[Ampersand] Bill Slavicsek on campaign settings

[Scribble]

Really? They honestly think that people who only bought FR stuff and never Eberron stuff (or vice versa) will start buying Eberron stuff just because they changed the color of the books?

I am also puzzled with the "any Core supplement will also be a FR/Eberron supplement" thing. So a supplement talking about the newest plan of the Zhentarim to take over the trade between Sembia and the Dales will also be just as usefull to Eberron?

Most likely it means we will never again see such supplements detailing anything setting specific (beyond the 3 books) but only bland unassigned core stuff. And that is definetly not "also Eberron/FR", it's just bland core like in every other edition before. Nothing new

I think there will be a bit more to it then that...I think we've already seen the idea in play, just huidden in 3.5 speak.

My guess is that all new products will be core. Generic, maybe with the "not a seting" setting built in, but generaly generic. Like PHB 2 in 3.5 or Bo9S, or ToM stuff...

Then, you log onto DDI, and read the articles about different ways to use the new class in different campaigns... Maybe it gives you locations where they might be found, types of schools, npcs etc... If you play in FR you simply go to the FR articles.. if you play in eberon you go to the ebberon articles...

Like I said they did it in 3.5 already, they just didn't call attention to the fact that they did it...

The classes and powers and feats and stuff in and of themselves will be generic usable by all.

 

[Irda Ranger]

In regards to campaign settings, our goal for this edition is to make each setting we release unique and exciting on its own while still making it usable in any D&D campaign.

I'm pretty sure combining the orange text and the red text is impossible to do in any satisfying way. How, exactly, is every product released for D&D supposed to be fit into Ravenloft or Dark Sun while allowing them to be Ravenloft or Dark Sun. How could you add all the rules from the "Divine Power Splatbook" into either of those settings? Of course the answer is: you can't. The only way you can be "unique and interesting" is by including and excluding certain rules and options found in "core" D&D.

Now, that's not to say their plan is a terrible one. I'd be more likely to buy a "Martial Power" core rules book over an Eberron supplement (I don't play there), but that doesn't mean all the supplements will be appropriate for all the settings. They simply can't be without all the settings devolving into "generic D&D fantasy with different maps."

I think 4E is going to be a pretty good game, but I'm getting really tired of all the doublespeak coming from WotC on some topics. Some of Mearls' comments in the Multiclassing Excerpt also pushed on this boundary.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think what they mean, is rules wise the individual campaigns won't have rules that would feel odd or breakable in a ordinary D&D session.

So it is less plugging things into a setting as much as taking things out of a setting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Kind of looks like the fears of the "I'll have to buy FR for the Swordmage!" crowd are going to be true.

Yeah, there will be some awesome stuff that isn't necessarily setting-specific hidden in these setting books.

It's cool for me -- I'm a rabid consumer of settings, and I look forward to trying more out for short runs, and maybe re-visiting some of the favorites. The one-a-year mechanic works pretty well, so I can spend this year in FR, next year in Eberron, the year after that in...dark sun?

And I can always let one slide if I'm not going to be hardcore into it. I picked up FR last edition, but I'll probably let it slide by this time, get the rules on DDI, call it a day.

 

[Kzach]

That means you can play a strictly Forgotten Realms campaign, or you can borrow the bits you like best to use in whatever D&D campaign you're playing in. This has always been true, but you wouldn't believe how many players were reluctant to cross the streams like that. I say cross away!

I'm honestly starting to believe that there are two types of players.

Those that use the rules as guidelines and those that use the rules as a straightjacket.

Conversations I've seen over the past few months have convinced me that some people just can't think outside the box that is presented to them. So many aspects of 4e that people complain about are, at least to me, tiny hiccups that require a bit of imagination to patch up (if you have a problem with them in the first place, a lot of the things that people say are broken aren't, IMO), but they can't seem to take that leap.

If it says X in the book, then it can't possibly be Xa.

I find, in a game that is all about one's imagination, that this inability to think around what is presented, really baffling.

And that's what's happening here. All he's saying is what most DM's and player's I've ever come across have been doing for years: crossing the streams. X feat from Y campaign book being used in Z setting. Hell, I know some DM's who take whole sections of fluff and just change placeholder names and voila, instant Greyhawk (stolen from Forgotten Realms, shhh, don't tell anyone, the Greyhawk fans might die of apoplexy!).

What can I say? Get creative, people!

 

[Scribble]

I'm pretty sure combining the orange text and the red text is impossible to do in any satisfying way. How, exactly, is every product released for D&D supposed to be fit into Ravenloft or Dark Sun while allowing them to be Ravenloft or Dark Sun. How could you add all the rules from the "Divine Power Splatbook" into either of those settings? Of course the answer is: you can't. The only way you can be "unique and interesting" is by including and excluding certain rules and options found in "core" D&D.{/quote]

I don't think the idea is to say EVERYTHING has to be used in every campaign world. The idea is just making it easier to do so if you want.

For instance, I'm guessing you won't find something like a FR book with rules for playing a red wizard in them. because red wizards had cool powers and abilities that might have been cool to use in say, a DL game, or just core, but people wouldn't "allow" that because red wizards are FR concepts.

Now you just get the red wizard class. And probably go onto the DI and read an article about how to use them in FR.

Now lets say it's something not suitable for the game world.. say a priest class in dark sun... I'm guessing it will say that... But still give you options if you WANT to. IE, while Dark Sun doesn't have priests, talk to your DM if you want to use this class... Perhaops you're the last remaining blahblah blah...
you don't HAVE to use it, but it's there and easy to get ahold of if you want to.

 

[Irda Ranger]

you don't HAVE to use it, but it's there and easy to get ahold of if you want to.

That's always been true. I always could have played a Red Wizard (of Thay or Neutrality, as you prefer) in Dark Sun if I wanted to and could convince my DM it was OK. My contention was with WotC's near-fraudulent over-promises. I just feel like too often they go past "marketing" and brush up against "mischaracterization". I won't say fraud, it's not that bad, but lay off the hyperbole.

It's sort of like how I love Apple computers but distrust every word that comes out of Steve Jobs' mouth.

 

[Shroomy]

Eh, they've already been doing this throughout 3.x edition, at least in the FR bookline (Eberron, not so much), so its not exactly a new philosophy. I don't really play in the Forgotten Realms, but I have almost all the books they've released because they include monsters that were formally core and have interesting options that can be used in a non-FR games. I mean, if I'm going to write a serpentfolk adventure using WoTC materials, I'm going to reach for my copy of Serpent Kingdoms for the extra crunchy goodness.

 

[Novem5er]

Has anyone considered that there will likely be just as much setting-specific fluff in 4e as has been printed in 3e, only this time it will be digital?

Imagine this: take the first 3 FR books from 3e and put them on sale in a bookstore. Everything else they've release for FR the last 8 years? Put that online.

This does 2 things: 1) cut production costs, 2) encourage FR players to get behind this DDI thing.

By only printing 3 books per 4e setting, WotC is dramatically cutting their publishing risks, and is stepping further into the realm of e-gaming. Of course, you only need the core books to RP... but if you want the in-depth FR experience like you had in versions past, you gots ta' go online.

Interesting strategy.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Really? They honestly think that people who only bought FR stuff and never Eberron stuff (or vice versa) will start buying Eberron stuff just because they changed the color of the books?

That's pretty much the opposite of what he said.

Instead of core books + Eberron books + Forgotten Realms books each year, they'll be producing a trio of books for a single setting and a bunch of books for "D&D in general". You won't be seeing Dragons of Eberron and Dragons of Faerun and Draconomicon, you'll just be seeing Draconomicon I and Draconomicon II - non-setting-specific D&D books which are just as useful in Forgotten Realms and Eberron games as they are in core games or in your DM's own setting.