The default campaign world - new article

[hong]

Recall that 3E was the HEROization of D&D. I think I'll call 4E the Iron Heroization of D&D.

 

[Tewligan]

Really, WotC may as well have just said "Y'know, we're not even going to pretend to have a default setting this time around." How is this a setting? It sounds like they're just saying that the world is full of dungeons and monsters and crap, but there are some standalone kingdoms and villages that don't affect each other and the PC's can come across if an adventure calls for it. That's not a setting, it's just a blank slate for the DM to slap adventures onto without any real concern for a "big picture". Not that there's anything wrong with that - there are plenty of ways to game other than mine, and none of them are any better than the others. (Well, of course MY preferred style is best...) There's no need for a developed setting to be included in the core set - just don't pretend that there is one when there really isn't.

Of course, it's still early and all we have is a blurb to go on, so my indignation may turn out to be unfounded...

 

[hong]

Really, WotC may as well have just said "Y'know, we're not even going to pretend to have a default setting this time around." How is this a setting? It sounds like they're just saying that the world is full of dungeons and monsters and crap, but there are some standalone kingdoms and villages that don't affect each other and the PC's can come across if an adventure calls for it. That's not a setting, it's just a blank slate for the DM to slap adventures onto without any real concern for a "big picture". Not that there's anything wrong with that - there are plenty of ways to game other than mine, and none of them are any better than the others. (Well, of course MY preferred style is best...) There's no need for a developed setting to be included in the core set - just don't pretend that there is one when there really isn't.

Of course, it's still early and all we have is a blurb to go on, so my indignation may turn out to be unfounded...

Aw mang, you just ruined the thread.

 

[KingCrab]

I think it's good as long as they leave FR the way it is and don't try to radically change it to make it more like their idea for the base setting. If they do then I'll cry. I'm already crying about a lot of 4e changes, so it won't matter much, but I'll cry a little more.

 

[fuindordm]

This sounds like a large step back into the world where adventurers exist in some weird bubble and society is incapable of adjusting to them...even though there must have been adventurers for as long as there's been civilization.

Ironically, to me this sounds like a world where adventurers are vital to the survival of civilization--and therefore have a reason for existing.

I wonder if this heralds the return of stronghold rules for high-level characters? In AD&D the culmination of a character's career was when they cleared a region of monsters and built their keep, creating another "point of light".

 

[Bagpuss]

I personally would rather it be this "points of light" (4e) than a core setting that assumes there is a trade in magic items in every town with a decent gp limit (3e).

There is nothing to stop one of these points of light being a large "city state" with all the political intrigue you could want.

 

[jasin]

I like this.

It made me think of Iron Heroes, Lord of the Rings, Dying Earth and the Dark Ages. I like this.

However, I find it curious that the first announced setting is Forgotten Realms, with Eberron probably being next, when those two would be my prime examples of the exact opposite philosophy in setting design. (Yes, I know all about the Shadow Marches, the Eldeen Reaches, the Western Heartlands... still, I don't think it can be denied that both FR and Eberron overall feel alive, vibrant and populated, rather than points-of-light-ish.)

 

[Glyfair]

However, I find it curious that the first announced setting is Forgotten Realms, with Eberron probably being next, when those two would be my prime examples of the exact opposite philosophy in setting design.

Makes sense to me. The default setting is what you are "expected" to develop on your own. The ones you release should contrast with that.

The "points of light" setting seems tailor made for new campaigns that are designed as you go. Start small with a single point of light. The characters explore for a while and fight another "point of light" and the DM designs that. After a while you have a whole setting, without having a big mass thrust on you.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

This looks pretty good, I think; it explains why there are all these ruins and dungeons to explore and loot, why there are plenty of monsters available to fight, and so on. Definitely good for new DMs who are starting to build their own campaigns!

And nothing here, IMO, prohibits or invalidates intrigue, city adventures, politics or warfare between nations; just say there are larger nations, who through a combination of good geography, good rulership and good luck have grown and pacified their interior. They're just exceptions, not the universal!

 

[Maggan]

How is this a setting?

Well, it's not the entire setting, yet. It's so far a comment about the kind of assumptions they are bringing to the table when designing the core books, regarding the assumed or default setting. Extrapolating a setting and its faults from that quote and subsequently shoot that extrapolated setting down for not fulfilling personal preferences, seems a bit premature to me.

The basic assumption sounds ok by me. It's going to be interesting to see the execution of it.

The thing I'm wondering about is how much space will the implied setting be allowed to take up in the books. They've got FR and Eberron coming out, and I don't think they want to devote too much space for an implied setting.

/M