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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You don't need to be bad player or person to read "default" material in "core" rulebooks and assume it is true for the game your signing up for. Many folks just assume that anything presented as default is just a part of D&D. Certainly 4e weaves its cosmology very tightly with its classes and motivations. You might choose any number of classes (or features) presuming that you will get to involve yourself in one its cosmological struggles.

Firstly, we all know what happens when one assumes...

Especially in a game known for individual table customization.

I was referring to the "fluff-lawyer" context. A "lawyer" in this context would assert that the books say what they say and demand adherence.

A good player could come in with assumptions, but will gladly go with what his chosen DM has crafted, speak with the DM about the vision he had to come to a compromise or excuse himself to search for a game that suits his tastes.

 

[pemerton]

You don't need to be bad player or person to read "default" material in "core" rulebooks and assume it is true for the game your signing up for. Many folks just assume that anything presented as default is just a part of D&D. Certainly 4e weaves its cosmology very tightly with its classes and motivations. You might choose any number of classes (or features) presuming that you will get to involve yourself in one its cosmological struggles.

I agree with all this. From my point of view, it is a huge strength of 4e! (Though perhaps limits its replay value.)

I tend to think you're right that it's more problematic for a unity edition. I like [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]'s idea of presenting little cosmology "packets" (the Abyss, the Hells, etc) which are pretty well-established parts of D&D lore - perhaps in the Monster Manual, given that like monsters they are classic D&D story elements - but leaving it to the GM to decide how they are all connected together.

 

[Raith5]

You don't need to be bad player or person to read "default" material in "core" rulebooks and assume it is true for the game your signing up for. Many folks just assume that anything presented as default is just a part of D&D. Certainly 4e weaves its cosmology very tightly with its classes and motivations. You might choose any number of classes (or features) presuming that you will get to involve yourself in one its cosmological struggles.

This is one of things that hooked me with 4th ed. I decided my PC was going to worship the Raven Queen and hate Orcus even before I decided on his class. Consequently, religion and demon cosmology have been important to the campaign from day one. The campaign has gone on its own path but the motivations were stated clearly in the original books and were useful.

That said given the broader ambit of DDN I can see why they are being more generic when it comes to the cleric class in particular and list general deities rather than deities interconnected with detail and fluff.

 

[Ratskinner]

A game needs some default answers for those things it is attempting to emulate. The biggest tent of all would be a game on a single piece of paper that says "Go. Play. Be fair. Have fun." It won't lead to much in the way of a common experience from play, however. Does this need to be one of the default answers? Possibly not, but it's an area I appreciate since the default assumption across all the editions has been in strong variance to 'real life' and most genre fiction.

I don't have any objections to a game like D&D admitting to some genre conceits. However, there's a fair bit of distance between "There are Elves. They have pointed ears and are generally more graceful and magical than humans are." and "There is a place called <PickAPlane>, it has properties A, B, and C and is inhabited by critters X, Y, and Z. It is ruled by <PowerfulThing> who has <CosmicAgenda> and is opposed by <OtherPowerfulThing>." I don't think avoiding a default cosmology is tantamount to chaos.

Because typically I find I'm a better editor than originator -- as an originator I tend to develop blind spots toward the creation whereas as an editor I can look critically and more holistically at the piece for consequences that will impact the game world.

I suppose the short answer is that that's what adventures and campaign settings are for, particularly campaign settings. Additionally, 2e had a product line called the "Historical Reference" series. They were basically campaign guides for historical settings, and several of them noted the cosmology (or what passed for it) of the setting. I'd love for wizards to crank products like that out.

My slightly longer, and preferred answer, is that I'd be more than happy to see a section in the DMG that detailed developing gameworlds and perhaps even included a few examples for folks to use. I'd much prefer that to having a One True Cosmology that's weaseled throughout the rules and his hard to extract for making a home campaign.

 

[Ratskinner]

Could take awhile, there are a lot of new DMs out there.

So that's a "no", then.

 

[Ratskinner]

I was referring to the "fluff-lawyer" context. A "lawyer" in this context would assert that the books say what they say and demand adherence.

If you really had your heart set on playing a priest of the Raven Queen battling Orcus' minions....

A good player could come in with assumptions, but will gladly go with what his chosen DM has crafted, speak with the DM about the vision he had to come to a compromise or excuse himself to search for a game that suits his tastes.

No doubt. The point is not so much the conflict between default and custom, but that it could be avoided in the first place along with the time and consternation that went with it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If you really had your heart set on playing a priest of the Raven Queen battling Orcus' minions....

No doubt. The point is not so much the conflict between default and custom, but that it could be avoided in the first place along with the time and consternation that went with it.

My players and I discuss such things outside of game time. It takes us less time to do so than I spend perusing ENWorld on a single day.

There is no consternation with any group I've run for. I communicate what defaults I'm using and my players communicate with me if an idea runs counter to it. And I work with them so we're both happy.

But that's what gets me. Most campaigns, IME, have some kind of default set. Whether it's the Core Default, a Setting Default, a DM Determined Default, or Co-Operative DM/Player Default, they all start from somewhere. Then good players and DMs negotiate variances.

If each table is going to set it's own defaults, why does it matter whether WotC shares its default vision? Why are many people here demanding a toolbox, when they know a new DM would benefit more from a setting? And why, as some would suggest, would you want to increase the barrier of entry for new players by demanding that any such defaults reside in settings that must be purchased above and beyond the core?

D&D is already a high-barrier game with the core historically coming in at three books. Many good systems accomplish the same in one, requiring much less absorption from those wanting to try them.

 

[Nagol]

I don't have any objections to a game like D&D admitting to some genre conceits. However, there's a fair bit of distance between "There are Elves. They have pointed ears and are generally more graceful and magical than humans are." and "There is a place called <PickAPlane>, it has properties A, B, and C and is inhabited by critters X, Y, and Z. It is ruled by <PowerfulThing> who has <CosmicAgenda> and is opposed by <OtherPowerfulThing>." I don't think avoiding a default cosmology is tantamount to chaos.

I agree the default doesn't have to be that specific, but having the base structure -- these planes that border the base. You can get to plane types A-E from the first, types F-H from the second and it is rumoured types I-J from the third. They are superficially similar, but here are some basic differences. These spells are known to allow planar travel. As you can see from the spell levels, getting to the first plane is easier than the third but still typically well past novice adventuring. Here are considerations for the DM, the players, and the PCs.

As much as you don't see chaos in no structure; I don't see a straightjacket in basic structure.

 

[Dausuul]

New DMs don't need a cosmology at all. Campaigns typically start in the Prime and stay there for a good while. By the time the PCs are high enough level to have even a hope of surviving a cross-planar adventure, the DM will have enough experience to handle a few cosmological questions.

Besides, no one is saying the DM shouldn't have access to some "sample cosmologies," like the Great Wheel and the World Axis. We just don't want those cosmologies hardwired into everything. Keep them modular, and everyone can be happy.

 

[Weather Report]

So that's a "no", then.

We can all se why you would say that, but, yes, someone with no planar knowledge might like a bit of help when starting out to run a D&D campaign.