RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
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).
I thought Bane was the juiced up muscle guy who fought Batman to a standstill. I thought 'Bane' was a dumb name then.
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).I thought Bane was the juiced up muscle guy who fought Batman to a standstill. I thought 'Bane' was a dumb name then.
In the Time of Troubles Bane died. What we don't know is that he was actually on vacation in Gotham for an edition:-)
WHY WE CHANGED THE GODS
—Matt Sernett
• We wanted fewer, better deities.
Ah... There's the problem. It's a punctuation typo. Let me fix that.
WHY WE CHANGED THE GODS
—Matt Sernett
• We wanted fewer better deities.
There we go...
Suppose you actually kept your 3.x deities and ALSO added the 4e revisions to core faiths. Campaign idea: several churches/temples are facing an influx of believers/clerics/paladins whose tenets don't match what is orthodox (i.e., 4e portfolios/backgrounds are 'invading' bastions of 3.x faith). What comes of the conflict? Religious war? Political backstabbing within the heirarchy? The inquisition? I see a lot of role playing opportunity here...
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.
Not "malign and devious" as much as "clueless and incompetent."
Their argument starts with "the 3.x deities are old and irrelevant to the modern gamer," touches on "the deities in 3.x don't work well with 4e," mentions irrelevant and false "omniscient and omnipotent" strawman, states that "deities will now just be boss monsters for PCs to kill and take their place," goes on with "creating a completely new pantheon is too much work so we'll just throw together a bunch of unrelated deities from 3.5 and change them around so they're NEW and IMPROVED."
They basically invalidate their own argument. Either the old deities work or they don't. If they work, update them to the 4e rules and keep the relationships. If they don't, create a new pantheon as an example. As I stated above, these are professional designers, they should be designing a professional product.
This sort of crappy "explanation" for a cobbled-together collection of "wouldn't it be cool if..." elements that completely replace 30+ years of gaming history is typical of the WotC 4e releases. What really pisses me off is that they pretend that "it's the same game" at the same time they are hacking it to pieces and building a Frankenstein's monster to replace it.
|
|
Not "malign and devious" as much as "clueless and incompetent."
Quite. There is a failure to communicate effectively here. This is their big problem. I've always been pretty pro-WotC, and they are annoying even me. I'm simply choosing (by and large) to ignore what they are saying and wait for the books to come out. Hmm, guess I'd better stop posting in this thread, then.
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"?).
Heh. Nice rant :-) And your God of Doorways should make it into 4.5eSRD. j/k
I cannot help but wonder if this lame stuff and weak excuses comes from the same Matt Sernett who wrote the Advanced Bestiary for Green Ronin I just browsed yesterday and found amazing for the multitudes of ideas to tinker with existing creatures. If Matt Sernett does not like world-building (including pantheons), then why does he so for 4e in the first place? WotC should know enough to task their designers with jobs they like.Stefan
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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).I thought Bane was the juiced up muscle guy who fought Batman to a standstill. I thought 'Bane' was a dumb name then.
Yeah, but it rocked when Captain America took him out in one throw.
My sentiments are akin to those of Aubrey in a previous post. I think that much of the 'offensive marketing' being done by WoTC is done, primarily because they have been given their marching orders (from Hasbro), and are trying to drum up as much support for the new edition as possible, both through use of positive tactics and of negative ones (bashing those who still support 3.5). WoTC's negative tactics are misguided, but to a certain extent, understandable, when one considers that WoTC crashes and burns if we (the consumers) don't get on board for 4th edition. I think they're trying anything they can to make that happen, some of it, ill advisedly.
Regarding the updating of the Pantheon, 'Gawds', the great wheel, etc., IF the 4.0 game is not going to support the use of the Greyhawk campaign as the default campaign, then there's no logical reason to continue to use the 3.0/3.5 pantheon. This SEVERELY DISAPPOINTS me, as a player since 1983, and a huge fan of the Greyhawk campaign. But if WoTC is going to use a generic default campaign setting for 4.0, (or even worse-God forbid, use the Forgetable Realms or Gooberon), then there's no sensible reason to continue the use of the Greyhawk pantheon at that point.
Not asking this is a sarky way... but where have WOTC bashed the players/supporters of 3.5?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Everything I have to say on the topic has already been said by Aubrey. I must say that it continues to amaze me how WotC can take a person like me, that was excited about 4e before it was even announced, and sour me so much that I don't even go seeking out 4e information. I'm just holding my nose, hoping that the product is better than the marketing.
I do like the greatest hits pantheon - it's like the final fantasy series, where each game has a Cid or a Bahamut, but they get redesigned each time. WW did the same thing with the new WoD, reusing clan names for similar organizations. Unless the old name gets assigned to an entirely different concept (e.g. Bahamut is a unicorn), it provides familiarity and makes the new material more intuitive.
But I'm still sick of their s%*$ty PR and their failure to provide intelligent explanations rather than lots of "d00d! The new gods roxxor!"
I just enjoyed this:
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.
It just made me smile (in a bemused kinda way).
You know, if I was going to buy into the 4e hype and get the game, I would seriously have to dump their whole "deities in a blender" pantheon and the view that players should be able to seriously challenge a god. Without artifacts and a major, epic campaign setting, that just isn't how I see deities in a D&D game. Hmm, maybe I should come up with a set of pantheons for various editions of D&D. I know it would not be hard to come up with a good, usable pantheon of deities for a generic game world. Not only have I done it, but game designers from big name game companies have done it too.
Stephen Miller
|
|
Not asking this is a sarky way... but where have WOTC bashed the players/supporters of 3.5?
I quote:
"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."
"improved experience" - my experience has been pretty good to date. Maybe it will improve my experience, but maybe it won't - I haven't seen enough. The emphatic use of the language is telling me that what I've had so far is inferior. It is overly dictatorial, like I am some silly person who needs to be told what to do.
"we were forming" - yes, only at WotC can you enjoy a radically improved roleplaying experience. We are giving it to you (or at least deigning to let you buy it) - you are sooo lucky.
"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." - I don't think the cosmologies are better or worse for play - they don't even really impact on play as such. Plus, and to deal with Fabes's original query, it is pretty much saying that the 3E rules are positively inhibiting the brave new vision of D&D which they have at WotC. Plus it repeats and empasises the "we were forming" point above.
You can argue these things either way - but there are ways of transmitting this information which don't alienate the reader. It is a question of tone. Individually, these bits add up to nothing unless you are overly paranoid. But this stuff, in this style, has been spewing out for months - it is no accident.
It might be that there are segments of the population they are going for that react well to this polemical style. Well, good luck. But I just grind my teeth when I read this stuff. Sebastian put it well - it annoys me, even when I am (now) fairly pro-4E. Maybe they think the 3E-ers will buy 4E out of brand loyalty - and maybe they are right (I will certainly buy the Core 3 when they come out). But they seem to either take us for granted or simply not understand what makes most of us tick.
To be to insulted by their implications. These guys don't mean to be offensive (even if they succeed on occasion). They actually believe what they say. It's kind of like trying to expect the local kool-aid cult to be a reasonable conversationalist that can avoid pointing out that you aren't wearing the right sneakers and how you should expect the alien/god hybrid to look in on his science fair project from 5th grade (earth) and pick out his favourite faithful in 3.28 god days.
Now why they don't have an objective sensitive PR person look over what they release? I blame the self medicating. Oh Yeah!
|
|
Now why they don't have an objective sensitive PR person look over what they release? I blame the self medicating.
Actually, I think this is the result after the marketing department has looked at it. D&D must have massive marketing muscle behind it - it is a huge brand, instantly recognisable. I think the stuff we are getting is the result of a deliberate marketing policy.
I cannot help but wonder if this lame stuff and weak excuses comes from the same Matt Sernett who wrote the Advanced Bestiary for Green Ronin I just browsed yesterday and found amazing for the multitudes of ideas to tinker with existing creatures. If Matt Sernett does not like world-building (including pantheons), then why does he so for 4e in the first place? WotC should know enough to task their designers with jobs they like.
Maybe I shouldn't pick on people personally, I guess Matt is just a messenger...
Making up completely new pantheon would have been acceptable. It would show they are actually giving an effort on rethinking these things (and if I don't like it, I can just ignore it).
Keeping part of the old order and grouping them together with bunch of other gods from different but still old order comes off as...cheap. Something I might kick together for a homebrew but frankly, I expect a bit more from people who want my money.
|
|
I'm a huge fan of smaller pantheons, to the degree that when the Scarred Lands setting expanded to include racial dieties, I promptly made them into avatars of the 'big eight' rather than clutter it up by having a bunch of other gods show up.
But WotC has managed to explain this in such a way that the message I'm hearing is, 'We sold you something that isn't very good, and you shouldn't like it, but you should really love the next thing we want to sell you...'
4E should just include a core generic pantheon. Skip Greyhawk, skip the Realms, skip Eberron, skip names from real-world mythology. Find some generic archetypes like 'god of death' and 'sun-god' and go with those. Each specific setting book can then say, 'for the god of death from the PHB, use Wee Jas or Nerull or Kelemvore or Myrkul, etc.'
That way fans of the Realms, for instance, don't have to endure the pantheon of gods they've grown to love over the last two decades being gutted and trimmed down to fit this asinine new paradigm. I can't stand a huge number of Realms gods, but I remember during the Time of Troubles 2e to 3e conversion how torqued off I was by the decision to bump off three of my favorite Realms dieties (Bane, Myrkul and Leira) and replace them with lame 8th level humans like Kelemvore and Cyric. That decision alone turned me from a die-hard Realms enthusiast, who had converted his entire group of Greyhawk grognards to Realms-junkies, back into a Greyhawk fan. Now I see that they intend to magnify the awful 2e to 3e conversion mess a hundredfold, and thank my lucky stars that Greyhawk is a 'dead setting,' and they won't screw it up the same way they are screwing up the Realms.
Actually, I think this is the result after the marketing department has looked at it.
Ah. But I said an objective sensitive PR person. That and an in house marketing department can be two completely different things.
|
Tone doesn't carry well in text, and we all have our own biases. Thus my choice of 'infer' rather than imply.
I honestly wouldn't give them enough credit to be trying to imply anything at this point. Although, as someone noted above, it sounds like someone read the notes for Marketing 101 with the amateurish language used. Inference is done every time we read something online... but when there are so many different people who infer the same thing, don't you think there might be something to it?
I don't care about the "default" deities either way -- if the world's gods are important, they'll be customized, and if they aren't, the defaults usually work just fine.
I do have a beef with the "kill a god" idea; I remember snarky commentary in Dragon magazines of long ago mocking the idea that you could actually take on a god and win.
The specific instance referenced the Vorpal Sword -- "Yeah, I rolled a 20! I cut off Odin's head!" I also remember at the time thinking that the best response to that from a GM would be, "Odin laughs, picks his head back up and puts it back on, saying, 'Good shot, mortal. They'll raise a toast to you in hell!' KAZOTZ.
That's how I still feel today. Gods are not simply "really high CR monsters" -- or if they are, they're not really gods.
-The Gneech
Ever notice the Gneech looks like Tony the Tiger tm? ;P
But yes I agree with you. Gods are gods. Not "Man we sure tricked those suckers into worshiping us. *snicker* *snicker* I mean, we are just really powerful mortals. HAHAHAHAHa".
I call those "char-la-tans". A special prestige class yes. But "god" should not be a template in 4.0.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
"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." - I don't think the cosmologies are better or worse for play - they don't even really impact on play as such. Plus, and to deal with Fabes's original query, it is pretty much saying that the 3E rules are positively inhibiting the brave new vision of D&D which they have at WotC. Plus it repeats and empasises the "we were forming" point above.
To add to what Aubrey says above, if there is some reason this new pantheon does play better, they should explain it. Why is this mythology better for play? What does it do differently? By what criteria is the game better for it? What is lost and why is what we're gaining more valuable than what we are losing? They've answered some of these questions, but the answers have been largely unsupported assertions. I want the meat of the debate, not the for idiots summary.
|
|
That's how I still feel today. Gods are not simply "really high CR monsters" -- or if they are, they're not really gods.
I wonder if Clerics are still going to receive their powers from gods? It's going to be pretty much impossible for that to be the case if 30th level characters can fight and kill gods, since a god who can grant clerical abilities is going to be able to turn every one of his followers into a 30th level cleric...
"Okay, 30th level Clerics of Odin #1 through #5000 go now. You rolled 1's on 5% of the first 5000 saves you had to make, so you've taken 7000 points of damage, 120 pts of Ability Damage, and are Blind, Deaf, have -30 Negative Levels, Stunned, Dazed, Confused, Nauseated, have every Curse in the book and a few I made up, Poisoned (all of them), Diseased (all of them), impotent and on fire (DC 15 Reflex save next round to put out the fire, or take another 1d6). Odin's holding his action, waiting to see if he actually needs to do anything. Sif is hiding her face. Thor says, 'Hold my ale. This will be funny.'"
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I know it would not be hard to come up with a good, usable pantheon of deities for a generic game world. Not only have I done it, but game designers from big name game companies have done it too.
Oh come on! You can't really expect WoTC to come up with an original, highly creative pantheon in a short period of time? No one could do that. Oh, wait, Paizo did.
I've been a Greyhawk fan for 23 years. I was happy with Greyhawk. Forgotten Realms and Eberron weren't for me. But Golarion?! What an amazing world that is shaping up to be.
|
|
To add to what Aubrey says above, if there is some reason this new pantheon does play better, they should explain it. Why is this mythology better for play? What does it do differently? By what criteria is the game better for it? What is lost and why is what we're gaining more valuable than what we are losing? They've answered some of these questions, but the answers have been largely unsupported assertions. I want the meat of the debate, not the for idiots summary.
Yes, excellent point. This is the major part of the bad PR job they're doing that bothers me. They don't actually explain how what they're doing is better (other than to claim that what went before was somehow crap and couldn't possibly be used in *their* 4e). I agree with you 100% on this post. :)
The scary part is that either a) they are intentionally waging this campaign of anti-3.x instead of a logical and well-reasoned pro-4e campaign or b) they actually have no idea why the new version should be considered better or why anyone would switch to it, but they have to keep pushing it for business interests alone.
I'm sure there are more letters to come, but those are the two that came to my mind at this point by way of explaining the terrible job they're doing.
Sorry, I don't see how "improved" is personally insulting to anyone. I would be a bit baffled if they claimed that the new game isn't improved. I certainly hope it is. Not because 3E is bad, but because it could be better. I still see nothing that offensive or derogatory in there. But we will all read things differently. I don't think that if a lot of people believe something that it follows that there must be "something in it". Much wrong-headedness that way lies.
Ever notice the Gneech looks like Tony the Tiger tm? ;P
That's because I'm G-R-R-REAT!
-The Gneech ;D
|
|
I wonder if Clerics are still going to receive their powers from gods? It's going to be pretty much impossible for that to be the case if 30th level characters can fight and kill gods, since a god who can grant clerical abilities is going to be able to turn every one of his followers into a 30th level cleric... "Okay, 30th level Cleric of Odin #5927 goes now, save against Maximixed Flame Strike, again. 30th level Clerics of Odin #5928 through 5958 are Aiding Other on #5959's attack roll, giving him a +60 to hit you with his Power Attack once / day Super-Smite-the-Unrighteous. Odin's holding his action, waiting to see if he actually needs to do anything."
I know if I were a god in such a world, I would go around hunting everyone who hits 21st level and wipe them out before they became a threat. Isn't that what the big bad guys do? Take out the most powerful threats to them before they can be beaten? Of course, good guys do that too when they take out bad guys before their power grows too strong. So... any god not willing to defend himself preemptively will be dead... which means that in the space of a couple of years all of the good deities will likely be dead and the pantheon full of evil deities will implode in a conflagration of mutually assured destruction.
Then the Greyhawk gods can come back from break and clean up the mess. ;)
|
|
I don't have a problem with the idea of 4E being an improvement on 3E, otherwise why would they bother. I'm actually fairly pro-4E. If you read the article and don't see the implications of what they are saying, then you are probably their target audience. (That's a joke.)
I'm hardly alone in seeing this as high-handed - as Sebastian says, we have had a lot of change, and the reason we have been given for it is "'cos 4E is great!" without much (anything) supporting it. The context for it is clear - from the original film they did for GenCon and the announcement onwards. There is a predictable response from those who simply don't like the changes - personally, I'm not bothered by them. But the marketing tactics feel like the sale of snake oil, or maybe a ninja loan to a subprime borrower. I hope, and expect, that it isn't. But I find the implication that I need to sold to like a gullible fool kind of annoying.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Oh come on! You can't really expect WoTC to come up with an original, highly creative pantheon in a short period of time? No one could do that. Oh, wait, Paizo did.
Though, to be fair to WotC, Paizo is just plain awesome, and can't be compared to such foolish mortals.
Oh, crap, that came out wrong.
Quite a few of Paizo's gods were already developed at the time from various homebrew campaigns, and a few others (Asmo leaps to mind) were pretty much made from the beginning.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Sorry, I don't see how "improved" is personally insulting to anyone...
It's my intelligence they are insulting. The arguments are so weak that it's like they aren't even trying. I expect more from my students and they are paying me. I certainly expect more from people who want my money.
I'm not anti-4e. I'm happy with 3.5 but I'm not anti-4e. I am very, very pro-Paizo at this point. I'm so ridiculously in love with Paizo right now that it's not funny but I'm not anti-4e.
|
|
I'm a huge fan of smaller pantheons, to the degree that when the Scarred Lands setting expanded to include racial dieties
Threadjack: START
FTW!! The Scarred Lands setting is teh awesome!!
Really, it's such a great setting, well thought-out and colourful, with a great background work and an incredible potential for adventure both dirty-and-gritty and high powered, without fear of disrupting the whole setting balance.
Also, the PrCs designed for that setting are really what a PrC should be, not to talk about the great variety of setting related spells and magicks, and all those inventive creatures.
It's most definitively my favorite 3.X setting, even if Golarion is climbing the ladder quite quickly...
Threadjack: STOP
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Things I've found offencive:
Rich Baker: We decided to do something a little more ambitious than making them “the drow of the dwarves,” So we're throwing out all their background to make them the tieflings of the dwarves
Rich Again: We're not moving Realms toward Eberron. In what way do you think we are? (Other than something cosmetic like the number of deities?) There's nothing driving us to make Realms more like Eberron.
Um, blowing up the entire gorram realms is cosmetic?
David Noonan: "...lots of stuff going on during a fight, and a great DM will mix it up and employ lots of combat, social challenges, hazards/obstacles, and who knows what else."
"The meaning of "Core": will include expansions and D&D Insider materials, not just the first three books, when referred to by WotC."
So the DI is more or less mandatory for cons and 'official' games.
Chris Perkins: "All in all, 4th Edition offers a much better gaming experience for players and Dungeon Masters. says who? Even though 3rd Edition is an excellent game, 4th Edition gives players better character options at every level, makes DM-ing less of a chore, and (as mentioned above) speeds up round-by-round combat."
Dave Noonan: "No more of this "traps cap out at CR 10" nonsense. In 4e, traps--and more broadly, other hazardous traplike things--go all the way up." Funny, mine go up to 20 in Dungeonscape, a WotC product.
Rodney Thompson -- "Going back to some 4E specifics, one of the the things I have enjoyed about 4E is that it's very much a "yes you can" game. It lets people do fun and exciting things, and it lets them do them without much complication. [i]implying 3.x doesn't
James Wyatt:"Of course, there's more to the sweet spot problem than just the math. The proliferation of save-or-die effects and adventure-breaking effects like etherealness and scrying also makes high-level adventuring more difficult to pull off, and we've addressed those issues as well."
removing != addressing. the APs seem to have taken those thigns into account. Heck, i've seen midlevel modules that counter it.
Fundamentally, this has meant we've had to abandon some things that might have seemed like sacred cows—fireball spells don't do 1d6/level any more, for example—but it's all in the interest of a far superior play experience again, by who's standards?
From Wizards Presents: Races & Classes: Ability score adjustments have a net positive benefit (i.e. not of the type -2 / +2). everybody's a winner, negative stats make people feel bad.
"Humans will be more "flavourful". There will be mechanical flair to make humans as exciting as any other race." so orcs think they taste better? I find them popular enough.
'...he pointed out that it was largely a one-skill tax on PC spellcasters, and it tended to swing to extremes. Either you had your Concentration maxed and could ignore the problem, or you didn't and it was far too easy for a spellcaster to be unable to cast. Instead, you can pick up powers that can mess with spellcasting and other abilities." so tactics like readied actions are out against spell casters? too hard to figure out?
"In some ways, it's like having a major and a minor in college. And 4e characters are looking a lot more well-rounded than their 3e counterparts." again down with 3.x My battle sorcerer has phantom steed you're saying it's a poor choice for a 3/x character?
"The fog of war is much more interesting because when you approach an orc, he isn’t a set of specific stats. He has a very specific role, and you won’t know what it is until he unleashes it on the battlefield." Orc Wizards never existed in his world?
That's just a bit i can find that's bothered me.
|
|
I have two problems with the post, and they seem to be held my me and me alone.
First of all, this post sounds like they are talking about Exalted. I've mentioned this before, and I know people are sick of it, but I'll say it again: 4e is turning out like Exalted. Is that a bad thing? No. But my point is that Exalted's had one go around like this, and already have about 2 years on 4e, which brings up, why not just play White Wolf's Exlated?
Before I get attacked, know that I'm not really a fan of Exalted at all, but I lived with a bunch of Exalted players, so I've heard about it's virtues quite a bit.
It has a social combat system, it has players becoming deities and fighting them and it doesn't have an alignment system. Granted, they'll be tons of other differences, but with less character options (talent trees (charm trees)), less skills, and a stronger, more action-esque system, it really seems like they are one and the same (granted, Exalted uses d10 and 4e uses d20).
The second thing that bothered me was the fact that Golarian has a deity list the size of the old 3.x system. They stated that using their smaller, better deity list will work with 4e and maximize one's ability to play the game. Does this mean then, by playing Golarian 4.x, our game won't be good, since they'll be too many deities?
(Honestly)
|
I wanted to take some time to make sure I wasn't being excitable. After sleeping on it and thinking it about the whole thing on my way to work I realized I still felt pretty much the same.
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.
Okay, I am in the camp that believes gods do not belong in the core PHB. But, if we are going to have them I would rather see a whole new pantheon rather than gods from a specific setting or, as in this case, gods from a whole host of settings.
I guess I'm confused. I will agree it is possible for a gamer who started with 3e to miss Greyhawk. But I wouldn't say it was easy to miss. Between Greyhawk serving as the "default setting" <snicker> and Living Greyhawk as the most popular RPGA campaign most gamers have, at least, a passing familiarity with it.
Outside of all of this, the gods as they are presented in the 3.x PHB are rather divorced from the setting. If anything, a gamer begining with 3e might be more familiar with these gods and less likely to want to see them changed. Replacing them has little to do with catering to customer concerns and more to do with designer preference.
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:
This statement bugs me because later down the line we see the pantheon is just a cobbled together mess of gods anyway.
Somewhere I read a throw away statement by one of the designers (I will see if I can hunt it up) that basically said the new cosmology was great because it meant all the campaign worlds could exist in it. Thus, the people of Oerth see the multiverse as a Great Wheel and are familiar with the planes included in that cosmology. The same goes for Faerun, Krynn, etc. The multiverse is so large it would be difficult to be aware of all the Outer Planes. Therefore some worlds only have regular contact with specific places in the planar geography.
But the above statement seems to indicate Greyhawk can't exist in this new multiverse. I would like to know which is reality and which is just smoke and mirrors. In other words, will the new Faerun and the default D&D world exist in the multiverse previewed on the site? Do the people of Faerun simply refer to the planes they are familiar with as the "Great Tree"? Or will they create new cosmologies for every setting, a la 3e?
I also resent the statements "improved play experience" and "better for play". I can understand they are trying to sell a game here but let's get serious. Show me how the experience will be better, don't tell me. What is so monumentally different about 4e that Pelor, Obad-hai, and St. Cuthbert are no longer appropriate? And if it is that different, does it still deserve the moniker of D&D? What is it about paladins that make Bahamut a better choice over Heironeous? And the explanation better be something more robust than "dragon gods are kewl". Yes, we know that. Dragonlance showed us that over 20 years ago.
• 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.
They never really have been. But even if they were all-powerful this does not prevent them from interacting with characters or providing adventure plots.
• We want epic characters to be capable of challenging
gods and even of becoming gods.
In the mulititude of campaigns I have run the characters have only ascended to godhood once. I had in-game reasons for the transition and I didn't need rules to do it.
Challenging and slaying a god has always been right out. I would only use such a storyline if it met certain specific and restrictive criteria. Being a 30th level uber-fighter is not one of those criteria.
• 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.
I get his point here. I don't see how the gods of the 3e PHB fail at this though. I hope the DMG does have some guidelines how to fill out the pantheon with gods the normal people would worship.
There appears to be a great deal of hand holding in this latest edition. I would hope they would go all the way and include a very robust worldbuilding chapter in the DMG and not just try to spoonfeed their default material.
• We wanted deities to represent the new game and
new vision for the D&D world.
Okay then, with a new world should a come a whole new pantheon. If you are presenting a new vision show us something new, don't get lazy and just cobble things together.
Honestly, developing a whole new world, pantheon, and cosmology for the new edition would not have bothered me in the least. If 4e was really breaking new ground I would expect a new setting to help usher in that new vision. I would expect future CS books to illustrate how the new rules can be used or altered to accomodate those older settings. Nuking a setting to make it fit your new ruleset has always been a bad idea. Let DMs decide how the new rules will be integrated into their setting of choice. Let all the bells and whistles get shown off in a setting we have never seen before.
In the end, I feel like this is another example of bad marketing. Or rather, the inability of Wizards to present their design choices as anything other than insulting and arrogant. I would like to think that this is not their true intent. I would like to think there is simply a miscommunication somewhere along the line. But this stuff goes through a marketing department. It does not fly off a designer's computer and into a book or appear in a blog. And if it does get posted without first being reviewed, I think it is time for Wizards to reign in their designers because they are doing the new game a grave disservice.
I was on the fence about 4e. I am still very certain I will wait to reserve final judgment until the books come out. But material like this makes me want to skip the edition all together or convert to a game that more accurately incorporates my play experience.
I disagree with every single one of the commetaries/translations, but that's the way it's going to be, I suppose. I like 3.x and I like the sound of 4E. As with all debate on "teh interwebs", there won't be a resolution or accommodation, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
Now why they don't have an objective sensitive PR person look over what they release? I blame the self medicating.Actually, I think this is the result after the marketing department has looked at it. D&D must have massive marketing muscle behind it - it is a huge brand, instantly recognisable. I think the stuff we are getting is the result of a deliberate marketing policy.
Despite my hopes otherwise, I am inclined to agree. There is no way this is an accident. This is a deliberate attempt to make the previous edition look bad in comparison.
The greatest competition 4e has is previous iterations of the game. It only makes sense to illustrate how 4e is better. Unfortunately they have taken a harder tack than I think is wise.
|
|
Gods are fluff.
Fluff can change to fit your campaign.
When I create a world the first thing I do is build in a cosmology, gods, and religions that fit the way i want the world to work.
The new approach to gods is completely disposable. If you do not like it then you can simply ignore it.
If 4E is going to be condemned over this kind of fluff then every FRPG can be derided for poor choices in the fluff and flare departments.
With the possible exception of Lord Ao in the Forgotten Realms (who never shows up at all, except in a couple of novels where he appears to "put everything aright" like King Richard at the end of Robin Hood), there has never been anything approaching an "omnipotent, omniscient" deity in D&D.
For one thing, having an omnipotent God automatically requires monotheism. By definition, you can't have more than one omnipotent being in any given reality. (Because what happens if two omnipotent beings disagree?)
How does turning the D&D gods into fancy epic-level mortals make them "better?" Are all players going to expect to become Godslayers when they hit 25th level or so? Can you become a God yourself if you find all the Dragonballs?
More of the dumbed-over munchkinfest that is 4e.
Good thing I don't need any WotC Dieties anymore: I've got Desna and Sarenrae. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Gods are fluff.
Fluff can change to fit your campaign.
When I create a world the first thing I do is build in a cosmology, gods, and religions that fit the way i want the world to work.
The new approach to gods is completely disposable. If you do not like it then you can simply ignore it.
If 4E is going to be condemned over this kind of fluff then every FRPG can be derided for poor choices in the fluff and flare departments.
Where can i begin with all the things that i think are wrong with that statement?
Lets start from the very basics. "Fluff is worthless".
Fluff is what divides a pure "miniature combat" game system from a roleplaying system. Look at D&D Minis. No fluff (or very little), no problems pairing up Eberron, FR, Greyhawk and who-knows-what else in a single warband. Does that make a game of D&D Minis even nearly as compelling as even the most boring dungeon crawl i ever played? No.
Like it or not, "Fluff" (hate the term...) is what glues the games together, and makes them more than a series of more or less random battles. Fluff is what makes the game take a life of its own.
Next up "If you don't like it, Rule 0 it".
If i pay for a product, i expect it to be in worthwhile condition. Would you buy a car with the qualifier "The back seats are junk, and probably will infest the rest of the car with head lice, you've got to replace them before doing anything with the car?". Would you buy a novel with the qualification "Chapters 2 and 7 are b%&%$%#%, make up your own?" I for one would do neither. All parts need to be in at least passable condition, or i take my money elsewhere.
Then the ever-popular "I am elite enough never to use the official fluff, and so should you"-implication.
I've had my "world building" days. Today, i like to think i outgrew them. World-building is IMNSHO "writer masturbation". Its ok to indulge in a little bit, but if you overdo it, people will likely think you are a little strange ;) Seriously, though. Its kind of a waste of time to come up with a whole new world for each and every campaign you play, and few players will like to learn a whole new setting each time, too. If i paid for these bits (and i do), then i damn well want to use them too.
Oh, and just as a reminder "Completely disposable" is not something new. You completely dispose off the old core pantheon the moment you fire up an Forgotten Realms or Eberron game, and even throw out lots in any "real Greyhawk" group.
My deity "fluff" (speaking purely of the Forgotten Realms) stands in the Faiths & Avatars series. If the WoW-generation needs godkilling as bait, so be it. Methinks Chris Perkins said something like quite the opposite was going to happen, so that's how quickly opinions can change.
Maybe I have a completely wrong concept about the divine and deities in general. But if ever a character wants to engage a god with bloodshed in mind, he or she will have a rude awakening ... no matter what the rules say.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Let me add, I don't mind character immortality. but look at the BECMI way of doing it.
Found an empire that lasted generations.
Go through all the classes to 36th level.
Those are teh only two off the top of my head. I never recalled "Kill Ares and take his stuff." being a PC method. Even Finder's slaying of Moander, he had Tymora as a patron.