D&D 4E Is 4E the designers homebrew coming to my gaming table?

[mhacdebhandia]

You're absolutely correct. You're also referencing settings not core rules. Gary is the exception since he invented the game and I would expect to have DnD, ODnD, ADnD, etc to be based on his homebrew.

Ah.

Well, I think that's utterly ridiculous.

 

[broghammerj]

Ah.

Well, I think that's utterly ridiculous.

Care to elaborate what I said that was ridiculous? I don't think anyone could successfully argue that the original incarnation of DnD was something other than Gary's homebrew. What I don't want is 4E to be the designers homebrew.

The new edition should be about improving play and fixing broken game mechanics. I don't want the 30 years of DnD core fluff to be changed. The core books should support all forms of DnD whether it be FR, GH, Eberron, Planescape, etc.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The core books should support all forms of DnD whether it be FR, GH, Eberron, Planescape, etc.

And they still will.

In 3E, settings that didn't use the Great Wheel--including Eberron and FR--had their own cosmologies. Homebrew DMs that didn't want to use the Great Wheel had to make up their own.

In 4E? Eberron and FR will have their own cosmologies. Homebrew DMs who don't want to use the new system will have to make up their own cosmology, or use the Great Wheel.

4E supports the Great Wheel in exactly the same way 3E supported the Eberron cosmology. Just because something isn't the assumed default anymore doesn't mean it's unsupportable.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Care to elaborate what I said that was ridiculous?

Sure.

I don't think anyone could successfully argue that the original incarnation of DnD was something other than Gary's homebrew.

I have two lines of argument: take your pick.

1) You argued not that the original version of the game was Gary's homebrew, but essentially that all versions of the game should be Gary's homebrew.

I think that is worthy of ridicule on the face of it. Games can, do, and should change over time, and we shouldn't be shackled to simply repeating what Gary did in 1974 when the tastes of the playerbase have changed over time.

2) Gary might have written the original versions of the game from the point of view of his homebrewed campaigns, and not included elements like races, classes, and monsters which did not or would not fit in that campaign, but it's also perfectly clear that he and all the early designers considered Dungeons & Dragons to be a game which individual Dungeon Masters and their groups should fold, spindle, and mutilate to suit themselves.

I contend that the game has always been written with certain implications of tone and setting in mind, but that these implications were never intended to be used as restrictions.

What I don't want is 4E to be the designers homebrew.

I don't think its being "the designer's homebrew" (as if it were not being designed by a team of about two dozen people, but instead by a single megalomaniacal DM) is any more of a problem for the players of Fourth Edition than First Edition AD&D being Gary's homebrew was for the players of First Edition.

The new edition should be about improving play and fixing broken game mechanics. I don't want the 30 years of DnD core fluff to be changed. The core books should support all forms of DnD whether it be FR, GH, Eberron, Planescape, etc.

The "core fluff" does not support half of the list you give, and if you extend that "etc." to all the other official D&D settings, the odds get even shorter.

Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Jakandor, Dragonlance, Birthright, Spelljammer . . . none of these settings share in the assumptions of the "core fluff" which you so very mistakenly consider to be essential to the game.

The idea that the assumptions of the Greyhawk setting inform the entirety of the D&D game as it was published (by TSR or Wizards of the Coast) or as it was played (by millions of D&D players around the world) is utter nonsense.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

In 3E, settings that didn't use the Great Wheel--including Eberron and FR--had their own cosmologies. Homebrew DMs that didn't want to use the Great Wheel had to make up their own.

In fact, none of the major D&D settings made use of the Great Wheel when first published.

Dragonlance didn't. Dark Sun didn't. Even Ravenloft didn't really (even though, as a demiplane, it's located within the Ethereal Plane, it was completely cut off from the rest of the multiverse).

 

[broghammerj]

1) You argued not that the original version of the game was Gary's homebrew, but essentially that all versions of the game should be Gary's homebrew.

Take my discussion to extreme you could assume that all versions should be the same. What I am saying is that Gary's foundation laid the groundwork for what we call DnD. Change it too much and you have D20 fantasy. It lends a commonality that we all relate to.

2) Gary might have written the original versions of the game from the point of view of his homebrewed campaigns, and not included elements like races, classes, and monsters which did not or would not fit in that campaign, but it's also perfectly clear that he and all the early designers considered Dungeons & Dragons to be a game which individual Dungeon Masters and their groups should fold, spindle, and mutilate to suit themselves.

I agree so why force more new fluff or change things that many of us use as a point of reference,

I contend that the game has always been written with certain implications of tone and setting in mind, but that these implications were never intended to be used as restrictions.

The implications and tones you refer to seem to being drastically changed in this edition and I fail to see why that change is necessary.

The "core fluff" does not support half of the list you give, and if you extend that "etc." to all the other official D&D settings, the odds get even shorter.

Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Jakandor, Dragonlance, Birthright, Spelljammer . . . none of these settings share in the assumptions of the "core fluff" which you so very mistakenly consider to be essential to the game.

I would argue most of those are settings so of course there would be changes. I hope the core books are generic enough so they can support all those settings. What I don't argee with is changing already established fluff with 30 years of history behind it. Game mechanics are one thing, but he fluffy stuff is different.

 

[broghammerj]

And they still will.

In 3E, settings that didn't use the Great Wheel--including Eberron and FR--had their own cosmologies. Homebrew DMs that didn't want to use the Great Wheel had to make up their own.

In 4E? Eberron and FR will have their own cosmologies. Homebrew DMs who don't want to use the new system will have to make up their own cosmology, or use the Great Wheel.

4E supports the Great Wheel in exactly the same way 3E supported the Eberron cosmology. Just because something isn't the assumed default anymore doesn't mean it's unsupportable.

Yeah I know what your saying. Unfortunately, somewhere this thread slowly transformed into mostly dealing with cosmology.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I hope the core books are generic enough so they can support all those settings. What I don't argee with is changing already established fluff with 30 years of history behind it. Game mechanics are one thing, but he fluffy stuff is different.

Actually, my argument is pretty simple. Thanks for phrasing things this way so that I could think of it in basic terms:

All the "established fluff" with decades of history behind it is absolutely, positively no more generic than what is being proposed for Fourth Edition.

Seriously. The Great Wheel is not "more generic" than the Astral Sea. Asmodeus as the supreme leader of the devils is not "more generic" than Asmodeus as the divine supreme leader of the devils. Et cetera.

You think of it as "generic" because it's always been around in D&D - but that doesn't mean it's generic. All of it is highly specific to Greyhawk, and - and this is where my point lies - it is no more or less adaptable to my personal campaign than what is coming in Fourth Edition.

Seriously: what is the difference between the Great Wheel and the Astral Sea, if I want to play in or run a game where devils live in the Burning Heart of the World? What is the difference between Asmodeus as supreme ruler of the devils or Asmodeus as god of the devils if I want to play a campaign where the Norse gods are the only ones which exist? What is the difference between planetouched races like tieflings being extremely rare servants of evil or their being fairly common descendants of a fallen devil-worshipping people if I want to play in a setting where the only intelligent races are humans and thri-kreen? Either way, I have to change what's in the core rules.

What you are really arguing for, it seems to me, is a situation where people who choose not to bother with altering the core flavour (for convenience's sake, out of indifference, or because they happen to like it) end up using Gary's Greyhawkian assumptions - and where people who fall into the category of liking Gary's Greyhawkian assumptions don't have to do any work to play their preferred style of game.

Well, suck it up. Welcome to the thirty-four-years-old club of "People Who Don't Care For The Flavour Assumptions Of The Core Rules". It's a big club - though I might have to turn in my membership card, because I might be moving to the smaller club of "People Who Are Really Quite Happy With The Flavour Of The Core Rules" if things go as they are.

My point remains: what you call "core fluff" is not, and has never been, "generic" in the sense you imply. It has always had the potential to grate against the preferences and assumptions of many (I suspect a majority) of D&D players - just ask them in their aggregate.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I think it is perfectly appropriate that if the Points of Light assumptions get applied to core "setting" that the same PoL design philosophy get applied to a cosmology to go with it.

Really, in a D&D campaign a cosmology is a subset of the pieces that go into a setting. You throw a setting through the PoL grinder and it is pretty inevitable (to me) that the cosmology that goes with it is going to get touched.

 

[broghammerj]

All the "established fluff" with decades of history behind it is absolutely, positively no more generic than what is being proposed for Fourth Edition.

You think of it as "generic" because it's always been around in D&D - but that doesn't mean it's generic. All of it is highly specific to Greyhawk, and - and this is where my point lies - it is no more or less adaptable to my personal campaign than what is coming in Fourth Edition.

My point remains: what you call "core fluff" is not, and has never been, "generic" in the sense you imply. It has always had the potential to grate against the preferences and assumptions of many (I suspect a majority) of D&D players - just ask them in their aggregate.

Your post made me realize that I need to clarify my thoughts a bit. It seems we may not be as far apart in thought was it would appear. I have two streams of thinking that have got a bit blended together.

1. Your right Gary's DnD is not any more generic than what the 4E designers are purposing. I would hope that you would at least concede that it has historical importance and in a strange way that sort of defines the DnD. DnD at least in a very primordial sense should bear some resemblance to Gygax/Greyhawk. Now I concede that you don't have to like it. If, and it's a big IF, you are going to keep these ideas, then keep them intact. A sudden rewrite with no real explanation makes no sense to me. It bothers those that like the canon and I would argue equally hinders those like yourself by keeping you somewhat bound in it.

2. My other thought is to do something totally different. Don't edit history. Start a new one. Drop references to cosmology, Vecna, Tenser, Mordenkanin, etc in the core rules. The idea of a wizard should be universal whether you play Planescape, your homebrew, Ravenloft, etc. That what I am trying to get at by generic. Leave the core book relatively fluffless. Fluffless doesn't have to equal boring if it's well written. To me that would be the ideal core rules.