Humm I like that...I shall have it added to my titles...and on my office door.
Humm I am also hiring if your looking form work as a minion . Just saying
(2) You mean your opinion.
No, I mean others' opinions.
I don't just play D&D, I'm not defined by titles such as 3.xE player or 4E player or any edition player. I collect RPG's and have well over 200 of them - none define me.
What's your point? I never said that "3rd Edition hold-out or on-the-fencer" defined you. It does, however, describe you.
What annoys me is responses to the questions like "Why are Unicorns Unaligned". Rather than defend it why not just say, don't know - and obviously you didn't know for sure.
Now that's odd. If the only answer that you would find acceptable to that question is, "I don't know," why ask it in the first place? Clearly you're not actually interested in the real answer, so what is its purpose? To stir up more animosity?
Either way, "I don't know," is not the only acceptable answer. I gave my answer, immediately after the question was asked - it was probably done to make Unicorns more suitable as mysterious steeds of the Feywild rather than simply majestic, good horses. Did you miss my answer?
That sort of answer is both honest and avoids the trail of posts that follow with people fixated on Unicorns!
But it doesn't answer the question in a useful way, and if someone asks a question they deserve to have it answered appropriately. Even if it's not a definite answer, an educated guess is better than nothing.
I had thought that you were a reasonable person who would be able to ignore the flame-merchants and answer the honest questions. Please don't do things to change my opinion on this.
This is just getting petty. I'm done discussing unicorns, lamias and all other manner of 4th Edition flavor choices for now. This thread can choose another direction to take.
We pay in booze, whores and blood of the innocent. We also have nice BBQ's
I can vouch for the fact that this isn't true. I know that I, and quite a few other 4E posters, have actively tried "taking the high road" and avoiding any of these constant derailments by those who want to complain about 4E. I know that allowing them to pretty much control every post on the board has in fact made this board even less welcoming to me, and even more stifling of actual positive discussion of the game.
If Scott has decided that the only response is to continue the debate for as long as he can - and to do so in a genuinely civil fashion - then I can only hope his method has more success. Since as long as the moderators on this board aren't willing to step in and encourage posts to stay on topic, the method you advice simply doesn't work.
What is off-topic in the thread?
I thought I was completely sure that the disparaging comments about 4e and the ensuing arguments about the same topic were off-topic, but now I think that might have been a bad assumption to make from your post.
Were the posts telling Betts to stop off-topic them? But from what I could remember the more vocal of them played 4e.
So what posts and discussions do you think are off-topic?
|
I dunno. I agree with the sentiment that the 4e haters should stay out of threads about 4e gameplay, houserules, stuff like that, but their presence on a thread like this doesn't bug me so much. Yeah, a lot of the give and take is rehashed '08 crap, but still, as long as it is quarantined to threads like this (basically topics not specifically tied to the 4e experience, but broader opinion type discussions).
I do pop up in 4e threads when I want to comment. So label me what ya want but if I want to comment I am gonna damn well comment. And this thread has been off topic for about 5 pages now
|
|
(1)Clearly you're not actually interested in the real answer, so what is its purpose? To stir up more animosity?(2)it was probably done to make Unicorns more suitable as mysterious steeds of the Feywild rather than simply majestic, good horses. Did you miss my answer?
(3)This is just getting petty. I'm done discussing unicorns, lamias and all other manner of 4th Edition flavor choices for now. This thread can choose another direction to take.
(1)You couldn't give me the "real" answer. If someone actually knew the designers reason behind this I would have been interested to know. As it was we got your opinion. See the difference? The animosity intent exists in your mind only.
(2)This doesn't some like an answer that came from the designer? It is "an" answer correct, but the correct answer?
(3)Yes, I agree. However perhaps others wish to continue to speculate on the designers changes to various critters in D&D, if so I guess it'll now be sans your input?
S.
Say all you like that the D&D reality doesn't matter and that you can change elves to sentient pigs and that won't change the game. But I think if you stop on the defensive and think calmly you will agree it does. D&D is a lot more than a bunch of stats and descriptions made up by the current lisence holders design team. The current holders have a moral (not legal) obligation to "continue" and "improve" the D&D game not I would venture the right to "modify beyond recognition". I am NOT talking mechanics, powers (daily/encounter/at-will) are fine by me - they work. But the principles (yes that includes Unicorns) should NOT be played with. You want an Unaligned Unicorn or a Bug Lamia, have a world specific book with them in it. Dark Sun made halflings feral canibals - did anyone complain, hell no. Why? Because in the PHB there was the tried and trusted Halfling eating sticky buns staring back at you.
This hits the nail on the head, and this is from someone who as a general rule never liked the Tolkien rip-off Hobbitses-but-we're-not-calling-them-that all that much. A great many of my players do like them, and I'd take an entire thorpe of halflings over a single kender any day.
With the unicorns, while making them Unaligned was lame to a painful and stupid degree, giving them Feystep in place of the teleport they've had since 1st ed was a good choice. Why? Because it more accurately reflects the actual folklore and literature.
And with the Bug Lamia, I'd be less annoyed if she came out in MM 2 or 3, rather than being placed front and center in MM 1.
|
|
I dunno. I agree with the sentiment that the 4e haters should stay out of threads about 4e gameplay, houserules, stuff like that, but their presence on a thread like this doesn't bug me so much. Yeah, a lot of the give and take is rehashed '08 crap, but still, as long as it is quarantined to threads like this (basically topics not specifically tied to the 4e experience, but broader opinion type discussions).
4E haters, sad that people would invest time/effort hating a game! Oh well horses for courses.
I myself am a 4E novice eager to learn, but not be preached at. Why can't we have moderates about. Good old fashioned "I don't really give a rats-behind" moderates. I guess by their very nature these boards attract the extremes; 4E Haters and 4E Fanatics. Both are just bad news for people like me. The haters make to you think the game is just plain bad and the fanatics are beating you over the head chanting "Striker, striker...".
<sigh>
S.
<---moderate, doesn't play 4e but has looked at it and approves. Likes 3.5 and PFRPG just fine for now.
I just don't get what the big deal is changing Lamias and Unicorns to suit a fantasy world. That's what people do. It's fantasy.
If a DM doesn't like it he can always change it back.
Personally, after having had a pretty good look at the system, I don't really see that many changes to the flavor of what has traditionally been known as dnd, and for the most part the few flavor changes I have seen I prefer anyhow. I don't see how unicorns being unaligned could really be considered all that much of a change. I've never even used a unicorn in the 20 years I've been playing. I know there has been some complaints about how they redid the planes, but that doesn't bug me. I like the eladrin elf distinction. I never gave a crap about gnomes, and you can still have them via the MM or PHB II. My only real complaint about the game is that I'm still not fully satisfied about the new feel for wizards. However, that being said I do like the new sorcerer class, and I like the warlock and bard as well, and even the wizard is actually decent in play (just give me some more rituals). My other main complaint is how they simplified the skill system, beyond that I've really been enjoying the game.
I have been a dm not a player, and one thing I can say (IMO), is that it is a faster and easier system in terms of dm prep work. I've been running second darkness and converting it to 4E, and I don't think the conversion work would take me any more time than the work I would have to do modifying the encounters to keep pace with the types of PCs I see in my 3E games. For instance, I ran Savage Tide in 3E, and I always found myself tweaking and modifying monsters and NPCs to keep pace with my PCs, who would stomp the material if I ran it as written. If I ran second darkness in 3E, I'd have to do even more modifying because the adventure path is easier than Savage Tide (IMO), so even though I'm running it in 4E it is still no more work. I ran one 4E adventure (Last Breaths of Ashenport), and I really spent hardly any time modifying at all (even though I adjusted it for 4th level PCs, which was real easy to do). However, I'm not a fan of the new 4E adventures that wizards has released of late. They seem to be all hack and slash, and I think the system is capable of fostering as much rp and other styles of play as any other dnd system. Though, the way powers work pretty much require a battlemat and minis or tokens for play, which I used in 3E anyhow.
For the record, I'm pretty confident that Scott is right about his inference about the alignments of unicorns (I can't believe I just wrote that. I sound so geeky). Anyhow, the feywild is supposed to be this beautiful, but also dangerous place (much like the real world, but even to more of an extreme), so if a unicorn embodies the nature of this place, then it only makes sense for the creature to be unaligned, which of course gives you a bit more incentive to tread carefully when encountering such a creature.
(3)Yes, I agree. However perhaps others wish to continue to speculate on the designers changes to various critters in D&D, if so I guess it'll now be sans your input?
That's right.
|
|
Anyhow, the feywild is supposed to be this beautiful, but also dangerous place (much like the real world, but even to more of an extreme), so if a unicorn embodies the nature of this place, then it only makes sense for the creature to be unaligned, which of course gives you a bit more incentive to tread carefully when encountering such a creature.
Well said, but I am still amazed that that sort of description couldn't have been added to the MM. Even with the small amount you have written adventure ideas start to spring to mind.* As written Unicorns are horned horses that attack people to frequent lakes and forests. I also don't disagree with Scott on the matter as he said pretty much what you have also - but will there be a Feywild book that will enlighten us to these "facts".
I don't buy many canned adventures as a rule, and perhaps I made the mistake of buying the first WotC D&D adventures and as you pointed out only saw hack'n'slash. This put off my first group of players sadly, and bored me silly as a DM. Almost of the negative remarks about 4E are me finding the cracks from others before hand (ok, I'll admit a little bit of Scott baiting, but come on, its sort fun in a self-flagellating way). In some way similar to buying a car. You go look at the car, it'll drive that's a given but its the faults you would like to know before hand. When I go begging back to my players saying come on 4E let's give it another go as a DM it'll be nice to preempt the "but it's not like D&D we knew" rants, or at least have decent answers.
*It could be said, well think of those things yourself Dr Hill. But perhaps I am an aberrant, I used to love trolling the 1st ed. MM's reading the descriptions of things and then "click" an adventure idea would pop into my usually vacant head and writing would begin. Perhaps I am unlucky enough to only have an imagination that truly fires when sparked by an external source? :(
S.
PS: Scott dude, just messing with ya bro. I just have this thing about poking the irritable (figuratively speaking). I actually would appreciate input/advice on 4E for someone (like yourself) who has experience running 4E campaigns etc. I like many find that 3.xE does give a DM headaches with scaling challenges to suit your players - everyone seems to agree that in 4E this is much less of a problem and much less work pre-game for the DM.
PS: Scott dude, just messing with ya bro. I just have this thing about poking the irritable (figuratively speaking). I actually would appreciate input/advice on 4E for someone (like yourself) who has experience running 4E campaigns etc.
And I'll be happy to give it. The "Idiot's Guide" thread is probably better suited for such things, though.
Partly,converting stuff over and/or replacing fluff with stuff I do fuind interesting...well, it comes down to time.<Addendum: When I used to have the time, I used to do stuff like run Traveller using the HERO system , Skyrealms of Jorunme with RQ, and write my own backgrounds and such - unfortunately middle-age sucks for any time for that.>
60+ hours a week work, plus family commitments plus other hobbies.
However, I also find the mechanistic nature of the game (which I freely admit may just be down to the way the rulebook is presented) just bland and dull in play (yes, I have played it) .
I have other games/ruels systems that inspire and excite, so I play them instead.
But like I say, if you have the time and/or are inspired by it , I honestly think thats excellent news and would eactively encourage you to play it.
If the rules don't inspire you then its obvously not the game for you. However if its merely a fluff+time issue then I suspect that you'd actually find that you can change the fluff and still end up saving time. Its a system that has been very much designed to work well with really very modest amount of time put into it.
Plus, there's the issue of design philosophy. And we started to see this coming in the 3.5 patch when feature creep led to more spells being changed than not, even the ones that weren't broken. But it does seem the adage "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" doesn't seem to have much weight at WotC. Or, I suppose you could call some of the changes a solution in search of a problem.
The problem is that the hobby is aging and shrinking. The IP is worth less today then it was yesterday and if there is not some kind of a significant shift in current trends it'll be worth even less tomorrow.
They really had no good option but to roll the dice and hope for high numbers.
You mind thinks of perversion, we like that
Summons succubi
|
For the record, I'm pretty confident that Scott is right about his inference about the alignments of unicorns (I can't believe I just wrote that. I sound so geeky). Anyhow, the feywild is supposed to be this beautiful, but also dangerous place (much like the real world, but even to more of an extreme), so if a unicorn embodies the nature of this place, then it only makes sense for the creature to be unaligned, which of course gives you a bit more incentive to tread carefully when encountering such a creature.
This will be a nice surprise for the sort of jerk player who's likely to walk up to such a creature and tug its beard, thinking "Nyah, nyah, can't touch me, cos you're a wussy good creature".
I don't play 'Good =Stupid', or 'Good=Cowardly' or 'Good=Weak', but many people seem to have that misconception. Do them good to get their PC stomped to death by a creature who doesn't have to give a fig for alignment drift.All I can say is, I've never used a unicorn, and only briefly met one as a player (DL1? DL2?). A badass woodland avenger unicorn is likely to see far more use in actual play.
Same with 'usually good' wood elves, or any fey in stripey leggings and bells on their hat and curly slippers. I have zero use for any creature that 'frolics' or 'prances'.
Give me Warhammer style xenophobic Wood Elves, impaling strangers on stakes, or wrapping them in cages of thorns for the crows to peck out their eyes.
Let's bring back the love/hate aspect of the Seelie, as beings of fascination and terror.
We might also start to see some inspiring unicorn art, and less of the drek aimed at 8-year-old girls, with soppy creatures skipping through clouds of pixie-dust, looking like a pastel-coloured My Little Pony with a cornetto stuck to its head.
|
|
I believe there's been a general reduction in the number of Good-aligned creatures, and I support this, not because of some belief that 'creatures should only exist for the PCs to fight', but because a superfluous amount of powerful Good creatures make the existence of PCs irrelevant.
It's 'Justice League Syndrome', where, in order to justify a story about Batman and Green Arrow, the writers have to make excuses why Superman and Green Lantern are too busy.
Maybe it's my Northern European heritage, but I've always preferred dark fantasy, where the heroes are the last line of defence. It's always problematic including powerful creatures who are unilaterally Good, since the obvious question from the PCs is 'Why are we having to deal with all the crap? Why are we slogging cross country for celestial beings who could teleport in and resolve everything with a wave of their hand? And if they don't offer us any help, then why should we respect them?'.
It's the same argument from atheists who reject the possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent, and loving deity. If such a being existed, there would be no suffering. Since there is suffering, then such a being cannot exist. The most they can be is two out of three.
That's a huge topic in its own right, and not one for discussion here, but as a game designer, one has to take that very common view into account. At least, it may not be a common view if you live in the Bible Belt, but it's the majority view where I live. And it's a far more common viewpoint among the younger generation than the old, which just happens to match their target market.
<---moderate, doesn't play 4e but has looked at it and approves. Likes 3.5 and PFRPG just fine for now.
I just don't get what the big deal is changing Lamias and Unicorns to suit a fantasy world. That's what people do. It's fantasy.
If a DM doesn't like it he can always change it back.
Sure, a DM could change it back. But why should he have to change it back to what it was for 3 previous editions? And that gets at the design philosophy at WotC.
Why did they change some of the things they changed, particularly the ones not inherently linked to specific mechanical changes? Do they enhance the game? Really? Or do they just put a different spin on the game? And how much different spin does it tolerate before it becomes a different game altogether?For me, there are plenty of things that could have stood changes from 1e, 2e, 3e, particularly along the line of mechanics. But when things aren't actually detracting from the game and aren't specifically linked to other mechanical changes, do they need to be changed? If they are changed, what's the purpose of the change? Philosophically, is the design team acting to preserve the links to the old game, preserve the feel, or are they setting out to capture a different feel?
And that's why this off-topic stuff isn't as off topic as some people think but is a natural tangent of the conversation.
|
As far as I can tell, they changed stuff to give DMs more options. Having looked at the changes, that seems to me to be the main thrust. People have been going on about unicorns. No one really used unicorns much because they were good. No one was ever going to fight one, so they really didn't have much use - certainly you didn't needs stats for them. It was dead space in the book. Make them unaligned, you now have a monster you can use as a DM.
Tradition is well and good but nothing should be untouchable. I was a bit shocked when they threw out the Great Wheel cosmology, but the version they have now is actually much more useful. No series of planes where everyone is good (and therefore you probably won't be fighting them - maybe talking, maybe picking up a quest, but in a realm where the angels are all going "holy, holy, holy" all day the adventure possibilities are not all that great) but instead planes where stuff can happenat any time.
It is maybe not to everyone's taste, but the Great Wheel cosmology has been around for decades, and plenty of stuff still exists which can be converted - it still exists if you want it to (and they explictly mention it as an option in the 4e Manual of the Planes). Arguably, a lot of the tradition is a bit boring. Just because it is traditional it doesn't automatically make it good.
|
|
True, but the difference seems to me that (to take an example) the Great Wheel was created with a view to creating a plane for each alignment. However, a lot of the alignments (like the "goods") are not really that interesting as they will likely be on the PCs side. A whole plane of good guys who like you is nice, but it's not the stuff of great adventure. Likewise, a lot of the evil stuff seemed a bit samey - I mean, apart from the Abyss, the Nine Hells, and um, er.... Well, maybe Carceri, since it's a big prison. I can't remember the rest.
But the point is, the Great Wheel wasn't actually designed as "Hey, the players will find this really useful or exciting" but was instead "I need a place to put all the individual alignments". And it shows a bit. (This is the notion where they abandoned "symmetry" where it wasn't necessary - like having a plane for every alignment).
And a lot of other stuff was not dissimilar. Good unicorns - well, that's nice. Not much use to a DM. Unaligned unicorns are more useful (and fit better with the notion of the Feywild as a wild and dangerous place - i.e. putting the wild into fey). In fact, it seems to me they made some fairly big shifts (like in the cosmology) and if they hadn't changed the stuff associated with it (unicorn alignments) the whole thing would have been inconsistent.
I also think it is fair to say that some of the changes might have seemed like answers looking for questions. But after seeing the thing in action, I can't think of any changes they have made that, once I got over the surprise, I thought was a bad idea. That's because they all interconnect (as I mention in the paragraph above) and seem like the logical thing to do, rather than being a pick-and-mix of different little designers' hobby horses and niggles cobbled together randomly.
As a final point on changes to fluff: 2e had a series of worlds with wildly different fluff. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and so on. They all had different cosmologies, a different feel. Did they become "not D&D" as a result? I don't really think so.
As a final point on changes to fluff: 2e had a series of worlds with wildly different fluff. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and so on. They all had different cosmologies, a different feel. Did they become "not D&D" as a result? I don't really think so.
I'm not sure that example is really on point. In the case of the campaign worlds that diverged from the D&D standard in the core rule books, the campaign world was usually upfront about it. It was clear that you'd be diverging by selecting that campaign and the specific divergences, when necessary, were called out.
Funny, I haven't even read the interview. I don't really care.
4E looks great to me but I don't have a 4E table to play at and I'm busy enough with MSRD, Pathfinder and 3.5, which are giving me everything I need to tell the stories I want.
Why is this thread attracting me, what is wrong with me?
NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo!
I am calling you.
As a final point on changes to fluff: 2e had a series of worlds with wildly different fluff. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and so on. They all had different cosmologies, a different feel. Did they become "not D&D" as a result? I don't really think so.I'm not sure that example is really on point. In the case of the campaign worlds that diverged from the D&D standard in the core rule books, the campaign world was usually upfront about it. It was clear that you'd be diverging by selecting that campaign and the specific divergences, when necessary, were called out.
WotC was pretty up front about saying that 4th Edition is a different game than 3rd Edition. I think that as long as you don't go into 4th Edition expecting it to look like 3rd Edition, you'll be fine. If you want a game that looks like 3rd Edition, you have 3rd Edition (or 3.5, or Pathfinder).
|
If you want a game that looks like 3rd Edition, you have 3rd Edition (or 3.5, or Pathfinder).
Scott, I appreciate your enthusiasm of the system, and I really admire your knowledge of it as well...
But I honestly think you are missing the point that we (who do not find 4e as fun and entertaining as you) are trying to make...
Speaking only for myself here, I did not want a new edition to be a "clone" of 3e per-say, but rather a rightful successor of it, in the same line as 2e was to 1e, and 3e was to 2e...
In my opinion, 4e dropped the ball with this...
Changes were made that I (and many others) feel were unnecessary, and quite contrary to what should have naturally followed with a new edition. Thus I question the philosophy of it's design in that regard...
Again, for those who have not been keeping up with this long thread, I find 4e to be a solid game, it's just not the game I want to play...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
WotC was pretty up front about saying that 4th Edition is a different game than 3rd Edition.
Pretty up front?
Maybe after a while.
I still remember "But ze game remains ze same. Ze game remains ze same."
Funny how it didn't remains the same, or even the same with stupid accents...
Speaking only for myself here, I did not want a new edition to be a "clone" of 3e per-say, but rather a rightful successor of it, in the same line as 2e was to 1e, and 3e was to 2e...
There are a lot of people who would argue (with a lot of merit, I feel) that 3rd Edition was only a spiritual successor to 2nd Edition to the same degree that 4th Edition was a spiritual successor to 3rd Edition, and that 4th Edition and 2nd Edition share a number of commonalities that disappeared in 3rd Edition.
Changes were made that I (and many others) feel were unnecessary, and quite contrary to what should have naturally followed with a new edition. Thus I question the philosophy of it's design in that regard...
I understand that, and where possible I've tried to explain that while those changes (and indeed, most changes to things as trivial as a game) were strictly unnecessary, they were nonetheless done with reason and the evolution of the game in mind.
WotC was pretty up front about saying that 4th Edition is a different game than 3rd Edition.Pretty up front?
Maybe after a while.
Up front enough that they let you know about it well before you'd spent your hard earned money on their game.
(and indeed, most changes to things as trivial as a game)LOL...
We say it's trivial (and indeed, technically, it is), but the game is in our blood. Which is why we speak so adamantly about it...
Being passionate about your hobby is good. But I think there's a point at which people can take things more seriously than they ought to, and that point is pretty early on when it comes to games and escapist fantasy settings.
I understand that, and where possible I've tried to explain that while those changes (and indeed, most changes to things as trivial as a game) were strictly unnecessary, they were nonetheless done with reason and the evolution of the game in mind.
Is there any edition of any game that this cannot be said of?
Every change in every edition of every game is done in an attempt to make it better, to make it more popular, to please more gamers, and yes, to garner more sales.
The only question is how successful these changes are and the flipside of how lame they are.
There are plenty of lame things in 3.X (Hookah as a musical instrument for dragons, anyone?) but for the most part they're not in the core books.
|
|
There are a lot of people who would argue (with a lot of merit, I feel) that 3rd Edition was only a spiritual successor to 2nd Edition to the same degree that 4th Edition was a spiritual successor to 3rd Edition, and that 4th Edition and 2nd Edition share a number of commonalities that disappeared in 3rd Edition.
...but, you're not one of them?
Honestly, can you back this up in any way? 3E was more than just a spiritual successor, it actually provided a great deal of continuity with 1E/2E.
That continuity was lost in 4E, the complete redesign of the magic system, the cosmology, the core monsters, etc.
Someone with a longstanding D&D campaign world from 1E could easily run it in 3E with only minor tweaks and retcons; but converting over to 4E would require a pretty comprehensive overhaul, retrofitting things like the Feywild, and the alterations to stock NPCs.
There are a lot of people who would argue (with a lot of merit, I feel) that 3rd Edition was only a spiritual successor to 2nd Edition to the same degree that 4th Edition was a spiritual successor to 3rd Edition, and that 4th Edition and 2nd Edition share a number of commonalities that disappeared in 3rd Edition....but, you're not one of them?
Nope. I don't think either edition has the upper hand in terms of what it contributes to 4th Edition.
Honestly, can you back this up in any way? 3E was more than just a spiritual successor, it actually provided a great deal of continuity with 1E/2E.
Which is the part that's arguable.
That continuity was lost in 4E, the complete redesign of the magic system, the cosmology, the core monsters, etc.
And yet, in terms of the game system itself, continuity was restored. 3rd Edition had abandoned the rule of exceptions-based design in favor of a coherent system for the entire game, which led to issues like NPCs and monsters taking as long to create as PCs. Uniform design is useful when you're concerned with accurate simulation, but far less useful when you're concerned with ease of manipulation. That's just an example, albeit one of the most significant.
Someone with a longstanding D&D campaign world from 1E could easily run it in 3E with only minor tweaks and retcons; but converting over to 4E would require a pretty comprehensive overhaul, retrofitting things like the Feywild, and the alterations to stock NPCs.
Or you could just say that the Feywild doesn't exist in your world and go from there. It's not tough. It involves saying "The Feywild doesn't exist in my world."
Someone with a longstanding D&D campaign world from 1E could easily run it in 3E with only minor tweaks and retcons; but converting over to 4E would require a pretty comprehensive overhaul, retrofitting things like the Feywild, and the alterations to stock NPCs.
Actually the Feywild would require zero retrofitting with any of my games, since I've been playing with it since 1st edition (though I called it the Fey Realm). Lots of people have been playing with it, since it's standard European/Persian fairy mythology.
Having Tieflings with ginormous horns and crocodile tails running around, OTOH.... Yeah, that would require a lot of tweaking. And the revamp of the magic system a bit more.
Or you could just say that the Feywild doesn't exist in your world and go from there. It's not tough. It involves saying "The Feywild doesn't exist in my world."
So...
Just because it can be changed in house rules, we must pretend it isn't a part of 4e?
Come on, are you really telling us to put our fingers in our ears and shout "LA, LA, LA, LA!" about any parts of the 4e changes we don't like?
Or you could just say that the Feywild doesn't exist in your world and go from there. It's not tough. It involves saying "The Feywild doesn't exist in my world."So...
Just because it can be changed in house rules, we must pretend it isn't a part of 4e?
Come on, are you really telling us to put our fingers in our ears and shout "LA, LA, LA, LA!" about any parts of the 4e changes we don't like?
No, and there's no way you could get that from my posts without trying to inject it. Stop the confrontational tone.
I'm saying that, if you don't like it, it's not a big deal. If you already have a campaign world built without the Feywild, and you don't want to change your campaign world, don't use the Feywild. Problem solved.
If you think that amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist, that's your call. I don't think it matters either way.
Someone was saying that making the switch to 4e is tough because you'd have to retrofit everything to include the Feywild. I'm pointing out that no, you don't have to include the Feywild.
Someone was saying that making the switch to 4e is tough because you'd have to retrofit everything to include the Feywild. I'm pointing out that no, you don't have to include the Feywild.
No, someone (delabarre) was saying that making the switch to 4e is tough because they'd have to retrofit everything that 4e changed. Delebarre only used the Feywild as one example of that point.
And I'm not the one creating the confrontational tone, Mr. Kettle. Perhaps you have such a problem with my posting because it is too much a mirror for you?