Rich Baker on the Points of Light Setting.

[Henry]

You are also missing the first part of the 'everyone has done this thing'.... The 'JUST ABOUT' part. And in my experience, almost all the homebrews I have played had some of these assumptions. The homebrews of my youth, my 20s and 30s were exciting, intriguing, immersive worlds. They used these common assumptions and were certainly not dull.

I had the same experience; every one of my AD&D games (and most of my 2E and 3E ones) had this same "collective mythology" applied in the background. If anything, it shows more about Rich Baker showing his age than making an incorrect assumption. However, for people who started at later times than the late 70's or early 80's, or for those who didn't read all those Dragon articles by Roger Moore, then they wouldn't have most of these default stories as part of their gaming history.

Another note about the "community illusion" -- I think a lot of it is more generational than anything. Gamers who were heavily influenced in the early days by Gary Gygax, Zeb Cook, Skip Williams, Jim Ward, etc. will have a lot of these experiences in common. Heck, the first time I ever listened to Gary Gygax talk at a seminar about the early gaming groups and D&D, it was like listening to tales of my old groups in their days; I could practically see every one of my friends doing the exact things that Gary would speak of, and it felt unbelievably "at home" and "right." Rob Kuntz's ability to sneak a peak behind a DM map once and draw the entire dungeon from memory was exactly like my friend Jim...

Even for those who didn't share a lot of this stuff, many experiences have carried over, whether the first place they explored was named the Caves of Chaos or the Sunless Citadel. The people who rushed in and fought the baby white dragon toe to toe are spiritual heirs to the guys and gals who assumed "bree yark" was goblin for "we surrender"; and the people who freaked out about losing directions in the minotaur's labyrinth have a lot in common with those who couldn't figure out how a black dragon in a pond was shooting acid at them from underwater.

We don't share identical experiences; but the majority of the community shares enough to make it one.

 

[catsclaw227]

Maybe so, Henry, maybe so.

EDIT: In my 1e, 2e days we never played in Greyhawk or one of the published settings, we always homebrewed. But since 3e and my busier personal life, I have relied on the settings of the adventures or the published ones.

We ran the Freeport series as our first 3e game, and therefore Freeport was our setting. I also ran in 3e FR, Oathbound, Midnight, the implied setting for the Drow War series by Mongoose, and since I have been running Dungeon APs (first Savage Tide, then now Age of Worms), we have been using Greyhawk as a base. I would like to see a fleshed out PoL setting, but it doesn't make the existing implied setting any less valid.

I plan on running a 4e Golarion (Pathfinder, by Paizo) as my campaign setting after AoW.

 

[Darrin Drader]

What I see here is that they're going to be selling us an incomplete setting with the core rules. In fact, they'll be giving us an incomplete set of rules with the core rules. There are plenty of people playing gnomes out there right now. Guess what? No gnomes for at least a year after the core rules come out. That means that the expectation is that you won't be converting your existing game to the new rules. Instead they expect you to start a new game with the 4E rules. But rather than at least giving you a map and some names to go with the implied setting, they'll just leave it all completely vague so you are left to puzzle out how to put it together on your own.

But there will be gnomes eventually. There will most likely be a full writeup on the Points of Light setting eventually. In the meantime, what we have is a bunch of blank spots to be filled out later by WotC. Come on guys, we know you need to sell books, but the least you could do is give us a system that caters to the way we want to play it. The more I read about 4E, the more it looks like it's trying to restrict us rather than give us the tools we need to run the games we want, which is exactly the opposite of the design philosophy of 3E.

Sorry, I like the Points of Light idea. I've liked it since the first time I heard it. In fact, so far, it's the one thing about 4E that I have liked. However, it seems incredibly cheesy that they can't even give us a map and a brief overview that puts the pieces together in some way that is halfway coherent. I'm still not convinced that switching to the new edition will be in my game's best interest, and I have a Points of Light setting already - Gazetteer of the Known Realms by Goodman Games, which I will likely be sticking with.

I really like the guys who are designing the new edition, and they've done great work in the past, but so far I'm really disagreeing with a lot of the design philosophy going on here. Of course this isn't the first time. My idea of what level 20 and above play should look like was a lot different than what the Epic Level Handbook ended up being. In my opinion, D&D is about ordinary characters harnessing extraordinary powers, not becoming comic book style super heroes.

 

[LostSoul]

What I see here is that they're going to be selling us an incomplete setting with the core rules. In fact, they'll be giving us an incomplete set of rules with the core rules.

You don't need gnomes for a game to be complete.

You also don't need a world map.

 

[hazel monday]

You don't need gnomes for a game to be complete.

You do if your players like gnomes. Like mine do.

 

[Piratecat]

What I see here is that they're going to be selling us an incomplete setting with the core rules. In fact, they'll be giving us an incomplete set of rules with the core rules.

Sure, just like 3rd edition: no setting details, incomplete rules that were filled in by splatbooks. And 2nd edition before it. And 1st edition before that.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Sure, just like 3rd edition: no setting details, incomplete rules that were filled in by splatbooks. And 2nd edition before it. And 1st edition before that.

I was expecting that rebuttal, so let me jog your memory a bit.

Greyhawk was the oldest official D&D setting, so a good chunk of players who were picking up the rules were already well acquainted with it. But, memory being what it is, they not only released a product the following month that included the player's info for Greyhawk as well as a nice shiny new map. They later released a more comprehensive Greyhawk book for DMs within a year. It isn't like it was a mystery setting.

You have a point with 1E, but generally you release new editions to progress the game, not regress it. In 2nd edition the Forgotten Realms was the default setting, and there was a small mountain of mostly compatible material out there already for it.

 

[Silent Cartographer]

I like it. It's like a pinewood derby for newbie GMs, and everyone can publish their version on the web (gleemax, etc.). When I started out, drawing the map was half the fun of homebrewing; this setting-kit setup allows beginners to put their own stamp on their campaigns without excessive hand-holding or blocking creativity.

 

[Henry]

Sure, just like 3rd edition: no setting details, incomplete rules that were filled in by splatbooks. And 2nd edition before it. And 1st edition before that.

...and this is true; I won't fault WotC for not having tons of stuff at the starting gate. One thing that 3E did excel at though was having lots of character types available right out of the core rules books, enough to make do with until 3E' brand of "kits" and "skills and powers" could take hold. If I can build some kind of nature priest out of the core 3E cleric, then I'd be happy. If I can build a swashbuckler out of the core rules, I'll be happy. If I can't build something out of the core (like, say, a barbarian type complete with some kind of rage), then I won't be happy about it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I like it. It's like a pinewood derby for newbie GMs, and everyone can publish their version on the web (gleemax, etc.). When I started out, drawing the map was half the fun of homebrewing; this setting-kit setup allows beginners to put their own stamp on their campaigns without excessive hand-holding or blocking creativity.

That works if part of the fun for you is creating new maps. Personally, I like a good map where the bones of the setting are already present, but every NPC and every square acre of land isn't already defined (Forgotten Realms). I'd like Greyhawk, except that frankly, I laugh at the silly names every time I pull it out and look at it. That's why I like Goodman Games's setting. It gives you the lay of the land and the basic information about what you'll find there, but they don't go volume after volume, constantly defining the setting, preferring instead to let DMs customize the world to fit their fancy. I own a bunch of campaign settings and its the only one where I really feel like it's mine to do with as I please.