Ah, it is threads just like this that is why I rarely read or post here anymore.
C'mon guys. Does it REALLY matter? What DM doesn;t put their own pantheon together. For those that don't Wizards are simply arranging a selection of choices.
I loved Heironeous, but I am fine with Bahumut too. No wonder this place is being labelled the anti-4E boards.
I feel for the writers here as this tag is not helpful at all. I am absolutely dumbfounded at the wizards-bashing here. Ever thought that these guys have played and lived the game for years - just like the folks at Paizo? (Several of whom worked at Wizards yeah?)
Get over your snide swipes and innuendo. You are keeping posters away from these boards and creating a very negative image.
Paizo create new gods = everyone here goes "Yeah, great idea, blah, blah, blah".
Wizards at new gods and it is WTF?
Why do people feel the need to can these guys constantly? REALLY? I hope you people feel better for trying to bring others down.
I say go for it Wizards! Obviously over many meeting and playtests with many people sharing many ideas surely most of what they have done will please the average gamer. And most of it is fluff, so CHANGE it. (I still am dumbfounded at all the posting throughout 3E about lack of fluff - now everytime Wizards reveal fluff they cop it for that. Man, this is odd and VERY unproductive).
Out. C
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I find the mish mash of pantheons annoying myself. For changes in Wee Jas, Heironius and the like, 3.x benefitted from the historians (some might say fanatics) at Cannonfire, and towards the end, Sean's wonderful Core Faiths articles. (Both of which, I might add made me a devout follower of the Lady in Oerth).
By making this hodge podge, we (as in the community with history) will need to rely on the folks at Candlekeep and Cannonfire to be our sages. Keeping the 'true' deities intact as we remember them. Hopefully we'll be historians, and not Franciscan monks hoarding knowlege against the darkness.
Core Bane isn't FR Bane. The article made that painfully clear. The name 'Bane' was a placeholder until they couldn't come up with a better name. They could have used Hextor, or Tiamat, or Ba'al or even Pelor for all the connection to FR Bane it has.
If they'd gone and made a new set of deities that would have been fine by me. If they'd included a bunch of real world mythological deities as examples, I'd not have complained. Putting in the Deities section "Here's Zeus, and Thor, and Typhon, all examples of deities with similar aspects but different followers." would have appeased me.
This mismash, is kludgy at best, slothful at worst.
C'mon guys. Does it REALLY matter? What DM doesn;t put their own pantheon together. For those that don't Wizards are simply arranging a selection of choices.
Well, those DMs that put together their own pantheon obviously could not care less. But that is not the point, and this reasoning could in fact be used to abolish any criticism about any of the new stuff - no one will force anyone to use the new stuff. But if this is the case, then why produce new stuff at all, if no one will use it anyway?
And by putting together a pantheon, they imply that this is the default that will be used by WotC, not some menu from which to build your own.
Get over your snide swipes and innuendo. You are keeping posters away from these boards and creating a very negative image.
Well, I think that some points of view here have a point - these are quite fundamental changes to a game all posters here love, and folks are concerned about these changes. I concede that sometimes the discussion could use a little more civility - on both sides of the argument.
Paizo create new gods = everyone here goes "Yeah, great idea, blah, blah, blah".Wizards at new gods and it is WTF?
If it WERE new gods, I would not complain. But mixing together deities from various settings is not the same as creating new gods. If they wanted to throw all the baggage overboard, they should have renamed the gods as well, instead of just sticking to the old names because they are popular - because of their popularity, old gamers will always associate the names with the old deities.
Stefan
Ah, it is threads just like this that is why I rarely read or post here anymore.
C'mon guys. Does it REALLY matter? What DM doesn;t put their own pantheon together. For those that don't Wizards are simply arranging a selection of choices.
I feel for the writers here as this tag is not helpful at all. I am absolutely dumbfounded at the wizards-bashing here. Ever thought that these guys have played and lived the game for years - just like the folks at Paizo? (Several of whom worked at Wizards yeah?)
Get over your snide swipes and innuendo. You are keeping posters away from these boards and creating a very negative image.
Paizo create new gods = everyone here goes "Yeah, great idea, blah, blah, blah".
Wizards at new gods and it is WTF?
Why do people feel the need to can these guys constantly? REALLY? I hope you people feel better for trying to bring others down.
Out. C
(minor snipping done above)
Well first of all let me say: I understand what you mean. I personally have made a post or two that was emotional, more so then it probally needed. People are being negative but you are saying it is with out cause.
I don't want huge "4E blows chunks cause I hate it" arguements. I think the time for those are past. But I believe people are trying to say that new Gods arn't being made. People are only alittle concerned about the "base" gods. As many people have pointed out DM's change that all the time. But the main concern is what effect these changes will have on the various settings and supplements down the road. Will they still be based off the older information (continuity) or be redone internally but labeled as the same to match what new 4E only gamers know? (To attract previous fans while creating an artificial gap between 1-3E generation and 4E generation gamer knowledge).
Blaaarrgghhh! Blooorrrrrggggghhhhh! Bluuuuggghhhhh! Bleeeegggghhhh!
Me to. Blaaarrrggghhhh!
Dude! Try not to get that stuff on my shoes.
-The Gneech
Blaaarrgghhh! Blooorrrrrggggghhhhh! Bluuuuggghhhhh! Bleeeegggghhhh!Me to. Blaaarrrggghhhh!Dude! Try not to get that stuff on my shoes.
-The Gneech
Sometimes even I cannot control the awesome power that dwells within me. BLAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!
Wizards at new gods and it is WTF?Why do people feel the need to can these guys constantly? REALLY? I hope you people feel better for trying to bring others down.
I say go for it Wizards! Obviously over many meeting and playtests with many people sharing many ideas surely most of what they have done will please the average gamer. And most of it is fluff, so CHANGE it. (I still am dumbfounded at all the posting throughout 3E about lack of fluff - now everytime Wizards reveal fluff they cop it for that. Man, this is odd and VERY unproductive).
Out. C
Please name one new God in this list. They admit these names were place holders. So we have new Gods with old names. Will they keep them in FR and Greyhawk as the same Gods? It does cause a number of questions.
To be honest I'm more cynical with wizards. The DI has been a poor substitute for Dungeon, and I will get to pay more for it. They didnt seem to plan in their meetings the DI. Which is something they "obviously" should have done. So Im less inclined to believe they planned the Gods that well.
Personally I could care less about their Gods but its an ongoing pattern. What they say in their articles and blogs has convinced me of little real balancing or planning. Which for all we know Wizards may be doing it but they aren't convincing me of it. Id also like to hear any real information about the OGL for 4e.
Then again I guess it's unproductive to state things we dont like. Or see if others agree. If the vast majority dont agree then good for Wizards. Doesn't mean we shouldn't tell them we dont like it. Heck if they just explained the OGL terms it would at least quiet a lot of people who dont like the new core world.
The only real problem I have with the boards is the personal attacks on the writers. I do believe the designers believe its the best version of DD.
As they have said before there are no sacred cows. And I guess no settings either there is just different "continents" on world D&D.
Actually, there was a post a while back on the Wizard boards where someone had made a map of a world that had all the D&D game worlds on it as seperate continents. It was very well done and sparked a lot of ideas on what such a world would be like. Why do the natives of Khorvaire see 13 moons when the natives of Mystara only recognize two?
It really set itself up as a world where the gods had staked out their own territories and could be seen to interract with each other just as the ground nations do.
It was pretty sweet, but off topic...
BTW for those above that said they would be happy with new gods or 'show me a new god' it makes it look like people didn;t even read the post, just saw the word Bane and forgot the fact that there ARE new gods.
As far as all that 'old cannon' etc. Here is a big deal...change the name.
Look I can understand some people not liking this. Fine, each to their own. I find it very interesting that this time around the designers were brave enough to change fluff that was poor or non-existant. Finally we are seeing a real background for elves and the different types...who cares what they are called. I bet a fair amount of people lambasting Wizards for all this fluff were some of the same complaining around the release of 3E they didn;t have the sand to change fluff that had little story to back it up.
For example what is your story for the existance of elves. Pretty ordinary in the 'cannon' of the game. I bet most DMs have their own story and subraces. Isn;t it good that Wizards is now creating stuff like this and setting up a core group of popular deities and new ones that CAN start with a lot of cool intereations? well I think it is and if it is not...As I said most create these themselves for their own CS as I do.
What I most dislike is using something like this thread (oh and the use of Bane?) as a lead in to more Wizards bashing. Express your opinion. Drop the snide remarks following it. That is what is annoying and giving these boards (and therefore Paizo) a bad rep elsewhere. And more importantly it ruins almost every 4E thread where the same people say the same thing about Wizards.
Speaking of repeating...I will too. Remember 3E. I have no doubt most people bagging 4E will play it. And I bet they enjoy it. ;)
Personally, I'd rather they either didn't include any deities in the PHB, which is what the 2E PHB did, and that seemed to work pretty good; or create entirely new deities with new names. For me though, any pages in the PHB they spend on describing the Core Pantheon are going to be wasted space.
Even if the "Core Bane" is different than "FR Bane", he's still called Bane. And people will get confused. The name also carries a certain amount of FR baggage along with it, and that I think is a bad thing.
And I personally would prefer there being little, if any, clarification of elven origins in the Core books, leave that kind of thing for the setting supplements.
"Rumors" that Elves came into being a certain way can be easily worked into the "true" history of a specific campaign, even if the truth is far away from the rumors.
If WotC puts out a specific, detailed, definitive origin for elves, I have to explain, rather earlier than I otherwise might, that it isn't going to be the case for my setting.
I can understand explaining differences in pantheon and planar setup, but if I have to change every bit (or even greater than 30%) of the fluff that WotC writes for 4E, then my explanation of changes starts to take up far more time, and the players are likely to pay about as much attention to it as they would a modern history course.
|
Actually, there was a post a while back on the Wizard boards where someone had made a map of a world that had all the D&D game worlds on it as seperate continents. It was very well done and sparked a lot of ideas on what such a world would be like.
Some of the folks here on the Paizo boards did something along the same lines right here.
The World has all kinds of different continents, islands, etc, one of which I am proud to say was my own creation. And we welcomed other folks to take our stuff and run with it. I don't think anyone has contributed to the site for a while now though.
Is it just me or isn't there another Master of Tyranny that happens to have a link to Bahamut's pantheon?
T-I-A-M-A-T
One could easily have transformed her the same way Bahamut was, adding the war aspect and whatever else.
Bane is such a specific diety with a specific backstory that now must be altered significantly. Tiamat's already been passed around and a reworking/restart seems more in line. Clean up Bane's backstory and frankly he's sort of boring. IMO.
It seems that good dragons will naturally gravitate to Bahamut, leaving whom as the master of evil dragons? Bane???
Given the resemblance to Dragonlance, doing this would have started flames coming in from the other direction, but I doubt anybody would have said "What about 'Bane'?"
Unless you were a devotee of Greyhawk, the list of gods in the 3rd Ed. books were just a waste of space. The change Wotc has made is basically meaningless. I can't see the reasoning behind the change but neither am I affected by it. Who on these boards ever used the list of gods in the 3.5 PHB unless you were running Greyhawk? And if you did, then shame on you. You should have come up with your own pantheon.
Now if they get rid of domains I will have a problem.
But I don't see the 4th Edition campaign world as any (stranger, weirder, less fun, worse) than Eberron, Athas, or Golarion.
"New Coke" wasn't any stranger/weirder/less fun/worse than Mr. Pibb, either. But nobody tried to sell me Mr. Pibb and tell me it was Coca-Cola.
|
Honestly my biggest complaint is that there is a core pantheon at all. Some people talk about breaking tradition, but 3.x was the first to break tradition with its core pantheon. Three editions did fine without it (Basic, AD&D, 2Ed). There is no tradition for core pantheons beyond 3.x
Now this mish mash of a pantheon is annoying to me. It combines a bunch of worthless deities from a bunch of useless settings. Like I said before, it is just several wasted pages.
Traditionally, when adventures were written they were written for settings if that was important. WOTCs claim to using this pantheon is to make things more uniform in their adventures. Except when the publish a FR adventure or lord forbid an Eberron adventure. If a deity is particularly important to an adventure let them make the adventure setting dependent. Just like they used to do. See, that is tradition.
I also dislike the lack of creativity in names. Bane was a placeholder but no one could come up with a better name. That does not bode well to me. They want a more fey elf so Eladrin is used... mmm if they want an elven race tied to good outsiders that works fine, but Eladrin have nothing to do with fey. If they want to make the elf more fey and the eladrin more traditionally elf-like then again I have a problem with creativity. Here they break strongly with tradition. Keep the elf as is, and introduce a new race to be your feylike elf. But don't use eladrin.
I see this mish mashing of names and pantheons and such as an example that WOTC is rushing forward blindly to get 4E out. It appears they have not really been working on this a long time but are throwing it together and pulling out of their back ends. They do not appear to have a plan at all. I guess that is what bothers me more than anything.
Wow. Everyone around here is starting to sound like me! It used to be I was the only one having cosmological dilemmas like this, clawing out big handfuls of hair whenever the newest book would show up. I would sift through the books trying to figure out the nuances of this new 3rd edition cosmology and how it fit with the old truths. It drove me nuts.
Thi-kreen and half-giants in Greyhawk? What? Neogi mindspiders? Incarnum and a bazillion new races showing up out of nowhere...nobody saying where they came from or why or how they fit in with any of the established settings...
People told me "relax...this isn't REAL Greyhawk, it's CORE Pseudo-Greyhawk." This didn't make me feel better. So now there's TWO Greyhawks?? What?
"Well you see, CORE Greyhawk is a dumbed down simplified version of Greyhawk for people who aren't smart enough to appreciate real Greyhawk. All the official products have been dumped like illegal refugees into this setting as well as a bunch of strange amorphous setting details--like all those new cities in Cityscape that aren't actually anywhere. There's new gods and cultures in this vague new pseudo-setting too. See when they made all the 'Races of' books with all the weird settingless info about how 'elves' are and the new human gods and cosmologies and creation myths--that's for the same setting too. Ditto with dragonspawn and the great game and all that stuff that doesn't fit anywhere--it just is"
Cue Vomit Guy.
This stuff ain't nothin' by comparison. They're starting from scratch, but using some established stuff as a leap-off point for us old guys. Why not use old ideas? Everything's new. I personally don't mind a bit. At least now there's a solid planar background for everything and it all works together. For my part I'll buy every product they sell. Good riddance to 3rd edition and all of it's headaches. I'll gladly pass my existential planar angst to all of you guys and wrap my arms around something new and soft that makes some freakin' sense!
Cue Vomit Guy.
Blooooorrrrrrgggggghhhhhh! Blaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhh! Bleeeeetttcccchhhh!
Just gotta' say I love Vomit Guy. Only on a place as cool as Paizo would you have folks volunteering to be full time emotes.
Heh!
Honestly my biggest complaint is that there is a core pantheon at all. Some people talk about breaking tradition, but 3.x was the first to break tradition with its core pantheon. Three editions did fine without it (Basic, AD&D, 2Ed). There is no tradition for core pantheons beyond 3.x
Now this mish mash of a pantheon is annoying to me. It combines a bunch of worthless deities from a bunch of useless settings. Like I said before, it is just several wasted pages.
Traditionally, when adventures were written they were written for settings if that was important. WOTCs claim to using this pantheon is to make things more uniform in their adventures. Except when the publish a FR adventure or lord forbid an Eberron adventure. If a deity is particularly important to an adventure let them make the adventure setting dependent. Just like they used to do. See, that is tradition.
I also dislike the lack of creativity in names. Bane was a placeholder but no one could come up with a better name. That does not bode well to me. They want a more fey elf so Eladrin is used... mmm if they want an elven race tied to good outsiders that works fine, but Eladrin have nothing to do with fey. If they want to make the elf more fey and the eladrin more traditionally elf-like then again I have a problem with creativity. Here they break strongly with tradition. Keep the elf as is, and introduce a new race to be your feylike elf. But don't use eladrin.
I see this mish mashing of names and pantheons and such as an example that WOTC is rushing forward blindly to get 4E out. It appears they have not really been working on this a long time but are throwing it together and pulling out of their back ends. They do not appear to have a plan at all. I guess that is what bothers me more than anything.
Remember way back when I told you there was gonna be something you didnt like? Anyway, you're dead on here about the recycled names. At least come up with a new name for your new ideas.
BTW for those above that said they would be happy with new gods or 'show me a new god' it makes it look like people didn;t even read the post, just saw the word Bane and forgot the fact that there ARE new gods.
As far as all that 'old cannon' etc. Here is a big deal...change the name.
Look I can understand some people not liking this. Fine, each to their own. I find it very interesting that this time around the designers were brave enough to change fluff that was poor or non-existant. Finally we are seeing a real background for elves and the different types...who cares what they are called. I bet a fair amount of people lambasting Wizards for all this fluff were some of the same complaining around the release of 3E they didn;t have the sand to change fluff that had little story to back it up.
For example what is your story for the existance of elves. Pretty ordinary in the 'cannon' of the game. I bet most DMs have their own story and subraces. Isn;t it good that Wizards is now creating stuff like this and setting up a core group of popular deities and new ones that CAN start with a lot of cool intereations? well I think it is and if it is not...As I said most create these themselves for their own CS as I do.
What I most dislike is using something like this thread (oh and the use of Bane?) as a lead in to more Wizards bashing. Express your opinion. Drop the snide remarks following it. That is what is annoying and giving these boards (and therefore Paizo) a bad rep elsewhere. And more importantly it ruins almost every 4E thread where the same people say the same thing about Wizards.
Speaking of repeating...I will too. Remember 3E. I have no doubt most people bagging 4E will play it. And I bet they enjoy it. ;)
Ah yes, another poster whining repeatedly about other people's whining... Paizo does not have a bad rep elsewhere, that's just you being incindiary. And, while you may be correct in disliking personal attacks on the stupid 4th edition writers (oops...), your whining about the whining loses you credibility.
I just don't get this. It's D&D. They own all this stuff. If they're coming up with a reimagining of it--a spiritual successor grounded in a lot of classic ideas but completely redone and taken in a whole new direction, why NOT keep some names?
Why distance themselves from a core audience even further?
I mean it even makes sense in the new cosmology. Bane exists in both the Forgotten Realms cosmology and core cosmology because for the first time in a long time there IS a core cosmology.
Granted stuff is gonna' change--sure. Bane isn't quite how he was in 3rd edition. He changed. So have a lot of things. But...you remember halflings? The pudgy ones with fuzzy feet that were straight ports of Tolkien? Where did they go? Well they're gone too. New editions change things.
|
I just don't get this. It's D&D. They own all this stuff. If they're coming up with a reimagining of it--a spiritual successor grounded in a lot of classic ideas but completely redone and taken in a whole new direction, why NOT keep some names?
Why distance themselves from a core audience even further?
I mean it even makes sense in the new cosmology. Bane exists in both the Forgotten Realms cosmology and core cosmology because for the first time in a long time there IS a core cosmology.
Granted stuff is gonna' change--sure. Bane isn't quite how he was in 3rd edition. He changed. So have a lot of things. But...you remember halflings? The pudgy ones with fuzzy feet that were straight ports of Tolkien? Where did they go? Well they're gone too. New editions change things.
Their making the game so unrecognizable from any of the past editions that using old books and converting them will be so much of a hassle, (or not possible at all) that everyone will just have to go buy everything over again.
They're making the game so unrecognizable from any of the past editions that using old books and converting them will be so much of a hassle, (or not possible at all) that everyone will just have to go buy everything over again.
Well, yeah I think people are going to have to buy some new books, true--but that was as true of 3rd edition. Depending on how close to the Rules As Written you run your games will have a lot to do with how much you can keep. My games are pretty rules light--more inspired by the books than anything. I think it will be good to have another point of view on the game--a lens to see it through. I'm actually getting fairly excited to see what the flavor of this new version will be. I'm more interested in trying to keep loyal to the new ideas than I am in trying to cobble the old stuff back into the new.
Then again I will probably be running three kinds of games once 4e appears. I'll be running some games using some version of the old 2nd edition rules, some games using 3.0 (like Planescape), and some games using the new stuff. I think I'm going to try and use and enjoy all of it for what it is. I don't plan to keep 4e and toss all the rest. I don't even see why a choice like that would be necessary.
Splooorrrrtttttcccchhhhh!
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Paizo create new gods = everyone here goes "Yeah, great idea, blah, blah, blah".
Wizards at new gods and it is WTF?
Paizo is creating new gods for a specific campaign setting of their own creation, just as Weiss, Hickman, Greenwood, Baker, and countless others have before. That's completely different than what is being implied in the article.
I, personally, am waiting to see what this new "pantheon" will actually affect. If it's just being used as examples of gods to entice new players, then sure, what the hell: the gods that they have mentioned are consitently popular, and will probably be a draw into the new edition.
If they're insisting that "real" D&D WILL use THESE gods, then I'll have to politely decline, and ask them to f%$@ off.
Ah, it is threads just like this that is why I rarely read or post here anymore.
C'mon guys. Does it REALLY matter? What DM doesn't put their own pantheon together? For those that don't Wizards are simply arranging a selection of choices.
I do not. This annoying thing that generates "money" takes up a lot more time for me than it does for some - almost half my week plus commuting time is typical. Time to spare to prepare to run a game is a significant luxury that cannot often be afforded. The less of that time I have to expend to shore up the backstory elements, the better.
No wonder this place is being labelled the anti-4E boards.
I feel for the writers here as this tag is not helpful at all. I am absolutely dumbfounded at the wizards-bashing here. Ever thought that these guys have played and lived the game for years - just like the folks at Paizo? (Several of whom worked at Wizards yeah?)
Get over your snide swipes and innuendo. You are keeping posters away from these boards and creating a very negative image.
Care to linky or otherwise post (and source-attribute) the source of your information please?
Paizo create new gods = everyone here goes "Yeah, great idea, blah, blah, blah".
Wizards create new gods and it is WTF?
Others have already replied on this topic - and Paizo's new gawds are, to my knowledge, setting-specific for thier OGL setting Golarion. Saves me the time to work up gawds, as mentioned above... Although they (WotC) have already created and resuscitated plenty of gawds throughout the splatbooks, I do not believe many are truly unique creations. Nor are any of those seen listed as 'core' for 4e unique creations, at least in name.
Why do people feel the need to can these guys constantly? REALLY? I hope you people feel better for trying to bring others down.
Perspective is what drives the debates/flame wars/~insert derogatory or offensive phrasing of choice here~. For me, from my perspective, 4e's current development and release has not been ... sterling, shall we say, as the transition was from 2e to 3e. I wholly admit and respect everyone has thier own perspectives as well - debating those perspectives is what drives the messageboards of the gaming world, as a starting point.
I say go for it Wizards! Obviously over many meeting and playtests with many people sharing many ideas surely most of what they have done will please the average gamer. And most of it is fluff, so CHANGE it. (I still am dumbfounded at all the posting throughout 3E about lack of fluff - now everytime Wizards reveal fluff they cop it for that. Man, this is odd and VERY unproductive).
Out. C
I would respectfully disagree with any statement of 'lack of fluff' in 3e, especially in the 3.5 books. A prime source of vitriol regarding the expensive small-page-count (relative to core-book) hardcover splatbooks is precisely because they have a huge proportion of fluff, split between (a) extraordinarily-redundant 'sample character' write-ups after each new core and prestige class write-up and (b) plenty of fluff aimed at integrating new stuff into campaigns, varied and asundry backstory filler and so forth.
However, I concur with "Go For It Wizards!". I'd LOVE to see a truly awesome 4e iteration of D&D despite all the grumblings, mutterings, insane ravings in the dead of night and trepidations in general. Wouldn't it be nice to be back here in less than a year and be saying something to the effect of: D'oh!!Homer Simpson voice Boy were WE wrong back in November about 4e ... who would've thunk 4e was the shiznit?
Translation: "Hey guys, I want this guy from that other setting in the core rules!"
"Whatever. Next topic."
|
|
I just don't get this. It's D&D. They own all this stuff. If they're coming up with a reimagining of it--a spiritual successor grounded in a lot of classic ideas but completely redone and taken in a whole new direction, why NOT keep some names?
R2-D2 with jet packs in the prequels. Same name, same "skin", not the same character. It cheapens what has come before. Call it "dieing with dignity" if you want. Kill 3E, check. Rape its memory? Thats just a low blow.
Prime Directive: Crunch serves the fluff.
We are talking about crunch (we need gods listed so we can provide cover art, temples need gods, blah blah) that suddenly needs fluff (hey, lets just call this god Bane), the exact opposite of the Prime Directive. A better approach would be to say "Can we fit Bane into our Core pantheon?" pantheon. Its the This-God-That-Looks-like-Bane is now called Bane business thats crap.
For all you fluff haters out there: If fluff doesn't matter to you, then don't begrudge the people to whom it DOES matter their concerns. If it doesn't matter, then why even post?
What's in a name: A name is a placeholder for a concept. The concept is a composition of a myriad of other concepts. If you keep the concepts but change the name, its still the same thing. The name change is superficial. If you change the concepts but keep the name this is monumental. People have to re-align their concepts to fit with the re-imagining of the name. OK, no problem you say. But what happens when you revisit territory where the old Concepts still hold. Then you have to re-imagine again. It's crap.
Full Circle. If Lucas made a movie with original actors for Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, C3-PO et. al. in the old west speaking in an ebonic patois wielding swords and sorcery I think most people would be upset. And if he came out and said "its not really Star Wars characters, I am just using the name" it would still be LAME.
|
|
As I read all these opinions I pay attention to my own sympathetic reactions. At first, I thought "Cool, Heironeous was stupid anyway. And Bane is the best tyrant god. Good choices."
Next, I read the several posts bemoaning the conflicts with the gods' histories in their various settings. "I don't like this. Bahamut rules, and woe to the mortal who doubts his dragonness. They shouldn't mess with Bahamut like that." The names of several gods carries with it a lot of baggage and history that is not honored in the new pantheon, and many of us rankle at that.
Last, I considered the arguements of 'fluff' and 'crunch', and if a pantheon even deserved space in a 4.0 book. For good or bad, WotC is making a product that they need to sell to the largest market possible. New players would find this 'example pantheon' useful, so there's the fluff. I find the gutting of my favorite old pantheons slightly irritating toward this end, but for them to dump the Greyhawk gods completely would have been worse. Similarly, it would have been conflicting to leave the Greyhawk pantheon intact while changing the game mechanics and details associated with the divine powers.
I suppose my final assessment is that I grudgingly agree with the move, but also that like many other players, I'll be sticking to my current lists of gods. This patchwork pantheon holds no appeal for me.
Lambast the ideas = fine. (I am unsure of this, though as I said, this really doesn't effect me. Just see the gods as egs for what you can use.)
Insult the writers. Well at least have the sand to do it directly. My whole point was a thread on gods should stay on gods without the snide general remarks at end.
But, whatever, I moving on to other boards...yeah, wher people 'worship everything Wizards does'....as if, whatever.
Out, C
Prime Directive: Crunch serves the fluff.
First of all, I have to say thank you for birthing this awesome peice of gaming wisdom. Could not agree more. I want it on a gaming shirt. I want to see it hanging on a bronze plaque on the door of every dude who ever even thinks about coming up with a gaming product. We are totally on the same bandwidth here!
We are talking about crunch (we need gods listed so we can provide cover art, temples need gods, blah blah) that suddenly needs fluff (hey, lets just call this god Bane), the exact opposite of the Prime Directive. A better approach would be to say "Can we fit Bane into our Core pantheon?" pantheon. Its the This-God-That-Looks-like-Bane is now called Bane business thats crap.
Maybe. I'm a bit postmodern. I tend to think more about the value of the product and kinda' disregard the process a bit. Was it a bit tacky that the designers slapped old names on new things for the sake of expediency--yeah a little. But I also think it's nice to see a mix of familiar, if reconcieved gods out there amongst the new stuff. It gives at least a nod to the history of the game, while establishing clearly that this ISN'T the old game. I think that's okay. I even like it a bit. I like reinvisionings. It doesn't destroy or replace the old version for me, it's just another take. I think that's an okay way to go. Iterations on a theme.
What's in a name: A name is a placeholder for a concept. The concept is a composition of a myriad of other concepts. If you keep the concepts but change the name, its still the same thing. The name change is superficial. If you change the concepts but keep the name this is monumental. People have to re-align their concepts to fit with the re-imagining of the name. OK, no problem you say. But what happens when you revisit territory where the old Concepts still hold. Then you have to re-imagine again. It's crap.
I say "halfling". Does that throw you into histronics? Does the world fall apart for you? Is everything crap? No. It was a change from one system to the other. The old halflings are not the new halflings and the worlds whiz on about their axies. If you want to revist them, then go dig out your old books and there they are...
Full Circle. If Lucas made a movie with original actors for Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, C3-PO et. al. in the old west speaking in an ebonic patois wielding swords and sorcery I think most people would be upset. And if he came out and said "its not really Star Wars characters, I am just using the name" it would still be LAME.
I'm not sure I follow. First were this the case the D&D deities as presented would have to be some horrendous parodies of what they once were shot through with stuff that didn't belong there. I don't see that. Bane remolded into a Sauron style god of the battlefield seems cool to me. The old thug Bane who was lord of the A#1 glowey fist seemed a bit dull to me. This new Bane meets Tiamat meets Tempus meets Hextor seems to add a lot of flavor to the mix--flavor that works and that feels good. I don't hate it like I would hate MC Doggity Skywalker. So yeah. Secondly I don't know that anyone is saying Bane isn't REAL Bane. That's a 3rd edition trick--oh that's not REALLY Greyhawk. No they're just lifting up the iron suit and tinkering around with who Bane is in their retelling of the D&D universe. I happen to think it's looking fairly cool. I dig it.
Lambast the ideas = fine. (I am unsure of this, though as I said, this really doesn't effect me. Just see the gods as egs for what you can use.)
Insult the writers. Well at least have the sand to do it directly. My whole point was a thread on gods should stay on gods without the snide general remarks at end.
But, whatever, I moving on to other boards...yeah, wher people 'worship everything Wizards does'....as if, whatever.
Out, C
Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out. :)
But, whatever, I moving on to other boards...yeah, wher people 'worship everything Wizards does'....as if, whatever.
Out, C Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out. :)
Sorry to see you go (not that I remember you). Hey at one time we liked WotC to, they were Paizo's bread and butter, but alot of us just feel like WotC doesn't care what their buyers want. Alot of people feel basicly dumped by WotC. I don't think a few "snide" comments will hurt the multi-million dollar corp. I'm sure it may seem childish but let people vent. Alot of these old dogs have been playing since box sets and have hung with D&D for along time so ease up on them(us). It doesn't make anyone happy when they feel like the people who make the game they love which they have given alot to, drops them for a younger "chic"consumer.
Fizz
Watch the door knob those can be a b@*#*
Sorry, I jammed my foot in the door...
very nice Jim, very nice....I think you proved my point exactly about the sensitivity shown here at times. Good on ya mate. You so rock the boards.
Oh and just for the records, I too have played since box sets. I have invested VERY heavily in this game for over 20yrs, and every new edition has been an improvement and I see no reason why this will change.
It will be ineresting what these boards will be like once 4e is out (and has been for a while). Will check back on those eating their words then ;)
C
Sorry, I am sorry I even bothered replying to "I leave it to the ladies Jim". Seriously - you need to adjust that prophile before slamming the door on people...though I am sure with the civility and charisma you have shown (sorry, but WELL below that 21 mate), I am sure you have whitnessed quite a bit of that sort of behaviour.
I am laughing so hard I now give no credence to your witty cries on these boards.
And, yeah, now we are so far off topic, but I don't care, as I am out the door anyway :)
C
|
|
Personaly i have nothing against them using gods from there other settings (Hey at the end of the day its there stuff so they can do what they want with it.) However two things come to mind that do make me concernd (All of this is speculation on my part).
1. Someone on another topic mentioned that he had the feeling that they hadent been working on 4ed anywhere as near as long as they had claimed. Its possible that its not so much a case that they couldent think up new gods rather than a case of they havent had enough time to debelop them so have had to go for a cut and paste job.
2. If they couldent be botherd thinking up new gods and have taken the easy way out does it mean that they will do it to other areas of the background and rules?
I'm not really worried about that, but to put my two cents in this discussion, I'm under the impression that WotC is trying to put 3ed in pieces so they can rebuild a brand "new world" and "mithology" for D&D. The only reason I see why they didn't do it for 3ed was because the change in rules was already too tantalizing to also change background history.
I agree they could have changed the names, but then again, people who recognized the deities would then claim, "hey, WotC is trying to sell me cats disguised as rabbits!" (gee, is there that saying in English? It exists in Brazil... [:)] -- I guess the right saying in English is wolf disguised as sheep? :P I don't know... :D)
I can see it now. 4th Edition, the "Mr. Potato-Head" of the RPG industry.
I hope 4th tanks in the septic.
I get the impression the new setting is going to be a wide open one with a useful if peicemeal pantheon to make things less daunting for new players. There's a lot to learn with a whole campaign setting like Greyhawk, Eberron, or Forgotten Realms. I think they're looking for something where there's a boiled down, easy to run pantheon--where you can take a module and set it in the core setting (rather than them fitting nowhere in particular--which was infuriating) and use it as a jumping off point for an adventure in a largely unexplored setting. It'll be revealed in little snapshots rather than one big megamap. I think it's a nice way to go with it. A little Mr. Potato-heady--sure, but I think it's a good way to at least have fully described and lived in settings on one hand, with wide open design-it-yourself gameplay on the other. I think it's pretty clever really.
Now I just hope they don't screw it up right out of the gate.
I see the mix of deities creating an overwhelming response of..."what in the world were WOTC thinking". Most people that have left posts appear to feel this way given the overwhelming majority who react accordingly. Clearly the majority doesn't consist of everyone. For those who wonder why it even matters that these deties are thrown into the mix together....here's my response.
For those of us who play in a specific game world such as Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, it pains many of us to see such a mixture because it is one step closer to removing the ties that bind that world together. Taking gods such as Pelor, Bane, Obad-Hai, Moradin, etc. from a given world and into a mix detaches them in the minds of those who accepted them into their world.
Sure, I play Greyhawk, and those gods will remain. Most likely Forgotten Realm folks won't care to add Pelor to their world, they will keep the pantheon the same as it always had been for them. It is their option. So why is throwing the gods in the mix a problem for some of these folks? Because it shows a lack of effort and imagination by the company who produced the world in which they have grown attached. Because it alienates these gods from their original world on a subconscius level of some players. It devalues the positive opinion one has of their accepted game world. It creates distrust between the players of these worlds and the company that gave them to us. How does it create distrust? By not showing that WOTC cares or respects the product we have purchased over the years. It makes many of us feel as if our way of acceptance is no longer important, right or valid.
It seems that good dragons will naturally gravitate to Bahamut, leaving whom as the master of evil dragons? Bane???
Given the resemblance to Dragonlance, doing this would have started flames coming in from the other direction, but I doubt anybody would have said "What about 'Bane'?"
Personally when I heard about 4e faerun or more specifically the Salvatore book "The Orc King" I actually liked the idea of moving Faerun a century forward however I loathed the way they were cutting back on deities most specifcally the Helm-Tyr-Tymora rubbish.
But I did wonder why they wanted to merge worlds together when they could have had them separated so each pantheon of gods is now stuck with their own version of a shattered Faerun the original merger was to shut the various portals that linked each variant of faerun and of course the planes that left it so desperately vulnerable at the time.
The idea is to cut down on those gods they so want to reduce but in a manner that avoids not only reprisals but gives a legitimate reason without having to come up with plainly daft romance triangles amoungst other things...
Personally Bahamut to me is obviously Paladine, Tiamat would make sense since they are lumbering the new edition with dragonbron are they not? Bane sounds more and more like their version of Ares well Kevin Smith did do a good job with that role!
I actually have no problem with dragonlance, I don't run it mind but a friend I know who's moved to Holland loves the setting and I have already given him most of my 3.0 core books and plan on adding the dragonlance setting when I next see him, technically isn't Tiamat dead?
Well okay in another setting perhaps, but at least you're raising an interesting point albeit I still don't see any wizard bashing occurring...
|
|
Lambast the ideas = fine. (I am unsure of this, though as I said, this really doesn't effect me. Just see the gods as egs for what you can use.)
Insult the writers. Well at least have the sand to do it directly. My whole point was a thread on gods should stay on gods without the snide general remarks at end.
But, whatever, I moving on to other boards...yeah, wher people 'worship everything Wizards does'....as if, whatever.
Out, C
Part of the problem is that we're getting such a clear glimpse at the "creative process" and there doesn't seem to be any overarching design philosophy going on... it's the individual employees making some fairly serious decisions - and that's what leads to a comment which might seem like it is a personal attack (though some are obviously this). When the *ART DESIGNER* points out that there might be some problems with your idea, and you're supposed to be a highly regarded rpg designer, then there is obviously something dreadfully wrong.
Sorry, I am sorry I even bothered replying to "I leave it to the ladies Jim". Seriously - you need to adjust that prophile before slamming the door on people...though I am sure with the civility and charisma you have shown (sorry, but WELL below that 21 mate), I am sure you have whitnessed quite a bit of that sort of behaviour.
I am laughing so hard I now give no credence to your witty cries on these boards.
And, yeah, now we are so far off topic, but I don't care, as I am out the door anyway :)
C
Waaaaa! Is that a baby crying somewhere? Oh wait, it's you? WOW! I thought you'd left like you said you were going to. Seriously, "mate," grow up. Did you really expect to comment on a sensitive topic and not inflame people's passions? People don't like things they have cherished for years being disrespected and dismantled. So you have to expect anger and resentment. If you've been around as long as you claim, you should know that...
As for giving "no credence" to me, you have defeated your own argument by responding not once, but twice to my replies. And returning to this particular forum after promising to be gone only further weakens your credibility. Thirdly, if I mean so little, why bother to look up my personal statistics page? Are you my new online stalker? LOL You've successfully defeated yourself without my lifting a finger; though I can think of one finger in particular to lift in your direction. :)
Last but not least, please learn to spell. "prophile" and "whitnessed" are grossly bungled. We all make mistakes, but when one is attempting to undermine the credibility of another, it helps immensely to look marginally competent. I do not seek, nor have I ever sought enmity with you, but your childish behavior (from a supposed adult) begs for critique. Civility is not yours to defend nor promote and charisma is entirely irrelevant. I could be much more charismatic with you, but I dont want to use larger, flowery words for fear you would not understand them. Sincerely, Jim :) :) :)