D&D 5E First World: Possibly One of the New D&D setting?

[Parmandur]

@Micah Sweet but here's the key part, page 6, emphasis added

"Whether it is regarded as interpretive myth or historical record, "Elegy for the First World" offers an explanation for the common elements that appear in the Legends and mythology of so many worlds across the Material Plane. Dragons populated the First World from the time of its creation, and a variety of people came to live in the First World after their gods made war on the Dragons. As such, the many different worlds of the Material Plane can be seen as a product of the First World's sundering."

It's a myth meanr to be a game design and DM empowerment tool.

 

[Parmandur]

There's also the fun sidebar, "Dragons and Dungeons," that suggests the First World as a way to explain why multiple worlds have experienced popular modules like the Sunless Citadel or Tomb of Horrors.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, that's stupid, though. It is really, really stupid to get angry about a creation myth that is explicitly mentioned to just be a story that "suggests" things about the dragons and creation of the multiverse, and has a ton of variations in different worlds. It literally says that it could be either an interpretive myth or historical record.

Getting angry or "up in arms" about that is stupid. Really, really stupid. And shows that the people complaining about it probably haven't actually read the section about it, based on your next question.

It never says that it's "probably not true", but it hammers in pretty hard that this is just a story that is not proven to be true in the D&D Multiverse. It says that multiple times.

Straight out of Fizban's Treasury of Dragons:

I asked you the question because I haven't read it; it wouldn't have made any sense otherwise. Fair enough, I can go back to just personally disliking the story.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I asked you the question because I haven't read it

Yeah, and that's really dumb. That would be like me saying that I hate a book series without even reading it. You're complaining about the existence of something you haven't even read.

 

[Faolyn]

I asked you the question because I haven't read it; it wouldn't have made any sense otherwise. Fair enough, I can go back to just personally disliking the story.

How can you dislike it if you haven't actually read it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

How can you dislike it if you haven't actually read it?

I'll admit I should have read it more closely, but I got the part where dragon gods created the basis for all the worlds of D&D, and that's the part I don't like. I'm happy that it is a myth, and I really hope another point of view is presented soon.

 

[Faolyn]

I'll admit I should have read it more closely, but I got the part where dragon gods created the basis for all the worlds of D&D, and that's the part I don't like. I'm happy that it is a myth, and I really hope another point of view is presented soon.

Literally every single bit of lore, and even many of the rules, that were ever presented in any D&D book has been an option for players and DMs to use, adapt, or ignore (at least once Gygax stopped No True Gamering). Even if WotC decided that the First World was real enough to build a setting book around, its existence as reality or myth is still up to each table to decide. Buy the book and use it or adapt parts of it, or don't buy the book and ignore the setting.

What I don't get is, elsewhere you said that the writers should not update Dragonlance and instead build new settings for new players. But you're also poo-pooing this possible new setting because you don't like it for whatever reason. So, what do you actually want WotC to do here?

 

[JEB]

What I don't get is, elsewhere you said that the writers should not update Dragonlance and instead build new settings for new players. But you're also poo-pooing this possible new setting because you don't like it for whatever reason. So, what do you actually want WotC to do here?

There's a difference between a completely new setting that operates unto itself, and a meta-setting like the First World that could - if taken as more than a myth - have mechanical and lore impacts on all the other official D&D settings. I know there are also Eberron fans here, for example, that aren't happy about the First World (or the previous 5E retcon that placed its cosmology within a pocket of the Great Wheel). And recall how in 4E, they didn't just introduce the World Axis cosmology, but rearranged elements of the existing settings to match it; I assume it's a similar concern here.

Personally, I think the First World is a neat retcon... but I also want it to be one of multiple options for the origin of the D&D multiverse. However, I also understand why others may see it as an unwelcome intrusion and have concerns about its effects.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Literally every single bit of lore, and even many of the rules, that were ever presented in any D&D book has been an option for players and DMs to use, adapt, or ignore (at least once Gygax stopped No True Gamering). Even if WotC decided that the First World was real enough to build a setting book around, its existence as reality or myth is still up to each table to decide. Buy the book and use it or adapt parts of it, or don't buy the book and ignore the setting.

What I don't get is, elsewhere you said that the writers should not update Dragonlance and instead build new settings for new players. But you're also poo-pooing this possible new setting because you don't like it for whatever reason. So, what do you actually want WotC to do here?

I don't particularly like it, no, but I have no problem with them making a First World setting. I just hope its not just the dragon story.

 

[Faolyn]

There's a difference between a completely new setting that operates unto itself, and a meta-setting like the First World that could - if taken as more than a myth - have mechanical and lore impacts on all the other official D&D settings. I know there are also Eberron fans here, for example, that aren't happy about the First World (or the previous 5E retcon that placed its cosmology within a pocket of the Great Wheel). And recall how in 4E, they didn't just introduce the World Axis cosmology, but rearranged elements of the existing settings to match it; I assume it's a similar concern here.

Personally, I think the First World is a neat retcon... but I also want it to be one of multiple options for the origin of the D&D multiverse. However, I also understand why others may see it as an unwelcome intrusion and have concerns about its effects.

As I said, every single bit of lore that's put out is optional, and people need to remember it.