|
I find the at-will/encounter/daily power system to be very similar to how the swordsage, crusader and warblade work in 3.5E. There are some tweak differences, but the over way I ahve seen combat plays out in 4E is strikingly similar to how I saw combat play out with these three...Don't forget the 3.x warlock. It's signature at-will blast definitely is a precursor to 4E magic-users.
LOL! I have no idea what a swordsage, crusader, warblade, or warlock are, in 3.5 terms. I never bought those books. SRD was just fine for me. That's pretty funny, actually.
Eberron would be POL if there wasn't a human civilization built ON TOP of the ancient goblinoid ruined empire.That's not true. POL doesn't mean 'Surf village' ... 50 miles of dungeon ... "Surf Village with different texture set'. It means that the land itself is largely uncivilzed, and even the cities are gated for a reason.
Think of the geography of World of Warcraft (yes, I went there), and that's what POL is about.
I don't play World of Warcraft.
And, I'm telling you that's not what Eberron is. There are some uncivilized nations - Droaam, Darguun, Q'Barra, the Demon Wastes, the Mournland.
But, by and large, people can travel freely throughout the Five Nations without some sort of "darkness" cast over all the wilderness. It's mapped - and that's not POL.
Are there monsters? Yes. Are there ruins? Yes. Are there bad guys waiting in the woodline? Sure. What D&D setting DOESN'T have these things? That in itself DOESN'T mean Eberron (or any other setting with these things) is a POL setting.
If you referred me to Xen'drik - a vast continent on the world of Eberron that is largely unmappable (traveler's curse) and has only a few spots of civilization - then I would say yes - that is a POL area. But, that's not Eberron. That's one continent that can cater to that style of play.
Khorvaire is NOT points of light.
Here's the thing. I don't buy the 'POL' as described, and never have. It makes for some pretty nonsensical game settings when you think about it. (How long have those damn thieves been outside of Goldshire now?!) I do know, however, that it is a marketing term that's being forced down from above at WotC, and has been for some time.
This I might agree with.
Mike Mearls talking about an OD&D session he ran said:
"[OD&D players] are probably more likely to accept...a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check).
Definitely the way I prefer to play. I'd hate to have the rules get in the way of me or one of my game's player's doing something cool.
|
|
Here's the thing. I don't buy the 'POL' as described, and never have. It makes for some pretty nonsensical game settings when you think about it. (How long have those damn thieves been outside of Goldshire now?!) I do know, however, that it is a marketing term that's being forced down from above at WotC, and has been for some time.
Anytime someone says "POL" and ask me what it means I just say "more like Conan, less like the Middle ages" and they mostly get it.
LOL! I have no idea what a swordsage, crusader, warblade, or warlock are, in 3.5 terms. I never bought those books. SRD was just fine for me. That's pretty funny, actually.
I don't see why that is funny. Can you explain it to me?
|
|
LOL! I have no idea what a swordsage, crusader, warblade, or warlock are, in 3.5 terms. I never bought those books. SRD was just fine for me. That's pretty funny, actually.
I don't see why that is funny. Can you explain it to me?
Sorry! Ironic is probably better. Because I really like the at-will/encounter/daily and never realized it had already been around for awhile. I thought it was new. :-)
Eberron would be POL if there wasn't a human civilization built ON TOP of the ancient goblinoid ruined empire.That's not true. POL doesn't mean 'Surf village' ... 50 miles of dungeon ... "Surf Village with different texture set'. It means that the land itself is largely uncivilzed, and even the cities are gated for a reason.
Think of the geography of World of Warcraft (yes, I went there), and that's what POL is about.
It also seems to mean darkness closing in, a world without Empires or strong communication between its isolated villages and towns.
Especially within the context of D&D. We are very unlikely to ever get a D&D world were there are not good excuses to have trap and monster filled ruins and other places for players to adventure. Hence if the argument is that any world that has this sort of thing is POL then its pretty easy to argue that nearly every single campaign setting ever published for D&D is POL and every one they release will also be POL.
Its essentially rendered the term meaningless.
So far as I know, POL is defined by this article by Rich Baker
Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between, and the world isn’t carved up between nation-states that jealously enforce their borders. A few difficult and dangerous roads tenuously link neighboring cities together, but if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands. Anything could be waiting down that old overgrown dwarf-built road: a den of ogre marauders, a forgotten tower where a lamia awaits careless travelers, a troll’s cave, a lonely human village under the sway of a demonic cult, or a black wood where shadows and ghosts thirst for the blood of the living.
Given the perilous nature of the world around the small islands of civilization, many adventures revolve around venturing into the wild lands. For example:
Roads are often closed by bandits, marauders such as goblins or gnolls, or hungry monsters such as griffons or dragons. The simple mission of driving off whomever or whatever is preying on unfortunate travelers is how many young heroes begin their careers.
Since towns and villages do not stay in close contact, it’s easy for all sorts of evils to befall a settlement without anyone noticing for a long time. A village might be terrorized by a pack of werewolves or enslaved by an evil wizard, and no one else would know until adventurers stumbled into the situation.
Many small settlements and strongholds are founded, flourish for a time, and then fall into darkness. The wild lands are filled with forgotten towers, abandoned towns, haunted castles, and ruined temples. Even people living only a few miles away from such places might know them only by rumor and legend.
The common folk of the world look upon the wild lands with dread. Few people are widely traveled—even the most ambitious merchant is careful to stick to better-known roads. The lands between towns or homesteads are wide and empty. It might be safe enough within a day’s ride of a city or an hour’s walk of a village, but go beyond that and you are taking your life into your hands. People are scared of what might be waiting in the old forest or beyond the barren hills at the far end of the valley, because whatever is out there is most likely hungry and hostile. Striking off into untraveled lands is something only heroes and adventurers do.
Another implication of this basic conceit of the world is that there is very little in the way of authority to deal with raiders and marauders, outbreaks of demon worship, rampaging monsters, deadly hauntings, or similar local problems. Settlements afflicted by troubles can only hope for a band of heroes to arrive and set things right. If there is a kingdom beyond the town’s walls, it’s still largely covered by unexplored forest and desolate hills where evil folk gather. The king’s soldiers might do a passable job of keeping the lands within a few miles of his castle free of monsters and bandits, but most of the realm’s outlying towns and villages are on their own.
In such a world, adventurers are aberrant. Commoners view them as brave at best, and insane at worst. But such a world is rife with the possibility for adventure, and no true hero will ever lack for a villain to vanquish or a quest to pursue.
So far as I know, POL is defined by this article by Rich Baker
Which isn't Eberron at all.
Anytime someone says "POL" and ask me what it means I just say "more like Conan, less like the Middle ages" and they mostly get it.
But even Conan has way too much in the way of nations and civilization to be POL, imo.
But even Conan has way too much in the way of nations and civilization to be POL, imo.
I think POL is a bare bones default concept for beginner DMs who just need a few small scattered villages for their players to rest and recoup, sell loot, and buy gear. The rest of the world is darkness so they can fill in whatever they want. WotC has said they didn't want a "setting" for the default rules, so this concept works.
I think POL is a bare bones default concept for beginner DMs who just need a few small scattered villages for their players to rest and recoup, sell loot, and buy gear. The rest of the world is darkness so they can fill in whatever they want. WotC has said they didn't want a "setting" for the default rules, so this concept works.
Seems like it.
The problem I'm running to in the Adventure I'm making is that the only nearby village is fairly small and there is no reasonable way in the world they'll have magic items and other such things to sell, or be able to buy that stuff. In fact, this village wouldn't have a whole heck of a lot in the way of gear, even. They're just too small. Trying to figure out if that's going to be a big problem or not. Could make it a larger town, but that doesn't really jive with the feel of what I'm doing and the locale.
I think POL is a bare bones default concept for beginner DMs who just need a few small scattered villages for their players to rest and recoup, sell loot, and buy gear. The rest of the world is darkness so they can fill in whatever they want. WotC has said they didn't want a "setting" for the default rules, so this concept works.
Seems like it.
The problem I'm running to in the Adventure I'm making is that the only nearby village is fairly small and there is no reasonable way in the world they'll have magic items and other such things to sell, or be able to buy that stuff. In fact, this village wouldn't have a whole heck of a lot in the way of gear, even. They're just too small. Trying to figure out if that's going to be a big problem or not. Could make it a larger town, but that doesn't really jive with the feel of what I'm doing and the locale.
What about a band of traveling merchants?
What about a band of traveling merchants?
Yeah. Was actually thinking of starting a thread on this (so I will). Merchants would work ok, except that its very dangerous for them to travel to this location and really not much reason to bring those types of goods with them because the village wouldn't need or be able to buy any of it.
Its essentially rendered the term meaningless.Not quite... POL implies a level of this 'darkness and danger' beyond what you would have seen in the Realms, or in Dragonlance, etc, normally. It's a bit of a difference between 'you might meet a monster on the road' to 'you WILL meet a monster on the road, what's left of the road anyway, and the monster will have friends, and will just be finishing off the last group of idiots who tried to follow this road as you arrive.'
Maybe the Realms, I'm not that familiar with Realms but Dragonlance is the epitome of POL. Dragonlance, at least the early stuff from around the War of the Lance, is such an archtype of Points of Light that it surpasses the description in 4E.
Consider the background. There is massive destruction of the old civilizations on such a scale that the land itself is wracked and torn by the Gods who then vanish and cease to answer the prayers of priests. All the civilizations collapse or withdraw to ancient forests to deep mountain holdfasts. Those that survive know of other lands only through myths and legends as the wilderness and monsters rush into the void left by the withdrawal of the civilized races.
This is even a major theme in the books when the heros head for the once great port city of Tarsis which they know of since they have myths and legends of the times before the Catalysm. Using the Kenders maps they manage to navigate their way to Tarsis only to find an abandoned ruin in the middle of the desert with sand dunes slowly covering the hulks of mighty ships now long abandoned and no sign of water in any direction.
Its Points of Light in spades.
I think POL is a bare bones default concept for beginner DMs who just need a few small scattered villages for their players to rest and recoup, sell loot, and buy gear. The rest of the world is darkness so they can fill in whatever they want. WotC has said they didn't want a "setting" for the default rules, so this concept works.
Seems like it.
The problem I'm running to in the Adventure I'm making is that the only nearby village is fairly small and there is no reasonable way in the world they'll have magic items and other such things to sell, or be able to buy that stuff. In fact, this village wouldn't have a whole heck of a lot in the way of gear, even. They're just too small. Trying to figure out if that's going to be a big problem or not. Could make it a larger town, but that doesn't really jive with the feel of what I'm doing and the locale.
The argument was that there was still some kind of merchant activity. Merchants will buy your magic items but only for a piddling amount of their real value - since chances are they won't find a buyer for years.
Its not a bad justification for whats really a game mechanic meant to keep players from liquidating the really cool stuff you hand out while still allowing them to reasonably get rid of stuff that is just no longer relevant at their current level.
Yeah. Was actually thinking of starting a thread on this (so I will). Merchants would work ok, except that its very dangerous for them to travel to this location and really not much reason to bring those types of goods with them because the village wouldn't need or be able to buy any of it.
Which is why they buy stuff for such lousy prices and only sell for an arm and a leg. They really are in a position to say 'take it or leave it.'
The only real danger is what to do if the players come to the obvious conclusion that the best way to get ahead in the world is to rob merchants.
The only real danger is what to do if the players come to the obvious conclusion that the best way to get ahead in the world is to rob merchants.
Heh. True. They tend to be good, though, and such a course might compromise that. But then again, they might not care...
|
The only real danger is what to do if the players come to the obvious conclusion that the best way to get ahead in the world is to rob merchants.
If my players actually opted to do that I would tell them that doing so would end the campaign. In a PoL setting the merchants are the lifeblood of society. I am sure that they will be given the utmost protection and banditry may be a crime more serious than murder given the dependence on merchants just to keep small communities alive.
If a PoL setting has guilds you had better believe that the merchant's guild is going to be the most powerful of the bunch. If the PCs crossed them it would be game over.
Now you may play it differently but the implications of a raid on a merchant in a world where commerce is the only thing holding society together should be dire for bandit PCs.
|
Wow! Serious threadjack going on here!
We're not talking about POL. The concept was brought up by vance who was saying that retrofitting settings to the POL concept was an indication validating Mearls' statement in the OP (if I understand the argument well).
I think it was really debated whether Eberron would be heavily modified or not, and I can only guess the reason it wasn't was the uproar from the fans when the information got spread out.
That said, I agree that POL is a marketing tool rather than some hardcore, built-in rule into the game system.
It seems to me that this approach of 4E of making a check instead of describing really what you're doing, how you're doing it without any check at all (the trap example of Mearls) isn't really something new to 4E, but was really introduced by 3E with on/off switches like defined skill uses and the concept of feats.
4E in that regard is a natural evolution of 3rd ed rather than a change.
What do you guys think?
If my players actually opted to do that I would tell them that doing so would end the campaign. In a PoL setting the merchants are the lifeblood of society. I am sure that they will be given the utmost protection and banditry may be a crime more serious than murder given the dependence on merchants just to keep small communities alive.If a PoL setting has guilds you had better believe that the merchant's guild is going to be the most powerful of the bunch. If the PCs crossed them it would be game over.
Now you may play it differently but the implications of a raid on a merchant in a world where commerce is the only thing holding society together should be dire for bandit PCs.
I agree with the idea of the caravans being well protected but I don't really follow with the idea that the PCs will be hunted down by some kind of super powerful guild. In some ways the idea that there is a super potent guild capable of hunting PCs down goes against the idea of POL in the first place.
Sure attacking merchants is probably an offence that makes one a wanted person every were but actually catching such criminals is pretty difficult. The rituals involved in fingering a group of PCs are basically epic level (thats actually done to make it so that murder mystery gaming works and you can't just buy a ritual to find out 'who dunnit').
Now I'd not allow the PCs to attack the merchants myself - not anymore then I'd allow characters to attack the magic Wal-Marts of 3.5. It'd ruin the game.
Now I'd not allow the PCs to attack the merchants myself - not anymore then I'd allow characters to attack the magic Wal-Marts of 3.5. It'd ruin the game.
I'll let the PCs do anything they want. If it's a bad decision, the consequences will come for them soon enough :)
Maybe the Realms, I'm not that familiar with Realms but Dragonlance is the epitome of POL. Dragonlance, at least the early stuff from around the War of the Lance, is such an archtype of Points of Light that it surpasses the description in 4E.Consider the background. There is massive destruction of the old civilizations on such a scale that the land itself is wracked and torn by the Gods who then vanish and cease to answer the prayers of priests. All the civilizations collapse or withdraw to ancient forests to deep mountain holdfasts. Those that survive know of other lands only through myths and legends as the wilderness and monsters rush into the void left by the withdrawal of the civilized races.
This is even a major theme in the books when the heros head for the once great port city of Tarsis which they know of since they have myths and legends of the times before the Catalysm. Using the Kenders maps they manage to navigate their way to Tarsis only to find an abandoned ruin in the middle of the desert with sand dunes slowly covering the hulks of mighty ships now long abandoned and no sign of water in any direction.
Its Points of Light in spades.
Wow, I had no idea that Dragonlance was so desolate. I just always assumed it was "happy happy swords and sorcery land," but now I'm gonna have to give it a second look, though I still don't know what to do about Kender...
Wow, I had no idea that Dragonlance was so desolate. I just always assumed it was "happy happy swords and sorcery land," but now I'm gonna have to give it a second look, though I still don't know what to do about Kender...
Kill them. Kill them all. It's the only way to be sure.
|
|
Why is that the more people mention any edition of D&D from OD&D to AD&D 1E, I want to scrap all my current edition material and pick up OSRIC?
Because these (OD&D, Holmes, Moldvay-Cook, Mentzer, AD&D1) are all excellent systems that actually achieve what they're supposed to achieve, each in their own particular way.
Most gamers know them for having played them. They know what they're getting into when they're going to a game table featuring one of them. Either you fancy the idea of playing/running one of these and run with it, or you just can't stand any of them and stay away, as far as you can.
There's familiarity about them, and since we all grew up since then and have a different perspective on game mechanics, thanks in big part to 3e's OGL and constant tinkering, we're all the more prepared to master those systems and have a better idea how to achieve the desired results we want out of them.
I think POL is a bare bones default concept for beginner DMs who just need a few small scattered villages for their players to rest and recoup, sell loot, and buy gear. The rest of the world is darkness so they can fill in whatever they want. WotC has said they didn't want a "setting" for the default rules, so this concept works.
I think POL is the way WotC has decided D&D will be played -- and have gone so far as to POL-ize their flagship campaign, Forgotten Realms. I'll take it back if any other campaigns they do are treated differently.
And while WotC says their is no default setting, this default setting that doesn't exist has place names and a history (read the background for tieflings).
.
Its not a bad justification for whats really a game mechanic meant to keep players from liquidating the really cool stuff you hand out while still allowing them to reasonably get rid of stuff that is just no longer relevant at their current level.
Which game mechanic? the rule presented on PHB pg 220 under "Selling equipment" which either disallows the sell non-magical goods or fixes the sell price a 1/5 of market price, the rule on pgs 223-224 that hardcodes the sell and/or disenchant price at 1/5 market value?
Given that most of the higher level rituals are fairly expensive, in some cases very expensive, players always have a use for old items: residuum/ritual fodder.
I apologize for being bitter, I imagine it is just my simulationist tenancies. It bugs me, quite a bit, that the DMG doesn't include things like maximum wealth by location and free capital by location, or heck, even goverments that aren't monarchies (see the village, town and city traits presented on page 153 and the four paragraphs under the "Government " heading on page 154.)
....Wow, you really haven't gotten around to reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, have you?As far as I can tell, D&D 4th Edition is still set in a fantasy world.The idea being, of course, is that 4E has a lot less rules and information about simulating the rest of the fantasy world - outside of dungeon-crawling encounters, than other games and most other editions have had.
The DMG has 23 pages dedicated to "The World" (note: not world building. rather the chapter lays out the basics of the Points of Light setting, as explained in the first on page 148) 7 of which are dedicated to artifacts and 2 to general environmental hazards.
The only true stab at world building found in one column (the right most one, under the heading "Altering Core Assumptions") on page 151.
In contrast, we get 12 pages (and the smaller font and margins mean the total page count here is far greater than that of a page in the 4E DMG) in the 3.5 DMG: the 9 page sub chapter "world-building" and three pages in the following sub-chapter "Building a different world" page 44.
If we add in all the pages devoted to the "D&D" world in the 3.5 DMG, such as the planes, environmental hazards, NPC types, etc. found in 4e DMG chapter 9, we end up with 80 pages!
I don't hate 4e. I like it enough to pay (close to full) market price for all of the books, but let us not delude ourselves about what 4e is and what 4e isn't. That tactic only encourages bickering and divisiveness, rather than actually fostering community and game play.
Wow, I had no idea that Dragonlance was so desolate. I just always assumed it was "happy happy swords and sorcery land," but now I'm gonna have to give it a second look, though I still don't know what to do about Kender...
Its background is desolate but the feel of the campaign is not. The feel of the campaign is one in which heros fight against the darkness and it actually has an effect. Not always perfectly but the darkness really can be driven back. The War of the Lance takes place in a period of time when the races are just beginning to re-establish contact. In fact the war is the major drive to reforge long sundered alliances.
Thus its a world coming out of a terrible dark age but there are themes of hope intertwined with the world as opposed to something like Darksun where the idea is one of true hopelessness in a world thats dying and has been dying for a long time.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Now you may play it differently but the implications of a raid on a merchant in a world where commerce is the only thing holding society together should be dire for bandit PCs.
Well, there's the thing - bandit attacks are a staple in that sort of campaign. So you're basically advocating banditry being suicide for PCs, but just dandy as a lifestyle choice for NPCs.
Which game mechanic? the rule presented on PHB pg 220 under "Selling equipment" which either disallows the sell non-magical goods or fixes the sell price a 1/5 of market price, the rule on pgs 223-224 that hardcodes the sell and/or disenchant price at 1/5 market value?
That'd be the mechanic, yes.
The point is to mix the two styles of play that most groups seemed to want in 3.5. Players can spend their gems, gold and what have you on magic items and buy whatever they want so long as they can afford it - they get to have their magic item catalogues and can browse through the books to pick up whatever they think would make their characters that much cooler. However the magic items the DM hands out are generally the really potent stuff (because its generally more powerful then what the players can afford at their current level) and players are strongly disincentive to immediately liquidate them for more cash to go shopping. So the DM is still the the one that puts the really potent items on the table for the players to go ga-ga over.
In theory both the DM and the players get what they want from this. Shoppings allowed, even encouraged but the DM is not just handing out weird shaped GP when he places a magic item in the adventure.
A pretty good mechanic all around, IMO.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
A pretty good mechanic all around, IMO.
Well, except for the realism angle. Magic items cost their list price to make - where's the profit in making a magic item? (Okay, I do know about the potential 10-20% markup in there, if that's used it helps). Magic items lose absolutely none of their intrinsic value after being purchased, yet can only be sold for 20% - where's the economics in that? Bob the NPC Wizard makes a magic item, he sells it for full. I make a magic item, I sell it for 20%. Why can't I be Bob?
Plays like a game, not like a simulation. That is a failing for a certain segment of the community.
There is an entire chapter in the 4E DMG about World Building. See Chapter 9.....Wow, you really haven't gotten around to reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, have you?I wrote one of the first professional reviews of the DMG, and gave it good marks, to boot. But while there is a lot of useful material within the DMG, and that material is more effective than what was in previous versions, there is a lot less material about world-building (or even the hint that there's a world out there) than you're pretending.
Actually, that chapter is called "The World" and spends most of its time telling you about the core assumptions of PoL and telling you how to create settlements. Only maybe a page says anything about building your own world with possibly different assumptions. And that advice is mostly in the form of unanswered questions. "What if the world isn't a fantastic place?" I'm thinking, "Exactly, what if? You aren't exactly giving us advice on the subject, are you?" There isn't even advice on variations like magic level that directly affect the mechanics. At least 3.x had advice about how to adjust treasure for a low-magic campaign.
A pretty good mechanic all around, IMO.Well, except for the realism angle. Magic items cost their list price to make - where's the profit in making a magic item? (Okay, I do know about the potential 10-20% markup in there, if that's used it helps). Magic items lose absolutely none of their intrinsic value after being purchased, yet can only be sold for 20% - where's the economics in that? Bob the NPC Wizard makes a magic item, he sells it for full. I make a magic item, I sell it for 20%. Why can't I be Bob?
Plays like a game, not like a simulation. That is a failing for a certain segment of the community.
My reading of the section was that if a player even wants to go ahead and the the 20% payout, they get it residuum. This prevents a mechant from needing to have any cash on hand. He just dusts the magic item and give the player his cut. This kind of stuff makes me wonder about inflation and other real world economic things. What does it do to the "lucky" nation that sits above a relatively large storehouse of minor magical items.
Of course, after the players get access to the enchant item ritual, this all goes away. If they afford it, they craft it, and any magic item not nailed down is potential fodder for disenchant magic item. I guess it is a good thing that most monsters in the MM don't use weapons, as this does make a tight little magic economy.
The fact of the matter is the more "realistic" 3E system results in any DM treasure being absolutely worthless unless its a relic/artifact or designed specifically for the PCs.
I disagree, strongly. My personnel experience as a DM has lead me to PCs and game tables where Quual's tokens, folding boats, immovable rods and the apparatus of Kwlish are treasured things, worth more than any old +5 cloack of Charisma or a flaming, thundering undead bane warhammer.
I imagine your personal observation of 3.X has lead you to your
conclusion. Can you support your statment with some examples or perhaps with something other than just your experience?
Y'know if someone likes to optimize or be a simulationist, or take a gamist approach to D&D, and the other folks who are actually at the table are cognizant of these play style choices and approve, what is the issue? I'd posit that if everyone at the table is in agreement, there is no wrong way to play D&D (unless it involves a character named Darkleaf...)
A pretty good mechanic all around, IMO.Well, except for the realism angle. Magic items cost their list price to make - where's the profit in making a magic item? (Okay, I do know about the potential 10-20% markup in there, if that's used it helps). Magic items lose absolutely none of their intrinsic value after being purchased, yet can only be sold for 20% - where's the economics in that? Bob the NPC Wizard makes a magic item, he sells it for full. I make a magic item, I sell it for 20%. Why can't I be Bob?
Plays like a game, not like a simulation. That is a failing for a certain segment of the community.
Well it does sort of mention a fix (the 10%-20% markup) in passing but does not focus on this. In the end the point was to make a system that works in game and give some basic justifications. If you want to simulate this then I'm not really sure that the PHB is the place to do it. I think the varous campaign hardbacks are a better alternative as those will take their worlds into account.
If realism is your cup of tea and saying 10%-20% just does not cut it then you probably need a system more detailed and reflective of your world. If a more basic approach is favoured and detailed economics is not your thing then what they have will work really well in game terms.
Personally I'll probably add a few tweaks for realism or at least a nod toward it.
For example the books say mundane items are worthless. My stand in this argument is - its not worthless, its just not worth much. As a DM I'll tell my players 'don't bother tracking your minor mundane expenses like food and lodging, we are going to assume that your selling enough mundane stuff like looted long swords etc. to pay for all your basic mundane needs and we are not going to track either as its too fiddly'.
I might well rule that creating magic items costs 10% or 20% less then the book value. Enough to explain why people do it but hopefully not enough to turn my PCs into magic mart merchants at higher levels.
POL is mere filler. A minimalist approach meant to make sure that there is nothing standing in the way of them selling us campaign books...a f*%! of a lot of campaign books.
Actually, POL has nothing to do with selling campaign books. It's entirely meant to make the world more modular. In a POL world, where what's over the next hill is always a mystery, the DM can plug in whatever she needs to. POL is just another step toward making preperation easier on the DM.
....Wow, you really haven't gotten around to reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, have you?As far as I can tell, D&D 4th Edition is still set in a fantasy world.The idea being, of course, is that 4E has a lot less rules and information about simulating the rest of the fantasy world - outside of dungeon-crawling encounters, than other games and most other editions have had.
The DMG has 23 pages dedicated to "The World" (note: not world building. rather the chapter lays out the basics of the Points of Light setting, as explained in the first on page 148) 7 of which are dedicated to artifacts and 2 to general environmental hazards.
The only true stab at world building found in one column (the right most one, under the heading "Altering Core Assumptions") on page 151.
In contrast, we get 12 pages (and the...
Okay so maybe there isn't as many words dedicated to world creation. Still just looking at it, it feels so anal retentive, I mean why the hell should there be an entry about supply and demand, I mean unless you have a really conscientious character in your party your players aren't gonna care that there's no more good horses 'cause they bought them all. I mean I'll give you the fact that they don't detail different kinds of government. And while there isn't a thing about making a different kind of world it's D&D, it invokes images of medieval fantasy. If someone's starting out in D&D that's probably the kind of setting they're gonna go for, and if they want to make a campaign in a different world they probably use their own judgment to make it different. I mean I made a D&D setting where everything was more industrial, but all I did was yoink stats for guns from d20 Modern. End of story.
And why does it matter that there isn't advice on how to make a different kind of campaign world? It's like complaining that Traveller doesn't have rules for Star Wars type campaigns. I mean I guess you could do it in theory, but then why not just play Star Wars? If you want to make an Asian campaign for D&D you're gonna need more than just some weapons and a few cultural notes. The wu jen and... I forget the other class, but they're there to replace the cleric and wizard 'cause magic is a different thing in Asian settings, and the tone is completely different than typical medieval fantasy. Let's not forget they did release Oriental Adventures in all past editions (though the last one was them trying to push a newly acquired franchise), hopefully we can expect another one. Hell they might even do us one better and make the campaign setting after Eberron something like Kara-Tur. Now I really did wish they'd release something for making steampunk/renaissance type settings, but they're close enough to the standard model that I shouldn't have to sweat it over too much.
A pretty good mechanic all around, IMO.Well, except for the realism angle. Magic items cost their list price to make - where's the profit in making a magic item? (Okay, I do know about the potential 10-20% markup in there, if that's used it helps). Magic items lose absolutely none of their intrinsic value after being purchased, yet can only be sold for 20% - where's the economics in that? Bob the NPC Wizard makes a magic item, he sells it for full. I make a magic item, I sell it for 20%. Why can't I be Bob?
Plays like a game, not like a simulation. That is a failing for a certain segment of the community.
It was my impression that you weren't selling the magic item at 20% to another adventurer ready to go slay some foul beast with it. No, you were handing it off to some travelling merchant, who has little hope of selling it anytime soon. When he finally unloads it (if he ever does, before he dies or it is stolen) he'll turn a hefty profit, so he buys it from you. Likewise, he has a small store of magical goods he has picked up from other areas, that he hopes maybe you'll take off of him. but even at 1/5th the price, that magic item is a big risk for him, since chances are he'll not end up finding an interested buyer anytime soon, and might never be able to turn a profit.
Also, I believe disenchanting an item likewise gives you only 1/5th the items worth in residuum.
Finally, I read that the 1/5th value of sold items essentially allows you to trade out an item's special ability for one of equal value at the cost of a plus. That is, if you find a +4 flaming axe, but really want a sword, and a frosty one at that, the money gained by selling the axe is the same cost as a +3 frosty sword.
So, use what the DM gives you, or trade a plus to get precisely what you want. It's a nice balance, IMO.
Cheers! :)
|
|
Now you may play it differently but the implications of a raid on a merchant in a world where commerce is the only thing holding society together should be dire for bandit PCs.Well, there's the thing - bandit attacks are a staple in that sort of campaign. So you're basically advocating banditry being suicide for PCs, but just dandy as a lifestyle choice for NPCs.
It's not dandy for NPCs either - that's why PCs get hired to track them down and kill them.
And why does it matter that there isn't advice on how to make a different kind of campaign world? It's like complaining that Traveller doesn't have rules for Star Wars type campaigns. I mean I guess you could do it in theory, but then why not just play Star Wars? ...
Because there's a demand for it, and because D&D has provided such advice for over 30 years, and because D&D play styles and campaign settings have run the gamut for that entire span of time. So he's looking for advice on how to play D&D, not a different game.
You might be happy with it, but it still constitutes a significant omission.
Don't presume that good enough for you is the same thing as good enough.
|
|
And why does it matter that there isn't advice on how to make a different kind of campaign world? It's like complaining that Traveller doesn't have rules for Star Wars type campaigns.
Because it matters for beginners of the game to be able to build and sustain their own campaigns? (If you can just pick and choose components from other games and craft a playable campaign setting on the spot, you certainly are not a beginner to D&D/RPGs)
Because that's part of the essence of the D&D game for many people who played it for decades? Running a published setting is not. Running a published setting is a convenience introduced for DMs of the game, it's not how the game's supposed to be played and mastered from very early on (OD&D, then through AD&D) in its history.
The current game seems to go out of its way to divorce itself from this tradition. I was shocked to read the gamespy interview where you could find a screenshot of the character viewer in DDI with the caption "D&D Insider's Character Visualizer aims to leave little to the imagination". There. That about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.
There certainly are some good things to say about 4E, but teaching world building and the use of one's imagination are definitely not its forte when compared to earlier editions of the game.
The current game seems to go out of its way to divorce itself from this tradition. I was shocked to read the gamespy interview where you could find a caption of the character viewer in DDI with the caption "D&D Insider's Character Visualizer aims to leave little to the imagination". There. That about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.
I think there's a great deal of truth here.
And that thing about "little to the imagination" -- there are people here that would flame the snot out of anyone making such an accusation.
I think there's a great deal of truth here.And that thing about "little to the imagination" -- there are people here that would flame the snot out of anyone making such an accusation.
Lol, it is a funny caption. But I'd be willing to bet strong money it was also something written by Gamespy, not by the Interviewees. And while poorly worded, the point of the character visualized IS to leave little of your character's appearance to your imagination ... it is supposed to let you visualize it! :)
Being a terrible artist, I've always liked tools that offered to draw my character for me, since a picture is worth a 1000 words and all that. I can describe my character pretty well, but a photo of him would be way better (now, that said, I'm not sure I like the art direction of the visualized but we're wandering into off-topic territory on that ...)
And why does it matter that there isn't advice on how to make a different kind of campaign world? It's like complaining that Traveller doesn't have rules for Star Wars type campaigns.Because it matters for beginners of the game to be able to build and sustain their own campaigns? (If you can just pick and choose components from other games and craft a playable campaign setting on the spot, you certainly are not a beginner to D&D/RPGs)
Because that's part of the essence of the D&D game for many people who played it for decades? Running a published setting is not. Running a published setting is a convenience introduced for DMs of the game, it's not how the game's supposed to be played and mastered from very early on (OD&D, then through AD&D) in its history.
The current game seems to go out of its way to divorce itself from this tradition. I was shocked to read the gamespy interview where you could find a screenshot of the character viewer in DDI with the caption "D&D Insider's Character Visualizer aims to leave little to the imagination". There. That about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.
There certainly are some good things to say about 4E, but teaching world building and the use of one's imagination are definitely not its forte when compared to earlier editions of the game.
That doesn't change the fact that trying to run a campaign in a completely different setting requires a lot of work, I mean you said so yourself "If you can just pick and choose components from other games and craft a playable campaign setting on the spot, you certainly are not a beginner to D&D/RPGs". Like I said at the point where you start creating a different kind of setting you probably have enough experience under your belt to do that kind of thing. The DMG is aimed towards beginning DMs, it's definitely not out of the question that the next one will go into those kinds of things. Are we being shortchanged? No, we're not, the DMG does what it's supposed to do.
Considering how many roleplaying tips they give in the character creation chapter of the PHB, I think use of one's imagination is definitely a forte of this edition compared to last editions, especially 3.5.
And yes I did read that caption about the Character Visualizer, but I read it as "the Character Visualizer is incredibly extensive/the guy who wrote this caption is probably a cynical pr*ck."
|
|
You're playing both sides of the argument. On one hand you're saying "but it's so easy for me to build a setting, the DMG doesn't need to explain that!", and when you're called out on it, you go instead for "Beginner DMs are just not able to do this". Gee, I don't know... maybe that's what the DMG is supposed to provide? Tools and advice to be able to do this when you're a beginner?
The DMG is supposed to be a guide for beginner DMs to, you know... "master" the game. It's supposed to enable. Not frame. It's supposed to be a complete manual, not an "introduction". If all it does is say "you can use your imagination later by buying next supplement X, but to run things without prep work, then please buy setting book Y", it is certainly not doing its job!
Once again, D&D is not supposed to be run with published setting lambda. It's supposed to enable you, as a DM, to use your imagination, build your own campaigns and worlds right out of the gate. If you lack time to build adventures and settings, the "supplements" (emphasis on the actual word) then come in.
The 4E DMG does not do that.
POL is mere filler. A minimalist approach meant to make sure that there is nothing standing in the way of them selling us campaign books...a f*%! of a lot of campaign books.Actually, POL has nothing to do with selling campaign books. It's entirely meant to make the world more modular. In a POL world, where what's over the next hill is always a mystery, the DM can plug in whatever she needs to. POL is just another step toward making preperation easier on the DM.
Points of Light reminds me somewhat of the old maps that say "There be Dragons" or some other similar thing. You have a frame of the world, but what and where something goes is up to you. I liked that about Eberron's Xen'drik and I like that about POL.
I would disagree with you Red Death quite strongly.
The *FIRST* thing a DMG should do is teach a DM how to run a game. Making encounters, handling players, etc.
THIS is IMO, the first thing a new DM needs. Not tips on "how to build his own world" because if he doesn't feel confident in dealing with his players and making fun and interesting encounters, then the worldbuilding is completely useless.
Needless to say, this is why I consider the 4E DMG arguably the best ever DMG produced for D&D.
I'm a DM but here's the thing, I actually want to play a PC sometimes, but honestly, giving any of my players say the 2E DMG, they just go "Wow, that's a lot of tables".
I've actually given out my 4E DMG and there's actually some of my players actually interested in being a DM. This is why I think the 4E DMG rocks.
I agree completely.
And, whether we like it or not there will be multiple DMGs and I can speculate that most of the more detailed aspects of world-building and advanced DM advice will be in these future products.
I know that doesn't help some of you who want those things right now, but I'm guessing those that do are experienced enough DMs to really not even need it. And, once those new DMs get around to thinking about that stuff I think the new DMGs might be out by then.