Forthcoming 4E settings?

[JeffB]

Leave Greyhawk alone. I would hate to see it maligned by 4e.

Thanks for a productive contribution.

-O

I'm a 4E fan and even though I want GH (as stated above), I also agree with jokamachi. So I should clarify: Shoehorning 4E's core cosmology and default world assumptions into GH would be a huge mistake. Were they to alter 4E to fit GH (drop the dragon and demon people, drop the 4E default cosmology and world assumptions, etc etc) I'd be OK with that.

But we know that WOTC historically will make the world fit the rules and not vice versa

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Leave Greyhawk alone. I would hate to see it maligned by 4e.

I don't get this. I mean, if you don't like a new edition of a setting, then just don't buy it. How is anyone harmed by a new edition of a setting if they are not interested in it in the first place? Especially considering that we are talking about a setting which has been out of print for a very long time indeed?

 

[JeffB]

The problem is that game companies never go back and do a good job of FIXING things after they screw them up- biggest offender? Forgotten Realms. Mystara, Dark Sun, GH, etc etc.

So by leaving campaign setting X alone (relatively speaking), there's a better chance down the road we will find the future materials that catch our eye more useful. But if setting X is once again re-done/mutilated/blown up, chances are that ALL future products won't prove very useful (except to those who roll with the changes). Again, FR is prime example here- especially 4E's realms


Also GH materials were in print during at least part of the 3E era- I'd not call that OOP for a very long time.

P.S. WOTC leaving Eberron alone (for the most part) for 4E still surprises me- what a great decision.

 

[Whitemouse]

I don't get this. I mean, if you don't like a new edition of a setting, then just don't buy it. How is anyone harmed by a new edition of a setting if they are not interested in it in the first place? Especially considering that we are talking about a setting which has been out of print for a very long time indeed?

QFT. Why should those that want to see it be punished by nostalgia fanboys/girls.

I for one would love to Greyhawk for 4E.

 

[qstor]

QFT. Why should those that want to see it be punished by nostalgia fanboys/girls.

For the same reason that tinkering with Star Wars or Star Trek would have "nostalgia fanboys/girls" up in arms. Let the original stand on its own and not some reinventing down the road.

I don't think WOTC should shoehorn 4e into any setting be it Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Dragonlance or Greyhawk.
But that's what they're going to do:

Ampersand: Traveling Show

So you'll have tieflings and Dragonborn in all those settings.

Mike

 

[El Mahdi]

For the same reason that tinkering with Star Wars or Star Trek would have "nostalgia fanboys/girls" up in arms. Let the original stand on its own and not some reinventing down the road.

I don't think WOTC should shoehorn 4e into any setting be it Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Dragonlance or Greyhawk.
But that's what they're going to do:

Ampersand: Traveling Show

So you'll have tieflings and Dragonborn in all those settings.

Mike

I don't see how you get this conclusion from that article. I don't even see how they have done this with 4E FR. They've made a place in the Realms where Dragonborn can come from if you want Dragonborn in your Realms campaign. If you don't want them, then they aren't there. You can even keep that area the way it was in past iterations. They have very much made it plug-and-play compatible, easily compartmentalized for DM use or not. I imagine they will do the same with a Greyhawk campaign setting, or any other setting. And the bottom line still is, if you don't like the new version, don't buy it and don't use it. Your game continues on, the way it was, no harm no foul.

So I think the point of the article was, you'll have Tieflings and Dragonborn in all of those settings, if you want Teiflings and Dragonborn in all of those settings. Nobody is going to make you if you don't want to.

 

[Whitemouse]

For the same reason that tinkering with Star Wars or Star Trek would have "nostalgia fanboys/girls" up in arms. Let the original stand on its own and not some reinventing down the road.

I don't think WOTC should shoehorn 4e into any setting be it Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Dragonlance or Greyhawk.

You have got to be frelling kidding. Some of those OOP books are nasty expensive. Why should a 4E fan have to shell out big bucks to convert older material?!

I'd rather just let WotC do all the work and not waste my time on such; I'd rather use that time to GM a game for son or play in such a campaign with DM that feels the same way.

 

[Minicol]

QFT. Why should those that want to see it be punished by nostalgia fanboys/girls.

I for one would love to Greyhawk for 4E.

Why should old timers be punished for loving their settings the way they always have and not wanting to see them nuked ?

More importantly, why not publish a genuinely original, brand-new built up to speed, specially designed new world ? with all the new cool bells and whistles already built in ?


No seriously : if you shoehorn 4e on an old setting you will probably alienate the old fans, unless this is done exceptionally well, and I don't trust WOTC to deliver this after seeing the 4e Realms. (Check the reactions).

Why not BUILD something SPECIALLY for 4e ? Seriously ? It'd be new, no one upset, and possibly a major hit. And the best license of the next ten years, maybe ?

Pathfinder is working well with the world of Golarion, S&S had the scarred lands, Eberron was cool with 3.5 ... so what the hell ?

Regards.

 

[Whitemouse]

Why should old timers be punished for loving their settings the way they always have and not wanting to see them nuked ?

I think Jürgen Hubert said it right, if it bothers you that much, just ignore it.

 

[Minicol]

I think Jürgen Hubert said it right, if it bothers you that much, just ignore it.

It does not bother me that much, but being called a nostalgia fanboy does.

And no, his (perfectly good) answer does not cover my opinion.

Besides, why are you avoiding my question ?