D&D 4E 4E Devils vs. Demons article

[delericho]

If Vampire: The Masquerade had reached a fourth edition... then I think there would have been the sort of case that "the game is not the same"...

And, indeed, when White Wolf published their fourth Vampire game, it was a new game which did something much like what I describe.

That's a very good point. Indeed, I'm finding much of my reaction to 4e parallels my reaction to Vampire: the Requiem.

Unfortunately, when VtR came out, I got the books and quickly read them, concluded that it was an excellent game... but one that I had absolutely no intention of ever playing. It just wasn't for me.

And I fear the same will be true again.

 

[GVDammerung]

. . . I don't think that D&D has to keep Gygax's planar setting to still be the same game.

This isn't an EGG thing. It started there, sure. It was kept on by TSR after EGG left and 2e launched. 3e kept it after that. For long time D&D players, the Great Wheel is an intrinsic part of what makes D&D, well, D&D. Not everyone may like it, but lots did, at least to judge by things like the popularity of the Demonomicon of Iggwilv in Dragon etc. The Planes (Great Wheel version) have seemingly always sold well and their inhabitants have long been iconic to D&D, fascinating generations of players. So this is not simply blind adherence to tradition for tradition's sake alone.

There's no reason why every setting should use a common cosmology, and they've never been originally designed to do so.

This is quite true and completely misses the point because the operative word is "setting." Such changes are fine for a particular "setting" but 4e is not a setting. We are speaking of the core rules. This is a HUGE difference. The core rules apply, in theory, to every game irrespective of setting. Setting are limited, unique unto themselves. 4e should not be in the business of establishing fluff for games to such a pronounced degree; it should stick to an exposition of the rules. But is seems 4e wants to dictate not just the rules but also the fluff. House rules will not not be limited to crunch but will also have to consider fluff. This is unhelpful an unnecssary.

I think people greatly overestimate how much the average D&D player cares about demon origins or planar cosmology.

More people are likely to be upset by the omission of their favorite race or class than if the Jello plane of Cosbyopolis is missing.

See popularity of Dragon magazine after Demonomicon of Iggwlv as well as planar antagonists in adventure paths in Dungeon. Nuff said.

The background that has proven popular for years upon years is now being altered. Miami Vice, so to speak, is going to be set in Chicago. It _WILL_ feel different and so will 4e with a new cosmology. As "feel" is almost as important as "play" where games are concerned, this is a big gamble for no apparent reason other than Wotc was tired of the Great Wheel. Wotc is taking it on faith that the new cosmology is a good thing and asks gamers to do the same.

 

[GVDammerung]

In other words, a fully-supported Greyhawk product line a la the Forgotten Realms may not be a profitable venture, but a one-shot Greyhawk Campaign Setting hardback might easily sell well enough to justify its production.

This is a non-starter. E.G., demons in 4e are mindless damage doers. Grazzt is a demon whose son is Iuz. In GH, neither are mindless damage doers; in fact, they are plotters and manipulators - roles reserved for devils in 4e. Take example and multiply. GH in 4e would not be GH.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This is a non-starter. E.G., demons in 4e are mindless damage doers. Grazzt is a demon whose son is Iuz. In GH, neither are mindless damage doers; in fact, they are plotters and manipulators - roles reserved for devils in 4e. Take example and multiply. GH in 4e would not be GH.

It's been explicitly stated that the plotting Grazzt isn't going anywhere, and he's still a demon.

 

[bastrak]

I'm with GVD on this one. I'm with Mona too. I'm not with WotC. The more updates I read the more it sounds like a whole new game. fluffwise and crunchwise.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

And I fear the same will be true again.

How do you type the flippant way Randy Marsh says "See ya!" in that South Park episode where he flashes back to his time in a boy band?

Ehh, forget it.

Point is, yeah: some people will get left behind when things like this change. Personally, I don't think D&D is so tied to the core books' flavour that altering it makes the game "not D&D" - if nothing else, if I did feel that way, I wouldn't play D&D.

The fact that some people won't want to go along for the ride doesn't mean that it's not the right direction for Wizards of the Coast to go.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

This is quite true and completely misses the point because the operative word is "setting." Such changes are fine for a particular "setting" but 4e is not a setting. We are speaking of the core rules. This is a HUGE difference. The core rules apply, in theory, to every game irrespective of setting.

The only reasonable endpoint of this line of thinking is to junk both the Fourth Edition cosmology and the Great Wheel.

As I've said before: the Great Wheel is not "more generic" than this Fourth Edition cosmology. It's no less intrusive upon the games of DMs with their own cosmologies in mind. There is no reason to keep the Great Wheel in the core rules except tradition, and maintaining tradition for tradition's sake is not justifiable.

You say:

For long time D&D players, the Great Wheel is an intrinsic part of what makes D&D, well, D&D. Not everyone may like it, but lots did, at least to judge by things like the popularity of the Demonomicon of Iggwilv in Dragon etc. The Planes (Great Wheel version) have seemingly always sold well and their inhabitants have long been iconic to D&D, fascinating generations of players. So this is not simply blind adherence to tradition for tradition's sake alone.

I argue that most gamers don't give a damn about the planar setup. You might just find that Wizards of the Coast knows what the Hell they're doing when they decline to use Gary Gygax's complicated and in-large-part-ungameable Greyhawk cosmology for their core rules. Maybe they're just confident that these more useable planes will be embraced by many.

I love the Great Wheel . . . but I don't think it's a useful default. Keeping it around can only be for tradition's sake.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

This is a non-starter. E.G., demons in 4e are mindless damage doers. Grazzt is a demon whose son is Iuz. In GH, neither are mindless damage doers; in fact, they are plotters and manipulators - roles reserved for devils in 4e. Take example and multiply. GH in 4e would not be GH.

Garbage and nonsense.

Even if your caricature of Fourth Edition's demons were accurate - which it isn't - it's not exactly hard to . . . ooh . . . rewrite the flavour for a specific campaign setting.

They did it for Eberron - the classic demons and devils fill an almost completely different role, and several of each grouping don't even have anything to do with the bulk of the type. Not hard to do it for Greyhawk.

 

[BronzeGolem]

It's been explicitly stated that the plotting Grazzt isn't going anywhere, and he's still a demon.

So since succubi are now devils, what plotting demons (since they've now apparently been retroactively lobotomized for the most part) work for Graz'zt? He used to have succubi working for him like Maretta in 2nd and 3rd edition. Did he just wake up one morning and half his court was gone?

 

[Lackhand]

What did they (meaning Insert Being For Whom This Is Relevant) do when they abruptly lost assassins and monks? For instance, the Scarlet Brotherhood in 2nd edition?

Somehow, they persevere.