Video: D&D, Myths, and the "Why" rather than the "How"

[Unoriginal]

https://youtu.be/yCqW_MI-Exk

A very interesting vid talking about the approach 5e has taken on the lore, how it's different from the previous editions, and the story possibilities it opens.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A very interesting vid talking about the approach 5e has taken on the lore, how it's different from the previous editions, and the story possibilities it opens.

I like the ideas, of asking "why" not "how" (although I'm fond of the blended version--"they're like this. What has to have been true to make them this way and what does that imply about them biologically/physically/spiritually/socially."). I also like the move away from the "Dwarves have these traits because they're Good" to the "Dwarves have these traits because of their past, and therefore they're generally good, because those traits fit that descriptor." Much less tight a straitjacket.

I'm not too fond of the "the whole multiverse (all conforming D&D settings) share this past" part. Mainly because my setting diverges heavily from the default setting when it comes to the races. So most of that is wasted for me. I'll mine it for ideas, but it won't look anything like that when it shows up in my games.

[Regitnui]

I'm not too fond of the "the whole multiverse (all conforming D&D settings) share this past" part. Mainly because my setting diverges heavily from the default setting when it comes to the races. So most of that is wasted for me. I'll mine it for ideas, but it won't look anything like that when it shows up in my games.

Especially since a number of their own published settings diverge radically from each other's assumptions. It's all good and well saying FR's dragons are headstrong, imperious and superior, and building an entire mythology to explain why, when Dragonlance's dragons happily let the "lesser races" ride around on their backs waving sticks. What holds true for one setting doesn't hold any water for another, so it makes me think which setting they're building this mythology off, and what this means for any other setting. Is Planescape now going to populate every world with FR-derived cultures? Do the scro of Spelljammer have some sort of attachment to the orcs of Eberron?

I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I'm just cautious that this grand vision of a wide-spectrum mythology might be missing the point of having multiple campaign settings in the first place, as well as that persistent advice of the DM having total control of the world's "options". I mean, a homebrew setting where dwarves are living stone and grow mossy beards would find a mythology based on FR/Greyhawk assumptions only mildly useful at best.

[Millstone85]

I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I'm just cautious that this grand vision of a wide-spectrum mythology might be missing the point of having multiple campaign settings in the first place, as well as that persistent advice of the DM having total control of the world's "options". I mean, a homebrew setting where dwarves are living stone and grow mossy beards would find a mythology based on FR/Greyhawk assumptions only mildly useful at best.But then, would that homebrew setting have use for any published mythology?

[PhantomSoul]

But then, would that homebrew setting have use for any published mythology?

I could see the main use as being (a) what the divergent history/mythology would change about the creature, and/or (b) what the different idea of the creature would change for the history/mythology.

[Heads up: making things up because I want to get this post in before rushing out!]

For example, if you know that Duergar are distrusting as a result of historical enslavement, then making it so they were victorious over their would-be enslavers or making it so they were never enslaved in another way tells you you might want to revisit the distrusting trait. Alternatively, maybe they had just barely succeeded in defeating their would-be enslavers and then were overwhelmed by another race -- now you can decide how that different scenario affected them.

Going the other way, you've decided that Dwarves dislike stability and instead are adventure-hungry nomads. Having an existing history/mythology that you can use as a baseline or as a starting point lets you find spots in their history where you could tweak things to get the eventual cultural norm that you wanted.

I use a homebrewed setting for my campaign and it's useful to look at other mythology -- both the actual D&D mythology and mythology from the real world. Its gets the juices flowing, but also gives you the opportunity to either subvert expectations or to make reference to existing lore (wherever it be from).

[Unoriginal]

You need to establish a standard version before you can have versions diverging from/contradicting/subverting it.

Regardless, the point is not to tell you *how* your setting should be, but make you think *why* it is that way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I could see the main use as being (a) what the divergent history/mythology would change about the creature, and/or (b) what the different idea of the creature would change for the history/mythology.

[Heads up: making things up because I want to get this post in before rushing out!]

For example, if you know that Duergar are distrusting as a result of historical enslavement, then making it so they were victorious over their would-be enslavers or making it so they were never enslaved in another way tells you you might want to revisit the distrusting trait. Alternatively, maybe they had just barely succeeded in defeating their would-be enslavers and then were overwhelmed by another race -- now you can decide how that different scenario affected them.

Going the other way, you've decided that Dwarves dislike stability and instead are adventure-hungry nomads. Having an existing history/mythology that you can use as a baseline or as a starting point lets you find spots in their history where you could tweak things to get the eventual cultural norm that you wanted.

I use a homebrewed setting for my campaign and it's useful to look at other mythology -- both the actual D&D mythology and mythology from the real world. Its gets the juices flowing, but also gives you the opportunity to either subvert expectations or to make reference to existing lore (wherever it be from).


You need to establish a standard version before you can have versions diverging from/contradicting/subverting it.

Regardless, the point is not to tell you *how* your setting should be, but make you think *why* it is that way.

I agree with both of these--having the reasoning behind why things are the way they are in the default setting is more important than having the details on what things are. Even if I don't use it, it will still serve as a good touchpoint for custom worldbuilding (assuming it's done well).

It totally won't satisfy the "must have everything nailed down and specified in advance" crowd, but little would.

[Unoriginal]

It totally won't satisfy the "must have everything nailed down and specified in advance" crowd, but little would.

5e's basic principles are antithetic to this crowd.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e's basic principles are antithetic to this crowd.

Very much so. And I find that (the change in basic philosophy) a feature not a bug.

[Unoriginal]

Very much so. And I find that (the change in basic philosophy) a feature not a bug.

Indeed. The designers are outspoken about how it's a feature.