Changes to Devils and Demons

[Jer]

It's my experience as well. I've been taking a jackhammer to Planescape for 15 years and rebuilding it into something that looks a lot like D&D 4E's demons/devils in every campaign I run. I never cared much for Planescape, or the Blood War era outsiders.

See, I've been taking a jackhammer to the Planescape stuff since it first came out too, but I've kept the structure of the setting mostly intact. My jackhammer was to convert all of the AD&D stuff into "Rules Cyclopedia" D&D and to excise whatever ties to existing published campaign settings were stuck in there.

But I loved the Blood War and the whole Demon/Devil war. In fact, my longest running Planescape campaign was almost all Blood War related - with the PCs accidentally causing an escalation of the war that dragged the Good and Neutral celestials in and turned it into a massive battle between Law and Chaos. Ah, good times, good times.

I guess my take is that I don't see the need to keep all of the setting fluff in the game with the assumption that all of the campaign worlds are interconnected - I don't see what it adds to the game. And if there can be some new fluff provided, well if I like it and it inspires something for me to add to my game great! And if I don't, I have the old books that I can pillage for old fluff to use if I don't have a better idea myself.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Maybe it's because I avoid the alignment discussion threads, but I really fail to see how chaos/order is really that hard to grasp. Maybe I just give people too much credit.

You should read the alignment threads. If you see it as a simple and clear issue, you either need to add your voice to calm the waters, or maybe you're confused and don't know it!

And although Elric is one of the more popular explorations of the dichotomy it goes far beyond just those works, so it's not just an "aging pool of Elric readers" who see chaos/order as interesting of a conflict as good/evil. Heck, Babylon 5 got five years of television out of it, and that was inspired by ancient myths of the original Babylon. So Moorcock is certainly didn't invent that conflict and isn't the only one to explore it.

OK, so the choices are:

1) Aging Elric fans
2) The fans of a beloved, but never wildly successful sci-fi show that's been off the air for a while now and is now going the direct-to-DVD route (and thus mostly speaking to existing fans)
3) Fans of Babylonian myth and legend

I'm going to stick with "obscure" on this one.

 

[Aeolius]

"... I do think there's room in the game for both a fury and a succubus. "

And while we're at it, add a female-type outsider for daemons and demodands. I have had erinyes, succubi, naelle, and phlenar in my games, as daughters of night hags, since my 1e AD&D campaign "Into the Land of Black Ice". I'd hate to redo the Night Hag Family Tree again.

 

[delericho]

OK, so the choices are:

1) Aging Elric fans
2) The fans of a beloved, but never wildly successful sci-fi show that's been off the air for a while now and is now going the direct-to-DVD route (and thus mostly speaking to existing fans)
3) Fans of Babylonian myth and legend

I'm going to stick with "obscure" on this one.

You missed out: players of D&D, going back as far as the 70s. That's a huge chunk of the gamer populace right there.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Some people are saying that the changes to succubi and erinyes make it so that the Great Wheel continuity can't theoretically be carried forward into 4th edition. I have to wonder if perhaps, given that the differences between succubi and erinyes in 3E are mostly cosmetic, it won't be very easy to just make succubi CE, move them into the abyss, and then use the same monster stats for the erinyes. If they were very strongly mechanically divergent, I could see it being a problem. But they're both just mid-level fiends who look like humans, and don't really have any major signature powers, with the possible exception of succubi being able to easily disguise themselves as humans.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You missed out: players of D&D, going back as far as the 70s. That's a huge chunk of the gamer populace right there.

They make up zero percent of the population of people who are new to D&D, which is what we had been talking about.

 

[Mark Chance]

They make up zero percent of the population of people who are new to D&D, which is what we had been talking about.

That is most obviously not true. I can think of at least one new D&D player who falls into at least one of those three categories. What's more, all the hoopla about making D&D more accessible to new players just doesn't wash with me. I'm teaching my 8-year-old nephew, my 9-year-old daughter, and my 10-year-old son to play 3.5. The only significant modification made to the core rules has been to allow them to play gestalt characters.

So far, all three of these very new players understand the game quite well.

 

[Jer]

Some people are saying that the changes to succubi and erinyes make it so that the Great Wheel continuity can't theoretically be carried forward into 4th edition.

Actually, I think that the stronger position is that the proposed changes to the Nine Hells given in Rich Baker's blog as well as the overall merging and mixing up of demon/devil races make it so that the Great Wheel continuity can't be carried forward into 4e. In comparison, the changes to the succubus/erinyes nomenclature is a minor one.

I don't think that's the case, but I can see the argument for it. At a minimum you have to go out of your way to explain why the Baatezu of the Planescape setting are exactly like the Devils of the standard setting but with slightly different names and backstory.

 

[Minicol]

They make up zero percent of the population of people who are new to D&D, which is what we had been talking about.

Agreed.

Yet, the stated goal of the designers so far seems to keep people currently playing the game interested enough to remain in, and keep buying stuff. They clearly want us to UPGRADE, and are insisting on how improved the new system will be. It may quite be true, but is it really worth it if I have to ditch everything I have already bought/used/worked over ?

I have not made up my mind on the issue myself and I try to remain open on the matter. But quite honestly, if no new players ever show up for the game anywhere ... it won't change my life. not at all. Not even my gaming life. So making the game attractive to new players... good, but make it attractive to me first.

On the other hand, if we old - timers, grognards, and what-have-you don't buy 4e, the volume of sales will be significantly lower than expected. Anyone remember the "revolutionary, innovative,blahblahblah" "SAGA ?" thingie that was supposed to change the face of Dragonlance ???

And I would not bet on many new players springing from nowhere just because there is a new edition of D&D. Some certainly, but enough to offset the loss ? It's an open bet.

Anyways, I stongly hope the system will be as pleasant to play and innovative as they say, and still flexible enough to let me upgrade all my old stuff, which would make this discussion moot. one can always dream.

Good gaming to you all.

 

[Midknightsun]

Elric rocks!

Babylon 5 rocked!

And anyone who thinks I'm "aging" will get cracked upside the head with my walker.