4E Setting Design: Using Supplements

Jürgen Hubert

First Post

• Aug 6, 2008

• #1

I've recently had a discussion about this, and was curious about your opinion.

Let's say a third-party publisher develops a setting for D&D 4E (and this isn't entirely hypothetic...). It will likely be published only after the PHB II/DMG II/MM II are out - which will likely have several additional classes, such as old standbys like bards, barbarians, monks, sorcerers, and so forth (not to mention all sorts of additional rules expansions). Let's also assume that most of the material in these books becomes part of the 4E SRD.

As long as all other things are equal, which approach to designing the setting would be preferable to you:

a) Use only the options from the "first round" of the core rules (i.e. PHB I/DMG I/MM I) and describe how to integrate the other options only in a short appendix - and generally make those elements easily ignorable by the DM even when they are mentioned within the setting.

b) Fully integrate the additional rules material from the PHB II/DMG II/MM II into the setting from the start, and leave it to the DM to drop any material he doesn't use.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

delericho

Legend

• Aug 6, 2008

• #2

I say design the setting as feels 'right', and use, or don't use, the Core Rules X as appropriate.

 

S

Steely Dan

Banned

Banned

• Aug 6, 2008

• #3

delericho said:

I say design the setting as feels 'right', and use, or don't use, the Core Rules X as appropriate.

Click to expand...

Exactly, if you're running a Dragonlance campaign, you will not be using the Psionic power source etc.

 

Jürgen Hubert

First Post

• Aug 6, 2008

• #4

delericho said:

I say design the setting as feels 'right', and use, or don't use, the Core Rules X as appropriate.

Click to expand...

The assumption here - "all other things being equal" - is that the setting will be designed to feel "right" with the set of rules chosen. The question is what the buyers would prefer more - to include the Core Rules II rule sets from the start, or not.

 

A

Aristotle

First Post

• Aug 6, 2008

• #5

I just don't think all other things can be equal. My preference is for a quality product. The setting designers should feel free to use or exclude as much of what is available for use as they feel the setting warrants. If they want to include it all, and it works in the context of the setting? Cool. If they want to include it all, but feel they have enough material to cover additional core rule iterations in stand alone products? Cool. They want to release the additional core rule iteration support as web enhancements? Free is always cool. If I like the product I'll buy it without preference for how much core material is campaign legal.

 

Doug McCrae

Legend

• Aug 6, 2008

• #6

To me, it doesn't matter. There's lots more important things to consider. Primarily, is it good?

 

Mustrum_Ridcully

Hero

• Aug 6, 2008

• #7

Jürgen Hubert said:

The assumption here - "all other things being equal" - is that the setting will be designed to feel "right" with the set of rules chosen. The question is what the buyers would prefer more - to include the Core Rules II rule sets from the start, or not.

Click to expand...

If it feels right, make it compatible, but don't require it. That would be my preference, I think.

Of course, if you want to build a setting around Core I and Core II (or just Core II) - do it. The quality of the setting is most important.

 

Jürgen Hubert

First Post

• Aug 6, 2008

• #8

Aristotle said:

I just don't think all other things can be equal. My preference is for a quality product.

Click to expand...

OK, here is where the situation becomes less than hypothetical.

I've been developing Urbis (see my signature) for quite some time now. The release of D&D 4E has triggered a number of changes and adjustments to make the setting compatible with the new edition. And these adjustments are still ongoing.

And right now, the development could go either way. I am aiming for creating a quality product, but the final product will differ depending on what path I pursue. Should I stick to the Core Rules I, and make the Core Rules II an option that can be easily added or removed from the setting as the DM chooses? Or should I integrate the full range of options from the Core Rules II from the start, therefore making it pretty much mandatory to buy these books to use the setting fully?

That's what I need to figure out, and I need the input from those who play 4E. So "just aiming for a quality product", while being a sentiment I can appreciate, doesn't really help me make a decision.

 

delericho

Legend

• Aug 6, 2008

• #9

Jürgen Hubert said:

The assumption here - "all other things being equal" - is that the setting will be designed to feel "right" with the set of rules chosen. The question is what the buyers would prefer more - to include the Core Rules II rule sets from the start, or not.

Click to expand...

Okay, in that case my preference is for the smaller set of 'required' books. It's easier for me to add things to a setting than to have to try to strip them out.

 

Mathew_Freeman

First Post

• Aug 6, 2008

• #10

I'd go for option "A", and then offer a free yearly .pdf with a few details as to how to add in PHB 3...4...5...etc as they're published.