Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
Discussion - LEW 4th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Graf" data-source="post: 4396226" data-attributes="member: 3087"><p><em>edited to be a bit more reasonable in presentation</em></p><p></p><p>Halford,</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I think this is a very productive conversation and that its good that we disagree.</p><p></p><p>[sblock=my reaction]</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I see elements as resting between two polls non-restrictive (A) and restrictive (Z)</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Now you -can- "fix" these elements so they are less restrictive.</p><p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But I think you -have- to handle Z elements differently than you do A elements.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a tough comment for me to react to.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>You're including a very restrictive Z element and graciously allowing other DMs to be wrong.</p><p></p><p>I don't think you should agree with me, your setting is written to your specifications. You like something. <strong>I say great. Stick to your guns!</strong></p><p></p><p>But be upfront about it. You want a map, you want it to lock down people (even if you awknowledge that it won't).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not just saying this to be saying this. I refer to the following post:</p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>[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.</p><p></p><p>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]</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>You want the element of "overland travel" to be available. And it is available in the compromise setting the transitive isles.</p><p></p><p>The transitive isles includes </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a massive forested interior</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">portals to the feywild and other places</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">portals on the near Isles to places that are massive continents (the valley of bone, the Kingdom of Jade, and anywhere else you want)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">covaithe is pushing for the main island to be "at least the size of britan" (and has also mentioned australia)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">you can easily have more portals on Daunton</li> </ul><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>And, as mentioned before, having boat travel as a <em>big part of the setting</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p>I don't think anyone likes having unbalanced PCs.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>If we go unrestricted I wouldn't mind having an option to ban stuff by communal vote.</p><p>Some sort of, if someone proposes it, and more than two people second it, the judges will work up a binding vote type mechanism.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Graf, post: 4396226, member: 3087"] [I]edited to be a bit more reasonable in presentation[/I] 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] 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. 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. [B]I say great. Stick to your guns![/B] 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: 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. [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 [LIST] [*]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 [/LIST] 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 [I]big part of the setting[/I] 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. 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 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
Discussion - LEW 4th Edition
Top