4E and Campaign Building

Epic Meepo · November 26, 2007, 07:54:18 PM

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.

Darkxarth · November 26, 2007, 08:58:03 PM

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.

Xeviat · November 26, 2007, 09:14:32 PM

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.

Higgs Boson · November 26, 2007, 10:06:16 PM

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.

Elemental_Elf · November 26, 2007, 10:53:48 PM

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.

Bill Volk · November 27, 2007, 04:48:55 PM

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.

Elemental_Elf · November 29, 2007, 03:13:55 AM

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.

Epic Meepo · November 29, 2007, 08:50:27 PM

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.

Lmns Crn · November 29, 2007, 08:57:54 PM

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.

Bromordra · November 29, 2007, 10:54:39 PM

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?

Epic Meepo · November 29, 2007, 11:44:07 PM

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.

Epic Meepo · November 30, 2007, 12:41:20 AM

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.

Gilladian · November 30, 2007, 08:48:27 AM

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.

Moniker · November 30, 2007, 09:37:40 AM

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).

Epic Meepo · November 30, 2007, 09:17:36 PM

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.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

4E and Campaign Building

Epic Meepo

Darkxarth

Xeviat

Higgs Boson

Elemental_Elf

Bill Volk

Elemental_Elf

Epic Meepo

Lmns Crn

Bromordra

Epic Meepo

Epic Meepo

Gilladian

Moniker

Epic Meepo