use zis und you vill LIKE it!". 4e has far more of the latter than it needs, and saying, "Well, just ignore it!" leads to the question "Why buy it?"

But you'd buy a book that has multiple "sample" cosmos, even though you may not use any of them? Then just consider the core cosmology a sample. When you get down to it, that's what it really is. There's nothing that says "You VILL use zis...", but it's there if you want to.

Assume I have my own ideas for a cosmology for 4e, that uses stuff close to what I alredy use (Feywild/Shadowfell are more or less the way I've done that stuff for ages; ditto "Domains" instead of planes, all my gods had their own worlds floating in the Astral, some large, some small, none infinite),

Yeah, yeah... same as me, probably like many other DMs as well...

what does MOTP offer me? What's in it for people NOT interested in the default cosmology, and how easy is it to use without it?

You have a Feywild and Shadowfell-like planes and Astral, and you don't know what a book with detailed versions of these planes has to offer you?

Bwuh?

You don't have to use the core cosmology in it's entirety to realize there's going to be a ton of material that you could add to your own corresponding planes. It doesn't matter how they fit the overall model. If you have these individual planes so throughly detailed that you have no need for additional source material or inspiration, then good on you. Most DMs probably aren't in the same boat.

 

[Miyaa]

You know, I've always thought the terms "infinity" and "finite" for planes had less to do with how much could cover a plane, but rather how large could a plane grow. A finite plane had limits as to how big it could get, but an infinite plane may have a determined finite plane size, but infinite room to grow.

Or they both could be used interchangeably, like how a Koch snowflake or a Mandelbrot set in mathematics where the area maybe finite, has infinite length.

Our Universe could meet this definition. It may have a finite area at this time, but the length could be infinite. And unless astronomers re-figure the rate of growth of the universe, the universe could keep on expanding infinitely, that is without stopping.

At anyway, that's how I'm defining what is an infinite plane and what isn't. Otherwise, spells that allow players to create their own demiplane would either not work or be too powerful, god-like even.

 

[Scribble]

See, to me, if I see "The DC for walking on ice 12", I can say, "OK, this is very slippery ice, so it's DC 18" or "This is ice with sand and gravel in it, let's make it DC 10". It's very easy to go from "what I imagine" to "what the rules need to be to include it in the game". With 4e, it's more like "The party is level X, so I need a DC Y challenge for them. What makes sense for that?" I have to work from number->thing, instead of from thing->number, and maybe it's due to a lack of experience with the system, but I feel I need to do more mental work to get the same result. (For another example, in Hero system, I might start with "I want a really intense fire burst... that's energy damage, obviously, and it should be about 12d6". The 4e way, in contrast, seems to me to be saying "You want a 12d6 energy blast -- now decide what it is."

Does that make sense?

It makes sense sure... I just feel like you're doing the exact same thing in either case. In both cases you're increasing the DC and making the event more challanging. 4e I feel just gives me more tools for knowing how that's going to interact with my PCs...

Maybe it's just the way my brain works or something?

I feel like 3e wanted to kind of database everything. Like here is ice. The dc to walk on it is X. Here is dirty ice, the dc to walk on it is Y. Here is wet ice, the dc to walk on it is Z...

Whereas I feel like 4e gives me more of the behind the scenes of it. Here are the DCs that your party will find hard, easy, or avaerage. Use whichever it most appropriate to the situation.

So I might describe the ice as slick, and muddy... But the DC won't be a hard set in stone number somewhere.

Which also helps avoid those annoying rules lawyers... "You said the ice was muddy! The DC shouldn't be the DC you said... whaaaaaaa...."

I am used to imagining a world, or a setting, or a scene, or a character, and then turning them into numbers. 4e starts with the numbers. (In 3e, I'd day, "This ogre uses a large axe. An axe does 1d12 and his Strength is 18, so that's 1d12+4 damage." In 4e, you start with "A brute of this level should do 2d10 damage. I guess that could be a large axe." I'm willing to grant that, with practice, this could be just as easy, and possibly even more creativity-inducing, but right now, it's a major hump to crawl over.)

I think it is... Generally I build my adventures the way you described the first part, and let the numbers 4e provides just fall in place.

Like in 3e I would put said ogre into place then think: "Crap he's not doing enough damage, he'll get trounced..." Then I'd have to worry about finding ways to up his power a bit. magic weapkn, swapping feats, changing the weapon etc...

4e I just modify his level, and the numbers change for me. Again Maybe it just matches how my brain works better?

Sheesh, with infinite planes, you could add ANYTHING -- and still use "official" content.

it was more the alignment symetry thing... Like if I wanted to add the plane of nevernding fluffy lollypop bunny hell... it wouldn't be the great wheel anymore it would be the great egg shaped thing.

Like if I assume the great wheel is correct, and each alignment has a plane tied to it, and then I see a great idea for a plane in Dragon... how do I work that one in... Each aignment has a plane except for this alignment which has two for some reason...

But like I said, the issue isn't "The great wheel is constraining" but "an official, rules-bound cosmology is constraining". 3e took pains to make sure the Great Wheel was one model of many, one of the better innovations. This was a chance for the 4e designers to do something REALLY daring, but instead of doing so, they just replaced one cosmology which only worked for some games with ANOTHER cosmology which only works for some games -- and they did so in a way which was tightly bound to the rules, making it much harder to pry it loose.

4e seemed to want to go towards a system where "rules" and "world" where firmly divided, and now, they're muddying it again. I find it very hard to really figure out what the overarching design goal is. Every time I think I've got a handle on it, they change their minds.

Haven't seen the book yet, but the table of contents looks like it starts off with a discussion of using the planes, the traits of various planes, and modifying things for your own use... Sounds like it's open to your own ideas.

I think the overall goal is making things usable across the entire spectrum, rather then a "control" thing.

Like if I game in a setting that doesn't have an astral plane, I can't use all that info full of astral monsters/items. It's wasted paper to me.

But if I'm in ebberon, even thought the cosmology is customized towards ebberon, I can stil use that forgotten realms stuff.

 

[Jhaelen]

I've never heard "Halflings are too short!" or "The elemental planes are useless!" or "How do you map an infinite plane?"

Well, in my 3E campaign I only allowed the tallfellow variant for halflings. I didn't see it as a problem, per se, but standard halflings definitely were too short!

I agree, that the infinite planes are really a non-issue. The deadliness of the elemental planes, though, that's a different matter:
Several of my players outright refused to even contemplate traveling there when I presented it to them as an adventure option. That definitely indicates that there was a problem (or at least a perceived problem).

Let me put it this way: Suppose one of the biggest changes in 5e is "Elves no longer have pointed ears!", and, suddenly, out of nowhere, you have people claiming "Wow! I'm so glad they fixed that! I can't believe it took so long!"

Well, the ears of D&D elves aren't that problematic. But don't get me started on WoW-style elves! Their ears are ridiculous! If Blizzard wants to win me over, they'll definitely have to get rid of those ears first

The way I see it, the changes to the cosmology have been made because they decided they wanted to have a kind of 'best-of' of the existing cosmologies. E.g. Eberron's take on the planes was really well-received, so they modified the standard cosmology to include aspects of it. And the 4E Feywild was the best idea they ever had. The presentation of the fey has always been extremely lame in D&D. Fey slowly started to get more interesting in the end of the 3E era and now, in 4E, they're just awesome.

In my 3E campaign I banned elves as a player race to turn them into something that was closer to the sidhe I knew from novels and other rpg systems like Ars Magica or Changeling.
So naturally, I welcome the 'official' changes made to the fey.

It's one thing to dislike the way they marketed the changes made in 4E and a completely different thing to dislike the changes themselves. I didn't like the marketing but I do like the changes.

 

[MrMyth]

Hey, if someone wants to dig up a thread from, say, 2005 or so where you've got people ranting about these problems and demanding they be fixed, I'll grant you that I'm wrong.

Wait, wait, wait - are you saying that, in order for you to admit you are wrong, you are unwilling to accept people stepping forward and outright stating that they felt some of these things were problem, and instead demand online threads as the only proof you will accept?

Look, I can accept that you found this odd and were dubious about whether any gamers actually thought this was an issue. But you have gamers, in this thread, saying that was the case. To still insist that this problems were imaginary isn't just dismissive - it is insulting. You are basically saying that we are lying about our experiences, or that there is some sort of conspiracy to invent support for these decisions made for 4E.

Could it possibly be that the reason for the support is that there are people that honestly agree with the decisions made and the reasons behind them??

I'm not saying you have to agree with them. I'm not even saying you are wrong to initially not believe anyone could think these things were problems. But it seems pretty irrational that, after people have directly told you that they did in fact think these things, you claim it is only natural to still express disbelief...

 

[Dire Bare]

I should be more accurate.
"Change to fix problems no one had."

Now this makes me giggle. There have been numerous posters in this thread alone who have basically said, "Yeah, I've thought those were problems too and my homebrew has already taken them out." I'm in that camp too.

But I guess we don't count, seeing as how we disagree with you and your, ah, reasoning.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't like pre-built, "You VILL use zis und you vill LIKE it!".

I don't get this. All editions of D&D have presented a bunch of stuff without providing a real alternative, some of which you might not like. Suddenly 4E is faulty for doing the same thing?

What's in it for people NOT interested in the default cosmology, and how easy is it to use without it?

Probably about as much as in previous editions? If you don't use D&D's default cosmology, whichever version it might be, then the Manual of the Planes, whichever edition it might be, will be of limited interest.

 

[MrMyth]

As far as the infinite planes topic itself, I can't say that I found the new planar set-up in any way more limiting than the old one. (And, indeed, more freeing in some aspects.) I was sad to hear the Great Wheel would be going initially, but I've definitely become impressed with the new cosmology, and have felt it started to fire up inspirations in a variety of places. (Namely, Feywild and the Elemental Chaos, and how certain primordials might form something of a connection between the two.