D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Worlds of D&D

[Umbran]

NEWSFLASH: YOU DON'T HAVE TO find it compelling to have it be the truth.

Rhetorical question: Do you think talking to anyone like this will convince them you are correct? Really, would *you* react positively if anyone talked like this to you? Golden Rule applies - treat others as you wish to be treated.

How about we tone down the heat of the rhetoric about three notches, please?

 

[Dausuul]

I like the general thrust of this--acknowledging the variety of different settings in the core material--but I'm wary of the Grand Unified Cosmology approach. I think the core material should have the cosmology only lightly penciled in, just enough that spells like astral projection can be used without the DM having to homebrew on the fly. Details should be left to the appropriate supplements.

For people favoring a Grand Unified Cosmology, try imagining that the cosmology chosen isn't one you like. If you're a Great Wheel/Planescape fan, imagine they stick with the 4E World Axis. If you're a World Axis fan, imagine they revert to the Great Wheel. If you like them both, then suppose Wizards decides to de-emphasize planar travel and refocus the cosmology on Spelljammer's phlogiston and crystal spheres. Do you want to be fighting the core books when setting out to implement your favored cosmology?

I would like the Manual of the Planes to follow a modular design, where the planes are presented as discrete, disconnected entities and then a Cosmology chapter offers various ways to hook them together. I don't think the core books should even have that much. They can make reference to various settings, I'm all for that, but don't imply anything about how those settings are or are not connected.

 

[dracomilan]

I'm an old time fan of the Spelljammer setting and I find this fantastic.

As an author it ties pretty well with what I've written in my past works and with what I'm planning to release for D&D Next (if the license will allow me some elbow space).

...I'm curious as hell about what Chris Perkins is doing "turning [beta work and feedbacks] into actual monsters"

 

[ko6ux]

I think a question you have to ask is just how granular do you need the differences to be? How, exactly do you mechanically differentiate one dwarf from another? How much do you need to distinguish one from another? A halfling, a kender and a cannibal Athasian halting are standing side by side. How different are they from each other physically? Do we need different stat bonuses for each? Different abilities? Or, can we simply use culture and flavour text to differentiate, and maybe a tweak here and there?

The question is just how different are the various campaign specific versions of each race. I would argue that the difference between Kender and halflings in other settings is more significant due to the fact that Kender have abilities like immunity to fear that are quite different from other "halflings."

In most campaign settings, I really don't think that it's necessary to completely re-stat every race. In most cases you can simply give a few paragraphs on the culture, languages, and appearance of each race or sub-race and reference using the stats from the PHB. The cultures of Shield dwarves in Faerun and Daewar dwarves in Krynn may be different, but they are both recognizably "mountain dwarves" and probably don't need to be so different from each other that they require different game statistics.

Naturally, this is going to vary from campaign to campaign. Some campaigns have versions of races which are radically different than those on other worlds. Krynnish minotaurs are significantly different from "standard" DND minotaurs, for example (a fact that was touched on in a previous Wandering Monsters article). There are some fantasy worlds where dwarves are portrayed as being literally made of stone rather than flesh. In a case like that, you may need to re-stat.

 

[bogmad]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with using the same stats for dwarves when they're similar, but it does pose an issue when you start bringing up things like completely hairless Athasian dwarves. Those, and any "pure rock" dwarves, etc would definitely need a new write up and possibly different stats.

The other thing I really wouldn't like, if they go too far in trying to nail things down, is the assumption that all dwarves come from the same source and presumably might even originate from the same initial world. If you're going to have a multiverse, have a multiverse and not a bunch of planets divided my some magical space. Spelljamming, IMO, should metaphysically be more than just space travel, even if it resembles that in execution.

Have one or two "core" dwarf types by all means, but they and the other core races should be more reflections of some platonic style ideal that pops up all over the place instead of immigrants from a single source. If I do end up with a different kind of dwarves in my campaign I shouldn't have to overly explain on a planar level why they're different from other dwarves.

Other rarer races, Gith especially of course, would be a different story.

Of course, all my ranting above is just my fear where things could go if they decided to overly explain things a certain way. I think things could work just fine as Wyatt described so far

 

[DMZ2112]

For people favoring a Grand Unified Cosmology, try imagining that the cosmology chosen isn't one you like. If you're a Great Wheel/Planescape fan, imagine they stick with the 4E World Axis. If you're a World Axis fan, imagine they revert to the Great Wheel. If you like them both, then suppose Wizards decides to de-emphasize planar travel and refocus the cosmology on Spelljammer's phlogiston and crystal spheres. Do you want to be fighting the core books when setting out to implement your favored cosmology?

For my part, at least, the only way Wizards could completely screw it up would be to create something new out of whole cloth that has nothing to do with the history of the game. As long as it ties into the 40-year mythology, I will accept it.

That said, it is true that I think the World Axis is the best it's ever been, and that will be tough to top. But it is not impossible. I would have said Planescape was unbeatable before D&D4.

And THAT said, the phlogiston/crystal sphere construction of Spelljammer was never good design. I get the historical significance of the pseudoscience, but in play it only serves to create terrible complexity. I do hope crystal spheres don't return, or if they do, that they are floating in something more relevant to the greater cosmology, like the astral plane. Crystal sphere as border astral? That I buy.

I would like the Manual of the Planes to follow a modular design, where the planes are presented as discrete, disconnected entities and then a Cosmology chapter offers various ways to hook them together. I don't think the core books should even have that much. They can make reference to various settings, I'm all for that, but don't imply anything about how those settings are or are not connected.

I honestly think this is a fine idea. In a cosmology where most planes are infinite and coexistent, any relationship between them is entirely a matter of perception in any case. And that perception would vary not just world to world, but /culture to culture/. The important aspects of a unified D&D cosmology are its component parts, and how those parts interact philosophically, not "physically."

Yeah, I don't have a problem with using the same stats for dwarves when they're similar, but it does pose an issue when you start bringing up things like completely hairless Athasian dwarves. Those, and any "pure rock" dwarves, etc would definitely need a new write up and possibly different stats.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all dwarves, or even all dwarves who live inside a mountain, are necessarily Players Handbook "Mountain Dwarves." Only that if a setting has Mountain Dwarves, defined here as 'dwarves who /might as well/ have the same stats as all other Mountain Dwarves,' those stats ought to be the same.

Athasian dwarves will still be Athasian dwarves. Gully dwarves will still be gully dwarves. Kender will not be tallfellow halflings, and Athasian elves will not be grugach.

Again, Wyatt's reference to Calimshan and Solamnia is very relevant. No one has ever suggested that Calishites and Solamnics ought to have different game statistics because they live on different worlds, or even just because they live in vastly different climates. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The other thing I really wouldn't like, if they go too far in trying to nail things down, is the assumption that all dwarves come from the same source and presumably might even originate from the same initial world.

::slams notebook shut:: That is not happening! ::frantically hides notes:: What would make you think anyone would conceive of such an ill-advised idea?! ::swallows flash drive::

 

[am181d]

As a rule, I don't use ANY of the official D&D fluff for races/monsters/classes/etc. so I don't have much invested in what settings they use to present the base rules. It feels inevitable that Forgotten Realms will be featured prominently, and if they follow an approach that gets me the Eberron races early in the edition, that'd be great. (I don't run Eberron games, but the Warforged, Shifter, and Changeling are all really fun classes that are easy to integrate into new settings.)

 

[Storminator]

LOL. The first thing I thought when I read this article was Kamikaze Midget isn't going to like this . . .

PS

 

[Ainamacar]

I like the general thrust of this--acknowledging the variety of different settings in the core material--but I'm wary of the Grand Unified Cosmology approach. I think the core material should have the cosmology only lightly penciled in, just enough that spells like astral projection can be used without the DM having to homebrew on the fly. Details should be left to the appropriate supplements.

I would like the Manual of the Planes to follow a modular design, where the planes are presented as discrete, disconnected entities and then a Cosmology chapter offers various ways to hook them together. I don't think the core books should even have that much. They can make reference to various settings, I'm all for that, but don't imply anything about how those settings are or are not connected.

This, pretty much. I would like to XP you, but cannot. The presentation of the rules should explicitly acknowledge the diversity of D&D settings, but the rules themselves should not try to harmonize the cosmologies beyond what is necessary to make the game function. Whether or not Sigil exists, much less connects Toril to Eberron, needs to be up to the DM. Even at tables where they do connect there is a benefit in not making such a connection the default: when the connection is finally revealed (assuming it isn't common knowledge or the premise of the game) the players can be as legitimately surprised as their characters probably are.

The 3/3.5 rules for planes were perhaps a bit over-wrought, but I think it was a decent approach. For example, Teleport could be written to require access to some appropriate coterminous plane. It could be astral, ethereal, shadow, whatever. For most campaigns most of the time it doesn't matter, and for those times where it does the rules give you guidance based on the cosmology you've chosen, not the one that has been chosen for you. It could also serve as a framework for introducing side effects in teleportation effects consistently. For example, in my homebrew setting the astral plane is more-or-less poisonous.

With respect to races I would very much approve of separating the physical (or other inherent) aspects from the cultural. Not every physical or cultural difference requires new mechanics, and I'd reserve it for things that both tell a strong story and may be difficult to express/reinforce purely through roleplaying. I see no reason not to allow aliases to represent all the other superficial elements on top of these shared mechanics. I would probably lump in the cultural aspects as an additional part of selecting a background, though.

I suppose that structure might look like this:
1a) Base race with fundamental characteristics (e.g. Mechanical implementation of dwarves as both stout and robust.)
1b) Subrace with additional inherent elements (e.g. A subrace of dwarves with dark-vision and which can literally digest stone or metal and incorporate it into bones or skin.)

2a) Culture, which encompasses elements that typify almost every member of a given community. (e.g. Proficiency in axes and hammers, plus a hearty hatred of giants. This culture is traditionally associated with dwarven communities and individual dwarves, but that is setting dependent.)
2b) Background, which elaborates on the role and history of the character within the community/culture at large. (e.g. Blacksmith.)

3) Optional alias, which makes it clear that there can be additional elements which are important within the setting but don't necessarily merit mechanical representation. An alias might consider racial elements, cultural elements, or even class. It could be self-identified group membership or a label among that setting's demographers. (e.g. Ironskin Dwarf Clansmith)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your concern seems another variation on the old complaint of "They're telling me how to play my game!" But they're not. You are entirely free to construct and use your own cosmology, or to take a D&D cosmology and use that, tweak or interpret it as you see fit.

The Default Effect is huge. To dismiss it by saying "you can always change anything you want!" means you don't appreciate how actually huge it is. This isn't about a rejection of authority, this is about D&D being a game for each of us to build and create with as we see fit, or about D&D being one particular game that has a specific flavor of multiverse/dwarf/goblin/etc. A Default Dwarf puts it firmly into the later camp, even if the Fun Police ain't around. And that's not what D&D is to me.

I think a question you have to ask is just how granular do you need the differences to be? How, exactly do you mechanically differentiate one dwarf from another? How much do you need to distinguish one from another? A halfling, a kender and a cannibal Athasian halting are standing side by side. How different are they from each other physically? Do we need different stat bonuses for each? Different abilities? Or, can we simply use culture and flavour text to differentiate, and maybe a tweak here and there?

I'm coming at this from this perspective:

There is never any such thing as "generic". All lemonade is local.

Athasian dwarves are specific to Athas, and have a specific relationship to their world. FR dwarves aren't the same, and they have their own specific context and setting. Dragonlance dwarves are different yet again from each one of the above, with their own nuances that separate them out. Greyhawk dwarves are different yet again. Planescape dwarves? Different again.

They share superficial similarities, sure (perhaps a great place for solid, adaptable, broad, elegant rules!). They're not mutually exclusive (I could play a Greyhawk dwarf in Planescape!). They're not the same thing. If I play a dwarf in Dark Sun I've got a specific play experience I'm trucking towards that is a different play experience than if I play a dwarf from Greyhawk. If I'm in a game with both a Greyhawk mountain dwarf and an FR shield dwarf and a Planescape dwarf from Mount Celestia, I expect those three dwarves to be distinct, to have their play experience be unique, because they are unique creatures with unique skills and abilities to bring to the table.

That context should shine through in D&D the rules for playing these creatures being different.

It's not just biology, it's a combination of biology, society, environment, genre....context. Lose that context and you wind up with watered-down dwarves that don't deliver a unique setting experience. You lose what makes Greyhawk dwarves interesting and distinct from FR dwarves.

That context is also important in D&D being a game of imagination and creativity: it keys you into the fact that the dwarves that are in your game are also unique to their specific context. There's no canon they must adhere to. There's no mechanics they must absolutely have. They are yours to shape as you see fit for your world.

Or you can just grab a dwarf or three that brings with it the context you want, and plunk that down in your own game.

None of that mandates sprawling blocks of repeated stats and figures, it just means that you need to be specific and local when talking about your dwarf.

And that's just dwarves, arguably the fantasy race with one of the most consistent portrayals across multiple different companies and iterations! If you don't look closely, a shield dwarf and a WoW dwarf are pretty much the same thing. But when we're playing D&D, we are making whatever game options we choose work for our own local area, in the same way that WoW dwarves work for WoW and not for other worlds/universes/etc. D&D dwarves (and cosmologies and whatever) need to work for each of our individual tables. That means that the millions of minor variations that make your game distinct from mine are actually really vital to making our experiences uniquely suited for our tables.

I'm willing to believe there's stuff I'm overlooking. My mind isn't set in stone. Wyatt mentioned there were "some problems" with a 3e-style model of the planes that allowed for different cosmologies and different multiverses. I'm willing to listen to what he thinks those are (and I'd hope that he'd be willing to hear other ways of solving those problems!). He thinks it's for some reason really important to homogenize the differences between D&D creatures? Okay, why? I'm not an easy sell on this, but I'm sure they're thinking about this more than I am. Tell me how this is going to be better for my game.