|
The mechanics were never important to the setting.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, I think it has a huge impact and defines how many of the "bad guys" are presented for example. Call of Cthulthu stands as in my opinion the best example of the game that hinges on its mechanics. d20 CoC is just plain old fashioned silly, Chaosium's version is pure classic.
I understand what you are getting at, BUT, WotC will "bend" DL to fit 4e and not the other way around. Unless we get Weis/Hickman doing a 4e take on DL it will be other rehash of old material in an attempt to get more $$$. Warforged was sentiment not thee example (but I'm sure you understood that). 4e is exception based so they could have new rules for casting/races/whatever else that would be DL specific (or DS specific), but given the everything is core that looks doubtful.
As I said we can only agree to disagree.
S.
I have a real fondness for settings that base their fluff on the mechanics rather than in spite of them. 3rd ed's Scarred Lands, fer instance, based an entire campaign world around why clerics and druids were different classes. I loved that setting.
If I'd known Dragonlance was similarly modelled after 1st edition, I'd probably have paid more attention to it.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Out of all of the settings, I think dragonlance might be one of the better fits for the 4e rules. It's an epic setting, prone to world-changing apocalypses (apocalypi?), and has already undergone a few rules iterations. Where I think it could go bad is if the 4e races and classes are shoe-horned into the setting. Hopefully, if it's done, they'll adapt the rules to the setting and not vice versa (*cough* the Realms *cough*).
|
|
Hopefully, if it's done, they'll adapt the rules to the setting and not vice versa (*cough* the Realms *cough*).
I'm praying to the mighty Gygax that a plague of frogs infest WotC HQ if they attempt to do otherwise. I suggests others do likewise - can't hurt and in the worst case we get to see it "raining frogs" on the evening news.
S.
[
Here's the thing - there definitely is a reason to put Warforged and Dragonborn in. In fact, there are two good reasons:1) Players want to play them. Players want to play them. That is a hard reason to beat.
2) They make the setting more accessible to new players. People familiar to 4E but unfamiliar with Dragonlance will be able to much more easily enter it if it contains familiar elements and supports the concepts already found in their existing books. That's not an excuse - that's a very powerful reason that both rewards customers and increases the viability and lifespan of the setting itself.
I would not call those "good reasons" actually. By applying the same reasoning, it would be ok to play a Samurai in a Lord of the Rings RPG or a Jedi Knight in the Serenity universe, or a Buffy-like Vampire Slayer in a Call of Cthulhu game.
Adopting a setting with a defined flavor implies that DM and players like (or want to try out) that campaign flavor, at least for a while. That involves creating PCs which contribute to the setting's feel, the same way than putting up a "dark fantasy" campaign feels different from "fantasy epic" or from "swashbuckling adventure." If your players rebel and you as DM accept, you're doing it at your own risk (and it's your game, so no problem with that), but definitely a product should not go out of the way to cater for and "officialize" that gameplay.As for point 2, I have always seen it the opposite way: when a setting integrates everything and becomes "generic" or "default", it tends to lose flavor and it becomes hard to tell it apart from the other settings. Hence there is little reason for its continued existence. Accessibility has to be balanced with uniqueness. If some older D&D settings passed away for being too weird (PS, DS), some others dwindled away for becoming too "general fantasy" (cf. Mystara and lately Greyhawk.)
And in the case of DL the factors above are intensified by the wide circulation of the "mythic" DL novel series (esp. the Weis and Hickman trilogies). It's not just a "from scratch" setting, players likely want to feel they're in the same world than the characters of the stories they read.
The 4e magic system would need severe modifications to embrace the feel of DL. Someone meantioned fatigue? That could work, but adding in restrictions like that (and if no others) means your wizards are more like 3e sorcercers. Tricky one, and I know I am going to be super critical of what they do (when/if they do it).
I did for sure.
I got some hopes after checking the Psionicist playtest class. They have no Encounter Powers, and instead they base their access to at-Wills (they gain new at-Wills instead of Encs) via Psionic points, which are replenished after rests.This shows that 4e is exploring asymmetrical venues of character design. The system, with some adaptation, seems optimal for a DL Wizard of High Sorcery:
1) include Encounter Spells as part of the character's spellbook
2) create a rule of "memorization capacity" measured in points
3) enforce a Fatigue Roll to cast spells. The more points you invest in putting the spell out, the easier the roll (so, if you cast many spells in a short period of time, you're sure to wear yourself out).
That way, the "throw firebolts at will" capacity remains the patrimony of the Age of Mortals Sorcerer, whilst the Wizards gain spell flexibility (and required wise spell choice, remember that was part of the Test) but risk drain if they overindulge in casting.
With 4e Wizards as they are, the Orders would have won the Lost Battles against the Kingpriest for sure.
Hopefully, if it's done, they'll adapt the rules to the setting and not vice versa (*cough* the Realms *cough*).
I think a lot of attention has been brought to how they handled the Realms. Probably deservedly so, but it seems people have not really considered what they did with Eberron. Except for a few items, the setting remains pretty similar. The biggest adjustment is the outer planes, but for the most part, they kept the same feel. They added some eladrin cities that appeared after the Mourning, but their inclusion does not make any major changes to the overall setting.
Eberron exemplifies how WotC is capable of melding an existing setting to 4e without making strident changes. They found, in my mind, a nice halfway point between keeping the setting true to the original and adjusting the setting to fit the new rules.
To me, the larger problem of adjusting Dragonlance to 4e is the setting itself. The setting has undergone major changes and what once made it popular (i.e. the time during the War of the Lance) is no more. The Age of Mortals is unpopular even to many DL fans (many major fans - including those who have written for the setting - have posted at the DL Nexus saying they wouldn't mind a retcon of the setting before the Age of Mortals.) The novels are written for all kinds of different time periods. Weis Productions probably did it right by making different sourcebooks for different eras. According to WotC's new settings policy, they won't have that luxury.
So the question is, do they base it in the current, somewhat unpopular time period? Do they base it in the period of time that was most popular? Or do they blow up the world one more time in hopes that they reestablish what was loved about the setting? I would not want to be in their shoes (assuming they produce DL campaign books), as any solution is unlikely to satisfy the rather ardent DL fans.
|
|
It's not just a "from scratch" setting, players likely want to feel they're in the same world than the characters of the stories they read.
Very well said. FR was a setting that spawned novels, DL was a novel that spawned a setting. They can't be treated in the same way. I found you comments ring true with my way of thinking. I hope that WotC do explore ways to mould 4e to suit DL, in fact you make excellent points that would in the end result in 4e being MORE like the DL world (your ideas on spell casting) then even 1e DL was. If WotC read the DL novels (Weis/Hickman) then think of game mechanics within the frame work of 4e to emulate what they read then DL could be a winner. Otherwise we may indeed end up with Jedi Knights fighting Warforged for control of the High Clerist tower... <shudder>
S.
It's not just a "from scratch" setting, players likely want to feel they're in the same world than the characters of the stories they read.Very well said. FR was a setting that spawned novels, DL was a novel that spawned a setting. They can't be treated in the same way.
That's not accurate. The adventure series (DL1-DL16) spawned the novels and the novels spawned the novel division of TSR. That said they were close - the first novel came out right about the same time as the first adventure which was the marketing plan for the product. However the adventure series predates the novels, the novels where just a bright idea that was thought up after the adventure series had already been given the go ahead - it was a tie in product, and one that made buckets of money for TSR.
In fact, according to Hickman, there are a couple of scenes in the novels that were inspired by events that occurred during playtesting.
That's not accurate. The adventure series (DL1-DL16) spawned the novels and the novels spawned the novel division of TSR. That said they were close - the first novel came out right about the same time as the first adventure which was the marketing plan for the product. However the adventure series predates the novels, the novels where just a bright idea that was thought up after the adventure series had already been given the go ahead - it was a tie in product, and one that made buckets of money for TSR.In fact, according to Hickman, there are a couple of scenes in the novels that were inspired by events that occurred during playtesting.
True, but on the demographics level, think how many D&D players read the novels first, even before finding out about the original DL series. IIRC Chronicles and Legends were in the NY TImes bestseller list quite a few times. That's quite telling. I also recall the last page of the Chronicles books having advertising for AD&D DL adventures. Even if some of the modules are first, the pattern adopted was "novels work as a good hook into role-playing."
Also, you are not totally accurate either. DL1-3 are earlier than the novels. From DL4 onwards, novels and modules co-exist. You may see that in module references to the novels and DM advice to deal with players which had read Chronicles. Early in the DL series, DL Chronicles became a remarkable sales phenomenon and it impacted module design for sure.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hopefully, if it's done, they'll adapt the rules to the setting and not vice versa (*cough* the Realms *cough*).I think a lot of attention has been brought to how they handled the Realms. Probably deservedly so, but it seems people have not really considered what they did with Eberron. Except for a few items, the setting remains pretty similar. The biggest adjustment is the outer planes, but for the most part, they kept the same feel. They added some eladrin cities that appeared after the Mourning, but their inclusion does not make any major changes to the overall setting.
They mucked with the planes? Please don't tell me they just chucked the entire planar orrey bit. Would make fiction harder to read.
They mucked with the planes? Please don't tell me they just chucked the entire planar orrey bit. Would make fiction harder to read.
I think a lot of attention has been brought to how they handled the Realms. Probably deservedly so, but it seems people have not really considered what they did with Eberron. Except for a few items, the setting remains pretty similar. The biggest adjustment is the outer planes, but for the most part, they kept the same feel. They added some eladrin cities that appeared after the Mourning, but their inclusion does not make any major changes to the overall setting.
From my understanding, most, if not all, of the previous planes still exist, but their structure has been changed to fit better in the new planes model for 4.0. There are still points of connection and manifest zones throughout the world. However, as Matthew says, we won't know the details until the Eberron Campaign Setting comes out tomorrow.
|
|
In fact, according to Hickman, there are a couple of scenes in the novels that were inspired by events that occurred during playtesting.
In that you are correct and perhaps I should have been more clear, the adventures series had started prior to the novels correct, the campaign setting was post novels. We shouldn't confuse linked modules telling a story with a campaign setting in which you place your own (or other) stories. DL started it's life as linked modules, then novels, then a campaign setting. But the campaign setting idea was last. This is the why I stress the point that the novels (and the campaign setting that came after) are influenced greatly by the mechanics of the then 1e AD&D because that is where it all started.
But now we have a case of "the damage is done" if you will, DL has a flavour that is quasi-AD&D. So again, 4e should bend to fit this ideal and not the other way around. Mages with unlimited casting ability would be the biggest sticking point for me. But if you limit Wizards in their casting you unbalance potentially the whole of 4e - hence I see this as a huge undertaking to do right (some careful balance) or book with DL on the cover but little DL soul.
S.
In fact, according to Hickman, there are a couple of scenes in the novels that were inspired by events that occurred during playtesting.In that you are correct and perhaps I should have been more clear, the adventures series had started prior to the novels correct, the campaign setting was post novels. We shouldn't confuse linked modules telling a story with a campaign setting in which you place your own (or other) stories. DL started it's life as linked modules, then novels, then a campaign setting. But the campaign setting idea was last. This is the why I stress the point that the novels (and the campaign setting that came after) are influenced greatly by the mechanics of the then 1e AD&D because that is where it all started.
But now we have a case of "the damage is done" if you will, DL has a flavour that is quasi-AD&D. So again, 4e should bend to fit this ideal and not the other way around. Mages with unlimited casting ability would be the biggest sticking point for me. But if you limit Wizards in their casting you unbalance potentially the whole of 4e - hence I see this as a huge undertaking to do right (some careful balance) or book with DL on the cover but little DL soul.
S.
Well DL 5 does cover the world after a fashion. What we initially had was a world made specifically to tell a story and then a campaign to tell further stories in what had become a popular world.
In any case I'd personally be pretty interested in a 4E Dragonlance but if they made it essentially unusable with 4E then of course I'd have no use for it as a 4E player. I tend to agree with Mathew in this regards. If ones opinion is the setting only works under 1E then you lose nothing if its made for 4E because you still have your 1E material. If you view the setting as something that can be adapted to 4E then maybe you get something out of a rework. Trying to force 4E mechanics to conform to 1E norms is, IMO, the worst of both worlds. It won't work in either edition.
|
|
Trying to force 4E mechanics to conform to 1E norms is, IMO, the worst of both...
Perhaps you take me too literally. I am not saying that 4e version should be a 4e take on 1e, rather I am saying that within the frame work of 4e it should capture the feel of DL. The feel of DL was related to 1e mechanics but that does not mean it needs to be 1e or it won't work. The current "mage-gun" spell casting of 4e would be a massive deviation from the DL ideals of what wizards are. The "balancing" of classes also makes the wizards less than than DL ideals. Wizards (and Clerics) aren't feared in 4e as their are no instant death effects. Killing with a word is all over for D&D. Power Word Kill was a great reason not to annoy a high level mage. I like the mechanics of 4e (meaing d20 at a core) - but as stock PHB/PHB2 it fails (for me) to capture the DL World. I look forward to standing corrected when the DL material is released.
S.
Trying to force 4E mechanics to conform to 1E norms is, IMO, the worst of both...Perhaps you take me too literally. I am not saying that 4e version should be a 4e take on 1e, rather I am saying that within the frame work of 4e it should capture the feel of DL. The feel of DL was related to 1e mechanics but that does not mean it needs to be 1e or it won't work. The current "mage-gun" spell casting of 4e would be a massive deviation from the DL ideals of what wizards are. The "balancing" of classes also makes the wizards less than than DL ideals. Wizards (and Clerics) aren't feared in 4e as their are no instant death effects. Killing with a word is all over for D&D. Power Word Kill was a great reason not to annoy a high level mage. I like the mechanics of 4e (meaing d20 at a core) - but as stock PHB/PHB2 it fails (for me) to capture the DL World. I look forward to standing corrected when the DL material is released.
S.
Neither of these aspects (machine gun mage or instant death spells) speak to me particularly of Dragonlance. They both evoke AD&D for sure but I don't recall either of these concepts being particularly core to Dragonlance more so then any other world. In fact many other worlds would have them be far more core. Both the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk are crawling with high level mages. Dragonlance has Raistlin and thats more or less it. Furthermore I don't even remember Raistlin simply telling a significant figure in the Dragonlance world to die and having that happen nor can I think of a scene were Raistlin, or any mage for that matter, ran out of spells. Come to think of it wasn't there some rule in the sorce book that said if you ever became a high level mage and your name was not Raistlin the Gods teleport you to some other place? I have vague memories of it just being a general rule that truely powerful characters don't exist in Krynn.
In reality I would think we face some issue with what to do with the Towers of High Sorcery and that sort of thing...fine, the best solution to that, IMO, is come up with something that gives a little nod to what has come before so that those in the know 'get it' but fundementally is designed to work with 4E and move on.
Furthermore I don't even remember Raistlin simply telling a significant figure in the Dragonlance world to die and having that happen nor can I think of a scene were Raistlin, or any mage for that matter, ran out of spells. Come to think of it wasn't there some rule in the sorce book that said if you ever became a high level mage and your name was not Raistlin the Gods teleport you to some other place? I have vague memories of it just being a general rule that truely powerful characters don't exist in Krynn.
In reality I would think we face some issue with what to do with...
1) Well, Soth did have Power Word Kill which was quite a big deal in the novels and a definite plot element (as it involved Tanis and the Bracelet of Magic Resistance).
2) In Dragons of Autumn Twilight Raistlin does run out of spells when the party is ascending in the cauldron elevator at Xak Tsaroth. He tries to "push it" and cast a spell which would probably drain him (Wizard's Curse in use at the novels), but he manages to scare the draconian off just by gesturing.
3) The rule was when you hit a level over 18th or so. Masters of the Orders are 17th-18th level Magic Users definitely. The rule was more or less carried from 1st ed DL Adventures into the 2nd ed DL Campaign Setting. Its purpose seemed to be to avoid the development of "epic level campaigning" in the setting, as the ages of play seemed to be marked by the presence of only one super-character per era of play (Fistandantilus - Ariakas - Raistlin). That attitude was changed with 3.5 (probably to be explained as a more hands free attitude of the gods after WoS), as the Age of Mortals trilogy of modules turns the party of heroes into a group of epic level characters with the potential of re-shaping Ansalon to their interests and alliances.
[
Well DL 5 does cover the world after a fashion. What we initially had was a world made specifically to tell a story and then a campaign to tell further stories in what had become a popular world.
Again, to be accurate, DL5 came up after the first novel for sure, as DL4 refers novel events (mainly, it suggests for Goldmoon and Riverwind characters to marry as they do in the novel).
|
|
1) Well, Soth did have Power Word Kill which was quite a big deal in the novels and a definite plot element (as it involved Tanis and the Bracelet of Magic Resistance).
2) In Dragons of Autumn Twilight Raistlin does run out of spells when the party is ascending in the cauldron elevator at Xak Tsaroth. He tries to "push it" and cast a spell which would probably drain him (Wizard's Curse in use at the novels), but he manages to scare the draconian off just by gesturing.
3) The rule was when you hit a level over 18th or so. Masters of the Orders are 17th-18th level Magic Users definitely. The rule was more or less carried from 1st ed DL Adventures into the 2nd ed DL Campaign Setting. Its purpose seemed to be to avoid the development of "epic level campaigning" in the setting,
What he said. 4e points of light idea is DL I suggest, but the presentation of how characters function is not DL for the simple reason the line between 4e spells and combat is blurred to non-existent. Spell casters are now not the only ones doing cool and interesting things - therefore spell X or Y becomes no more a source of awe and wonder than the Fighter who just need some daily.
I hope you see my point that 4e can do DL but it'll be a mistake if they think they can just say DL = standard 4e + dragons + draconians (oh let's call them dragonborn), hang on that IS standard 4e...
S.
1) Well, Soth did have Power Word Kill which was quite a big deal in the novels and a definite plot element (as it involved Tanis and the Bracelet of Magic Resistance).
2) In Dragons of Autumn Twilight Raistlin does run out of spells when the party is ascending in the cauldron elevator at Xak Tsaroth. He tries to "push it" and cast a spell which would probably drain him (Wizard's Curse in use at the novels), but he manages to scare the draconian off just by gesturing.
3) The rule was when you hit a level over 18th or so. Masters of the Orders are 17th-18th level Magic Users definitely. The rule was more or less carried from 1st ed DL Adventures into the 2nd ed DL Campaign Setting. Its purpose seemed to be to avoid the development of "epic level campaigning" in the setting,
What he said. 4e points of light idea is DL I suggest, but the presentation of how characters function is not DL for the simple reason the line between 4e spells and combat is blurred to non-existent. Spell casters are now not the only ones doing cool and interesting things - therefore spell X or Y becomes no more a source of awe and wonder than the Fighter who just need some daily.
I hope you see my point that 4e can do DL but it'll be a mistake if they think they can just say DL = standard 4e + dragons + draconians (oh let's call them dragonborn), hang on that IS standard 4e...
S.
I can't say I see your point. OK Andreas Skye found a couple of examples were this sort of thing did come up, but they are phenomenally corner case. Lord Soths Power Word Kill is not the defining feature of Dragonlance, not even close, that Raistlin did once run out of spells (or maybe he ran out a half dozen times - it does not matter) are not so integral to the setting that creating rules that reflect that are a requirement.
Truth is I don't see 4E's issues with Dragonlance as being anything really comparable to the problems introduced under 3E (and carried on in 4E). Essentially the biggest hurdle, IMO, to playing Dragonlance is the significant change in the styles of characters that players run under the modern editions of the game. I'd argue that Dragonlance, Classic Greyhawk as well, is really about society driven stories. The whole war of the Lance in many ways centered around the conflicts between human societies (and Elven and Dwarven) when they were put under pressure by the rise of evil. Classic Greyhawk is like this as well, its essentially a setting that deals with things the like fall out from human migrations etc. The whole history of the worlds is wrapped pretty tightly around these tropes. The problem comes in when players have a huge range of choices and start playing all sorts of races that are not really tied to the main themes. One oddball might be alright but these days the whole party is made up of half-dragons and half-celestials. Furthermore the basic presumption is that these odd balls are all over the place wandering around living their lives.
This essentially removes the story away from themes like conflict between the elves or the isolationism of the dwarves. Hence the problem becomes one of getting the players to connect to these kinds of stories. In classic Greyhawk, for example, the Fruzutti (basically Vikings) raid south every year - and presumably they did so in 3E Greyhawk as well but it all seems almost out of place to have human raider societies in a world thats crawling with the offspring of Humans and Infernal Devils from the nether planes.
Really, when it comes down to it, the most significant issue I see with translating most settings from 1E forward is the fact that the stories we tell in the modern versions of the game are not really humancentric anymore (I blame Planscape).
Hence I'd say the problem is not the mechanics of the wizard, the problem is that the kinds of stories that made sense in 1E no longer make much sense in a game with the amount of customization available under the modern editions.
That being the case, and considering that stripping out the idea of character customization, is just not going to fly we either pronounce the world dead forever or we accept that there is going to have to be a fairly significant reboot to our core sensabilities in regard to the setting because the idea of a 'basic' Solmanic Knight just is not going to fly - they all have lots of feats and such and every player (more or less) is going to make some kind of non-standard Solmanic Kinght.
1E supported very basic archetypes and, in doing so, it created a certain kind of flavour for the game. 3E introduced mass character customization and in doing so changed, forever, the kinds of worlds we played in.
|
|
I can't say I see your point.
Truth is I don't see 4E's issues with Dragonlance as being anything really comparable to the problems introduced under 3E (and carried on in 4E)....
That's ok matters not in the whole scheme of things.
So the continuation of a bad implimentation of the DL world is OK because it started in 3e? 4e has done SO many things different from 3e why in this case do you think it should toe the 3e line? Perfect time for 4e to "do it right". But my stance is "do it right" means, I can look at what my character can do and it mirrors what I have read in the Weis/Hickman novels (regardless of era). Mystic "magic" rather than true magic should be a walk in the park for 4e the way it is designed for example.
I agree with what you are saying later on the issues are not only presentation of mechanics and emulation of the novels BUT also the way that in later D&D's all the races under the sun (and from other suns I'll add) all existed side by side as one big happy adventuring family. Now I see this as an easier fix however - you only allow certain races to be played in a DL campaign setting. Oh there will be cries from players wanting to be a Quarter-Goblin-Quarter-Human-Quarter-Fish-Quarter-Toaster Wizard (which do doubt slips into Eberron without raising an eye) but in the DL book have a list of races allowed - full stop. DM's can add in the odd alien visitors (aka Roswell) if they so require of course. Or as DM they can say, don't like it well my heart is bleeding - you're a Gnome Toilet-cleaner level 1, live with it.
S.
I can't say I see your point.
Truth is I don't see 4E's issues with Dragonlance as being anything really comparable to the problems introduced under 3E (and carried on in 4E)....
That's ok matters not in the whole scheme of things.
So the continuation of a bad implimentation of the DL world is OK because it started in 3e? 4e has done SO many things different from 3e why in this case do you think it should toe the 3e line? Perfect time for 4e to "do it right". But my stance is "do it right" means, I can look at what my character can do and it mirrors what I have read in the Weis/Hickman novels (regardless of era). Mystic "magic" rather than true magic should be a walk in the park for 4e the way it is designed for example.
I agree with what you are saying later on the issues are not only presentation of mechanics and emulation of the novels BUT also the way that in later D&D's all the races under the sun (and from other suns I'll add) all existed side by side as one big happy adventuring family. Now I see this as an easier fix however - you only allow certain races to be played in a DL campaign setting. Oh there will be cries from players wanting to be a Quarter-Goblin-Quarter-Human-Quarter-Fish-Quarter-Toaster Wizard (which do doubt slips into Eberron without raising an eye) but in the DL book have a list of races allowed - full stop. DM's can add in the odd alien visitors (aka Roswell) if they so require of course. Or as DM they can say, don't like it well my heart is bleeding - you're a Gnome Toilet-cleaner level 1, live with it.
S.
The problem here is that this becomes all about the DM saying no. Its essentially a way to create a world that none of your players actually want to play in or if they do agree to play there then it will only be once as a kind of change of pace.
The problem is most stark in terms of race but it goes beyond race into the whole choice driven model of character development. Thus the problem starts with race but it extends to things like non standard weapon options and the breadth of feat options. At its core 1E was archetype driven in terms of characters and 3E changed that. Pretty much no one is an archetype or if they are then its based around some kind of a 'build' like chain wielding tripping fighter or grappling monk.
If we try and emulate that with Dragonlance then what we really have is a DM that has said that 60% of the races and 50% of the classes are simply not allowed in the campaign. Even if you manage to get this past your players your then going to have to grapple with the huge range of builds that the players are likely to put on the table, giant spider riding Kenders or martial art expert dwarves and such just based on what one can do with the feats.
The issues cropping up from this sort of thing means trhat dealing with the fact that mages no longer run out of spells is minor. You won't even notice because your focused on the fact that Tanis can know run vertically up a sheer cliff based on some feat options. Fundamentally, unless your going to make the players characters for them, your going to find that the characters feel nothing like the ones in the novel and this issue is simply not limited to mages that no longer have power word kill - its pervasive to all the classes and races.
This effect moved into all the settings when 3E came out and the ones that dealt with it best simply incorporated this issue and learned to live with it. The result was less stories about human raiders and such and more about what happens when the human raiders are gifted with a half dragon child destined to become war chief. Done well, like Paizo's Greyhawk adventures) you noticed it but you still got lots of Greyhawk flavour as well so it was something one could like with.
In the end I don't think its possible, with the modern versions of the rules, and considering that players actually really like all the options available and don't want to give them up, to do the setting in a truly classic feeling way. It'll have to be fairly heavily adapted to work and once we are adapting it so that at least a fairly broad range of character classes, races, feat options etc. are acceptable we might as well adapt it so that the 4E power system works within it as well.
Trying to adhere to say having the mechanics reflect the books but not the races and how they behave is pointless as is the reverse and trying to strip the races down to the archetypes that were available in 1E creates a product that simply won't be of much interest to players even if some old time DMs buy it for nostalgia's sake.
Something I noticed in the Eberron Player's Guide is that they are already beginning to say what is common and what is not in the game world. For example, they say a dragonborn with a dragonmark would probably be the only one in existence on the world. They declare that some races are common while others are rather rare (like genasi). And this is for a world in which all things supposedly fit. In other words, they don't come right out and say one cannot play a certain race or have a certain aspect to their character, but they do explain what is common and what is completely odd in such a world.
I imagine they would do something similar for Dragonlance. For example, most likely they would say that a warforged is a one-of-a-kind creature from some forgotten civilization. So it's not that one cannot play such a creature, but it's certainly rare.
I can appreciate this idea. No one is saying, "No!" to any given race, but it's understood what is common and what is an anomaly. Recently, I started a game and explained that the local people are mostly humans, elves, halfling, and an occasional dwarf, but I placed no restrictions. The party ended up human, half-elf, halfling, dwarf, and one goliath. In other words, most of the party, without force, ended up being a standard race. And the town's people react to the goliath as some kind of strange creature, but her existence doesn't necessarily impede the overall flavor of the game.
|
|
The problem here is that this becomes all about the DM saying no. Its essentially a way to create a world that none of your players actually want to play in or if they do agree to play there then it will only be once as a kind of change of pace.
archetypes that were available in 1E creates a product that simply won't be of much interest to players even if some old time DMs buy it for nostalgia's sake.
All throught the years of 3e (actually and 2e and 1e, I'm a lifer DM I guess) I said NO to anything other than PHB/DMG/"MM + stuff in current adventure". Didn't seem that the sky was falling and the end of roleplaying as we know was it! Guess it depends if you players "fun" is more tied up in the mechanics of the character? 4e has strong archetypes - defender, striker etc also. It is within this frame work that I really think that DL could come to life by the addition of new and the restriction of some old.
Dramatics aside, unless you are playing in a tournament event or perhaps even if you rotation DM regularly I can't see how "no" wouldn't work.
We have been presented in 3e and 4e with massive choice for sure, but it ultimately comes down to the DM (the person doing 9/10th of the work) to decide what is going to work for their story. 1e had Unearthed Arcana it was "official AD&D", but it was officially not in our games!
If we turn your argument upside down and say "Restrict classes/races to reflect the DL World as written by Weis/Hickman". Then include at the back guidelines for DM's wishing to ADD extra classes/races. That makes a lot more sense than (if we boil down your entire post) to saying well can't really do DL in 4e as written so we invent a new DL that ignores or changes what has previously been presented as DL.
I really like DL, and I would love to DM games based in DL and I think 4e IS the game to do it in (again points of light thing). But I will despair if DL is nothing but 4e with a DL coat of paint.
S.
|
|
I don't think it is fair to portray the desire of certain groups and players to play the character concepts they want to play as 'having their "fun" tied to mechanics.
Yet you imply that a "character concept" can only be develped if WotC spoon feed you some sort of specific official class?
I think a 4E Dragonlance created according to your specifications would be an absolute disaster.
Would be it the ruin of DL to have a campaign setting that actually reflected the DL world (Weis/Hickman)?
Satisfying a handful at the cost of producing something that is entirely barren of an new innovation or advancement
Roleplaying games aren't computer RAM you know, judgements of "advancements" are entirely subjective. Their are those who would say the the entire 4e (and 3e) D&D is a huge step backwards in roleplaying. That please quantify the innovation and advancement so that I may understand what you mean by these terms in the roleplaying context.
I'm not trying to say you are wrong for wanting a system perfectly designed for your tastes.
Again, designed to reflect the DL as presented by Weis/Hickman would be a fairer statement.
There is certainly room for compromise. I am confident they could design a 4E Dragonlance that retains - and even reaffirms - the right flavor for the setting while meshing perfectly with the rest of the 4E environment. It is definitely possible
On this we agree with, other than I think the 4e designers are going to have to do something special to have it all mesh together otherwise "mesh" will become "mess".
Regards,
S.
PS: I wouldn't allow classes/races from say FR to play in me Eberron campaign. However I would allow everything to be played if I had a "non-specific" setting. I treat the PHB's as the "core" then you have those classes/races that exist only in setting A or B. To do otherwise (in my opinion of course) is to loose some of the flavour of the setting.
Not to drudge up an old topic, but it seems that with all the excitement they seem to be focusing on Dragonlance (and almost nothing mentioned of Dark Sun of late), I would guess Dragonlance to be the next setting. Why build up the excitement if you don't plan on announcing a release? Anyone else have any thought?
The yanking of the DL license from Sovereign Press/Margaret Weis Productions lends some credibility to a 4th Edition setting. If WOTC does in fact make such a setting, I'd prefer to see it in a different era, like the Age of Might. I wasn't exactly thrilled with the Fifth Age or with the War of Souls series for that matter.
If it were up to me though, I'd rather they let SP keep the Dragonlance license and use a different setting. Dark Sun would be my pick.
My guess is Dark Sun, not Dragonlance. IMO, there is not enough there to differentiate DL from other settings like Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. You could play a 4E dragonlance game with the books released so far without much of a problem. The only things you really need to consider are the moon mages which are probably best handled with paragon classes, one for white, red, and black. Maybe the same for the knights rose, crown, and sword. Done.
Also, Dark Sun is a good bet because of the PHB3 that's coming out next year which has the psionic classes in it. Dark Sun was the king of all psionic settings.
I'm speculating all of this of course, but if I were a WotC marketing guru, I'd make Dark Sun first.
My guess is Dark Sun, not Dragonlance. IMO, there is not enough there to differentiate DL from other settings like Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. You could play a 4E dragonlance game with the books released so far without much of a problem. The only things you really need to consider are the moon mages which are probably best handled with paragon classes, one for white, red, and black. Maybe the same for the knights rose, crown, and sword. Done.
Also, Dark Sun is a good bet because of the PHB3 that's coming out next year which has the psionic classes in it. Dark Sun was the king of all psionic settings.
I'm speculating all of this of course, but if I were a WotC marketing guru, I'd make Dark Sun first.
If I'm a marketing guy I might be looking at total potential sales for the two settings - I bet Dragonlance's potential is an order of magnitude larger then Darksun's.
Darksun is a quirky pulp world known to D&D veterans of 2nd edition. Dragonlance is a world that has spawned New York Times top selling novels.
I dunno about that. Yes Dragonlance had way more novels that were showcased in the fantasy genre, but as far as RPG's go, I think Dark Sun has just as large of a following as Dragonlance does today.
The only quirk is that Dark Sun doesn't have a standalone d20 product yet, whereas most other settings do. There was the rather weak attempt in Dragon and Dungeon to bring them up to d20, but that probably drove away more fans than it attracted.
As far as 4E settings go today, I did not buy Eberron or Forgotten Realms. I would not buy Dragonlance either. I would buy Dark Sun in a heartbeat however, as would a number of my friends.
I dunno about that. Yes Dragonlance had way more novels that were showcased in the fantasy genre, but as far as RPG's go, I think Dark Sun has just as large of a following as Dragonlance does today.
The only quirk is that Dark Sun doesn't have a standalone d20 product yet, whereas most other settings do. There was the rather weak attempt in Dragon and Dungeon to bring them up to d20, but that probably drove away more fans than it attracted.
As far as 4E settings go today, I did not buy Eberron or Forgotten Realms. I would not buy Dragonlance either. I would buy Dark Sun in a heartbeat however, as would a number of my friends.
What he said
DL is just another euro-fantasy setting, but I am excited by the prospect of a "Dying Earth" setting.
I dunno about that. Yes Dragonlance had way more novels that were showcased in the fantasy genre, but as far as RPG's go, I think Dark Sun has just as large of a following as Dragonlance does today.
Thing is, if I'm the marketing guy, those novel readers are potential customers for my Dragonlance RPG. I'm hoping that some combination of a good marketing campaign combined with the new, easier to use, interface of Dungeons & Dragons some how convinces a third of those novel buyers to pick up this book too - hopefully at the same time as splurging for the Players Handbook.
From this perspective it might not work but if it somehow does then the payoff is huge. Thats not true of Darksun.