D&D 5E What's in YOUR Multiverse?

[Ath'kethin]

I never cared for Planescape; though the art was wonderful and it had some interesting ideas, it always rang as a "gritty reboot" of Spelljammer to me. To my mind, what defines a setting is as much what's NOT there as what IS.

Currently, I run a Primeval Thule campaign, and by necessity my multiverse does not contain high fantasy worlds or elements. As described in the Primeval Thule Campaign Setting, other worlds exist, but serve as a source, not a destination. You can summon a great and terrible genie or demon or fairies or whatever, but you aren't going to visit them at home. Thule defines these planes as parallel dimensions and alternate Earths and I like that idea.

Now, the concept is structured such that you could choose to interpret everything as being part of the Great Wheel or World Axis or wherever you want; after all, just like the people of Krynn coloquially refer to the Nine Hells as the Abyss, the difference between the Parallel Earth That is Made Of Flame and the Plane of Elemental Fire is largely academic. But I like working with constraints, and so I chose a more literal interpretation.

TL, DR; no, my campaign setting is distinct from and does not interact with the D&D multiverse.

 

[Shiroiken]

On a completely theoretical level, I'd say so. However, this is tenuous at best, because different campaigns have different planes of existence and different unique NPCs on those planes. If my players kill Asmodeous in my campaign, he isn't suddenly dead in your campaign. Of course, if you expand the notion of a multiverse of universes, with each universe described as presented in the PHB (so each universe has its own Elemental Plane of Fire, for example), then the possibility pretty much becomes a certainty.

On a totally practical level, there are only 5 known (by a handful of arch-mages) Material Planes: Aerth, Earth, Ierth, Oerth, and Uerth, with Oerth acting as Prime Material Plane for my PCs. While the possibility exists for them to wander over to those Alternate Material Planes, they won't suddenly find themselves in the Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft, unless I REALLY want to mess with them

 

[Nagol]

On a completely theoretical level, I'd say so. However, this is tenuous at best, because different campaigns have different planes of existence and different unique NPCs on those planes. If my players kill Asmodeous in my campaign, he isn't suddenly dead in your campaign. Of course, if you expand the notion of a multiverse of universes, with each universe described as presented in the PHB (so each universe has its own Elemental Plane of Fire, for example), then the possibility pretty much becomes a certainty.

On a totally practical level, there are only 5 known (by a handful of arch-mages) Material Planes: Aerth, Earth, Ierth, Oerth, and Uerth, with Oerth acting as Prime Material Plane for my PCs. While the possibility exists for them to wander over to those Alternate Material Planes, they won't suddenly find themselves in the Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft, unless I REALLY want to mess with them

What? No Yerth?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I originally posted this in the "Lore isn't rules" thread, but by that time the participants were having much too much fun with their argument in progress (which, pretty please, let's not continue here) to give it much notice - but I'm still curious about it, so maybe it's worth a thread of its own.
_____
So here's an intriguing question I've been mulling on, based on some of the conversation here and in the Other Thread. And partially it's intriguing to me because it doesn't have a right answer; there is inherently no "official" way to verify or disprove it.

The 5e PHB has this in its Introduction (emphasis mine):


The worlds of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game exist within a vast cosmos called the multiverse, connected in strange and mysterious ways to one another and to other planes of existence. such as the Elemental Plane of Fire and the lnfinite Depths of the Abyss. Within this multiverse are an endless variety of worlds. Many of them have been published as official settings for the D&D game. The legends of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara, and Eberron settings are woven together in the fabric of the multiverse. Alongside these worlds are hundreds of thousands more, created by generations of D&D players for their own games. And amid all the richness of the multiverse, you might create a world of your own.

Does your reading of this - in particular the bolded section - suggest to you that the multiverse contains Golarion? How about Aldea? The Scarred Lands? Freeport? Primeval Thule? The Lost Lands? Thieves' World? Nehwon?*

Note that the question isn't "Are these things D&D?" (which I'm not sure is a terribly interesting question anyway) - it's whether you feel their existence in the strange and mysterious web of hundreds of thousands of worlds in the D&D multiverse is implied by the way the PHB describes it. And as I say, there's no way there even can be a right or wrong answer - but I do suspect that the way you answer the question reveals much about the way you view the role of lore.

*The astute reader may have already noted that the examples given pass through a number of categories: Settings created for games that aren't officially D&D, but use rulesets explicitly based on the D&D engine; settings created by third parties for previous editions of D&D; settings with material written (or at least adapted) specifically for 5e; and literary settings that were once licensed as D&D settings, but aren't currently licensed for 5e. (And Golarion has a foot in a couple of places, given that the first materials written for it were third-party 3.5 adventures!) So do feel free to simply comment on whether those types of settings feel like part of the multiverse to you, if you find that's a more interesting approach to this subject than looking at settings on a case-by-case.

There's a few different angles to approach this question from.

From the angle of brand identity (and thus what gets published), no I don't think those settings aren't part of the D&D multiverse. WotC defines "D&D" and "The Multiverse," so by the strictest definition, those aren't a part of it, in the same way that Superman isn't part of Marvel's Universe and that Starbuck isn't part of the Star Wars Multiverse. In the World of the Brand, D&D isn't a generic name for "fantasy tabletop RPG," it's a specific name for a specific setting with specific (though very diverse!) trappings and tendencies. (My theory - not without some support - is that a lot of the changes in 4e were meant to pull D&D specifically away from the risk of being "generic.")

But that's the level of publications, of movies, of marketing.

From the angle of practical use at the table, it's mostly irrelevant. Is D&D-Alike X somehow set within the D&D multiverse? Does it matter? It's not really going to affect gameplay very much whether it is or it isn't. Those settings are about adventures in those settings, and so the hypothetical existence of other settings out there in the multiverse aren't really going to come up in play.

The only time where they would come up in play, I imagine, is if you're doing some sort of world-hopping adventure, and in that case, for your table, maybe these are in the same multiverse! At other tables, maybe they are oil and water.

On the level of mouth feel, I think that it's really up to the individual. Person A would say D&D and Scarred Lands are the same thing, Person B would say they couldn't be more different, and each one is right because that's a subjective thing and everyone has their own taste buds and tooth alignment and salivary production and life experiences, so it's going to vary between individuals and that's just fine.

 

[Lanliss]

My multiverse (assuming you are actually asking about my own world) is mostly chaos ridden, leading to a massive swath of worlds that has been forcefully blended together into "The Chaos". Should my players ever be unfortunate enough to end up there, it will be absolute hell. Other than that, there are a select few Planes that are fending off, or have yet to be devoured by, the Chaos. My multiverse does not include all of the other Prime planes, and the only way one could get to my universe is by actually punching through the outer fabric of their cosmology, and presumably safely traveling through the Far Realms, followed by punching through the outer fabric of My cosmology, and somehow surviving the Chaos until they reach a stable Plane. I estimate this to take skill and powers many levels higher than the gods, and possibly not even possible with a Wish Spell.

In "out of game" terms, none of my players has attempted porting a character from another world, but they would need a damn good story for how they would manage it if they did.

 

[Benji]

My Mutants & Masterminds game had a bit where all the 3.5 Arch-Devils were bad guys and in a later instalment, one character mentioned that his realm connected to 'Fair Barovia' so I guess that puts me firmly in the 'Kitchen sink multiverse camp' of Dm-ing. Having said that, it depends on having the settings clash. How could I improve Eberron by making it tied to the realms? Would it in any way add depth to the cosmology? Or just mess it up? WOuld both setting not feel like themselves to even mention it?

While on a Mental level, I feel like 'Yeah! All these settings exist in the same multiverse! even my homebrew ones!' is a cool statement, I can't quantify what it does to my game in any way and that's really interesting to me. Like if the two settings never interact what difference does it make that Faerun & Naarika (homebrew) share the same multiverse? Is there a difference to the way I run things knowing that? If no, then surely if it is or not is surely a point only for mental debate and advertising brand. Maybe the more interesting question is 'Why did wizards mention this?' because without crossover, this point is more of a philosophical statement that only exists for DM's agree with/reject. I think the issue is maybe only now coming to the fore because 'Yawning portal' might have something to say about it.

The more I think about this, the odder I feel. I have typed like fifteen different thought tracks after this sentence and deleted every one. There's like no point to having a multiverse if you don't cross over worlds, but somehow knowing it exists seems...right. Maybe I just have a need to build a larger framework for the games to feel 'real' to me, like it gives them a sort of false depth. Now I think about it, even framing them as universes instead of stories has created a way of talking about them that gives them credence in our minds beyond that of, say, a novel. It changes the discourse. Makes what you are doing as a Dm in whatever game you run feel a greater part of a whole. I know I am way off the original question here.....Is anyone following this or am I just rambling?

 

[Lanliss]

My Mutants & Masterminds game had a bit where all the 3.5 Arch-Devils were bad guys and in a later instalment, one character mentioned that his realm connected to 'Fair Barovia' so I guess that puts me firmly in the 'Kitchen sink multiverse camp' of Dm-ing. Having said that, it depends on having the settings clash. How could I improve Eberron by making it tied to the realms? Would it in any way add depth to the cosmology? Or just mess it up? WOuld both setting not feel like themselves to even mention it?

While on a Mental level, I feel like 'Yeah! All these settings exist in the same multiverse! even my homebrew ones!' is a cool statement, I can't quantify what it does to my game in any way and that's really interesting to me. Like if the two settings never interact what difference does it make that Faerun & Naarika (homebrew) share the same multiverse? Is there a difference to the way I run things knowing that? If no, then surely if it is or not is surely a point only for mental debate and advertising brand. Maybe the more interesting question is 'Why did wizards mention this?' because without crossover, this point is more of a philosophical statement that only exists for DM's agree with/reject. I think the issue is maybe only now coming to the fore because 'Yawning portal' might have something to say about it.

The more I think about this, the odder I feel. I have typed like fifteen different thought tracks after this sentence and deleted every one. There's like no point to having a multiverse if you don't cross over worlds, but somehow knowing it exists seems...right. Maybe I just have a need to build a larger framework for the games to feel 'real' to me, like it gives them a sort of false depth. Now I think about it, even framing them as universes instead of stories has created a way of talking about them that gives them credence in our minds beyond that of, say, a novel. It changes the discourse. Makes what you are doing as a Dm in whatever game you run feel a greater part of a whole. I know I am way off the original question here.....Is anyone following this or am I just rambling?

I (think I) followed it fine. That is a Psychological discussion though, probably deep enough for an entire thread on its own, and most likely better to have somewhere where no one feels like they have to be "Right". Suffice to say, I can see where you are coming from, but do not view my own world in that way. Although, perhaps a better way to put it is that I view Novels the same way I do my world. As Living Universes, with endless stories going on in the background that the reader/player might never even know about.

 

[ProgBard]

There's a few different angles to approach this question from.

From the angle of brand identity (and thus what gets published), no I don't think those settings aren't part of the D&D multiverse. WotC defines "D&D" and "The Multiverse," so by the strictest definition, those aren't a part of it, in the same way that Superman isn't part of Marvel's Universe and that Starbuck isn't part of the Star Wars Multiverse. In the World of the Brand, D&D isn't a generic name for "fantasy tabletop RPG," it's a specific name for a specific setting with specific (though very diverse!) trappings and tendencies. (My theory - not without some support - is that a lot of the changes in 4e were meant to pull D&D specifically away from the risk of being "generic.")

But that's the level of publications, of movies, of marketing.

Well, er, um, I had hoped that my framing of this was laden with subtext that read "Brand Identity Aside," but I seem to have not signalled that strongly enough.

Suffice to say that in this context it isn't a subject I find terribly interesting, except that I have a sneaking suspicion many folks in the RPG publishing field are fans of each other's settings in ways the suits would likely disapprove of.

From the angle of practical use at the table, it's mostly irrelevant. Is D&D-Alike X somehow set within the D&D multiverse? Does it matter? It's not really going to affect gameplay very much whether it is or it isn't. Those settings are about adventures in those settings, and so the hypothetical existence of other settings out there in the multiverse aren't really going to come up in play.

Well, except when it does come up. Lots of people who play or run games dig the idea of having a huge, multi-world playground, with lots of opportunities for cross-pollinization. Indeed, that's the canonical "setting" of 5e, which we're increasingly seeing the influence of in the brand-identity works, so I have a hard time thinking it's all that irrelevant.

The point of this thread is that, if you accept the default "canonical" assumptions of the PHB - which clearly not everyone does, and that's cool! - just how big of a playground do you feel that is?

The only time where they would come up in play, I imagine, is if you're doing some sort of world-hopping adventure, and in that case, for your table, maybe these are in the same multiverse! At other tables, maybe they are oil and water.

On the level of mouth feel, I think that it's really up to the individual. Person A would say D&D and Scarred Lands are the same thing, Person B would say they couldn't be more different, and each one is right because that's a subjective thing and everyone has their own taste buds and tooth alignment and salivary production and life experiences, so it's going to vary between individuals and that's just fine.

Absolutely. Which, needless to say, is why I'm at such pains to stress that there are no right or wrong responses to this; this thread isn't a thinktank to discover what's "actually" true for D&D. It's an invitation to share what the opening volley of the PHB inspires in you, and maybe ruminate on what your reaction to it might say about you as a gamer or DM.

 

[MNblockhead]

A long time ago, I used to do this. Players would jump from a medieval setting to Boot Hill and various other realities. Partly this was because at that age, I though it was cool, and partly because in that era of gaming everything was done in modules and we didn't worry much about canon. We just hand waved the party into the world of that module.

I think APs may have stopped this practice somewhat, except for Curse of Straud.

In my homebrew campaign I limit the use of multiple realities. It just adds complexity and feels like a lazy plot device. I'm just not interested in that.

 

[Shasarak]

No, my reading of that passage doesn't suggest the multiverse contains those worlds. It explicitly states that it contains those worlds, my worlds, your worlds, and so many more.

I think that this pretty much sums up my "multiverse"