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

[Desdichado]

And 5e might still turn out to have a lighter touch than it seems so far.

This is still the crux that I'm not really understanding. What exactly is light and heavy in this regard? To use a few examples that have been common in the discussion so far, if the demons and devils entries make a few references to the Blood War, and if in the dwarf entry it says that they were once enslaved to giants, how is this not a light touch? They're just throwaway references. They have no impact on play. If you don't want to use them, there's literally no implication to your game if you make the change.

Whereas, on the other hand, if my game rules say that dwarves gain a bonus against giants in combat, then I've got something that I actually have to either houserule or figure out how to accept in game. That, to me, is a heavier touch.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is still the crux that I'm not really understanding. What exactly is light and heavy in this regard? To use a few examples that have been common in the discussion so far, if the demons and devils entries make a few references to the Blood War, and if in the dwarf entry it says that they were once enslaved to giants, how is this not a light touch? They're just throwaway references. They have no impact on play. If you don't want to use them, there's literally no implication to your game if you make the change.

Ah, but they do have an effect on play. It isn't just a throwaway reference when someone reads that and understands that to be true and then expects that to be true. I can spend some significant effort in disabusing them of that notion by "saying no" a lot, but that's extra work and extra time and extra hand-holding that I shouldn't have to do in a game about storytelling and imagination. The defaults the game chooses matters -- it's the starting point people go to, and being "deviant" means competing with it in my playter's minds rather than being able to use it or not as it suits me.

Whereas, on the other hand, if my game rules say that dwarves gain a bonus against giants in combat, then I've got something that I actually have to either houserule or figure out how to accept in game. That, to me, is a heavier touch.

There's not much practical difference in effort between changing "dwarves gain a bonus against giants in combat" to something else and changing "dwarves were once the slaves of giants" to something else.

 

[Remathilis]

You are missing my point. Call it whatever you want, I lump it all in as Planescape, although, that's probably not correct. The point is, all the lore became graven in stone and could never be changed. Despite the fact that 2e rewrites a large amount of planar lore from 1e and then takes it several steps further by forcing all settings to conform to that lore as well.

Yes, I have been calling it all Planescape. Call it 2e then if it makes you happy. But, please, stop missing the point.

I don't dislike it because it comes from Planescape (or doesn't as the case may be). I dislike it because it becomes canon and must never be changed, altered or fixed and all subsequent material has to follow what comes beforehand.

I think most people are riled because they don't see 2e/PS lore as being held to some sacred cannon. If it was, we'd still have the para-elemental plane of ooze. Lots of D&D monsters are tied to specific lore*: dragons separated by color and alignment, gith/ilithids, drow, driders and Lolth, etc. Nor is Planescape alone in the "all encompassing multiverse" aspect; go read some pre-3e Ravenloft.

I think the issue comes down to the classic issue of D&D the Brand(TM) and D&D the Game. There are lots of people who like the Game but dislike the Brand. I think D&D alone is unique in this arrangement; I've never met a V:TM or Shadowrun player who loves the system but hates the lore. (Though I have seen some who love the lore and hate the system; RIFTS is a great example). Yet D&D must constantly walk the tightrope between "generic" and "unique". Yeah, it started out a hodgepodge of fantasy tropes tossed into a blender, but after 40 years its gained its own cannon.


* Ironically, all those trends are bucked by Eberron: which gets too little praise for being a D&D setting that doesn't conform to D&D tropes. I suspect that it would have been much more embraced if it didn't have robots and choo-choos.

 

[Remathilis]

Ah, but they do have an effect on play. It isn't just a throwaway reference when someone reads that and understands that to be true and then expects that to be true. I can spend some significant effort in disabusing them of that notion by "saying no" a lot, but that's extra work and extra time and extra hand-holding that I shouldn't have to do in a game about storytelling and imagination. The defaults the game chooses matters -- it's the starting point people go to, and being "deviant" means competing with it in my playter's minds rather than being able to use it or not as it suits me.

Again, I point to Eberron as a classic example of how to do this right.

* Dwarves were never enslaved by anyone; their bankers and not soldiers.
* Demons don't fight devils. In fact, they don't even make such a distinction. In fact, 95% of planar lore is tossed by Eberron.
* Drow a bunch of underdark matriarchal spider-worshipers? Nope.
* Dragons color coded by alignment? Nope.
* Orcs mindless marauders? Nope.
* Mind Flayers enslaving the Gith race? Nope.
* Elves being forest-dwelling Tolkien rip-offs? Nope.
* Don't even get me started on halfling dinosaur nomads.

All of these things done while maintaining "If it exists in D&D, it exists in Eberron."

 

[Mr Fixit]

Again, I point to Eberron as a classic example of how to do this right.

* Dwarves were never enslaved by anyone; their bankers and not soldiers.
* Demons don't fight devils. In fact, they don't even make such a distinction. In fact, 95% of planar lore is tossed by Eberron.
* Drow a bunch of underdark matriarchal spider-worshipers? Nope.
* Dragons color coded by alignment? Nope.
* Orcs mindless marauders? Nope.
* Mind Flayers enslaving the Gith race? Nope.
* Elves being forest-dwelling Tolkien rip-offs? Nope.
* Don't even get me started on halfling dinosaur nomads.

All of these things done while maintaining "If it exists in D&D, it exists in Eberron."

Man, all of this reminds me how much I want, nay, NEED, a new campaign world for D&D. After settings galore that was 2E, we got the grand total of one ever since, and that was 10 years ago.

 

[Boarstorm]

Man, all of this reminds me how much I want, nay, NEED, a new campaign world for D&D. After settings galore that was 2E, we got the grand total of one ever since, and that was 10 years ago.

We're due, IMO. And a slow reveal setting doesn't quite cut it for me (see: PoL). That may work for a novel, but an RPG is a different animal entirely.

 

[Elderbrain]

Re: The default cosmology

I think it's important to remember, for those complaining about the Great Wheel being the default cosmology in 5e, that others were in your position during the run of 4e when the World Axis was the default (yes, the 4e Manual of the Planes presented a one-page summary of the Great Wheel, but really, it was a token effort and only of use to those who already had the 2e Planescape material and were familiar with it... anybody else didn't have enough information from that one page to really use it.) I'm hoping that the DMG will include the 4e cosmology (and perhaps several of the iconic 4e monsters crucial to the setting) in sufficient detail to use that in the game, for the benefit of those who don't like the Great Wheel. Naturally I hope they provide more details for the Great Wheel as well, but I'd happily set that aside for a future Manual of the Planes if adding the World Axis will appease 4e fans! Given such a large page count in the DMG, I don't see why they couldn't try and make everybody happy... I really don't mind (or dislike) elemental Archons as long as they don't erase/displace the Celestial ones (give one or the other a different name; "Elemental Myrmidons" has been suggested for 4e Archons, or they could think up a cool new name for the Celestial ones, like they renamed "Titans" to "Empyreans". I know the latter choice will make some Planescape fans unhappy, but at least the Archons - whatever the name -would still be part of the game.

 

[Nivenus]

Which is why they were one of the most common PC races in Planescape. "I'm an anomaly. Just like all the rest of my race who are also anomalies."

That seems like a weak argument to me. That's like saying good drow aren't Forgotten Realms, just because lots of players like to play them. Within the context of the game's canon, non-evil drow are supposed to be rare, just as tieflings are meant to be fairly rare in most settings. You're confusing a race's popularity with its stated background.

I really don't mind (or dislike) elemental Archons as long as they don't erase/displace the Celestial ones (give one or the other a different name; "Elemental Myrmidons" has been suggested for 4e Archons, or they could think up a cool new name for the Celestial ones, like they renamed "Titans" to "Empyreans". I know the latter choice will make some Planescape fans unhappy, but at least the Archons - whatever the name -would still be part of the game.

That does really seem to me the best solution: to include as much from both 4e and pre-4e lore as possible. I honestly don't really see why elemental archons and celestial archons couldn't exist in the same world. One of them would need to be renamed obviously, but there's room I think for both of them in D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

That does really seem to me the best solution: to include as much from both 4e and pre-4e lore as possible. I honestly don't really see why elemental archons and celestial archons couldn't exist in the same world. One of them would need to be renamed obviously, but there's room I think for both of them in D&D.

I think that the biggest problem wasn't that devas or archons or eladrin (in the 4e sense) were bad ideas, but that they a.) were niches already filled by aasimar, elementals, or high elves and b.) co-opted an already in-use name to fill that redundant niche.

 

[Nellisir]

Ah, but they do have an effect on play. It isn't just a throwaway reference when someone reads that and understands that to be true and then expects that to be true. I can spend some significant effort in disabusing them of that notion by "saying no" a lot, but that's extra work and extra time and extra hand-holding that I shouldn't have to do in a game about storytelling and imagination. The defaults the game chooses matters -- it's the starting point people go to, and being "deviant" means competing with it in my playter's minds rather than being able to use it or not as it suits me.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying, I think you're making a mountain of a molehill.

• I've always used a homebrew campaign.
• I've never used standard D&D cosmology.
• I've never used halflings or half-orcs.
• I've never had the "Blood War" thing going on.
• I've never done a lot of other generic "D&D" things.

Even when that sort of thing has mattered, it's been the work of a moment to explain how things are different. I'm not "competing" for headspace; things are just different in my world. When they vary from standard D&D I point it out and we move on.