This whole, changing the backstory thing...

[Lanefan]

Basically assassins remained assassins even if their character class switched to rogue. Illusionist - same thing - somewhat subtle changes in their spell selection but a spell caster who concentrated on illusion spells could still be created in later rules.

To a point. I tried very hard to emulate a 1e Illusionist using 3e rules, and the result - while wildly and unexpectedly successful as a character in her game - was only vaguely recognizable as a capital-I Illusionist and becomes less so with every passing level.

I *really* hope Illusionist (and Necromancer) are broken out into their own core classes in 4e, with all the other wizards just being...well, wizards.

Lanefan

 

[hong]

A dedicated gamer can play a ninja in any ruleset.

 

[TerraDave]

Each edition switch has actually solved 'world' and other problems in my games...and then kept me on my toes as I (mostly) stopped it from creating new ones.

But I may be a case of 1. We already had multi-class humans and no level limits in my 2nd ed game. (and attacks of oportunities, and a battle map, and things like feats, and skills...). And those speciatly priests, that I spent so much time on? Clerics with domains mostly just worked better. I could give other examples.

Now as I look at 4th ed, I see my elves being nicely sorted out, ideas with paralel worlds (used a little here and there in play) straightened out and supported, some new classes and races that fit just find, a monster manual that will cover the other races the PHB doesn't...aligment and PrCs--better in theory then practice--cut back down to size, a more flexible cosmology. And probably some crap I would never allow in play. Buts its always like that.

 

[Umbran]

If you don't use the planes, then their changes won't necessarily effect your campaign. But the implications might be much larger as we've seen hints of other changes like the new classes (always fun to introduce), assumption of race situations (another fun one to insert into an ongoing campaign), and probably the changing of how magic works including things like what level spells are.

Yes. Thus - the reason why the WotC folks (sorry, no cite on hand) were saying that converting your current campaigns to 4e was perhaps not the best way to go. They've been suggesting you start new campaigns since the announcement was made at Gen Con.

All of the issues are things you can address, with some work. There's a question of whether the work is worth the effort (a question that can only be answered on a case-by-case basis). It may pay to let your campaign run to it's end before converting over. And that's okay.

 

[Dragonbait]

Story Solution: Crisis on Infinite Oerths.

The current setting is the result of an amalgam of multiple parallel worlds after some great conjunction or event or war or what not. The world's physics have changed, but so have the people and now everyone thinks that it was -always- like that. They didn't just wake up one day and say "Golly! As an elf I was completely against furthering my studies (level cap), but now I think I will (no level cap)." They think that they always could. There might be some beings that remember how things used to be, but they are few and far between.

 

[Desdichado]

Bit of difference between adding something from a supplemental book than a core book no?

No. I honestly don't get the fascination folks have with trying to define what's "core" and what's not. I don't see how something being labelled "core" has any bearing on my game in the least, honestly. I'm a little baffled by the preoccupation.

 

[gizmo33]

To a point. I tried very hard to emulate a 1e Illusionist using 3e rules, and the result - while wildly and unexpectedly successful as a character in her game - was only vaguely recognizable as a capital-I Illusionist and becomes less so with every passing level.

I guess it depends on what you think the significant parts of the illusionist are that translate from the rules into the world. For instance if my illusionist cast phantasmal forces or shadow monsters before, similar spells existed in later systems. I'm not really sure based on my experiences why/when such a character would become "vaguely recognizable" as you say. I suppose in the end it's partly a matter of taste and what you focus on, but also I think I would suggest that sometimes folks can let the rules overly influence how they see things in the game.

 

[JoeGKushner]

No. I honestly don't get the fascination folks have with trying to define what's "core" and what's not. I don't see how something being labelled "core" has any bearing on my game in the least, honestly. I'm a little baffled by the preoccupation.

Core rules material will be used with far more freuqence than optional books. Count the number of official products with warblades, swordsages, incarnum users, or even psionic users versus sorcerers and wizards.

These assumptions change the assumptions about how the campaign world works. 3e FR solved some of the magic items issues with Red Wizards opening magic item shops.

4e will go a far different rotue.

 

[Sundragon2012]

When I waqs far, far younger and far, far newer to DMing I used to care a great deal about using the TSR backstory because it felt I was playing the "real" D&D. Looking back on those times I understand that I simply lacked the confidence of my own creative talents as a DM and wanted my campaign validated by keeping it by the book. My players ever expected this of me.

Then as the years progressed I realized that every campaign setting was someone's homebrew. Dragonlance was Weis and Hickman's. FR was Greenwood's homebrew. Greyhawk was Gygax's homebrew. And so it goes. All the best settings were someone's homebrews existing merely in another's imagination until set to print by TSR and WoTC.

It goes without saying that a DM has to change the backstory or even dramatically alter a great many things in oder to create a setting that isn't just like every other setting. So what is the big deal if WoTC changes the backstory to succubi or dump the Great Wheel unless you are simply cracking open books and DMing the utterly colorless "core" setting as is. This is supposed to be Greyhawk in 3.5, but Greyhawk fans know the violence done to their favorite setting by making it the vanilla backdrop for the game and home to every idea from every splatbook by default.

I don't know any DMs who have been DMing for a while who do not use a published setting such as FR or Eberron or create their own setting. I don't know why is matters what WoTC does in regards to succubi, the nature of demons and devils or whether or not the Great Wheel still exists if each setting diverges strongly from so many core assumptions anyway.

In my experience no homebrew or published setting in the 3.5 era has been slavishly following core assumptions so I would argue it is irrelevent what WoTC does or does not do to the backstory of D&Ds critters, planes and mythos.

Rules changes....well they can be a problem, but fluff....no problem at all.



Sundragon

 

[BBQ]

When I waqs far, far younger and far, far newer to DMing I used to care a great deal about using the TSR backstory because it felt I was playing the "real" D&D. Looking back on those times I understand that I simply lacked the confidence of my own creative talents as a DM and wanted my campaign validated by keeping it by the book. My players ever expected this of me.

Then as the years progressed I realized that every campaign setting was someone's homebrew. Dragonlance was Weis and Hickman's. FR was Greenwood's homebrew. Greyhawk was Gygax's homebrew. And so it goes. All the best settings were someone's homebrews existing merely in another's imagination until set to print by TSR and WoTC.

It goes without saying that a DM has to change the backstory or even dramatically alter a great many things in oder to create a setting that isn't just like every other setting. So what is the big deal if WoTC changes the backstory to succubi or dump the Great Wheel unless you are simply cracking open books and DMing the utterly colorless "core" setting as is. This is supposed to be Greyhawk in 3.5, but Greyhawk fans know the violence done to their favorite setting by making it the vanilla backdrop for the game and home to every idea from every splatbook by default.

I don't know any DMs who have been DMing for a while who do not use a published setting such as FR or Eberron or create their own setting. I don't know why is matters what WoTC does in regards to succubi, the nature of demons and devils or whether or not the Great Wheel still exists if each setting diverges strongly from so many core assumptions anyway.

In my experience no homebrew or published setting in the 3.5 era has been slavishly following core assumptions so I would argue it is irrelevent what WoTC does or does not do to the backstory of D&Ds critters, planes and mythos.

Rules changes....well they can be a problem, but fluff....no problem at all.



Sundragon

*raises his hands in the air* Amen, brother!