|
Just a quick question--
I recognize that many of the frequent posters are anti-campaign setting, but...
If the Powers redeveloped FR or Eberron or GH, et al. (or created a whole new setting) into something absolutely stunning--highest production value, superior editing, rock-solid campaign-specific mechanics, fabulous art and art direction--all packaged by the very paragon of WotC's best writers, would you capitulate to 4th Edition?
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?
Nope nothing could make me want to play 4.0 (unless they want to give me credit in 4.0 books for all the 3.5 books i have purcahsed and the game is funner than 3.5 which i doubt)
|
Just a quick question--
I recognize that many of the frequent posters are anti-campaign setting, but...
If the Powers redeveloped FR or Eberron or GH, et al. (or created a whole new setting) into something absolutely stunning--highest production value, superior editing, rock-solid campaign-specific mechanics, fabulous art and art direction--all packaged by the very paragon of WotC's best writers, would you capitulate to 4th Edition?
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?
I am switching to 4E regardless. However WotC needs to produce a solid campaign setting regardless.
Just a quick question--
I recognize that many of the frequent posters are anti-campaign setting, but...
If the Powers redeveloped FR or Eberron or GH, et al. (or created a whole new setting) into something absolutely stunning--highest production value, superior editing, rock-solid campaign-specific mechanics, fabulous art and art direction--all packaged by the very paragon of WotC's best writers, would you capitulate to 4th Edition?
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?
I guess my problem is that its not one big thing that is keeping from being thrilled with 4th edition, its sort of a "death by a thousand cuts" sort of thing.
Could I deal with the "succubus" issue by itself? Probably.
Could I deal with the demonic origin change by itself? Probably.
Could I deal with the cosmology issue? Probably.
Could I deal with the loss of Vancian magic? Probably.
Could I deal with jumping my favorite setting ahead 10-100 years and merging it with some other reality so writers that don't know the setting can write for it because anything they don't know about the setting they can say "changed"? Probably not, but we don't know too many details on this one yet.
Could I deal with culling deities from a setting because there are "too many," while simultaneously saying that new ones will be added? I don't know, I had to recover from the whiplash from the two statements before I could answer.
Can I deal with the fact that they have made some drastic changes in my favorite campaign setting and then admitted that they don't have the details, in setting, fleshed out for why things happened yet, but they felt they needed to make the changes anyway? Nope, this is starting to get harder to ignore.
Can I deal with the idea that there will pretty much be Greater Gods and Demigods serving them, and nothing in between? Maybe, but why?
Can I deal with the nagging worry that the Campaign Guide and the Player's Guide, and maybe some adventures, will all be released as books, but any "expansion" to the setting beyond this will be on the Insider that I don't "have" to subscribe to? Well, this is just a looming dread right now, nothing definite.
Can I deal with the idea that if the virtual tabletop seems like a cool idea that the idea of having to buy "boosters" of non existing "virtual" minis seems like a horrid idea? Nope, this is a bad one.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there seems to be a lot that is just unexplained, or even admittedly not thought about yet, and its this feeling that even at this stage of the game the only thing they really know is that they want to make sure that the "new" D&D is dramatically different, but not exactly how things will work across the board.
I never say never, but I'm seriously doubting there is much that could get me back on board at this point.
(For what its worth, with all of the radical changes they are making to the Realms, I would have almost rather seen them "reset" the setting at the Year of the Prince, assuming that the "new" future is wide open, but detailing everything from "back then" in 4th edition terms, with a few tweaks to avoid what they say as problems, then trying to change it into a new setting "in continuity.")
|
|
...Could I deal with jumping my favorite setting ahead 10-100 years and merging it with some other reality so writers that don't know the setting can write for it because anything they don't know about the setting they can say "changed"? Probably not, but we don't know too many details on this one yet...
The FR miasma is my greatest fear--that it will be so substantially different that it simply won't be the Realms anymore. Now, if the 'new' setting is better or just as good, that's OK, but I wish it could get a new name...The TGHOTR book seems to serve a dual function: cool and extremely useful tool for the FR fan; and cool and extremely useful tool for the new generation of FR writers who don't have time or energy to catch up on 20 years of novels, stories, modules, sourcebooks, etc.
|
|
I guess my problem is that its not one big thing that is keeping from being thrilled with 4th edition, its sort of a "death by a thousand cuts" sort of thing.
I hear ya, but D&D has always changed. Rules, settings, playing surfaces, minis, mats, dice, whole conceptual frameworks.
The game today is nothing like it was when I started playing in 76. When Forgotten Realms came along it was nothing like Greyhawk or Blackmoor. AD&D was nothing like D&D. Basic, expert, etc. were not like AD&D.
Second edition was a radical shift. Worlds changed. New ones popped up.
3E brought even more change.
4E will bring more.
Its ok to not want to change but don't blame the change for your dislike of it. Stick with what you like, but don't assume D&D will ever be a static entity. It will always change. New rules, new worlds, new playing media, new, more, onward, and continual change.
Any time something changes there will alway be folk that do not want to make the change.
Some folks thought Star Trek TNG was horrible simply because it was set decades after the original. They wanted more of Kirk and crew. Some people watched the new BSG and said - ewww its nothing like the original. Lots of people did not like Star Wars Episodes I to III. People screamed when Mac said they were switching to intel chips. People screamed when they heard Apple was going to make a portable music player.
I could go on and on. Yes there is always New Coke. I get that. But frankly for every New Coke there is an Aliens (that flick so rocks).
Play what you want but do not hate on those of us that like the way 4E is shaping up. Some of us want change and some do not. Only time and the movement of the market will tell if 4E is an iPod or New Coke.
Short answer "Yes".
Long answer "No".
Now this seems like a contradiction. But what I mean is that I would play 4E and probably even enjoy it (if such a setting was present). Would I switch no. Play yes, give up my current game no. You see I suspect that 4E isn't so much the D&D I know. So I would keep 3.5 just like I keep WEG d6 Starwars. My D&D doesn't have commoners so corrupted that half-demon/devils(?) are accepted right beside the used to be enemy half-orcs (which still are in my homebrew). My D&D is about sword & sorcery not superheros in armour.
But it could still be quite a fun game. Hope so. I'd hate to see "the future of D&D" be a pile of... you know what.
While a great setting would not get me to pick up D&D4, it would get me to pick up the setting book. If it was that good I would just copy it over to D&D3 or C&C.
You forgot one, Knight Errant,
Can we deal with the loss of the mags
This is the biggie, and when you add on all the other important ones, well, I hope WotC D&D fails.
-W. E. Ray
Somewhere in the middle of my meandering I was going to mention that as well, but I apologize because my internal "wrap it up" alarm started going off before I hit all of my points.
Since I have not used a commercial setting since Greyhawk back in the 80s, I doubt that even the coolest of settings will make me switch to 4e. Heck, some of the things I learned in reading this thread has pretty much locked 4e into the "nope, not gonna even think about it" realm of things.
If they brought back Dark Sun without screwing it up (i.e. deviating from the timeline), that'd get me on board.
I guess my problem is that its not one big thing that is keeping from being thrilled with 4th edition, its sort of a "death by a thousand cuts" sort of thing.I hear ya, but D&D has always changed. Rules, settings, playing surfaces, minis, mats, dice, whole conceptual frameworks.
The game today is nothing like it was when I started playing in 76. When Forgotten Realms came along it was nothing like Greyhawk or Blackmoor. AD&D was nothing like D&D. Basic, expert, etc. were not like AD&D.
Second edition was a radical shift. Worlds changed. New ones popped up.
3E brought even more change.
4E will bring more.
Its ok to not want to change but don't blame the change for your dislike of it. Stick with what you like, but don't assume D&D will ever be a static entity. It will always change. New rules, new worlds, new playing media, new, more, onward, and continual change.
Any time something changes there will alway be folk that do not want to make the change.
Some folks thought Star Trek TNG was horrible simply because it was set decades after the original. They wanted more of Kirk and crew. Some people watched the new BSG and said - ewww its nothing like the original. Lots of people did not like Star Wars Episodes I to III. People screamed when Mac said they were switching to intel chips. People screamed when they heard Apple was going to make a portable music player.
I could go on and on. Yes there is always New Coke. I get that. But frankly for every New Coke there is an Aliens (that flick so rocks).
Play what you want but do not hate on those of us that like the way 4E is shaping up. Some of us want change and some do not. Only time and the movement of the market will tell if 4E is an iPod or New Coke.
Well, keep in mind, all I'm saying is that it doesn't appeal to me. I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not saying that the overall effect won't work out for WOTC. But for me, its not the way to go.
I will say that change doesn't bother me, but the point I was making above is that its not one or two or three fairly important but logical changes, its a ton of changes ranging from the minor to the colossal that seem to be on the way.
To use FR as an example, after the Time of Troubles, the main effect was that Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul were dead and replaced by Cyric, and Mystra was replaced with a NG version of herself. The Harpers, the Zhentarim, the War Wizards of Cormyr, the Lords of Waterdeep, etc, were all largely unchanged. Only the churches of the four gods in question were seriously affected.
Now, years later, Kelemvor became the god of the dead. Another change, and associated with the Time of Troubles, but gradually introduced.
Similarly, while 2nd edition did away with assasins, cavaliers, and barbarians, there were still stealthy guys that killed people, knights on horseback, and wilderness dwelling warriors swinging axes. Conceptually nothing was impossible.
Yes a lot changed in 3rd edition as well, but essentially things were added, and very little was actually invalidated. For example, dwarves could be wizards now, but nothing required you to assume that they could never have been clerics, for example.
In 4th edition, it does seem to be that things are going to be conceptually not possible that were possible in earlier versions of the game, and that is a different thing, at least to me. If the new cosmology doesn't support the Blood War, that's a big deal. If the new edition says that eladrin aren't what you think they are, its a change.
Play what you want but do not hate on those of us that like the way 4E is shaping up. Some of us want change and some do not. Only time and the movement of the market will tell if 4E is an iPod or New Coke.
Now hold on a moment.
Who is hating on those that like the way 4th Edition is shaping up?
Since when did any of the "anti 4th Edition" people hate on those that were for 4th Edition? (A few trolls withstanding, of course.)
Oh, and on topic: No. Unless the Campaign settings negated all of the mechanical changes I hate.
Yes, a stellar campaign setting would help convince me to take up 4th edition.
But it would have to be a new campaign setting. I like FR, and as nicely ranted above by KEJ, they are changing it wholesale (IMHO anyways) with the time jump ahead to make it a point of light setting.
Likewise, I like Eberron, and thought it was a breath of fresh air to the normal swords and sorcery. (Not that I'm opposed to traditional swords and sorcery, but it allows me to combine my love of Shadowrun with DnD, and thereby do something different for a nice change.) And I don't see how they can apply the points of light concept wholesale to Eberron without totally changing the setting. (Unless they just say that Points of Light applies to specific areas, like Xendrik. But then you have to wonder why they just didn't do that to the existing regions of FR that fit the bill, like the North)
And Greyhawk is dead. I accepted that for years, although it had an all too brief resurgence under the Dragon/Dungeon banner for the last 4-5 years. And while I like Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Darksun, Birthright, etc... I doubt that they will be resurrected as the flagship setting for 4th ed.
But if WotC had a new setting that took all the new meta-concepts like points of light, etc and built them into the world from the ground up, and did everything else mentioned in the OP... then yes, it would go a long way to convincing me to take up 4th edition.*
Of course, that world could be Golarion or maybe one devised by another third-party, but that would require WotC to send out the SRD for them to start working. But thats another 18+ page thread ;-)
* The thing is, it isn't just convincing me to take up 4th edition. As much as I dislike some of the rumored/announced changes (mainly to fluff) I'll still buy the core books next year. Even if I don't actively play, I enjoy reading RPG material from many systems, and they can sit next to the Gurps, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, TMNT, Heroes Unlimited, Robotech, etc books sitting on my bookcases.
But they need to convince my whole gaming group to convert. Otherwise inertia will rule, and we'll keep on playing 3.5 for another year or more after 4th launches before we convert. If we convert at all, which is likely at some point, but not assured.
And a shiny new campaign setting with kickass adventures... well, that would go a long way to convincing everyone to buy new PHBs and learn a new ruleset.
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?
No.
me neither; no no no
I would take the fluff and run.
I make setting purchase decisions independant of system, so no. I'm still waiting for 4E to come out though before deciding anything.
The system is irrelevant to me. I'll take the campaign setting and adapt it to whatever system I feel like playing. Hell, I've multiple different systems for the same campaign world (makes it interesting when the party meets their other set of characters that happen to be written in a different system from the one we are currently using).
|
I guess my problem is that its not one big thing that is keeping from being thrilled with 4th edition, its sort of a "death by a thousand cuts" sort of thing.I hear ya, but D&D has always changed. Rules, settings, playing surfaces, minis, mats, dice, whole conceptual frameworks.
The game today is nothing like it was when I started playing in 76. When Forgotten Realms came along it was nothing like Greyhawk or Blackmoor. AD&D was nothing like D&D. Basic, expert, etc. were not like AD&D.
Second edition was a radical shift. Worlds changed. New ones popped up.
3E brought even more change.
4E will bring more.
Its ok to not want to change but don't blame the change for your dislike of it. Stick with what you like, but don't assume D&D will ever be a static entity. It will always change. New rules, new worlds, new playing media, new, more, onward, and continual change.
Any time something changes there will alway be folk that do not want to make the change.
Some folks thought Star Trek TNG was horrible simply because it was set decades after the original. They wanted more of Kirk and crew. Some people watched the new BSG and said - ewww its nothing like the original. Lots of people did not like Star Wars Episodes I to III. People screamed when Mac said they were switching to intel chips. People screamed when they heard Apple was going to make a portable music player.
I could go on and on. Yes there is always New Coke. I get that. But frankly for every New Coke there is an Aliens (that flick so rocks).
Play what you want but do not hate on those of us that like the way 4E is shaping up. Some of us want change and some do not. Only time and the movement of the market will tell if 4E is an iPod or New Coke.
While I understand your meaning, and completely understand where you are going with the above, I have to disagree with some of your statements.
No one is hating on people who like 4e. They are explaining what changes make 4e a system that makes them not want to play. I have yet to meet a 4e player, so I can't really say I don't like to play with them. I've met plenty of Exalted players to say that they aren't exactly...great, so I can say that.
What I can say is that I think 4e isn't something for me. I'll wait for 4.5 in 2011.
And as for answering the question, a great backdrop is only a fraction of the game. I could take any backdrop and apply it to FFRPG 2.0, if I really wanted to. It wouldn't take half the time and the system is free.
Since I use my own, no campaign setting put out by WotC is going to be able to pull me in and convince me to convert to 4E.
Sure, I may have several of the 3E/3.5 FR books, but that's mostly for the fluff aspects to get some ideas for my own setting, rules are irrelevant there.
Would a stellar campaign setting convince you to take up 4th edition?
No.
I'll take up 4e based solely on the 4e rules and the opinion of my groups.
What I find useful and interesting about campaign settings has very little to do with the rules. It's the ideas within the setting that draw my attention. The rule implementations of those ideas are handy and save me time, but won't make or break an edition change for me.
If they brought back Dark Sun without screwing it up (i.e. deviating from the timeline), that'd get me on board.
Well, ok, for a great Dark Sun and/or Planescape, I'd probably be more likely to convert. It wouldn't be the only thing to convince me, but saving me time in converting to whatever edition I am playing and having a set book to convince other players to use the setting are factors. ;)
I don´t think that any campaign setting - new or old or changed, stellar or crappy produced - will be decisive for me about 4e. I already have more campaign settings than I can use, and with Pathfinder, there is one more added to the pile. So, my answer is most likely "no".
To address a point raised above, I surely don´t hate anybody pro-4e - to each his own. I have severe doubts that 4e will be what I want from a game system, but that is something different entirely.
And while D&D changed a lot over the last three decades - from OD&D (which I did not know or play) to BD&D to AD&D1 to AD&D2 to D&D 3.0 and 3.5, it was always recognizable as D&D and always somewhat compatible to each other, with some work. But the myriad changes and the statement that converting from old editions is probably not worth bothering (or even well-nigh impossible) leaves me with the impression that the game is about to change so fundamentally that it is rendered neither recognizable as D&D nor compatible to the older editions. And that is where change stops to be a good thing.
Stefan
|
Yeah, I might get the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, but if it's 4.0 like they say they hope it will be, the chances of me getting it drop significantly. Like someone else said, a 4.0 campaign setting would have to undo all the stupid fluff and mechanics changes that will occur with 4.0 for me to really want to buy it.
I would take the fluff and run.
Heh, me too. I like campaign settings, and dislike crunch books. A slick campaign setting would not convert me to 4E, but I would use it one way or another.
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?No.
No.
|
|
Play what you want but do not hate on those of us that like the way 4E is shaping up. Some of us want change and some do not. Only time and the movement of the market will tell if 4E is an iPod or New Coke.Now hold on a moment.
Who is hating on those that like the way 4th Edition is shaping up?
Since when did any of the "anti 4th Edition" people hate on those that were for 4th Edition? (A few trolls withstanding, of course.)
As I read through the posts I see phrases like - "why would anyone want that?" or "gawd that's dumb" or "WotC = Nazi" or "this is a game for kids - stupid ones that like *gasp* WoW".
People aren't just saying they do not want to buy 4E - they are piling on in such a way that makes those of us that are looking forward to it feel as if we are lesser dumb and gullable swine eating the slop out of WotC's bucket.
People are all kinds of pissed off about the shift. I get it. People hate WotC for dumping Dragon and Dungeon. I get that too.
All I am saying is don't let emotion rule your reaction those of us that think 4E is sounding cool and plan to buy into it straight away.
Nope. I won't switch to 4.0. As soon as a publisher switches to 4.0 I'm done with them. I just said goodbye to Goodman Games after they announced that all their game supplements will be for the 4.0 system. If paizo switches, then I will no longer purchase their products either.
Just a quick question--
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?
If the system bites it half as much as I fear it will, no campaign setting will draw me into a 4th edition game.
A stellar campaign setting will not convince me to take up 4E. Great mechanics and diverse options will do that. A whole new world is unlikely to have the desired effect, as I'll be attracted to that world for the fluff or dislike it for its fluff. Mechanics get me to play the game, though. Specifically, mechanics that won't aggravate me at the table or require lots of house-ruling to work with. Wouldn't matter if the setting was one I've previously enjoyed (FR, Eberron, Planescape, Greyhawk). WotC needs to have a great game system for me first. I'm not asking for perfection here, just a great system.
And for the record, they're not convincing me very well so far.
|
|
All I am saying is don't let emotion rule your reaction those of us that think 4E is sounding cool and plan to buy into it straight away.
I just don't think all the rules changes they are hinting at and giving previews for a 'cool-sounding'. To me, the mechanics seems like they are trying to recreate the computer-driven mechanics of an MMORPG for tabletop. I already play an MMORPG. That and a tabletop RPG are two distinct and different things. Further, why would I want to play an MMORPG on the table and miss out on all the graphic goodness that I see in WoW?
Sorry...no procs for my player characters based on what they did the round before...no boss phases if they hit a certain health level...no recoverable mana bar for the next fight...in my tabletop game.
*Note: one cool thing they did decide to do is drop aggro management mechanics.
I do not think a setting would win me or (more importantly) my players over to 4e.
If they brought back Dark Sun without screwing it up (i.e. deviating from the timeline), that'd get me on board.
I second this MW, with all my heart.
To tell you the truth, I've always been fast and light on the rules with every version of D&D I've played. There's always been stuff I hated and always been stuff I've loved. 4e is enough of a shift from 3.5 that I'm probably going to buy both and run whatever best fits a particular setting.
The core book a year thing pretty much sold me. I love the idea that rather than having to buy the Complete Book of Sand for the three races, two classes, eighteen PCs, eight spells and four feets--I get to buy a whole 'nother PHB full of more classes, races, spells and whatever without the crud--and I get one a year for as long as they keep making them. This is front-end stacking the game for me. You get what you want in the first few years rather than having to wait for the edition to nearly be done before you get stuff you really want.
Personally I'm jazzed to see 4e Eberron. I never hated the setting, but it always felt a little half-baked, a little doughy in the center. It needed to be lived in, and I think it has been. I'll probably get in on Eberron this time around, now that they know what it is and can pitch and sell and present it properly.
You get what you want in the first few years rather than having to wait for the edition to nearly be done before you get stuff you really want.
Isnt that the opposite of the plan? It seems they are leaving out certain classes/monsters for the later books. Also the way they've describe the books I'm not sure they will be that diffrent than completes. I also wonder if they really aren't going to publish anything but 3 core books a year and one campaign world. Seems light compared to the current releases.
Im curious what the new book of Eberron will look like since they seem to not be heavily changing the world. I think you are right the time will help them present it.
While I suppose it's within the realm of possibility, the likelihood of any new or re-released (and let's be honest, this would mean "re-imagined") setting drawing into 4E is slim to none. The fact is, after 25+ years of playing this game, I have more source material than I'd ever want or could ever use. To get me to buy would be take something very special indeed and I just have a hard time conceiving of that. Eberron was WotC's biggest attempt at producing a D&D setting from scratch, one that took full advantage of the v.3.5 rules and it just didn't grab me. Indeed, I see many of its innovations as precursors to things I dislike about 4E.
About the only setting that gives me pause is Golarion, which pushes all the right buttons with me. It's a setting I desperately want to buy and support, but I can't do that till I know if it's going 4E or not. As much as I like and respect the Paizo crew and wish them every success in the world, I can't bring myself to financially support 4E, even indirectly. Perhaps this is cutting off my nose to spite my face or perhaps it is principle, but, whatever it is, I am most unhappy with the direction 4E is going and want no ambiguity about it. To fully use even a well-done third party 4E product, I'll need to buy at least the core rulebooks and I will not do that.
If this means no Golarion, I'll sigh, look wistfully back at what might have been, and move on. It's not as if I don't have other settings that I enjoy.
I'm interested in 4E for PF but I'd also like to see WotC try something new in their campaign material. I'm a GHer from way back, and have never played anything but GH. Eberron looks great, but I'm not interested in investing in it. FR looks like an amped up GH so never really caught my eye. DS looked marvelous, although I never played, but honestly I think it would be wiser to do something new, with the same kind of grit that DS offered.
PF is great, and I'll stick with it and build up a nice selection of campaign materials, DM some of the APs, and steal from those I don't. BUT, if WotC can put out something really dynamic and engaging I'll certainly check it out, too.
Except for some of the s&$~ minis I've pulled, I bear no ill will towards them. They have no prejudice to overcome, here.
Just a quick question--
I recognize that many of the frequent posters are anti-campaign setting, but...
If the Powers redeveloped FR or Eberron or GH, et al. (or created a whole new setting) into something absolutely stunning--highest production value, superior editing, rock-solid campaign-specific mechanics, fabulous art and art direction--all packaged by the very paragon of WotC's best writers, would you capitulate to 4th Edition?
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?
No.
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?
Absolutely not. I already have a "great" campaign setting, my own. Settings are nice, but fluff is, well, fluff. It can come from anywhere, and is often done better than people who design the mechanics. After all, the game is a collusion of left-brain and right-brain interaction.
Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?
Nope. In fact, a new campaign setting would be a major contributing reason for us to stay far, far away.
We've long since chosen our campaign setting - new ones just aren't in the cards for us.
Would a stellar campaign setting convince me to take up 4e? Absolutely. Take your pick: Greyhawk, Eberron, Pathfinder, Planescape, Spelljammer, Urban Arcana.
Isnt that the opposite of the plan? It seems they are leaving out certain classes/monsters for the later books."
Not from what I've been hearing. They've been saying a core series a year along with a new setting book. Yeah, not every race will be in the very first book--but within a year or two after most of what we have right now should be. Third edition did exactly the same kind of thing. Not every race or class was presented, but it forced you to buy the most agregious books for just a page or two you really wanted (a book on cold places! yay! a book on sailing in boats! joy! a book on telling scary stories! wow! a book on setting generic elf culture! ooh!) At least it feels like now I'll get everything I want in one shot. PHB = Classes/Races/Feats/Spells. You could make ten of these and I'd buy them! MM = ...well more monsters. I'd buy all of these too. DMG = more traps/dungeons/DM helpers/magic items/cities I would probably buy one or two on a case by case basis.
All in all--lots of value, no waste. I buy ten of each and I get value from every page of every one. I can think of maybe four 3rd edition books I can say that about (not counting MMs or Campaign Setting Books).
Bring it on! Heh!
When I first heard of the change officially at GenCon I almost freaked. However after giving it some thought I figured the change from 2 to 3 was awesome in my estimation so I plan on delaying judgement until it is released. I am going to get the 3 core books and make my judgement then. So, to answer the original question, no the setting would not matter really because it will be the rules that count. I have incorporated settings from a lot of different designers and companies into my existing games and i will do the same thing for 4th edition.
Goo
|
If they were to use a campaign setting to get my attention it would have to be something new. FR, GH and Eberron are old news. Been there, done that.
They would have to introduce a setting so ground breaking and original that I doubt that WizCo COULD do it.
Paizo's Varissia, had it been from WizCo, might have done it for me. Not sure.