|
So Wizards has a few preview pages for Races and Classes on the page. Here are the reasons they provide for changing the default gods:
WHY WE CHANGED THE GODS
—Matt Sernett
The gods presented in the 3rd Edition Player’s Handbook
originated in the GREYHAWK Campaign Setting. It might
seem odd to tell you that if you’ve been playing D&D for 10
or more years, but if you started playing during 3rd Edition
you could easily have missed the GREYHAWK setting or not
know much about it. GREYHAWK was the original setting
used by Gary Gygax for his home games. I mention that
because it shows how long ago those gods were designed.We didn’t move forward in 4th Edition with that pantheon
because its deities weren’t designed for the improved
experience of D&D we were forming. Also, its ties to Greyhawk
and its uses in 3E wouldn’t sync up with the new
cosmology and mythology we’ve designed to be better for
play. We struggled with what deities to put in the game for a
long time, and many factors influenced our final decisions:• We don’t want deities to be thought of as
omniscient and all-powerful. Omniscience and omnipotence
makes it difficult to use gods in adventure plots
or have them interact with characters.
• We want epic characters to be capable of challenging
gods and even of becoming gods.
• We wanted deities to be designed for play in the
D&D world. Sure, it’s realistic in a sociological sense
to have a deity of doorways or of agriculture, but it’s
hard to figure out how a cleric who worships such a
deity honors his god by going on adventures.
• We wanted fewer, better deities. In your campaign,
you can have as many deities as you want, but in order to
design classes, a cosmology, and products that work well
together, we wanted a good set of deities that cover most
players’ needs without that pantheon being too complex
and cumbersome.
• We wanted deities to represent the new game and
new vision for the D&D world.
For a long time we wanted to design a pantheon that
was wholly new, but the harder we pushed it in that
direction, the more it seemed like some of the deities of
the 3E pantheon were a good fit for the game’s needs.
Thus, the pantheon is a blending of old and new.
What do you think? I have some opinions on how this reads but how does this make everyone else feel?
Yet another poor design decision (IMO).
|
Zagyg is not omniscient or all powerful. Neither is Vecna or Iuz.
Cosmology and such is fluff and as such should be open to the group preference. If the group wants to do Great Wheel then let them. If they want to do the FR Tree, let them. Publish material that expresses this. Manual of the Planes gives so little on how to make the cosmology your own that it's unfortunate -- but at least it's there.
Here we're being forced something outright. No choice. Not only that, it does specifically take away decades of what the majority of gamers have played. Great Wheel is a solid cosmology that is infinetly useful -- and it's the predominant cosmology.
Now, I don't use Great Wheel (I sure don't use FR Tree) but I think it's a bad decision for WotC to force fluff on everyone's game. Sure, I'm not going use any WotC crap but it definetly hurts that the industry leader is publishing material I'll never buy. I want to buy new D&D stuff. But I can't because of WotC crap.
-W. E. Ray
I think WOTC is full of it. Lazy and unimaginative.
I'm really hoping they make it easy to come up with our own gods. The talk of the different gods granting clerics different abilities, such as some granting favored weapons and defense bonuses, makes it sound like not all gods grant the same type of thing...
I swear, if Ass Kickery is a domain in 4th edition . . .
The recurring word "we" says it all... but what "we" want clearly isn't what I want.
The reference to "how long ago those gods were designed" rubs me the wrong way... it seems to equate "older" with "outdated" or "of inferior quality." Especially when followed-up with a sentence such as the pantheon's "deities weren’t designed for the improved
experience of D&D we were forming." Again, the designers are telling us how the older versions of D&D, and the settings/pantheons that went with them... just weren't that good. Horse s###...
So gods are confirmed as high level monsters that are there to be slaughtered...
In case the designers haven't noticed... players are more likely to pick particular deities for their characters, deities that would support an adventure motive. Conversely, do priests of all religions need to be adventurers? Must we have "adventurer only" pantheons? And if you're a creative player, I'm sure you can come up with a logical explanation as to why your cleric of an agricultural god would want/need to go adventuring.
"Fewer, better deities"... but let's make sure we keep the names of those "crusty" old deities like Pelor and Tharizdun from that old substandard setting "we" are trying to bury... and let's mash them up with the gods of other settings because "we" lack the creativity to develop a new pantheon...
One of my player's always felt that deities were best left to setting books, rather than to the Core books. While I don't entirely agree with him, I do believe that the skeletal pantheon presented in a Core rulebook should be completely distinct from the gods of existing settings (whether still in print or not). This pillaging of deities or deity names from different settings is just a very bad idea, IMO...
And to be perfectly honest, I was quite open-minded and semi-excited about some aspects of 4th ed before I read this (the changes to the crunch in particular, which might have made running encounters simpler/faster, had some appeal for me). But once again, WotC's clumsy, heavy-handed PR rears its ugly head. Between the crap I'm seeing in the "Wizards Presents" preview books, changes to fluff I really don't care for, and this insulting/lazy take on pantheons, I am now leaning more heavily than ever towards giving 4th ed a wide berth. I really am starting to believe that WotC's designers actually do want the older generation of gamers (I'm in my mid-30s) to leave their table... they should be careful what they wish for, because we also happen to be the demographic with the most disposable income...
I can't believe how mad I am about this... and I swore I wouldn't let myself get caught in one of these rants until I had a chance to see the final product, but... :-(
EDIT: And I agree with all the other comments that have been made by other posters above, especially Molech...
I understand your view Twiceborn, it's easy to get angry/frustrated with these WOTC people. I agree with pretty much everything you said. Don't appologize for letting it get to you, it just shows that you care. I think WOTC idea of what D&D is or what it should be and what people in our age range think D&D is about and what it takes to develop a world and good game are very different from one another.
Here's a quote I got from a lengthy post made by Mike Mearls that I took from the WOTC site. Although he said a lot of different things (not all of which was bad, some of which I disagreed with) I wanted to point out his feeling on world development. Rather than interject my opinion and become a subject of debate, all I will say is "Why do you design/play D&D if this is how you feel?" Perhaps someone will say I misinterpreted him or whatever, that's fine. I just read it and rolled my eyes. Here's his quote, I left the paragraph in tact so as not to taint his statement. If anyone wants to read the entire post it can be found on the WOTC site Criticisms and Concerns section, Mike Mearls Comment thread, first post, you'll find a link. I don't know how to link myself, else I would do it.
Mike Mearls said:
"When it comes to DM "chores" we want DMs to only do as much work as they want to do. Again, I have to turn the question back around to you: is it good for D&D as a whole if DMs need to do a lot of work on building a world, or is that how *you* like to DM? If there are DMs out there like me who don't like designing worlds, does that hurt you?"
I don't have a problem with most of the statement but the part where he said "If there are DMs out there like me who don't like designing worlds, does that hurt you?" made me wonder why DM or design a game if you don't even like to design worlds. Just seems like it is reflected in the Deity topic of this thread. Kind of a "Don't like to do it so we'll take the easy way out" attitude. Maybe I'm off base, but if you don't like designing worlds, why on earth are you designing a game to begin with?
|
So Wizards has a few preview pages for Races and Classes on the page.
Link please, I can't find it.
EDIT: Nevermind, I found it. Link.
|
WHY WE CHANGED THE GODS
—Matt Sernett... its deities weren’t designed for the improved
experience of D&D...
I don't know whether to laugh or to feel offended.
• We don’t want deities to be thought of as
omniscient and all-powerful. Omniscience and omnipotence
makes it difficult to use gods in adventure plots
or have them interact with characters.
Uh? They never were, as far as I know.
• We want epic characters to be capable of challenging
gods and even of becoming gods.
Didn't like it in the old Basic rules I played as a teen, don't like it now that I'm thirty-two.
|
|
• We don’t want deities to be thought of as
omniscient and all-powerful. Omniscience and omnipotence
makes it difficult to use gods in adventure plots
or have them interact with characters.
Which is irrelevant in regards to the PHB 3.5 deities, as none are defined as omniscient or omnipotent.
• We want epic characters to be capable of challenging
gods and even of becoming gods.
Again irrelevant.
• We wanted deities to be designed for play in the
D&D world. Sure, it’s realistic in a sociological sense
to have a deity of doorways or of agriculture, but it’s
hard to figure out how a cleric who worships such a
deity honors his god by going on adventures.
Yet again irrelevant, as there are no deities of such in the PHB 3.5.
• We wanted fewer, better deities. In your campaign,
you can have as many deities as you want, but in order to
design classes, a cosmology, and products that work well
together, we wanted a good set of deities that cover most
players’ needs without that pantheon being too complex
and cumbersome.
Which of the 19 PHB 3.5 deities are too complex or cumbersome?
• We wanted deities to represent the new game and
new vision for the D&D world.
For a long time we wanted to design a pantheon that
was wholly new, but the harder we pushed it in that
direction, the more it seemed like some of the deities of
the 3E pantheon were a good fit for the game’s needs.
Thus, the pantheon is a blending of old and new.
How can rehashed versions of old deities from a variety settings properly represent a new game and new vision?
This is weaker than the "explanations" for why Cuthbert became the deity of retribution and Heironeous got the long sword as his favored weapon.
|
|
Here's a quote I got from a lengthy post made by Mike Mearls that I took from the WOTC site. Although he said a lot of different things (not all of which was bad, some of which I disagreed with) I wanted to point out his feeling on world development. Rather than interject my opinion and become a subject of debate, all I will say is "Why do you design/play D&D if this is how you feel?" Perhaps someone will say I misinterpreted him or whatever, that's fine. I just read it and rolled my eyes. Here's his quote, I left the paragraph in tact so as not to taint his statement. If anyone wants to read the entire post it can be found on the WOTC site Criticisms and Concerns section, Mike Mearls Comment thread, first post, you'll find a link. I don't know how to link myself, else I would do it.
If you misinterpreted him, it would only be because of how he expressed himself.
There are so many things to find objectionable in that post it would take several threads to properly cover them all.|
|
I'm still not sure what the big fuss is about. I've always used the pantheon of whatever setting I was playing in. Not what is in a PHB.
Seriously, even if they came up with the sweetest, most kick ass and original pantheon EVER, it still wouldn't see use by me. I play in campaign settings that have their own gods.
I don´t like the idea of PCs being able to challenge (and defeat) gods. The games I DM and play keep the characters grounded in the reality of their gameworld, and killing gods has no place in my games. I like it even less if this becomes a "regular" feature, as the possibilities to kill deities seem to be part of the new core rules.
For my game, I need a pantheon that reflects the society worshipping it, as this goes miles to portraying a society in a way as to support the necessary suspense of disbelief. IF there are only adventuring-supporting gods, then what about peasants et. al.? Are they all adventuring? Of course, if the game is built so that these details are off-screen and totally irrelevant, it works just fine. These little details are not important for the game at large, sure. But leaving them out does leaves the game world as "fantasy-realistic" as some video game. It becomes a flat, colorless ground not even trying to hide the fact that it only exists to support the rules.
And mix´n´matching the old gods is plain lazy design and will have an effect on the established settings - if you keep the names, it will seem as if the deities are redesigned, so it is worthless to those wanting to keep the older settings.
I don´t like the direction of these changes.
Stefan
Well, some DMs just like to get on with adventures and combat rather than world-building. I assume Mearls is coming at it from th epoint of view of providing people with enough material to just get out there and adventure without having to design a town, a pantheon etc which some DMs do find boring.
|
|
Because a any change from 3e IS an improvement.
;D
Do you even play 3.x? If you do, why? How can you (and others) totally slag on it all the time as though you hate it so much, and still play the game? There are several dozen other game systems out there... and if you are so disappointed in 3.x why did you ever play it (if you did... and if you didn't, that should filter much input you have regarding 3.x)?
This is the same kind of tactic being used by WotC to try to convince everyone of how superior 4e is... not by actually showing how good 4e is (at least what they think is good), but by tearing down the competition - which, bizarrely enough, is their own previous product.
I think the answer to the question is "brainwashing".
"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Lenin
I don't think they're tearing down 3.x, they're just pointing out (with the benefit of hindsight) that it does have flaws.
|
|
We want epic characters to be capable of challenging
gods and even of becoming gods.
WTF? Is this really how D&D should be played? 1st level: Kill the Kobold.... 30th level Kill Pelor? Now everybody can become a Vecna? Raistlin's way to become a God is the normal way of adventurers?
"So, I killed Pelor and took his place. What God will you kill?" "Well, I was thinking about doing Vecna in, but the Wizard already did him so I choose (Insert Name of God here). The DM and me will play it next session" "Cool, in two weeks time we kill Tharizdun and create our own worlds..."
Even at the age of 15 as our DM had the "golden" D&D box this was too cheesy for us.
|
|
Well, some DMs just like to get on with adventures and combat rather than world-building. I assume Mearls is coming at it from th epoint of view of providing people with enough material to just get out there and adventure without having to design a town, a pantheon etc which some DMs do find boring.
As much as I find Mearls' comments annoying, I can definitely see that there is a place for people who want nothing to do with world-building... that's really why campaign settings exist, and why some APs (like Paizo's) do so well. I do think there should be opportunities for a group (DM and players) to pick up a book or two and be able to run a decent game without inventing a lot of stuff.
Will 4e do that? No, not any better than 3.x did. People didn't have to invent a pantheon in 3.x either - the core came with a set, and each campaign setting had its own (with some crossover... weird elven gods... :) ). Now what 4e has done is mish-mashed gods from different settings without changing their names, and actually made it much more difficult for people who want some level of continuity between rule editions. Perhaps WotC has some kind of cunning plan to pull this all together at the end... but I think that's giving them far too much credit based on what we've seen so far.
|
|
I don't think they're tearing down 3.x, they're just pointing out (with the benefit of hindsight) that it does have flaws.
They're constantly tearing down 3.x - it's in almost everything they do. That is what many people found so bizarre about their "marketing" - that they were somehow trying to argue that the edition they are trying to replace is garbage and you should be ashamed for still wanting to play it, but they're here to save us with a new edition.
Every system has flaws - and flaws is, of course, subjective. I can safely say that every system has flaws because of that subjectivity - there is not now and never will be a system that is 100% acceptable to everyone who games. I am one of those ones who think that 3.5 was necessary, but probably should have been done as a small addon, rather than a whole new edition. That's what I think is necessary now, too. When you basically start from scratch on some things (many of the core mechanics seem to be fairly new, aside from using a 20-sided-die) and try to fiddle and screw around with other things to fit it all together you are inevitably going to end up with a product that has more flaws than it needs to have. Why not build upon something that is already the product that is making you the big player in the industry instead of making something totally new that might as well be from a whole different company? They have set themselves up in competition with themselves. Perhaps that is a stroke of marketing genius in some textbook somewhere, but it just doesn't pass the "what the hell?" test for me.
More arrogant smoke-blowing nonsense from WotC. "These old, crummy deities just don't cut it for the new, super-cool 4e experience. Well, maybe some of them do if we change them around and cram them together with others from different settings, because designing a new pantheon is hard work. Oh, and they're just powerful monsters now, so PCs can kill them and become deities themselves! Doesn't that r0xx0r?"
These are the great designers who are supposed to be bringing gaming Nirvana with 4e? They can't even design their own pantheon!
Because a any change from 3e IS an improvement.I wish I knew why they apparently feel the need to wheel out the word 'improved' so often in these releases?
Any change? Be careful what you wish for...
Well, some DMs just like to get on with adventures and combat rather than world-building. I assume Mearls is coming at it from th epoint of view of providing people with enough material to just get out there and adventure without having to design a town, a pantheon etc which some DMs do find boring.
And the pantheon in the 3.0/3.5 PHBs failed to provide this? A kludged together collection of deities from different settings will help a DM to get started? If they want to provide the tools for a DM to "just get out there and adventure," then provide a sample town in the DMG (like Saltmarsh in DMG II). Or release a setting book to coincide with the 4e rollout. I expect professional quality from professional designers, not something half-*ssed.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As others have said it's more of 'Old stuff sucks, new stuff rocks!'
Well except for the old stuff that we were too lazy to file the serial numbers off of.
And that old stuff we can muck around with the portfolios a bit. Because we're cool, and the old stuff sucks.
And we're not really building a world, so deities like Janus, Demeter, Chauntena and the like don't have a place in our cosmology. How cool is a god of doorways? sounds like a god honoured by guardians or suplicated by rogues Or a god of something lame like agroculture? Guess 40+years of Realms history is wrong Sun deities are cool for their undead nuking abilities, which now heal the party too!
Feh.
*shrug* I suppose I just don't see what other people see... I suppose I'm used to it from other games company's like GW or Chaosium who usually have lead-ups or information in their books about "what changed and why".
I'll just do what I've always done and ignore the "official" deities.
|
So far as I can tell, the gods have changed between every edition. They are creating a pantheon so that the cleric characters have something to worship, and to provide a pick-up-and-play religious system for those (probably like me) who don't have the time and the inclination to do a new one. That seems fairly reasonable. If you want a god of doorknobs, then fine and invent one. But that is really a point for world building and not strictly necessary to cover off the needs of a quickly rolled-up cleric character.
What bothers me is the tone of the these communications, especially Sernett's. I'm sure these guys are sincere in their belief about 4E being great (they have been working on it for ages, after all). But someone ought to vet what they put out to avoid coming across as smug and superior. I dunno, maybe they are vetted to be like that to browbeat us into accepting 4E, but it doesn't seem to be working here.
|
|
It's pretty sad that they aren't even trying to hide the fact that they wish to turn 4th edition into a dumbed down hackfest, where even the gods are just high level boss monsters. Someone needs to slap them across the face, and get it through their thick skulls that they are supposed to be designing a game for millions of fans, not just them and their Wow-addicted nephews. Everything they write seems to seeth with contmept for the game's rich history coupled with their own laziness and lack of imiagination.
Again, I'm reading passion and a desire to explain, rather than smugness. They have to walk a difficult tightrope between exciting the reader and providing academic explanation for changes.
I'm in their corner on this one.
I never use 'gods'--when I design a cleric, I just choose two domains that support the concept I want to play. I've never gamed with a group where divine spellcasters named the "god(s)" they worshipped, and the game played fine. Matter of fact, the original D&D did not even name any "gods" in the core rules, and I was/am fine with that.
However, I don't like the idea of "divine ascension" being a PC option, nor do I like the idea of challenging "gods" in a fight. I know D&D has a history of both, but I'd rather see such things as supplemental, not core. That being said, as a DM, no one can force me to take my campaign in such a direction, so if it is in the rules...so what?
Ok, most of the points expressed in the explanation I agree with, so no problem in that...however I fail to see what the explanation actually has to do with, well, anything. Those points were or could be made valid in 3.5 pantheon so no change was necessary, except for making enough cosmetic changes to justify stamping number 4 in the cover of the book and leeching money from consumers.
Oh, and the point on which I didn't agree with...while most priests of, say, agriculture or doorways wouldn't be too keen on adventuring, it doesn't mean none of them do or playing adventuring cleric of doorways wouldn't be interesting. Damn it, god of doorways can also have "travel between material and other planes" and "peaceful journey of dead souls" as part of his portfolio, making his undead-slaying plane-hopping cleric considerably more interesting than cleric of God of Killing Orcs.
Sheesh, Matt Sernett, there's a thing called imagination. Even grognards have it (or "only grognards"?).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
GREYHAWK was the original setting
used by Gary Gygax for his home games. I mention that
because it shows how long ago those gods were designed.
-- I feel old.
... improved experience of D&D ... wouldn’t sync up with ... better for
play ... the new game and new vision for the D&D world ... We wanted fewer, better deities.
-- I feel like someone has been reading Marketing Lingo 101.
... Omniscience and omnipotence makes it difficult to use gods in adventure plots or have them interact with characters ...
... We want epic characters to be capable of challenging
gods and even of becoming gods
-- I feel the wrath of the evangelical right coming down from above like a bolt of really, really bad press.
... Sure, it’s realistic in a sociological sense to have a deity of doorways or of agriculture, but it’s hard to figure out how a cleric who worships such a deity honors his god by going on adventures ...-- I feel dumb. I'm too dumb to see how a God of Agriculture (like Saturn) could be worshipped by soldiers (like Saturn was) because there is no connection between the land and war. Nobody ever fights over land. Right?
-- I feel infantilised. They will entrust me with the right to make decisions in my own house? Bless them.... In your campaign,
you can have as many deities as you want, ...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Oh, and the point on which I didn't agree with...while most priests of, say, agriculture or doorways wouldn't be too keen on adventuring, it doesn't mean none of them do or playing adventuring cleric of doorways wouldn't be interesting. Damn it, god of doorways can also have "travel between material and other planes" and "peaceful journey of dead souls" as part of his portfolio, making his undead-slaying plane-hopping cleric considerably more interesting than cleric of God of Killing Orcs.
This calls for a 'BEST GOD OF DOORWAYS EVER!' contest.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Again, I'm reading passion and a desire to explain, rather than smugness. They have to walk a difficult tightrope between exciting the reader and providing academic explanation for changes.
I'm in their corner on this one.
Tone doesn't carry well in text, and we all have our own biases. Thus my choice of 'infer' rather than imply.
|
|
Again, I'm reading passion and a desire to explain, rather than smugness. They have to walk a difficult tightrope between exciting the reader and providing academic explanation for changes.
I'm in their corner on this one.
I think you are right to some extent. But I communicate in writing for a living, writing reports and stuff. They are using language that is going for a very hard sell, both in terms of talking up 4E and talking down the previous edition, and I'm inclined to think this is deliberate (it will have gone through the marketing department, after all). A lot of people are being offended by it - dammit, I'm being offended by it, even though I understand their commercial imperatives and the desire the designers have to create a kick-@ss product. I feel a bit like an Iraqi being told how great it is that the Americans invaded my country and got rid of Saddam and how grateful I should be feeling - well, yeah, so stop pointing that gun at me then. (And I am not looking to start a political rant here.)
I can't work out why they are being so overbearing on this. If they went for an 'academic' discussion of why it is so good, a lot of the "grognards" might be more inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. Most of us are adults who don't like to be patronised and given only half a story. Surely a key market, irrespective of the point about trying to get in new players used to WoW, will be the existing 3E players. Which is why I fail to understand the blitzkrieg approach they are taking. I'm not bothered by the changes they are making to cosmology and pantheons and I will judge 4E when I see it, but some of the tone of language still gets up my nose. I can only assume they have an idiot in charge of marketing it, because what they seem to feel is "impactful" is coming off as disrespectful.
|
|
... Omniscience and omnipotence makes it difficult to use gods in adventure plots or have them interact with characters ...
... We want epic characters to be capable of challenging
gods and even of becoming gods-- I feel the wrath of the evangelical right coming down from above like a bolt of really, really bad press.
If they don't do it for the whole "kill a god and take his stuff" thing, then they're sure to do it for the "Selling your soul is OK, as long as you get a really cool PC race out of it" reasoning.
Absolutely, I just find it so surprising how many people straight-away read the most malign and devious of motives into everything WOTC puts out.
|
|
Do you even play 3.x? If you do, why? How can you (and others) totally slag on it all the time as though you hate it so much, and still play the game? There are several dozen other game systems out there... and if you are so disappointed in 3.x why did you ever play it (if you did... and if you didn't, that should filter much input you have regarding 3.x)?Because a any change from 3e IS an improvement.
;D
Nope, haven't played it in several years now. Wasn't a huge fan of it, ready to see the next edition. If it sucks too (which I'll decide AFTER I play it) then I'll continue on with the other game systems I play as normal.
It's annoying. Yeah, the deities in the 3.5 PHB have been around for a while. I still like them. How old is Bane from FR? He 's been around for a while, too, as far as I can tell. If you want to make a shiny new pantheon, make a shiny new pantheon. But I'm not into the "Greatest Hits" version. It's changeable of course, but it's still really annoying to me.
You'd think that with the rights to Dungeon magazine, they would actually sit down and read a few issues. Maybe the one with the Dungeon Craft article by Wolfgang Baur about making up your own pantheon. Couldn't hurt.
Of course, if they HAD made up a completely new pantheon, people would be up in arms about their favorites being completely discarded...
;)
Maybe we can have a dumbed down D&D and an SRD driven, Smartened up AD&D. Would that be possible?
Come to think of it, there was a thread wandering around here a while ago about what gods you'd want in your pantheon, so the "greatest hits" idea has already hit, if not in the merchandise just yet.
And Bane is a god from the Realms that dates to the original Gray Box, so like many of the other deities he has some age to him (admittedly, though, not as much as the GH deities).