| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
657 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Apr 2009 : 21:32:56
|
it's called big, great axis or something
I find the new planar structure too dualistic and simple, many concepts from the old editions are superior to this
quote:
Originally posted by malchor7
- What changes would you make to the cosmology, and why?
When I created the cosmology for my home setting (not entirely but with the crucial parts), I read all D&D sources with the planes and included only things that were intriguing, and some that would be when properly changed. Similarly with the FR and other worlds, stealing their best ideas. It's not just a cosmic dumping ground of everything published (like Quale's), but more interrelated.
I wanted it to have a deep occult backround, it had to make sense numerologically and astrologically, I used psychological archetypes to make some races and cultures more unique. The setting is European-based and I had proto-indoeuropean as a linguistic base, that was the mythical planewalking race. Indoeuropean myths share many similarities, and that combined mythology reflects the planar structure. Never liked that every race of the every continent on every planet has a pantheon. I liked FR's divine meddling, Eberron's agnosticism and unique faiths, and even Birthright's bloodlines, all that had to be combined without contradictions. You need to have some basic principles, the Planescape's three rules are excellent and don't need replacement. History and the early development of the planes was an important part. I preferred less fantastic model of the universe, more like ours, without the crystal spheres. Symbolism was important, particularly shamanistic from where the most of the mythology comes. All kinds of new-agey pseudoscience and alternative science can be a great source of inspiration, there are many ideas there. Also the comics universes were useful. |
. |
 |
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 05 Apr 2009 : 16:18:21
|
quote:
It's not just a cosmic dumping ground of everything published (like Quale's), but more interrelated.
why do you have all those books, and use nothing, shut up |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 05 Apr 2009 : 17:49:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I was just doing a little research, trying to find out more about 4e's cosmology, and I stumbled across this preview of the 4e Cosmology.
Thought some of you might find it interesting; it even includes an illustration.
So if 1e/2e was the Great Wheel, and 3e was the Great Tree, what do they call that? The Big Mess? 
It is the world Axis. I did not find it any more or less convoluted than past editions. I think it just comes down to preference.
Here is an excerpt from the Manual of the planes source book p.12.
Although various campaign settings may have their own arrangement of planes, the default planar structure of the D&D game is the World Axis cosmology.The World Axis cosmology is so named because the mortal world and its parallel planes form an axis or pivot point linking the two great infinite planes—the Astral Sea and the Elemental Chaos. The world is therefore the fulcrum where elemental forces and divine forces meet. This model provides a mix of benign, strange, wondrous, and sinister planes you can use in your game without the necessity of designing your own unique cosmology. |
Edited by - scererar on 05 Apr 2009 18:08:06 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 05 Apr 2009 : 18:38:11
|
And exactly what purpose does it serve?
I could take ALL of the 4e lore (for better or worse, there's really NOT a lot of it) and shoe-horn it into the Great Wheel. Even the Tree fit into the Wheel (as a local representative visual model of the universe). It was changed simply because they had the power to do so.
That 'Cosmology' isn't a Cosmology at all - it is just a bunch of planes connected by squiggly lines! It looks like a Beholder!!!
Gary Gygax's Great Wheel was incredibly well-thought out, and next-gen designers all built upon it a great deal in 2e, and it became something wondeful and incredibly cohesive.
Then we got Eberron and it's "unique Cosmology", and suddenly the entire multiverse was shattered and went BACk to being a bunch of un-related and completely seperated universes. Because Eberron didn't fit the model, everything everywhere got changed (Toril, Oerth, Krynn, etc...)
Its a load of garbage. Every world can now be created in a vacuum so that the designers don't have to bother to do any research - thats the bottom line, and the new 'Cosmology' is NOT a Cosmology AT ALL. There is no design behind that - a six-year-old could have done better!
To be honest, my own cosmology is a modified version of the Great Wheel (I only wanted one plane for each alignment), but I still built upon Gary's model because it was so excellent. I also use a LOT of the same concepts that they have in 4e (Primordials, and my own Shadoworld was much like the Shadowfel, just as my Faerie was like the Feywild). I take whatever good I find in each edition and modify my world model - I think both Quale and Maraluthu do the same. You take what you like, and ignore the rest. The wondeful thing about Planescape is that it had SO MUCH LORE that we can ignore half of it and still have a great Cosmology! You simply cannot do that with this bare-bones design philosiphy.
Everything that ever existed in D&D I have somewhere in my multiverse, but I don't need to use it unless I want to. Ergo, it's not neccessarily a 'dumping ground', since I've only taken the main elements I wanted everything else to revolve around and focused on those. You can have everything (in the background) and still build a concise, custom model... I know I have.
My own cosmology had to fit a TALL order - I wanted it to not just work with all of D&D's cosmologies and pantheons, but also with all the RW ones as well. Planescape did a lot of that for me, so a good chunck of my work was done. I just had to make my 'Creation Story' fit not only every known Creation Myth, but also the Judaeo-Christian model as well.
You try fitting Cthulhu into THAT. 
And my Cosmology is also ever-evolving... I've had to re-think a lot of my Fey lore because of 4e, which is not only effected by the Feywild, but the changes to the Elves as well. The other thing I insist on is both backwards and forwards compatibilty, which means anything that worked in one edition I need to explain in another (I'm anal like that).
When it comes to YOUR games at YOUR table, it is possible to have your cake and eat it too - in the past we were given enough lore to be able to customize our worlds around what we wanted to use. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, and most folks now have to go through earlier editions to get any sort of basics to build-upon. The new cosmogy simply doesn't have enough 'meat' to allow one to 'pick & choose'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 05 Apr 2009 18:40:21 |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 05 Apr 2009 : 23:18:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And exactly what purpose does it serve?
I could take ALL of the 4e lore (for better or worse, there's really NOT a lot of it) and shoe-horn it into the Great Wheel.
Exactly! and starting on page 13 of the manual of the planes, it gives good examples of doing exactly that.
Anyway, I don't want to argue perspectives we all have our reasons for liking and disliking things,and the fact is.. the cosmology issue/ debate about which version is better, has been in existence since the creation of the tree theory, if not before.
For my games a wheel, tree, or axis method for describing the cosmos does not impact things much  |
Edited by - scererar on 06 Apr 2009 03:29:21 |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
657 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2009 : 18:10:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
quote:
It's not just a cosmic dumping ground of everything published (like Quale's), but more interrelated.
why do you have all those books, and use nothing, shut up
that's for your own good, PC's knowledge isn't player's knowledge, but when the players know too much about the campaign world it can become boring, it's all there masked
agreed with MT about ''the meat'' |
. |
|
|
|
kysus
Learned Scribe
USA
106 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2009 : 07:38:39
|
| just looking at the link markustay made and to answer his question i think i would call that "SOUP", maybe some crackers too. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Crash Course in D&D Cosmology
