Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters 1/15/14: Reinventing the Great Wheel
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6248517" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>Why not have something like:</p><p>- Complete monster (evil)</p><p>- Complete puritan* (good)</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>*for lack of a better word</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>partially</em> right.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>tried</em> 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6248517, member: 95493"] 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. 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. 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 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 [I]partially[/I] 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 [I]tried[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters 1/15/14: Reinventing the Great Wheel
Top