D&D as "points of light"


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

I was reading this article about D&D by Rich Baker where he writes:

Rich Baker wrote:

The Dungeons & Dragons game assumes many things about its setting: The world is populated by a variety of intelligent races, strange monsters lurk on other planes, ancient empires have left ruins across the face of the world, and so on. But one of the new key conceits about the D&D world is simply this: Civilized folk live in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world.

Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between, and the world isn’t carved up between nation-states that jealously enforce their borders. A few difficult and dangerous roads tenuously link neighboring cities together, but if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands. Anything could be waiting down that old overgrown dwarf-built road: a den of ogre marauders, a forgotten tower where a lamia awaits careless travelers, a troll’s cave, a lonely human village under the sway of a demonic cult, or a black wood where shadows and ghosts thirst for the blood of the living.

Given the perilous nature of the world around the small islands of civilization, many adventures revolve around venturing into the wild lands.

I absolutely loved this bit cause it clearly described everything I like about Varisia and Pathfinder. D&D is more than just killing and looting the monsters: it's also the game where PCs brave the unknown wilderness and all of it's mysteries, dangers and rewards. :-)


I agree. By starting at the fringes, the world can "reverse engineer" to the bastions of civilization. I eagerly await the Gazetteer.....

Liberty's Edge

Hrm, I guess I'll have to go back and read the article. After beginning to read, I was disgusted at seeing yet another 4e article with no real 4e info. It seemed that this article could be written for any campaign. Which is fine, just don't link it to 4e when I'm going to the site every morning to see what new snip-bit was revealed (in which I've been sorely disappointed so far).

But to actually add to your post, I agree. I generally write up my adventures and my home brew campaigns with story in mind. Not villains, monsters, treasure, etc.; but how i can place something cool into this campaign thats really going to mean something to the players when its all said and done. Many of those ideas are adapting nicely to Golarion.


I think it's lame.

This "points of light" thing in a "big, dark world" means that free trade is practically cut off. Becoming a merchant sounds like it would be tantamount to suicide, being the most dangerous profession in the world. Thus in effect, there is no room for economy.

No great nations or sprawling empires? Bahhh....

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

This points of light concept is destroying the Forgotten Realms. :(

From what's been spoiled by the new Drizzt novel, the Realms are being shaken up as badly as they were when Nethril fell.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Kojiro wrote:
a "big, dark world" means that free trade is practically cut off. Becoming a merchant sounds like it would be tantamount to suicide, being the most dangerous profession in the world. Thus in effect, there is no room for economy.

Sounds like Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire to me.


That's why merchants would have to pool their resources to hire enough guards to make it to another city. That's what merchant caravans are for.


I liked the presentation as well. Plain and simple it stirred my imagination. I like it.


I like the premise of the 4e built-in campaign. Makes having adventurers around more plausible if civilization isn't really advanced. City-states rather than whole nations.

The only problem I would have is whatever effect it may have on existing campaign settings, but I can't imagine how something like that would be incorporated into the crunch rather than fluff aspect of the game.

And Varisia does have that kind of flavor, in a way; especially with the great pulp influence.


Of course the problem with this is that if you assume that this is like the Dark Ages, then there should be sub standard armor and weapons, few books, poor food, few mounted warriors and little education. Sounds like the perfect place for warriors wearing plate armor carrying great swords and learning complex fighting maneuvers, wizards learning arcane secrets from their spellbooks, and priests learning the secrets of the unseen universe to come from.

I mean, its not like its standard D&D to have good and neutral nations next to one another that can trade with one another. I mean, where is the fun in that? D&D society should be like D&D economics, there shouldn't be any real logic applied at all. Forget having to clear out orc bandits between one kingdom and the next, now you can't get from town to Old Man Johnson's farm without having an encounter with 30 goblins, 10 orcs, and 3 trolls swinging from trees, while dodging exploding cow patties. That screams D&D.

I love how they have taken to narrowly defining what is and isn't D&D for us now. It makes it a lot easier on the imagination. Encounters have to be with hordes of monsters at one time in environments that have lots of stuff to interact with, dungeons have to be explorable in less than a day's time, and traps should always be grandiose things that make the ones in the Indiana Jones movies look simple by comparison.

No one wanted any details or civilized places in campaign worlds. That was all just for proper nouns that sounded good. No body ever wanted a simple encounter so they could get information from their attackers or even to let them feel more powerful once in a while. And everyone knows that if you are exploring deep dark ruins that you want to rush through and do it quickly and nobody ever leaves and comes back again.

Sorry . . . I'm a little cranky mourning the loss of what I actually liked about the Forgotten Realms, while still reading assurances from WOTC that FR wouldn't be turned into a "points of light" setting.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
KnightErrantJR wrote:
Sorry . . . I'm a little cranky mourning the loss of what I actually liked about the Forgotten Realms, while still reading assurances from WOTC that FR wouldn't be turned into a "points of light" setting.

*nods*

I've come to Pathfinder to escape the coming apocalypse. Hopefully it won't be as bad as I fear.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

The Points-of-Light thing really does make me think of a dark ages or a post-cataclysmic world (a la Dragonlance). It makes me think of some relatively advanced cities with functioning economies, art, education, etc., and vast, barbarian and monster filled wastes in between. But these cities couldn't have gotten to the point where they are at without having once been connected by trade, so there must have been some large empire tying them together and holding back the darkness. Then something happened, some disaster. Maybe it was natural or divine or fiendish, but now it's all gone. Lots of ruins, lots of dungeons, lots of lost knowledge and treasure and magic. Seems like the perfect generic world dungeon crawling D&D to me.

Liberty's Edge

Kojiro wrote:

I think it's lame.

This "points of light" thing in a "big, dark world" means that free trade is practically cut off. Becoming a merchant sounds like it would be tantamount to suicide, being the most dangerous profession in the world. Thus in effect, there is no room for economy.

No great nations or sprawling empires? Bahhh....

Well, if this helps, think about Marco Polo. Yes, being a merchant and traveling all that way through bizarre and dangerous lands is a little bit suicidal. But the payoff can be spectacular. There will always be somebody willing to brave it for a big payoff.

What I like about the points of light phenomenon is as a dungeon master, you can hypothetically have a scattered web of civilization surrounded by "here there be dragons." You have the dangerous areas nearby, extremely available to players. AND you don't have to have it all 100% developed at all times. You have plenty of room to decide where to put things in a world that still seems to work. to be developed.


SirUrza wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
Sorry . . . I'm a little cranky mourning the loss of what I actually liked about the Forgotten Realms, while still reading assurances from WOTC that FR wouldn't be turned into a "points of light" setting.

*nods*

I've come to Pathfinder to escape the coming apocalypse. Hopefully it won't be as bad as I fear.

It's not like you can't just make any changes you want to. That article is just trying to establish a general idea of an area ripe for adventure. They're not saying that they're leaving out all the economic focuses and whatnot from D&D, and lack of information on exactly how trade and such works in a "points of light" setting doesn't mean it doesn't work. It's just a teaser article, not a chapter from the Handbook.


SirUrza wrote:

This points of light concept is destroying the Forgotten Realms. :(

From what's been spoiled by the new Drizzt novel, the Realms are being shaken up as badly as they were when Nethril fell.

Every new edition destroys the Realms, between the earthshattering events and the ret-conning.

Mourngrym (sp?) the lord of Shadowdale is a Cavalier. Oops, nevermind, Cavaliers don't exist, this is 2nd Ed now, he is a Fighter. For a whole edition, the Realms lost all barbarians and monks. The monks wasn't a big deal, but think about how many barbarian and savage tribes there are, lol. All of a sudden they become less hardly but more skilled fighters?

To me, the biggest ret-con was sorcerors. Yeah, we've always had them, no one just noticed until 3.0? wtf.

This is why settings don't tend to age well with multiple editions if the fluff keeps on being ret-conned to fit the new mechanics.


GAAAHHHH wrote:
That's why merchants would have to pool their resources to hire enough guards to make it to another city. That's what merchant caravans are for.

I think you meant to say "Mobile Adventure Hooks", not merchant caravans ;-)


Talion09 wrote:
SirUrza wrote:

This points of light concept is destroying the Forgotten Realms. :(

From what's been spoiled by the new Drizzt novel, the Realms are being shaken up as badly as they were when Nethril fell.

Every new edition destroys the Realms, between the earthshattering events and the ret-conning.

Mourngrym (sp?) the lord of Shadowdale is a Cavalier. Oops, nevermind, Cavaliers don't exist, this is 2nd Ed now, he is a Fighter. For a whole edition, the Realms lost all barbarians and monks. The monks wasn't a big deal, but think about how many barbarian and savage tribes there are, lol. All of a sudden they become less hardly but more skilled fighters?

To me, the biggest ret-con was sorcerors. Yeah, we've always had them, no one just noticed until 3.0? wtf.

This is why settings don't tend to age well with multiple editions if the fluff keeps on being ret-conned to fit the new mechanics.

What class someone is really doesn't mean a whole lot. Mourngrym and Azoun were both cavaliers, but story wise, the change didn't affect either one of them. Those are game terms to describe the characters, not defining character points. They were warriors good at mounted combat either way.

This current change blows up most of the established nations, kills off almost all of the established NPCs, and shoots the timeline into the future 100 years. Saying that the Simbul has levels of sorcerer, or that Azoun is a fighter don't affect the history of the setting, any more that a succubus or an erinyes not having a THAC0 score affects what they are. Saying that Aglarond and Cormyr are gone or drastically changed in 100 years of chaos, and saying that erinyes don't exist and succubi are actually devils, are major story changes.


KnightErrantJR wrote:
Talion09 wrote:
SirUrza wrote:

This points of light concept is destroying the Forgotten Realms. :(

From what's been spoiled by the new Drizzt novel, the Realms are being shaken up as badly as they were when Nethril fell.

Every new edition destroys the Realms, between the earthshattering events and the ret-conning.

Mourngrym (sp?) the lord of Shadowdale is a Cavalier. Oops, nevermind, Cavaliers don't exist, this is 2nd Ed now, he is a Fighter. For a whole edition, the Realms lost all barbarians and monks. The monks wasn't a big deal, but think about how many barbarian and savage tribes there are, lol. All of a sudden they become less hardly but more skilled fighters?

To me, the biggest ret-con was sorcerors. Yeah, we've always had them, no one just noticed until 3.0? wtf.

This is why settings don't tend to age well with multiple editions if the fluff keeps on being ret-conned to fit the new mechanics.

What class someone is really doesn't mean a whole lot. Mourngrym and Azoun were both cavaliers, but story wise, the change didn't affect either one of them. Those are game terms to describe the characters, not defining character points. They were warriors good at mounted combat either way.

This current change blows up most of the established nations, kills off almost all of the established NPCs, and shoots the timeline into the future 100 years. Saying that the Simbul has levels of sorcerer, or that Azoun is a fighter don't affect the history of the setting, any more that a succubus or an erinyes not having a THAC0 score affects what they are. Saying that Aglarond and Cormyr are gone or drastically changed in 100 years of chaos, and saying that erinyes don't exist and succubi are actually devils, are major story changes.

Hang on. I haven't followed the Realms in years, they lost me sometime after the 3.0 switch (I never got the 3.5 PgtF update, or any novels from around that time on)

But they are putting it 100 years into the future? wtf?


Die Drizzt, die you Drow bastard! PLEASE, PLEASE DIE NOW!


I'll run my campaigns the way I always have--the way I want.


farewell2kings wrote:
I'll run my campaigns the way I always have--the way I want.

There it is. They're not trying to destroy a setting, because you're always free to play with the tons of already-established stuff or the tons, tons and tons of stuff you can just do the way you want.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Can get some validation on this whole "FR is advancing 100 years thing"? Where is the link, please. Or is this just advanced sarcasm/diatribe?


What I'd heard is that the FR timeline is being advanced 10 years, not 100. But my source for that information is a buddy in my group who lurks on the WotC boards. So take it with as much salt as you want.

I was told that one of the upcoming FR products will give a description of what takes place during those ten years, and provide the fluff explanation for the mechanics change to the 4e conversion of the Weave.


farewell2kings wrote:
I'll run my campaigns the way I always have--the way I want.

Amen and hallelujah.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Our new world is large enough to handle several styles of play, including this one.

There's really no reason to force everyone into playing the same campaign. Every DM has different tastes, and a good campaign setting allows him to find something that speaks to him and to his play style.

The Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting is all about options, not about dictating a single way to play D&D.

--Erik

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Talion09 wrote:
Every new edition destroys the Realms, between the earthshattering events and the ret-conning.

Except they're kill millions of people, destroying cities, bringing back ancient cultures, and actually making a Realms-shaking event that shakes the Realms.

And yes, it's a 10 year advancement, after Faerun is devastated by the upcoming Spell Plauge that we'll learn about in the up coming months.


I don't quite understand how they're going to do this "points of light" setting, if it's not actually tied to a campaign world. If it was a NEW campaign world they were working on, I might find it interesting (I never hopped on the Eberron train, pun intended). But right now, it sounds like the anti-Greyhawk, and so I grimace...though I could make it work just fine in the western third of Oerik in my homebrew, but that's another subject.

If WOTC isn't making FR this kind of setting, and nor does it fit w/ Eberron (as I understand it) or Greyhawk (for obvious reasons), is it only going to appeal to people who want only setting-neutral campaigns? That might work in tandem w/ their new rules mechanics, but what about the people who prefer to play in one of the other official settings?


BenS wrote:

I don't quite understand how they're going to do this "points of light" setting, if it's not actually tied to a campaign world. If it was a NEW campaign world they were working on, I might find it interesting (I never hopped on the Eberron train, pun intended). But right now, it sounds like the anti-Greyhawk, and so I grimace...though I could make it work just fine in the western third of Oerik in my homebrew, but that's another subject.

If WOTC isn't making FR this kind of setting, and nor does it fit w/ Eberron (as I understand it) or Greyhawk (for obvious reasons), is it only going to appeal to people who want only setting-neutral campaigns? That might work in tandem w/ their new rules mechanics, but what about the people who prefer to play in one of the other official settings?

Well, considering that there was no "core" way to support the meta plot of the "Dragonfall War" that they set up between Bahamut and Tiamat with all of the "Year of the Dragon" products, Dragons of Faerun became the major centerpiece of any D&D product explaining this initiative. So I guess we have a precedence for something that wasn't suppose to be setting specific having to end up somewhere if they actually want to showcase it.

Liberty's Edge

SirUrza wrote:
Talion09 wrote:
Every new edition destroys the Realms, between the earthshattering events and the ret-conning.
Except they're kill millions of people, destroying cities, bringing back ancient cultures, and actually making a Realms-shaking event that shakes the Realms.

So, will this really have any more impact that that whole Time of Troubles crap? I seriously doubt it.

But, then again, I hate the Realms so I really don't care. It just seems that this is much ado about the same old thing.


Azzy wrote:
SirUrza wrote:
Talion09 wrote:
Every new edition destroys the Realms, between the earthshattering events and the ret-conning.
Except they're kill millions of people, destroying cities, bringing back ancient cultures, and actually making a Realms-shaking event that shakes the Realms.

So, will this really have any more impact that that whole Time of Troubles crap? I seriously doubt it.

But, then again, I hate the Realms so I really don't care. It just seems that this is much ado about the same old thing.

Thanks. That was really helpful. Not only have I not realized that I shouldn't worry about this, but I've been playing in a horrible setting for the last 20 years. I'm glad you chimed in to let us know you hate the setting and don't care about major alterations to something that has been part of D&D for more than 20 years, and that you think that we are such obsessive and wide eyed fanboys that we can determine the difference between some major but limited changes in one changeover to a change that is, if the RAS prologue is to be believed, will destroy most of the known Realms.

I just can't really fathom people waiting to find out what people care about and then pouncing on them when they are down.

Liberty's Edge

KnightErrantJR wrote:

Thanks. That was really helpful. Not only have I not realized that I shouldn't worry about this, but I've been playing in a horrible setting for the last 20 years. I'm glad you chimed in to let us know you hate the setting and don't care about major alterations to something that has been part of D&D for more than 20 years, and that you think that we are such obsessive and wide eyed fanboys that we can determine the difference between some major but limited changes in one changeover to a change that is, if the RAS prologue is to be believed, will destroy most of the known Realms.

I just can't really fathom people waiting to find out what people care about and then pouncing on them when they are down.

Oh, please. I'm just trying to point out that the Realms will keep chugging on--despite all the "end-is-nigh" tidings going on. Sure, big change up front (again), and in the next few years it'll seem like nothing at all (just like last time). Just stop the doom-saying for a bit and wait and see--it might be a good change. Let the setting evolve.


Azzy wrote:
Let the setting evolve.

As if I can stop it?


SirUrza wrote:
Talion09 wrote:
Every new edition destroys the Realms, between the earthshattering events and the ret-conning.

Except they're kill millions of people, destroying cities, bringing back ancient cultures, and actually making a Realms-shaking event that shakes the Realms.

And yes, it's a 10 year advancement, after Faerun is devastated by the upcoming Spell Plauge that we'll learn about in the up coming months.

...and if you don't like this, why should it matter? I ignored the Time of Troubles when I ran the Realms and haven't bothered to even read up on all the details of the Greyhawk Wars and I run GH now. Let Wizards do whatever the heck they want with whatever setting they want; that's their setting, not mine...if I run the Realms again sometime down the road, I'll run it my way. Cyric who??? I'll use whatever I want to use from whatever is published and blissfully ignore the rest.

Obsessing over what the publishing company of a setting does and trying to keep up with how things are written in the novels or the "new" campaign supplement or new edition of the rules is a surefire way to frustration.

It's a game and constantly revising your world to keep up with the the official version of it seems to me to be about as much fun as keeping up with tax code revisions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Yes well for some it's not just a campaign setting, it's also a novel line they enjoy to read. It's not something I can wave my hand over and ignore.

The Exchange

I stopped reading Dragonlance novels after the big disaster, magic was different, the world was different and I hated the concept of a giant world changing event happening......again. I have no real vested interest in The Realms but I understand the people that enjoy what they have and that don't want it changed radically.

They can change whatever they want but I and everyone else is free to hate the idea of a change, as well as hating the change itself. I take my freetime seriously and the things I do in my freetime are more serious to me than any job I have had. When changes happen to my hobbies and freetime activities it negatively impacts my whole daily life. WotC seems to feel that they can do whatever they want and then cram the results down our collective throats and expect us not to gag on the crap.
Unfortunately WotC will only ever hear one thing....$$$$. Tell them you don't like it by not buying into it.


Fake Healer wrote:


Unfortunately WotC will only ever hear one thing....$$$$. Tell them you don't like it by not buying into it.

Apparently, there is a new position at Paizo...a "Censor Flynnster" position...

Fake Healer...a few others on this board feel that you'd be better off petitioning the Republican or Democratic parties than showing your displeasure through the lack of expenditure of cold hard cash....

Frankly, with the changes that were made to Faerun (wild magic and all that crap), I just ignored it in my campaigns.

Enjoy!

Ze Flynnster


Azzy wrote:
Oh, please. I'm just trying to point out that the Realms will keep chugging on--despite all the "end-is-nigh" tidings going on. Sure, big change up front (again), and in the next few years it'll seem like nothing at all (just like last time). Just stop the doom-saying for a bit and wait and see--it might be a good change. Let the setting evolve.

I think he was reacting more to your negativity than your point. Some people really, really like the Realms and are sad that such an important part of their hobby might be getting seriously messed with by a big company who puts money before loyal fans.

I've been arguing for a while about how it makes sense what WotC is doing from a business standpoint, but I'm starting to understand how strongly people feel about this and I think the best thing we can do is not react negatively to people who are losing something that means more to them than it does to us.

In other words, if they're venting about something we don't care about but they do, why give them a hard time about it? Just move to the next thread, or maybe offer some supportive critism instead of negativity.


Riskbreaker wrote:
Azzy wrote:
Oh, please. I'm just trying to point out that the Realms will keep chugging on--despite all the "end-is-nigh" tidings going on. Sure, big change up front (again), and in the next few years it'll seem like nothing at all (just like last time). Just stop the doom-saying for a bit and wait and see--it might be a good change. Let the setting evolve.

I think he was reacting more to your negativity than your point. Some people really, really like the Realms and are sad that such an important part of their hobby might be getting seriously messed with by a big company who puts money before loyal fans.

I've been arguing for a while about how it makes sense what WotC is doing from a business standpoint, but I'm starting to understand how strongly people feel about this and I think the best thing we can do is not react negatively to people who are losing something that means more to them than it does to us.

In other words, if they're venting about something we don't care about but they do, why give them a hard time about it? Just move to the next thread, or maybe offer some supportive critism instead of negativity.

Thanks Risk, and I'm sorry that I've gotten a bit short and ill tempered with some of my fellow Paizonians. I'm glad that you understand where I'm coming from, and I'll try to be a little less cranky now that the initial shock has worn off, though I still can't promise to be looking on 4th edition with optimistic eyes at this point.


Talion09 wrote:
GAAAHHHH wrote:
That's why merchants would have to pool their resources to hire enough guards to make it to another city. That's what merchant caravans are for.
I think you meant to say "Mobile Adventure Hooks", not merchant caravans ;-)

I prefer to think of such things as "Self-Propelled Field Rations" myself, but that's just me.

Liberty's Edge

Riskbreaker wrote:

I think he was reacting more to your negativity than your point. Some people really, really like the Realms and are sad that such an important part of their hobby might be getting seriously messed with by a big company who puts money before loyal fans.

I've been arguing for a while about how it makes sense what WotC is doing from a business standpoint, but I'm starting to understand how strongly people feel about this and I think the best thing we can do is not react negatively to people who are losing something that means more to them than it does to us.

In other words, if they're venting about something we don't care about but they do, why give them a hard time about it? Just move to the next thread, or maybe offer some supportive critism instead of negativity.

It’s just kind of frustrating. The Orc King hasn’t even been published, so outside of a few throwaway paragraphs nobody knows exactly how great a change this is actually going to be or what kind of impact it will have on the setting. When the book gets published and there’s a better picture of what happened and it completely sucks, I will invite the FR fans to join in lamenting with Greyhawk fans, Dragonlance fans, Mystara fans and Cyberpunk fans about how their settings have changed. Right now, it just seems like a handful of people are jumping the gun before having a grasp of the changes involved. Hopefully, for the sake of those who are still fans of the Realms, it’s not going to be another stupid world-shattering cataclysm like the Time of Troubles (which is when FR completely lost me and I never looked back), but something that actually reinvigorates the setting. But at this point, who knows? On the bright side, whatever the changes, they can’t be any worse than the effects of the Wrath of the Immortals on Mystara or the Chaos thing for Dragonlance. :/


I still miss official Dark Sun releases. The "points of light" stuff would work well all over Athas!


I can get why people think this may be over reacting or jumping the gun a bit but the prologue makes it pretty obvious that there are some big changes on the way.
Again it may be me pessimistically second guessing wizards but the prologue does mention the destruction visited on "Thay, Mulhorand, Sembia". I don't want to see this nations wiped out. The extract explicitly tells us (spoiler alert) that Luskan has been destroyed and implies that either Eilistraee or her cult has been completely destroyed and this is in the prologue alone.
It's not that I really object to the idea, I once considered doing a post apocalypse forgotten realms campaign, but to make it "canon" seems wrong. There have been big events before but nothing that has completely wiped the slate clean.
I also feel that it makes the incredible depth of history of the realms almost obsolete. Again I can't fully judge as I haven't seen these new changes but if the destruction is as complete as the prologue makes it sound (world gone mad, ruins of a dozens of proud city etc) then they have effectively made the history just a side note. No more warring empires, rival churches or bickering city states, just the ruins of the old forgotten realms to plunder.
As for why this upsets people when we can just DM the realms as we feel like. Well I can't claim to speak for everyone but if the setting changes are as bad as I fear then I will probably never buy another forgotten realms product and that is a hell of a thing to lose. I will never get to read up on new interesting plot developments or new characters because this new forgotten realms differs so much from my one as to make it relatively useless to me. I might as well buy eberron as both are completely different campaign settings to the one I am using.

Right rant over sorry about that. Please forgive if it seems unpleasant or troll-like but it's late and it's a rather reactionary post.


SirUrza wrote:
Yes well for some it's not just a campaign setting, it's also a novel line they enjoy to read. It's not something I can wave my hand over and ignore.

That sure is putting a lot of pressure on yourself as a DM. Good luck, hope the Realms rework works out for you.


Ceddar Bearer wrote:

I can get why people think this may be over reacting or jumping the gun a bit but the prologue makes it pretty obvious that there are some big changes on the way.

Again it may be me pessimistically second guessing wizards but the prologue does mention the destruction visited on "Thay, Mulhorand, Sembia". I don't want to see this nations wiped out. The extract explicitly tells us (spoiler alert) that Luskan has been destroyed and implies that either Eilistraee or her cult has been completely destroyed and this is in the prologue alone.

Care to name a source for this? I seem to have missed something. Thanks in advance!

The Exchange

A link to the relevant point.


Erik Mona wrote:

Our new world is large enough to handle several styles of play, including this one.

There's really no reason to force everyone into playing the same campaign. Every DM has different tastes, and a good campaign setting allows him to find something that speaks to him and to his play style.

The Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting is all about options, not about dictating a single way to play D&D.

--Erik

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I've adopted the Pathfinder Chronicles as my new "home" campaign setting after I recently lost all interest in the Forgotten Realms.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

At this point I am seriously considering the same thing KaeYoss.


Erik Mona wrote:
There's really no reason to force everyone into playing the same campaign.

Exactly. I don't really care about the backstory of 4.0. I have my own backstory that's survived and evolved since the red (pink?) box days, and it will continue to do so, 4.0 or otherwise. What kinda bothers me is that 90% of what we've been hearing about 4.0 are setting ideas. This would be fine if they were releasing a new campaign setting, but, really, we're talking about a new RULES ENGINE - so that's what we ought to be, um, talking about. The rules are my tools. What will those tools look like? I don't care about succubi/erinyes - if I want them back the way they were, I'll put them back - even if i have to go 'under the hood' and stat up a 4.0 erinyes to do it. Great wheel / no great wheel and points of light / no points of light are even easier to change, because I don't need to make any new monsters.

Eberron, Greyhawk, FR, Kaladmar, Pathfinder, setting X, Y, Z and dedicated homebrew players probably won't be interested in a new setting. We don't care that wizard order A favors orbs and order B favors wands, because we're probably not going to include either order in our games. What we might include are orbs and wands, so what's the difference between the two, mechanically? Is there one?

I've pretty much stopped checking for 4.0 news because it all comes back to story ideas. If I want to read about a cool new D&D world, I've got multiple options (like, say, Pathfinder...). Tell me about the 30 levels, or this idea floating about that your "race improves" as you level up. IS it actually possible for dragon breath to MISS COMPLETELY, or does a "fumble" mean half damage? The playtest articles are a joke. The design articles are no help. I guess I'm just waiting for the SRD, then.

Between the 4.0 "hype" and this horrid little DI promotion, I have to say wizards has failed to sell me on or get me excited for anything. I'm not against either concept (though I personally wouldn't buy an online magazine subscription), but the marketing is just awful.

Sorry to rant, but this has really been bugging me.


From what Ive read in the new FR book, Grand History of the Realms, most of the changes in the setting seem to be streamlining. Take for example the drow gods. Vhaeraun is now dead, along with Kiaransalee(sp) and, umm, the protector/son of the Spider Queen whose name I don't remember. I think that leaves the Spider Queen, Eilistraee, and Ghauanadaur. A supreme evil drow deity, a lesser good drow god, and an alternate evil drow god. It makes things alot simpler and easier to keep track of. It is also simplistic if you look at real history, and therefore a little less interesting IMO. One of the things I like about FR and Greyhawk (as well as real history) is that things aren't so simple.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / D&D as "points of light" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.