I have no idea what your talking about. I only know MTG through D&D really.I dont really care to continue this, but bringing up MTG is a great example of how I hate it.
In MTG, you used to go to all these different worlds, same multiverse, and see them. Fine.
Then, Wizards decided they needed a few 'faces for the game', and they leaned into the Lorwyn 5, the eventual Gatewatch or "Jacetice League" as it was sometimes referred to.
I hate it, and it will never change.
Sorry to drag the conversation out and upset. That is not my goal. I am really just trying to understand why you hate it. By I guess that is the thing about hate, it is personal and not completely rational. What seems like a non-issue to me, is a big deal to you. I am sure there are things that trigger me and don't bother you. I don't get it, but I don't have to either. I respect your hate and I hope you can do the same for my tolerance. Have a great day!So thats fine, you all can have your view, and it can be as rare or as common as you like, but I hate it, and always will.
Pushing a view into the game that shrinks it, by focusing on a small number of perspectives, repeatedly over multiple sets and years.I have no idea what your talking about. I only know MTG through D&D really.
Sorry to drag the conversation out and upset.
This is sort of my problem with the current 'multiverse' push - I loved that Planescape offered the chance to run a multiversal D&D game, and I loved that Dark Sun and Eberron had their own cosmologies and were specifically 'something else'*. The explicit support to do either was neat.I wouldnt want to see Athas, Eberron, Krynn, and Toril all through the same party or character, when those places all have their own unique tone.
I really don't understand. What does it matter who the "face" of a card game is? Isn't that arguing if the Queen of Hearts or the Ace of Diamonds is the face of poker?Pushing a view into the game that shrinks it, by focusing on a small number of perspectives, repeatedly over multiple sets and years.
There was a period where Jace, a planeswalker in MTG, was the assumed face of the game. This later shifting to Chandra/Lilliana for reasons over other sets. I couldnt tell you who is the face now.
And I don't see why that is ever likely to happen. The universe is full of worlds, but you don't see many aliens walking along the high street.No harm! Its all good. Its the concept I hate. The shrinking of the 'universe' by pushing ones view through a smaller set of eyes and perspectives.
I wouldnt want to see Athas, Eberron, Krynn, and Toril all through the same party or character, when those places all have their own unique tone.
That's easy, canon has no point.Ultimately its kind of the 'what is the point of canon' conversation, some care, some dont.
Again, I have no idea what your talking about - maybe we just drop the MTG references, I don't get them.Pushing a view into the game that shrinks it, by focusing on a small number of perspectives, repeatedly over multiple sets and years.
There was a period where Jace, a planeswalker in MTG, was the assumed face of the game. This later shifting to Chandra/Lilliana for reasons over other sets. I couldnt tell you who is the face now.
But no one has ever forced you to and the lore has been like this for a long time (at least for Athas and Eberron), so what has changed? Or have you always hated Eberron and Athas?No harm! Its all good. Its the concept I hate. The shrinking of the 'universe' by pushing ones view through a smaller set of eyes and perspectives.
I wouldnt want to see Athas, Eberron, Krynn, and Toril all through the same party or character, when those places all have their own unique tone.
A care for canon only as a point of inspiration. To me canon is what my group plays (it is a game), not what WotC, TSR, Paizo, Ed Greenwood, or Keith Baker print on a page. Now I actually use quite a bit of those written words in my campaign, but I have never felt beholden to it.Ultimately its kind of the 'what is the point of canon' conversation, some care, some dont.
I've run a Rod of Seven Parts campaign and I found it was better to create new worlds rather than take from others. I figured avoiding the clutter and backstory of established worlds (though I did use Darksun) was a good way to narrowly focus on a story and metaplot. The campaign started on Greyhawk and the PCs traveled the Prime Material in a Spelljammer. A young dragon discovered the location of the centerpiece to the Rod, which would lead the PCs to the other pieces. The reason for revealing it to the PCs was because she knew her mother had a part of the Rod and it would reunite them. However, a young dragon can't be adventuring so the PCs can keep the Rod, and anything else they find. It was a great plot hook. Not to mention, the mother wasn't eager to give up her section of the Rod so they had to figure out another way to get it from an Ancient Red Dragon.I'd like to do a multiverse spanning 'Rod of Seven Parts' campaign, but that would entail learning about (and paying for) far too many campaign worlds for my limited time.
I like the philosophical essays by CS Lewis, but I havent read his fiction. (I did see the movie tho!)Well, for me, multiple worlds has always felt like the norm. The Magician's Nephew* was read to me when I was around 6, I grew up watching Star Trek and Doctor Who, and I started playing D&D with 1st edition, where alternate prime material planes are discussed in the DMG.
*Origin of The Wood Between the Worlds.
Speaking for myself.I really just wanted to comment that I don't understand your "shrinking of the universe" comment. No need to explain, I just have a different perspective. The semi-unified multiverse concept doesn't shrink anything for me, but instead expands possibilities. I think the reason I see this differently stems from our different perspectives on "canon."
back in 2e (I was a teen) I took the idea of DC's "Crisis on Infinite earths" and a new story I was reading "Zero Hour" and mixed them togather with what I thought was a brilliant idea. I pitched it to a good friend and we CO DMed a ggame in his basement (his mothers basement lol) where the players didin't know that part. We split the players up in half and they thought they were just in diffrent cities near each other for first 3 sessions... until the fissures started to open in space time and someone made a joke "Gee better ask the other what year they are playing in" and got close... so we moved things up and introduced the vampire lord with the same name as a player in the other group... becuse they were not in diffrent times, they were on parralel earths and they were about to meet there own doppleganger but also the other party.So have you done worldhopping as a feature in a campaign? Care to talk about it?
Ketterley is the magician, but he is a minor villain. The protagonist is the nephew, Digory Kirke, who is Professor Kirke in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.I like the philosophical essays by CS Lewis, but I havent read his fiction. (I did see the movie tho!)
His, The Magicians Nephew, seems like a story that would interest me.
From what I gather, one of the main characters is Andrew Ketterley, a magician. As a character that is both the wizard archetype and the hero of the story, he seems like an early prototype for the Harry Potter novels. Is that so?
This is not the current approach.If the current approach to the multiverse assumes that every setting has gods − or more specifically, the gods of Forgotten Realms created every setting in the multiverse, directly or indirectly, whether that setting knows it or not − then the multiverse has "shrunk" to a degree that I find painful to my choices as the DM.
The idea that all the settings of D&D are descended (so to speak) from one primal world is at least a plausible reading of the stuff in Fizban's and maybe elsewhere. Seems to me to be the intended meaning, but I could be mistaken.This is not the current approach.