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

[Raduin711]

Yeah and apparently all magic is basically the Force or the Weave or some bootyhaberdashery now.

*Shrug*

While we don't get a whole lot of detail about magic, that little blurb doesn't upset me much. It was something that kind of went without explanation in previous editions, and I don't see it having much of an impact over the mechanics of magic.

It does kind of give you a starting point for adventures about magic itself.

Yeah, this is part of why the "One Cosmology To Rule Them All" thing grates on me.

Y'know, Dark Sun doesn't NEED the rest of the multiverse to be awesome. Ravenloft just needs to vaguely reference worlds beyond the mists. Spelljammer ships don't need to be docking in orbit outside Krynn to be relevant or useful. Dragonlance doesn't need to be swirling around next to Birthright to make those settings interesting. Eberron doesn't need FR's Drow.

In fact, when those things abut each other, it can really harm both of the settings. If you feel the need to smash Eberron into FR, you're not taking seriously the awesomeness that Eberron can offer in itself. You're selling it short.

I agree. While I support a DM to do what he likes at his home table, I don't really need Draconian planar travelers in my FR game. But for some, this could be an intriguing idea. Though I wouldn't want it "cannon."

D&D doesn't need to say bupkiss about the world beyond the immediate world of the PC's. There's demons, there's devils, there's elementals, there's angels, whatever. They exist, they're out there, who the heck knows. Maybe there's some legends. Small, compact, efficient.

The fact that WotC wants to over-define and over-specify this doesn't bode well for the MM, IMO.

I have to disagree with you there. If the PHB were (as I am sure it will) provide some spell to travel the planes, or magic items that can do it, then it needs to at least say (in one of the core books) what the planes ARE.

While the idea that angels, demons and the like sharing the same earthly sphere with the rest is an interesting one... or even having it be unknown is interesting, I still feel that as a default assumption, it would only result in confusion.

I know sacred cows are a harsh thing to defend here, but... the planes have been a part of D&D for a long time now. Planescape was simply a refinement of the planar stuff that had already been part of D&D. I don't think it's presence as a "default" invalidates the planar details of all of the individual campaign settings, unless WOTC chooses to do so, which I hope they don't. But I do think they need to give us more than a blank line with a question mark on it.

 

[wedgeski]

When Basic explicitly requires all clerics to serve deities, it fails inclusiveness of different D&D settings.

For example, many clerics in Eberron are impossible in Basic.

If you say so. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[pemerton]

While we don't get a whole lot of detail about magic, that little blurb doesn't upset me much. It was something that kind of went without explanation in previous editions

Gygax's DMG has about half-a-page devoted to explaining how magic works. (The caster's actions in casting open a conduit to the positive or negative material plane.)

 

[pemerton]

I may be a Planescape fanboy, but I'm objective enough to see flaws in lots of the material, which I tend to think of in 3 groups:

• It wasn't clear how you used lots of the material at the game table, like the idea of the power of belief, or certain setting descriptions, or what if there was party tension along faction lines.
• The adventures offered little player agency, many were obsessed with their own meta-plot agenda, and they didn't do the setting justice IMHO.
• Many of the adventure sites were dropped in with very little development, and too much was left up to the DM to improvise.

Despite these flaws I still think it's an incredible setting.

I know Planescape mostly through some of the adventures, and so am very aware of your second point.

I also tend to find that there can be an emphasis on setting for setting's sake, coupled with a sort of "look but don't touch" vibe.

I think it's great that you've been able to get good gaming out of it, and in a sense then to make it live up to its promise. Whether or not that makes you a fanboy doesn't seem very important - the goal is good gaming!

 

[Hussar]

Planescape was simply a refinement of the planar stuff that had already been part of D&D.

This is the part I strongly disagree with. Planescape repurposed a lot of planar elements to suit itself. The Blood War being a poster boy here. There is nothing pre-Planescape to suggest that demons and devils are at war. Never minding that Daemons got completely subverted.

And the bigger issue for me is how no DnD supplements can ever contradict Planescape canon. It's 100% Planescape or not at all. I really dislike how Planescape is given this privileged position that no other setting gets.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I love selling D&D settings short. And I will continue to sell them short for my own fun as long as I roleplay.

Which is cool, but WotC themselves shouldn't be selling them short. You shouldn't NEED to go to FR to get a monster from the FR book.

If the PHB were (as I am sure it will) provide some spell to travel the planes, or magic items that can do it, then it needs to at least say (in one of the core books) what the planes ARE.

While the idea that angels, demons and the like sharing the same earthly sphere with the rest is an interesting one... or even having it be unknown is interesting, I still feel that as a default assumption, it would only result in confusion.

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

And the fact that the PHB is opt-in makes its details able to do a lot of stuff that I'd blanch at in Basic.

Planescape was simply a refinement of the planar stuff that had already been part of D&D.

I disagree -- the setting was no more a refinement of the planar stuff than Dark Sun was a refinement of the rules for deserts or than FR was a refinement of the wizard. It is its own thing, and it's not a package deal with the planes.

 

[Savage Wombat]

One more time:

This is the part I strongly disagree with. Planescape repurposed a lot of planar elements to suit itself. The Blood War being a poster boy here. There is nothing pre-Planescape to suggest that demons and devils are at war. Never minding that Daemons got completely subverted.

Blood War first mentioned in Monstrous Compendium, not Planescape. Blame 2nd ed if you really want to.

And the bigger issue for me is how no DnD supplements can ever contradict Planescape canon. It's 100% Planescape or not at all. I really dislike how Planescape is given this privileged position that no other setting gets.

Still not true.

Planescape fans are willing to keep the Planescape setting to themselves, but for some reason haters continue to have a bee in their bonnets about the Blood War.

 

[Hussar]

I'll admit, I lump the Blood War in with Planescape, mostly because they're not that far apart in time. MC 13 was in 91 and Planescape came out in 94. And, let's be honest here, Planescape took the Blood War idea and developed it much further than it was when first presented as a page long article in the Monstrous Compendium appendix. So, there is that.

But, at least you admit that the Blood War wasn't part of the Great Wheel as it was presented. It's something that was added on. And, then, it became part of Planescape did it not?

Why am I a "hater" for wanting the Great Wheel as presented in 1e or 3e core (note, not 3.5 e)? The planar presentations in both editions, sans supplements, is what I want. Is that an unreasonable request? Even in 4e, just in the first three books, is a planar presentation that I can get behind. Not because I'm enamoured to the 4e planes, but, because the planes are presented with virtually no meta-level flavour. I think later books expanded things, but, I actually wouldn't know. All I know of 4e planes is what's in the DMG 1 and MM1. Which presents a usable planar cosmology without a lot of detail.

Which is exactly what is presented in 1e or in 3e. A workable framework without a lot of intrusive canon material. Fantastic. In 1e Githyanki were dragon riding astral warriors with cool silver swords former slaves of Illithid and ruled by a lich queen. That's all I need. Great. I don't want more than that. Cool back story that is far enough back in history that it doesn't really impact how I use them now.

Again, I'm going to ask, is it really unreasonable to ask that the core presentations of the planes be a bare bones framework lacking a meta-game story linking all possible D&D worlds together featuring a massive current war between Law and Chaos with factions being able to reside in a planar city ruled by an uber-DMPC?

 

[Savage Wombat]

A fair question. My opinion is that the 1e version of the planes presented the idea that there existed a "plane of absolute lawful evil" without particularly explaining what that meant. It was just a thing, like the existence of a plane that was "fire".

2e attempted to develop the personalities and stories of all the monsters - and most of those hang on in some form today. For the planar creatures, they created the idea that the natives of the planes of alignment were exemplars of that alignment, and worked to promote that alignment throughout the universe. I personally think the Blood War is a great contribution to the nature of the planes - the story being that evil frequently undermines itself by being unable to work together. (Very 2e - think Dragonlance.)

Now, you can say "I just want a bare-bones world" - but that's precisely what WotC doesn't want. They know that some DMs will, regardless of what they write, do whatever they want. But they also know that some DMs will want a story that fires their imaginations and gives them adventure ideas. And a coherent storyline is better for that, and for WotC. They've worked very hard to come up with identities for their creatures, as we've seen in last year's articles. They don't want to say "this is a Vrock, and it has these powers" - they want to say "this is a vrock, this is what it wants and why, and this is why it has the powers it does". Explaining that a Vrock is a soldier of destruction in a bloody conflict works well for that.

And when we have people like Shemeska who have written material for - what, three editions now? - with a singular view of the planes, it makes a strong case for "this is traditionally what the Vrock is like." And you generally need a strong argument for changing tradition, just to get enough people to agree with you.

I'm OK with you not liking elements such as these. I'm OK with having WotC change how the story goes, and then exercising my right to gripe about it here. But I strongly defend the right of people who like these elements to stand up and say "this is how it's been, and I don't want it to change" - and that's the primary thing I see you arguing about.

 

[Hussar]

Now, you can say "I just want a bare-bones world" - but that's precisely what WotC doesn't want. They know that some DMs will, regardless of what they write, do whatever they want. But they also know that some DMs will want a story that fires their imaginations and gives them adventure ideas. And a coherent storyline is better for that, and for WotC. They've worked very hard to come up with identities for their creatures, as we've seen in last year's articles. They don't want to say "this is a Vrock, and it has these powers" - they want to say "this is a vrock, this is what it wants and why, and this is why it has the powers it does". Explaining that a Vrock is a soldier of destruction in a bloody conflict works well for that.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?p=6331622&noquote=1#ixzz371fgulwJ

But, why can't that be moved into supplements? Saying that a Vrock is a soldier of destruction, an Abyssal foot soldier (albeit a fairly elite one) is generic enough that it wouldn't impinge on anyone's campaign world. I mean, it's not too much of a stress to think that the Abyss is a fairly violent place and if you have Marilith (abyssal generals), then you have Vrock, (abyssal soldiers). No problems.

You don't need anything more than this. Not in the core products. It's got lots of hooks, it's flavourful and it hangs together. If you meet Vrock on the Prime, you'd expect them to be in groups with lots of other soldier type demons. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure what a Chaotic army structure would look like, but, the Vrocks would likely be pushing their troops ahead of them through sheer force. Not a whole lot of leadership skills being displayed.

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. And, if you do go with the bare bones version, then you free up other sources as well. Now you can have a Dragon article that talks about different Vrocks, several of which may even contradict other presentations in the same article - it is an exemplar of Chaos after all. But, with a really strong tie to a particular canon, now Vrocks can only ever be one thing and that one thing can never change or be contradicted. Like you say, there's thirty years of canon sitting on top of this creature and no change can ever be good enough that traditionalists won't stand on tradition to block it.

No argument can ever win because the standard answer in 100% true. "This isn't how this creature was presented. It's different. Therefore you cannot make this change because it invalidates what came before". That's true, but, it gets to the point where any change is immediately shut down before it even has a chance. It's not that the change is judged on being good or bad. It's different (which is unarguable true) and therefore cannot be done. There's just so much canon that any change can be countered by the tradition argument. 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.

Canon should never have that much inertia.