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

[Mirtek]

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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]

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.

 

[Scribble]

I just wish they would do something new.

Say what you want about second edition, but at least it did a lot of new stuff.

 

[Weregrognard]

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

 

[Scribble]

Aww man if they revived the Princess Ark series, but set it in the PoL campaign instead I would be in heaven!

 

[Dungeoneer]

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]

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]

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]

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)