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

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, I'm a little befuddled by the "People need examples!" counter-point.

Of course people need examples. That's why I'm specifically advocating for examples -- things that you can use if you don't have other ideas. That's what they're there for. Opt-in things you can opt into if you don't have other ideas.

What is unnecessary is to assume that any one of those examples is used in everyone's games, to change the dynamic to opt-out. That is of dubious benefit, and of potential harm, to those playing the game, and to those designing the game.

You know how 4e provided monster maths and then also example monsters? Kind of the same idea. 5e should provide underlying guidelines for building a cosmology, and also several different examples of ways to build them.

 

[Weather Report]

You know how 4e provided monster maths and then also example monsters? Kind of the same idea. 5e should provide underlying guidelines for building a cosmology, and also several different examples of ways to build them.

This seems slightly edition warring and silly, I do not expect a playtest to have cosmological guidelines...really.

And would people please stop slinging around the "math" buzzword, especially when they clearly have no idea about what that entails.

 

[Dausuul]

This seems slightly edition warring and silly, I do not expect a playtest to have cosmological guidelines...really.

Huh? How is this edition warring? KM used 4E as a rough example of how to do something he's advocating. That's not a put-down of other editions, or even a general endorsement of 4E.

And would people please stop slinging around the "math" buzzword, especially when they clearly have no idea about what that entails.

Errr... what?

 

[Weather Report]

Errr... what?

What what?

 

[Dausuul]

What what?

What, meaning, I don't understand what this sentence means. KM used "monster maths" as a shorthand for "the formulae for calculating monster stats." This seems like a perfectly reasonable shorthand. I have no idea what you mean by "what that entails." I suppose I can see how "math" has become a buzzword in the context of 4E combat balance, but the implication is that KM's use of it is vague and inaccurate, which it isn't.

 

[Weather Report]

What, meaning, I don't understand what this sentence means. KM used "monster maths" as a shorthand for "the formulae for calculating monster stats." This seems like a perfectly reasonable shorthand. I have no idea what you mean by "what that entails." I suppose I can see how "math" has become a buzzword in the context of 4E combat balance, but the implication is that KM's use of it is vague and inaccurate, which it isn't.

The monster "math" (these boards are making that word annoying) seems pretty transparent to me.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

fluff is the one thing that people freely and easily generate (and I think cosmologies generally fall into that category).

I disagree with this. Some people do. I don't, that's for sure. Not with any level of detail. I hate generating this stuff so much that if the game doesn't tell me something, it's likely that fact will remain vague and undeveloped my whole campaign. If there's no info about the planes, I'd likely just say "Sure, there are other planes, but you'll never go there and no one knows anything about them." Mostly, I'd say that so I don't have to spend the effort to come up with something.

On the other hand, I find I take inspiration from other people's work readily. If someone says "Mechanus is a plane of spinning cogs that is a plane of pure order, its denizens keep the clockwork in order and maintain the plane" my mind starts to work overtime on the implications of that. I wonder what it would be like to meet such a creature, start coming up with what they'd say and how they'd act. I'd think about what such creatures would do if removed from their plane and what kind of story hooks that would cause. Though, I'd never come up with the idea for such a plane on my own. I'm simply not creative enough, I'll admit it.

 

[SkidAce]

I disagree with this. Some people do. I don't, that's for sure. Not with any level of detail. I hate generating this stuff so much that if the game doesn't tell me something, it's likely that fact will remain vague and undeveloped my whole campaign. If there's no info about the planes, I'd likely just say "Sure, there are other planes, but you'll never go there and no one knows anything about them." Mostly, I'd say that so I don't have to spend the effort to come up with something.

On the other hand, I find I take inspiration from other people's work readily. If someone says "Mechanus is a plane of spinning cogs that is a plane of pure order, its denizens keep the clockwork in order and maintain the plane" my mind starts to work overtime on the implications of that. I wonder what it would be like to meet such a creature, start coming up with what they'd say and how they'd act. I'd think about what such creatures would do if removed from their plane and what kind of story hooks that would cause. Though, I'd never come up with the idea for such a plane on my own. I'm simply not creative enough, I'll admit it.

What you do is creative. Maybe innovative is the word, but still.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

What you do is creative. Maybe innovative is the word, but still.

Perhaps. Still, my point stands that I'm not so good at coming up with ideas whole cloth out of nowhere. I like having the planes in the book because I find I enjoy the game the most when working under parameters set by someone else. I like telling stories set in the Star Wars or Forgotten Realms universes but kind of hate having to come up with my own.

 

[Ratskinner]

I disagree with this. Some people do. I don't, that's for sure. Not with any level of detail. I hate generating this stuff so much that if the game doesn't tell me something, it's likely that fact will remain vague and undeveloped my whole campaign. If there's no info about the planes, I'd likely just say "Sure, there are other planes, but you'll never go there and no one knows anything about them." Mostly, I'd say that so I don't have to spend the effort to come up with something.

In this regard, are the planes/cosmology different in some way from "that kingdom over the mountains"?

On the other hand, I find I take inspiration from other people's work readily. If someone says "Mechanus is a plane of spinning cogs that is a plane of pure order, its denizens keep the clockwork in order and maintain the plane" my mind starts to work overtime on the implications of that. I wonder what it would be like to meet such a creature, start coming up with what they'd say and how they'd act. I'd think about what such creatures would do if removed from their plane and what kind of story hooks that would cause. Though, I'd never come up with the idea for such a plane on my own. I'm simply not creative enough, I'll admit it.

I certainly wouldn't take that as any measure or evidence for a lack of creativity! I think just about everybody in this hobby takes inspiration from all sorts of sources, and not just fantasy and the rulebooks, either. However, even if you'd never come up with Mechanus on your own, does that mean that its existence, properties, and relationships with the rest of cosmos is needed as a default assumption that the rules are built around?