Defining its own Mythology

Xethreau · Dec 1, 2007

I wonder how many "pro-assortment of fantasy" people absolutely hate the Asian style and flavored classes.

MerricB · Dec 1, 2007

Raven Crowking said:
I take it that you've overcome your crisis of faith, then?

RC

I'm a lot happier now more interesting previews are coming up.

I'm very, very scornful of their work on gleemax.

Cheers!

HeavenShallBurn · Dec 1, 2007

RyukenAngel said:
I wonder how many "pro-assortment of fantasy" people absolutely hate the Asian style and flavored classes.

I rather like some Asian style thrown into the mix, as long as it doesn't drag Asian characterizations into the mix.

I swear after watching certain anime I wish I had possession of WMDs just to use them on the home town of the people who wrote those characters

I'm A Banana · Dec 1, 2007

A very apt description of the flavor given in 3e.

"If you don't like Greyhawk, too bad, you paid for it."

To me, 3e was only theoreticlaly Greyhawk. I don't know Greyhawk. I don't play in Greyhawk. I took 3e and played it in Nyambe, in the Northern Crown, in Sigil, in Cthulu-infested FR, in Rokugan, in postapocalyptic Road-Warrior-esque wastelands, in primoridal soup....

All without really changing the core rules.

4e appears to be much more closely tied to the metasetting than 3e is.

If it's NOT more closely tied, the whole OP is nonsense, because 3e defined it's own mythology, too.

If it IS more closely tied (and I agree with the OP that this is something 4e appears to be trying to do), it may mean that it will be more difficult for DMs to make it their own.

3e wasn't really Greyhawk unless Greyhawk is "a hodge podge of fantasy influences overlayed with buckles, peircings, and tatoos."

I don't really think it was.

The Little Raven · Dec 1, 2007

Kamikaze Midget said:
All without really changing the core rules.

Well, if you weren't using the Ethereal Plane, Astral Plane, or Shadow Plane, then you had to be making some kind of modification for particular spells to work, or where particular creatures come from. If you didn't use the concept of the Positive Energy Plane, then how does healing happen and where does it summon that positive energy from (since healing was a Conjuration spell)?

4e appears to be much more closely tied to the metasetting than 3e is.

How?

If it's NOT more closely tied, the whole OP is nonsense, because 3e defined it's own mythology, too.

3e took Greyhawk and made it 3e's mythology. They didn't make up something new, they took something old.

3e wasn't really Greyhawk unless Greyhawk is "a hodge podge of fantasy influences overlayed with buckles, peircings, and tatoos."

So, you start your post claiming that you don't know Greyhawk, and end it by saying you know what it isn't?

Almost every single generic D&D book assumed Greyhawk as the default setting, which is why we end up with Bigby, Leomund, Mordenkainen, Knight Protectors of the Great Kingdom, Pelor, Kord, and all of those wonderful Greyhawk setting elements in the core rules and beyond.

I don't really think it was.

Well, since you already admitted to not knowing Greyhawk, I'll take this with a grain of salt.

I'm A Banana · Dec 1, 2007

Well, if you weren't using the Ethereal Plane, Astral Plane, or Shadow Plane, then you had to be making some kind of modification for particular spells to work, or where particular creatures come from. If you didn't use the concept of the Positive Energy Plane, then how does healing happen and where does it summon that positive energy from (since healing was a Conjuration spell)?

None of those concepts rules out "some distant source of magical energy" and/or "a dimension between places." And even if they did, the spells could work as written without having to worry about it. And even THEN, even if they were ruled out and it affected spells (like it did with Sigil and teleportation), it's such a minor point of the rules that going around it was not really a problem.

A racial ability to teleport (at will?) is much more ingrained in the system then a handful of spells that might possibly draw on or access some other dimension. Eladrin might not even be *usable*, if it's an important enough power for them.

It remains to be seen how, exactly, pervasive this type of thing is, but if they're not shy about slapping it on a racial power from level 1, it's reasonable to have a concern that they might not be particularly rare.

Or take the wizard styles that have those confusingly obtuse names like Golden Wyvern. The previews may suggest that it's a wizard style and a name of a feat. One may infer that it's could easily be more than that, too. If I don't have the Golden Wyvern Wizards IMC, for whatever reason, it means that I'm de-tangling at least two (and likely more) elements from each other, and having, as a DM, to account for that.

The more common they are, the more they'll get in the way. We don't have proof that they're extremely common, but the previews suggest they may be, so it's a reasonable concern.

3e took Greyhawk and made it 3e's mythology. They didn't make up something new, they took something old.

It still HAD a mythology, though, so 4e isn't doing anything new in defining their own. It may be a different mythology, but 3e built it's brand through it's mythology if you believe that 3e had a strong implied setting.

Almost every single generic D&D book assumed Greyhawk as the default setting, which is why we end up with Bigby, Leomund, Mordenkainen, Knight Protectors of the Great Kingdom, Pelor, Kord, and all of those wonderful Greyhawk setting elements in the core rules and beyond.

We may as well have had Merlin, Gandalf, The Bursar, Hoplytes, Ptah, and Krom for all the game was attached to those particular concepts.

Or, here's a better exercise, count the differences between the 3e SRD and the 3e Core Rulebooks. That's how generically non-Greyhawk 3e was.

4e, if it is building a brand, is going to have multitudinous differences from it's SRD, not just a handful of nearly meaningless names.

The Little Raven · Dec 1, 2007

Kamikaze Midget said:
None of those concepts rules out "some distant source of magical energy" and/or "a dimension between places."

Neither does a teleport using the Feywild as it's medium.

A racial ability to teleport (at will?) is much more ingrained in the system then a handful of spells that might possibly draw on or access some other dimension. Eladrin might not even be *usable*, if it's an important enough power for them.

How is one easily discarded piece (a race you can't use) more ingrained than another easily discarded piece (a spell you don't want)?

It remains to be seen how, exactly, pervasive this type of thing is, but if they're not shy about slapping it on a racial power from level 1, it's reasonable to have a concern that they might not be particularly rare.

Well, I'd expect this to be the case when they've made it very clear that movement is much more important in 4e than 3e's "sit still and get 4 attacks" setup.

Or take the wizard styles that have those confusingly obtuse names like Golden Wyvern.

No more obtuse than a sports team calling themselves the Lions or the Packers. If people can remember that the Packers are Green Bay's football team, I expect that people should be able to remember that the Golden Wyvern are wizards that shape their spells. Same amount of factors in each thing to memorize (obtuse name, basic function, specific details that make them different).

The previews may suggest that it's a wizard style and a name of a feat. One may infer that it's could easily be more than that, too. If I don't have the Golden Wyvern Wizards IMC, for whatever reason, it means that I'm de-tangling at least two (and likely more) elements from each other, and having, as a DM, to account for that.

And if Greyhawk gods are in the book I'm using, then I have to account for de-tangling multiple elements from eachother if I'm using different gods or modified versions of those same gods.

The more common they are, the more they'll get in the way. We don't have proof that they're extremely common, but the previews suggest they may be, so it's a reasonable concern.

And I fail to see how they get in the way more than any elements of 3e. If the Ethereal can be explained as something else, so can the Feywild. If a class that doesn't fit in 3e can be removed (like monk), then so can classes in 4e. Same with races. I have yet to see any conclusive proof in any way that 4e is more difficult to change than 3e. In fact, with the knowledge that every class gains abilities/feats every level, instead of on a per-case basis (depending on how they're balanced), I'd say that it looks easier.

It still HAD a mythology, though, so 4e isn't doing anything new in defining their own. It may be a different mythology, but 3e built it's brand through it's mythology if you believe that 3e had a strong implied setting.

3rd Edition didn't define it's own mythology, it dusted off an old one and painted it on.

We may as well have had Merlin, Gandalf, The Bursar, Hoplytes, Ptah, and Krom for all the game was attached to those particular concepts.

So, they're basically replacing things from 3e's assumed setting, and somehow it's suddenly more difficult to change than 3e was? That's what I'm not getting.

Or, here's a better exercise, count the differences between the 3e SRD and the 3e Core Rulebooks. That's how generically non-Greyhawk 3e was.

A bunch of spells with different names, and because of those names different places in the alphabetical organization (y'know, since Hideous Laughter goes under H while Tasha's Hideous Laughter goes under T). Deities. Several monsters that found their origin in original D&D (which usually means in Greyhaw). The description of 90% of the planes.

4e, if it is building a brand, is going to have multitudinous differences from it's SRD, not just a handful of nearly meaningless names.

Not if it intends that brand to be open source, which could be a big reason why they're going with a new implied meta-setting.

Rel · Dec 1, 2007

Mourn said:
Because it wasn't made by a balding wargaming fan whose time of prominence was over 20 years ago?

There's been a lot of jerkishness in this forum of late, but this is really low, Mourn. See you in three days.

Hussar · Dec 1, 2007

Kamikaze Midget said:
To me, 3e was only theoreticlaly Greyhawk. I don't know Greyhawk. I don't play in Greyhawk. I took 3e and played it in Nyambe, in the Northern Crown, in Sigil, in Cthulu-infested FR, in Rokugan, in postapocalyptic Road-Warrior-esque wastelands, in primoridal soup....

All without really changing the core rules.

You played Rokugan without Oriental Adventures then? Cos, if you did, you changed a whole pile of core rules - completely new races, spells, iajutsu, monsters, alignment, honor, equipment (did I miss anything?). About the only resemblance of core D&D to OA is in combat mechanics.

Didn't Nyambe also require a few hundred pages of new stuff and remove most of the PHB? Didn't really read the setting, so I could be wrong there.

4e appears to be much more closely tied to the metasetting than 3e is.

If it's NOT more closely tied, the whole OP is nonsense, because 3e defined it's own mythology, too.

If it IS more closely tied (and I agree with the OP that this is something 4e appears to be trying to do), it may mean that it will be more difficult for DMs to make it their own.

3e wasn't really Greyhawk unless Greyhawk is "a hodge podge of fantasy influences overlayed with buckles, peircings, and tatoos."

I don't really think it was.

3e may not have been Greyhawk, but, it most certainly was tightly welded to a particular campaign. Unless you started doing all sorts of adjustments, you can't ignore the wealth/level, magic purchasing and demographics of 3e. Change any one of those three core assumptions and a lot of the game gets a whole lot more difficult to work with.

3e is mechanically wedded to a particular campaign range very strongly. You simply cannot do many other campaigns out of the box. D20 can do a wide range. But D&D? Not so well. Oriental Adventures, Conan, Planescape, Ravenloft - all require a large swath of new mechanics and massive editing of the 3.5 PHB in order to run.

The difference this time around is that we will have the same level of mechanical wedding to a particular flavour of setting, but, now, that setting will be specifically detailed right in the core book.

And that fits nicely with the stated goal of 4e, which is to make it easier to run. KM, you mentioned earlier that D&D is the Maker's game. Possibly. However, that also makes it much more difficult to bring in new people. The makers are always going to use whatever mechanics to make their own setting. However, there is a fairly large number of gamers who just want to get on with playing the game. For whom spending hours (or hundreds of hours) detailing a fantasy world isn't fun. They don't want to do it. I know that I don't anymore.

So, now, apparently, we can pick up 4e, and the setting will be right there. In the DMG will be a well detailed hometown for the PC's to start in. There, that's enough setting to get a campaign up to about 4th or 5th level without the DM having to do any setting development. SOunds like an excellent way to get new gamers into the game, rather than saying, "Hey, here's this game, spend 40 or 50 hours preparing your own world, which we won't really help you with at all other than to give maybe 10 or 20 pages in the DMG of advice about, THEN you can start playing."

It's my believe that the core books in 4e are being written with new gamers in mind, rather than people like us who've been doing it for years or even decades. And I say GREAT! For the first time, the core books, the books that every new gamer sees first, are actually going to be targetted at helping them.