What if the core setting of D&D was ALL the settings of D&D?

[DMZ2112]

My first post!

I like the idea of a unified prime material planes/core setting. I am not sure I like what you propose though.

Just my two coopers.

Cheers!

Welcome to ENWorld, Lily.

 

[Kinak]

No I don't-

That isn't-

::deep, even breaths::

Did either of you even read the post?

Sorry, my comparing it to Spelljammer was a joke. I apologize if it didn't come across well.

It just reminded me, not unfondly, of the way Spelljammer agressively tried to bring the major worlds of D&D into one setting. Where Planescape could nominally touch anywhere and the mists of Ravenloft knew no borders, Spelljammer had entire supplements about how it related to the major worlds.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Umbran]

How about giving me some reasons /why/ this concept is limiting in the way you state rather than just telling me you won't use it? The latter teaches me nothing.

I wouldn't call it "limiting", in the sense that the GM can always do something else. But, it make the job harder...

1) Once it is ensconced as the standard, later supplements will assume it. That increases the difficulty of removing it from your game.

2) Once it is ensconced as the standard, players will come to assume it. That increases the difficulty of getting players to agree to games that don't have those elements.

 

[DMZ2112]

I have to agree that it's a poor idea. It overly defines what Ravenloft is and isn't, and the Demiplane of Dream just doesn't encompass the same thematic ground as the Plane of Shadow. I don't think the idea would cross anyone's mind as appropriate IMO except for the fact that 4e shoehorned parts of Ravenloft into the Shadowfell (wasn't a good idea then, remains a poor idea now).

If they inexplicably keep this idea in mind and run with it in 5e, I'll feel bad for Ravenloft fans.

As we've discussed before, Shemeska, I have a preference for reductionism in cosmology; no Ethereal when the Astral will do, so to speak. From that perspective, I think that folding Ravenloft into the Shadowfell and keeping the more familiar of the two names is perfectly appropriate.

I think the cognitive disconnect here is more the folding of death and evil into the Plane of Shadow to create the Shadowfell in the first place, which I would agree did not make much sense. But the absence of the Plane of Shadow from any cosmology is not something I would be particularly upset about -- no Shadow when the Ethereal will do, and no Ethereal when the Astral will do.

We're getting off topic for this thread -- the relative value of preserving or discarding various aspects of the D&D cosmology is the subject of another series of threads I have been planning to post.

Sorry, my comparing it to Spelljammer was a joke. I apologize if it didn't come across well.

I saw the smiley; I should have heeded it. Sorry, Kinak.

It just reminded me, not unfondly, of the way Spelljammer agressively tried to bring the major worlds of D&D into one setting. Where Planescape could nominally touch anywhere and the mists of Ravenloft knew no borders, Spelljammer had entire supplements about how it related to the major worlds.

I love me some Spelljammer. This proposal, however, was more about these worlds as thematic engines for the greater setting, much like alignment or the class system are intrinsic parts of D&D. Not that PCs would be unable to travel there, but doing so would be more like visiting the Abyss or Mount Celestia than like crossing the border from Veluna to Furyondy, which more accurately reflects (in my opinion) the design goal of Spelljammer.

I wouldn't call it "limiting", in the sense that the GM can always do something else. But, it make the job harder...

1) Once it is ensconced as the standard, later supplements will assume it. That increases the difficulty of removing it from your game.

2) Once it is ensconced as the standard, players will come to assume it. That increases the difficulty of getting players to agree to games that don't have those elements.

Okay, I think I see my mistake. I used the word "core" in the OP. My intention was to suggest the sense of "unified D&D setting," not "setting Wizards ought to publish as a part of D&D5." Note that this thread has an All D&D tag, not a D&D5 tag.

I understand the reasons why this would never work as the official "core" setting of D&D -- heck, I object to the prospect of /warforged/ being considered "core" -- if I object to a single race, how do you think I feel about the prospect of having to specifically exclude all of Eberron to players in my homebrew?

This thread is supposed to represent a /thought experiment/. A "what if." Wizards hasn't suggested anything that even remotely looks like this (except for Ravenloft), and I don't expect them to.

I'm really only interested in whether or not the theory is sound, not whether the idea would sell books. The latter is completely irrelevant.

For the record, I thought your first post in the thread was concise but insightful. It asked exactly the sort of question I wanted to think of an answer to.

 

[Sunseeker]

I have always preferred that the system look at the settings, the story and so on from an outside perspective. In the same way that so many stories and events exist in the Marvel Universe, but may never ever encounter each other outside of specific instances(such as the universe coming to an end).

All of the D&D worlds, settings, and stories should, IMO exist in the greater "D&D Multiverse." You may or may not have access to them depending on the specific setting you're playing in, but I don't see any reason that you can't have all the wonders of all the stories that have been, are or will be in the same universe.

 

[Nellisir]

This proposal, however, was more about these worlds as thematic engines for the greater setting, much like alignment or the class system are intrinsic parts of D&D. Not that PCs would be unable to travel there, but doing so would be more like visiting the Abyss or Mount Celestia than like crossing the border from Veluna to Furyondy, which more accurately reflects (in my opinion) the design goal of Spelljammer.

I'll be honest, I read the first post and a few following, and the last post and a few previous.

And I don't get it. Is Greyhawk supposed to be the "thematic engine" for dungeons? What exactly does that mean? Is a Forgotten Realms dungeon going to be more "Greyhawkian"?

I can see a position where it would push each setting to stronger identify its defining trait or traits to differentiate from other settings, but I'm not wholly sure how that would manifest at the table.

 

[delericho]

What if the core setting of Dungeons & Dragons was ALL the settings of Dungeons & Dragons?

WotC would go the way of TSR?

One of the more interesting announcements Mike Mearls has made about the cosmology of D&D5 is that the Shadowfell is being replaced wholesale by Ravenloft.

The guys at WotC have had some bad ideas in their time, but this one... this one's a doozy.

Now, Ravenloft has always been an extraplanar setting, although that fact has little to do with campaigns set there. But what if that same idea were applied to, say, Abeir-Toril? What if the Forgotten Realms were not just another prime material world, but were a part of the D&D5 cosmology, with a purpose, embodying a core aspect of the D&D universe?

What if /all/ the official D&D settings, instead of simply being slightly different elf-infested rocks in space with little to no relation to one another, were cardinal points in the greater D&D cosmology, in the same way as the Great Wheel or Elemental Chaos?

What if Abeir-Toril’s Spellweave is the original form of magic, that has now spread out to other worlds? What if Krynn is actually the homeworld of all dragonkind? What if Oerth, home of the original Underdark, is the source of whatever dark impetus fills the worlds of D&D with dungeons, and Mystara engenders that fatal curiosity in their inhabitants that brings adventurers to explore those depths?

What if all conflict in D&D is a reflection of the harsh conditions on Athas, or every technological advancement on a D&D world is subtly inspired by the mere existence of Eberron, or every epic saga ever told is echoed by the world-shaking events on Aebrynis?

That actually sounds like a pretty cool idea for a campaign. You should run it.

But I don't want the "D&D cosmology" defined to that extent. The Great Wheel is cool... as one possible cosmology. The Elemental Chaos (etc) is cool... as one possible cosmology. What you're describing is cool... as one possible cosmology.

But the moment WotC go from "this is how it is in this setting" to "this is how it is", their books immediately start becoming less useful. Go too far, and their books, and their new edition, cease to be worth even considering - I'll stick with 3e, thanks.

What if each of our homebrew worlds exists on a sort of seven-axis coordinate grid, that defines its essence by its metaphysical proximity to these cardinal worlds? I find this train of thought compelling.

What does having that coordinate grid gain me? How does it make it easier for me to create my campaign world, to populate it with monsters and civilisations, and to create adventures?

Unless there's a real good answer to that, and one that applies to my thinly-veiled Eberron knock-off, the my friend's intrigue-heavy city based game, and to that one guy's underwater adventureland, then it's not really worth bothering with.

 

[howandwhy99]

I strongly propose [MENTION=78752]DMZ2112[/MENTION] does this. I voted for D&D Next's default setting to be: Homebrew. This sounds perfectly inspiring to me. I don't suggest we somehow make these ideas D&D canon, but I don't believe DMZ is either.

 

[DMZ2112]

And I don't get it. Is Greyhawk supposed to be the "thematic engine" for dungeons? What exactly does that mean? Is a Forgotten Realms dungeon going to be more "Greyhawkian"?

No, I don't think so. Not any more than lawful good people and creatures on Faerun are necessarily "Mount Celestian." Undermountain would stay Undermountain. Most of the changes I am proposing -- and again, I'm just spitballing here -- would be as regards Greyhawk itself, to align it more strongly with its defining trait (dungeons, or whatever).

I can see a position where it would push each setting to stronger identify its defining trait or traits to differentiate from other settings, but I'm not wholly sure how that would manifest at the table.

I am coming at this as a Planescape fan rather than a fan of any one terrestrial setting -- that might help you and others understand my perspectives. I'm kind of thinking, "What if the established D&D settings were thematic 'planes' in their own right? How would that change them?"

Maybe it allows homebrewers to occasionally have their PCs encounter a dungeon that /is/ "Greyhawkian," and that should inspire concern in the same way that encountering an Infernal-templated monster in D&D3 inspired concern -- it will be bigger, deeper, and considerably more dungeony than standard. Or maybe their homebrew world is so like Oerth (so "close" to Oerth in the cosmology) that all of its dungeons are Greyhawkian and no one notices.

WotC would go the way of TSR?

...

That actually sounds like a pretty cool idea for a campaign. You should run it.

But I don't want the "D&D cosmology" defined to that extent.

Good, it shouldn't be. Read the thread. Thanks for saying it's a "cool idea."

What does having that coordinate grid gain me? How does it make it easier for me to create my campaign world, to populate it with monsters and civilisations, and to create adventures?

Well, see above for my response to Nellisir for what I hope are some relevant thoughts, but do you feel that the existing cosmology does this? Does the existence of Mount Celestia (or its Eberronian [Eberrant?] equivalent) enrich your homebrew? I don't really see the cosmology as something that should guide the creation of a terrestrial setting -- it's more like a condiment for spicing things up on occasion.

 

[DMZ2112]

Eberronian [Eberrant?]

::snaps fingers:: EBERRONI! The Korunda Gate treat! (ding ding)

I am a genius.