Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L 1/7/2013 The Many Worlds of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6156758" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>This, I think, is exactly the problem.</p><p></p><p>Having a metasetting that people can use or discard is all well and good. Having it as a base assumption for WotC brand for creators to use when making up new material works fine too, as every DM would otherwise have to make everything up on their own if they did not. The problem is when it is tied to the rules. When it is too specific. When you have to know the history of the planes, or their relations in order to use your spells. When the gods have to be assumed to have a specific structure instead of allowing DMs to make their own.</p><p></p><p>That was what 4e did poorly and what the 3e material did well IMHO. It allowed options, but allowed versatility. It had a default but did not enforce it. I disagree with KM and others that DnD can work without a core. It needs a core/default/base or whatever you want to call it, to function. It should not force or automatically assume you are going to be using that core in order to run the game.</p><p></p><p>In that way it makes perfect sense for them to create the cosmology they have now. It gives them the most room to grow new ideas, invalidates as little as possible. Gives inexperienced DMs the tools they need to make the game-fiction make sense and allow things to have a cohesive whole. We'll see if it allows those with competency to create their own, and how "hands off" it can be going forward. That will be the real trick, everything else is just speculation and whining over what the core is.</p><p></p><p>I do agree with KM, along with disagreeing with him prior, that the problem with 4e's model was assuming "the" cosmology instead of "a" cosmology. I can understand this is the same problem that others have with planescape.</p><p></p><p>But, for my money, there is no way I would have thought to create two kinds of fiends fighting against each other, let alone a third. Or come up with the nine alignments, which gives me a lot more to work with than a single axis. Yes it creates problems when these are hard-baked into the assumptions of players and DMs so that changing these rules is viewed as not allowed, but I appreciate it when they put the effort into making these things up, as I never would have come up with the ideas on my own. <em>That</em> is what I need a game company to do, not so sure WotC is going to do that going forward and it worries me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6156758, member: 95493"] This, I think, is exactly the problem. Having a metasetting that people can use or discard is all well and good. Having it as a base assumption for WotC brand for creators to use when making up new material works fine too, as every DM would otherwise have to make everything up on their own if they did not. The problem is when it is tied to the rules. When it is too specific. When you have to know the history of the planes, or their relations in order to use your spells. When the gods have to be assumed to have a specific structure instead of allowing DMs to make their own. That was what 4e did poorly and what the 3e material did well IMHO. It allowed options, but allowed versatility. It had a default but did not enforce it. I disagree with KM and others that DnD can work without a core. It needs a core/default/base or whatever you want to call it, to function. It should not force or automatically assume you are going to be using that core in order to run the game. In that way it makes perfect sense for them to create the cosmology they have now. It gives them the most room to grow new ideas, invalidates as little as possible. Gives inexperienced DMs the tools they need to make the game-fiction make sense and allow things to have a cohesive whole. We'll see if it allows those with competency to create their own, and how "hands off" it can be going forward. That will be the real trick, everything else is just speculation and whining over what the core is. I do agree with KM, along with disagreeing with him prior, that the problem with 4e's model was assuming "the" cosmology instead of "a" cosmology. I can understand this is the same problem that others have with planescape. But, for my money, there is no way I would have thought to create two kinds of fiends fighting against each other, let alone a third. Or come up with the nine alignments, which gives me a lot more to work with than a single axis. Yes it creates problems when these are hard-baked into the assumptions of players and DMs so that changing these rules is viewed as not allowed, but I appreciate it when they put the effort into making these things up, as I never would have come up with the ideas on my own. [I]That[/I] is what I need a game company to do, not so sure WotC is going to do that going forward and it worries me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L 1/7/2013 The Many Worlds of D&D
Top