Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5456989" data-attributes="member: 65637">Let me jump back into world building real quick:Absolutely 4e is better for wold building for me.  Absolutely.  There is literally zero question in my mind.  And absolutely 4e is better at "simulation" then 3e is.  The idea that 3e is "simulationist" in any way is bizarre to me.  What's the simulation?  That I can completely destroy the economy of the entire universe by sawing ladders in half?See, every time in 3e I wanted to make a cool homebrew setting, I came across the same problem.Magic.Magic destroys the simulation.  Completely.  It destroys the world.  How do you handle a class that can literally talk to God in your world?  How do you deal with a wizard who can create perpetual energy on whim?  A druid that ends the very concept of drought?  And if I want to follow the rules directly, every "cool thing" I want needs to be do-able by PCs, needs to be statted out, and needs to be magical.While making my homebrew campaign I tried too make it as edition neutral as I could while still being based on 4e, because hey, I rather like old editions too, and I might wanna play it in them.  But as I went, 3e problems kept creeping up."The halfling and shifter islands are the standard fantasy floating in the air kind, and only the halflings have tamed flying creatures massive enough for transporting goods, ensuring they hold control over trade and travel."But what about a wizard that casts flying spells or overland flight or a druid from simply wildshaping into said massive beast?"The gnome and dwarf wars came down inevitably to a stark difference in religious ideology.  The dwarves are all religious to a single dwarf, and have a firm believe in an unchangable soul.  The gnomes are by and large agnostics, regarding "gods" as merely very powerful individuals if they exist at all, and regard the soul as mutable."But what happens when a cleric rings up their god and asks them directly?  Either side can just call the divine powers that be and ask them who is right."The human-blooded city states were united under a single flag when three saints - a half-elf, master of personal combat, courtesy, and subtle verse; a half-orc champion with the strength of thirty warriors and the ability to shrug off all but the most fatal of attacks; and a human , bound the city states together and formed an alliance with the Dragonborn to the south, sundering the rampaging orcish horde."How did the warrior contribute to this tremendous war effort?  This was at a time when magic didn't function at all - how did these heroes hold back an entire army without using or having any magic at all?  These are meant to be characters the PCs will look up to and even someday emulate, how can I do that without any magical items or magical buffs?"Should they go down this adventure line, the adventurers will find themselves challenged with delving deep into the remains of the past elven capital to find the self proclaimed "emperor" and stop him from finishing a ritual that will turn him into one of the Fey, granting incredible power to a very horrible individual."What spell is this?  How do I stat this out?  Can the PCs learn it?  God, I don't want them to.  How does this actually work in game?Every step of the way I found more and more holes in the setting, except they were holes that existed in every setting.  Flying monsters are exceedingly rare in my setting, but wizards aren't.  How are there castles and fortifications with flying wizards?  How is there religious ambiguity when clerics can talk to the divine at whim?  How are there wars when a few cloudkills render the whole thing meaningless?  What's the point of a proud warrior tradition of any ol' cleric or wizard can be a better fighter?Even worse, in all these examples, most of the problems introduced by magic are done so at relatively low levels.  This isn't even getting into the mess of problems behind higher level spells.In short, I wanted a setting that was not The Wizards of Wizardville Fight the Clerics of Clerictown.So yeah, I very solidly denounce the idea that 4e is bad for world building.  4e is amazing at world building because now I don't have to constantly worry about "someone has a spell" ruining everything.  And it "simulates" the feel and genres and styles I want perfectly.D&D has never simulated a world.  Never.  It never tried to.  It never wanted to.  This whole "simulationism" thing is bizarro and jumped out of nowhere in 3e - I never saw nor heard of anything like it once before.The heart of D&D was never to explore and experience Medieval Europe as if it also had mages walking around I guess even though they for whatever reason don't radically alter the universe.  It was to take a genre or a style you like and simulate that.  In the oldest editions it was "Hey, you like Conan?  In D&D you can throw a throne at an evil wizard and then steal all the gold and run away as fast as you can!"  In 2e it was "Hey, you like Lord of the Rings?  In D&D you can be a semi-useless thief that takes orders from an epic level wizard that doesn't just solve anything because I dunno, screw you!"  And in 3e it was "Hey, do you have any cocked out, bizarre, mishmash fantasy idea?  Multiclaaaaaaaaass!"And 4e doesn't change that.  You're still Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis, roleplaying out being Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis.  The world and setting make just as much sense as they always have: None.</blockquote>

Verification