A few campaign building questions related to 4e, if I may:
What will Fourth Edition do to the campaign settings you are currently building/running?
What have you seen about Fourth Edition that will help you build D&D campaign settings?
What have you seen that will make it more difficult to build D&D campaign settings?
And of course, feel free to discuss any specific elements of 4e speculation that impact world building, affect the running of ongoing campaigns, or are indicative of design philosophy, good or bad. (Classes, races, and planes all come to mind as relevant topics.)
I'm mainly interested in discussing what we, as designers, can learn from the pieces we're seeing of 4e. Rather than worry about whether 4e is good or bad, I want to figure out what parts of WotC's approach to game design I should borrow when designing my own system.
Well, somewhere I saw that they were dealing with the Deities and Pantheons. At first, it seemed, they were going to make all the gods generic. Pelor would become the Neutral Good Sun God, and they might give an example of using the name Pelor. However, it seems that in the course of choosing which gods to use or not to use, they changed their minds back and have left up names. However, they did considerably shrink the pantheon, ditching the dozens of Elven/Drow lesser deities from Faerun. Now, no one's to say that they won't bring those guys right back if they reintroduce Faerun in 4e.
Anyway, I guess making the pantheon smaller could help, if you use the generic setting, which I do for plenty of campaigns.
I've put my setting's crunch creation on the back-burner for the time being, and I'm using this time to focus on building the story and fluff. As for your questions ...
What will Fourth Edition do to the campaign settings you are currently building/running?
It's allowing me to build the story and fluff more than the crunch right now. The new planes structure works perfectly for my world (so perfectly that I wonder if they were looking >_<).
What have you seen about Fourth Edition that will help you build D&D campaign settings?
The planes set up will help my setting, as will the Warlord class.
What have you seen that will make it more difficult to build D&D campaign settings?
Which classes are in the PHB1 may affect my setting; if there aren't Druids, I'll have to rethink stuff.
My setting has literally no crunch whatsoever, just genericy-ness. So, won't really affect me much. I'll just come up with fluff until 4e comes.
Quote from: Epic MeepoWhat will Fourth Edition do to the campaign settings you are currently building/running?
What have you seen about Fourth Edition that will help you build D&D campaign settings?
What have you seen that will make it more difficult to build D&D campaign settings?[/quote]
The biggest obsticle may very well be the pervasiveness and acceptance of Dark Age Points of Light with in the greater community. I'm all for Dark Age Points of Light but D&D can be so much more. This is why I often cite how Points of Light, as a concept, can be broadened to anything where you have safe and unsafe zones. This can be as large as entire Galaxies to as small as a ball room where some aristocrats like you (meaning its safer here) and others do not (than here). Also, I argue that, in the broadest sense, Points of Light is an inherent concept to Roleplaying games. If there were no challenges to over come than Roleplaying would be too much like real life and that's boring!
Of course many people are toting the WotC line disagree with me and file in like good puppet consumers >:( Oh well, let them go down the path to ruin, I'll be content to buy the new system and design my worlds in peace.
I've decided not to buy the 4E books as soon as they come out. This will be my chance to experiment with all the other options out there. There are indie systems out there that I've been waiting for an opportunity to try. I may even try my hand at making my own system. And the grand thing is, none of these will ever go out of date.
There will be a 4.5. It will come out depressingly soon. All your 4.0 books will become obsolete.
So, the advent of 4E has changed the way I look at all campaigns. I've realized that no campaign lasts forever, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. A decades-long D&D campaign that spans multiple rules systems is no more inherently fun than a long string of independent one-shots and short campaigns. And the latter is a hell of a lot easier to run, logistically speaking.
I don't think we'll ever see a D&D 4.5. WotC knows how much 3.5 Screwed with its fan base and their precious spending power. Instead WotC will focus on minor amounts of erratta over many years (which will amount to 4.5 in all ways except in name).
And when WotC is finished bloating the 4E market with a book a month for 5 or so years, they'll release 5E.
This is the fate of the game now-a-days. A new system every 5 to 6 years. That really isn't that bad, I suppose. Video Games do it all the time and it works for them. How ever the down side of this method is that people invest less money in each subsequent edition because they know a new edition is in the works. This is why the D&DI is being created, to allow WotC a stable source of revenue no matter if a particular release flops or not.
WotC has this all planned out. We are merely pawns in their little chess game.
Heh! I just noticed a thread with the same topic as this one over on ENWorld and it looks like their thread degenerated into name calling and whining about feat fluff in about two days flat. So now its really time for the CBG to step up and show everyone how a campaign building is supposed to be done.
As for my own two cents, I wanted to comment on the concept of modularity.
Normally, when I'm building a setting, I'm not making anything I want to polish and put online. Normally, I'm just slapping something together really fast so I have a quirky backdrop for a game I'm running. When that's all I'm doing, I want rules that are modular: rules where all the different elements are in their own section, so I can build a campaign world by selecting from a menu of options.
3e was a relatively modular system. I could throw together a campaign setting fairly quickly by saying, "Okay, I'm allowing these 3 races, these 5 classes, and these 6 schools of magic." Draw a few maps, design a few good encounters, and I'm ready to play.
What makes me nervous about 4e isn't so much any one thing that I'll have to cut out or expand upon. What worries me are the internet rumors suggesting that the rules aren't quite so modular any more.
I can't just say "I'm allowing these 3 races" without also creating a list of allowed racial talents. The basic dragonborn might fit perfectly in my campaign world, for example, but not a dragonborn that suddenly sprouts wings and breathes fire because he leveled up. So I'll have to add a list of allowed racial talents for each allowed race.
And I can't just say "I'm allowing these 5 classes" without also creating a list of class-specific flavor feats that aren't appropriate. Especially if, as has been rumored, wizard traditions and such are described not only in their own section, but in the description of the wizard class itself.
Not to mention the fact that I can't just say "I'm allowing these 6 schools of magic," because magic now comes in the form of spells, powers, and (supposedly) rituals. To specify what flavor magic will have, I'll now have to make a list of allowed talent trees, allowed schools of magic, and (possibly) allowed rituals.
I guess what I'm saying is this: the point of 4e is to make running the game faster and easier, and I don't doubt that it will be easier provided you are allowing your players to use every option in the PHB. But as us world-builders know, that isn't always the case. And in cases where the DM wants a D&D homebrew with certain options excluded, I'm worried that 4e may actually require more prep work.
Classes, races, feats, and magic aren't entirely self-contained anymore. Things are getting all bundled together in packages that cross-reference one another to the point that fluff from one rules element is being mentioned in the description of another. To build a quick 4e homebrew, I'm going to have to unwrap these bundled package before I can even start to build anything from the pieces inside.
I'm hoping that my impression is wrong.
Quote from: Eric MeepoHeh! I just noticed a thread with the same topic as this one over on ENWorld and it looks like their thread degenerated into name calling and whining about feat names in about two days flat. So now its really time for the CBG to step up and show everyone how a campaign building is supposed to be done.
We are remarkably laid-back a community of this kind, yes. :yumm:
I agree with your other assessments, as well. To be fair, I do prefer that crunch and fluff reference and support each other, but that kind of interlocking is something I want from an individual world, not for a system (supposedly) designed to be broad and flexible enough to easily support a variety of worlds.
If your predictions prove true, then WotC is providing the right solution to the wrong problem, and I wonder if it'll hurt their product in the long run.
Now here's my two cents.
I will not be buying 4e. Period.
I came to this decision when I realized that after nearly 6 years of dealing with 3.0/3.5 that I STILL hadn't gotten used to THIS system. And since only one of my players is actually an active D&D fan like myself, I'm going to just pretend that 4e doesn't exist and hope to never discuss the existance of any other system besides what we're using.
Honestly... what's the point of buying another system if the one you're using works anyway?
Uh-oh. Did I just start a 4e-hate thread? I really just wanted to talk design philosophy: what lessons people building homebrew settings and systems can learn from the inner workings of 4e and that kind of stuff.
EDIT: There, changed the OP to clarify what I was aiming for.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonTo be fair, I do prefer that crunch and fluff reference and support each other, but that kind of interlocking is something I want from an individual world, not for a system (supposedly) designed to be broad and flexible enough to easily support a variety of worlds.
Good point. But then the question becomes, how does one design a system that allows for the integration of fluff without making large assumptions about a specific world? I thought the modularity of 3.X was a nice starting point and I was hoping that 4e would build upon that. But it's looking more and more like some sort of lateral move.
I'm at least partly in Bromordra's camp. I've no intention of switching to 4e. But my campaign is very "points of light-like". I have small countries surrounded by wilderness and danger. I'm hoping that it means I can steal more stuff! I get tired of having to weed out so much that doesn't fit my campaign from what does.
So, while I don't intend to change my focus of design at all, I have hopes that there'll be good stuff to borrow and inspiration that will perhaps lead me to new or deeper insights into my world.
When I first heard about 4th edition, I went straight out and bought the SW Saga edition book to cobble together a "conversion", using the classes and turning them into fantasy classes. With that said, I've continued to adjust crunch and fluff in my game, and fully intend to switch to 4th edition.
The announcement of 4th edition hasn't really changed my direction, insomuch as nailing down some homebrewed standards I want to carry over into the new edition (such as generalized armor, armor as DR/shields as AC and the damage threshold/shock and condition track).
Quote from: GilladianI have hopes that there'll be good stuff to borrow and inspiration that will perhaps lead me to new or deeper insights into my world.
Unless I'm really blown away (or, I suppose, everyone else in my gaming group is really blown away), that's probably the approach I'll take: look at it and borrow stuff. One thing I'll probably borrow if its true:
Dwarves are now going to have low-light vision instead of darkvision. Which I really like. Firstly, it's good from a game design standpoint: everyone in the party agrees that carrying a light source is a good thing. Secondly, it can't hurt from a world-building standpoint, either. Dwarves now actually have a reason for living near the surface. Previously, they were so well adapted to life in the dark that having them live near the sunlit world seemed rather arbitrary.
I, too, will not buy 4e, but not for any specific exasperation of having to change an edition to keep up. Rather I found 3e to have way too much complexity and not enough modularity and customizability, turning me completely off of D&D. I have found other systems that let me do all the funky stuff I want without the insane amount of rules and time D&D would require of me. I find that these other systems are much better for world design because I don't have to restrict myself based on what will be possible with the rules.
Originally I was thinking that 4e would bring me back as it was touted as "simpler", but the crunch previews just do not show that. It's still too wrapped up in tactical wargames.
Plus I won't buy 4e because there will be a free SRD.
4e won't affect me directly - at least not for a while - as I'm currently experimenting with using the WoD system (but not the setting) with some self-made add-ons to fit my setting (and it's not like I DM anyway :P). That being said, there's not much I feel I will hate too much about the system, since my experience with the vaguely-similar Star Wars Saga Edition rules has been rather good (they're great!). The game should be easier to play if they follow the same set-up, where the core classes alone can help deal with a lot of problems 3.0/3.5 had (such as creating a new PrC that could just do this one special new thing or have this ability).
There are two aspects of 4e that affect me in different ways.
The first aspect is the base line fluff of the game. I don't care about this aspect. I can write my own, and messing with the "CORE cosmology" does nothing. It's like writing science fiction; it only needs to sound like it works, and even then most people won't pay too much attention. That's what this forumn is for anyway.
The second part of 4e is the one that can actually cause damage to people, and that's the game mechanics. While most of the previews seem like unintelligible gibberish without the context of companion rules, I'm holding out 'till the game is complete before forming an official opinion. But so far, I'm not impressed. The design staff does have some good ideas, but occasionally they implement bad ones (see the 4e Rust Monster solution), and some of them are down right stupid (most fights are PC vs equal level enemies, but the enemies are weaker?).
So far, I have the impression that WotC has hired a bunch of monkeys and given them type writers.
It looks to me like 4E has chosen a direction and run with it, rather than spreading itself too far and trying to make everyone happy. Keeping up with the 4E previews, most of the ideas I have seen are hit or miss. D&D is moving towards a video-game and settling into it's FR/high-magic image, and I just disagree with that. I'll buy 4E, and run games in it, but the world I build for it will almost certainly contain elements of the "official" world, as the new edition is built to support itself, making a new world a puzzle piece that doesn't fit.
~ Just my thoughts.
Quote from: Rose Of MontagueKeeping up with the 4E previews, most of the ideas I have seen are hit or miss. D&D is moving towards a video-game and settling into it's FR/high-magic image, and I just disagree with that. I'll buy 4E, and run games in it, but the world I build for it will almost certainly contain elements of the "official" world, as the new edition is built to support itself, making a new world a puzzle piece that doesn't fit.
I agree with you to an extent, but I'm also reading something else into the 4e previews. What I'm seeing isn't so much a complete fixation on the shiny new world. What I'm seeing is WotC front-loading a bunch of shiny new material into the initial release. Traditional stuff we're used to seeing the the PHB (bards, druids, gnomes, illusionists, monks, necromancers) is being relocated into future products.
Which, incidentally, is going to make it more difficult for me to run homebrew campaigns using 4e rules. I like having bards, druids, and the rest in my settings. So I may hold off on building a 4e compatible homebrew until years down the line. By then, the 4e rules may have finally caught up with the traditional character options that have existed in D&D since the early 1970's.
Quote from: Epic MeepoI agree with you to an extent, but I'm also reading something else into the 4e previews. What I'm seeing isn't so much a complete fixation on the shiny new world. What I'm seeing is WotC front-loading a bunch of shiny new material into the initial release. Traditional stuff we're used to seeing the the PHB (bards, druids, gnomes, illusionists, monks, necromancers) is being relocated into future products.
You know, technically speaking, Bards can just be Rogues with loads of Knowledge Skills, Druids are just Clerics of Nature Deities, Illusionists & Necromancers are just Wizards and Monks, well they're the hardest but I could see A Cleric/Fighter fulfilling that role, though a lot of its Asian Mechanical flavor will be lost.
Also, Gnomes will be in the MM, so its not really a huge loss.
But you're right, WotC is trying something new here with 4E. They're breaking with tradition to make D&D a WotC product and not a TSR one. This could fail majorly, especially with the loss of Frost Giants in the first MM (sorry I like them) and all of the other changes but it could be a major win. Either way they risk a portion of the Market.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfYou know, technically speaking, Bards can just be Rogues with loads of Knowledge Skills, Druids are just Clerics of Nature Deities, Illusionists & Necromancers are just Wizards and Monks, well they're the hardest but I could see A Cleric/Fighter fulfilling that role, though a lot of its Asian Mechanical flavor will be lost.
Also, Gnomes will be in the MM, so its not really a huge loss.[/quote]WotC is trying something new here with 4E. They're breaking with tradition to make D&D a WotC product and not a TSR one.[/quote]Interesting observation. I hadn't thought of it in those particular terms before.
Quote from: Epic MeepoThe problem isn't the loss of class identity, it's the loss of essential class features needed to recreate the classes in the first place: nothing to replace bardic music, nothing to replace wild shape, stuff like that. Hopefully, the rumors about that stuff being gone are incorrect.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand your point. I love Bards and one of my friends loves Monks and their absence will most assuredly be felt. I was just pointing out that though the real classes are gone, it isn't that hard to play a make-shift version of it. Its not a replacement but it'll have to do. ;_;
Quote from: Epic MeepoInteresting observation. I hadn't thought of it in those particular terms before.
Its really the only conclusion I can come to. TSR's fingers are in every element of D&D, from the fluff to the mechanics to the monsters, races and classes we consider Iconic. By changing the heart of the game WotC is fundamentally changing our perception of D&D. They are crafting something wholly their own. What exactly WotC is crafting is unknown, all we know is that it will be different... Which is both fascinating and frightening at the same time.