|
Mike Mearls talking about an OD&D session he ran said:
" I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"
OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[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). (link to original post)"
Interesting observation, I thought.
I think he nails one of the main differences, here, and beyond, one of the main shift in D&D gaming during these past decades.
Mike Mearls talking about an OD&D session he ran said:
" I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"
OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[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). (link to original post)"
Interesting observation, I thought.
I think he nails one of the main differences, here, and beyond, one of the main shift in D&D gaming during these past decades.
I try to blend both elements into my game. My players can try ANYTHING with their characters, and I encourage them to do so. They have skills, powers, and abilities that they can use to represent these things.
The reason I like the blend is while I was a player in some older D&D campaigns using older editions, it seemed like it was up to the GM whether a player succeeded or not, and not the player's actual skills.
That's why I prefer to have some sort of roll be made based on an attribute or skill to determine success. This CAN limit imagination - but I try to encourage creative gameplay in my games. If a player doesn't have disable trap (or some other such skill), but they come up with a clever idea for doing just that, I let them run with it.
|
It's more of a pity, then, that he (along with WotC) didn't adopt a meta-system philosophy from the outset with 4E. It would have gone a long way to opening up the game to more play styles, instead of being fairly rigid into the 'dungeon delve' format.
I agree. It's clear they were aiming for a particular type of market with the new edition. This one helps to push the miniatures, maps, and eventually computer tie-in. As a business person, I get that. As a consumer, I would have liked more "layers" built into the system that I could peel back if I didn't want to use them.
Now if I want to play something loose and open I have to turn to Feng Shui or Savage Worlds.
It's interesting in that, after years of largely following the 'Gygax' model of a rule for every occasion, and micro-detailing rules, he's pining a bit for the 'old days' and the more 'free-form' gaming style that Arneson put foward.It's more of a pity, then, that he (along with WotC) didn't adopt a meta-system philosophy from the outset with 4E. It would have gone a long way to opening up the game to more play styles, instead of being fairly rigid into the 'dungeon delve' format.
I think this is an example of what consultants and developers do when they change something just for the sake of change. They centralize what was decentralized, they decentralize what was centralized, they emphasize core business by spinning off newer departments, they diversify from core business by creating newer departments and so on.
Recent editions of D&D had a lot of rules for a lot of things, so new edition D&D has fewer rules and for fewer things. The rules that remain just happen to focus on selling plastic figures and cardboard dungeon tiles. Funny how that worked out, isn't it? :)
And, compounding this is the cold chill everyone has when thinking about posting/supporting 4E due to the GSL and the somewhat harkening back to the 'days of Lorraine' that we're seeing. So, people OUTSIDE of WotC have little impetus to expand it too...
The GSL does seem to make life pretty interesting for anyone other than pure adventure creators.
|
|
I think this is an example of what consultants and developers do when they change something just for the sake of change. They centralize what was decentralized, they decentralize what was centralized, they emphasize core business by spinning off newer departments, they diversify from core business by creating newer departments and so on.Recent editions of D&D had a lot of rules for a lot of things, so new edition D&D has fewer rules and for fewer things. The rules that remain just happen to focus on selling plastic figures and cardboard dungeon tiles. Funny how that worked out, isn't it? :)
And this is where my opinion diverges. (notice I said opinion, that goes a long way in having these types of discussions)
As far as "change for the sake of change" that's just a given with any sort of business. New models of cars come out every year. New versions of Tide come out all the time but I don't begrudge Protcor and Gamble about it. They make a product, I buy it or not. In fact at least with this particular product you're perfectly fine continuing to use the old version, versus some consumable.
To me, 3.0/3.5 sold mini's and cardboard tiles just as much and seemed to assume them just as much compared to OD&D. That's why offshoots like Microlite20 came along.
To me, in some ways 4E is "better designed" because they just gave up and assumed you have mini/mat/etc. available. If you make that assumption, rules descriptions become much easier. So, this is a feature for me in a certain way. It's a mindset: "Right, my friends and I all like mini's and tactical rpg stuff, so I'm going to have that out and using it."
Now, while it's the case that they assume you have those available, they simultaneously stepped back a bit from the simulist crowd to make the game more "playable". (again, my opinion) The 1-1-1 movement system, being able to fire into combat, etc. are all rule changes primarily meant to make the game experience easier and more "fun". Now, I'm good with that compromise, using this particular version of the game system, because it works for certain groups of people. It doesn't for others. And that's ok. I'm very much about accepting a game system for what it's trying to do.
Once you make that assumption (which I have) then some of the changes make more sense to me and I can accept them. Like I said above, I would have liked something with more layers, but it didn't happen. So I try to work with how it is. A good example is the firing into combat simplification. Yes, it's not as "simulist". But, isn't it more fun for the archer? I would think so.
To me, in some ways 4E is "better designed" because they just gave up and assumed you have mini/mat/etc. available.
Indeed. And on the topic of minis and maps, I don't think there is one game of D&D I have ever played where combat eventually broke down into the DM drawing out some sort of diagram and pointing out where everything was on the map in relation to our characters and distances and whatnot.
The minis and map make D&D a much more playable, tactical game in my opinion. In fact, I joined a recent game of Mutants and Masterminds and we haven't used minis yet. But, you can be damn sure as soon as combat breaks out, we're trying to emulate minis and a gridded map with a pencil and paper and tokens of some sort as avatars. Man, I wish that group used a grid and minis...
nd this is where my opinion diverges. (notice I said opinion, that goes a long way in having these types of discussions)
As far as "change for the sake of change" that's just a given with any sort of business. New models of cars come out every year. New versions of Tide come out all the time but I don't begrudge Protcor and Gamble about it. They make a product, I buy it or not. In fact at least with this particular product you're perfectly fine continuing to use the old version, versus some consumable.To me, 3.0/3.5 sold mini's and cardboard tiles just as much and seemed to assume them just as much compared to OD&D. That's why offshoots like Microlite20 came along.
I don't think our opinions are that far apart. While I did write 'sell minis and cardboard stuff', I was actually referring to the idea that the combat rules are still present in a form that is not terribly different from the 3.x rules. There are tweaks and minor changes to combat rules, sure, but they are small potatoes compared to the changes in other rules sections. The focus of D&D was sharpened from 'simulate a fantasy world surrounding a small band of people who kill things and take their stuff' to just 'simulate a small band of people who kill things and take their stuff'. The core is the same as in prior editions, but the outlying edges of the system have contracted dramatically.
The focus of D&D was sharpened from 'simulate a fantasy world surrounding a small band of people who kill things and take their stuff' to just 'simulate a small band of people who kill things and take their stuff'. The core is the same as in prior editions, but the outlying edges of the system have contracted dramatically.
As far as I can tell, D&D 4th Edition is still set in a fantasy world.
|
I try to blend both elements into my game. My players can try ANYTHING with their characters, and I encourage them to do so. They have skills, powers, and abilities that they can use to represent these things.
Same. I always laugh when I read a review or post on 4E* and the writer proclaims that "4E, unlike 3.x, allows DMs to arbitrate in the game again."
"Allows"? WTF, I'd think. You mean we were never suppose to?!? :)
*BTW, to nip any 3.x versus 4E cr#@ in the bud right now from fanatics, I run a 3.x game, play in several 3.x/PfRPG games, demo'd 4E and currently play in a 4E game. I enjoy them all.
|
|
I don't think our opinions are that far apart. While I did write 'sell minis and cardboard stuff', I was actually referring to the idea that the combat rules are still present in a form that is not terribly different from the 3.x rules. There are tweaks and minor changes to combat rules, sure, but they are small potatoes compared to the changes in other rules sections.
Interesting. I think the combat got a major overhaul with the at-will/encounter/daily power system that's in 4E. Interesting to hear you say it's much the same. Are you just talking about the base core combat mechanics and leaving out the powers?
There are things I don't like (especially playing a Wizard) but there are others I do like. I like that there are more opportunities for everyone at the table to be engaged on other people's turns. The Warlord is everybody's buddy cause she gives you the extra smack-down!
The focus of D&D was sharpened from 'simulate a fantasy world surrounding a small band of people who kill things and take their stuff' to just 'simulate a small band of people who kill things and take their stuff'. The core is the same as in prior editions, but the outlying edges of the system have contracted dramatically.
Honestly so far in playing I haven't noticed that much difference. Maybe we were just pretty old school to start with and didn't hit a great deal of the fringe elements. I know I've run into that a few times when I meet up with a group.
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?
As far as I can tell, D&D 4th Edition is still set in a fantasy world.
Indeed it is. I did not intend to say that D&D is no longer set in a fantasy world. I don't see how you could extract that from what I said, but I wrote it and probably can't see any errors in the text.
What I was trying to say was that D&D 3.x has a lot of rules to regulate/simulate how the world worked. There are rules simulating all sorts of activities, events, places, conditions, weather, and more. The 4E doesn't have nearly as many rules regarding how the world works when player characters aren't looking at it. The rules sections with the greatest amount of overlap are the combat rules sections.
I don't think our opinions are that far apart. While I did write 'sell minis and cardboard stuff', I was actually referring to the idea that the combat rules are still present in a form that is not terribly different from the 3.x rules. There are tweaks and minor changes to combat rules, sure, but they are small potatoes compared to the changes in other rules sections.
Interesting. I think the combat got a major overhaul with the at-will/encounter/daily power system that's in 4E. Interesting to hear you say it's much the same. Are you just talking about the base core combat mechanics and leaving out the powers?
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 all way I have seen combat play out in 4E is strikingly similar to how I saw combat play out with these three character classes. That one evolved into the other is very visible to me.
|
|
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.
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.
....Wow, you really haven't gotten around to reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, have you?
|
|
" I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"
OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[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).
I think Mearls is honest about the fact that "game" and meta-game has replaced dnd for the munchkins who eat that stuff up. Also, I understand why those looking for a D&D-like-"game" would find 4e appealing. For the other 5 million of us who always felt D&D was special because it challenged us to use a complex skill set involving deductive reasoning, as Mearls points out, and to summon forth expressive and theatrical heroes and story themes from the recesses of the waters of our unconscious minds, we'll be choosing to stay 3.5 or go PRPG.
Just my 2 zloty...
At least, Mearls earnes a few XP of street-cred with me because his statement is pretty honest about what 4e is meant to be and what it really doesn't do that previous editions still do.
|
What I was trying to say was that D&D 3.x has a lot of rules to regulate/simulate how the world worked. There are rules simulating all sorts of activities, events, places, conditions, weather, and more. The 4E doesn't have nearly as many rules regarding how the world works when player characters aren't looking at it. The rules sections with the greatest amount of overlap are the combat rules sections.
Is that really a bad thing? To me it is a shift back to the roots of the game where play was much more open. Personally I am not interested in rules to tell me how the world works. I prefer to keep it light on the mechanics. Even when I was full in with 3.5 I ignored all of the books on deserts, cold weather, and the like and used spot rules as needed - which did not happen all that often. Most of the time narrative was enough to "simulate" the world.
Now if I want to play something loose and open I have to turn to Feng Shui or Savage Worlds.Well, 4E still COULD be opened up. It wouldn't take all that much, really. The DMG is a bit of a let-down in this department, unfortuntely. And we're a long way off from the DMG2.
The Splat Books will probably, on average, close the system and lock it in more rigidly to the themes that the designers are aiming for in 4E.
If one wants to open the system up further its probably best to do so early on or with just core in mind instead of waiting for the endless march of new rules and add ons that will be coming down the pipeline.
....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.
Certainly I have, but have you really read all the rules in third edition that deal with aspects of the world other than dungeon-crawling and closely associated apocrypha?
Before you go too far with impugning my knowledge of 4E books (all three of them, versus a whole lot more than three for 3.5), I would like to point out to you that I like 4E. I like it better than 3.5.
Is that really a bad thing? To me it is a shift back to the roots of the game where play was much more open. Personally I am not interested in rules to tell me how the world works. I prefer to keep it light on the mechanics. Even when I was full in with 3.5 I ignored all of the books on deserts, cold weather, and the like and used spot rules as needed - which did not happen all that often. Most of the time narrative was enough to "simulate" the world.
Heck no, I don't think it's really a bad thing. I don't think it's bad at all. I think it was long overdue. I love that the new set includes only rules that matter to most people playing at my table.
I think this is an example of what consultants and developers do when they change something just for the sake of change. They centralize what was decentralized, they decentralize what was centralized, they emphasize core business by spinning off newer departments, they diversify from core business by creating newer departments and so on.Recent editions of D&D had a lot of rules for a lot of things, so new edition D&D has fewer rules and for fewer things. The rules that remain just happen to focus on selling plastic figures and cardboard dungeon tiles. Funny how that worked out, isn't it? :)
The whole RPG hobby seems to be heading this way at least with the games that are winning awards and such. D&D has always followed the rest of the hobby. 1E and BECMI were the only times in its history when it was at the fore front of RPG trends. After that its been tentatively following other D&D trends around.
Hell when Vampire was making waves with its 'story telling' system it got to the point when you could go half a year without seeing a Dungeon in Dungeon adventures of all places. No - instead just about every adventure emphasized story and character interaction.
....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.
There is an entire chapter in the 4E DMG about World Building. See Chapter 9.
I don't think there is one game of D&D I have ever played where combat eventually broke down into the DM drawing out some sort of diagram and pointing out where everything was on the map in relation to our characters and distances and whatnot.
Really? I've played thousands of such battles. Far far more then I have played with a map and grid. From the early '80s all the way to 1999 I never played with a grid.
Granted, that's a matter largely of opinion, and not fact, but it stirkes me that to fit the new 'core' theme that both Eberron and Forgotten Realms are being redone completely to be part of the 'POL' concept - which is exactly what the section you pointed out described.
Sigh... Once again, misinformation has been presented here. Eberron is not being redone completely to be part of the "POL" concept. Actually, they were considering advancing Eberron's timeline by two years, but that idea was quickly thrown out.
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?
Your getting old. Simplicity is starting to seem like a virtue.
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?
But OSRIC doesn't have any rules about roleplaying. What if I want my fighter character to hit on the barmaid? I guess they only care about the hack 'n slash part of previous editions. [/sarcasm]
|
There is an entire chapter in the 4E DMG about World Building. See Chapter 9.I'm not saying it doesn't exist.. I'm saying it's LESSER than most other games out there. Granted, that's a matter largely of opinion, and not fact, but it stirkes me that to fit the new 'core' theme that both Eberron and Forgotten Realms are being redone completely to be part of the 'POL' concept - which is exactly what the section you pointed out described.
Which loses a LOT of the detail of the worlds.
Forgotten Realms were nuked but as far as I know Eberron is seeing very little in setting changes. There is no major overhaul, no timeline advance, and most of the fluff remains the same.
Were they planning on a major overhaul? From what I heard, yes. Did they change their mind? Yes. Will there be minor changes to bring Eberron in line with 4E? Of course. But from all accounts they look to be pretty small.
Now, can they change their mind again? I suppose. But unless you have a current reference that the world is going "PoL" (some might argue it already is) then it seems unlikely, as it stands now, a lot is going to be changing to make it all work. Keith Baker has stated he is currently in the process of making changes to the setting but from everything he has said it is more "how do some of these houses work now?" or "what is needed to create a warforged in 4e?" and not "let's nuke it from orbit and start over.
|
|
Granted, that's a matter largely of opinion, and not fact, but it stirkes me that to fit the new 'core' theme that both Eberron and Forgotten Realms are being redone completely to be part of the 'POL' concept - which is exactly what the section you pointed out described.Sigh... Once again, misinformation has been presented here. Eberron is not being redone completely to be part of the "POL" concept. Actually, they were considering advancing Eberron's timeline by two years, but that idea was quickly thrown out.
Yeah...what he said.
I agree. It's clear they were aiming for a particular type of market with the new edition. This one helps to push the miniatures, maps, and eventually computer tie-in.
I used to be a hardcore tabletop DM, and to some extents, I still am. I like certain things about the whole tabletop experience that I would never do away with (such as dice, character sheets, skill checks, and the social aspect, just to name a few), but I also think that while the old gaming models work just fine, changing some of the systems to make playing on the tabletop easier can be good things.
For example, for the past 4-5 months or so since I've set it up, our group does not map anymore. The players don't map, and neither do I. The computer does. A few entrepreneurial developers out there have come up with some interactive mapping tools that allow you to play with friends from all over the world. Great for them, but all my players are local, so 90% of the functionality of these programs are lost on me, and only the reveal/fog of war features are what I use.
Taking the game mapping to this new area is controversial and expensive, but I find it enchances the play experience by being able to show and describe the locations the characters travel to instead of only being able to describe, crudely draw my own map, and hope all the players see in their mind's eye the same map I do. That's probably reveal mapping's greatest asset to be able to show players where they are and what's around them. What's the old phrase? A picture's worth a thousands words, and I think that's true when it comes to this style of gaming.
I don't know if WotC is planning on having their online game be anything like what I've set up, but it sounds similar, so in that regard alone, I hope they succeed because of what it may offer players and DMs the ability to see.
Really? I've played thousands of such battles. Far far more then I have played with a map and grid. From the early '80s all the way to 1999 I never played with a grid.
You must have a far superior imagination than us.
Even in my early days of gaming with 2nd Edition, we didn't use grids or minis, but most of the battle scenes needed to be drawn out so we knew where the hell those stairs, pillars, bad guys, exactly were.
Once I first used an actual grid (a homemade version - marble table top with markered lines) and minis (er... tokens) in 3rd Edition I never wanted to go back. Since then I've bought a wet erase grid board and several packs of D&D minis and I wouldn't want to run a game without it (or my dry erase initiative board either).
Let's face it, D&D has a tactical combat history and 4th Edition continues this legacy. Grids and minis help.
" I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"
OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[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).
I think Mearls is honest about the fact that "game" and meta-game has replaced dnd for the munchkins who eat that stuff up. Also, I understand why those looking for a D&D-like-"game" would find 4e appealing. For the other 5 million of us who always felt D&D was special because it challenged us to use a complex skill set involving deductive reasoning, as Mearls points out, and to summon forth expressive and theatrical heroes and story themes from the recesses of the waters of our unconscious minds, we'll be choosing to stay 3.5 or go PRPG.
Just my 2 zloty...
At least, Mearls earnes a few XP of street-cred with me because his statement is pretty honest about what 4e is meant to be and what it really doesn't do that previous editions still do.
You crack me up, you've decided OD&D = Good and therefore it must follow that 3.5 is closer to OD&D then 4E. That OD&D is the least stimulationist version of the game and 3.5 is clearly the most simulationist version - and that Mearls is essentially discussing level of simulation inherent in the game (are there rules or how you disarm a trap? Or do you just announce that you do?) cannot be allowed to stand in the way.
|
|
There is an entire chapter in the 4E DMG about World Building. See Chapter 9.I'm not saying it doesn't exist.. I'm saying it's LESSER than most other games out there. Granted, that's a matter largely of opinion, and not fact, but it stirkes me that to fit the new 'core' theme that both Eberron and Forgotten Realms are being redone completely to be part of the 'POL' concept - which is exactly what the section you pointed out described.
Which loses a LOT of the detail of the worlds.
Could you provide a basis for comparison? What other games are you thinking about? Would it be better to keep comparisons within the D&D family? There are a number of games out there that provide more worldbuilding material than any edition of D&D, ever. Is it really fair to make that comparison considering how much material is out there?
Yeah...what he said.Last I knew from Baker's blog, and, granted, I haven't SEEN the new Eberron material yet, the changes to the setting were going to be more dramatic than originally envisioned - but would also somewhat revert more to the original campaign submission, or some such.
Making it fit more into the POL is a bit of an assumption, but the POL concept was ALWAYS mentioned as an 'Eberron' thing before-hand...
Just out of curiosity, do you play Eberron?
Eberron might be the exact opposite of POL actually. In Eberron, magic is the technology and using everbright lanterns, lightning rails, airships, speaking stones, and much much more, Eberron is anything but a dark world with a few points of light cut off by an ever growing darkness.
Communication, transportation, (magic) technology, developed aristocracy, engineering anomalies (Sharn?), are just SOME of the highlights that would make me consider Eberron anything but "points of light".
There is an entire chapter in the 4E DMG about World Building. See Chapter 9.I'm not saying it doesn't exist.. I'm saying it's LESSER than most other games out there. Granted, that's a matter largely of opinion, and not fact, but it stirkes me that to fit the new 'core' theme that both Eberron and Forgotten Realms are being redone completely to be part of the 'POL' concept - which is exactly what the section you pointed out described.
Which loses a LOT of the detail of the worlds.
I think your wrong here. 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. One for each setting to be sure, but there are enough settings that they won't even get through them all before 4E dies and is replaced by 5E.
Really? I've played thousands of such battles. Far far more then I have played with a map and grid. From the early '80s all the way to 1999 I never played with a grid.You must have a far superior imagination than us.
Even in my early days of gaming with 2nd Edition, we didn't use grids or minis, but most of the battle scenes needed to be drawn out so we knew where the hell those stairs, pillars, bad guys, exactly were.
Once I first used an actual grid (a homemade version - marble table top with markered lines) and minis (er... tokens) in 3rd Edition I never wanted to go back. Since then I've bought a wet erase grid board and several packs of D&D minis and I wouldn't want to run a game without it (or my dry erase initiative board either).
Let's face it, D&D has a tactical combat history and 4th Edition continues this legacy. Grids and minis help.
Oh I'd probably not go back. There is definitely something entertaining in the tactical aspects of the game. I just did not need miniatures in earlier editions and that was OK then, now I do and thats OK too.
|
|
Yeah...what he said.Last I knew from Baker's blog, and, granted, I haven't SEEN the new Eberron material yet, the changes to the setting were going to be more dramatic than originally envisioned - but would also somewhat revert more to the original campaign submission, or some such.
Making it fit more into the POL is a bit of an assumption, but the POL concept was ALWAYS mentioned as an 'Eberron' thing before-hand...
From Keith Baker's blog ...
While I can say nothing with absolutely certainty, I believe that the goal of the design team is to minimize the impact to the world - to have changes expand the world rather than transform it.
From Keith Baker's blog ...While I can say nothing with absolutely certainty, I believe that the goal of the design team is to minimize the impact to the world - to have changes expand the world rather than transform it.
Case closed - I'd say.
Case closed - I'd say.
Note that Keith Baker said this about Eberron
Honestly, I'm not privy to anything at this stage. However, one thing I'll note is that as it stands Eberron has some of this already. One of the original points of the Mournland was to drop a huge, dangerous area into the middle of an otherwise civilized world. Thanks to the Mourning, we HAVE an explanation as to why there's monsters roaming around the heart of Khorvaire. Beyond that, it's always been the case that Khorvaire is too big for its human population. While I'd like to see the scale reduced somewhat, it wasn't an accident that the population density was low, because it was supposed to be exactly this: areas of dense population connected by lightning rails and main trade roads, separated by large areas that COULD hold ruins from the Age of Dhakaan or Age of Demons that have remained undiscovered. Iif the population density is too high, it would be a little hard to place such things; as is, the concept has always been that the Five Nations have put their names on huge sections of the map, but they've never fully controlled those areas.
The creator of Eberron himself says that Eberron has aspects of a POL setting already. It makes sense that not much has to be changed to align with a 4E mindset.
Case closed - I'd say.Note that Keith Baker said this about Eberron
The creator of Eberron explains that Eberron is already a POL setting.
Honestly, I'm not privy to anything at this stage. However, one thing I'll note is that as it stands Eberron has some of this already. One of the original points of the Mournland was to drop a huge, dangerous area into the middle of an otherwise civilized world. Thanks to the Mourning, we HAVE an explanation as to why there's monsters roaming around the heart of Khorvaire. Beyond that, it's always been the case that Khorvaire is too big for its human population. While I'd like to see the scale reduced somewhat, it wasn't an accident that the population density was low, because it was supposed to be exactly this: areas of dense population connected by lightning rails and main trade roads, separated by large areas that COULD hold ruins from the Age of Dhakaan or Age of Demons that have remained undiscovered. Iif the population density is too high, it would be a little hard to place such things; as is, the concept has always been that the Five Nations have put their names on huge sections of the map, but they've never fully controlled those areas.
I disagree. He's saying that they needed a reason for there to be monsters. After all, this is D&D... There needs to be ruins, monsters and whatnot. That's not necessarily him saying it's a POL setting. After all, he doesn't mention POL - in fact he says the Mournland NEEDED to be there to explain monsters among all this civilization.
Eberron would be POL if there wasn't a human civilization built ON TOP of the ancient goblinoid ruined empire.
But, more seriously, whether or not Eberron really ever WAS POL, the term 'points of light' as used in gaming was heavily placed on Eberron in the past few years.
Vance, if you can provide me a link that has Eberron and the term "points of light" in the same instance referring to each other, I'll gladly eat my foot on this issue.
I disagree. He's saying that they needed a reason for there to be monsters. After all, this is D&D... There needs to be ruins, monsters and whatnot. That's not necessarily him saying it's a POL setting. After all, he doesn't mention POL - in fact he says the Mournland NEEDED to be there to explain monsters among all this civilization.Eberron would be POL if there wasn't a human civilization built ON TOP of the ancient goblinoid ruined empire.
He is specifically discussing POL.. The 'this' that he talks about at the top of his quote is this, the article that gave POL its name.