Homebrews - Who's starting over?

[Michael Morris]

The more I read about 4e the more I'm having trouble reconciling it with my current setting. This isn't necessarily a problem - since I don't have any real published legacy to adhere to I can throw out as much or as little about the world out the window that I want. In the end I'll probably keep the maps and some of the plot threads and toss the rest.

Who plans starting over though? How much (partially like me or with everything all new)? Who plans on converting? Who's undecided?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I don't mean this as a thread-crap, I hope it is a legitimate answer to the question.

I don't plan on starting over. I actually plan on sticking with 3.5. Primarily, I don't care for what they are doing to the races. To reconcile my homebrew with their racial changes would really be problematic. I'd be better off starting over. but, since I enjoy writing fiction (See my story hour for examples!) I don't really want to start over, either!

But, I am interested in hearing those about others who are considering this. Is it easier to stay with 3.5, retrofit, or just start over?

 

[Michael Morris]

I planned on staying with 2.5e back in the day. Believe me, I had written 390 pages of house rules for 2e to fix the problems of the Player's Option rules and make them balanced. 3e came out and smoothed over a lot of stuff. I went from 390 pages of house rules that contradicted or replaced stuff in the 2e core rules to 1 page. Now granted, I have 680 spells and around 100 feats, but all this adds to the game - it doesn't replace anything in the core rules. It certainly doesn't create barriers to entry.

It's too early to tell for certain. It's fully possible that 4e will be completely unworkable. Then again, I've taken inspiration from Magic: The Gathering and made it work. In the next Dusk I will need to completely and utterly hide that inspiration or remove it. I'll go with hiding - I've got some tangents that are even more distinct than say the differences between Magic and Legend of the Five Rings - and LotFR didn't get sued out of existence (they did get purchased though - maybe that was cheaper ).

3.5e is a fun game. I know, I play it. But I will at least take a look at 4e and buy the core. Interestingly I haven't seen a lot of these new materials because I've stuck to materials that are open source on the presumption that if I use something from one of those books I don't want to use something I can't later put in a web product should I ever get around to publishing again. So I've stuck to pretty much core rules 3.5.

What 4e holds is intriguing in some ways, downright frightening on the others. I do worry more about there being too much change in 4e than there was in 3e. I do NOT like the idea of there being 30 spell levels for 30 character levels. I might warm up to it eventually but to be honest it's hard enough sometimes to decide whether a spell is best suited to 3rd or 2nd level on a scale of 1 to 9, let alone on a scale of 1 to 30. There are other gripes as well. I'll see. If it is completely borked I have no problem sticking with 3.5e, and I'm sure other gamers will vote with their pocket books as well. Such is the way of things. I don't want to see WotC fail, but it can happen. Editions have come out that have been so ill received they've been canceled (never happened to D&D but there's always a first time).

For now I'll just sit back and watch, but presuming the rules are fun and enjoyable my question still stands. If you don't want to move that's fine too, but I think that could be problematic. 1e/2e and OD&D have most of the grognards already - Whether 3.5 and 3 have staying power in the face of a new edition remains to be seen and is largely dependent on the new edition but 3e's players have largely been through at least one edition rollover so they aren't likely to be as resistant to it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, this isn't a huge concern for me since I tend to go with a new setting for each new campaign. (What can I say? I like world-building. )

That said, I do have one longterm homebrew that I keep coming back to. It's survived multiple edition changes to date; I see no reason it can't survive another.

And with the change to 4E, I'll do what I've done with prior changes: I'll adopt most of the mechanics, I'll take whatever flavor and background of the new edition fits the world, and I'll ignore the rest.

For instance, just based on what we know (read: suspect) now, I probably won't make tieflings a playable race in that particular world, or if I do, they'll be absurdly rare. OTOH, the eladrin/elf split happens to fit perfectly, because the setting already has two very distinct nations of elves: one is your standard forest-dwelling elven kingdom, and the other is essentially the Roman Empire writ large.

Now, I don't know when (if ever) I'll get back to this particular setting... But any delay will be because I'm having too much fun making up new settings for new campaigns, and not because of any anticipated difficulty reconciling it with 4E.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'll probably convert. I don't see how a new edition will impact most of the "fluff" I've created. As for the crunch, my main concern will be things which came from WotC books outside of the core which may not be easily converted (such as homebrew classes based on the Oriental Adventures book.)

On the other hand, some 4E changes will plug into my world easily from the getgo, like the new take on elves. The Design and Development article on the race seems to reflect much more accurately how I set them up in my own campaign.

Many of my houserules revolve around magic items and their creation. It will be interesting to see how 4E affects these. Also, part of my world's mythology is based on the 9 schools of magic; curious to see what'll happen to those.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I will certainly keep my setting. Some NPCs will get changed around beneath the hood.

I've consciously stayed away from having a setting tied too closely to mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, as I'd already decided to start over before the 4e announcement came down, I guess I can safely say that 4e didn't have a bearing.

However, I might still be in design next year when 4e comes out, and if it blows me away (not likely from what I've seen so far; still has too many 3e-isms) I could always switch over. Far more likely is I'll just borrow some ideas...

Lanefan

 

[wedgeski]

I've had a hombrew brewing for a few months, but it hasn't seen any PC's yet. I've decided to hold off and launch it with the new edition.

 

[CF]

Oddly enough, with the changes announced so far, I feel like this new edition fits even better my homebrew setting than 3E.

This elf thing, for instance. Is mostly what I've decided to do with elves in my setting (make them a ranger favored former faerie tribe-divided race).

I'll probably just ignore the eladrin existance, along with the emolings. I mean, the tieflings.

 

[MerricB]

I play in my version of Greyhawk. The world is built to accept changes, mainly by not having a lot of detail! So, any 4e changes will be absorbed. If I can use the same version of Greyhawk for 1e, 2e and 3e, I see no problem in using it with 4e!

Cheers!