Quietly Back to the Past (in spirit)?

[an_idol_mind]

That's true for home brewed adventures, but not for 99% of published ones.

Yeah, but published adventures always follow certain guidelines, no matter what edition. 1st-level characters in a published module are never going to be expected to fight off a beholder by themselves. With the exception of meat-grinder adventures like the Tomb of Horrors, published modules almost always present characters of a given level with winnable battles, regardless of edition. I don't see how that will change in 4th edition, especially since the mantra so far has been, "fun and fair."

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

1st-level characters in a published module are never going to be expected to fight off a beholder by themselves.

True, but "fight off" and "deal with" are not exactly the same thing. I think designers were afraid to put in things like that because they didn't fit the formula, even if there were ways outside of combat to handle the beholder safely.

In short, I think 3e's formula heavy adventure design acted as a pair of invisible shackles that writers felt they needed to stick to. It was the core methodology regarding how 3e adventures were developed, so said the great DMG.

4e seems to be a bit more reliant on the DM's judgment, which opens up a lot of potential, and removes the shackles the designers didn't even realize they were wearing.

 

[Jhaelen]

The "Points of Light" default setting has made me the most excited about 4e. I love the wild lands feel of it, the lawlessness.

Hmm, sounds exactly like my 3.5 campaign setting (derived from the Greyhawk Blackmoor region). So, I'm not overly excited about this, it's what I would have used anyway.

I think frontier areas simply work best for fantasy campaigns. I also dislike an overabundance of high-level npcs (as in the Forgotten Realms) and metropolis-sized citys (like Eberron's Sharn).

Btw. my favorite 2nd.ed. setting also fits the "Points of Light" idea quite nicely: Dark Sun. Heck, in Dark Sun even the points of light were pretty dark

 

[SWBaxter]

This essay implicitly criticizes 3.5e for its static nature and its inability to have flexible plans of attack moving from room to room.

Hmm, I don't really see that in 3.X, and that may be why I found Mike Mearls' column kind of strange. I've always set up encounters in a non-static fashion, the difference in 3.X vs. past editions is I had (in theory) a better set of mechanics for figuring out how much trouble the group could handle at once and setting things up accordingly. I don't own that many 3.X modules, but that kind of dynamic balancing is certainly present in several of them - Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is a good example. And I've got lots of 1E modules that are written as pretty static encounters, so I don't really see a historical difference.

I guess it just seems to me like more of a stylistic difference than a rules-based one. I'm happy to see that 4E will explicitly advocate my preferred style, but it's not like I couldn't (or didn't) play that way all along.

The second is called "Points of Light" - it basically says that the implicit default world for 4e will be "points of light" in a world of wilderness -- i.e. you are safe within an hour of your village or a day of your city but beyond that, peasants should be scared. I scratched my head when I read this as wasn't this the same assumption for Karameikos (the default setting for Basic D&D)? For Greyhawk, you kind of have to read between the lines, but if you look at the population figures vs. the land area and compare those to medieval Europe where France alone had 10 or 15 million, and little England had up to 3 million at points in time vs. only 3-6 million for the Great Kingdom and Keoland, you can see that Greyhawk was a similar "Points of Light" implied setting.

Karameikos was indeed. Greyhawk not so much; the population figures were obviously simply wrong, the recent history and relationships between nations strongly implied a population density closer to historical Europe. If you tossed out all the background history, ignored all the From the Sorcerer's Scroll columns with massive troop movements and far-ranging wars, and redrew the maps to reflect less widespread civilization you could make Greyhawk into that kind of setting. It's a lot more work than using something like Karameikos or Wilderlands that start off with the right kind of feel.

One thing I find interesting about 4E's implied setting so far is the apparent increase in fiends. With Asmodeus as a full deity and tieflings as a core race, I'm guessing the implied setting will be a "demon-haunted world". I know that outsiders play a big part as adversaries in Iron Heroes, which also has a points-of-light type of implied setting, so it might be the Mearls influence.

 

[TerraDave]

that kind of dynamic balancing is certainly present in several of them - Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is a good example.

Well its a sequal to Tharizdun afteral, and also pretty fun (if not quite as fun).

Actually, my players will be well trained for 4th ed

 

[Remathilis]

CR is gone as a static "level" of monster, but a far older measure of creature power is returning: XP.

Re-read the dungeon design article. Encounter Level (EL) used to be a static number (5 for example) but now its an XP amount (5000 xp). Lets say a good, typical award for an encounter for 5th level PCs is 5,000 xp. (= to EL 5 in 3.5). What is the difference?

1.) It will be easier to mix and match monsters on the fly. Quick, what is the EL of four orcs (CR 1/2), an ogre (CR 3) and his pet dire wolf (3)? Betcha can't tell me without looking at the chart or just giving me a base-guess (answer: roughly EL 5-6). However, if orcs are worth 250 xp, an ogre with 2000 xp and a dire wolf worth 2000 xp, you can tell me easily (4*250) + (2*2000) = 5000, or a 5th level challenge.

2.) It will be easier to divvy up the Xp at the end of an encounter/session. No clunky charts, or doing XP once for each member of the group one level higher/lower than the others. 5,000 xp, 4 PCs. 1250 Per PC. You could actually do it after every encounter, if you so chose to.

3.) XP rewards tailoring the encounter can be used for non-combat just as easily. Navigating a river of lava might be 1000 xp. Convincing the duke to help you (social interaction) is worth 3,000 xp. Disarming the scythe trap is worth 500 xp. By assigning xp amounts to social encounters, traps and hazards, you can make them more dynamic, more interesting, and more rewarding. (It can also be used to integrate them into combat encounters. Imagine trying to convince a fire-salamandar lord to let you pass while fending off fire-snakes over a river of lava! That is a serious encounter!)

4.) It STILL acts as a buffer to what monsters are considered an appropriate challenge. For example, if my 5th level party is going to face a 5,000 xp encounter, the 20,000 xp beholder is NOT a viable choice. Unlike CR, which was supposed to fluctuate somewhat (+/- 4, by the DMG), the xp cap acts as a better cut-off point. (A balanced encounter can be lots of different combinations of monsters and such, as long as it is @ 5,000 when you're done). Sure, nothings stopping you from using that beholder, but you know that a.) The reward is far more than any 5th level PC should get) and b.) its 4x what a 5th level PC should face.

5.) Finally, there is no longer a "monster is pointless" cutoff: an orc is still 250 xp. At first level, thats a lot, at 20th, its barely a blip. However, there is no "you've outgrown Orc XP" level any longer.

I'm liking this system moe than the CR system, but thats because as much as I liked CR, It did feel artificially constraining. This system retains some of the best elements, but allows for a more old-school feeling of mixing and dynamics.

 

[Grazzt]

Have you used The Wilderlands of High Fantasy? Very cool (and old school) "points of light" setting.

That was the first thing I thought of when I read the WotC article actually.

 

[00Machado]

I also don't know where 3rd edition implied a hyper urban setting with magic shops everywhere. That feel certainly wasn't established in most of the adventures WotC released, and I don't see anywhere in the DM's Guide where it says an urban setting is the default. Even Eberron has large stretches of wilderness and many places where the "Points of Light" idea is already the assumption.

While players can always play in their prefered style and ignore it, I think there was a strong implication of magic moving like coinage throughout the economy. This required places where you could sell it - an the material didn't take pains to provide alternative inspiration to cities. Sure, merchants could have hauled valuable magic "into the dark wilderness", and delivered it at the other end, and thus tied together a magical economy via trade, but it was never laid out as such in the material. And of course, the presence of verbiage stating that PCs should just be able to trade in treasures and get cash value out of them encouraged this type of play, which I've seen a lot of dissatisfaction with on these boards.

 

[Zulgyan]

That was the first thing I thought of when I read the WotC article actually.

Me too

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Have you used The Wilderlands of High Fantasy? Very cool (and old school) "points of light" setting.

It's definitely cool, and definitely has that "points of light" thing going on. But so did early Greyhawk. Take Expedition to the Barrier Peaks as an example. The rather brief set-up describes the PCs making it to a baron's castle, the only point of civilization for miles around. Something about that always intrigued me, and 4e's default setting hearkens back to it. Looking forward to it.