Rich Baker on the Points of Light Setting.

SPECTRE666

Adventurer
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14733236&postcount=2053 :)

[sblock=Rich]Hi, Rin --

We're not actually building a world out of the "core" setting. In a sense, the core setting is simply a collection of proper names, artifacts, and legends we expect many generic D&D games to share. This has always been true to some degree; even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye, that the drow fought the other elves and were driven underground, that Acererak the lich created a Tomb of Horrors somewhere on the planet, or that the Rod of Seven Parts was lying around someplace waiting to be found.

The big new thing in the "fluff" of 4e D&D is that we're not tethering these names and stories to the world of Greyhawk; we've created a new skeleton of linked assumptions (proper names, artifacts, stories) to anchor the fluff of the "implied" setting. Since we're telling a story that tieflings are the descendants of a ruling elite from a human empire that made pacts with devils, we might as well attach a "placeholder" name to it. Some DMs will use the name Bael Turath; other DMs will make up their own infernal empire. But "Bael Turath" looks nice than "[insert your chosen name here]".

Now, for my own part, I favor the idea of sketching a simple map of that setting and thinking up a name for it. But many of my colleagues feel that doing so would simply replicate the Greyhawk phenomenon, and make it harder for DMs who build their own worlds to use the material we're creating. (So far, I've lost that argument; hey, it happens!) The idea is to create just enough flavor to have interesting proper names and links for DMs to pick up and use, without dictating how their worlds have to go together.

All of that is not really relevant to the Forgotten Realms, of course; the Realms is an example of a specific world that is not beholden to core stories, names, or flavor. So there isn't a Bael Turath in Toril's past... but we do suggest that ancient Narfell might have been the place where tieflings first appeared in Faerun.

Does that help to clarify what we're doing with the "core setting?"[/sblock]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wormwood

Adventurer
Darn.

I really want setting information in the core books---if only because that's what I've come to expect from my RPG purchases.

edit: and I don't have any desire to homebrew. I just want to crack open the books and start playing.
 
Last edited:

Incenjucar

Legend
Meh.

This isn't exactly a huge issue to me, personally, as a homebrewer, but even an uninteresting setting would have been helpful to the youngsters.

Hopefully they at least have another setting search in the works.

*wrings his hands*
 

Sonny

Adventurer
This is how I was hoping the "Points of Lights" fluff was going to work. Give us some names, legends, and history, and we'll do the rest. I'm very happy with this info. :D
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer
Say what?

even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye, that the drow fought the other elves and were driven underground, that Acererak the lich created a Tomb of Horrors somewhere on the planet, or that the Rod of Seven Parts was lying around someplace waiting to be found.

I beg to differ. None of the campaigns that I've been in have any of these assumptions.
 

Rabelais

First Post
Honestly, this is what I thought they meant when they were talking about PoL to begin with! I was excited by the concept, rather than the idea that it was tied to a particular setting. Our group is running something like Planegotten Eberhawk anyway... what would we do with a whole new setting?

PoL is appealing to me because it gives the players the sense that they are the ONLY thing between the BBEGs and total world domination... The other stuff is just names on a map. (to me)
 

architect.zero

First Post
This is fantastic news. Exactly how I wanted it to pan out. No maps, no distances between cities, no way to know what nations border each other. Leave all that up to the group. I sincerely hope that they leave it that way too, for the entirety of 4e's product cycle.

That being said, I would really like them to make a new setting that highlights 4e's unique points. Perhaps another setting search, perhaps not.
 

Voss

First Post
tomBitonti said:
I beg to differ. None of the campaigns that I've been in have any of these assumptions.

Yeah, I agree with you. Further this is one of those annoying things that keeps putting me off the development team, much more so than the mechanics. Even if he thinks this (and I for one don't know why he would make that assumption) he shouldn't be saying it, because it has no productive use other than to put people's hackles up.

The other stuff... well OK... I like the points of light concept, but by what he's saying, its not only blindly inserted fluff, but its not even *useful* fluff since there isn't anything coherent to do with it. The fluff will mean exactly the same thing as any random fantasy novel that a DM decides to steal ideas from. Or not.

But I fully expect he will eventually get his way, to the point that not only will there be a map, but by 2010, a setting book will be announced.
 

Sitara

Explorer
Yeah, and I bet Swordmages will be the uberclass of that setting. :)

But sriously, i really dig this new POL setting and definately would buy it...though i hope in an 'official' such setting there be no elves and halflings.
 

ObsidianCrane

First Post
Wormwood said:
Darn.

I really want setting information in the core books---if only because that's what I've come to expect from my RPG purchases.

edit: and I don't have any desire to homebrew. I just want to crack open the books and start playing.

Actually the way it seems the PHB/DMG/MM are going to be set up, along with the Modules you will get what you want largely. You will also have lots of freedom to use your own ideas when you have them - it really looks like a good setting.

tomBitonti said:
I beg to differ. None of the campaigns that I've been in have any of these assumptions.

Which aligns with what he said;

even back in 1st Edition, just about every campaign every DM

Its great your Campaigns didn't have the assumptions, but its clear he wasn't saying every Campaign had those assumptions.
 

Remove ads

Top