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

[Aldarc]

"It shouldn't be a core assumption." - Gee, too bad Gary Gygax isn't alive, or you could tell him how wrong he was. I mean, he even put spells in the Player's handbook with names of characters from his own campaign... The various "Bigby", "Mordenkainen", "Tenser", "Tasha", "Otto", etc's spells. I mean, what was he THINKING...?

What sort of appeal, much less an argument, are you trying to make? Has Gary Gygax become one of the Early Church Fathers, a Doctor of the Church even? Has he been canonized? Does he speak dogma for what D&D should be? Must we be enslaved to his assumptions and views for the game?

 

[aramis erak]

I've always been of three minds about fluff:

1) D&D stands more or less alone on the market as a major RPG without a single unified setting,

Not true. Not even CLOSE to true.

GURPS, Rolemaster, Savage Worlds, BRP, Fate Core, and Hero System 4/5/6 are all settingless in their core. They each lend themselves to certain styles of play, and have certain setting assumptions built into the rules, but no defined setting, and, except for RM, fewer default assumptions enshrined in rules than D&D has. Rolemaster has a default setting available separately that uses its core tropes, and several alternate settings (in dual system books from the 90s for use with both RM and Fantasy Hero). GURPS, Savage Worlds, BRP, and Hero System all have multiple setting books. Fate Core has several setting suggestions, and several worked settings in the Toolkit.

I'm in the "Default Assumptions are important to be aware of and are of great benefit to newbs, and some benefit to me."

 

[Hussar]

Different scenario, no names were stolen and creature types changed with the kobold (and it still references original deities). Same thing with archons (not cool to have them being LG exemplar celestials for 2 editions, to suddenly steal the name for elemental warriors).

Eh what? Since when were kobolds associated with either dragons or Tiamat? Since when have kobolds been the slightest draconic? They've been reptilian or doglike, depending on edition, but, they've never been tied to Tiamat or dragons. Latter era 3.5 did start tying kobolds to dragons in books like Draconomicon, but, never in core. Heck, even the reference to original deities was never part of core. Kurtulmak, IIRC, appears in Deities and Demigods, but, is never referenced in any Monster Manual until 5e. So, now Garl Glittergold is presumed to appear in any setting with kobolds?

This is the entry for Kobolds from the 2e Monstrous Manual:

Kobolds are a cowardly, sadistic race of short humanoids that vigorously contest the human and demi-human races for living space and food. They especially dislike gnomes and attack them on sight.
Barely clearing 3 feet in height, kobolds have scaly hides that range from dark, rusty brown to a rusty black. They smell of damp dogs and stagnant water. Their eyes glow like a bright red spark and they have two small horns ranging from tan to white. Because of the kobolds' fondness for wearing raggedy garb of red and orange, their non-prehensile rat-like tails, and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping), these fell creatures are often not taken seriously. This is often a fatal mistake, for what they lack in size and strength they make up in ferocity and
tenacity.
Kobolds speak their own language; some (75%) speak orc and goblin.

...

Their society is tribal but can be further broken up into war bands based on specific clans. As many as 10 families can be part of a clan, and each clan usually is responsible for controlling the area in a 10 mile radius from the lair. Kobolds recover treasure from the bodies of their victims and often carry them back to their lair as food. In some instances, kobolds will not kill their victims, but will sell them as slaves.
Kobolds are distrustful of strangers. They hate brownies, pixies, sprites and gnomes. Gnomes are never eaten or taken prisoner.

Ecology: Perhaps kobolds are so cruel because they are easy prey for larger humanoids and hungry monsters. They have many enemies, and even the dwarves have had to admit that the numerous kobold-goblin wars have kept the number of goblins down to a safe level.
Kobolds can live 135 years.

To me, that's a fantastic entry. You have everything you need to know about Kobolds right there. What do they look like, what do they eat, some background information and their place in the pecking order. Great. I can drop that, without a single change into any setting I want with ease.

And note, absolutely nothing to do with dragons.

So, why is it acceptable to completely rewrite kobolds into something very different, but, archons cannot be touched?

 

[Steely Dan]

So, why is it acceptable to completely rewrite kobolds into something very different, but, archons cannot be touched?

Disingenuous question, they are not very different, and no names were stolen, no one decided to call them harpies or what-have-you and change their creature type to undead.

Kurtulmak, adversarial relationship with gnomes, is all classic lore.

I am personally not into the dragon deal that started in 3rd Ed.

 

[Hussar]

Disingenuous question, they are not very different, and no names were stolen, no one decided to call them harpies or what-have-you and change their creature type to undead.

Kurtulmak, adversarial relationship with gnomes, is all classic lore.

I am personally not into the dragon deal that started in 3rd Ed.

I really don't think it's disingenuous. This is a very different kobold to what was presented in the 2e and 1e MM. And different from the 3e MM. I'd have to go take a look at the 4e MM, I can't remember what 4e has to say about kobolds, but, I don't recall a link to dragons. Kurtulmak is a new addition in core - it has never appeared before, only in supplements and then, IIRC, only in Greyhawk as well. What do kobolds worship in Forgotten Realms? Certainly the lore that kobolds hate gnomes because of a trick that Garl Glittergold played has never appeared in core before. And, certainly, kobolds have never been tied to Tiamat before.

So, why is it acceptable to do this in 5e but, not make similar level changes to Tieflings in 4e? After all, 4e didn't change their type - they were still demonic spawn. All that changed, really, were some basic cosmetic changes and the addition of an ancient empire that no longer exists. But that was completely unacceptable, whereas rewriting kobolds is fine.

 

[Steely Dan]

I really don't think it's disingenuous. This is a very different kobold to what was presented in the 2e and 1e MM. And different from the 3e MM. I'd have to go take a look at the 4e MM, I can't remember what 4e has to say about kobolds, but, I don't recall a link to dragons. Kurtulmak is a new addition in core - it has never appeared before, only in supplements and then, IIRC, only in Greyhawk as well. What do kobolds worship in Forgotten Realms? Certainly the lore that kobolds hate gnomes because of a trick that Garl Glittergold played has never appeared in core before. And, certainly, kobolds have never been tied to Tiamat before.

So, why is it acceptable to do this in 5e but, not make similar level changes to Tieflings in 4e? After all, 4e didn't change their type - they were still demonic spawn. All that changed, really, were some basic cosmetic changes and the addition of an ancient empire that no longer exists. But that was completely unacceptable, whereas rewriting kobolds is fine.

Yes, this is all disingenuous Planescape hater's crap, the fact that you reached for the Tiefling instead of addressing LG Celestials becoming elemental soldiers and CG Celestials becoming tele-elves makes you even more embarrassingly transparent than you have consistently shown yourself to be with your agenda.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, this is all disingenuous Planescape hater's crap, the fact that you reached for the Tiefling instead of addressing LG Celestials becoming elemental soldiers and CG Celestials becoming tele-elves makes you even more embarrassingly transparent than you have consistently shown yourself to be with your agenda.

Wait, what? The fact that I'm just as quick to condemn things like the changes to Kobolds now means that I'm a Planescape hater?

See, the thing is, I have no problems with any changes. What I have a problem with is when those changes include very setting specific elements. Changing LG celestials into elemental soldiers doesn't bother me in the slightest because the new elemental soldiers don't actually include any setting specific elements. Changing angel elves into blink elves again doesn't bother me in the slightest since the change means that I get a cool new playable race instead of a couple of pages of stuff that I'll never use in the Monster Manual because it's lockstep tied to a single campaign setting.

The same as changes to kobolds. It means that I won't buy any supplements related to kobolds because it will have to be tied to this very specific setting material instead of having available options. Every kobold module for 5e, you can bet dollars to donuts, is now going to be tied to Tiamat and dragons. Every single kobold bit in, say, Dragon magazine (assuming Dragon comes back) will be tied to this dragon stuff. Gone are my tiny maniacal trap critters. No more Tucker's Kobolds, say hello to Dragonslave McScaleycritter.

And I think that's a shame.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Where are people running into all these players who cause problems with their initial assumptions?

I'm not denying they could exist, but in 30+ years of playing, I've never met anyone--experienced player or newbie, 9 years old or 39--who didn't just say, "Oh, okay" when informed that orcs don't worship Gruumsh in this campaign, or that kobolds are more dog-like than draconic in that one. (Or whatever.)

This is mostly a trope-problem. Tropes are tools, and if the trope the players are expecting isn't the trope the DM is actually using, you can't use them as effective tools.

For instance, if you want to communicate the idea that "kobolds are in the valley" by having barking and snarling and howling at night in the valley, and the players are not getting that idea, even though you've told them that kobolds are dog-like in this setting, because their brains still "default" to reptilian kobolds, you're encountering the fact that it's difficult to change assumptions. And then you have to feed the characters explicit information -- tell, not show -- rather than rely on the trope you're using to gain that information.

Similarly, if you want to play in a world where Good vs. Evil is bigger than Law vs. Chaos but your players assume that demons and devils hate each other, rather than are allied with each other, you can't use the "evil is united" trope very effectively.

It's not the end of the world, but it also isn't necessary, and 5e clearly has tools to deal with this that it chose not to apply here.

 

[Remathilis]

What sort of appeal, much less an argument, are you trying to make? Has Gary Gygax become one of the Early Church Fathers, a Doctor of the Church even? Has he been canonized? Does he speak dogma for what D&D should be? Must we be enslaved to his assumptions and views for the game?

Quite frankly, yes.

As much as I loathe "Author's Intent" its kinda hard to avoid what the early designers in the 70's and early 80's had in mind. Gary, as being the sole listed author of AD&D, gets a lot of the credit/blame for the AD&D assumptions passed down through the generations. Even if he didn't directly create every detail, he cannonized them in the definitive D&D tomes (of the time) that laid the groundwork for further editions.

Did your PC ever cast "Melf's Acid Arrow"? Its a pretty common AD&D spell. If so, you have a Melf somewhere in your campaign. Congrats. He could be THE Melf, A Melf, or whatever, but for 4* editions of D&D, Melf is a wizard in your D&D campaign. Your repercussions? Remove or change the name (which won't do much, its listed alphabetically by Melf; PCs will still call the thing Melf's Acid Arrow even if you insist it has no name and the wizard Zanzabar created it). You ban the spell (a harsh answer for an otherwise excellent spell) or you can deal with Melf being forced on your game world.

Repeat with: Quiver of Ehlonna (a Oerth Deity), Boccob's Blessed Book, etc.

Trust me, removing a blood war references in the demon section is child's play compared to removing "Melf" from the PHB.

* Oddly, No Melf in 4e. He came back for 5th though.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Wait, what? The fact that I'm just as quick to condemn things like the changes to Kobolds now means that I'm a Planescape hater?

No, I think he just knows that from experience.