Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 6247911" data-attributes="member: 58172">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.</blockquote>

Verification