D&D 5E July 11 Q&A: Cosmology, Monster Descriptions and Monster Variants

[jodyjohnson]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...ology,_monster_descriptions__monster_variants

Pretty standard stuff - keep everything, descriptions match the art, and enough variants for humanoids.

 

[The Shadow]

The answer to the first question made my brain explode. Say what? Am I misunderstanding?

Is he really saying that there's One Cosmology to Rule Them All and everything else is a subset of it? So that the base cosmology is so comprehensive you can just lop off one bit and get Planescape, lop off another bit and get Eberron, lop off another bit and get the 4e planes?

That's... quite a bold claim. And promises to be quite the mess.

Or is he saying that they're going to make a cosmology as comprehensive as possible, and all settings are going to use it from now on? Quite disappointing if so.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's the answer to the first Q:

When it is fully fleshed out, the “new” cosmology will be designed to provide a seamless experience for our existing settings. So, if you’re playing a setting that uses different cosmological assumptions (like Eberron, Dark Sun, or even the world of Nerath from 4th Edition), you won’t need to make any changes. In Mike’s own words to me, “That would defeat the purpose of creating a cosmology that allows for the smoothest possible transition.”

...it may be fairly predictable to most of you following my bits over at the "Monster Mashups" thread what my reaction to that is....(for the rest of you: I dislike it).

It's interesting that this is how they're selling it, though: as a "smooth transition." Oh, don't worry, you won't have to make any changes to your games when you go to a completely different kind of campaign setting! It'll be like nothing ever changed! You won't need to imagine any sort of difference! Such a smooth transition! Seamless! Elegant!

Designing a cosmology to allow for a seamless transition between settings seems like a questionable design goal in the first place. The only time that transitioning between settings is even a question is in settings like PS or Spelljammer, and even there, it's not a question worth killing alternative cosmologies for, because it's not a major part of the appeal of either setting. Anything else and that smooth transition doesn't matter even a little, because you're not transitioning between settings, you're squatting in one for the next year or so and playing THAT. So you've got time to learn how that setting is different.

One D&D Cosmology. Only a majestic mustache can truly express my displeasure.

 

[JeffB]

There seems to have been in the past month..maybe two..about the time Mearls was skipping the LL columns, a shift in mentality...like there have been some major decisions made, both in the realm of rules, as well as "story branding",.and they have been getting bolder in saying "this is how its gonna be done" without the same tact presented to the fanbase that has been the case for the first year of the playtest.

I am of the opinion, and I could very well be wrong, that a fire got lit under somebodies ass @ WOTC to get the NEXT show on the road, and get some coppers in the coffers. Especially considering the playtest module for sale at Gencon, the encounters folks having to pay for materials now,the upcoming FR modules,.etc.

WOTC is heating up the Branding Iron....those Orcs better watch their butts! Literally.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think, and I'm not sure about this at all, that the answer to #1 is more about the rules approach. He says you "won't need to make any changes" for a setting that "uses different cosmological assumptions." This obviously doesn't make any sense at face value, so I think he's talking about the rules. You won't need to change the rules, even if you're in a setting that uses a different cosmology. For example, ghosts are incorporeal and invisible, rather than being defined in the rules as coexisting in the Ethereal Plane.

 

[Obryn]

This may just be me, but I'd run a new campaign in a new system rather than trying to continue an old one. So the whole "seamless" bit is completely irrelevant.

-O

 

[The Shadow]

This obviously doesn't make any sense at face value, so I think he's talking about the rules. You won't need to change the rules, even if you're in a setting that uses a different cosmology. For example, ghosts are incorporeal and invisible, rather than being defined in the rules as coexisting in the Ethereal Plane.

...That's actually pretty plausible. I sincerely hope you're right.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This may just be me, but I'd run a new campaign in a new system rather than trying to continue an old one. So the whole "seamless" bit is completely irrelevant.

-O

Yeah, there's that. There's also the fact that if this is their concern, the most "seamless" transition is to say: "You can use the exact same cosmology that you've been using regardless of what edition or setting you've been playing in," and then embracing multiple possible cosmologies.

This obviously doesn't make any sense at face value, so I think he's talking about the rules. You won't need to change the rules, even if you're in a setting that uses a different cosmology. For example, ghosts are incorporeal and invisible, rather than being defined in the rules as coexisting in the Ethereal Plane.

That'd be cool if that was the case regardless of what they're doing with the cosmology.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The idea that different cultures / worlds see the same planar cosmology in different ways, through different lenses, is kind of cool in a Neil Gaiman-esque way. I have trouble picturing them pulling this off well, though.

 

[Dausuul]

I think, and I'm not sure about this at all, that the answer to #1 is more about the rules approach. He says you "won't need to make any changes" for a setting that "uses different cosmological assumptions." This obviously doesn't make any sense at face value, so I think he's talking about the rules. You won't need to change the rules, even if you're in a setting that uses a different cosmology. For example, ghosts are incorporeal and invisible, rather than being defined in the rules as coexisting in the Ethereal Plane.

Then what is the meaning of "That would defeat the purpose of creating a cosmology that allows for the smoothest possible transition?"

I also hope you're right, but I'm less hopeful than you are. This sounds like yet another swipe at making One Cosmology to Rule Them All, like Planescape and the World Axis, and I wish they'd knock it off. Give me a nice modular set of planes where it's easy to take the stuff I like and leave the stuff I don't. I don't want to have to be constantly reminding players about the nonexistence of the Blood War.