Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
This is actually an honest question because I'm NOT all that familiar with Greyhawk: what, exactly, is it about Greyhawk/4E that makes you think they are not compatible?
Abandonment of Vancian spellcasting. Vance is a major influence on Gygax and Greyhawk.
Abandonment of alignment in its classic form.
Abandonment of the Great Wheel cosmology.
Gunning up the "super" powers of PCs so that even "gritty" non-magic classes like rogues and fighters end up with multi-use powers that "feel" magical.
"Softening" potential for PC death with elimination of save or die effects, bounteous healing surges, etc. So much of the "feel" of classic D&D dungeon crawls comes from the constant threat of death around every corner, and I am unconvinced 4e can provide that.
Of course, we haven't been provided 4e yet and have no indication this will happen any time soon, so I reserve the right to change my mind on these points once I have the rules in hand.
All I have to judge by right now is the marketing, and, well, you know.
--Erik
I think some folks may have misinterpreted my previous post which asks "Why Mike Mearls came forward to Paizo and seemingly said Greyhawk is very difficult to work with". First off, I was not aware that Mr Mearls frequented Paizo. I've only been around for a few months at best. The only time I have seen WOTC staff members posting outside of their own site were a couple of times on Canonfire when the new version of Lost Caverns of Tsjocanth came out. Clearly Mr. Mearls has been around messageboards longer than I have. I was puzzled by his statements more than than viewing him suspiciously, condescending, or questioning his motives. No harm intended if that is the way other posters took my original statement. Perhaps the post was worded poorly, I don't know. I asked for feedback and I got it. Thank You. I did appreciate Mr. Mearls response.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
My point is that when Greyhawk seems at its most vibrant and successful, it is celebrating the traditions of D&D. 4e seems to have different design goals (perhaps necessarily), and I'm concerned about the Frankenstien's Monster that might result when someone attempts to mix the two of these approaches, particularly as I suspect that the rules system will always trump the traditions of the game world.
Here's a good example. Greyhawk does not have a preponderance of tieflings or dragonborn in its conception. You could certainly _add_ these races, say by crashing another planet into Oerth and thus suggesting, by fiat, that "they've been there all along," but the widespread existence of these characters diminishes Greyhawk. They are warts, and they don't really belong. You can add them, sure, but you could also add draconians or gargoyle people or vulcans. It wouldn't _break_ the setting, but it would pull it further from its roots.
At the heart of it, Greyhawk is, to me, a "roots" setting.
4e, from what I have seen thus far, does not appear to be a "roots" RPG.
I appreciate why that is from a design and a business perspective, but I am dubious that merging the new design principles for 4e with the world designed (and in large part maintained) to support the traditions of 1e is all that good of an idea.
In any event, it's a tricky proposition.
Because at least to this gamer, a world filled with super-hero PCs with all kinds of Naruto-style powers, a world widely inhabited by dragonborn and tieflings, and a world utterly disconnected from the planar assumptions that have served the game for 30 years might very well be an awesome exciting world for a D&D campaign.
I just need more convincing that that world should be Greyhawk.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is actually an honest question because I'm NOT all that familiar with Greyhawk: what, exactly, is it about Greyhawk/4E that makes you think they are not compatible?
Hello, Rodney.
The way I've seen the Greyhawk Campaign Setting, there are very large events (wars, godlings, vast plots by wizards with borderline connections to "the real world") and the PC's are trying to get by.
It's low fantasy: the farmer boy fresh in the big city, trying to make it in life as a fighter; the novice wizardling with a dagger and a four-page spellbook. Find out what's going on in Hommlet and try not to get yourself killed.
Were I to run a Greyhawk campaign, or the Age of Worms adventure path, I would go back and use some of the "flavor" rules of 1st Edition, in particular, I'd require the PC's to undergo a week or more of training to progress in class levels. I'd require some of the special materials in the appendices of the DMG whenever the wizard wanted to brew a potion or grind magical ink for inscribing a scroll.
There are gritty details of the adventuring life, and that's the flavor I see in Greyhawk. So when the party does come across something magnificent and fantastical, the contrast makes it even more impressive. When the characters do something heroic, like engineer a break-out of Iuz's prisons, it's even more legendary.
4th Edition, from what I've read, from the Wizards' preview materials and reports from the D&D Experience, is more about "high fantasy". Less down-time: between encounters, between adventure. More powers, more often. Start with enough hit points that you're not nervous about facing down a dozen kobolds or a black dragon at the beginning of your career.
That's the difference as I see it. Thanks for asking.
This is actually an honest question because I'm NOT all that familiar with Greyhawk: what, exactly, is it about Greyhawk/4E that makes you think they are not compatible?
I hate to repeat it, sorry, but excluding gnomes and half-orcs and bards and druids from the 4e rules makes any GH conversion difficult, to say the least. The elf/eladrin split would not work to well, IMO. The whole system for the gods was designed with the Great Wheel cosmology. The tieflings are said to have had their own empire, which would not be true for GH. Warlords and Warlocks were unheard of before. (Ok, warlocks were in 3e already)
The whole GH fluff was written with 1e/2e rules in mind and adapted to 3e. Now, some folks say that fluff is not influenced by the rules. I think my above examples could lead to the conclusion that fluff is influenced that way. Hell, the transition from 1e to 2e tried to explain away the Assassin and Monk classes with a campaign, only to be reverted later, when these two classe were reintroduced in the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook.
Still, without having seen the complete 4e rules, I cannot tell just how much would change - but from what I´ve heard, it would be quite some change - either to GH or to the 4e rules. Hmm... perhaps licencing Greyhawk away and keeping it at 3.x/OGL rules, as rules-light as possible, could be the best way to handle it.
Stefan
EDIT: Erik beat me to it and put it much better than I ever could. Well, what else to expect from Iquander?
I think some folks may have misinterpreted my previous post which asks "Why Mike Mearls came forward to Paizo and seemingly said Greyhawk is very difficult to work with".
Speaking for myself, I thought you were just fine Eileen. My statement "let's not chase these guys off" had nothing to do with you at all. Not that you thought that, or that the world revolves around me anyway, but I wanted to give you peace of mind.
Actually, it was just excitement. I want to see Erik, Mike Mearls, and Rodney talk about this, and in my eagerness... I put a possibly unnecessary admonishment out to everybody.. My regrets if that is/was the case.
Where's a good place to learn more about classic greyhawk? I didn't start gaming till the mid 90s and didn't play much d&d until 3.5, the d&d I played before 3.5 was dark sun, spelljammer and forgotten realms so I pretty much missed greyhawk completely.
The most current to date is the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, published in 2000. Authors include Gary Holian, Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds, and Frederick Weining. Prior to that you have From The Ashes by Carl Sargent (1992). The original work was by Gary Gygax and you might be able to find the 1983 boxed set. Much of Greyhawk is also detailed out in moudles written for the world, expecially the earlier ones from the very late 70's and earlier to mid 80's. They may not go into a lot of Greyhawk lore but they do I think give a good feel for what the world is like. You should be able to find all these products for sale online, some possibly as PDF files from WOTC.
I think some folks may have misinterpreted my previous post which asks "Why Mike Mearls came forward to Paizo and seemingly said Greyhawk is very difficult to work with".Speaking for myself, I thought you were just fine Eileen. My statement "let's not chase these guys off" had nothing to do with you at all. Not that you thought that, or that the world revolves around me anyway, but I wanted to give you peace of mind.
Actually, it was just excitement. I want to see Erik, Mike Mearls, and Rodney talk about this, and in my eagerness... I put a possibly unnecessary admonishment out to everybody.. My regrets if that is/was the case.
Thanks Watcher! It wasn't your post that made me feel a little "OOOPSed" though, it was another. Who knows, maybe I misinterpreted that as well. I seem to do that often.
I agree, I think it would be good to see these guys talk in detail about Greyhawk.
Erik,
I've gotten a sense that you don't like to deny Players the opportunity to use something that appears in a "Core" book. That you may not emphasize a concept very much, but you stop short of saying it doesn't exist.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong)
However, in the case of Greyhawk, would it represent a dealbreaker for you to just say "Tieflings and Dragonborn do not exist in this setting"?
This questions assumes that it is within the scope of your authority in a hypothetical re-release of Greyhawk 4th Edition. Just for the sake of discussion.
Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson? Please answer from your point of view, if you'd care to...?
I hate to repeat it, sorry, but excluding gnomes and half-orcs and bards and druids from the 4e rules makes any GH conversion difficult, to say the least. The elf/eladrin split would not work to well, IMO. The whole system for the gods was designed with the Great Wheel cosmology. The tieflings are said to have had their own empire, which would not be true for GH. Warlords and Warlocks were unheard of before. (Ok, warlocks were in 3e already)
If a new World of Greyhawk book came out though, I suspect it would include the gnome and half-orc races making them more world specific. It very well might state that NOT all of the new races in the PH appear in Greyhawk or if they do, in very low numbers in an effort to retain the Greyhawk feel. This would also begin a seperation between the feel of say the Realms and Greyhawk. I also like Chris's comments about retaining old school feel and certain rules to maintain the flavor as well. I think these would be good starting points.
Just because something appears in 4th edition PH doesn't mean that the new Greyhawk World Gazetteer won't have specific rules for some of these issues. In other words, just because it appears in the PH doesn't mean that it has to be "pushed/forced" into Greyhawk and a new book could easily make mention of it. Note, that I am not talking about everything that is different in 4th edition, but certainly some things which are more flavor oriented.
However, in the case of Greyhawk, would it represent a dealbreaker for you to just say "Tieflings and Dragonborn do not exist in this setting"?
This opens the can of worms and points to the heart of the dilemma: It would not stop there. You would have to rewrite a significant part of the 4e rules (as far as I can tell right now) to keep true to the spirit of the setting.
Stefan
Just because something appears in 4th edition PH doesn't mean that the new Greyhawk World Gazetteer won't have specific rules for some of these issues. In other words, just because it appears in the PH doesn't mean that it has to be "pushed/forced" into Greyhawk and a new book could easily make mention of it. Note, that I am not talking about everything that is different in 4th edition, but certainly some things which are more flavor oriented.
Right. But deciding which things to take into GH and which not is part of the difficult and time-consuming work to do.
Stefan
Just because something appears in 4th edition PH doesn't mean that the new Greyhawk World Gazetteer won't have specific rules for some of these issues. In other words, just because it appears in the PH doesn't mean that it has to be "pushed/forced" into Greyhawk and a new book could easily make mention of it. Note, that I am not talking about everything that is different in 4th edition, but certainly some things which are more flavor oriented.Right. But deciding which things to take into GH and which not is part of the difficult and time-consuming work to do.
Stefan
Right, I agree it would be a difficult task and we all know that you can't please everyone with any piece of work. I just think that for Greyhawk to remain in Limbo because your trying to please to many people isn't a very productive approach. It is just like spinning your wheels, your trying to go somewhere but you can't. Sometimes you just got to put it in 4-wheel drive and move. Yes I want it to be done with care, love and detail. I don't want anything rushed or sloppily done, not at all. But I think in this case to do NOTHING is worse than doing something (so long as a good, truthful effort is put into it).
Honestly, I'd really just as soon see Greyhawk die a quiet death than have its essence altered any more than it already has been to make it conform to the rules and philosophy of 4e. If the "Greyhawk" material we saw in the latter days of v.3.5 (with the noteworthy exception of Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk -- kudos!) is any indication, I think all us Greyhawk fans would be in for is heartbreak.
I appreciate the desire to see Gary's world back in print, but let it be. Please.
Here's a link to a PDF of the original boxed set.
I have the old portfolio version, and then the later box set as well.
Those bright, funky maps remain my all time favorite. (Though I loved the 4-part map you included with Dungeon issues a few years back)
I've always wanted to have them mounted.
Honestly, I'd really just as soon see Greyhawk die a quiet death than have its essence altered any more than it already has been to make it conform to the rules and philosophy of 4e. If the "Greyhawk" material we saw in the latter days of v.3.5 (with the noteworthy exception of Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk -- kudos!) is any indication, I think all us Greyhawk fans would be in for is heartbreak.
I appreciate the desire to see Gary's world back in print, but let it be. Please.
I respect your opinion Maliszew!
But may I lobby that the discussion continue strictly in at least hypothetical terms?
Not for the sake of heartbreak, but for learning just how utilitarian 4th Edition is or is not. Greyhawk makes for a good challenging benchmark. No disrespect to the departed is intended.
I hate to repeat it, sorry, but excluding gnomes and half-orcs and bards and druids from the 4e rules makes any GH conversion difficult, to say the least.
Why do people keep saying this? I mean, I can understand being annoyed that bards and druids aren't going to be in initially (although WotC has repeatedly said they'll be added to the core when they're ready) and I've no idea whether we'll ever see half-orcs.
But gnomes? Gnomes? Gnomes are included in 4e. Right out the gate. Fully playable. Built into the core.
The only difference between a playable race in the PHB and the MM is going to be the amount of fluff and the number of racial options available. And even that's going to be fixed eventually.
Frankly, after getting knocked into a couple pits by Gnome Illusionists during the DDXP Delve, I can't wait to see them release an Illusionist class alongside gnomes. I had more fun getting attacked by a Gnome Illusionist in 4e than I have playing one in 3.5.
Here's a link to a PDF of the original boxed set.I have the old portfolio version, and then the later box set as well.
Those bright, funky maps remain my all time favorite. (Though I loved the 4-part map you included with Dungeon issues a few years back)
I've always wanted to have them mounted.
I mounted mine so well, I can't get it off the wall when I tried. Another "Ooops" I guess. Never over estimate the number of stickies it takes to hold up a map and thin styrofoam backboard. I guess 12 little 3" x 3" squares was too many. Not to mention glueing the maps to the board.
Abandonment of Vancian spellcasting. Vance is a major influence on Gygax and Greyhawk.
The concept of per days spells are still there. And in 4th edition, you have implements. In Greyhawk and in Vancian magic, you have 'implements' that, from a narrative perspective of the gameworld, would be considered nearly limitless by the population.
Abandonment of alignment in its classic form.
In the in game world of Greyhawk, I don't understand the in character impact. The 'forces of law and chaos' are flavor that can still be applied to 4th edition.
Abandonment of the Great Wheel cosmology.
They have no invalidated the Great Wheel, they simply aren't using it for their default homebrew support. I haven't seen anything from a rules perspective that prevents the use of the Great Wheel.
Gunning up the "super" powers of PCs so that even "gritty" non-magic classes like rogues and fighters end up with multi-use powers that "feel" magical.
From what I've seen they don't feel like magic. The flavor so far seems like maneuvers, not 'Naruto powers'.
"Softening" potential for PC death with elimination of save or die effects, bounteous healing surges, etc. So much of the "feel" of classic D&D dungeon crawls comes from the constant threat of death around every corner, and I am unconvinced 4e can provide that.
I'm seeing a lessening of instantaneous death, but death is still there. CR is supposed to be an accurate tool of fairness, but if you want players to be afraid they shouldn't be presented with challenges that are always 'fair'. I think DM's who want to screw over their party and make them fear death will still be able to, using traps or monsters or magic.
I mounted mine so well, I can't get it off the wall when I tried. Another "Ooops" I guess. Never over estimate the number of stickies it takes to hold up a map and thin styrofoam backboard. I guess 12 little 3" x 3" squares was too many. Not to mention glueing the maps to the board.
Nail polish remover might do the trick. Considering it's styrofoam behind there, perhaps lift the map corners until the pulling creates tension, sparingly dab the acetone between the map and the backer with a Q-tip. Then pull the map up a bit more and upon further tension, add more acetone.
I'd like to have mine professionally mounted with a matte frame under glass so the maps won't require any stickum, just pressure. After that I'm going to water my money trees and then shoot the moon. I've got so many movie posters that still need mounting. I have the Crow poster mounted but not my UK Crow poster. I have Planet of the Apes posters in English and some from Italy, Germany, and my French POTA poster is the most massive movie poster I've ever seen. You could wrap Jason Buhlman in it.
The only other film-related stuff I have is about eighty original cells from Sea Prince and the Firechild (Sirius no Densetsu) and six original cells from Bakshi's Lord of the Rings. I have a book for them though. Owning them is eccentric enough... hanging nearly a hundred cells in a 3000 sq. ft house would be a cry for help (or a great beginning to a creepy flick).
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
If a revised Greyhawk said:
• No widespread tieflings and dragonborn.
• Here's the Great Wheel as an option specific to this campaign setting.
• Half-orcs, gnomes, bards, etc. right here in the core book.
...or whatever, then I'd say they'd be going a long way toward a faithful recreation. I am just having a difficult time believing the needs of the system won't trump the expectations of the audience or the traditions of the campaign setting. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I don't expect to be, frankly.
As for the per-day spellcasting, frequency of death, etc., all I have to go on is the marketing. Like I said, I reserve the right to revise my opinion when I get a copy of the game or when the game actually comes out in stores, whichever happens first.
--Erik
Actually, I'm a bit surprised at Erik's response. Not because he doesn't have valid points, but because that's not what I'd thought he was going to say.
Now, I'm not completely ignorant of Greyhawk, and I ran Age of Worms all the way through, but I do consider myself to be less well versed in Greyhawk than most folks. To me, though, the appeal of Greyhawk as a non-hardcore fan is in the really exciting people, places, and organizations. For example, I think Iuz is very compelling, and the Scarlet Brotherhood is extremely interesting. Castle Greyhawk itself is a big draw of such a setting because it's so iconic. While admittedly leaping into any setting with such a storied history is...intimidating, there are lots of specific aspects of the world of Greyhawk that I would have thought Erik would have talked about.
Now, maybe the response to this is just, "You don't know what you're talking about," but I have not gotten the impression that the intrinsic value of Greyhawk is that it's more deadly than the average campaign setting, or more gritty. But Greyhawk as the "Classic" D&D setting? That I can buy. I am not sure I agree that things like Vancian fire-and-forget spellcasting or a particular method of adjudicating death and dying or healing are necessarily integral to that, but again I'm not the expert, and I'll fully admit that. I do think that once the 4E rules get into peoples' hands (and for the love of all that is holy I want that day to come soon so I can start playing D&D with my friends at other companies again) some attitudes will change about some aspects of the rules. Now maybe Erik's right that without fire-and-forget Vancian casting or low-hit point 1st level characters you can't do Greyhawk, but I'll be interested in having this conversation with everyone, say, 6 months from now.
I actually agree that maybe it's not such a big deal to say, "There aren't any dragonborn or tieflings in Greyhawk." Likewise, I think you can change background, stories, and cultures to fit the setting. Look at what Eberron did with drow, or goblins. They're radically different from their core incarnations...and I think that makes them interesting in that setting. Likewise, Eberron did its own cosmology, so there's no reason that the Great Wheel couldn't be done for Greyhawk. That's all my personal opinion, though, so don't take it as any kind of statement on behalf of Wizards. Honestly, I think that's one place where campaign setting books have a chance to shine in that they show how you can do things differently. If every campaign setting has to have the same races, they kind of blur together, and lose a lot of what makes them interesting. Eberron and FR are kind of exceptions in that they are sort of "everything in the pot" settings anyways.
I guess this just shows how the same stuff can appeal to people in different ways. Maybe some GH fans, like Erik, see the setting as tied to the old school mechanics. Me, I'm more interested in Greyhawk as a setting full of intrigue and (as Chris Tulach describes it) the sort of "wheels within wheels" interaction between various elements of the setting. I get the feeling that, though I'm not a GH superfan right now, I could become one with the right introduction to the setting, and I would imagine there are many like me out there just waiting to be introduced to the setting. Given how zealously I follow some settings (*coughStarWarscough*) I actually kind of fear getting sucked into another one.
I think part of the 'butt-hurt' that all of us who enjoy the style and tone of Greyhawk are now feeling actually comes more from the fact that it isn't the core world anymore.
I don't think it's because the 4e rules can't support it, but like Erik said you'd need to buy a rules supplement that adds new races, marginalizes (or even removes) others, redefines (through mechanics or just flavor) powers, modifies the planes, etc.
In other words, what pretty much every campaign book has always done. Eberron is a perfect example of a setting that would lose a lot of flavor if it was just 'core only', but so would the original box set of Greyhawk if you only used the original rules.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Please don't get me wrong.
I actually think a Greyhawk campaign setting book is a _perfect_ way to capture part of the long-term audience that is turned off by some of the thematic changes in 4e. Using it as a back door way to include the Great Wheel (and thus Planescape), for example, is a great idea.
And Rodney's right about a lot of the appeal of Greyhawk being tied up in flavor that has little or nothing to do with mechanics.
I am not saying it would be impossible. I am just saying that it would be difficult, and it would involve the powers at be over at WotC making concessions I in no way expect them to make.
But I've been surprised before, and stand ready to be surprised again!
I am just saying that it would be difficult, and it would involve the powers at be over at WotC making concessions I in no way expect them to make.
I expect them to hire the right freelancers to do the job right, but I can understand why others wouldn't expect that (especially if those freelancers are tied up with other projects)....
;)
Please don't get me wrong.
I actually think a Greyhawk campaign setting book is a _perfect_ way to capture part of the long-term audience that is turned off by some of the thematic changes in 4e. Using it as a back door way to include the Great Wheel (and thus Planescape), for example, is a great idea.
And Rodney's right about a lot of the appeal of Greyhawk being tied up in flavor that has little or nothing to do with mechanics.
I am not saying it would be impossible. I am just saying that it would be difficult, and it would involve the powers at be over at WotC making concessions I in no way expect them to make.
But I've been surprised before, and stand ready to be surprised again!
Erik,
...this is a frickan fascinating comment.
I'm taking this as a statement that you feel that 4th Edition is utilitarian enough for most campaign settings. Even ones that it has, thus far, not been credited as being able to handle.
I'm just checking that I understood that right.
Side note: I in no way interpret this as anything other than a statement speaking to the basic utilitarian nature of 4th Edition. Nor do I take this as any sort of sign as to Paizo's final decision on anything.
Questions for WotC folk (and perhaps this is a bit off topic), and I realize you may be unable to answer:
Is there any thought put into licensing setting to 3rd parties again, as you did with Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc.?
And can you describe to us what the overall plan (without getting specific) as to future released settings? Do you plan to revisit (or are at least keeping the option on the block) settings that are no longer published by WotC?
But may I lobby that the discussion continue strictly in at least hypothetical terms?
Not for the sake of heartbreak, but for learning just how utilitarian 4th Edition is or is not. Greyhawk makes for a good challenging benchmark. No disrespect to the departed is intended.
Oh, please do carry on. I certainly wasn't advocating the end of this thread. Rather, I was expressing my preference that, even if 4e is in fact so flexible as to handle Greyhawk seamlessly, I would still rather that the setting be allowed to die a dignified death. The setting has suffered immensely since the departure of Gary from TSR and, though some talented writers have managed to sew several silk purses from the sow's ear that is From the Ashes, I don't want to bank on its ever happening again.
I will add that I'm not at all convinced that Greyhawk is a uniquely good benchmark for 4e's overall flexibility and utility. My rule of thumb is this: if any setting that was viable under a previous rules set must be extensively reworked or "re-imagined" to remain viable under a new rules set, that says, at the very least, that the new rules set is quite different than the old one and, quite probably, that it's also less flexible. We don't need a theoretical Greyhawk 4e campaign setting book to answer this question for 4e; any setting updated to the new rules will do.
I will add that I'm not at all convinced that Greyhawk is a uniquely good benchmark for 4e's overall flexibility and utility. My rule of thumb is this: if any setting that was viable under a previous rules set must be extensively reworked or "re-imagined" to remain viable under a new rules set, that says, at the very least, that the new rules set is quite different than the old one and, quite probably, that it's also less flexible. We don't need a theoretical Greyhawk 4e campaign setting book to answer this question for 4e; any setting updated to the new rules will do.
I can't follow this logic. The majority of settings I've seen have been presented by adding something brand new to existing rulesets during their conception. What is the original core rules 'less flexible' to? Itself?
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm taking this as a statement that you feel that 4th Edition is utilitarian enough for most campaign settings. Even ones that it has, thus far, not been credited as being able to handle.I'm just checking that I understood that right.
I'm not sure you did.
I haven't seen a full version of 4e yet.
I don't think it would be responsible for me to claim whether or not it is utilitarian enough for most campaign settings.
Assuming that the powers that be valued "stick to Greyhawk/AD&D traditions" as a design goal for a Greyhawk product that trumped "make Greyhawk fit into 4e", I think it could be done. My experiences in the past make me doubt that would be the preferred WotC approach, but Rodney and Mike are far more capable of addressing that than I am, since they work there and I don't.
If you're looking for comments about how robust 4th edition is, I suggest you solicit them from people who have been allowed to see it.
For the time being, that ain't me. :)
--Erik
My point is that when Greyhawk seems at its most vibrant and successful, it is celebrating the traditions of D&D. 4e seems to have different design goals (perhaps necessarily), and I'm concerned about the Frankenstien's Monster that might result when someone attempts to mix the two of these approaches, particularly as I suspect that the rules system will always trump the traditions of the game world.(...)
Trumping the traditions of the game world, that's certainly what happened to the Forgotten Realms. It was dramatically changed to make room for dragonborn, an extra helping of tieflings, and a re-work of their gods and planes.
I really wouldn't want that kind of thing to happen to Greyhawk. Perhaps even more so than the Realms, Greyhawk has a unique flavor that depends a great deal on things that have been established for decades. Would designers have to kill off Wee Jas or Boccob in order to "revise" magic and how it's approached? Would they invent a "sister" world previously unheard of, just to swap-out new continents and cultures (like dragonborn) for "underused" regions in Greyhawk? I just wouldn't want to see those kinds of things also happen to Greyhawk.
I'm not sure you did.
I haven't seen a full version of 4e yet.
I don't think it would be responsible for me to claim whether or not it is utilitarian enough for most campaign settings.
Assuming that the powers that be valued "stick to Greyhawk/AD&D traditions" as a design goal for a Greyhawk product that trumped "make Greyhawk fit into 4e", I think it could be done. My experiences in the past make me doubt that would be the preferred WotC approach, but Rodney and Mike are far more capable of addressing that than I am, since they work there and I don't.
If you're looking for comments about how robust 4th edition is, I suggest you solicit them from people who have been allowed to see it.
For the time being, that ain't me. :)
I do hope you understand that I didn't intend on being adversarial with you. ...?
It's not in my nature to ask easy questions, but I concede that it wasn't fair to expect you to say anything that you haven't already said for months. That is, you haven't seen the rules.
Like thousands of other people, I'm just starved for information and looking for answers.
So pardon me while I move the spotlight elsewhere. :D
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Right. I would rather they not bother than blight the setting in that way.
FR is in a slightly different position, it being the most popular and best-selling campaign setting. "Blowing it up" really needed to be done, for two reasons:
1) Your best-selling, most popular campaign setting really ought to follow the rules as written.
2) Continuity is hard. Starting over so that your in-house designers and freelancers only have to "know" one book is a lot easier on managing internal resources.
Morphing the Forgotten Realms allows WotC R&D to neatly solve both problems with a single stroke.
I'd rather that not happen to Greyhawk, personally. And the smart strategy, in my opinion, is to _not_ do that, to offer something different with Greyhawk than what you offer with the Forgotten Realms.
Given the early posts in this thread from Mike and Rodney and having worked at WotC for several years myself, it's clear that a lot of the designers, managers, and customers of D&D don't feel there is enough of a difference between FR and GH to publish both at the same time. Making GH the "classic" setting, to me, nicely does that, especially given the overwhelming changes in store for the Forgotten Realms.
I don't expect this to happen, but it would be a nice surprise.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I remind people here of the Shattered Empires setting for the CHAINMAIL relaunch a few years ago, a setting with new gods, new game rules --new fluff, crunch, whatever-- fused into the Greyhawk Campaign Background.
From what people have posted here, it was true to some of the spirit of Greyhawk and was generally well-received.
In one of the Dragon Magazine Annuals, there was a map of the larger world of Greyhawk. I'm not sure how that fitted with the Shattered World concept, but personally I think the Annual map should trump anything that was in the Shattered World if there are conflicts.
And regarding my earlier post, "1" should be changed to:
1. Ask Rob Kuntz and Erik Mona for advice,as they have much better ideas of what Greyhawk's about than anyone else!
Must hunt this map down!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It strikes me that one of the best ways to show the flexibility of the 4e system would be to adapt it to a setting rather than vice versa. I think the current system with its emphasis on game play over simulation is not right for all settings, and if the core elements can't be adapted to serve such a purpose, I will not be happy.
But, it seems like the beginning point of any such change would be an entirely new set of core classes with fewer kewl powers. Making such an extreme change to the core of the game might just as well be an entirely different game though.
I can't follow this logic. The majority of settings I've seen have been presented by adding something brand new to existing rulesets during their conception. What is the original core rules 'less flexible' to? Itself?
Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me try again.
Suppose there's setting X for edition Y. Setting X may make changes or additions to edition Y's rules. Once it does so, those changes become part of what makes the setting the setting it is. They are what contributes to its "feel."
When edition Z comes out, the company that produced setting X decides to update the setting to edition Z. In my opinion, if edition Z cannot easily replicate the feel of setting X within a fair degree of difference, then edition Z is either a very different rules set or at least a less flexible rules set than edition Y.
Greyhawk, for example, has a feel that arose out of its connection to 1e's rules. The transition to 2e was a difficult one for Greyhawk and its feel. The loss of assassins, and monks did quite a bit of violence to the setting, particularly in places like the Scarlet Brotherhood whose very character depended heavily on the existence of certain classes. 3e fixed many of 2e's problems, but, by then, the setting had irrevocably changed, in part because 2e had less flexibility than 1e.
Does that make more sense?
Right. I would rather they not bother than blight the setting in that way.
FR is in a slightly different position, it being the most popular and best-selling campaign setting. "Blowing it up" really needed to be done, for two reasons:
1) Your best-selling, most popular campaign setting really ought to follow the rules as written.
2) Continuity is hard. Starting over so that your in-house designers and freelancers only have to "know" one book is a lot easier on managing internal resources.
Morphing the Forgotten Realms allows WotC R&D to neatly solve both problems with a single stroke.
Actually, I agree that the Forgotten Realms needed a re-launch. It's just unfortunate that they also decided to completely gut the setting first. I think they could've accomplished most of the above without all the massive changes as they've discussed so far.
With Greyhawk, perhaps it could be spared the wrecking ball in favor of a simpler re-launch. If they could, the biggest thing that I'd want to see kept is the feeling of serious danger and impending doom that goes with Greyhawk dungeon adventuring in particular (which isn't quite so present in FR).
Trumping the traditions of the game world, that's certainly what happened to the Forgotten Realms. It was dramatically changed to make room for dragonborn, an extra helping of tieflings, and a re-work of their gods and planes.
I really wouldn't want that kind of thing to happen to Greyhawk. Perhaps even more so than the Realms, Greyhawk has a unique flavor that depends a great deal on things that have been established for decades. Would designers have to kill off Wee Jas or Boccob in order to "revise" magic and how it's approached? Would they invent a "sister" world previously unheard of, just to swap-out new continents and cultures (like dragonborn) for "underused" regions in Greyhawk? I just wouldn't want to see those kinds of things also happen to Greyhawk.
An alternative possibility could be either of these scenarios as well:
1. They may have come to the conclusion that forcing changes upsets to many customers. The square peg in the round hole approach didn't make fans happy and therefore was a bad idea. Lets try a more traditional approach for Greyhawk. Just because they did this with the Realms doesn't mean it would be the same approach with Greyhawk.
2. A different design approach is also what would make Greyhawk stand out amongst the Realms rather than it appearing as a duplicate. This in itself may significantly increase sales.
Roan, I've just checked. It's in Dragon Annual #1, page 72. Enjoy!
Thanks, J!!
I know I'm going to sound like a heretic, but doesn't a setting have to adapt to change. For example, James Bond has a very different feel today than 30 years ago, but it's still arguably James Bond. Even in Greyhawk adventures such as Age of Worms or Savage Tide, I've noticed a lot more tattoos on people in the art work than they existed 25 years ago.
I do and I don't agree with Erik. A radical new game system is going to change the feel of the campaign. But I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing. The real question is, IMHO, can one sustain enough of Greyhawk inside of 4e and still call it Greyhawk. I'm not enough of a Greyhawk expert to really say. And with a new game system that people question if it's still D&D, it becomes an even more challenging question.
|
|
Now maybe Erik's right that without fire-and-forget Vancian casting or low-hit point 1st level characters you can't do Greyhawk, but I'll be interested in having this conversation with everyone, say, 6 months from now.
Time for conspiration theories. What if it was possible to build the Vancian Magic system with the tools given by 4E? Cause that seems to be the most important problem to be solved as I agree that it is deeply integrated into the world of Greyhawk.
All other things do not sound too difficult to achieve as they mostly fall into the fluff category. And if they really want to revive the old settings I can't see any reasons to make them all the same as the Realms. So reviving Greyhawk without Dragonborn (to give an example) actually could make a lot of sense. In my opinion, if WotC decide to do it, they'll most probably do it as a nod to existing fans of the setting while concentrating their marketing for new fans to the Realms and Eberron. And as far as setting integrity is concerned, that does not have to be the worst thing.
But maybe I'm just overly optimistic as I would sooo like it. Cause that's maybe the only chance to get my players interested in a setting "dead" before most of them got involved into D&D. Besides, Erik did too good a job with "Faiths & Pantheons" so even Sean K.Reynolds "Core Belief" series back in Dragon proved as not to be sufficient to wake their interest ;) )
Does that make more sense?
No.
If system x (3.5) doesn't have an element (warforged) in setting y (Eberron), then I don't see how you can fault system z (4E) for not having them.
When Greyhawk originally came out, it introduced brand new classes to the system. The fact that the 2e Greyhawk book tried to fit the setting to match the new rules isn't a fault of the system, it's a fault of the designers.
When we talk about whether a system is 'flexible' or not, we mean if it can be applied universally to different genres (like GURPS). d20 is pretty adaptable, and I've yet to see why 4E wouldn't be the same. It's still the same basic engine compared to d6, WFRPG, Vampire, etc.
I'm not sure, but I think Erik Mona may be a little bit passionate about Greyhawk.
Hard to say...
;)