This is the only thing on your list I disagreed with. The Great Wheel is no better or worse than the new planar setup. By that I mean, lots of people like both. Either one could be core with the other as a module and the game would work just as well. The Great Wheel originally was alignment based, but doesn't have to be in order to work. I used it for the entirety of 3e without it being alignment based, since I didn't use alignment.
@Maxperson: I agree that the Great Wheel is no better or worse than the new 4e cosmology. None of what you've said says to me "this should be a -CORE- mechanic of D&D 5e", though. Cosmology as a whole isn't something that fits as a -CORE- element, because it is fluff.
Much like alignment, it is fine on its own. It's fine if they include the fluff for it, but mechanically it should be optional. Actually, I suppose it should be even more optional, since each and every world has its own cosmology.
The things that are essential to D&D should make up the core of the system, something that is equal among all different campaigns. The next thing would be (flavorful?) things that are absolutely key to being included as options (like the Great Wheel, with its different exotic locales, Sigil and its Lady of Pain).
I just dont think that any of them should be the base assumption. I'd say it's better if you present it like.. "This is what a cosmology is, what it represents within the game, and here are some options from which to choose from or examples from which to create your own".
If they're only providing one option, they're not doing it right (based on their goals).
Undoubtedly it's become it's own thing, but you can clearly see it started out of as emulating certain books which existed when it came out and that's what it allowed it o draw in a crowd and take off, now I'm sure there's still young people today who are interested in learning DnD with just it's lore as a selling point but those are a drop in the ocean compared to the numbers we could get if DnD can emulate today's hot fantasy.
And make no mistake in order for DnD to survive make future generations happy, as I'm sure you're eager to have DnD still around in the future for other generations to enjoy, it needs more than those drops, it needs rivers at the minimum.
Trust me I have had this conversation: -"Man,those fences in WoW are so unrealistic I understand the devs don't want us into those areas but man that fence is so low even I could climb it never mind my NE hunter!" -"What if I told you I know a game" I begin to describe how no DM could say he can't make a athletics check to jump that fence. -"And why would I want to waste my time hearing some guy describe how I jump a fence?" -"No man, he's describing how you Fanor NightShield NE ranger jumped a fence climbed a hill so you were just behind the Orc Chief and din't need to cleave your way thorugh the tribe just to get a good angle for the shot" -"I'm in!"
And make no mistake in order for DnD to survive make future generations happy, as I'm sure you're eager to have DnD still around in the future for other generations to enjoy, it needs more than those drops, it needs rivers at the minimum.
And todays fantasy includes a lot of broad influences, few of which have I hit it with my sword bland martial archetypes.
@Maxperson: I agree that the Great Wheel is no better or worse than the new 4e cosmology. None of what you've said says to me "this should be a -CORE- mechanic of D&D 5e", though. Cosmology as a whole isn't something that fits as a -CORE- element, because it is fluff.
I agree that what I said doesn't mean that the Great Wheel should be part of the core of 5e, but disagree that a Cosmology isn't a core element. Unless they are not going to have any extraplanar creatures in the core, they need to have a Cosmology of some sort in the core to explain where those creatures come from.
Much like alignment, it is fine on its own. It's fine if they include the fluff for it, but mechanically it should be optional.
Okay. I see where you are coming from now. I have just never viewed the Cosmology of any edition as anything other than fluff. Other than alignment and mechanical effects of individual planes, I don't see how it could be. I do think that if they have a plane of fire, that there should be mechanics in place to represent the danger and effects of that fire, and so on for any other planes that have specific dangers that need mechanics to represent them. Alignment mechanics should be optional.
I guess my question to you is, are you against any part of the Cosmology having hazards that need mechanics to represent them?
I think that wanting to emulate a particular work of fantasy is a fine desire. Personally, I find that artworks like movies and literature perform admirably as set dressing for my games. Ultimately, I don't want them fiddling with the mechanics of the game, because I like the mechanics of my game, and I know from experience that I'm far better off adjusting the literature to the mechanics, than the mechanics to the literature.
I agree that what I said doesn't mean that the Great Wheel should be part of the core of 5e, but disagree that a Cosmology isn't a core element. Unless they are not going to have any extraplanar creatures in the core, they need to have a Cosmology of some sort in the core to explain where those creatures come from.
Actually, they don't have to have a cosmology, nor even an explanation of where those creatures come from. In fact, being evocative, rather than defined, would be, in my opinion, a better strategy. When the first Monster Manual came out, before the so-called Great Wheel was anything much in most gamers minds, we could still hear of Devils being from Hell or Demons from the Abyss. We knew that Bahamut lived in a castle behind the West Wind (or maybe it was the East Wind), with it left unclear just where that was. We knew that the Efreet lived in the fabled City of Brass, etc. However, none of this had to be defined. Indeed, the game was better off leaving this undefined and letting individual tables work out just how this all fit together.
On the other hand, there can be clear mechanical effects, such as say being ethereal or the risks of astral projection (i.e. the astral wind that threatened to sever the silver cord), but these could be adaptable to almost any cosmology. One need not, e.g. have an "etheral plane" to admit the various effects of "being ethereal" or and "astral plane" as such to account for "astral projection". One can allow for summoning elemental spirits or demons without positing some extra-planar mechanics, so long as it is agreed that, e.g. a Dispel Evil spell would send them back to wherever they came from, even if your campaign's Hell is deep in the center of the earth, rather than on a different plane.
I agree that what I said doesn't mean that the Great Wheel should be part of the core of 5e, but disagree that a Cosmology isn't a core element. Unless they are not going to have any extraplanar creatures in the core, they need to have a Cosmology of some sort in the core to explain where those creatures come from.
The trouble is that where that extraplanar creature comes from, depends entirely on the cosmology of any given campaign setting. One setting could have an elemental chaos, or a specific fire plane, with another having them coming from the core of the earth, or on an elemental moon of vulcanoes and wildfires. You don't need to specify a cosmology to describe a specific origin of any given being (with the fire elemental coming from a place of fire, heat, magma, and the like).
Okay. I see where you are coming from now. I have just never viewed the Cosmology of any edition as anything other than fluff. Other than alignment and mechanical effects of individual planes, I don't see how it could be. I do think that if they have a plane of fire, that there should be mechanics in place to represent the danger and effects of that fire, and so on for any other planes that have specific dangers that need mechanics to represent them. Alignment mechanics should be optional.
I guess my question to you is, are you against any part of the Cosmology having hazards that need mechanics to represent them?
Actually, I think I worded it wrong, going off of the alignment analogy (confused myself without noticing, most likely!). Like you mention here, it's not the mechanics of specific effect that should be optional. It's the form these specific effects take that should be optional (i.e. the cosmology). As such, I agree with you on the second part.
I suppose I would say then that cosmology is fluff, and therefore not needed in the core mechanic of 5e, since fluff can (often?) come in many different forms, and thus can be interchangeable with other fitting fluff, at least in the case of cosmologies. Should the specifics that are often found within these cosmologies then be represented as ('core') environmental mechanics, tied to the options given for choosing/making a cosmology? Seems fine with me.
I like what Llenlleawg said about evocative specifics being given (that can be used anywhere), if only as inspiration. I would expand this to several options as well (i.e. Efreet in your cosmology could be living in the City of Brass, or a giant flaming hourglass city, or whatever, I dunno xD ).
¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬
In case it's not obvious by now, I want WotC to give us options, options, options
I've often noticed in these discussions about 5e, that people become stuck on which way is best.. They argue with other people that prefer another way of doing something (if it's a matter of something that ought to be a 'core' mechanic, I can understand), but they seem to forget that WotC should include *both* equally, with one or more other options on that issue to go along with it.
There are plenty of things in D&D's history that I do not look upon with fond eyes, but that doesn't mean I would be averse to seeing it appear in 5e, as long as there are several other options that are given equal weight.
Actually, they don't have to have a cosmology, nor even an explanation of where those creatures come from. In fact, being evocative, rather than defined, would be, in my opinion, a better strategy. When the first Monster Manual came out, before the so-called Great Wheel was anything much in most gamers minds, we could still hear of Devils being from Hell or Demons from the Abyss. We knew that Bahamut lived in a castle behind the West Wind (or maybe it was the East Wind), with it left unclear just where that was. We knew that the Efreet lived in the fabled City of Brass, etc. However, none of this had to be defined. Indeed, the game was better off leaving this undefined and letting individual tables work out just how this all fit together.
On the other hand, there can be clear mechanical effects, such as say being ethereal or the risks of astral projection (i.e. the astral wind that threatened to sever the silver cord), but these could be adaptable to almost any cosmology. One need not, e.g. have an "etheral plane" to admit the various effects of "being ethereal" or and "astral plane" as such to account for "astral projection". One can allow for summoning elemental spirits or demons without positing some extra-planar mechanics, so long as it is agreed that, e.g. a Dispel Evil spell would send them back to wherever they came from, even if your campaign's Hell is deep in the center of the earth, rather than on a different plane.
+1
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
I agree that what I said doesn't mean that the Great Wheel should be part of the core of 5e, but disagree that a Cosmology isn't a core element. Unless they are not going to have any extraplanar creatures in the core, they need to have a Cosmology of some sort in the core to explain where those creatures come from.
The trouble is that where that extraplanar creature comes from, depends entirely on the cosmology of any given campaign setting. One setting could have an elemental chaos, or a specific fire plane, with another having them coming from the core of the earth, or on an elemental moon of vulcanoes and wildfires. You don't need to specify a cosmology to describe a specific origin of any given being (with the fire elemental coming from a place of fire, heat, magma, and the like).
Okay. I see where you are coming from now. I have just never viewed the Cosmology of any edition as anything other than fluff. Other than alignment and mechanical effects of individual planes, I don't see how it could be. I do think that if they have a plane of fire, that there should be mechanics in place to represent the danger and effects of that fire, and so on for any other planes that have specific dangers that need mechanics to represent them. Alignment mechanics should be optional.
I guess my question to you is, are you against any part of the Cosmology having hazards that need mechanics to represent them?
Actually, I think I worded it wrong, going off of the alignment analogy (confused myself without noticing, most likely!). Like you mention here, it's not the mechanics of specific effect that should be optional. It's the form these specific effects take that should be optional (i.e. the cosmology). As such, I agree with you on the second part.
I suppose I would say then that cosmology is fluff, and therefore not needed in the core mechanic of 5e, since fluff can (often?) come in many different forms, and thus can be interchangeable with other fitting fluff, at least in the case of cosmologies. Should the specifics that are often found within these cosmologies then be represented as ('core') environmental mechanics, tied to the options given for choosing/making a cosmology? Seems fine with me.
I like what Llenlleawg said about evocative specifics being given (that can be used anywhere), if only as inspiration. I would expand this to several options as well (i.e. Efreet in your cosmology could be living in the City of Brass, or a giant flaming hourglass city, or whatever, I dunno xD ).
¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬
In case it's not obvious by now, I want WotC to give us options, options, options
I've often noticed in these discussions about 5e, that people become stuck on which way is best.. They argue with other people that prefer another way of doing something (if it's a matter of something that ought to be a 'core' mechanic, I can understand), but they seem to forget that WotC should include *both* equally, with one or more other options on that issue to go along with it.
There are plenty of things in D&D's history that I do not look upon with fond eyes, but that doesn't mean I would be averse to seeing it appear in 5e, as long as there are several other options that are given equal weight.
Fair enough. I will leave you with this thought, though. A lot of DMs don't have the time/desire/ability to design a world or even a Cosmology. When an edition is released, it typically doesn't have fluff worlds like FR and Dark Sun ready to release simultaneously. Some fluff, including a Cosmology is necessary for people to just pick up and go.
