Points-of-light is not just for post-apocalyptic fantasy

[Dragonblade]

Wait, so is your assertion that it's okay to steal land from anybody whose ancestors stole that land previously?

No, I'm not saying that all. I felt that the OP's statement was inaccurate. I responded. I have nothing further to add without breaking the no politics rule.

 

[loseth]

Sometimes I'm surprised at what needs to be stated overtly. When I heard points of light, that was immediately what I thought, not post-apoc.

Points of light just seems like a logical interpetation of what the world must be like if players are getting attacked by random encounters powerful enough to challenge a party of adventurers when they are going from place to place.

I'm sure there are some DMs that never used non plot related attacks on the road, but anyone who did was essentially in a points of light compaign already. Any world where people can't travel without a significant chance of death is going to be pretty dark and similar to points of light.

Those were my first thoughts as well. When WOTC announced PoL, I thought to myself, ‘Good, they’ve officially made standard D&D worlds (like FR and Greyhawk) coherent by stating explicitly that even in ‘civilised’ states, most of the land is under only nominal control of the government, and generally settlements must fend for themselves in a dangerous world.’ I was then quite surprised to see so many complaints on the WOTC boards to the effect that WOTC was forcing people to play in a post-apocalyptic setting. To be fair, Wizards has said some things (in the ‘Never too Early’ article and concerning FR) that do make it look as if Wizards themselves might see points of light as post-apocalyptic by default, and I can certainly understand fans of a setting being anxious about big changes in that setting. But every time I saw posters interpreting PoL as automatically implying post-apoc, I kept thinking to myself, ‘Points of Light is basically what we’ve been doing with D&D since I was 11, and we’ve never done a post-apocalyptic setting…’

 

[The Little Raven]

Wait, so is your assertion that it's okay to steal land from anybody whose ancestors stole that land previously?

David Cross perfectly sums up the mentality that agrees with this sentiment...

"Manifest destiny, people!
Look it up.
It's in the book we wrote."

 

[erf_beto]

It could be post-apocalyptic, but not Necessarily.

And commercially speaking, points of light is great*:

So kingdom A, presented in Dungeon #X is a point of light. You like it? Place it south of your homebrew point of light - with just a small portion of the 'sea of darkness' to cross, maybe a mountain range or heavy forest. The adventure module H5 is great, so you put it next to kingdom B, the point of light from Dragon #X wich you thought was perfect to explain the evil clerics travelling to kingdom A in the first place. And if your best japanese friend creates an oriental setting, you can say it's located east of point of light number two.... get it? It grows on its own.

It reminds me of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, on the GameBoyAdvance: the world map starts only with the roads and conections, but each stage you get to place one icon, representing one particular spot. ("So the plains go on n.15, and the caste goes on n.9... oh, wait, better go with n.3 for that... it's near the town at n.1")

It's patchwork, really, but it's easy and fast to do - just the thing new DMs need. It feels horrible to read over 600 pages in the core books and after that create an entire world, with maps, kingdoms, political relationships, Gods and religion, etc etc etc. And when you're done creating plot hooks, pick one up and populate the dungeons... They'll probably just go play WoW...

*for WotC, that is. They will probably come up with a "new core setting", just give-em time to publish enough material and sew them together.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It also fits the "colonial" or "frontier" style of setting... American Wild West, the Age of Exploration, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Far Flung British Empire. Any time you've got an area that is far removed (either through time or by physical distance) from the centers of "civilization", you can find a "points of light" paradigm.

Honestly, I've always thought the "default" D&D setting -- of any edition -- resembled the American fictionalized Wild West a lot more than it did medieval Europe. (Which makes Lonesome Dove required reading for DMs, IMO.)

 

[kerbarian]

In fact, we’ve got points of light (in a lesser form) in the modern world. Rio de Janeiro has a murder rate 5 times higher than New York, and it was much worse 10 years ago. Part of the reason for this is that Rio’s hill-slums are effectively governed by drug gangs. Under normal circumstances, the police don’t go into the slums and the government thus has no control over them. However, the police are ultimately more powerful than any one drug gang, and when they want to, they can mount a large-scale operation and take control of a slum. We could call this control in force Now, the government in Rio doesn’t have the money or manpower to permanently garrison and patrol all the slums, but they are still the ‘top dog,’ capable of defeating any one drug gang that they want, any time they want. Civilisation is in no danger of collapsing in Rio, and ironically, Rio’s most violent period (the 1970s) was also one of cultural brilliance.

Wow, that's really helpful. Not so much for D&D -- points of light makes perfect sense to me there, post-apocalyptic or not. I hadn't thought about how it would work in a modern context, though, where everything is fully explored, and the dark areas aren't just evil creatures you'd prefer to wipe out if you had the power. I've been thinking of running a short Shadowrun campaign until 4e comes out, and one of the things I always had trouble with there was having it make sense that the PCs could constantly flaunt the law and not have to live in hiding as a result. It makes a lot more sense if Lone Star only has control in force over most areas, and it's just not worth their effort to make the PCs' lives miserable.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I know that lots of Realms fans don´t want to hear this, but for me some parts of FR are perfect PoL environs. Especially the western heartlands and the area around Phlan always screamed such a flavor to me.

Actually, I think that lots of Realms fans would thank you for correcting the popular misconception that the Realms is a world ruled by long-armed do-gooder powers. The central-northern Realms has really only one strong, centralized, well-ordered kingdom (and that was torn to pieces in the buildup to 3e): Cormyr. The Moonsea, the Cold Lands, the Vast, the Western Heartlands, and especially the North are *definitively* PoL (i.e. classic D&D) settings, and the Dalelands aren't all that much better given the huge unexplored, elf-abandoned forest sitting astride them. For that matter, most areas in which "civilization" is present (Amn, Calimshan, the Lake of Steam, the Dragon Coast, the Tashalar, Thay, Mulhorand, Unther) are decadent and/or dominated by evil powers.

Which all goes to say that PoL sorta is the default D&D setting. WotC's spelling this idea out seems to be of a piece with the spelling out of PC class and monster roles: It's something that's always existed in the game, but they're just making it explicit, perhaps for the benefit of new gamers?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Wow, that's really helpful. Not so much for D&D -- points of light makes perfect sense to me there, post-apocalyptic or not. I hadn't thought about how it would work in a modern context, though, where everything is fully explored, and the dark areas aren't just evil creatures you'd prefer to wipe out if you had the power. I've been thinking of running a short Shadowrun campaign until 4e comes out, and one of the things I always had trouble with there was having it make sense that the PCs could constantly flaunt the law and not have to live in hiding as a result. It makes a lot more sense if Lone Star only has control in force over most areas, and it's just not worth their effort to make the PCs' lives miserable.

Funny; I've always thought that the distinctive element of "modern" games like Shadowrun is precisely that avoiding legal consequences was half the battle. 10% of a shadowrun is actually achieving the objective; 90% is doing it in such a manner that no one knew you were ever there.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Actually, I think that lots of Realms fans would thank you for correcting the popular misconception that the Realms is a world ruled by long-armed do-gooder powers. The central-northern Realms has really only one strong, centralized, well-ordered kingdom (and that was torn to pieces in the buildup to 3e): Cormyr. The Moonsea, the Cold Lands, the Vast, the Western Heartlands, and especially the North are *definitively* PoL (i.e. classic D&D) settings, and the Dalelands aren't all that much better given the huge unexplored, elf-abandoned forest sitting astride them. For that matter, most areas in which "civilization" is present (Amn, Calimshan, the Lake of Steam, the Dragon Coast, the Tashalar, Thay, Mulhorand, Unther) are decadent and/or dominated by evil powers.

Which all goes to say that PoL sorta is the default D&D setting. WotC's spelling this idea out seems to be of a piece with the spelling out of PC class and monster roles: It's something that's always existed in the game, but they're just making it explicit, perhaps for the benefit of new gamers?

Yup, that's what the initial impression of the Realms that I was given (and was in the early marketing materials and back of the Grey Box as well: "Adventure on the edge of a vast wilderness!"). From 2E on, it felt like it was nothing but caravans and goodly kings doing good with the PCs' help.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Have to wonder about that, though. Neither the 2e boxed set, nor the Volo's Guides, nor the FR Adventures hardback, which are the only really substantial 2e source materials for the "core" FR, give the "goodly kings" impression IMO. [The FR caravan culture sort of implies wilderness rather than civilization, actually; dangerous treks across wild lands with trade goods requiring armed protection.]