Okay I got my first chance to look at the preview book I really care about--Worlds and Monsters. Not buy, mind you. Yuck. But I did get the chance to flip through it and read the key stuff.
Subject number one on my head has been what has been said regarding the fact that the core D&D setting is a nameless blob. That's not as true as I thought. There's tons of nations and old empires that get described, so there's some bones to the place. Likewise the idea that the world is nameless doesn't imply they don't care, so much as that the world is fragmented enough that different cultures have different terms for it. They suggest The "Middle World" and the Exalted-eque "Creation", but at least it seems like a real place that is grounded and detailed. Whew.
That said, they seem hip on the idea of using their "core setting" as a product identity--a "template" to borrow a 3.xism that gets slapped onto every other D&D product. The expectation is for players to make their own worlds according to the D&D core model, rather than have the one setting be the whole tamale (which, as they say, would be to deny the flexibility of D&D worldbuilding--one of the franchise's key strengths). So it's a world, but it's more of a model for worlds. Interesting.
Anyhow yeah, some stuff from Greyhawk is going to get recycled. The Temple of Elemental Evil is here. I just read that Sigil is going to get a spot in the DMG as well. Not as terrible as it could be, since in order to really do a Greyhawk game justice, I'd probably run it with the 3.0 rules anyway. 4e, for me is about doing new things.
Product name association is why they used those places.
What get's me is the Feywild(aka is it like the place Tom Cruise fought Darkness and saved the unicorn (and his girlfriend).
I hate the name Feywild. The latter is a connotation of the former.
Anyway, on to the matter at hand, that's cool if they can find a way to incorporate classic D&D sites into the new unnamed setting. Not sure if they'll get any Realms stuff in, and that's also pretty classic.
I think they're just using bits from old settings they're no longer using, to sorta' give a nod to the folks that love them without having to ressurect a dead game line that was fragmenting the product. So the Realms stuff, hopefully, should stay in the Realms. Likewise I'd imagine with Eberron that it's stuff should stay pretty intact. With the cancelled lines like Ravenloft, Mystara, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Spelljammer I would imagine they might be pulling some things from them and porting them into the Core Setting, much as they've done with bits of Greyhawk and Planescape.
As for the new planes like Feywild and Shadowfell I can't say I dislike them. Yeah, they seem a bit like ripoffs of World of Darkness cosmologies but at least they're a bit more plush and fun than "a big misty place". So many of the old transitive planes were just dull like crazy. Elemental Planes too. I totally dig the idea of making them more textured, interesting places where folks can go and do stuff.
Product name association is why they used those places.
What get's me is the Feywild(aka is it like the place Tom Cruise fought Darkness and saved the unicorn (and his girlfriend).
I know cool huh?
I took a look at it as well. It's available for review at your local Borders. I liked it. I got a lot of good ideas just skimming through the book. The feywild is the fanciful place found in mist shrouded forest vales. Shadowfell is that place in your closet where the boogie man comes from. Those are some magical realms for some strange and fun DnD game play and campaigns.
and killed a green hag.I know cool huh?Product name association is why they used those places.
What get's me is the Feywild(aka is it like the place Tom Cruise fought Darkness and saved the unicorn (and his girlfriend).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Meg Mucklebones: What a fine fat boy you are, Jack!Jack: You don't really mean to eat me, do you, ma'am?
Meg Mucklebones: Oh, indeed I do!
[cackles]
Jack: That would be a shame because someone as fair and lovely as yourself, Miss Meg, deserves far better than scrawny me. Don't you think?
Meg Mucklebones: Think me fair, do you, Jack?
Jack: All the heavenly angels must envy your beauty.
Meg Mucklebones: [cackles] What a fine meal you'll make, be the rest of you as sweet as your tongue!
[cackles]
The feywild is in this(default D&D world) where exactly? I don't understand that part of it, even after reading the whole book in borders something about being in a ruined castle in the material world then somehow gettin jacked by formorian giants? I was more baffled the more I read..I felt no guilt placing it on the shelf...it did have pretty pictures.
I've gotta say that Worlds & Monsters was without a doubt one of the best D & D books I've read in quite awhile.
I really like the design and philosophy behind it. In particular I'm glad to see the Feywild and Shadowfell. I've always enjoyed reading about the Fairy world in fairy tales and myth and I'm really glad to see this brought into the game world. I think they both promise to be great sites to adventure in as well as allowing DM's to be able to have environments where they can emphasize cool magic intertwined with the environment as well as a great horror slant to adventures in the Shadowfell - I think this will be an excellent place to bring into play the stuff from Heroes of Horror.
I also really like that there is a creation myth to explain the various monsters and races in the world. Though purely fluff in nature it makes me as a DM happy to have a reason behind the world, and I think it helps to make the world itself more compelling and fun to work with as a DM.
But most of all I like that they are emphasizing the role of monster civilizations in the world and in the world's past. This is something that I feel that none of the game worlds so far have addressed and I defenitely agree with the designers' assessment that so far the approach has been to develop a medieval world full of humans and their kingdoms and then to try to randomly drop monsters into it.
While I don't plan on switching to 4th edition, I really like the changes and design shown in this book and I am already at work implementing many of them into my own campaign world.
It also seems to me that they've done a good job with this book of showcasing elements that can be adapted to any world. It doesn't seem to me that they're trying to force a philosophy on DM's, but merely showcasing one we can use if we wish.
|
My question to those who know or own the book:
Is the Core world "template" (as Grimcleaver put it) generic enough to allow for a great variance of gaming styles or does the setting also sets the gaming style.
What I mean: there is not only a difference in setting when playing in Ebberon, the Wilderlands or FR but also in playstyle.
Can we deduct a "Core" playstyle that 4th edition will support from this book?
The feywild is in this(default D&D world) where exactly? I don't understand that part of it, even after reading the whole book in borders something about being in a ruined castle in the material world then somehow gettin jacked by formorian giants? I was more baffled the more I read..I felt no guilt placing it on the shelf...it did have pretty pictures.
They're the new transitive planes, and overlap the Prime. Basically the Shadowfell replaces the Plane of Shadow, and the Feywild replaces the Ethereal. Basically they took all the misty murky places that look just like the Prime on a foggy day or at night and replaced them with fun stuff from Legend and Pirates of the Carribean (under the full moon that is!)
What I mean: there is not only a difference in setting when playing in Ebberon, the Wilderlands or FR but also in playstyle. Can we deduct a "Core" playstyle that 4th edition will support from this book?
Actually they go into a lot of depth. The whole point seems to be to try and figure out what the core underpinnings of D&D are that separate it from other fantasy RPGs out there. The attempt is to come up with the X-factor that makes D&D what it is regardless of setting. That said, it seems they are at least interested in spreading D&D out to different styles of play, so it doesn't just offer the straight up dungeon-hack for everyone. It seems like they're trying to offer people more variety in game feel rather than maps and minis and a dismissive hand-wave to folks who don't game that way. I appreciate that.
That said, I don't know if their idea of "What is D&D" is exactly mine. I don't know if it will work the same in the established settings. I kind of get the opinion that ultimately their pontifications will have to take a back seat to the reality of what the Realms and Eberron are. I don't think either one fits their model really well and it'd do a big disservice to the settings to try and cram them in.
Who knows though. They could screw things up so bad I end up ripping out clumps of my own hair. At least I can say I respect the endeavor a ton more than I did before I thumbed through the book--and I trust them to do something new and fun.
|
|
Considering the drastic changes they are making to the Forgotten Realms, I think that they are trying to cram this 4E template into the Realms, and that the setting will seriously suffer for it. Dragonborn, tieflings everywhere, and the "points of light" paradaigm are being forced into the Realms when they have no place in the Realms. I wouldn't be surprised to see Eberron get the same treatment a year down the road. They don't care if they ruin a setting as long as it fits the 4E template. Why do you even need three campaign settings if you are going to make them all alike? It's confusing, moronic, and disrespectful to the fans of these settings.
The concepts and game fluff for 4E are very cool for a setting, but they will make creating a custom non-D&D fantasy world extremely difficult for anyone else. And shoe-horning them into the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, et al. will be a disaster.
As a comparison, Ars Magica had a very cool setting that could not be translated to anything other than an Ars Magica game. One of D&D's strengths over the years has been that it's always been enough of a generic fantasy that anyone could do anything with it, from The Black Company to Elric to Drizz't. With all these setting-and-rule-specific changes that flexibility will disappear.
|
The concepts and game fluff for 4E are very cool for a setting, but they will make creating a custom non-D&D fantasy world extremely difficult for anyone else. And shoe-horning them into the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, et al. will be a disaster.
As a comparison, Ars Magica had a very cool setting that could not be translated to anything other than an Ars Magica game. One of D&D's strengths over the years has been that it's always been enough of a generic fantasy that anyone could do anything with it, from The Black Company to Elric to Drizz't. With all these setting-and-rule-specific changes that flexibility will disappear.
I have heard this postulation from a few folks here but I am really not clear on why this perception exists. What mechanic or mechanics lead you to see 4E as lacking flexibility?
|
|
I have heard this postulation from a few folks here but I am really not clear on why this perception exists. What mechanic or mechanics lead you to see 4E as lacking flexibility?
So far it SEEMS that 4th will support a cinematic approach to encounters. Cinematic combat supports some playstyles but some not.
IMO a campaign setting always favors a certain playstyle.Using The Black Company Setting or A Song of Ice and Fire Setting with cinematic combat maneuvers will destroy the grim and gritty and very deadly flavor of these Settings.
3.5 was generic enough that you could, with some twists to the Core Rules adapt to these playstyles.
But IF (and I don't know this yet for sure, so this is just an assumption, please bear with me)...so IF 4th clearly supports this cinematic combat with stunts, cool moves and "wuxia "elements (again, this is an assumption)...then DM will not be able to use the Core Rules to support their Setting and Playstyle.
|
|
But IF (and I don't know this yet for sure, so this is just an assumption, please bear with me)...so IF 4th clearly supports this cinematic combat with stunts, cool moves and "wuxia "elements (again, this is an assumption)...then DM will not be able to use the Core Rules to support their Setting and Playstyle.
I can see that. I guess my issue is the declaration that the 4E core mechanics are less flexible and less generic. I worry about that too but I just don't see it as something that can't be overcome.
If Green Ronin can take 3.5 and make True20 out of it then my hope would be that 4E, which shares the same core mechanic, can be adapted just as easily.
In this case both the pro and con are based on the level of optimism or pessimism surrounding 4E rather than anything solid.
I kind of get the opinion that ultimately their pontifications will have to take a back seat to the reality of what the Realms and Eberron are. I don't think either one fits their model really well and it'd do a big disservice to the settings to try and cram them in.
I get the opposite impression. As an example, I think FR is being reimagined to fit with the assumptions of D&D's new default world.
I also think this is where WotC is going wrong -- IMO they will lose more customers than they gain. Only idiots deliberately and knowingly alienate an existing customer base.
Fixing mechanics -- very good, arguably needed. Changing game content (sometimes radically so) -- not so much.
Oh I definitely think there's deliberate design changes to bring the Realms cosmology and whatnot into line with the concepts of 4e, but I think they're being done by a lot of the same people who have always written for the Realms, and I think they're being tied into the history in fun and exciting ways (well and 10 years in the future to boot).
I think you can add a Feywild to Faerun without ruining it. That said, I think the themes and gameplay of the Realms will pretty much stay the same. It will still be gorgeous and magical, the map can't change too much, so you're going to have a lot more light in the world than in the Core Setting, with all the familiar countries and power groups. The main conflicts will be the same. The gods will probably get thinned out from what I hear, but the ones that are left will be ones we know well. The races will probably feel a bit more evenly spread out since "humanity in charge" is one of the things they wanted to get rid of.
I guess my point is that when the rubber hits the road, the people who love these settings are gonna' be the guys writing for them, and they'll probably look to the "template" as a model--but ultimately I think they're going to make their settings as much what they are as they can, if for no other reason than they know no other way to write them.
I guess my issue is the declaration that the 4E core mechanics are less flexible and less generic. I worry about that too but I just don't see it as something that can't be overcome.QUOTE]I think the main causes for concern here come from the races and classes. A fighter is a fighter, a rogue is a rogue. You can have those in any setting. A warlord? A warlock? Will those even fit into other kinds of fantasy? I think it's those kinds of questions. Fighters with a "power source" that lets them pull off magical wu shu. Hard to port that into some worlds. The spin on the races is another part, I think. In 3.5 a guy who knew nothing but Tolkien and other fantasy novels could look at D&D and immediately knew where he was. Not so much with tieflings and eladrin and dragonborn. They don't plug and play so intuitively. I think that's an issue.
It's gone from the 3.5 cosmology where every setting had their own, back to an earlier design where every D&D world is connected to the same planar structure. Hard to go back through that door for a lot of people. It used to be that you could read any fantasy book and catch the little in references. Oh that necklace is really a "this", or that race is really a "that". I think 4e is not going to feel so comfortable or familiar.
Ultimately yeah, I think 4e is a more inflexible design than 3.5, but I think the huge influx of new ideas and flavor makes up for that, for me anyway. But I do see it.
|
|
Oh I definitely think there's deliberate design changes to bring the Realms cosmology and whatnot into line with the concepts of 4e, but I think they're being done by a lot of the same people who have always written for the Realms, and I think they're being tied into the history in fun and exciting ways (well and 10 years in the future to boot).
I think you can add a Feywild to Faerun without ruining it. That said, I think the themes and gameplay of the Realms will pretty much stay the same. It will still be gorgeous and magical, the map can't change too much, so you're going to have a lot more light in the world than in the Core Setting, with all the familiar countries and power groups. The main conflicts will be the same. The gods will probably get thinned out from what I hear, but the ones that are left will be ones we know well. The races will probably feel a bit more evenly spread out since "humanity in charge" is one of the things they wanted to get rid of.
I guess my point is that when the rubber hits the road, the people who love these settings are gonna' be the guys writing for them, and they'll probably look to the "template" as a model--but ultimately I think they're going to make their settings as much what they are as they can, if for no other reason than they know no other way to write them.
Well, I don't know if you read Richard Baker's article on the Spellplague. Most of the Realms was nuked into oblivion, and they fast forwarded 100 years. Not 10 years, 100 years. Now, tell me with a straight face that they aren't cutting up the Realms and trying to shove it into a 4E "points of light" template.
|
|
I can see that. I guess my issue is the declaration that the 4E core mechanics are less flexible and less generic. I worry about that too but I just don't see it as something that can't be overcome.
Sure, the D20 mechanics are so adaptable that you can work it into various settings. that was true for 3ed and will be true for 4th.
If Green Ronin can take 3.5 and make True20 out of it then my hope would be that 4E, which shares the same core mechanic, can be adapted just as easily.
There might be an issue with the new SRD. Will it be possible to use the 4th D20 mechanics comercially to create a slightly different system (like Black Company Campaign Setting or Thieves' World)?
In this case both the pro and con are based on the level of optimism or pessimism surrounding 4E rather than anything solid.
Yeah, I started very optimistic, then went to raging pessimistic. Now I just try to analyze the design issues underlying 4th edition and think how I can use the ideas I like for my games.
and killed a green hag.I know cool huh?Product name association is why they used those places.
What get's me is the Feywild(aka is it like the place Tom Cruise fought Darkness and saved the unicorn (and his girlfriend).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Meg Mucklebones: What a fine fat boy you are, Jack!
Jack: You don't really mean to eat me, do you, ma'am?
Meg Mucklebones: Oh, indeed I do!
[cackles]
Jack: That would be a shame because someone as fair and lovely as yourself, Miss Meg, deserves far better than scrawny me. Don't you think?
Meg Mucklebones: Think me fair, do you, Jack?
Jack: All the heavenly angels must envy your beauty.
Meg Mucklebones: [cackles] What a fine meal you'll make, be the rest of you as sweet as your tongue!
[cackles]
super cool thanks.
The feywild is in this(default D&D world) where exactly? I don't understand that part of it, even after reading the whole book in borders something about being in a ruined castle in the material world then somehow gettin jacked by formorian giants? ...
I see it as a kind of ethe~real plane, if you wonder into it your lost, kinda like the land of Oz. Were exactly is Oz?
Dorothy "There's no place like home! There is no place like home!"
|
Meg Mucklebones: What a fine fat boy you are, Jack!
Jack: You don't really mean to eat me, do you, ma'am?
Meg Mucklebones: Oh, indeed I do!
[cackles]
Jack: That would be a shame because someone as fair and lovely as yourself, Miss Meg, deserves far better than scrawny me. Don't you think?
Meg Mucklebones: Think me fair, do you, Jack?
Jack: All the heavenly angels must envy your beauty.
Meg Mucklebones: [cackles] What a fine meal you'll make, be the rest of you as sweet as your tongue!
[cackles]
Ah yes! Meg Mucklebones - played by the talented Robert Picardo. Incidently, he also played Eddie in the original Howling. He kicks ass!