I know there are people still arguing the subjective nature of the GWA issue. I think we are past that honestly. It amazes me it is still debate, when the facts are clear that this is the first time game mechanics have been this tied to fluff outside of a campaign setting book.
I said earlier in my seeking to speak to WOTC designers on the matter, I discovered that there is alot of fluff in the feats. I did get my message through to the designers with concerns. They are discussing the matter and see our points as holding validity. The issue though, which I agree with to a point, is that the high level of fluff and the new direction the core rules are taking could bring in the friends and spouses of the current D&D players and DMs that are not currently playing D&D.
If you need additional evidence of the fluff levels in the 4e core books, look at the threads going on with the races & classes book. The races have named empires. We have at the very least the basic blocks for a campaign setting built into the player's handbook from the sound of things.
Is this the right approach? I am not sure. It is good for new players and the casual friends and spouses of the D&D players who could be lured in by the new D&D. That is a good thing. It will step on the DMs who homebrew. How they can cope with it, and how much effort they need to put into adjusting, remains to be seen.
But, the anti-GWA camp is not overreacting. The rumor I have heard for the Forgotten Realms setting is it may have its own Player's Handbook and DM/ World Guide as seperate books that you use in place of the core Player's Handbook.
This would mean, we would see a new player's handbook every year with the release of a new campaign setting, which WOTC implied could happen. interesting times indeed. If this is true, then every DM who has an extensive homebrew would take the SRD and rebuild it with the fluff from his Campaign Setting and then use that instead of his Player' s Handbook. I wonder if WOTC thought about that one, and the issues that could arise if that is what DMs with their own worlds have to do.
I said earlier in my seeking to speak to WOTC designers on the matter, I discovered that there is alot of fluff in the feats. I did get my message through to the designers with concerns. They are discussing the matter and see our points as holding validity. The issue though, which I agree with to a point, is that the high level of fluff and the new direction the core rules are taking could bring in the friends and spouses of the current D&D players and DMs that are not currently playing D&D.
If you need additional evidence of the fluff levels in the 4e core books, look at the threads going on with the races & classes book. The races have named empires. We have at the very least the basic blocks for a campaign setting built into the player's handbook from the sound of things.
Is this the right approach? I am not sure. It is good for new players and the casual friends and spouses of the D&D players who could be lured in by the new D&D. That is a good thing. It will step on the DMs who homebrew. How they can cope with it, and how much effort they need to put into adjusting, remains to be seen.
But, the anti-GWA camp is not overreacting. The rumor I have heard for the Forgotten Realms setting is it may have its own Player's Handbook and DM/ World Guide as seperate books that you use in place of the core Player's Handbook.
This would mean, we would see a new player's handbook every year with the release of a new campaign setting, which WOTC implied could happen. interesting times indeed. If this is true, then every DM who has an extensive homebrew would take the SRD and rebuild it with the fluff from his Campaign Setting and then use that instead of his Player' s Handbook. I wonder if WOTC thought about that one, and the issues that could arise if that is what DMs with their own worlds have to do.
