White Raven Onslaught Revision

[Arnwyn]

Just because 3 people have to bring it up in every conversation does not mean that it bothers a majority of players, or even a minority of players for that matter. It is the nature of the internet that the very vocal 3 make it seem that the outrage is tremendous, when in reality it is barely noticeable.

Oh, don't you worry yourself - there's more.

It doesn't look like you know what you're talking about. "3" indeed.

 

[D'karr]

Oh, don't you worry yourself - there's more.

It doesn't look like you know what you're talking about. "3" indeed.

Funny enough, it does not seem to be me that is worried.

 

[Hussar]

Uhm...

I began with AD&D 1e in 1978. There was no "specific world" in the rules; at most, you had names like Bigby and Otiluke (with no explanation as to who they were...if you knew they were from Gary's original game, you were a hardcore fanatic). No history, no backstory, no continents, no city names, nothing, nada, zip. As for Basic...if you mean the first 'Basic Set', the one which came with 'Module B1' and really cheap plastic dice, I can assure you it also had not the slightest trace of background world in it. As for the later 'Red Box' sets, I never played with them, so I can't judge.

AD&D 1e was the ultimate blank slate; even the 'sample dungeon' in the DMG only had three rooms actually detailed, just enough to show a new DM the format and let him fill in the rest. The back of the DMG was a wonderful pile of random charts for everything from items found in a temple to the texture of potions to what kind of prostitute you encountered...now, THAT'S how you inspire imaginations!

Granted, when I said Basic and Expert rules I was referring the Mentzer which most certainly was loaded with campaign setting. Heck, a fair chunk of the Expert rules details what would later become Mystara.

But, 1e was a blank slate? Really? Your 1e books didn't have racial relation charts? That's just to name one example. It's been a while since I actually cracked open those books, but, everyone who's a fan of 1e tells me how much setting is actually detailed within those pages. When I disagreed, I got quoted chapter and verse.

So, I'm thinking that you're right out to lunch here. The entire Artifacts section is nothing but Greyhawk lore. A large number of the monsters are Greyhawk specific. The races are modeled after Greyhawk - down to specific subraces (Grey Elves anyone? Never mind the Drow). The list is long of setting specific material there is in the core rules of 1e.

D&D has modeled one thing really well and that's D&D fantasy. D&D fantasy is not generic fantasy. Witness the huge body of work to dovetail D20 rules into various genres. If D20 was generic, then it wouldn't need to be massively rewritten to do something as basic as Conan.

 

[Lizard]

Granted, when I said Basic and Expert rules I was referring the Mentzer which most certainly was loaded with campaign setting. Heck, a fair chunk of the Expert rules details what would later become Mystara.

But, 1e was a blank slate? Really? Your 1e books didn't have racial relation charts? That's just to name one example. It's been a while since I actually cracked open those books, but, everyone who's a fan of 1e tells me how much setting is actually detailed within those pages. When I disagreed, I got quoted chapter and verse.

So, I'm thinking that you're right out to lunch here. The entire Artifacts section is nothing but Greyhawk lore. A large number of the monsters are Greyhawk specific. The races are modeled after Greyhawk - down to specific subraces (Grey Elves anyone? Never mind the Drow). The list is long of setting specific material there is in the core rules of 1e.

We have very different definitions of "Setting". The monsters are not "greyhawk specific" in 1e, because, at the time the MM was published, there was no "Greyhawk" -- not as a commercial setting anyone could reference. They were not made "Greyhawk monsters" until much later -- they were just *monsters*. Race relation tables are not setting, not when they come with no history, background, or details. Grey elves and drow? First, they came much later in the product's life (Unearthed Arcana), and second, again, there was no 'greyhawk' association -- they were just monsters anyone could use. The strong linking of them to a specific world came later. By this logic, dwarves and halflings were 'greyhawk races', because they were in Greyhawk!

Artifacts you have a better claim on, but even that was sparse indeed. A few names, at most. No maps, no details, no histories...I'd challenge anyone to play in the "World of Greyhawk" based solely on the information in the Artifacts chapter.

Claiming 1e is "filled with greyhawk lore" because the *game* *itself* evolved in Gary's campaign -- it WAS D&D. To argue that beholders, mind flayers, or gelatinous cubes are "setting", because Gary used them in his own game and then included them in the published game manuals raises "disingenuous" to a true art form.

 

[Hussar]

How would you convert the Temple of Elemental Evil to run it in the Forgotten Realms? Or your own homebre setting? Or even Eberron?

I'm not seeing the relevance of the question, so help me out. IF I wanted to do so, then I would look at the setting I'm converting to and place in such a way that it fits - so ToEE would go in a place with a volcano, for a start, preferably one with a city fairly close by that could serve as a stand in for Verbobonc (sp). Then, I'd need to replace some of the monsters to fit with the new setting.

How does the existence of a core setting affect that?

I just made a post arguing against Lizard's point a short time ago, but now it seems like I might have something of a difference of opinion with you as well... Go figure.

I don't think a ruleset needs to have a setting. D&D doesn't need Greyhawk or Forgotten realms or any other setting. A DM doesn't need those things to run a game. A DM doesn't even need to build a world when deprived of full settings. What is more, having a full setting right in the rules can sometimes become an annoyance.

Take as an example my experience with Iron Heroes. Supposedly its "implied setting" (a term I absolutely despise) is a world in which magic is rare and dangerous and the gods are distant or non-existant. I used it to run a campaign set in a homebrew setting featuring a nation run by a bureaucracy of wizards in a myth-inspired world where divine intervention was commonplace. The only change I needed for the rules was telling my players to ignore the fluff chapter that described the "implied setting".

D&D doesn't need a full setting, but it should not be completely lifeless and generic either. It just needs countless seeds of ideas and a million fragments of plots and possibilities. Having a group of feats called "White Raven" or "Golden Wyvern" does not, and should not, directly link D&D to any one setting, nor does it limit the flexibility of any setting. What it does do is provide something for a DM to latch on to and transform into a unique creation, whether it is an organization, an ancient swordmaster, a loose style used by thousands of different mercenaries, or something else entirely. If D&D can be filled with countless broken fragments of ideas, then it becomes much easier for a DM to build their own unique mosaic of a setting, without being constrained by someone else's pattern.

Worldbuilding is one of the hardest things about DMing, but it is also one of the most fun. Game designers and rulebooks should definitely work hard to take away the difficulty, but they should not do so at the expense of taking away the fun parts.

I'm going to take your points in reverse order if I may. Worldbuilding may ebe one of the most fun things *for you* but, for me, it's a complete and utter bore that I'd much rather not have to do. I loathe, hate and really don't like being forced to do it. I have no problems letting setting sit in the background, drawn out by the players or by myself when its related to the game at hand but otherwise mostly ignored.

But, I need at least the framework of a world in order to play. I need that much and I recognize that. So, if the game gives me a framework, like Mystara, then I'm happy. Giving me half a setting means that I'm half done rather than, as Lizard would have it, forcing me to do all the work myself or paying someone else extra money on top.

Sure, I agree that D&D should not be forced to be played in only one setting. I have no problem with that. But, the existence of a core setting in no way forces you to play in that setting any more than a B/E/C/M/I player was forced to play in Mystara or a 1e player was forced to play in Greyhawk. The rules give you a very nice example of what a campaign setting looks like but doesn't make you run your game there.

I look at it like this. I've been playing a Binder for the past year or so in an Eberron campaign. Binders come with about 25 or 30 vestiges in the Tome of Magic. Within those vestiges is more than enough flavour for me to run an very interesting character with more than enough depth for years. I don't need anything more than that. Yet, that character is absolutely tied to the flavor in the TOM unless I go out and build my own vestiges.

I could certainly do so if I was so inclined. If I wanted to make a different binder that fit seamlessly into Eberron I could go out and create a whole swath of new vestiges based on Eberron flavor. OTOH, I don't have to. The flavor text of the Binder is such that, while extremely specific, allows more than enough flexibility that I can fit him in anyway. Sure, referencing Teneberous is a bit weird, but, then, they're vestiges, being weird is par for the course.

And, hey, look, every Vestige comes with flavor text names of abilities like Focalor's Tears or Heavy Magic. Yet, for some reason, it's never, ever been confusing at the table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Taken from Tolkein,

"You cannot pass. I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass."

Yeah, "basic names" with no fluff there...

#1: Oh, heck, YES, Tolkein was chock the heck full of names that I, at least, didn't care in the slightest about. It was kind of cool to know there was a history there, but as long as it sounded vague and menacing, I didn't really care. All I had to know was summed up in "Dwarves awaken a demon, knowledgable wizard name-drops about said demon, they fight, wizard becomes unintentional parallel for Christ. The end." The reams of information Tolkein created about Middle Earth were entirely meaningless dribble to me, and, I'd wager, to most people who read LotR.

#2: D&D has long been a game about "pretending to be like LotR" (amongst other things). By marrying the rules to specific, non-pop-fantasy flavor, they're making it less a toolkit and more a declaration of something specific (and copyrightable). And it is very, very hard to give us anything that will compare with our imaginary heroes in terms of "wanting to pretend to be like them for four hours a week." It was a stroke of genius to link D&D to ambiguously "mythic fantasy" and to let players decide for themselves what that meant. In linking D&D to something more specific, 4e it telling you what it means, and so is limiting your ability to interpret it for yourself.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's challenging, and it has a cost.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Then, I'd need to replace some of the monsters to fit with the new setting.

Hey now! Foul!

"If it has a place in D&D, it has a place in Eberron."

No monster conversion required.

 

[Mistwell]

We have very different definitions of "Setting". The monsters are not "greyhawk specific" in 1e, because, at the time the MM was published, there was no "Greyhawk" -- not as a commercial setting anyone could reference. They were not made "Greyhawk monsters" until much later -- they were just *monsters*. Race relation tables are not setting, not when they come with no history, background, or details. Grey elves and drow? First, they came much later in the product's life (Unearthed Arcana), and second, again, there was no 'greyhawk' association -- they were just monsters anyone could use. The strong linking of them to a specific world came later. By this logic, dwarves and halflings were 'greyhawk races', because they were in Greyhawk!

Artifacts you have a better claim on, but even that was sparse indeed. A few names, at most. No maps, no details, no histories...I'd challenge anyone to play in the "World of Greyhawk" based solely on the information in the Artifacts chapter.

Claiming 1e is "filled with greyhawk lore" because the *game* *itself* evolved in Gary's campaign -- it WAS D&D. To argue that beholders, mind flayers, or gelatinous cubes are "setting", because Gary used them in his own game and then included them in the published game manuals raises "disingenuous" to a true art form.

1e was filled with non-descriptive flavor names for things that were made up just for 1e. You can call it setting material or a duck, but it doesn't matter because the subject wasn't the word just "setting" material, but non-descriptive flavor names for things (like "White Raven").

Something tells me you will not be objecting to Githyanki being in 4e despite it being 1) non-descriptive, 2) flavor-based, 3) lame (and before we all got used to it, it did sound lame). And that will be because it's now traditional and everyone knows what they are...which is how White Raven will be after a few years as well.

 

[Lizard]

1e was filled with non-descriptive flavor names for things that were made up just for 1e. You can call it setting material or a duck, but it doesn't matter because the subject wasn't the word just "setting" material, but non-descriptive flavor names for things (like "White Raven").

Such as?

Apart from spells named after wizards, and some artifacts, I can't think of much...

Something tells me you will not be objecting to Githyanki being in 4e despite it being 1) non-descriptive, 2) flavor-based, 3) lame (and before we all got used to it, it did sound lame). And that will be because it's now traditional and everyone knows what they are...which is how White Raven will be after a few years as well.

Uhm...'githyanki' is a name. I was unaware that all names had to be descriptive. By this logic, 'orc', 'gnoll', and 'sahuagin' are flavor text, because the names are non-descriptive.

And, yeah, it is a pretty lame name, but I don't recall ever saying nothing had lame names prior to 4e.

If the name of a thing is what a character in the setting calls it, it should make sense within the setting -- if something is called 'White Raven Onslaught', there should be meaning behind the 'white raven' part, and that in turn creates/defines the flavor of the setting. If the name of a thing is intended primarily as a rules label, it should be as neutral and descriptive as possible.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm going to take your points in reverse order if I may. Worldbuilding may ebe one of the most fun things *for you* but, for me, it's a complete and utter bore that I'd much rather not have to do. I loathe, hate and really don't like being forced to do it. I have no problems letting setting sit in the background, drawn out by the players or by myself when its related to the game at hand but otherwise mostly ignored.

But, I need at least the framework of a world in order to play. I need that much and I recognize that. So, if the game gives me a framework, like Mystara, then I'm happy. Giving me half a setting means that I'm half done rather than, as Lizard would have it, forcing me to do all the work myself or paying someone else extra money on top.

Sure, I agree that D&D should not be forced to be played in only one setting. I have no problem with that. But, the existence of a core setting in no way forces you to play in that setting any more than a B/E/C/M/I player was forced to play in Mystara or a 1e player was forced to play in Greyhawk. The rules give you a very nice example of what a campaign setting looks like but doesn't make you run your game there.

I look at it like this. I've been playing a Binder for the past year or so in an Eberron campaign. Binders come with about 25 or 30 vestiges in the Tome of Magic. Within those vestiges is more than enough flavour for me to run an very interesting character with more than enough depth for years. I don't need anything more than that. Yet, that character is absolutely tied to the flavor in the TOM unless I go out and build my own vestiges.

I could certainly do so if I was so inclined. If I wanted to make a different binder that fit seamlessly into Eberron I could go out and create a whole swath of new vestiges based on Eberron flavor. OTOH, I don't have to. The flavor text of the Binder is such that, while extremely specific, allows more than enough flexibility that I can fit him in anyway. Sure, referencing Teneberous is a bit weird, but, then, they're vestiges, being weird is par for the course.

And, hey, look, every Vestige comes with flavor text names of abilities like Focalor's Tears or Heavy Magic. Yet, for some reason, it's never, ever been confusing at the table.

I think we mostly have a disagreement regarding the definition of "worldbuilding", but other than that I seem to be having a little trouble following you...

For the most part, I was arguing against the idea (that I thought you were arguing), that a game should be hard-coded to work with a particular setting. For example, the D&D core rulebooks could be written so that they assume every player is going to play in the Forgotten Realms, and every bit of flavor and all of the rules are built towards that one goal, to the point that playing the game in any setting other than the Realms becomes difficult. I would hate a tabletop RPG so thoroughly linked to one setting. At the same time, perfectly generic leaves you with the problem that you were complaining about earlier. It is much better to leave the default setting of a game incomplete, a composite of places and ideas that don't form a coherent structure in of itself, but can be quickly turned by a creative DM into a coherent whole across the span of a campaign.

Maybe I should use a more specific example. In the Eberron setting book, there is a minor reference to there being a mysterious prisoner in Dreadhold. No other information regarding this individual is given in the book. I consider this kind of dangling, incomplete plot hook to be ideal for DMs. It is enough of an idea to get a DM's imagination working, but it is flexible enough that a DM can really do anything with it. Is this prisoner the true Kaius III? Is he actually a long-lost son of King Boranel, imprisoned against his father's wishes? Is he actually the mad wizard who knows the truth behind the Day of Mourning, kept silent by those who don't want the world to know the truth? Depending on the kind of campaign the DM is running, any of these answers could be good ones. Yet, if some designer went and wrote a book that said "the prisoner mentioned in the ECS is actually the real Kaius III", it limits some of the flexibility open to DMs. In fact, if the designers did that, then any adventure involving the real Kaius III has to involve Dreadhold, and almost any adventure involving Dreadhold has to involve Kaius III, an unnecessary limitation. In any case, the idea is that even in setting books, things should be created so that they inspire DMs to create plots and adventures without limiting the kinds of plots and adventures open to DMs.

I am not sure I am making my point correctly...

Hussar, can I ask for some clarification? What it is specifically do you have against worldbuilding. Given that we may very well have different definitions of the word, can you explain what it is you don't like doing, what about being a DM and crafting campaigns and adventures that you do like, and why you think "worldbuilding" is even necessary if you don't like it?