log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E Do you really want Greyhawk and Dragonlance for 4e


log in or register to remove this ad

ForeverSlayer

First Post
There i something that seems to bug me. Some people talk about just pulling out your old stuff and just using that. Well I ask this. What about all the new people who don't have access to the old stuff? Each setting brings something unique to the table that new fans of the game would enjoy.

I get tired of hearing the nostalgia excuse as well as the using your old stuff excuse. Some of the old material is rather expensive to get and hard to come buy. Also, that's not really how you sell a game. Do you really expect a newcomer to buy the rule books and then have to turn around and somehow find out about past campaign settings, and then actually finding them and spending lots of money to obtain them? That's too much work that people just aren't going to deal with.

Wizards really needs to learn something about it's campaign settings. The whole "we give the basics and you do the work" really isn't working anymore. Forgotten Realms is a testament to this. Go and take a look at Pathfinder's campaign setting Golarion. The setting i brilliant and it is rich in history and gives DM's an opportunity to run campaigns for years to come. Wizards needs to take some notes from these guys.

I would love to see a return of Dragonlance and Greyhawk, but I wouldn't want Wizards to screw it up. I would rather see Paizo work on those campaign settings.
 

Dice4Hire

First Post
Wizards really needs to learn something about it's campaign settings. The whole "we give the basics and you do the work" really isn't working anymore. Forgotten Realms is a testament to this. Go and take a look at Pathfinder's campaign setting Golarion. The setting i brilliant and it is rich in history and gives DM's an opportunity to run campaigns for years to come. Wizards needs to take some notes from these guys.

You see, I am the opposite. I think 4E's settings are perfect. The basics, some new crunch, and enough fluff to give a good feel for the world. As an aside, the Monster book for Dark Sun is brilliant.

That is enough for me.

The 2E slew of books for FR and Birthright, among others, really turned me off. FR was the poster child (for me, not for everyone) of too much detail, and CANON or DIE!!!!

Leaving room for the DM to play in the world is essential.

The point about the old stuff not being available is a valid one, though.
 

ForeverSlayer

First Post
You see, I am the opposite. I think 4E's settings are perfect. The basics, some new crunch, and enough fluff to give a good feel for the world. As an aside, the Monster book for Dark Sun is brilliant.

That is enough for me.

The 2E slew of books for FR and Birthright, among others, really turned me off. FR was the poster child (for me, not for everyone) of too much detail, and CANON or DIE!!!!

Leaving room for the DM to play in the world is essential.

The point about the old stuff not being available is a valid one, though.

Different strokes for different folks. What made Forgotten Realms unique as a setting was it's deep and rich history. When that was removed, the heart of the campaign setting was removed and the setting wasn't the same. Since this was the decision, the designers should have just retired the setting instead of changing it the way it did. i know some people enjoy the new setting but you can look at the various boards and see a big decline ever since the new realms came out.

I just never understood why both types of player's couldn't be catered to. For the people who want lot's of fluff it would be there and for those who didn't, you just wouldn't use what was there.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Wizards really needs to learn something about it's campaign settings. The whole "we give the basics and you do the work" really isn't working anymore. Forgotten Realms is a testament to this. Go and take a look at Pathfinder's campaign setting Golarion. The setting i brilliant and it is rich in history and gives DM's an opportunity to run campaigns for years to come. Wizards needs to take some notes from these guys.

Your attempts at using Golarion as your example falls a little short considering this is the first time this setting information is being published. So there's really no comparison to what Paizo's currently doing with it and what WotC is/needs to do with Forgotten Realms.

Sure, WotC could just reprint all the books they made for 2E and 3E for all the different areas of FR (and probably putting Paizo to shame with the sheer breadth of material)... but who would actually buy any of it? Considering you actually can go onto Amazon at this very moment and pick up dozens of these books used for less than $20 apiece.

If people really want truckloads of Forgotten Realms setting material, it's available to them. Sure, it doesn't have '4E' stuck on the cover of it... but why does it need it? Considering you're buying these things for the fluff and not the crunch anyways.
 

the Jester

Legend
Different strokes for different folks. What made Forgotten Realms unique as a setting was it's deep and rich history. When that was removed, the heart of the campaign setting was removed and the setting wasn't the same.

Unless something very strange has happened that I'm unaware of, none of FR's history was removed at all. In fact, more was added with the timeline advance.
 

Knightfall

World of Kulan DM
I don't think I'd buy Dragonlance for 4e as I love the 3e book done for the setting. However, as stated by Jester, I'd "be all over" a new Greyhawk setting book. I'd buy it just for the nostalgia factor alone. I don't DM Greyhawk but it has greatly influenced my own setting(s).

Of course, if someone offered, I'd play in a Greyhawk game! :D

Regardless, I doubt that WotC is in any hurry to revisit Greyhawk. Did they say for sure that the 2012 setting will be something completely new? I'd heard that there was to be a twist of some kind.

Personally, I think it might be a good idea for WotC to make a new setting book that takes the best elements of Planescape & Spelljammer and retcon/reboot them into a new setting. Or perhaps take one aspect of Planescape and turn that into its own campaign setting.

A Sigil: City of Doors campaign setting for paragon/epic play, anyone?
 

ForeverSlayer

First Post
Unless something very strange has happened that I'm unaware of, none of FR's history was removed at all. In fact, more was added with the timeline advance.

Stretching a timeline by adding a few more things isn't exactly keep with the rich and deep history of the Realms when those entries are only a few paragraphs long. When you compare books like the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Lost Empires of Faerun then there is no comparison.

Many many characters who have had ongoing stories in the Realms were killed off with no known story as to what happened to them. People that are new to the game may see an extended timeline for the Realms but no real knowledge of all the history that came before unless they somehow find out about the old books and get their hands on them. I know it mentions the Grand History of the Realms in the campaign guide, but that book is no longer in print.
 

ForeverSlayer

First Post
I don't think I'd buy Dragonlance for 4e as I love the 3e book done for the setting. However, as stated by Jester, I'd "be all over" a new Greyhawk setting book. I'd buy it just for the nostalgia factor alone. I don't DM Greyhawk but it has greatly influenced my own setting(s).

Of course, if someone offered, I'd play in a Greyhawk game! :D

Regardless, I doubt that WotC is in any hurry to revisit Greyhawk. Did they say for sure that the 2012 setting will be something completely new? I'd heard that there was to be a twist of some kind.

Personally, I think it might be a good idea for WotC to make a new setting book that takes the best elements of Planescape & Spelljammer and retcon/reboot them into a new setting. Or perhaps take one aspect of Planescape and turn that into its own campaign setting.

A Sigil: City of Doors campaign setting for paragon/epic play, anyone?

The new setting is actually going to be a new way to play the game. I'm guessing it's going to be some kind of card game and board game rolled into one.
 

AlioTheFool

First Post
Yes I want Dragonlance 4E.

I don't care that there is a contingent that doesn't. I didn't care whether there was an Eberron 4E, but that came out. (And I actually wound up giving it a shot and loving it.) I don't care a lick about Dark Sun, even though I bought the books to rip things like Themes and monsters from. I don't have an opinion on Greyhawk, but I hope for its fans that it comes out.

It always makes me laugh when people act like there wasn't anything new in 4E. What is Nentir Vale? That explicitly qualifies as new. But people ignore it as a new setting altogether, even though it continues to be built out as a true setting. It just leads me to believe that, in general, people don't know what they want. They just want "something else."
 

Mirtek

Adventurer
I suppose if they made the Living Greyhawk years canon, then I might be a little upset. In fact, perhaps it would be best to reboot the setting back to its pre-wars version. Then again, it might be odd to retrofit dragonborn into established canon.
Well, I feel the exact opposite. Erasing Living Greyhawk would feel like a kick in the face of the community who spend thousand of hours writing and deciding at the game tables the events of LG.

Maybe erase the last few months, since a lot of areas went a little over the board at the end after the announcement of LG being dropped, but otherwise keep the years told by Living Greyhawk
Sure, WotC could just reprint all the books they made for 2E and 3E for all the different areas of FR (and probably putting Paizo to shame with the sheer breadth of material)... but who would actually buy any of it? Considering you actually can go onto Amazon at this very moment and pick up dozens of these books used for less than $20 apiece.
The 3e area books weren't just reprints of the 2e area books and the 4e would not have to have been reprints of the 3e area books. Just do what they always did, slowly advance the setting by 1.x year of setting time per year of real time.
 
Last edited:

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
The 3e area books weren't just reprints of the 2e area books and the 4e would not have to have been reprints of the 3e area books. Just do what they always did, slowly advance the setting by 1.x year of setting time per year of real time.

But again... who would buy it? Doesn't the fact that they chose NOT to rewrite that Unapproachable East 3.5 sourcebook tell us that perhaps it didn't sell well enough to warrant spending the money and manpower to rewrite the thing just to advance it 8 years?
 

the Jester

Legend
Stretching a timeline by adding a few more things isn't exactly keep with the rich and deep history of the Realms when those entries are only a few paragraphs long. When you compare books like the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Lost Empires of Faerun then there is no comparison.

I still fail to see what part of FR's history was "removed", as you put it:

What made Forgotten Realms unique as a setting was it's deep and rich history. When that was removed, the heart of the campaign setting was removed and the setting wasn't the same.

If you mean that the new setting book doesn't have the 20 years of supplements and development supporting it that the old one did- well, yes it does; it's just a little further in the past. If you think the new FR should have the same level of support, that's a different animal entirely, and I still disagree- the setting bloat has been repeatedly cited as part of the reason why so many gamers dislike FR and why new groups found it overwhelming to get into.

Many many characters who have had ongoing stories in the Realms were killed off with no known story as to what happened to them.

And thank god for that. A D&D game should be about the pcs, not about Ed Greenwood's nigh-infinite supply of Mary Sues. YMMV, of course, but Elminster, Khelben and all those guys never had a positive influence on any game that I've run, played in or seen. If anything, they make for great background stuff- and IMHO that element is only improved by their deaths. I mean, it's much cooler to be able to raid the old dead wizard's fortress to find Elminster's pipe than it is to know that, if you fail your mission, Elminster and his other epic allies can fix everything with a wave of their collective hands.

I only wish that they would actually kill off Elminster, but I'm pretty convinced that nothing ever will, at least officially. Hell, reducing him to ash didn't do the job- and why? Because he's a Mary Sue. That's all.
 


Weregrognard

First Post
Dragonlance: Yes, but just the "Dragons of..." adventures please! They were truly the heart of the setting, IMHO.

Greyhawk: I'm conflicted. It's a great setting, but there's a lot of emotional baggage tied to it.

I have to say, I actually like the current trend where they take famous locations and things (Isle of Dread, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc.) and make them part of the core D&D "world", as if these things exist in multple realities. There are so many untapped things to use in the D&D "lore": The Eye of Traldar, The Princess Ark, Castle Amber, and so forth. This could merit its own thread :)
 


Dungeoneer

First Post
The designers have pretty much established that in 4e, new setting = new mechanics. Personally I agree with this. If a setting doesn't bring something new to the table mechanically why do you need to update it for a new edition? A world's history, political alliances, geography and so forth may be really in-depth and interesting, but these things have no bearing on mechanics so there is really no need to update them for a new edition.

In fact, tweaking these things is much more likely to annoy fans than thrill them, so arguably the risk is greater than the reward!

Every 4e setting so far has introduced new races or classes and added character customization options (Spellscars, Dragon Marks, Themes, etc). Dragonlance and Greyhawk fans need to articulate what their settings would add mechanically that 4e doesn't already support. What races or classes would it add? What unique character customization options would it bring to the table?

I know personally if someone could show me that Dragonlance has mechanic X which is really cool, I'd be more interested in it.
 

ForeverSlayer

First Post
The designers have pretty much established that in 4e, new setting = new mechanics. Personally I agree with this. If a setting doesn't bring something new to the table mechanically why do you need to update it for a new edition? A world's history, political alliances, geography and so forth may be really in-depth and interesting, but these things have no bearing on mechanics so there is really no need to update them for a new edition.

In fact, tweaking these things is much more likely to annoy fans than thrill them, so arguably the risk is greater than the reward!

Every 4e setting so far has introduced new races or classes and added character customization options (Spellscars, Dragon Marks, Themes, etc). Dragonlance and Greyhawk fans need to articulate what their settings would add mechanically that 4e doesn't already support. What races or classes would it add? What unique character customization options would it bring to the table?

I know personally if someone could show me that Dragonlance has mechanic X which is really cool, I'd be more interested in it.

All Dragonlance would need to focus on is the Wizards of High Sorcery and the heavy balance with regards to alignment.

I'm not really sure about Greyhawk. In order to attract new fans, these settings would need to be redone, even if they didn't produce new mechanics. There are still races, classes, and themes that can be done.

Like I said before, new people don't really have access to the old stuff.
 

keterys

First Post
Eh... they could do a moon mechanic for WoHS, sure, but I think otherwise just be a Mage and you're good enough.

Less clear for Knights of Solamnia, but you could probably even peg them as Knight, Cavalier, and Paladin for Crown, Sword, Rose. That could be interesting.

Or Cavalier, Paladin, Paladin w/ Warlord, depending how much you wanted to emphasize things.

Or, y'know, not worry about it and let people just RP how they want, cause the mechanics won't fit the stories no matter how you do it, much like they haven't fit in the previous several editions of Dragonlance.

I do think you could do an awesome Dragon or Dungeon article with a how to kickstart DL 4e. Some themes, discuss races a little bit. Maybe a cosmology sidebar, cause that's a little bit odd.
 

GameDoc

First Post
With Dragonlance, you'd get:
  • 3 new races (or at least racial variants): Kender (Halfling), Draconian (Dragnoborn), and Irda (Deva?)
  • Additional support for Minotaurs
  • A setting without Drow, Tieflings, or Half-Orcs.
  • A great opportunity for new setting-specific character themes (e.g., Knights of Solamnia, Wizards of High Sorcery, Tinker Gnomes, Servant of a True God). This is something I thought was well done in Neverwinter.
  • New paragon paths (i.e., High Sorcery Initiate, Heretic Wizard, Ordained of a True God)
  • Possible new mechanics for aerial mounted combat.
I could also see Dragonalnce introducing some sort of high-drama mechanic, since the setting has strong elements of romantic fantasy. No idea what that would look like.


Also - WoTC doesn't have to do it. 4e doesn't have the 3e OGL, but third-party content is still doable. Just don't know if the amount of work it would take for a third party would be worth the returns. Not having the marketing suport or the "official" branding that WoTC has alone will make it difficult to sell beyond a nice market (a niche among fantasty RPGers, who are themselves, a niche market)
 
Last edited:

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top