I have not been playing or following D&D for many years. I've only just recently started playing 4.0 after coming back to D&D through Eberron. What is this "Points of Light" concept that keeps coming up?
And the fear is that they are trying to force the concept of
"Civilized folk live in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world."
across all their game settings, regardless of original spirit and concept of the setting?
all their game settings, regardless of original spirit and concept of the setting?
Apparently. This is what I understand is the reasoning behind the destruction of the Forgotten Realms, and the 'reimagining' of the Eberron setting.
In my mind, the only sorts of settings this style of play would be good for, are ones WOTC has no interest in pursuing (Dark Sun, Ravenloft) I remember once upon a time, rules were made to fit the setting, not the other way around...
|
I have not been playing or following D&D for many years. I've only just recently started playing 4.0 after coming back to D&D through Eberron. What is this "Points of Light" concept that keeps coming up?
It's a reference to the inaugural address of George H. Bush.
"I have spoken of a thousand points of light..."
nyuck nyuck
Hijacked from another thread but it seemed appropriate here.
WotC have become enforcers for the Tyranny of Equality. From WotC's standpoint all settings must be playable by all age groups, all races, powers, etc. must be made equal or else.
That sounds like they are going the GURPS route, so game play is roughly the same across all scenarios. I don't have a problem with that. A 120 point wizard vs a 120 pt norm vs 120 pt super vs 120 pt alien would still be roughly equal in combat and game play.
But if they are trying to flatten all the D&D versions into the same theme, that's just boring. That would be like all the GURPS universes being simplied where every adventure was in a post-collapse-of-civilization kingdom, where magic, tech and powers were rare and or stunted and mosters lurked outside the gates, be it a sword and sorcery, cyberpunk, space, uplift or supers game.
It seems like a plan to kill the franchise from boredom. If they do, I see them loosing market share as people hack the game back into something fun or abandon it for something that's more fun.
One thing that I think needs mentioning in this discussion is that there is a difference between the reference to 'Points of Light' in the DMG and some of the R&D articles and postings that have gone on (from both WoTC staff and others).
The DMG mentions the idea of Points of Light in the context of assumptions that have been made about the world in general. (And it is important to note that they fully admit that these assumptions can be altered to fit the DM's world.)
The 'Points of Light' is under the core assumption that 'The World is Mysterious'. That places exist that adventurers can expect peaceful interaction with the inhabitants.
They go on to mention other things (No one race lords over the others, vast kingdoms are rare, etc), but these seem (to me) to be in reference to 'the World is Mysterious' assumption, and not to the 'Points of Light' concept.
They even make mention that nations/cities/settlements can exist that are not Points of Lights themselves, as they are not places that offer any degree of safety.
This, im my opinion, is what they are refering to as Points of Light. The idea that there are places that your party can go to with a reasonable assumption of safety. This is not to say that something bad may not happen there, but they shouldn't have to look over their should at every turn. The opposite effect of this assumption is that the further you get from these points of light, the more likely you are to experience danger.
|
Funnily enough there is one published game world that fits 4Es POL paradigm almost perfectly...
Isolated communities
a wilderness full of deadly Monsters
Dungeons round every corner
Fallen Empires
An off map empire of Demons where the tiefling could originate
I speak of course of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy...not that I'd use my Wilderlands with 4E but its there for those who want to
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I agree that it's a nice concept for a setting. Just not ALL the settings. But it is a system that 4e seems to support well, so expect it to be applied to most of the classic settings and probably a couple new ones. Although I would not be adverse to seeing a 4e setting built in the same way that Eberron was built as a 3.5 setting. Such a showcase setting would be nice, but based on what WotC has said about their development plans, I would not expect to see this anytime soon. Maybe in 2010?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Points of light takes D&D back to its roots. Blackmoor, City State of the Invincible Overlord, Tegel Manor, and even Greyhawk fit the description.
It does, and that's great. Roots are fine, but I've grown since 1e and I need my D&D to grow, too. I want my system to be able to encompass multitudes, like Walt Whitman...
|
Points of light takes D&D back to its roots. Blackmoor, City State of the Invincible Overlord, Tegel Manor, and even Greyhawk fit the description.It does, and that's great. Roots are fine, but I've grown since 1e and I need my D&D to grow, too. I want my system to be able to encompass multitudes, like Walt Whitman...
The system does.
The only PoL specific stuff is in the DMG under the assumed setting. Sure, WotC seems to want all of their worlds to conform to the concept but they don't have to.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Yes if you literally read the description it fits the description of a specific world. But if you take its spirit then the concept is a lot more expansive.
Indeed, I see your point. However I don't really want to see the new line of "reloaded" settings. Dragonlance with POL! Etc. I'd rather see them keep each setting's flavor similar but enhanced. If the POL idea works for that, great! If it doesn't, then keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate.
Points of light takes D&D back to its roots. Blackmoor, City State of the Invincible Overlord, Tegel Manor, and even Greyhawk fit the description.It does, and that's great. Roots are fine, but I've grown since 1e and I need my D&D to grow, too. I want my system to be able to encompass multitudes, like Walt Whitman...
I think 4th edition has grown from 1st edition. This is a reminder of where we have been, not a straight jacket to keep us their.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
The system does.
The only PoL specific stuff is in the DMG under the assumed setting. Sure, WotC seems to want all of their worlds to conform to the concept but they don't have to.
I agree in principle with the second point you have, but I'm waiting until the rollout of the revised settings to see the actual implementation.
I do disagree with you on the first point. The system is incomplete thus far and not capaple for supporting multitudes. Yet. Once I have my bards, barbarians, sorcerors and druids, we'll see if it can then encompass my multitudes. Until then...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think 4th edition has grown from 1st edition. This is a reminder of where we have been, not a straight jacket to keep us their.
In ways I can see your point. It's reminiscent of 1e while being its own beast. However, in practice I haven't yet seen the product for 4e that really sold me on its wonderfulness yet. To be fair I've only played Keep on the Shadowfell and 3 of those gameday modules, but none of them have done much to make me fall in love with the ruleset or believe it to be as useful as 3.x is to me. I'm currently designing my own oneshot, so that may change my mind after it's all said and done. I'll let you know. ;)
|
|
Not any more
Goodman Games has a product called... Points of Light.
Now there are four more settings. Admittedly a bit smaller than the Wilderlands.
Rob Conley
co-Author, Points of Light
co-Author, Wilderlands of High Fantasy
The product is generic fantasy according to the sample
GREAT...bits I can tack onto the Wilderlands
|
|
Their reasoning is that with "points of light" they don't have to worry about canon or contradicting themselves or setting adventures somewhere that fits well in a given world, because a "point of light" can be anywhere.
...unfortunately, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
So while there isn't anything inherently wrong with a pol setting, its causing some grievous upset when non-pol settings are being mashed-up to follow suit.
Yes if you literally read the description it fits the description of a specific world. But if you take its spirit then the concept is a lot more expansive.Indeed, I see your point. However I don't really want to see the new line of "reloaded" settings. Dragonlance with POL! Etc. I'd rather see them keep each setting's flavor similar but enhanced. If the POL idea works for that, great! If it doesn't, then keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate.
Dragonlance actually is POL - especially during the popular War of the Lance period. Its the rest of the settings that don't really fit the bill.
I think 4th edition has grown from 1st edition. This is a reminder of where we have been, not a straight jacket to keep us their.In ways I can see your point. It's reminiscent of 1e while being its own beast. However, in practice I haven't yet seen the product for 4e that really sold me on its wonderfulness yet. To be fair I've only played Keep on the Shadowfell and 3 of those gameday modules, but none of them have done much to make me fall in love with the ruleset or believe it to be as useful as 3.x is to me. I'm currently designing my own oneshot, so that may change my mind after it's all said and done. I'll let you know. ;)
Go ask your DM to set your party up agianst the Cave Troll from the new adventure in Dungeon (Scaled of War 2) . I have never had so much fun playing a monster. To boot, my players had fun with it even though they got beat up pretty badly.
Anytime a DM can really push the players hard while they are laughing about it is a good thing.
Also did you use pregenned or your own character ?
The product is generic fantasy according to the sample
Yes, technically. What few stats there are a edition neutral D&D. The reason for this approach that there very little room for crunch. We opted to pack more setting rather than worrying about providing full stat blocks.
Each setting has dozens of related entries. Quite of bit of work is done for a GM even without statblocks.
|
|
Yes if you literally read the description it fits the description of a specific world. But if you take its spirit then the concept is a lot more expansive.Indeed, I see your point. However I don't really want to see the new line of "reloaded" settings. Dragonlance with POL! Etc. I'd rather see them keep each setting's flavor similar but enhanced. If the POL idea works for that, great! If it doesn't, then keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate.
I agree completely. If I actually like the Forgotten Realms I would probably be super pissed off, but alas I really have no love for the setting. Eberron on the other hand i really enjoy. My understanding is that the PoL concept will be brought about by a rekindling of the Last War. Basically it will be like Eberron's own version of Twilight 2000.
|
|
The product is generic fantasy according to the sample
Yes, technically. What few stats there are a edition neutral D&D. The reason for this approach that there very little room for crunch. We opted to pack more setting rather than worrying about providing full stat blocks.
Each setting has dozens of related entries. Quite of bit of work is done for a GM even without statblocks.
It is a very cool product. It reminds me of old school Judges Guild.
...Eberron on the other hand i really enjoy. My understanding is that the PoL concept will be brought about by a rekindling of the Last War. Basically it will be like Eberron's own version of Twilight 2000.
Gakkk. That sound bleak. If they do that, then I'll be forced to liberate the game play rules for Artificers and Dragonmarks and so on, and apply them to the 3.5 Eberron universe, where the scenario is more fun.
I really hope this all fretting over nothing and they don't mess it up like that.|
|
...Eberron on the other hand i really enjoy. My understanding is that the PoL concept will be brought about by a rekindling of the Last War. Basically it will be like Eberron's own version of Twilight 2000.Gakkk. That sound bleak. If they do that, then I'll be forced to liberate the game play rules for Artificers and Dragonmarks and so on, and apply them to the 3.5 Eberron universe, where the scenario is more fun.
I really hope this all fretting over nothing and they don't mess it up like that.
Or you could just ignore the fluff changes and use everything else they provide. If you don't like the 4e rules then play 3e but if its just the 4e fluff then ignore it and play 4e anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Go ask your DM to set your party up agianst the Cave Troll from the new adventure in Dungeon (Scaled of War 2) . I have never had so much fun playing a monster. To boot, my players had fun with it even though they got beat up pretty badly.
I am the DM. I checked out the encounter, but I can't see anything out of the pale about it. What made it fun for you?
Go ask your DM to set your party up agianst the Cave Troll from the new adventure in Dungeon (Scaled of War 2) . I have never had so much fun playing a monster. To boot, my players had fun with it even though they got beat up pretty badly.I am the DM. I checked out the encounter, but I can't see anything out of the pale about it. What made it fun for you?
I got to have the cave troll pick up my players and beat them about the head with one another. Whats not fun about that? ( I also got to watch the look on their faces)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I got to have the cave troll pick up my players and beat them about the head with one another. Whats not fun about that? ( I also got to watch the look on their faces)
But what about that encounter was specifically 4th edition or what part of that encounter was impossible to achieve with prior editions? I'm trying to get at the exact bit of that memorable encounter that was specifically fun because it was 4th edition.
I got to have the cave troll pick up my players and beat them about the head with one another. Whats not fun about that? ( I also got to watch the look on their faces)But what about that encounter was specifically 4th edition or what part of that encounter was impossible to achieve with prior editions? I'm trying to get at the exact bit of that memorable encounter that was specifically fun because it was 4th edition.
Nothing in the encounter is impossible in the prior editions. However, the Trolls ability makes it easier for him to do what he designed to do. It really shows off the differences in grab vs grapple.
Why is it so upsetting, I wonder? You can still play your setting the way you want.
It's upsetting because unlike most homebrew campaigns, settings like FR and Greyhawk have an unmatchable amount of history, geography, NPC's and the like. This level of detail lent versimilitude to the settings, and also made for a great way to bond with fellow gamers. One of the most exciting things about these settings, was an ability to compare products, and see where writers might have slyly (or not-so-slyly) inserted a bit of lore that references another adventure or character. As players, this gave us the opportunity to play through our favorite settings, and really feel like we were a part of the world and played parts that helped change it.
Now that the Forgotton Realms have been nuked (With nary a PC involved), that history is lost. Everything over the past thirty years might as well never have happened according to the new setting. Certainly, if someone wants to pretend that the campaign is still set before whatever event caused the current sorry state of the realms, they can do so. But they do it without the benefit of citybooks, gazeteers, organization compilations etc. You know, the things that made the setting what it was.I like running homebrew campaigns. It provides a freedom to do what you want as a DM. But I also like (so-called)'fluff' books. They relive me of a burden by providing a detailed backdrop, as well as nuggets of plots that as a DM I can expound upon, or not. I imagine many FR fans feel the same way I did when I found out that White Wolf would stop publishing the Scarred Lands setting or that Paizo would no longer be allowed to publish Greyhawk material. Disappointed, and a little betrayed.
|
What is preventing you from running FR in an older era with 4e rules?
Nothing.
Well, let's hold on a second there. While you are 100% correct, that's not really what he was saying that he was upset about. If you look, it's not the changes to the Realms, it's the perceived loss of the shared experience and shared history that the Realms offered for him and other Realms fans.
Now, if you step back from THAT for a second, you see why WotC did what they did. That shared history and library of lore was preventing new people from joining that group (and thereby becoming customers of WotC's Realms products). At least, that's WotC's argument (and it's backed up by analogies to other industries, so I am willing to accept it).
At the end of the day, a lot of this just comes down to change. WotC is changing a lot of things very quickly and not everyone wants to come along for the ride. I even understand where the complaining comes from, since I wouldn't be happy to have something that I like yanked out from under me.
My only question is "when does the complaining stop and the discussion of 4th edition start?"
When WotC admit they were wrong? Actually, probably about a year after that.
So, basically, when Asmodeus starts skating to work on a regular basis. ;-)
EDIT: Just to be clear, this is humour. 4E isn't really my cup of tea for a regular campaign, although it does work quite well for beer and pretzels, but I would like the who enjoy it to be able to discuss it without every. single. damn. thread turning into a flame war.
|
|
What is preventing you from running FR in an older era with 4e rules?
Nothing.
Well, let's hold on a second there. While you are 100% correct, that's not really what he was saying that he was upset about. If you look, it's not the changes to the Realms, it's the perceived loss of the shared experience and shared history that the Realms offered for him and other Realms fans.
Now, if you step back from THAT for a second, you see why WotC did what they did. That shared history and library of lore was preventing new people from joining that group (and thereby becoming customers of WotC's Realms products). At least, that's WotC's argument (and it's backed up by analogies to other industries, so I am willing to accept it).
Ok. This I get. I have seen this happen with other game settings. I love Glorantha. Back in the days of RQ2 it was not well documented and the exploration of the world by numerous authors added to the shared experience. After 30 years of development it was becoming difficult to get new players into the game because of the depth of detail available. When Mongoose created its edition of RQ they decided to explore an era of Glorantha hundreds of years prior to the setting for the original RuneQuest. This opened up the game to new players and writers. It was like a whole new world to explore.
That definitely has benefits on many many levels.
At the end of the day, a lot of this just comes down to change. WotC is changing a lot of things very quickly and not everyone wants to come along for the ride. I even understand where the complaining comes from, since I wouldn't be happy to have something that I like yanked out from under me.
Yep. I had friends that HATED the events that unfolded during the shift from classic Traveller to MegaTraveller. It was a huge shift that some were not willing to take. They simply took the new rules and played in the timeline before the Imperium shattered. I felt the same way when Traveller the New Era unfolded. I wanted nothing to do with the changes to the setting. I know what that feels like, and I know that it is possible to keep playing regardless of what the publisher may want to do.
My only question is "when does the complaining stop and the discussion of 4th edition start?"
Dude, I have been asking that for MONTHS.
What is preventing you from running FR in an older era with 4e rules?Nothing.
Well theoretically nothing indeed, but it is easier said than done. Both editions are different enough to make the translation of the old era to 4e quite painful.
For instance, what about the total change in the multiclassing rule ? The replacement of spells by powers ? The balanced adaptation of the prestige classes ? Well, like you say, nothing is impossible but if your time is limited, you'll rather run an old era campaign in 3.x and a new era one in 4e.
|
|
What is preventing you from running FR in an older era with 4e rules?Nothing.
Well theoretically nothing indeed, but it is easier said than done. Both editions are different enough to make the translation of the old era to 4e quite painful.
For instance, what about the total change in the multiclassing rule ? The replacement of spells by powers ? The balanced adaptation of the prestige classes ? Well, like you say, nothing is impossible but if your time is limited, you'll rather run an old era campaign in 3.x and a new era one in 4e.
All of the stuff you mentioned is crunch. You don't need to use or convert any of it. Just use the new rules with the old fluff - it really is that simple.
|
|
The short answer is: It's not.
Bingo. It's just a default set of assumptions for the fluff in the DMG and the generic mods WotC is releasing. Most D&D settings are PoL even though they have never used that term before. Heck, OD&D started as PoL, all of the Judges Guild stuff was PoL, and PoL was in the very DNA of the game from the start.
All of the stuff you mentioned is crunch. You don't need to use or convert any of it. Just use the new rules with the old fluff - it really is that simple.
Well, for one crunch and fluff are not totally separated in D&D (whatever edition you refer to). You cannot compare D&D to a generic toolbox like HERO.
Example 1: Vancian magic is as much a mechanic as a part of the setting, and the change of magic system had to be mirrored by change in the setting for 4E.
Example 2: Alignment system matters (I must precise that I prefer by far games without alignment though). Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good had a real meaning in the campaign world itself, not just in the crunch part. Same thing if you want to adapt a 2E Planescape campaign.
If that is really "that simple", how would you adapt 4E to allow wizards to have a genuine spellbook where they can add spells, instead of powers and the "self-deleting" spellbook ?
I ask this question in particular (but I have a hundred or so more) because I really want to finish the current campaign before I jump to something else. And right now, I just don't have the impression that I can tweak the new system to the old era in a satisfactory way.