Vote For Or Against POL Map Here

[Klaus]

That would be very, very cool. They wouldn't have to (and probably shouldn't) be particularly detailed, either. Just a few brain droppings to get things going and to provide a bit of reference for harried DMs.

I'd like to see each of them write up a 5-10 page "skeleton" of different versions of the PoL setting.

 

[Scribble]

I'd like to see each of them write up a 5-10 page "skeleton" of different versions of the PoL setting.

I wouldn' mind seeing this on DDI...

I like Davethegame's idea though of giving ideas on how to create a world.

 

[Zaruthustran]

"Encounter" scale maps are fine (like maps of a village, town, dungeon, battlefield, etc. But I don't want a regional or world map in the core books. What I want from the PHB, MM, and DMG is a ruleset, not a fantasy setting.

I'm fine, however, with fluff that gives some context to those rules. I'm okay with the proper names, broad histories, gods, and whatnot. Stripping that stuff away--replacing "Elves" with a generic entry for "Dextrous and Wise nature race"--would be a bad idea.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

My preferred solution would be for multiple Fourth Edition designers to take a stab at drawing up maps for the implied setting if they feel the need, and for Wizards of the Coast to whack them up on the website.

I don't want a map in the core rules - that's going too far towards establishing a true setting.

 

[Aristotle]

I want my DM to have a map whether the PCs do or not.

Then, in my opinion, you aren't going to be happy with a Points of Light style game. You'll want to pick up, or create, a campaign setting instead.

Don't get me wrong... I've been building top-down worlds for years. I start with a world map and a creation myth and work my way down through the various cultures that make up the world to common kinds of insects found in the Kesh Valley or the top imports and exports of a given empire and typical recipes for the region (we're going to be stopping at an inn in Bartaslov in tonight's game, so I'll make french onion soup so the players can taste what their characters are eating)... I even detailed 26 species of dogs for a 2e world, to better understand how and why the locals used them in a magically influenced world.

My players don't see all of that. They aren't interested, honestly. They are generally happy to interact with a cohesive world, even when I only let them see a small part of it. The pay off for me is more in the work (I enjoy it) and the chance that our campaign goes back to Bartaslov and one of my players makes the remark "Mmmm, Onion soup."

But that isn't PoL. I'm going to try a PoL campaign with 4E. My first since the unintentional patchwork of Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms adventures I ran when I first started playing. Pol is a little bit sloppy and a whole lot of seat-of-your-pants. I'm not sure it's for me, but I get the concept.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Then, in my opinion, you aren't going to be happy with a Points of Light style game. You'll want to pick up, or create, a campaign setting instead.

I'm afraid I don't follow. "Points of Light" is a kind of campaign setting. I see nothing in the concept that makes running it with a created as you go along world better than running it with groundwork. Can you explain what you are investing in the PoL setting that I'm not seeing?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I don't want a world map, but regional/town or city maps I would love to see. So don't show what the world looks like, but major locations they describe should have some sort of reference (be needed for OFFICIAL PoL campaigns and their tilesets, etc) map.

 

[Horacio]

I believe I've already answered to a similar thread earlier today...

I don't want a map in core books. I prefer PoL setting to be a series of locations that I can toss in my setting, I don't want a full defined new setting. I want locations, and people, but no setting.

Once again, I guess everybody have their opinion, and you cannot please everybody...

 

[Aristotle]

Can you explain what you are investing in the PoL setting that I'm not seeing?

I wish I could, though words will likely fail me. I see it as nothing more than the points. Any defined area of the world is no larger than one of those points, and the person running the individual campaign decides which points make up his or her setting and where they are in relation to one another. That is the allure to me, and what will make "generic" D&D adventures runnable at my table. Adherence to the "core" will provide world consistency. The DM will be responsible for making everything else makes as much sense as his or her players require. It's a new concept to me, and if I don't like it I'll throw it out and convert one of my own, more detailed, designs.

If anyone has a similar view, and a more eloquent way of stating it, I welcome them to offer a better explanation.

 

[Zurai]

I'm afraid I don't follow. "Points of Light" is a kind of campaign setting.

Points of Light is not a campaign setting. Its entire point, the entire reason for its existence as a concept, is to not be a campaign setting. That is what you are not seeing.