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!"
I disagree. Though my objections have already been partially covered I think you miss a significant part. While the concept of the planes, their arrangements and names are really minor in the grand scheme; the problem was the baked-in assumptions made because of those planes. When the base game now assumes tieflings (but not aasimars..?) in the core book and the game gives a very specific relation of where tieflings come from - then that IS cosmology interfering. I liked tieflings, I liked their vague and easily inducted backgrounds that existed pre-4e. As of 4e they got a completely new visual, came from a specific empire in a world that I did not have, had powers relating to that. Were born of Asmodeus (right?) and had other cosmological and setting requirements. The same went for archons, eladrin, evil-metallic dragons and a whole host of changes that they made for the core books to try and let the heroes be super at first level. This turned many of us off when we first started exploring the game. The cosmology itself was really minor, sure. But it hardly stopped there. With the elemental chaos came the elemental-archons. With a feywild came eladrin and fey-gnomes (as monsters, rawr). And there was very little effort to convert pre-4e material into 4e except in the most ham-fisted ways. So, I thoroughly disagree with your statements here Mistwell.
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.
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.
I certainly agree with you here KM, but to a point. I think that it works best if the game is setting agnostic. Or maybe as a multi-setting-theist, or something. I think there is an element of truth here in saying 'Here are some gods, use what you find best.' But I think there is a big problem you are also showing when you talk about this and demons, from a couple pages back. Space.
I've been playing DnD for a number of years now, but I can count on one hand the amount of times I've used ANY demon in an game. Probably the same for any devil or yugoloth or similar fiendish creature. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've used all celestial races (excluding eladrin). They just don't come up very often in my games. So, while I think that demons, devils, yugoloths and all manner of outsiders can and should be in the book - I absolutely don't want them spending even more pages devoted to giving me variations on the same bloody creature. The devils, demons, and dragons, and [if pathfinder = familiars, if 3.5 = dinosaurs] already take dozens of pages to explain the base creatures in both 3e and 4e MMs. On top of that you seem to want to add in MORE content to bloat everything. I disagree with that approach.
Instead, I would like to see one base creature. Demons (let's say) are chaotic evil creatures. Try to avoid mentioning where they come from, let people decide that on their own. If you must then mention the abyss as that seems to be the most common origin for them throughout DnD cosmologies. After this, in setting books or further supplements you can introduce the other cosmological demons, from the grey, black, underworld, elemental .. - whatever/where-ever they come from in those settings. That is the job of a setting to have different information. The job of the core book is to present something we can also use, as much as possible.
Same goes for the gods, give us a pantheon, or maybe some major gods of varying pantheons. But I can't see how you can give us full pantheons (many gods) in the core books. It just won't work. Having Thor in the book might make sense, but do you also include Odin, Freya, Frigga, Sif, Loki, valhalla and ragnarok? How about Ra and his cadre? And so on? I don't think you can. It just get's to be too much. They made an entire book called deities and demigods explaining different patheons, as well as rules to stat them out (so you can kill them) and how to make your own. Do that again if you need to. But don't put that in the core books - it is too much information in the right place. Like teaching assault rifle repair in grade school. Learn the basics, enough to run the game; add in some extras so you can customize; then upgrade to 'make your own' in the advanced stages. And you can't do this by giving us all the demons in the first book.
I wonder why the simplest cosmology is not a reasonable option. Something like:
- Heavens above.
- Hells below.
- "Variants" (Feywild, Shadowfell, Faerie, that one universe with cars and without magic) alongside.
- Require portals/ruptures/dimensional rifts to slip between realities.
I think this covers 90% of what you need a cosmology for, without the "explicitness" of the Great Wheel or any of the other major cosmologies.
Because that pleases too few people. Some can work with it but it fails to describe the great wheel, any of the major cosmologies, and even the 4e world axis (elemental chaos below, astral sea above). It just doesn't work as a cosmology. It might work for some people, when they make it up (my own cosmology looks similar to that) but as a cosmology for a game system it isn't enough. Just like saying:
Why not have something like:
- Complete monster (evil)
- Complete puritan* (good)
When describing the WOD system. Well you can't because there are mechanical and flavour differences between that and the humanity scale that already exists and is used in that system. Downgrading to a system that barely exists won't suffice. Take a F150 and remove everything except the engine, gas pedal and wheels won't let you be better at racing. It'll get you disqualified.
*for lack of a better word
Glorantha for the win!
Generalisations are tricky things.
At least in my case, it was Worlds and Monsters that sold me on 4e, and had the game not come with its cosmology and mythic history built in - which for me are such a big part of the game - I might have just not returned to playing D&D.
Believe it or not, with all I'm saying about how 4e turned me off with its monsters and cosmology, I was also very impressed with the Worlds and Monsters gimmick. I vividly recall discussing with my friends what implications the new cosmology might have on our homebrew worlds. When we saw the GAME itself that was another matter. Especially with the baked-in godly bits, radically altered monsters, and general complete (cow-slaughtering) upheaval of the game we enjoyed. But still the cosmology stuck with me as something they were doing
partially right.
Even now, as I eluded to earlier, my own personal head-canon of cosmology looks a lot more like the 4e model than the great wheel. With that said, I try to keep as much great wheel material valid as possible - something I wish WotC had at least
tried to do. As a perhaps foolish prime, though, I just have another view on the planes that makes them work while keeping the existing stuff as untouched as possible. Something I think they are kind of trying to do with 5e, but still in my estimation failing at thus far. We'll see.
