D&D 5E Wandering Monsters 1/15/14: Reinventing the Great Wheel

Klaus

First Post
I'm sympathetic to the 4e setting designers' concerns here. I get that if you put setting material in the Core Books and people start to associate that with playing D&D, that it then becomes something that you kind of WANT to include in every product. Like, if people are used to the Feywild, or the Elemental Chaos, or teleporting blink elf PCs, because that's the "default," the thrust is to include the "default" in every setting so that someone coming from just the Core Books still gets to play with their favorite game element. Arguably, this is why so many settings have elves and dwarves and halflings and gnomes, and why they're kind of vaguely similar to each other in most settings: the default intrudes on other settings by its nature as a default.

I kind of get that pressure. Which is part of why I've come to the idea of "no default, just examples." That way it's clear from the outset that D&D itself doesn't necessarily involve X, Y, or Z, but it is only by the choice of the DM and the group that their particular game has it. Which frees you up when you're making a setting to do what makes sense for the setting without having to accommodate an assumption that X, Y, or Z, because it's in the core rules, should be part of every D&D game.

Eh, I dunno. Imagine the opposite: the core books presenting the older cosmology, and then you get a Nentir Vale setting book that presented the World Axis. Is that really any different? In 3e the core books had the Great Wheel, and then Eberron came along with a whole new cosmology and new takes on monsters' origins. Dark Sun did that in 2e, Dragonlance did that in 1e. All had defaults, but specific settings (with the notable exception of FR) didn't change to match the default, they presented the changes to the default.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shemeska

Adventurer
This article is excellent news !!!
It even makes me feel warm inside : WotC take on cosmology seems to please both [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] at the same time, which is no small feat ! I hope their decision-making was influenced by our passionate debates on these very matters...

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. :)

After the design decisions that went into 4e's cosmology and the way it impacted campaign settings published during that period, I'm going to remain incredibly cautious until I see a printed product. At that point I'll be able to judge the approach 5e takes. I still have a lot of love for certain campaign settings that WotC owns, and I largely just want to see them handled with care and respect in any future products (and I'd sell organs to contribute on any 5e Planescape).

Personally I'd completely divorce the 4e cosmology (and everything that was changed to adapt to fit therein) from both the core 5e game and every single campaign setting with the exception of the Nentir Vale if it saw print as a setting in 5e. Any campaign settings would use the cosmology that they originally used. As far as default cosmologies go, I wouldn't attempt to please everyone with a compromise that could end up pleasing no one while also compromising campaign setting continuity (more than has already happened). But we'll see what 5e actually does, and I'll either like it or ritually sacrifice it the Oinoloth - one or the other. ;)
 

Hussar

Legend
I'd largely agree with that Shemeska. So long as the setting specific material stays in the setting it's meant for and doesn't bleed over into core, I'm content.

Heck, the original 3e MM and DM works perfectly for me.
 

Remove ads

Top