Can 4e Handle Different Genres of Fantasy?

[Quickleaf]

I caught this over in an old thread and it got my thinking: Can 4e handle settings where the assumptions about the heroes are different than in the implied setting?

Forked from: New, Original 4e Campaign Setting

There seems to be an underlying philosophy in a lot of 4e design that worries me when it comes to new campaign settings:

"Everyone can use every book in every game."

I'm concerned because it means that no setting is allowed to exclude anything. It can be warped, but it must be included. It also means that no setting can redefine what the game is about: the core 4e gameplay and model of heroism is universal.

These disturb me because often, new settings are about what is excluded, and also about re-defining what a "hero" is (such as by taking inspiration from other genrea).

If 4e doesn't permit this, then every setting 4e pops out will look less like a new setting, and more 4e with a different palette.

4e is about killing dragons in dungeon. Their heroes are action-packed team players with flashy moves.

Ravenloft should not be about killing vampires in castles. Its heroes should be troubled individuals whose power is a threat to everyone and themselves.

Dark Sun should not be about killing bugs in the desert. Its heroes should be brutal, stone-hearted survivalists who will do anything for a drop of water.

Eberron should not be (entirely) about killing dinosaurs on the lightning-rail. Its heroes should be pulpy vigilantes who fight weirdness and evil because it's weird and evil, and noirish antiheroes who get into situations that often leave them worse for the wear.

When I'm playing a different setting, I'm not looking for Same Stuff, Different Dungeon.

I'm concerned that that's all 4e will be able to provide.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well, I certainly haven't had any trouble with my campaign setting/genre. My game consists of a combination of Noir, Cyberpunk, and Fantasy (especially stuff with Spirits).

My players are spending most of their time investigating murders/mysteries, interrogating people, lots of chase sequences, etc. Then finally the occasional combat sequence.

We haven't entered any dungeon yet. Hell our games NEVER enter dungeons at all. This is different from 3.5 where dungeons were the only ones that could be handled smoothly in our games, thus dungeons were used more often.

 

[Thasmodious]

KM is vastly overstating the stated design intent (but this is an old post, yes?). The idea behind things being core is not a requirement that all games use them, that's not even possible as a requirement, but that the books are intended to work together, balance is intended to remain consistent across the books, rather than optional supplements doing all kinds of things that break the game and so on.

From early on, we've seen the designers talking about changing things for their own games. Dungeoncraft, that appears in Dungeon mag, which is core , James Wyatt began creating his Greenbriar campaign and started by choosing what races to allow and disallow. Changing up things to suit the campaign is always SOP and is encouraged in the 4e books.

There are a lot of fantasy genres or areas I think 4e could do very well. Games with heavy social and political intrigue, investigation centered games, exploration centered games, gritty sword and sorcery, blasted world, planar games...

About the only area I would say 4e would have trouble with is low magic. But then, D&D's never been strong in covering a low magic game. 4e makes it harder in some ways and easier in others than, say, 1e or 2e. Where it makes it easier is that martial characters are so much much stronger and balanced now, that an all marital party would not find themselves lacking against appropriate encounters. If only there was a martial controller! But doubling up on other roles is fine and the DM just needs to make a couple of adjustments. But in general, D&D is a difficult fit for a low magic game. There are other fantasy systems that do low magic quite well (like Runequest).

 

[Cadfan]

First, lets split this up into two questions. The quote from Kamikaze Midget isn't an assertion that 4e can't actually do a setting like Dark Sun. That would be silly. Its an assertion that he's worried that WOTC's "everything is core" philosophy will, should they ever publish Dark Sun 4e, cause them to adulterate Dark Sun with some undefined, inappropriate game element, or fail to include some vital undefined, necessary game element without which Dark Sun isn't Dark Sun.

So, [1] is "can 4e accomplish genre X?" and [2] is "will WOTC, under its present team and philosophy, succeed at or even attempt genre X?"

[1] is probably a "yes" for pretty much any genre you might want, with a few caveats. Magical McGuyver isn't well supported. This is the generally unnamed genre in which players take on the roles of magic wielding engineers who solve problems through lateral thinking and careful analysis and lawyering of the game rules. You may have experienced it in 3e. If not, imagine a group of 1e adventurers entering a dungeon armed with ten foot poles, pitons, hammers, a water clock, two donkeys laden with additional supplies, and twelve henchmen whom they don't expect to survive long enough to have to pay. Now, make all of that equipment into magical items instead of mundane gear, and you have Magical McGuyver. Not every 3e game worked this way, but some did, and 4e seems to have gone out of its way not to support it.

[2] is a little more complex. I do think there are some genres of play that WOTC might choose not to support, and I think that there are some settings that will likely get a genre overhaul.

I'm really not worried about Eberron. If my concern about 4e's treatment of Eberron were expressed as a number, it would be negative. Eberron's genre is already 4e style fantasy.

I'm also not worried about Dark Sun. Its a bit of "grim and gritty" means high fantasy pulp, and in that context the grim and grittiness is largely a matter of description and setting detail and a few setting specific rules (side effects of magic use, psionics for all), so I think it will be fine.

Ravenloft, on the other hand... I think 4e will have problems with it for the same reason that 3e did. It seems to me to be more at home in E6 than in any edition of D&D from 2e onward. The very idea of an epic level hero in Ravenloft seems a bit wrong to me. By that level you should be dead or evil or dead and evil both at once. I'm not sure that my vision of Ravenloft will be supported, simply because its too low magic (for PCs) and too low fantasy (again, for PCs).

So... I do think that WOTC may choose to alter settings where the implied assumptions about heroes are not the same as in 4e, or to not release such settings. That being said, I don't think that the implied assumptions about 4e PCs are very deep, particularly if we're talking about assumptions reflected in actual game rules. Ravenloft conflicts, in my opinion, because one of the assumptions is that you progress up to, potentially, level 30. And Ravenloft will either need to change that, or to put a lot of work into making a satisfying epic level game in a setting where you are supposed to push back the night, but never defeat it.

 

[Wik]

KM is vastly overstating the stated design intent (but this is an old post, yes?). The idea behind things being core is not a requirement that all games use them, that's not even possible as a requirement, but that the books are intended to work together, balance is intended to remain consistent across the books, rather than optional supplements doing all kinds of things that break the game and so on.

From early on, we've seen the designers talking about changing things for their own games. Dungeoncraft, that appears in Dungeon mag, which is core , James Wyatt began creating his Greenbriar campaign and started by choosing what races to allow and disallow. Changing up things to suit the campaign is always SOP and is encouraged in the 4e books.

There are a lot of fantasy genres or areas I think 4e could do very well. Games with heavy social and political intrigue, investigation centered games, exploration centered games, gritty sword and sorcery, blasted world, planar games...

About the only area I would say 4e would have trouble with is low magic. But then, D&D's never been strong in covering a low magic game. 4e makes it harder in some ways and easier in others than, say, 1e or 2e. Where it makes it easier is that martial characters are so much much stronger and balanced now, that an all marital party would not find themselves lacking against appropriate encounters. If only there was a martial controller! But doubling up on other roles is fine and the DM just needs to make a couple of adjustments. But in general, D&D is a difficult fit for a low magic game. There are other fantasy systems that do low magic quite well (like Runequest).

First, I agree with you, but you're misunderstanding KM's post. He was more or less referring to published settings from Wotc. And, unfortunately, there seems to be an intent towards making sure every setting uses every book.

Which would mean my DARK SUN campaign would have Dragonborn, Tieflings, and Dragons. My Dragonlance Campaign will have half-orcs. And my Ravenloft campaign will have classes from my DARK SUN campaign.

Yeah, I can always veto stuff in personal campaigns (and I will), but it is kind of worrying when we could possibly be seeing (for example) DARK SUN with Eladrin and a Feywild, and Tieflings and a Shadowfell.

And, more to KM's point, does that mean wotc's products will always lean towards this sort of "kick in the door" game style? (I hope not, but I think it might be the product line for the next two years, at least).

That being said, I agree with you that 4E *can* cover numerous playstyles and fantasy types. Now, we know how we disagree on the "investigation" theme, so I won't go there, ( ), but the game can handle a lot of different game types. I think it can handle Swords and Sorcery very well, and I do believe with some reflavouring that it would handle low magic better than most any edition of D&D before it. A Wuxia 4e could also be fairly interesting.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I dunno, maybe it is because I am more a Homebrewer and don't have much stake in campaign settings. But... What is so wrong with allowing the means to have things from all different sources in a campaign setting. To me at least it simply means I have more resources at hand to use and to be used in a easy and efficient manner.

If something is there I and the rest of the group doesn't want then it is gone. The campaign setting books to me have never been concrete "this is what the world is like", they have always been "here are some tools and ideas to create your own personal version of this setting".

 

[Wik]

I dunno, maybe it is because I am more a Homebrewer and don't have much stake in campaign settings. But... What is so wrong with allowing the means to have things from all different sources in a campaign setting. To me at least it simply means I have more resources at hand to use and to be used in a easy and efficient manner.

If something is there I and the rest of the group doesn't want then it is gone. The campaign setting books to me have never been concrete "this is what the world is like", they have always been "here are some tools and ideas to create your own personal version of this setting".

Because some of us like seeing unique campaign setting products. But, if wotc follows this approach, you'll go out and buy:

* DARK SUN: A desert campaign with orcs, dragons, and a new class (the Gladiator)
* DRAGONLANCE: A medieval campaign with orcs, dragons, and a new class (The Knight)
* RAVENLOFT: A horror campaign with orcs, dragons, and a new class (The Vampire Hunter)

And so on. Sometimes, a campaign setting is interesting just as much for what it lacks as what it has. DARK SUN is the most obvious example (not a single race was really "Core" D&D, and many were completely missing), but most of the 2e campaigns tweaked the core assumptions somewhat.

Really, the way I see it, there's no point for wotc releasing these "kitchen sink" campaigns, because really, that's something I can do myself. I'd much rather see their take on DARK SUN.

Now, truth be told, I'd also be interested in seeing something SIMILAR to DS, but made with 4e in mind. At least it'd quell some of the flame wars, and they could keep more of their products in it.

But, yeah, it's nice to see a setting that says "Oh, yeah. Arcane casters are hated, and are social outcasts. There are no orcs. And if you see too many monsters at once, you go crazy. Have fun."

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I don't really see it as simply placing them whole-sale into the setting or creating kitchen-sink settings (I view this as more you place everything in but without any reason). I think if given reasons, plot hooks, etc. it works well.

Have the book go, "here you want such and such in the world. This is how it could be handled". Like how there was a section in the FRPG where it discusses what each race would react like in this world.

So you could still have your Arcane casters being hated and social outcasts. Since it has said this is what they are like in this setting. Or give a new definition to Half-Orcs, etc.

Essentially I don't believe it is good to place wholesale something into a setting. I like niche stuff as well, most of my settings are such. But I allow almost everything through refluffing and redescribing things. I believe this could be a very good manner in which to keep the setting core but give a wide-swatch of options.

But again though, simply having a little paragraph going, "hey this is how they can included" does that really take that much away from the setting and how one wishes to run it. The core of the setting is whatever new mechanics are there, the descriptions of the world, the plot hooks, etc. It is at least to me the purpose of a setting to be a way of generating ideas and concepts to be able to forge my own version of that setting.

 

[pawsplay]

I see Dark Sun as problematic, because 4e does not provide campaign support for poverty. Ravenloft, because there are few provisions for not fighting.

Dragonlance seems like it would be okay. Forgotten Realms has been massacred in terms of its cosmology and racial geography, but the basic genre of play remains the same.

Greyhawk... might be okay. The key would be in NPC design, with fewer high level NPCs, more opponents with non-magical abilities, and with most monstrous beings living in remote areas or in Iuz's realm. Tieflings can be descendents of the original cult that proplled Iuz to power, and dragonborn can be assigned to a remove desert region.

Spelljammer would probably be fine, although you would want to restrict and expand on the epic destinies allowed.

Lankhmar... No. Hyperborean Age... No. Homeric Myth... No. Arthurian Saga... Yes, once you finished savaging the PC options and turned overt spellcasting mainly into Paragon and Epic paths.

 

[Quickleaf]

Essentially I don't believe it is good to place wholesale something into a setting. I like niche stuff as well, most of my settings are such. But I allow almost everything through refluffing and redescribing things. I believe this could be a very good manner in which to keep the setting core but give a wide-swatch of options.

But again though, simply having a little paragraph going, "hey this is how they can included" does that really take that much away from the setting and how one wishes to run it. The core of the setting is whatever new mechanics are there, the descriptions of the world, the plot hooks, etc. It is at least to me the purpose of a setting to be a way of generating ideas and concepts to be able to forge my own version of that setting.

Homebrewers unite! Seriously, that's an opinion I often share, but it's not universal by any means. I think the question was really about (a) the mechanics, and (B) WotC's intent.