D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Savage Wombat]

I mean, good grief, in one of the preview articles, they changed some minor planar creature, Shemeska brought up a single article from a Dragon magazine in the 90's as a reason why the change could not be made.

Quoted because this is really your point.

Canon has inertia because it's canon. Whether it's "too much" is a matter of opinion.

From what I've seen, lots of people have personal opinions on how much canon they want in the official material. And they argue for their preferences. But what I keep seeing you do is complain that Planescape fans argue strongly for their favorites. If you were arguing that WotC favored Planescape over everything else, I might agree with you more. But you specifically seem to want them to hold their tongues on this particular issue.

Just say "I prefer my monsters without so many preconceived notions of their identities" or some such, and the argument is over. It's when you say "Planescape fans always want to have their way" that I feel I need to argue with you about this.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've always viewed it as sort of a "the multiverse is binding except where it isn't" sort of thing. That is, th multiverse is universal except where stated otherwise, but individual campaign settings--and I don't just mean homebrew, but published as well--can overwrite it for that setting only.

Eberron did so by having its own unique cosmology, and it's one I'd like to see it keep. But even if we take out their view of the planes, a lot of other material in Eberron is simply incompatible with Planescape.

The origin/purpose of the mind flayers. The nature of demons. Certain unique entities, like Tiamat. They're simply not the same here as they are on other D&D words/settings, Planescape (and Spelljammer) included. For purposes of this setting, X is true in all the worlds linked by the Planescape umbrella, but it's not true here. And that's a feature, not a bug.

I'm fairly on-the-fence about Planescape. I love parts of it; really hate others. (Don't even get me STARTED on the razzin'-frazzin' Blood War. ) But I have problem with it being the default--AS LONG AS not just we, but official settings, maintain the right to not go with that default as and when it's appropriate not to.

 

[thundershot]

Sooooo glad to have the Multiverse back. Spelljammer was my favorite setting because our imagination was the limit. We could use any module and alter it slightly so our characters could use it...

 

[Raduin711]

Y'know what a good cure for that confusion is? Run adventures where you explore their role in your own world.

I thought we were talking about the PHB. The PHB can't run adventures.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I thought we were talking about the PHB. The PHB can't run adventures.

Well, a book can't be confused, so I thought we were talking about people reading the various 5e materials.

I've always viewed it as sort of a "the multiverse is binding except where it isn't" sort of thing. That is, th multiverse is universal except where stated otherwise, but individual campaign settings--and I don't just mean homebrew, but published as well--can overwrite it for that setting only.

Eberron did so by having its own unique cosmology, and it's one I'd like to see it keep.

If they go that way, a lot of the worst offenses that might occur under this model might be substantially mitigated. We still might have a bit of an issue with stuff like "The Abyss in Greyhawk and the Abyss in Dragonlance and the Abyss in Planescape are not quite the same place, even though they're all The Abyss," but if they're cool with official settings doing their own cosmology and don't take a 4e-esque "well, that's how it is in Core, so that's how it is everywhere in D&D because BRAND CONSISTENCY!" track, it might not be the biggest of deals. Maybe.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I am a big fan of Planescape, but I would prefer it be kept out of 5E core. In my humble opinion, it's too weird/different to fit well with established settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Vornheim*, etc.

I would really prefer a separate, Planescape-only supplement or three. Let the core multiverse be its own thing. Sigil, the Blood War, and the Lady of Pain deserve their own detailed books. I think only brand new D&D players get any real benefit from shorthand Planescape summaries mixed in with core planar material--and many players don't want it included as "core."








*Just kidding. Vornheim is very weird, too.

 

[Mirtek]

That's my point though. You don't need anything more than this to fire up people's imaginations. You don't need pages of back story plot to use a Vrock in a D&D game.

You need them if you want to build a strong brand identity, aka THIS is D&D. Otherwise you become generic like GURPS and that's not good for a brand Reading the habitat/society and ecology parts of old Monster Manuals was my absolute favorite part of the books. Nevermind them taking more space than the actual stats and combat section of the monster, I loved how they build up the world of D&D accross several supplements

 

[Hussar]

You need them if you want to build a strong brand identity, aka THIS is D&D. Otherwise you become generic like GURPS and that's not good for a brand Reading the habitat/society and ecology parts of old Monster Manuals was my absolute favorite part of the books. Nevermind them taking more space than the actual stats and combat section of the monster, I loved how they build up the world of D&D accross several supplements

And thus we turn D&D into porridge. Bland, all the same flavour and lacking creativity. The more you build the "D&D world" the harder it is for people who homebrew to use this stuff. Sure, we can yank out stuff. And we constantly do. But, the more additive you get with flavour, the harder it becomes to have any distinction from one table to the next.

Not what I want for my D&D.

 

[Mirtek]

And thus we turn D&D into porridge. Bland, all the same flavour and lacking creativity.

You call if bland porridge, I call it a strong brand identity. When I think about D&D I think about the wheel and the multiverse the same way I think about Théah when I think about 7th Sea and of Aventuria when I think of DSA. There once was a great foreword by the editior of Dungeon Magazine about it, I need to dig it out. I firmly believe that 4e's breaking away from the shared fluff of the D&D worlds was what really drove people away much more than any rule changes

 

[Savage Wombat]

And thus we turn D&D into porridge. Bland, all the same flavour and lacking creativity. The more you build the "D&D world" the harder it is for people who homebrew to use this stuff. Sure, we can yank out stuff. And we constantly do. But, the more additive you get with flavour, the harder it becomes to have any distinction from one table to the next.

Not what I want for my D&D.

Do you concede, at least, that your direction does not seem to be where WotC is headed?