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

[see]

Maybe because it IS the thing to do? role playing games are completely unlike software 'don't fix what isn't broken' simply doesn't apply here. Roleplaying games have to evolve or they die.

An interesting claim.

Back in 1977, the same year that the 1e Monster Manual was released, there was this other game, an SF game. It rocketed to the #2 spot in popularity among RPGs, and remained quite popular for years. Fifteen years later, the game was extensively revised with its third edition, which radically reworked the setting. Gone was the the intimidating, crufty history; gone was the huge scale that seemingly dwarfed PCs. The game was reworked to attract all sorts of new players.

Shortly after that, the publisher folded. The game has had something of an afterlife since then. People have bought reprints of the original books; a version of the setting where the changes never happened was licensed by a fairly large publisher, ported to a new system, and sold reasonably well; another license for another system went to another company, for a version of the setting set slightly before the original's time period.

Nobody seems to have any interest, however, in post-Virus Traveller.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

It's the Ultimate Marvelization of the D&D metasetting.

Hmm...



Ultimate Drizzt?

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

The assumed cosmology of the game is much like the background of a television show.

I can't agree with this: the presented cosmology of 1st edition AD&D was explicit setting material. The reader was presented with a map showing the location of various sites - called planes - with not only generic monsters from those sites but the stats and personalities of some of their rulers. Various spells were given to travel to these sites were one could talk, fight and ideally kill these rulers.

This is as much explicit setting material as a book giving the stats of Emo McTrenchcoat, the Vampire prince of Wollongong. The implied setting was the pseudo-medieval world the PC originate in, where maps and local rulers are never given.

3rd ed core planar setting seems to be a bit less specified, since none of the archfiends are statted, but it's still the same underneath as 1st ed. This makes sense since 3e's default setting is Greyhawk, and the Great Wheel is Greyhawk's cosmology.

The new planar setting we've been shown looks like it is just as much an explicit setting as 1st ed. More of the general feel of a return to earlier editions that I've been getting from 4e.
I don't like the Great Wheel and I'm happy to see it go. It's natural that people who do like it are unhappy, but I don't think that D&D has to keep Gygax's planar setting to still be the same game.

 

[Zaukrie]

I also agree with the poster that stated, I think in this thread, that fluff gives the context of the rules. It is what ties players around the world together so they are playing the same game, having similar experiences, building communities, giving us something to talk about at Cons and on line. Changing much/all/a lot of that, risks damaging that community that is important to a niche product like D&D.

 

[danbuter1]

I think the changes sound very drastic. I'm hoping it won't be that big of a deal. Though I am a Planescape fan, and wish they could have continued to use that model.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I also agree with the poster that stated, I think in this thread, that fluff gives the context of the rules. It is what ties players around the world together so they are playing the same game, having similar experiences, building communities, giving us something to talk about at Cons and on line. Changing much/all/a lot of that, risks damaging that community that is important to a niche product like D&D.

But this has always been a false hope.

Dragonlance didn't use the Great Wheel until Planescape said it did. Ed Greenwood didn't use the Great Wheel for the Forgotten Realms until TSR said they would. Eberron doesn't use the Great Wheel. Dark Sun didn't use the Great Wheel.

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

Even I, as big a Planescape fan as you'll find, was never particularly enamoured of using the published campaign settings as "Prime worlds" - better to make up my own, and leave Mordenkainen, Elminster, and Raistlin the hell out of it.

 

[Andor]

The dirty secret of 3E: The best support for the game was often from a third party publisher, and not from WotC.

Ummm... This wasn't a dirty secret. They anticipated it happening before 3e ever got out the door and wrote the OGL and SRD in order to support those 3rd party publishers, rather than trying to squish them as TSR did and poor confused Palladium still does. And they've already announced that this will continue in 4e.

 

[Branduil]

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.

 

[Darrell]

I like this change, though in my own homebrew cosmology there is no difference between a demon and a devil, they are all "fiends" and originate in the same place...

Ditto here. "Devil" and "demon" are just words describing the same kind of critter in my campaign.

And as far as the poster earlier who said they never met a gamer outside of these forums who had a problem with the "Great Wheel," well, I both hated and replaced the 'not-so-great wheel' years before these forums ever existed.

I'm still none too sure about whether or not I'll convert to 4e (currently, my group plays microlite20 more than anything else), but this 'fluff' text is a step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[catsclaw227]

Notes from brainstorming sessions. Ideas are thrown out and debated and tossed back and forth and then a handful of them make it to the page without being crossed out, and typically, they are phrased almost as absolutes. It provides the basis for the product that will eventually come out, and it's the same thing we're seeing all over the place with the 4E previews.

This is what I am seeing as well. All these playtest and developer's blogs are simply notes and journaling and blogging. they talk about what they have been working on that day or that week, they discuss the music they listen to, as well as talk about their experiences with the development of 4e.

Only, with the last part, they are required to really keep it general, make broad sweeping statements so as to not give away any details. They have to to maintain their competitive edge, because you KNOW that some 3rd party companies are watching very closely to what is being said, taking copious notes and sketching out the rough framework for some 4e releases.

I really think there's a lot of people grinding the syntax they use, the use of generalities, and making rush judgements about what exactly is going to be released. It's still WAY too premature to be calling out WOTC for "ruining my D&D".