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

[Desdichado]

Well, sure... because the methodology of even the best internet poll is statistically dodgy. And most of them aren't even worded correctly to not be leading.

Endogeneity problems, problems of non-random sample selection... They're interesting, but as you say, you can't trust 'em when it comes time to actually make decisions based on their results.

 

[DMZ2112]

Why do these threads always devolve into a discussion of the validity of internet polls? BORING.

It looks to me like the D&D5 devs are leaning in exactly the direction I proposed in the previous thread on this topic, so I don't have much to add except, "Yay!"

That said, in response to some of the other topics in this thread:

- D&D never had a "default setting" until the launch of D&D3, so the idea that core books contained setting-specific information prior to the year 2000 is bollocks,

- I think there's benefit to the idea of a D&D core cosmology /and/ to the idea of a D&D cosmology construction kit, but not in the same book. It's two books, and they ought to commit to that upfront. Combining them will just mean a shoddy cosmology and a shoddy kit.

- Kamikaze Midget, how can one man be so wrong, all the time? Why don't you collapse into some kind of supermassive singularity of incorrectness? I am haunted by your continued noncollapsiness.

 

[Yaarel]

There is a danger in playing the numbers game though. The gnome effect for one and heck most of 4e's flavour decisions were based on majority or at least plurality points at the time and it bit them in the ass.

Exactly.

I love the 4e World Axis cosmology with its folklore Feywild, creepy Shadowfell, and roiling Elemental mix. The absence of alignment compartmentalization allows more conflicts and opens up storytelling opportunities.

But a mistake that 4e made was pushing a cosmology onto players who didnt want it. It drove away a significant percentage of the customer base.

I hope 5e avoids the same mistake again. Please dont push unwanted cosmology again.

A light touch that inspires and encourages personal creativity is vital here.

The various ‘canonical traditions’ - Eberron Orbits, Forgotten Realms Tree, Planescape Wheel, Nerath Axis, Dark Sun Isolationism, Dragonlance, etcetera - can continue stronger than ever as separate optional setting books. Some settings are Nature-only with only a Prime Material Plane, a Materialist cosmology without other planes. The presence or absence of objectively existing gods is enormously setting-specific.

Setting content needs to go into detail and depth and cannot do so if worrying about the tastes and freedoms of players who have no interest in the setting. Settings can only work as independent options.

Core rules need to be setting neutral.

In hindsight, when 4e came out, its core rules should have emphasized setting-neutrality, so as not to interfere with ongoing settings and personal campaigns. Its World Axis cosmology with natural Nerath history needed to be a separate optional setting book that came out at the same time as the core rule books did. Players who wanted to explore the new setting with its new cosmology would have purchased the 4e Nerath Setting Guide at the same time as the 4e Players Handbook. That would have been a gentler transition and more respectful to the diversity of the customer base.

 

[Mournblade94]

I think the point was that it was only a plurality, though, not a majority. I don't think he's misrepresenting the data at all, although his interpretation of them is a bit strident. The fact that only 27% of players use the Great Wheel and only 40% want it as the default doesn't necessarily mean that the other 60% (or 73%, depending on which number you're talking about) are actively rejecting, or dislike the Great Wheel. It's entirely possible that they don't really care that much one way or another. There's no sensitivity in the poll as to how strongly the respondents feel about their pick. In my experience, the cosmology of a D&D game isn't often really all that relevant, unless it's specifically a planar jaunt style premise.

But it is true that only a plurality picked the Great Wheel, either as what they want to see as the default, or what they play with, either one. And that means that a majority of players picked... something else.

I should not have said misrepresenting the data. I think the analysis is wrong.

I think that on a marketing analysis they will view a plurality of higher magnitude (Not of this survey, I don't think it serves that purpose at all) as the safest path. Indeed I agree (And I mentioned above) there is no sensitivity to gather any information outside of the proportions themselves.

 

[Mistwell]

But a mistake that 4e made was pushing a cosmology onto players who didnt want it. It drove away a significant percentage of the customer base.

There are many issues with 4e that one can argue "drove away a significant percentage of the customer base", but I seriously doubt cosmology is one of them. Most people really don't much care. They either make their own, use one from a prior edition they like anyway, or don't mind what order things go in as long as the basic concepts are covered in the default. I am not aware of anyone who said "I was going to go with 4e over my other choices of games until I read the cosmology, and that was the line I drew in the sand!"

 

[Yaarel]

I should not have said misrepresenting the data. I think the analysis is wrong.

I think that on a marketing analysis they will view a plurality of higher magnitude (Not of this survey, I don't think it serves that purpose at all) as the safest path. Indeed I agree (And I mentioned above) there is no sensitivity to gather any information outside of the proportions themselves.

Most D&D players are familiar with the Wheel.

When players use a different cosmology, it is because they dont want to use the Wheel.

It requires extreme effort to create a new cosmology. Or extra money to purchase an optional setting book.

The players who dont want to use the Wheel are actively and strenuously rejecting it.

Life would be easier if using other settings with other cosmologies is more convenient - without the need to fight against pervasive baked-in undesirable assumptions and flavors.

 

[Yaarel]

There are many issues with 4e that one can argue "drove away a significant percentage of the customer base", but I seriously doubt cosmology is one of them. Most people really don't much care. They either make their own, use one from a prior edition they like anyway, or don't mind what order things go in as long as the basic concepts are covered in the default. I am not aware of anyone who said "I was going to go with 4e over my other choices of games until I read the cosmology, and that was the line I drew in the sand!"

For example, many Forgotten Realms players boycotted 4e because staying with 3e was the easiest way to continue the old cosmology.

They could have easily used 4e rules and converted the old cosmology into 4e, but they didnt feel like going through the effort.

 

[Mistwell]

For example, many Forgotten Realms players boycotted 4e because staying with 3e was the easiest way to continue the old cosmology.

I think a lot of FR fans didn't like 4e realms, but not because of the "cosmology". It's not that the planes didn't work how they wanted, it's that they advanced the time line far into the future, blew up most of what had been established, killed tons of important characters, made the primary authors of the Realms cry and feel like they had no say at all in what happened to the Realms, and essentially created a whole new thing and slapped the FR name on it.

That's not cosmology. I think a lot of people could have swallowed 4e if the Realms had been the same as before, but the ordering of the planes was changed.

 

[Yaarel]

I think a lot of FR fans didn't like 4e realms, but not because of the "cosmology". It's not that the planes didn't work how they wanted, it's that they advanced the time line far into the future, blew up most of what had been established, killed tons of important characters, made the primary authors of the Realms cry and feel like they had no say at all in what happened to the Realms, and essentially created a whole new thing and slapped the FR name on it.

That's not cosmology. I think a lot of people could have swallowed 4e if the Realms had been the same as before, but the ordering of the planes was changed.

For example, the ‘cosmology’ came with a redefinition of the elf, splitting it into separate Feywild race and Nature race. This split is useful. But the consequences of the cosmology rubbed many Forgotten Realms players the wrong way. It was too disruptive to their ongoing traditions.

Cosmology has deep, pervasive, and persistent consequences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are many issues with 4e that one can argue "drove away a significant percentage of the customer base", but I seriously doubt cosmology is one of them. Most people really don't much care. They either make their own, use one from a prior edition they like anyway, or don't mind what order things go in as long as the basic concepts are covered in the default. I am not aware of anyone who said "I was going to go with 4e over my other choices of games until I read the cosmology, and that was the line I drew in the sand!"

Most people won't invest the effort to change the default, I believe. If they don't like the default, it's much easier just to play a different game or go do something else entirely with their time.

Core rules need to be setting neutral.

I don't think it's really easy for a good set of D&D core rules to ignore setting altogether. Like, presumably gods grant clerics magical spells enough for the Cleric class to function -- what gods? How do I play the role of a cleric?

You could be setting neutral by saying "whatever you want" at this point. That's a kind of neutrality. Maybe kind of "unaligned" neutrality, opting out of the question entirely. I'm not sure that's the most useful, though.

I think a more useful response than "whatever you want" might be: Here's Thor. Here's Paladine. Here's Gond. Here's the Raven Queen. Here's Pelor. Here's a monotheistic-style God of Goodness. Here's the concept of Nature as a source of divine energy. They're all different examples of what gods could be like in your settings. Pick one. Pick all of them! Mix and match. Maybe make a pantheon or two.

Which is a kind of neutrality, right? The elements are designed to not depend on each other. Just because you use Gond might or might not mean you play in FR. The rulebooks don't make an assumption that you're using one particular pantheon or one cohesive world, rather they acknowledge that you might use anyone of a huge galaxy of possibilities (a few of which they present up-front in a way that makes it clear that this is just some ideas).

But rather than a cold neutrality that tries not to take sides, this is a passionate interest in all the sides. Maybe more of an "inclusive" kind of neutrality. Which totally matches how I play D&D. And how I make my own worlds and adventures. I'm stealing plots from Buffy and villains from Breaking Bad and action scenes from Die Hard and dungeons from National Geographic. I'm grabbing houses from Eberron and gods from Norse Myth and cosmologies from the Greeks.