edited to be a bit more reasonable in presentation
Halford,
I think it's great that you're proposing another setting (several actually). I think that more people should give you feed back and work with you to develop your ideas. I have a bunch of opinions about some things that you've said and suggestions you make but I think the contributions you're making to this effort are very important and very welcome.
I think this is a very productive conversation and that its good that we disagree.
[sblock=my reaction]
Map: I want a map, not a perfect or binding map, but at least a vague idea of the world set up. Graf your argument seems to be that some people don't care and won't use a map.
That isn't actually my argument (or, more precisely, that's not what I care about or why I'm arguing). But I'm rarely easy to understand and frequently confusing.
I see elements as resting between two polls non-restrictive (A) and restrictive (Z)
A. For example, kingdoms of Eladrin sitting off in the feywild aren't very restrictive. They aren't nearby the starting zone, they don't say "all eladrin are like this", etc.
Z. These elements limit behavior significantly. Having the world be lots of little islands is a very restrictive element (you can add it with "worldwide portals" to limit it) but it is restrictive. A map, to my mind, is about as restrictive as it gets.
Now you -can- "fix" these elements so they are less restrictive.
The islands can be on a magical sea, in a world with very weird geography (so you can have a volcano island near an ice covered island).
Your map can be of a "magically varied land" (i.e. like Xen'drik or a land version of the transitive seas/shifting seas/whatever.
But I think you -have- to handle Z elements differently than you do A elements.
Those who wish to ignore a map can certainy choose to do so, but I would like one and try to keep to it as DM.I'm not sure why you feel we must force everyone to stick to a map if we have one. I am inclined to think that if one is provided more will use it than do not, but I certainly dont thnk its neccesary o "force" people to stick to it.
This is a tough comment for me to react to.
You want a map. You want the map to be fixed. You really want the setting to work a certain way. That's fine. It's your preference.
But saying that you're not going to force people to do something? Your setting proposal doesn't mention that. You haven't got an IC mechanism in place for that.
Your setting says "This is the map. This is where everything is. This kingdom his here and that kingdom is there." For your world that's the reality.
You're including a very restrictive Z element and graciously allowing other DMs to be wrong.
I don't think you should agree with me, your setting is written to your specifications. You like something.
I say great. Stick to your guns!
But be upfront about it. You want a map, you want it to lock down people (even if you awknowledge that it won't).
I'm not just saying this to be saying this. I refer to the following post:
Second the defining thing: The problem was that one DM would say 'there is blank to the west' then another DM would say 'there is blank to the east and blanky-blank to the west'. They both couldn't be right. Overland travel times were guesses and varied from DM to DM.
GK isn't saying flexibility. He's saying the same thing that your proposal says. The map is a tool to force people to stick with the initial proscribed reality.
Islands: I would prefer to run and play on the mainland personally. I find Islands limitingly finite and more Islands does little to assure this concern for me. There is also the fact that Islands almost force travel by ship upon parties, certainly not a major concern and easy enough to bypass, but on the mainland naval travel is a choice rather than dictated. Overall this is a very minor concern but one that bugs me more than I would have expected. I suppose I'm not sure quite why I have such a negative reaction to Islands, but I do seem to - hmmm? I suggest that a compromise is the ideal, with the starting point on a mainland point near to the Islands enabling me to live out my irrational dislike of them.
[sblock=I'm not an island guy]I'm gonna point out that I'm not "island guy". I started off wanted portals and overland travel and continents just like you did.
The island thing is a compromise. It's not a compromise that everyone loves but it -is- closer to a compromise than the much-unloved-isolates proposal.[/sblock]
Your compromise isn't a compromise from my standpoint. Saying "the setting will be in a major continent but you can have your little island zone off somewhere" isn't a compromise.
You want the element of "overland travel" to be available. And it is available in the compromise setting the transitive isles.
The transitive isles includes
- a massive forested interior
- portals to the feywild and other places
- portals on the near Isles to places that are massive continents (the valley of bone, the Kingdom of Jade, and anywhere else you want)
- covaithe is pushing for the main island to be "at least the size of britan" (and has also mentioned australia)
- you can easily have more portals on Daunton
Having boats be a big part of the setting is something I had to get used to. But, as written, it's not like it's the only way to travel.
And, as mentioned before, having boat travel as a
big part of the setting is a compromise. Both with the pro-island people now and the "we want to play in the Carribean" people who were dominating the thread around pages 4-7 or so.
Goblin Empire: I certainly have no objection to the idea of Eladrin commanding the Empire, though I'd like at least a dwindling faction of their numbers to have remained in the Feywild just because I am so keen on the fluff.
As I indicated, I think the eldarin of the imperium are closer to an A element. I have no opinion about "true Eladrin in the feywild". I mean, they should exist and all that. I just don't care enough to expland on the existing fluff.
[/sblock]
I dunno, maybe I'm way off base here. I feel power creep was a problem in 3.x and if the FRCS preview is any indication it is alive and well in 4e.
I don't think anyone likes having unbalanced PCs.
The FRCS preview and the artificer preview are, I think, supposed to be a bit powerful. Get people excited, then they can scale it back a bit. If it's labeled "weak" then people won't buy it.
If we go unrestricted I wouldn't mind having an option to ban stuff by communal vote.
Some sort of, if someone proposes it, and more than two people second it, the judges will work up a binding vote type mechanism.
On the other hand I don't think that the MM races are particularly powerful. A few are probably a bit specialized, but I don't think it's anything like the combos I've seen in play in 3.5.
) clicked on core only but want to include other things.
