[Ampersand] Bill Slavicsek on campaign settings

[Ruin Explorer]

Dark Sun would be the most exciting setting for me, closely followed by Planescape.

However, it scares me a great deal when Michele from WotC tells us that Bill Slaviscek is "keen" on Dark Sun, and when he's clearly "in charge" of this idea of making everything "totally core D&D".

Why?

Because Bill Slaviscek is responsible for "Dark Sun: Revised and Expanded", which, to me, was one of the greatest setting-guttings in the history of disembowelling settings. It wasn't so much "revised and expanded" as made lamer, much happier, and more compatible with normal AD&D.

So I have to suspect any 4E Dark Sun would probably incorporate all the idiocy from "Revised and Expanded", and serve that up with a giant wedge of "totally core D&D", meaning that, of course, Defilers couldn't be the same thing as Wizards only more powerful, as that wouldn't be portable now, would it! And of course, "core D&D" features Paladins, Bards, Druids, "Holy Light"-type Clerics, and so on, so they simply HAVE to have a place in Dark Sun! <shudder>

Oh well, at least a part of the idea of Planescape was "tie all the settings together, you can be anyone from anywhere", so the "totally core D&D" thing would probably actually enhance that, if anything.

 

[Voss]

Honestly the best thing you can do for a 4e [out of print setting] is use the old material with the new rules. Someone updating it is 90% likely to be upsetting.

 

[TwoSix]

Because Bill Slaviscek is responsible for "Dark Sun: Revised and Expanded", which, to me, was one of the greatest setting-guttings in the history of disembowelling settings. It wasn't so much "revised and expanded" as made lamer, much happier, and more compatible with normal AD&D.

I liked Revised and Expanded better. Go, Bill, go!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I liked Revised and Expanded better. Go, Bill, go!

I'm sure. Some people preferred the New Coke, after all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So I have to suspect any 4E Dark Sun would probably incorporate all the idiocy from "Revised and Expanded", and serve that up with a giant wedge of "totally core D&D", meaning that, of course, Defilers couldn't be the same thing as Wizards only more powerful, as that wouldn't be portable now, would it! And of course, "core D&D" features Paladins, Bards, Druids, "Holy Light"-type Clerics, and so on, so they simply HAVE to have a place in Dark Sun! <shudder>

On the bright side, not a whole lot of that is really "core" at the moment.

The PH doesn't have bards or druids. Paladins are expressly "servants of a deity" and not "medieval chivalrous knights" (which means they work better as templars). "Holy Light" type clerics will probably be dishing out radiant damage, which strikes me as kind of natural for a DS cleric based around the Sun (as a for instance).

Though I fear you might be right in a broader sense. Part of DS's appeal was that it was a big raspberry to core D&D. Whatever else it was, this was explicitly NOT a Tolkein knock-off like 90% of fantasy out there (including core D&D, to a large extent).

I think that any successful revision has to retain that idea of "Through the broken Funhouse Mirror" that DS was able to harnass.

Think of dragonborn, for instance. In Core D&D, they're noble knights and warriors of a lost empire. In DS, perhaps they are savage tribal nomads who drink blood and wage constant war. Or tieflings. In Core D&D, they're the remnants of an empire who made a pact with a devil-king for power. In DS, perhaps they are anomolous births, the result of the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" gone horribly awry, the next stage of human mutation. They are left to die on mountaintops, but some survive, some go on to become terrible gladiators, many become slaves....

That might not go quite far enough, but the sentiment is there. DS needs to reject some of what core D&D holds dear to remain true to its own spirit.

 

[katahn]

It's about as much a conversion guide for gamers to the LDS Church as D&D is a conversion guide for gamers to Satanism. Don't be ridiculous.

Cheers,
Cam

I have to agree here. I used to be a mormon for a number of years, so I can definitely see the parallels and where bits of Dragonlance were clearly inspired from the stories of the LDS church. But it's no more a coversion guide for the mormons than "Disney's Aladdin" is for islam.

But that point aside, I just haven't found anything to come from Dragonlance beyond the "War of the Lance" to really intrigue me. Maybe in 4e something interesting can be done though.

 

[PoeticJustice]

This sucks. After 8 years there's finally a policy that would allow for the production of new Planescape products. Only now the canon has been changed so much it can't replicate Planescape.

Maybe they'll reintroduce Great Wheel cosmology for that campaign setting.

Oh, and I think this isn't going to go over well at all for the Eberron folks. We're all still waiting for at least two sourcebooks to come out and the ones I know don't much care for mixing Eberron with non-Eberron material. That means certain areas of the campaign setting will never get a sourcebook and if I play 4E, the amount of material I'll have to use will be greaty diminished.

 

[Voss]

Though I fear you might be right in a broader sense. Part of DS's appeal was that it was a big raspberry to core D&D. Whatever else it was, this was explicitly NOT a Tolkein knock-off like 90% of fantasy out there (including core D&D, to a large extent).

Until the novelists got a hold of it and turned it into 'what happens when the Hobbits win'.

 

[Cam Banks]

But that point aside, I just haven't found anything to come from Dragonlance beyond the "War of the Lance" to really intrigue me. Maybe in 4e something interesting can be done though.

Really? You didn't see anything intriguing in all of the adventures, modules, sourcebooks, and accessories we published for 3.5? All told, I think Sovereign Press/Margaret Weis Productions produced more content for Dragonlance than any prior edition of the setting.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Hickman is explicitly Mormon. Dragonlance is the closest thing to a 'Conversion Guide for Gamers' that I've ever seen. Take a look at the annotated chronicles with his side commentary. Its actually a bit on the creepy side, as the religious aspects are almost specifically a Mormon homily.

You can also blame Kenders on us LDS people.

Hickman had to include an archtypical thief, but his background and moral code made it difficult to write an honest to goodness thief. So instead of writing a character he knew he didn't have the ability to write convincingly he came up with kleptomaniac hobbits.

As for borrowing stuff from the history of our church - there is some stuff that is very epic in style and scope in the way we look at the world. It translates very well into gaming, and fantasy fiction. The LoTR creation myth was very Catholic. Nothing wrong in borrowing something that helps fiction, it's been done for centuries.

Note- not trying to start a religious discussion, just commenting on how one's beliefs can influence one's writing.