4e / GSL Urbis - Should I follow the GSL, or make the setting system-independent?

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Knightfall

Jürgen, this is a really tough question answer. If you want Urbis to make money as a commercial product, then you'll likely need to tie your world to a system.

Eventually, yes... but I don't think it is necessary right now.

Races can be described in all sorts of systems. Many monsters are common enough that using them in different systems won't be difficult. The main sticking point would be the magic system - and the model of D&D 4E, with its split between arcane magic, divine magic, and ritual magic, can be described without references to specific game mechanics and then adjusted to different game systems.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by JoeGKushner

However, system neutral seesm to be equated with well, bland, boring and generic.

You keep saying this, but the only proof you offer is a game line that is almost 20 years old, was never advertised well (and still isn't), and was (and is) distributed through extremely arcane channels.

Holding up the statement that "Flying Buffalo isn't WotC" as some kind of evidence is, likewise, flawed — by that standadrd, all companies who have ever published systemless setting books aren't WotC and, therefore, are failures.

I guess this might also be a good time to mention that WotC's first RPG products were non-system-specific.

Even when a fairly well known company like Green Ronin made a very well known property, Freeport, into a system neutral sourceobok, they may not have gotten the sales they need to continue in that rotue as there are no systemless books coming from them in '09 and only a handful before that.

It could also mean that they plannned to produce a core systemless setting guide and then release multiple rule supplements for use with it, so that they could offer support for different systems at a reduced overhead cost. You know, as they originally announced back when they first released the Pirate's Guide to Freeport.

[Jürgen Hubert]

So now I have to figure out how to rename and alter the various races and species.

Dragonborn = Dragonkin

Eladrin: I'm torn between "high elves" and "Eldar". The latter has those nice Middle-Earth connotations - but I'm worried that gamers might associate them with Warhammer 40K Eldar instead.

Tieflings: No ideas yet.

Dragons: I will probably make all dragons a single species, with scale colors and breath weapons running along family lines. This would allow me to still have the various colors of D&D dragons, but it would give GMs more freedoms in building their customized dragons.

[Jürgen Hubert]

I've finally settled on Cambion as the new name for the tieflings. It is a nice, classical term, and it also has other D&D associations - so it should work fine.

[Jack7]

These are just some suggestions Jürgen.

Eladrin

Ældãr

Eldær

Eldaÿr

Åladair

Eladyr

Eladar

Eladarin


Dragonborn

Wÿrmkin

Wyrdwürm

Manndrake

Fahŗwirm

Vorwørm


Good luck.

I like what you've done with the Cambion. It fits much better with your setting.