WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[darjr]

@Remathilis @Whizbang Dustyboots @Azzy
I'm not going to respond to each of your posts, instead I'm going to show you how I would have done it if I were at WotC and I have posted this elsewhere so you may have already read it.

The way I see it with 5e, since they want to go the route of the original world being shattered and aspects appeared of the dragon goddess within the multiverse, is that...

There indeed was 1 Chromatic Dragon Goddess (name perhaps lost in time). Her universe shattered and aspects of her splintered into the multiverse. The Forgotten Realm's aspect took on the name Tiamat. The DL aspect took on the name Takhisis. They evolved within their respective universes. Although their heritage is the same, they are indeed different beings. They both have some common traits but they are for all intents and purposes different creatures.

Think Michael Keaton from Multiplicity. The original Michael Keaton is destroyed, only the copies now remain but they are indeed different beings. WotC definitely dropped the ball on this IMO. WotC going Tiamat = Takhisis is about as creative (and respectful) as David Benioff's and D.B. Weiss's storyline for Dorne, which is to say not at all.

EDIT: Like it or not many if not most of the DL fans came to the setting via the novels. When I'm talking about creators of the setting - for me it would be the authors. I read way more novels than I did DL gaming product. We can agree to disagree if it was lazy or whatever. But every edition adds new lore or amends old lore. They could have fixed the 2e Tiamat = Takhisis. They decided not to and I'm calling that lazy.

If you think this wouldn’t generate outrage from the those fans I think you’d be mistaken.

 

[AnotherGuy]

If you think this wouldn’t generate outrage from the those fans I think you’d be mistaken.

Maybe. Probably.
But my version
does incorporate their 5e old universe shattering lore and utlises the multiple versions/aspects of the original idea (+1),
separates the two entities, which is particularly important for hardcore DL fans or DL novel fans, incl the authors (+1),
doesn't force spelljammer/planescape down everyone's throats (+1), and
expands/redefines the 2e law of Takhisis = Tiamat, without breaking it (+1).

As opposed to
Sticking to 2e lore (+1)

Everyone can decide for themselves which is better overall.

 

[Jahydin]

... Why are you posting one of the big hubs of Comicsgate as a source? It's basically comic book Breitbart. Edit: Eh, shouldn't make immediate assumptions. That's on me.

Oh, I don't recall them being wrong before. I'll try and use Wizard's own words next time.

From Perkins' blog post:

Previously, inclusion reviews were done at the discretion of the Product Lead, who identified which pieces of a product needed an outside inclusion review. The studio’s new process mandates that every word, illustration, and map must be reviewed by multiple outside cultural consultants prior to publication.

Sounds like an awful amount of time, money, and energy to be spending...

For me, offensiveness is an unfortunate side-affect of interesting, so more than a little weary of these policies.

For instance, Paizo just released a book about an entire nation that uses Undead for slave labor and raises humans like cattle for food. Just one example of a really cool concept that would no longer be allowed in D&D.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Like it or not many if not most of the DL fans came to the setting via the novels. When I'm talking about creators of the setting - for me it would be the authors.

There are about 190 Dragonlance novels and short story collections according to Wikipedia.

Weis and/or Hickman have written, generously (since they're credited for annotated and collected editions as well as the originals), 62 of them.

Are they important to Dragonlance? Sure.

But in no sense, legally or even creatively, is it their setting. Frankly, it's pretty crappy of them to present themselves that way, given how many other people have worked on the franchise over the decades.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For instance, Paizo just released a book about an entire nation that uses Undead for slave labor and raises humans like cattle for food. Just one example of a really cool concept that would no longer be allowed in D&D.

Because all of the real-life undead people would object?

 

[glass]

Alleged lore purists going "whoa, what is this Tiamat heresy that, lo, WotC hath foisted upon us" requires ignoring that it's been that way since the beginning.

They have said that they are the same, and then considered it no problem for one of them to be killed off while the other is fine. Which to my way of thinking makes them very much not the same to my way of thinking, whatever they say on the matter.

There indeed was 1 Chromatic Dragon Goddess (name perhaps lost in time). Her universe shattered and aspects of her splintered into the multiverse. The Forgotten Realm's aspect took on the name Tiamat. The DL aspect took on the name Takhisis. They evolved within their respective universes. Although their heritage is the same, they are indeed different beings. They both have some common traits but they are for all intents and purposes different creatures.

I kinda assumed handling issues just like this one was the whole point of the whole First World business, so their apparently not using it here is pretty astonishing. Seems like an obvious use-case to me!

 

[Jahydin]

Because all of the real-life undead people would object?

Equating fictional races to real-life ones is the latest fad if you haven't noticed...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Equating fictional races to real-life ones is the latest fad if you haven't noticed...

Mod Note:

Several threads on this site have connected the dots on that- sometimes, quite explicitly- if you haven’t noticed.

I’m giving you time off from THIS thread to seek that information in others.

 

[Staffan]

They wrote for 1E. The PHB ends with the chart of the Great Wheel. This is not something that's "forced" onto AD&D settings -- it's the default standard.

TSR didn't sneak up behind them and toss the multiverse over their heads like a hood: It was there all along.

Then you're just building a half dozen different RPGs that have the same general resolution mechanics. And that's fine if you want D&D to be the functional equivalent to GURPs or Genesys.

I strongly disagree. Cosmology is a setting-level decision, not a game-level decision. D&D has always been a game that encompasses a multitude of settings, and arguing that cosmology is an inherent part of the game and not of any given setting is disingenuous.

Eberron has its own "orrery" cosmology. If you're making a setting that centers a Norse-like culture, it makes sense to have a cosmology based on the Nine Worlds and the World Tree. Primeval Thule doesn't have other planes – summoned creatures and the like come from other planets instead. 4e/Nenthir Vale had its own take on cosmology with a far more chaotic bent, with various domains spread out across the Astral Sea without any particular order to them.

There's also the issue that the Great Wheel cosmology is bad, and the less use it gets the better. Sigil is cool, but the rest of it is just box-checking (except for the part that's ripped off from Dante's self-insert fanfic).

 

[AnotherGuy]

I kinda assumed handling issues just like this one was the whole point of the whole First World business, so their apparently not using it here is pretty astonishing. Seems like an obvious use-case to me!

Exactly!
Sorry I'm just re-emphasising your comment, so people can see just how lazy they were that they couldn't even be bothered in utilising their own new lore on the matter.