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

[Desdichado]

Indeed. But I suspect that reference may be too buried in statistics-jargon for most people. They don't know that an oultier is (generally) 2nd or further standard deviations from norm, or out in the thin spots of the tails of the bell curve.

Not to change the subject, but if so, that's a sad commentary on the current state of the education industry. I first heard the term--along with mean, median, mode, and standard deviation, in a statistics unit in junior high math class.

And I'm not really that old.

 

[aramis erak]

Not to change the subject, but if so, that's a sad commentary on the current state of the education industry. I first heard the term--along with mean, median, mode, and standard deviation, in a statistics unit in junior high math class.

And I'm not really that old.

We teach it in grades 5-up still, at least in Alaska. Or, more correctly, we're supposed to, and the schools I've worked in do so. But we're so busy trying to jam so much in that it's not sticking. Too much to teach, too little time to teach it.

If I go further into why, I'll violate the "no politics" rule.

The applicability to D&D - we can't presume that everyone, even on EnWorld, has retained that specialized mathematical vocabulary. Hell, we can't even presume they're out of high school.

 

[Desdichado]

We teach it in grades 5-up still, at least in Alaska. Or, more correctly, we're supposed to, and the schools I've worked in do so. But we're so busy trying to jam so much in that it's not sticking. Too much to teach, too little time to teach it.

If I go further into why, I'll violate the "no politics" rule.

The applicability to D&D - we can't presume that everyone, even on EnWorld, has retained that specialized mathematical vocabulary. Hell, we can't even presume they're out of high school.

It's a much more common word than half of the ones Gygax used freely in the 1e DMG. I think I'll be perfectly OK presuming that if someone doesn't know what an outlier is in a formal, statistical sense, they can still figure it out close enough from context, or barring that, look it up.

 

[pemerton]

They changed the organizational structure of the planes for 4E. 90% of the time, that's not going to matter. 9% of the time, it's a minor issue. 1% of the time, it's internet tolling feedstock.

For me, this relates to my remark upthread, that [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] objected to, about some D&Ders apparently caring more for minor details than thematic resonance.

The organisational structure of the planes seems to me, in and of itself, one of the lesser elements of a cosmology. Changing it around is like drawing a new map for some other campaign element. (And the 4e MoP had a one-page sidebar explaining how to redraw the map to get the Great Wheel back.)

What I think is more important, in the question of fidelity or revision to what has gone before, is whether a designer is starting from scratch, or trying to work with what came before. To my mind there is no doubt that the 4e designers saw themselves as falling into the second camp, and were correct to do so. Worlds & Monsters even sets out their methodology (and it is the openness about methodology that makes me regard W&M as one of the best GM guides put out for D&D, because it is the only one that addresses the use of story elements for story purposes from a metagame rather than an ingame framework).

 

[TwoSix]

Have you shown evidence of being a reasonable person? From people's reactions, it seems you have not.

I'm reasonably sure that his moderator status and his previous 13,000 well-received posts aren't because he's a total nutjob.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For me, this relates to my remark upthread, that @Kamikaze Midget objected to, about some D&Ders apparently caring more for minor details than thematic resonance.

Here I'm going to to disagree with you. KM seems to find thematic resonance in certain details.

The organisational structure of the planes seems to me, in and of itself, one of the lesser elements of a cosmology. Changing it around is like drawing a new map for some other campaign element. (And the 4e MoP had a one-page sidebar explaining how to redraw the map to get the Great Wheel back.)

This is IMO a misunderstanding for two reasons.

First is that a didactic symmetric cosmology is a thematic element of the setting. That the cosmology is specifically a symmetric wheel and that you can infer elements of the cosmology just by looking at the chart is a thematic element of the setting. They are thematic elements I don't happen to like but this certainty and didacticism is a definite thematic element.

The difference isn't my problem.

My problem is that neither setting is designed with alternate interpretations in mind.

Which is exactly comparable. 2e preseumed that everyone use the 2e cosmology, 4e presumed that everyone use the 4e cosmology, 5e looks to be presuming that everyone use the 5e cosmology and all of these are a problem for exactly the same reason: not everyone's going to want to use that cosmology.

I disagree that this was true about 4e; most of the cosmology was not presented as symmetric diagrams and lists but as legends. Stories of the sort you'd tell children. I no more get the impression that you are meant to presume that 4e's cosmology as presented in the books is true (other than that the planes you can reach exist) than you're meant to assume that any given mythology in the world you are playing in is true unless the deities choose to manifest. The details are left to the GM. 4e's is set up as legends without a necessary interpretation so to say that it's not designed with alternate interpretations in mind is to largely miss the point.

3e's presumption of people using the 3e cosmology was quite a bit lighter (the Manual of the Planes has all sorts of advice for adapting your game to places with different planar structures,

4e's shows you how to draw the planar structure, but assumes the exact planar structure is something that serves the GM not the other way round.

 

[Nivenus]

I disagree that this was true about 4e; most of the cosmology was not presented as symmetric diagrams and lists but as legends. Stories of the sort you'd tell children. I no more get the impression that you are meant to presume that 4e's cosmology as presented in the books is true (other than that the planes you can reach exist) than you're meant to assume that any given mythology in the world you are playing in is true unless the deities choose to manifest. The details are left to the GM. 4e's is set up as legends without a necessary interpretation so to say that it's not designed with alternate interpretations in mind is to largely miss the point.

4e's shows you how to draw the planar structure, but assumes the exact planar structure is something that serves the GM not the other way round.

Mmm... maybe that's true insofar as the Nentir Vale setting or generic play is concerned, but there was definitely a push early on to make it a core cosmology as universally true as the Great Wheel during 2e. The Forgotten Realms' World Tree cosmology was completely tossed to the side and rearranged to conform to a particular version of the World Axis and if the reaction against 4e's changes to FR hadn't been so drastic, it doesn't seem altogether unlikely WotC would have pushed the cosmology onto other settings as well (instead, Eberron transitioned from 3e to 4e mostly unchanged and a lot of the details of Dark Sun's cosmology were left deliberately vague).

So I think Kamikaze Midget's assertion that 4e's cosmology was intended to be universally applicable (and indeed expected), just like 2e's, is actually quite true.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm reasonably sure that his moderator status and his previous 13,000 well-received posts aren't because he's a total nutjob.

I see no evidence of moderator status on Pemerton. That said, I tend not to look outside a given thread for whether someone's being reasonable, and I've plenty of experience with unreasonable moderator staff on various boards. Many accuse me of it, at that. His posts in thread don't seem terribly reasonable, and do seem a bit inflexible.

 

[Shemeska]

For me, this relates to my remark upthread, that [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] objected to, about some D&Ders apparently caring more for minor details than thematic resonance.

The organisational structure of the planes seems to me, in and of itself, one of the lesser elements of a cosmology. Changing it around is like drawing a new map for some other campaign element. (And the 4e MoP had a one-page sidebar explaining how to redraw the map to get the Great Wheel back.)

What I think is more important, in the question of fidelity or revision to what has gone before, is whether a designer is starting from scratch, or trying to work with what came before. To my mind there is no doubt that the 4e designers saw themselves as falling into the second camp, and were correct to do so. Worlds & Monsters even sets out their methodology (and it is the openness about methodology that makes me regard W&M as one of the best GM guides put out for D&D, because it is the only one that addresses the use of story elements for story purposes from a metagame rather than an ingame framework).

Without wanting to get drawn into this, I disagree that the changes 4e imposed on many classic elements of D&D, including the planes and creatures therein, can't reasonably be called "minor details" given the scope of it all and how it was impressed onto the various settings. No Blood War in core so no Blood War in settings; archons are evil elementals, guardinals don't exist, and eladrin are now blink elves rather than a race of CG outsiders - doesn't matter if those elements have extensive involvement in various settings, it's that way in core and must be that way in the settings, etc. The organizational structure changes were paltry compared to the pervasive infusion of core PoL setting material into the planes (or alternatively a random hodgepodge of 1e/2e/3e Great Wheel planar material inserted into the World Axis oftentimes without the original context intact).

That said, I see it as having been more the former rather than the latter of the two camps you mention above: a presentation of 'this is what D&D is now'. They've moved back from that rather severely with 5e (it being enough remains to be seen I suppose, but the effort is there).

 

[pemerton]

Here I'm going to to disagree with you. KM seems to find thematic resonance in certain details.

<snip>

a didactic symmetric cosmology is a thematic element of the setting. That the cosmology is specifically a symmetric wheel and that you can infer elements of the cosmology just by looking at the chart is a thematic element of the setting.

I see your point. But I think this aspect of the Great Wheel, while important in Planescape, and perhaps in some other 2nd ed AD&D play (? for me this is just specuation, due to my lack of evidence & experience), was not very important in 1st ed AD&D.

For instance, nothing in PHB Appendix IV or DDG suggests that the symmetric cosmology is meant to play a didactic function, as opposed to being just a convenient arrangement by reference to alignment.

I see no evidence of moderator status on Pemerton. That said, I tend not to look outside a given thread for whether someone's being reasonable, and I've plenty of experience with unreasonable moderator staff on various boards. Many accuse me of it, at that. His posts in thread don't seem terribly reasonable, and do seem a bit inflexible.

I'm confused. Your original comment about reasonableness referred to [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] (who is a moderator, as per his profile description in the uppper left of his posts). This is what [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] was responding to.