[poll] ENWorld's 4th Edition Living World PbP

[The Goblin King]

Forked from: Discussion - LEW 4th Edition

Originally Posted by Rae ArdGaoth

This is the first in a series of polls regarding the creation of a new PbP ENWorld Living World, using the new 4th Edition rules. If you are not familiar with the idea of a PbP Living World, check out the already created (and highly active) Living ENWorld, Living Eberron, and Living Superheroes.

The possibility of a new Living World using 4th Edition rules (L4W, for short) has been discussed extensively in this thread. If you are interested in playing in L4W, please vote here and consider joining the discussion.

This first poll will get the ball rolling by getting a feel for how much homebrew setting content we want in L4W. The setting of Living ENWorld (LEW) is completely homebrew, while Living Eberron's (LEB) is mostly from the Eberron Campaign Setting book. Both living worlds are active and successful.

Should L4W use the assumed D&D setting?

• No.
• Yes.
• Yes. But create our own starting vale.

No - We will do... something else, to be determined based on community reactions to other polls. (See the L4W wiki page for some potential polls.)

Yes - L4W will use the setting material provided in the core books as is, including deities and the starting area of Fallcrest in Nentir Vale. This core information will not be available on the wiki or the L4W PDF, but everything else will be.

Yes, but with our own starting vale - The deities and other generic setting information will be straight from the core books, but we will develop our own starting city and area, based on community reactions to other polls. All non-GSL information will be available on the wiki/PDF.

[Velmont]

LEW is good proof that we don't need to use the starting setting. I'm not sure LEW would have been as much interesting if we had used some setting.

[Erekose13]

I agree with Velmont, go with something new and different and people will be more eager to build onto it.

[Graf]

How does the community handle "build out?" of a setting?
Is there a policy that "most everything is accepted?"
Is there a policy that "reality is flexible?"
Is there a "board" that approve things?

Is the setting "designed" to have inherent flex? (ala spelljammer with different spheres, or everyway with different worlds?)

I'm not a fan of the "default" particularly most of the usable fluff seems to be about the awesome-new-races. At the same time if it's going to be a "standard dnd world, why bother to re-invent the wheel?

sorry for the noob questions

[Halford]

I've got to say that I have become extremely fond of Living Enworld, and for me a large part of that is the idea that it belongs to the community. I like saying Orussus instead of Greyhawk, one has been trod by thousands of imaginary feet and the other belongs the community and is more genuinely shapeable by them.

[covaithe]

I think that being able to document and publish our setting online freely outweighs any advantages from using a proprietary setting. If we keep it small at first and allow it to grow as L4W grows, I think that will keep the amount of work required down to a reasonable amount. Some of Graf's ideas about flexible worlds could help, too.

[Rae ArdGaoth]

I second several people's opinions. Keep it small at first, and let the world grow as needed/desired. Keep it homebrew, so we can have our own unique world. Some framework won't hurt, and detailing a few spots of the local region is a good idea.

A flexible world is actually pretty easy to write in later or to include in small pieces. If we go with the "sea-is-a-transitive-plane" idea, it's already implemented. If we go with the "portals-in-the-major-cities" idea, all it takes is a new portal. If we go with the "whatever" idea, GMs can create a transitive-plane-river or a city of portals, as they wish!

LEW, despite having none of these explicit "flex methods" (and a mostly "whatever" feel) has been very flexible, and the players/DMs have created an awesome world in which to play.