How Fleshed out IS PoL going to be?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Points of Lights is an approach to explore a setting without having it over-detailed, and the term can be applied in mutliple ways.

One part is - there are villages, towns and even cities that are safe. But between them, there is the unknown, danger. Are there really orcs living in the forest? What do they want, will they attack? The villages are the "Points of Light", but the things around them is undefined. It's probably dangerous, yes, but how so? Can we do something about it?

Another part is - there is a "Serpent Eye tradition" - but who are members of it? Is it an academy? Is it just a school of thought? Do the practitioners share a common (sinister or good?) goal behind the magic itself? The ancient Empire that spawned the Tieflings, how did it look like? How many ruins are still standing? Why did the nobles found the survival of the empire worthy the risks of a devil pact?

The whole concept of PoL is to give a few things that provide little concept, but can spark ideas and invite people to explore them.

I can totally see that WotC will explore the setting in future adventures, but even these explorations are just one way to go. It's possible it ends in a fully fledged campaign setting, but it's not the only possible one.

 

[Hussar]

"Tieflings are a cursed race from a fallen empire" is fine in a way that "Devils cursed the Empire of Bael Turath's nobles, who were fighting with the dragonborn empire, after the nobles dealt with them in order to secure their victory over their military enemies, resulting in an inherited curse that causes them to have red skin, horns, and a tail" isn't.

And this is where we disagree. I 100% disagree with you on this. I find no difference in ignoring one sentence or one longer sentence when homebrewing. The difference is, if I don't want to rewrite tieflings, now I have an entire bit of goodies to hang stuff off of, rather than having to write it all myself.

So, we get the best of both worlds. The homebrewer is still free to ignore fluff and the casual gamer doesn't get screwed over by the homebrewer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And this is where we disagree. I 100% disagree with you on this. I find no difference in ignoring one sentence or one longer sentence when homebrewing. The difference is, if I don't want to rewrite tieflings, now I have an entire bit of goodies to hang stuff off of, rather than having to write it all myself.

So, we get the best of both worlds. The homebrewer is still free to ignore fluff and the casual gamer doesn't get screwed over by the homebrewer.

One more time?

The fluff is not free to ignore if it is tied to mechanics (such as feats or paragon paths) for the race. It is suggested that the fluff will be tied to mechanics (things like GWA give evidence for this).

That's the entire potential problem with a strong core setting.

That's why it's a balancing act: between tying the race close enough to the setting to give you something cool off the bat while still allowing room for people to do their own thing with it.

That's why it's a potential problem if the "design weight" is placed on the specific fluff that WotC develops.

Which is why it's different than "elves hate orcs."

 

[am181d]

The fluff is not free to ignore if it is tied to mechanics (such as feats or paragon paths) for the race. It is suggested that the fluff will be tied to mechanics (things like GWA give evidence for this).

I'm not seeing this. What's the example of fluff we can't ignore? Because as bad as the name may be, I can ignore Gold Wyvern Adepts, even if the feat is in play...

 

[Orius]

I've already been saying over the last few day that too much of an implied setting hurts the homebrewer.

I can accept that not all homebrewers want something that just cribs from Greyhawk and/or Mystara, even the Realms. But then those homebrewers might not also want Bael Turath, GWA, and so on. That's the point that's being missed here. It's not a matter of Gary's old fluff being excised from the game so people have more freedom to develop their campaigns, it's Gary's fluff being replaced with another set of fluff.

Then there's the axing of all those old settings back during the end of 2e. They were dividing up the D&D base and hurting sales overall. Now with 4e, the designers are coming with all this implied setting material. Why do we need yet another generic D&D setting? We already have Greyhawk, Mystara, the Realms, and even Eberron. What happened to the many buckets theory? We definitely don't need a fifth generic setting to evolve out of this fluff.

If a default setting is needed in the books, and Greyhawk isn't cutting it any more, why not just make the Realms the official default and be done with it? The game was already heading in that direction during 2e. When WotC took over and tried to appease the fans that had been burned by T$R's bad public relations, they tried to restore Greyhawk to the official setting but that just didn't work out. Is it going to matter how pissed the old Greyhawk fans are going to be any more, especially if they haven't bought anything new in 20 years? They're probably either using the old 1e rules or C&C and getting new material from canonfire. It's a bit of a shame to see Greyhawk die out like this, but it's already been given several chances. The Realms sell, so use them. If a short chapter is needed in say the DMG to help DM's get started in a Realms game, I don't mind. And if people need a setting book, well the Realms book will be coming out about the same time as the core books, right? I'm not really interested in running the Realms myself, but I can easily ignore Realms fluff. I'm not sure how easy this new stuff will really be to ignore.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is, Orius, is that the Realms carries all sorts of baggage. Far and away more than Greyhawk. Putting FR as the core setting will actively piss off a very large number of people who loathe FR. Yes, there is a group that loves FR, but, there's not a huge group in the middle. Reactions to FR always seem to be a bit more polemic than not.

KM:

One more time?

The fluff is not free to ignore if it is tied to mechanics (such as feats or paragon paths) for the race. It is suggested that the fluff will be tied to mechanics (things like GWA give evidence for this).

That's the entire potential problem with a strong core setting.

That's why it's a balancing act: between tying the race close enough to the setting to give you something cool off the bat while still allowing room for people to do their own thing with it.

That's why it's a potential problem if the "design weight" is placed on the specific fluff that WotC develops.

Which is why it's different than "elves hate orcs."

Granted, in core you don't see them, but, how many racial feats are there in 3e? Hundreds? All based squarely on the idea of core elves. I'm not seeing the difference.

Take the racial weapons as another example. Why do elves get free bows and longswords? That's straight in core.

The only difference is now race actually matters beyond first level. You don't need any extra material for race, because the only time race matters is at chargen. After that, it doesn't matter at all. All races advance exactly the same - through class.

Now, your choice of class matters beyond 1st level. It actually matters if your fighter is an elf or a tiefling when he hits 4th level. Previously, it didn't. So, we need a fair bit more material in the PHB tied to the races than we did before.

 

[Hussar]

KM - an additional thought occurs.

You are assuming that the fluff and the crunch are indelibly linked. That assumption isn't proven. Even the existence of the term Golden Wyvern Adept, doesn't prove anything because we don't know what a Golden Wyvern is. Is it a group? A style? Who knows. We have no evidence either way.

For example, maybe tieflings gain Hellfire blast as a racial ability at Level X. Now, this ties in nicely with the idea that tieflings are the product of infernal pacts. Ok. But, to change the race, all you do is rename Hellfire Blast with Incandescent Holy Light and now you have angelic tieflings. Smack in anything else to get a different flavour.

In exactly the same way that homebrewers changed the racial weapons for elves.

I'm still not seeing the problem. Even if there is a progression of abilities that makes your horns get bigger, you can still switch that out with a different attack or ignore it entirely in favor of something else.

The problem is, you're comparing race to race between editions. That doesn't quite work since race actually matters now beyond first level. Far better to compare race to class. How difficult is it to switch around class abilities? That's how hard it will be to switch around race abilities for the homebrewer.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

my idea of PoL is that will never see a map, the level o fluff will nevere get beyond the gods, the ancient history and the general flavor of the setting (isolated point of civilization in an sea of darkness)

I would be surprised if the city in the dmg will get a very specific name (I am expeting more a list of shops and taverns and temples....)

why?

because in so doing to start a campaign in a PoL setting everyone of us can take the generic city as it is (or add what we feel necessary) detail a little the surronding and place an old ruin here and a dungeon there... and start playing.... you don't need to know the excact geography of the world to play

the added advantage is that while everyone is having it's specific adventures we are sharing the general feel of the setting

my 2 cents

 

[Remathilis]

I've already been saying over the last few day that too much of an implied setting hurts the homebrewer.

No, it hurts those with an established homebrew setting and no interest in adapting it. As a starting DM, I would have KILLED for something mildly fleshed out in terms of a setting out-of-the-box. Best I had was my friends Cyclopedia (Mystara) and whatever the 2e core books assumed, which was tantamount to squat for years. Having something semi-solid as a "default" would have made making my own homebrew much easier, if for no other reason than to have a template to base a world, town, pantheon, etc off of.

One more time?

The fluff is not free to ignore if it is tied to mechanics (such as feats or paragon paths) for the race. It is suggested that the fluff will be tied to mechanics (things like GWA give evidence for this).

That's the entire potential problem with a strong core setting.

That's why it's a balancing act: between tying the race close enough to the setting to give you something cool off the bat while still allowing room for people to do their own thing with it.

That's why it's a potential problem if the "design weight" is placed on the specific fluff that WotC develops.

Which is why it's different than "elves hate orcs."

Bare in mind also that the terms of "acceptable fluff" have changed from edition to edition. Especially when it comes to how they affect game-rules.

"Females have a lower strength threshold because women are generally weaker than males"
"Dwarves had no love, trust or aptitude for arcane magic and thus never are wizards"
"Elves have spirits, not souls, and cannot be raised from the dead except via a wish"
"Halfling refuse to wear shoes, having thick, leatherlike souls on their feet to protect them"
"Gnomes have an irrational hatred of kobolds over a long-standing feud between their respective deities. As such, gnomes attack them a +1 to hit"
"The somatic components of bard-spells are relatively simple, so they ignore spell failure in light armor (but not heavier armor or shields)"

There is no reason for these rules other than fluff, but we have either accepted them or changed them as we saw fit. I see no reason why GWA is any different than ignoring race/class restrictions or that devil-born empires any harder to handwave than halfling cobblers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Granted, in core you don't see them, but, how many racial feats are there in 3e? Hundreds? All based squarely on the idea of core elves. I'm not seeing the difference.

The core...the first PHB, DMG, and MM, are key to this in a way that the supplements definitely are not. The core is "what you need to play the game," what defines the game. And racial feats in and of themselves are not necessarily problems, if the weight of design is placed on the generic, archetypal elements of the race (elves live a long time, elves like magic, elves live in forests, tieflings are evil, tieflings skulk in darkness) rather than on the setting-specific elements of the race (elves are nomads, tieflings are cursed by devils) because those archetypal elements are more portable.

Take the racial weapons as another example. Why do elves get free bows and longswords? That's straight in core.

Meaning, what? Is this an example of fluff tied to mechanics in 3e? If so, it's kind of a weak example, because it has very little to do with the fluff of elves in 3e (okay, so elves wield swords and bows, this is hardly very iconic of their race). And besides, it doesn't really defeat the position I hold, which is that it's a reasonable fear to have that 4e may make homebrewing difficult with a stronger implied setting than 3e.

The only difference is now race actually matters beyond first level. You don't need any extra material for race, because the only time race matters is at chargen. After that, it doesn't matter at all. All races advance exactly the same - through class.

That's not the ONLY difference, but it's one of those that can make the fluff have a greater impact on mechanics. If I need to disentangle 30 levels' worth of "tieflings had an empire," then it's harder to make tieflings any thing other than imperial creatures.

You are assuming that the fluff and the crunch are indelibly linked. That assumption isn't proven. Even the existence of the term Golden Wyvern Adept, doesn't prove anything because we don't know what a Golden Wyvern is. Is it a group? A style? Who knows. We have no evidence either way.

Assume nothin'. I'm giving an if-then statement. IF the setting is strongly tied, THEN it will be harder to homebrew. There is evidence that the setting will be strongly tied, but we are only getting part of the story, so maybe the evidence is misleading.

For example, maybe tieflings gain Hellfire blast as a racial ability at Level X. Now, this ties in nicely with the idea that tieflings are the product of infernal pacts. Ok. But, to change the race, all you do is rename Hellfire Blast with Incandescent Holy Light and now you have angelic tieflings. Smack in anything else to get a different flavour.

For that one example? Sure. But let's say you wanted to make tieflings some sort of angelic figures. What about the racial feats that give them bonuses to lying, cheating, and stealing? Or the epic destiny that turns them into a specific kind of devil at level 30? Or the one that gives them a bonus to hit dragonborn? And what about the one that gives dragonborn a bonus to hit them?

All of those things tie the tiefling to the setting more closely, but each one is something that I'd have to change if I wanted to change the tiefling into something angelic. And each one could have unforseen ramifications -- what do I give tieflings instead? Or do they just have less options? And then, have I made the race weaker?

I'm still not seeing the problem. Even if there is a progression of abilities that makes your horns get bigger, you can still switch that out with a different attack or ignore it entirely in favor of something else.

The problem is, you're comparing race to race between editions. That doesn't quite work since race actually matters now beyond first level. Far better to compare race to class. How difficult is it to switch around class abilities? That's how hard it will be to switch around race abilities for the homebrewer.

In-depth comparison is pointless, all I'm doing is recognizing that the more flavor is tied to mechanics, the harder it will be to disentangle the two. This isn't a revolutionary realization, and it isn't a condemnation of 4e necessarily (we don't have the game, after all), but it is a valid fear to have given evidence that the flavor will be more closely tied to mechanics in 4e than in 3e. The evidence is limited, but ALL evidence we have is limited at this point, which is why I'm making if-then statements, not absolute declarations.

No, it hurts those with an established homebrew setting and no interest in adapting it.

Why should they be persuaded to adapt it? One of D&D's greatest strengths is that you can tinker with it, and if 4e works against this strength, they're working against one of the things that D&D has done best for 30 years. I don't think they would knowingly do it; more likely, they loose sight of the fact that a strong setting material, especially tied to mechanics (which is good to play right out of the box) treads on the toes of those that want to do their own setting material, especially that which is tied to mechanics (which is good for the modibility of the game).

There is no reason for these rules other than fluff, but we have either accepted them or changed them as we saw fit. I see no reason why GWA is any different than ignoring race/class restrictions or that devil-born empires any harder to handwave than halfling cobblers.

Fluff-based mechanics are inevitable, the difference being in quantity, type, and tenacity of those mechanics. If there are not many of them, they are very archetypal, and they are easy to disentangle (halflings don't wear shoes being one of the best examples of this), then they are the least onerous for the homebrewer. The more there are, the less they cleave to generic fantasy tropes, and the more involved with other game elements they are (the "bards can cast spells in light armor" trope being perhaps the wierdest of your examples), the more difficult they are for the homebrewer (if my bards are religiously-sanctioned choir boys, maybe they cast divine spells in all armor...does that make the bard too powerful? does the lowered dependance on Dex affect the skill list? What about the PrC's, does this mean he can't qualify for one or more that he should be able to qualify for?).

GWA is evidence that WotC is intentionally stepping toward their world influencing mechanics, which is great to run the game out of the box, but not so great if you want to make your own box.