WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

Status
Not open for further replies.

glass

(he, him)
Which I didn't start. I don't think the dichotomy exists. I was just debunking @Micah Sweet's post while engaging in the assumptions of their post. If you want to be mad at someone for acting like that dichotomy exists, be mad at Micah.
Ironically, "the dichotomy exists/does not exist" is also a dichotomy that you are imposing. In a lot of cases, there will be no dichotomy, but playability was given as a reason for some changes in this very thread and in those cases preferences differ. @Micah Sweet did not say that the dichotomy exists in any and all possible cases, they just said that where it exists they prioritise consistency.

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can be unplayable (in the "shouldn't be played" sense, not in the "bad rules" sense) if the original contains outdated or bigoted tropes.
I would consider avoiding harm to marginalised groups to be a whole separate (and much more important) category than playability.

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.
Nerath was its own world with the World Axis cosmology. Eberron, as has been noted, mostly retained its own cosmology (although it did sorts its previously-undifferentiated planes into a World-Axis-like shape, and added Baator for some random reason). I did not have the 4e Dark Sun books so I do not know how they treated the cosmology, but since Athas is cut off from the rest of the planes (assuming it still is) it doesn't matter that much what planes it is cut off from.

So unless there are some other 4e setting I am forgetting, it mostly just impacted the Forgotten Realms. And the the way that Toril has pinballed around between cosmologies in recent editions used to irritate me, but then I found a way to turn that irritant into a pearl.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Ironically, "the dichotomy exists/does not exist" is also a dichotomy that you are imposing. In a lot of cases, there will be no dichotomy, but playability was given as a reason for some changes in this very thread and in those cases preferences differ.
No, it wasn't. You're seriously misunderstanding the origin of this infuriating tangent.

It started with me saying "The World Axis is better designed for D&D than the Great Wheel because its planes were designed as adventuring locations". That is absolutely not putting "setting consistency/fidelity" in conflict with playability. However, @Micah Sweet responded to that by introducing those terms to the discussion and setting up the false dichotomy that they're in conflict.

If you're upset that someone said that they were in conflict, I'm not the person to take it out on. I didn't say that they were.
@Micah Sweet did not say that the dichotomy exists in any and all possible cases, they just said that where it exists they prioritise consistency.
Which is saying that the dichotomy exists. That he thinks that they come into conflict. Which is not at all what my original post said or was about.
 





glass

(he, him)
No, it wasn't. You're seriously misunderstanding the origin of this infuriating tangent.
I am really not.

It started with me saying "The World Axis is better designed for D&D than the Great Wheel because its planes were designed as adventuring locations". That is absolutely not putting "setting consistency/fidelity" in conflict with playability.
Unless you are saying that "designed as adventuring locations" has nothing to do with playability (in which case, what benefit does it bring exactly?), then it absolutely is "putting setting consistency/fidelity in conflict with playability", which is why @Micah Sweet responded in the way they did.

Which is saying that the dichotomy exists. That he thinks that they come into conflict. Which is not at all what my original post said or was about.
Let's say for the sake of argument that your original post did not put them into conflict. Are you really trying to claim that they can never, in any conceivable circumstance, be in conflict?
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Unless you are saying that "designed as adventuring locations" has nothing to do with playability (in which case, what benefit does it bring exactly?), then it absolutely is "putting setting consistency/fidelity in conflict with playability", which is why @Micah Sweet responded in the way they did.
How good it is at housing adventures is about playability, I agree. But "setting consistency" had nothing to do with my post. I did not mention it. I just said that something was better at supporting adventures, which is important to D&D. Nothing more.
Let's say for the sake of argument that your original post did not put them into conflict. Are you really trying to claim that they can never, in any conceivable circumstance, be in conflict?
I think that if they are, it's uncommon enough that it's negligible. And, as I said earlier, if they were in conflict, playability is objectively more important to a game than setting consistency is and needs to be prioritized over it. Playability is necessary to, you know, play the game. Setting consistency isn't.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I love that one can pick a place and TIME in a setting's history to play.
Time travelling without actually time travelling.
I wasn't even thinking of time-travelling, but that's also true.

I was thinking more of things like this, from the last several centuries of my own setting and not initially player-side (most of it is now), very condensed:

There are 5 Undead Lords. Each has in the pre-campaign past had interactions with at least one other.

Saith - mentor to Xangteng, Vaklari, and Kallios, Kallios once tried to destroy him and failed (got two adventures from that one)
Xangteng - mentored by Saith, fought Nakki once, pretended to lose, went into hiding (one adventure there)
Vaklari - mentored by Saith, enemy of Kallios, long-time ruler of enemy realm (one adventure there)
Kallios - mentored by Saith, mentor to many PCs (!), enemy of Vaklari and Nakki (he represents two adventures and countless PC interactions)
Nakki - upstart, tried to kill or curse Kallios numerous times and Xangteng once, has many "fake" versions of himself (several adventures from him, and more to come)

All are liches except Kallios, who is a vampire; and Nakki's fakes, which are much weaker unique undead suitable for low-level characters. Saith and Vaklari have both been destroyed by PCs during the campaign, the other three are still going and thus remain available to mine for adventure ideas. (two different groups of PCs think they've killed Nakki but in each case it was one of his fakes; a third group met the real one but left him be once they realized how outgunned they were)

Throw in several more bits of history like this and the adventure mine just never ends. :) And I've had two time-travel adventures as well, one intentionally mined from the setting's history and one by sheer random accident.
 

glass

(he, him)
How good it is at housing adventures is about playability, I agree. But "setting consistency" had nothing to do with my post. I did not mention it. I just said that something was better at supporting adventures, which is important to D&D. Nothing more.
You were talking about the introduction of a whole new cosmology significantly different from the previous cosmology (or cosmologies in FR's case). Whether you care or not, that is a significant setting inconsistency.

And that is the whole point, you decided that your post that was literally about a vast setting change had nothing to with setting consistency, because it is not a thing you care about. And that is fine for you, but neither @Micah Sweet nor I are required to care about the same things that you care about (and vice versa).

(Except for not harming actual real people - we should, and hopefully do, all care about that.)
 

I wasn't even thinking of time-travelling, but that's also true.
(snip)
And I've had two time-travel adventures as well, one intentionally mined from the setting's history and one by sheer random accident.
I have not done time-travelling per say but I did run an adventure set in a particular period of a nation heading towards independence (Mystara - Soderfjord's gaining independence from Ostland). The PC were a set of teenage characters that by chance found themselves thrust in the midst of much political turmoil where differing factions were at play. They got their hands on a very important underground manuscript with important persons signatures attached which they brought to The Thing (annual Viking meet). They were integral in setting in motion the talks that led to the nations eventual independence.

EDIT: This is like 50 or so years before the start of the actual Gazetteer timeline.
 
Last edited:

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
You were talking about the introduction of a whole new cosmology significantly different from the previous cosmology (or cosmologies in FR's case). Whether you care or not, that is a significant setting inconsistency.
No, I wasn't. I was replying to another poster that mentioned how 4e's planes of existence (Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Sea) had more adventures and detail in 5e than the Outer Planes do (just Avernus is detailed).
And that is the whole point, you decided that your post that was literally about a vast setting change had nothing to with setting consistency, because it is not a thing you care about. And that is fine for you, but neither @Micah Sweet nor I are required to care about the same things that you care about (and vice versa).
It was about how 5e adventures more commonly use planes of existence from 4e to house their "extraplanar adventures" than the Great Wheel Planes. And I tried to add to another person's post by giving an explanation for that: the fact that World Axis's planes (including planes it borrowed and changed from previous editions' cosmology) are used more often in official D&D 5e adventures than the Great Wheel planes are.
(Except for not harming actual real people - we should, and hopefully do, all care about that.)
Of course.
 

glass

(he, him)
No, I wasn't. I was replying to another poster that mentioned how 4e's planes of existence (Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Sea) had more adventures and detail in 5e than the Outer Planes do (just Avernus is detailed).
1. You were talking about the World Axis.
2. The World Axis replaced the Great Wheel* as the cosmology of the 4e version of the Realms (and the default setting, but that was new).
3. This was a significant change to the Realms' cosmology.
4. Therefore, 4e Realms cosmology was inconsistent with the previous editions' cosmology.
5. Therefore, by talking about the World Axis (regardless of why you were talking about it or who you were responding to), you were talking about a setting inconsistency. QED.

(* Technically, the World Axis replaced the World Tree which replaced the Great Wheel, but that does not matter for our current purposes.)
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
1. You were talking about the World Axis.
2. The World Axis replaced the Great Wheel* as the cosmology of the 4e version of the Realms (and the default setting, but that was new).
3. This was a significant change to the Realms' cosmology.
4. Therefore, 4e Realms cosmology was inconsistent with the previous editions' cosmology.
5. Therefore, by talking about the World Axis (regardless of why you were talking about it or who you were responding to), you were talking about a setting inconsistency. QED.

(* Technically, the World Axis replaced the World Tree which replaced the Great Wheel, but that does not matter for our current purposes.)
That is utterly unhelpful to discussions. If every time someone mentions the World Axis cosmology it starts a stupid tangent about setting consistency versus playability, the person in the wrong for that dumb tangent isn't the person that mentioned the cosmology, it's the person that felt the need to chime in and start a debate about how much they hate that the Great Wheel was replaced over a decade ago in the previous edition.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane and would prevent any discussions of the cosmology or its virtues. I do not accept that it's somehow my fault that someone else said that settings consistency and playability are in conflict with one another just because I mentioned a cosmology that they don't like.
 

glass

(he, him)
If every time someone mentions the World Axis cosmology it starts a stupid tangent about setting consistency versus playability, the person in the wrong for that dumb tangent isn't the person that mentioned the cosmology, it's the person that felt the need to chime in and start a debate about how much they hate that the Great Wheel was replaced over a decade ago in the previous edition.
The post you seem to be referring to is this one:
I know this sounds insane to many of you, but I value setting consistency over raw playability.
But that was not in response to you, and in any case the thread had been talking about what should or should not be done when updating classic settings for a while at that point. In any case, it was nothing to do with your talking about the World Axis; AFAICT you first post in this thread mentioning it was yesterday, but search seems to be a bit screwy so I might be missing something. So you might want to check your history.

In any case, this "dumb tangent" is not about the World Axis. It is about whether it is OK for you to call Micah Sweet's preferences and mine "stupid" and "detrimental", and now "insane". Stop doing that and there is no tangent.
 


Micah Sweet

Legend
That is utterly unhelpful to discussions. If every time someone mentions the World Axis cosmology it starts a stupid tangent about setting consistency versus playability, the person in the wrong for that dumb tangent isn't the person that mentioned the cosmology, it's the person that felt the need to chime in and start a debate about how much they hate that the Great Wheel was replaced over a decade ago in the previous edition.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane and would prevent any discussions of the cosmology or its virtues. I do not accept that it's somehow my fault that someone else said that settings consistency and playability are in conflict with one another just because I mentioned a cosmology that they don't like.
I like it fine for Nerath.
 

One of my partner's favorite gifts I got her was a four disc album full of Bob Dylan covers. For her it was the best of both worlds; songs written by Bob Dylan and sung by literally anybody except Bob Dylan.

I've been thinking about that a lot in relation to Monte Cook...
I will never get over the juxtaposition of:

1) Numenera's overall vibe, concepts and ideas, which were astonishing, cool, wild, modern and just really rocking.

2) Numenera's default setting, which was basically just bog-standard "medieval fantasy" (in the same sense D&D is) with a few bits of super-tech or high-tech laying about. Nothing amazing, nothing cool, just really weak.

It was like two entirely different people wrote them, but the reality is, both those people were Monte Cook. Ah the Duality of Monte.
 

Voadam

Legend
Also, real people get raped and abused. Real people don't get attacked by evil fae or eaten by ghouls. Most people don't get involved in actual demon-cults. There are plenty of ways to do horror without resorting to things that hurt people in real life.
I don't think that is the line you want to draw here. Real people can be attacked by real people. Real people can be eaten. Having a villain attack a PC is generally OK. Having a great white shark threaten to eat a PC is generally OK. Having someone be abused by an evil fae or an undead would not make it OK.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top