WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micah Sweet

Legend
No, I said that the World Axis is a better cosmology for D&D because it was designed for adventure.

That doesn't counter anything I said. Whether or not you like a cosmology has nothing to do with if it's good for the game. My favorite cosmology is Eberron's, but I fully recognize that it would be a bad fit as the core cosmology of D&D and that the World Axis is better for adventures.
Since the game at the table is about PCs having adventures, I think its fair to assume that a vote for World Axis on the grounds of it being better for adventures is a vote for playability.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Faolyn

(she/her)
Not in so many words. But it is implicit in the whole line of argument that faithful adaptation = unplayability.


Of course it needs to be playable. But since it definitionaly already is, how much you value marginal increases in it compared with how you value other things (like setting consistancy) is a sliding scale or personal preferences, not a dichotomy and definitely not a matter you can be "objectively wrong" about.
A faithful adaptation can be unplayable (in the "shouldn't be played" sense, not in the "bad rules" sense) if the original contains outdated or bigoted tropes.

Sometimes, fixing those tropes means rewriting things to the point that an adaptation can't be faithful--like with 5e Ravenloft, which @Micah Sweet doesn't like. I believe that a lot of Ravenloft's tropes were so outdated or bigoted that the only way to fix them was to completely rewrite large sections of the setting. And Micah has been saying that, in their opinion, settings shouldn't be adapted to 5e if they have to be changed so much they don't continue with the old lore--that they should be left unchanged, even if it means nobody will ever play them again.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Since the game at the table is about PCs having adventures, I think its fair to assume that a vote for World Axis on the grounds of it being better for adventures is a vote for playability.
And isn't a vote against setting consistency. 4e's base setting and cosmology were different from previous editions'. You said earlier that you were fine with newer settings and additive changes. Or was that a lie and you actually think that the Great Wheel has to be the default cosmology every edition, even if the base setting is different?
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
A faithful adaptation can be unplayable (in the "shouldn't be played" sense, not in the "bad rules" sense) if the original contains outdated or bigoted tropes.

Sometimes, fixing those tropes means rewriting things to the point that an adaptation can't be faithful--like with 5e Ravenloft, which @Micah Sweet doesn't like. I believe that a lot of Ravenloft's tropes were so outdated or bigoted that the only way to fix them was to completely rewrite large sections of the setting. And Micah has been saying that, in their opinion, settings shouldn't be adapted to 5e if they have to be changed so much they don't continue with the old lore--that they should be left unchanged, even if it means nobody will ever play them again.
True. I don't see any reason to retroactively change existing stories. Just tell a new story with similar themes that appeals to your current customer base.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
And isn't a vote against setting consistency. 4e's base setting and cosmology were different from previous editions'. You said earlier that you were fine with newer settings and additive changes. Or was that a lie and you actually think that the Great Wheel has to be the default cosmology every edition, even if the base setting is different?
Replacing the Great Wheel with the World Axis wasn't an additive change. It was a replacement. Just like bringing the Wheel back in 5th ed was also technically a replacement.

If Nerath was its own world with the World Axis as its cosmology, that would be fine. But they used it for all the other 4e settings too, all of which predated the edition.
 



Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Replacing the Great Wheel with the World Axis wasn't an additive change. It was a replacement. Just like bringing the Wheel back in 5th ed was also technically a replacement.
So replacing the World Axis with the Great Wheel is bad because it's not additive, right? Or does that guideline only apply to things you like?
If Nerath was its own world with the World Axis as its cosmology, that would be fine. But they used it for all the other 4e settings too, all of which predated the edition.
No, they didn't. Not for Eberron.

And, again, that's besides the point. My point was that the World Axis is better for D&D. It wasn't even tangentially about setting consistency.

This tangent was originally about why there are more 5e adventures for the planes taken from 4e (Shadowfell, Feywild, Astral Sea) than there are for the Great Wheel's planes (Avernus). And it's because the planes from 4e are better designed as adventuring locations, and thus better for D&D.

I don't care if you like the Great Wheel, liking a cosmology doesn't make it well designed for the game.
 


No, they didn't. Not for Eberron.
Eh, they kind of did in 4e... They more or less mapped the 3e Eberron Cosmology onto the World Axis and called it a day.

They even pulled Xoriat out of the "official" cosmology so it could function as their "realm from beyond known reality" Far Realm equivalent, and shoehorned in Baator to keep the number of Eberron's "actual" planes at the traditional 13 - one of the only things from 4e Eberron that I actually didn't like.

4E_Base_and_Eberron_Cosmology.png
 
Last edited:



Faolyn

(she/her)
True. I don't see any reason to retroactively change existing stories. Just tell a new story with similar themes that appeals to your current customer base.
Let's take Dementlieu for a moment. A domain that centers around mind rape and heavily implies regular rape.

1. You keep Dementlieu as-is, thus deliberately including topics which are personally upsetting to many players, both new and original, who have suffered from emotional and sexual abuse. The game should be horrific to the characters but fun for the players, after all, and people who play female characters shouldn't have to worry about being specifically targeted just for entering the country.

2. You get rid of Dementlieu entirely, which will anger some original fans because it should be included.

3. You keep Dementlieu as is but get rid of of the rape, which means you end up changing the existing characters to work around that restriction, which will anger some original fans for not keeping it exactly the way it used to be and possibly make them think that WotC is being wussy or pandering or even woke.

4. You keep the name and general theme of Dementlieu but make major changes to it, which will anger some original fans who are annoyed that it's DINO (Dementlieu In Name Only).

5. You don't produce Ravenloft at all, but produce a different horror setting, which will anger some original fans who want to know why their favorite setting is being ignored in favor of a brand new one clearly geared to the new players.

6. You don't produce any horror setting, which will anger both original and new fans who thinks that WotC is being too wussy to put out a horror game, thus encouraging people to buy non-WotC material or even move to a different system altogether.

So... which of these options is the best one, in your opinion?
 

Let's take Dementlieu for a moment. A domain that centers around mind rape and heavily implies regular rape.

1. You keep Dementlieu as-is, thus deliberately including topics which are personally upsetting to many players, both new and original, who have suffered from emotional and sexual abuse. The game should be horrific to the characters but fun for the players, after all, and people who play female characters shouldn't have to worry about being specifically targeted just for entering the country.

2. You get rid of Dementlieu entirely, which will anger some original fans because it should be included.

3. You keep Dementlieu as is but get rid of of the rape, which means you end up changing the existing characters to work around that restriction, which will anger some original fans for not keeping it exactly the way it used to be and possibly make them think that WotC is being wussy or pandering or even woke.

4. You keep the name and general theme of Dementlieu but make major changes to it, which will anger some original fans who are annoyed that it's DINO (Dementlieu In Name Only).

5. You don't produce Ravenloft at all, but produce a different horror setting, which will anger some original fans who want to know why their favorite setting is being ignored in favor of a brand new one clearly geared to the new players.

6. You don't produce any horror setting, which will anger both original and new fans who thinks that WotC is being too wussy to put out a horror game, thus encouraging people to buy non-WotC material or even move to a different system altogether.

So... which of these options is the best one, in your opinion?
Horror is horror. You want to remove certain parts for your table go ahead. Its your table. When they make horror movies and series do you think they go through this entire debacle? Fading to black is also an option.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Eh, they kind of did in 4e... They more or less mapped the 3e Eberron Cosmology onto the World Axis and called it a day.

They even pulled Xoriat out of the "official" cosmology so it could function as their "realm from beyond known reality" Far Realm equivalent, and shoehorned in Baator to keep the number of Eberron's "actual" planes at the traditional 13 - one of the only things from 4e Eberron that I actually didn't like.

View attachment 268362
Yeah, but that's not the outright "completely replacing every setting's cosmology with the World Axis". It tried to integrate Eberron's cosmology into the World Axis and did change some things, but Eberron still had most of its planes from 3.5e.

Eberron was mostly just assimilated, kind of like it has been into the Great Wheel in 5e.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Let's take Dementlieu for a moment. A domain that centers around mind rape and heavily implies regular rape.

1. You keep Dementlieu as-is, thus deliberately including topics which are personally upsetting to many players, both new and original, who have suffered from emotional and sexual abuse. The game should be horrific to the characters but fun for the players, after all, and people who play female characters shouldn't have to worry about being specifically targeted just for entering the country.

2. You get rid of Dementlieu entirely, which will anger some original fans because it should be included.

3. You keep Dementlieu as is but get rid of of the rape, which means you end up changing the existing characters to work around that restriction, which will anger some original fans for not keeping it exactly the way it used to be and possibly make them think that WotC is being wussy or pandering or even woke.

4. You keep the name and general theme of Dementlieu but make major changes to it, which will anger some original fans who are annoyed that it's DINO (Dementlieu In Name Only).

5. You don't produce Ravenloft at all, but produce a different horror setting, which will anger some original fans who want to know why their favorite setting is being ignored in favor of a brand new one clearly geared to the new players.

6. You don't produce any horror setting, which will anger both original and new fans who thinks that WotC is being too wussy to put out a horror game, thus encouraging people to buy non-WotC material or even move to a different system altogether.

So... which of these options is the best one, in your opinion?
Option 2 in your example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB

Micah Sweet

Legend
So replacing the World Axis with the Great Wheel is bad because it's not additive, right? Or does that guideline only apply to things you like?

No, they didn't. Not for Eberron.

And, again, that's besides the point. My point was that the World Axis is better for D&D. It wasn't even tangentially about setting consistency.

This tangent was originally about why there are more 5e adventures for the planes taken from 4e (Shadowfell, Feywild, Astral Sea) than there are for the Great Wheel's planes (Avernus). And it's because the planes from 4e are better designed as adventuring locations, and thus better for D&D.

I don't care if you like the Great Wheel, liking a cosmology doesn't make it well designed for the game.
They were both bad. 4e shouldn't have replaced it, and neither should 5e. Reverse them both, and you're back the Great Wheel.

I forgot about Eberron, but its always been an exception to these things.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
There was also quite a bit of metaplot, but I know you don't like that either.
Because metaplot has proven that it's definitely bad for TTRPG settings and probably bad for other media.

And metaplot isn't setting. It's sometimes adventures that take place there, but it isn't the setting itself. Metaplot ruins settings. That's not the same thing as being a setting.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top