PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition, Evil Vs. Evil is no longer true



Pages : [1] 2

EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 10:10 PM
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to was space on things the players can't use...."

From worlds and Monsters p. 14

Does this upset anyone? Isn't evil fighting evil one of the main concepts of evil?
from
EE

Talya
2008-02-17, 10:12 PM
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to was space on things the players can't use...."

From worlds and Monsters p. 14

Does this upset anyone? Isn't evil fighting evil one of the main concepts of evil?
from
EE



Yes, it bothers me. And it's ridiculous statement that "players can't use" it. Players use evil's tendency to fight itself all the time.

Orzel
2008-02-17, 10:21 PM
Evil fighting evil was always one of the balancers in my mind. Evil fought other evil which let good keep it in check easily and not cause a near apocalypse every 20 years. Without demon fighting devils and green skins beating up scaly skins all day, what will occupy their time?

Moral Wiz
2008-02-17, 10:25 PM
Players can't use it?

That's got me worried. That's got me very worried indeed.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-17, 10:25 PM
We don't want to waste space on things the players can't use...Yeah, I'm not paying for an upgrade with that attitude. I can probably talk my DM into just keeping us in 3.5 anyways. This is really disappointing. They are eliminating most of the world other than the players. Yep, videogame, and not good as some of those.

EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 10:26 PM
Yes, it bothers me. And it's ridiculous statement that "players can't use" it. Players use evil's tendency to fight itself all the time.

Oh Talya, you and your silly ideas like a world beyond the PCs, don' you know that evil creatures exist for the sole purpose of running mindlessly into the PCs and dying
from
EE

Edit

Yeah, this does remind me of a video game

Logos7
2008-02-17, 10:28 PM
yeah but i would say good fighting evil and vice versa are a bit more intimate with the genre than other things, honestly i used some of the blood war stuff and it felt like either a big distraction or a mary sue oppurtunity, ("Surely you petty mortals can't do this great big evil outsider stuff so go stuff some letters for clinton while we take care of the "real" stuff)

The less stuff going on in the outer realms the better, I think play should be oriented towards the material plane, I mean it is after all where 9/10 of all games reside 9/10's of the time (81% material plane bias?)

honestly when a player is bashing out kobold brains with a sword does he really give a flying fig what the heirarcies of the infernal planes are? i think not.,

Collin152
2008-02-17, 10:28 PM
More and more it seems ot me that they're dumbing this game down.
We need a man on the inside of this thing. Someone who knows not to pull this kind of nonsense.

FlyMolo
2008-02-17, 10:28 PM
Evil fighting evil was always one of the balancers in my mind. Evil fought other evil which let good keep it in check easily and not cause a near apocalypse every 20 years. Without demon fighting devils and green skins beating up scaly skins all day, what will occupy their time?
PCs.
Lengthen message!

Ascension
2008-02-17, 10:28 PM
Unless they're also changing the whole "Evil outnumbers good" thing, good is in for a world of hurt. Generally any fiction that accepts good and evil as objective concepts (and many with subjective evil, as well) operates on the basis that the combined forces of evil outnumber the combined forces of good, but evil's inherent selfishness and greed prevent it from ever uniting as a single unified force. If it were ever to lay aside its petty differences it would collectively beat good into the dirt and stomp on its ashes. Without that balancing factor, there must be some other balancing factor... either numerically or power level-wise...

...or 4th edition's core setting will turn out to be a world under the complete and total dominion of a demon/devil alliance, with all good eradicated from the prime material plane. I guess that'd be different. And it would explain all the tieflings...

Rutee
2008-02-17, 10:29 PM
So Evil will be less retarded? Sounds good.

...Hah, nah, that won't happen. WotC will manage to keep Evil just as stupid and nonsensical as in 3rd and 2nd eds. At least that'll get rid of the contrived Demon/Devil war.

Collin152
2008-02-17, 10:33 PM
So Evil will be less retarded? Sounds good.

...Hah, nah, that won't happen. WotC will manage to keep Evil just as stupid and nonsensical as in 3rd and 2nd eds. At least that'll get rid of the contrived Demon/Devil war.

Contrived? What?! They were perfectly justified!
They eat their toast with the butter side down!

Rutee
2008-02-17, 10:36 PM
Don't forget the part where the Demons were using kittens and toast for insane gravity experiments. Devils are /cruel/, but even they have limits..

Tequila Sunrise
2008-02-17, 10:36 PM
Yeah, this is very disappointing. I'm not worried about it though, because I can just run my own games using the classic fantasy elements that I like.

EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 10:39 PM
More and more it seems ot me that they're dumbing this game down.
We need a man on the inside of this thing. Someone who knows not to pull this kind of nonsense.

Elect me. Or the Giant i suppose.sarcasm, calm down



on topic, Rutee, the irony here is that WOTC has made the distinction between Demons and devils even more radically different, so it would seem like the justifications for a war would be more likely
from
EE

Ascension
2008-02-17, 10:39 PM
It will certainly reduce the impact of the law-chaos axis. I find it perfectly reasonable that a well-organized evil bureaucracy wouldn't want to have anything to do with a disordered rabble of bloodthirsty fiends. Open war is perhaps an overreaction, but I'm sure the demons started it! On a whim, no less! That's why their sort can't be trusted!

Orzel
2008-02-17, 10:39 PM
PCs.
Lengthen message!

There aren't enough PC to occupy all dem demon down dere.

Usually evil's selfishness and greed prevented it from ever uniting as a single force (see: real world). With most stories making evil outnumber good 10 to 1 at least, it will suck more to be Joe the Farmer.

Catch
2008-02-17, 10:39 PM
I think that there's a terminology issue here.


"Less Evil Fighting Evil"

Emphasis mine, obviously. Before we all jump to conclusions--though, I suppose that's the entire point of 4e threads, as I've noticed--wouldn't it be more prudent to consider the literal meaning of this statement? There's a significant difference between scaling back the endless war between the Abyss and The Nine Hells and uniting all the baddies under one flag. I don't see this as the prelude to an evil team-up, but I suppose less in-fighting fits in with the "points of light" idea, in that the antagonists of the core setting have a more concerted hold over the world than in previous editions, resulting in an overall darking theme, which seems to be what's been promised.

I suppose that's just optimistic guesswork on my part, but I'd rather play Pollyanna then gripe about something that hasn't even been released or confirmed yet.

EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 10:42 PM
I think that there's a terminology issue here.



Emphasis mine, obviously. Before we all jump to conclusions--though, I suppose that's the entire point of 4e threads, as I've noticed--wouldn't it be more prudent to consider the literal meaning of this statement? There's a significant difference between scaling back the endless war between the Abyss and The Nine Hells and uniting all the baddies under one flag. I don't see this as the prelude to an evil team-up, but I suppose less in-fighting fits in with the "points of light" idea, in that the antagonists of the core setting have a more concerted hold over the world than in previous editions, resulting in an overall darking theme, which seems to be what's been promised.

I suppose that's just optimistic guesswork on my part, but I'd rather play Pollyanna then gripe about something that hasn't even been released or confirmed yet.

Well if my gripes are wrong, then i'll be pleasantly surprised
from
EE

Ascension
2008-02-17, 10:42 PM
With most stories making evil outnumber good 10 to 1 at least, it will suck more to be Joe the Farmer.

Or, if all the "OH NOES! 4th EDITION!" speculation is true, Joe the Farmer won't care because Joe the Farmer will cease to exist as soon as he's out of the PCs direct line of sight... :smallwink:

Cuddly
2008-02-17, 10:43 PM
Maybe they're removing some evil?
D&D cosmology is really, really bulky. Wizards is likely thinning it out so they can start reselling books.


Did any of you guys like the Fiendish Codices? Not a whole lot of player material in either one, but unholy fiendish dire cow, they have a ton of prepackaged, quintessential evil stuff for the busy DM.

sickler
2008-02-17, 10:45 PM
Morality is something we can't even properly define in real life, so when WotC tries to make rules to restrict such things, it's never going to be perfect.

However, I see it they took a step in the wrong direction. I personally would have preferred if they relaxed the rules on Good/Evil a bit more. In 3.5 it's common for Good and Evil to fight and Evil and Evil to fight, but for some stupid reason, no one seems to think it's alright for Good and Good to fight.

I've been in a campaign playing a NG Wizard and during one part, we were slaughtering paladins left, right and center. Why? Because they weren't part of our country. With WotC's rules, this wouldn't have been a very "good" act but my DM at the time had set a campaign where nationalism was more important than "universal morality" or whatever you would refer to it as. We weren't fighting to be murdering pricks, we were fighting because our king had commanded that we take over the country.

In my opinion, WotC should leave the game as open as possible so people can play what they find fun and interesting rather than have to suffer with unwanted restrictions.

Tura
2008-02-17, 10:51 PM
So Evil will be less retarded? Sounds good.

...Hah, nah, that won't happen. WotC will manage to keep Evil just as stupid and nonsensical as in 3rd and 2nd eds. At least that'll get rid of the contrived Demon/Devil war.+1.

For many (far too many) of the games I like, the whole concept of DnD alignment is a nuisance at best and a disaster at worst. And while you can bypass fluff easily, a huge portion of DnD's crunch is based on alignment, so that's a problem.

I firmly believe that if the game wasn't designed like that from the very beginning, no one would miss this... this objective alignment... absurdity. But since it was, and since a million classes and concepts and abilities and whole settings are based on it, a lot of people will miss it and I don't expect WotC to get rid of it, ever.

Still, it's a sort of comforting to know that the Forces of Evil can now at least co-operate for their mutual gain with out back-stabbing each other all the time...

Squatting_Monk
2008-02-17, 10:52 PM
Wouldn't it be more prudent to consider the literal meaning of this statement? There's a significant difference between scaling back the endless war between the Abyss and The Nine Hells and uniting all the baddies under one flag.

Thank you, Catch. If these fellows had bothered to read the book a little more closely, they'd see it's obvious that demons and devils still fight; there's just not as much emphasis on it as there was in previoius editions. It's also obvious that a world where the bad guys spend their time fighting the good guys is more dramatic and fun than a world where the bad guys spend their time fighting the bad guys.

All evil is not united, and to think that because evil is not always fighting amongst itself means it will be united in mutual love and friendship is stupid. Are all the good forces in the world united? If they are, it means there's very few of them. More often than not, they can't agree on what to do, much less how to do it. If you don't think you can have meaningful conflict between evil forces because WotC doesn't emphasize it as much, you don't have enough imagination to even be playing this game.

Cuddly
2008-02-17, 10:52 PM
+1.

For many (far too many) of the games I like, the whole concept of DnD alignment is a nuisance at best and a disaster at worst. And while you can bypass fluff easily, a huge portion of DnD's crunch is based on alignment, so that's a problem.

I firmly believe that if the game wasn't designed like that from the very beginning, no one would miss this... this objective alignment... absurdity. But since it was, and since a million classes and concepts and abilities and whole settings are based on it, a lot of people will miss it and I don't expect WotC to get rid of it, ever.

Still, it's a sort of comforting to know that the Forces of Evil can now at least co-operate for their mutual gain with out back-stabbing each other all the time...

Well, everything in a simulation must be objective if you're at all going to share it with other people. D&D is, necessarily, a game of discrete quantities.

Jayngfet
2008-02-17, 10:53 PM
between this, half-orcs, tiefling emo's, gnomes, taller halflings, sorcerer removal, and many, many other things there's no way I'm trading up, or at least not until I get my copy of duke nukem forever.

seriously, not only do PC's do this (and according to the giant, expect it and fail due to said expectations), but one of my favorite parts of world and npc creation is the conflict, lich twins could be arguing who gets wich mountain when they rule the world, bandits who fight over gold.

they need to realize that theres more to D&D than the pc's

Zincorium
2008-02-17, 10:53 PM
Actually, with the 'points of light' idea, it doesn't make a lot of sense to do it any other way.

3rd Edition presupposes a world that is freaking saturated with embodiments of good, evil, law, chaos, etc. You can't walk five feet without tripping over something that's probably evil sometimes. With that much evil going on, they had to come up with some reason it doesn't just trounce the good, and so they had it constantly fight itself.


Frankly, all the problems you guys are ranting about seem to stem from assuming that everything will be exactly like third edition... except what it is you're mad about. In case you hadn't kept up, 4th has a lot of changes, especially to the core assumptions of the game.

Orzel
2008-02-17, 10:55 PM
Or, if all the "OH NOES! 4th EDITION!" speculation is true, Joe the Farmer won't care because Joe the Farmer will cease to exist as soon as he's out of the PCs direct line of sight... :smallwink:

The Kobold/Goblin/Gnoll Alliance will make sure of that.

Xefas
2008-02-17, 10:56 PM
Does it really matter what they say in the fluff?

Even if all their books have the words "Evil isn't allowed to fight Evil anymore, nuh uh" in giant red letters on the cover, it doesn't stop me from running the Blood War just like always.

The people in my group know how to roleplay well, and I know how to build game worlds they enjoy...really, the mechanics are the only thing I'm interested in. If 4.0 has combat that's more fun, I'll certainly be picking it up. If every single word not regarding mechanics in all of the 4.0 books is nonsensical gibberish about meaningless garbage, it won't effect me in the least. My settings and characters won't change with the editions.

Just my opinion.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-17, 11:05 PM
Does it really matter what they say in the fluff?

Even if all their books have the words "Evil isn't allowed to fight Evil anymore, nuh uh" in giant red letters on the cover, it doesn't stop me from running the Blood War just like always.

The people in my group know how to roleplay well, and I know how to build game worlds they enjoy...really, the mechanics are the only thing I'm interested in. If 4.0 has combat that's more fun, I'll certainly be picking it up. If every single word not regarding mechanics in all of the 4.0 books is nonsensical gibberish about meaningless garbage, it won't effect me in the least. My settings and characters won't change with the editions.

Just my opinion.Except fluff is often reflected in crunch,(alignment) and the times it isn't often cause more problems than if it was. (flash frost)

Plus that gets awfully close to the Oberonni Fallacy. We're(by that I mean you, given recent updates), paying good money for DnD 4.0, and if the fluff is useless, a chunk of your money was wasted on that. Do you see my problem?

Rutee
2008-02-17, 11:07 PM
I think you two understand each other perfectly, and should just agree to disagree.

Neon Knight
2008-02-17, 11:12 PM
Yeah, this does remind me of a video game

This is so not true, its almost funny.

The original DOOM, considered by many to be one of the finest if not THE finest of early video games, featured monster infighting, where a fiendish foe accidentally harmed by friendly fire would turn upon the careless nitwit that harmed him and proceed to maul him in a manner most savage. Enter maps and game modes were built upon tricking monsters into massacring one another.

The award winning Half-Life featured a couple of pitched Marine/Alien battles. If you were patient and tricky, you could lure aliens to Marines and vice versa and have them take care of the problem. Of course, I always ended up cheating and spamming snarks because I found the little things to be adorable.

Significant portions of Half-Life 2 involve violence between aliens, Combine Troops, Zombies, and Ant Lions. While it is a bit harder to specifically lure them into conflict, you cans till find instances of your enemies rending eachother gleefully apart while you sit back and sip a gin and tonic.

More recently, the Turok remake features a system that allows players to lure hungry dinosaurs and giant insects into packs of the MG (Military Guys) foes that populate the maps.

In a notable instance, I tagged an enemy soldier's foot with a flare, which attracts dinosaurs. Low and behold, a dilophosaurus appeared and proceeded to eat him and begin attacking his comrades. Sitting in the bush and whistling a happy tune to myself, I waited until the hapless soldiers were all meals and then blew up the dilophosaurus with an explosive arrow. It's Rambo meets the Lost World!

In an unintentionally hilarious example from the same game, I attached a flare to a raptor attempting to flee from me. It struck the animal's... waste evacuation port (roughly.) Now, flares when attached to dinosaurs cause other dinosaurs to attack the beflared victim in a frenzy. The awkward position of the pulsing red flare, combined with the blood smeared countenance of the raptors in general, multiplied by the pouncing attack animations, caused my friend to grossly misinterpret the scene. Needless to say, his mortified appearance and stammering questioning were very amusing to me.

That got a bit verbose, but in short, video games have a long history of allowing players to trick foes into killing one another, or otherwise causing strife among those that wish to harm you. With good reason, too; video games are meant to amuse people, and nothing is more amusing than watching two enemies fight to the bitter death and then emerging to casually off the victor.

Blackadder
2008-02-17, 11:15 PM
It matters what the fluff says, because people are stupid. Specifically players are stupid, and players like fluff. I like fluff, I don't want a novel, but I like reasons for my PC's to do the things they do.

As I've said time and time again I love worlds which make sense. They are believable in their own worlds. The rules can be nonsensical, they can be crazy, but as long as the world follows those rules, everything can work itself out in the end.

A good example, the everlasting Blood War. The War between the Devil's of the Nine Hell's and the Demon's of the Infinite Abyss.

Let me repeat that INFINITE Abyss. The reason why the INFINITE Demons of the Infinite Abyss have not long since curb stomped good in all of it's finite forms is because the Demons of the Abyss war between themselves, then they war between the Devils of the Nine Hell's and they fight good, they fight neutral, they fight everyone. And because of that the fact, it makes sense that the Infinite Abyss is to busy fighting everyone along with their very nature to go curb-stomping the Outlands in mass or any one of a dozen other places that two billion demon's could quickly conquer.

Without a Blood War to distract the Demons, why are the planes not cover in darkness and destruction? Lazy Demon's?

Which makes more sense and feels better from a storytelling point? The infinte demon's can be bothered to invade(Until the PC's get there of course) or the infinte demons are fighting everything and everybody and are to Chaotic to get a serious army going before the Devil's smash it.

Xefas
2008-02-17, 11:39 PM
Except fluff is often reflected in crunch,(alignment) and the times it isn't often cause more problems than if it was. (flash frost)

Plus that gets awfully close to the Oberonni Fallacy. We're(by that I mean you, given recent updates), paying good money for DnD 4.0, and if the fluff is useless, a chunk of your money was wasted on that. Do you see my problem?

Well, if the fluff effects the mechanics to such an extent as to be unplayable without me conforming my setting to Wizards', then the mechanics are bad, and I'll stick with 3.5. If the fluff effects the mechanics only a small to moderate amount, I'll houserule it away so my group and I can play the way I like.

And I don't believe I'm wasting money on all the filler because there is no legal method to get the stuff I want without the filler. It's either I pay X for the good + filler or I pay nothing and get nothing. I don't want 'nothing', so the only other option is to pay for it.

On the other hand, if the "good+filler" was X+Y but they also sold a smaller version of just the "good", which sold for X, then of course I'd be wasting money buying all that filler.

EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 11:42 PM
Thank you, Catch. If these fellows had bothered to read the book a little more closely, they'd see it's obvious that demons and devils still fight; there's just not as much emphasis on it as there was in previoius editions. It's also obvious that a world where the bad guys spend their time fighting the good guys is more dramatic and fun than a world where the bad guys spend their time fighting the bad guys.

All evil is not united, and to think that because evil is not always fighting amongst itself means it will be united in mutual love and friendship is stupid. Are all the good forces in the world united? If they are, it means there's very few of them. More often than not, they can't agree on what to do, much less how to do it. If you don't think you can have meaningful conflict between evil forces because WotC doesn't emphasize it as much, you don't have enough imagination to even be playing this game.
Watch it misconception. The annoyence here is not the fact that evil can be organized (which was already true) it is the reason why they aren't fighting. The reason? Because WOTC doesn't think it directly effects the PCs (eh?)


Still, it's a sort of comforting to know that the Forces of Evil can now at least co-operate for their mutual gain with out back-stabbing each other all the time...
They already can do that, hence the evil organizations that exist
I"m with blackadder on this one, rules that make sense
from
EE

Mewtarthio
2008-02-17, 11:56 PM
A good example, the everlasting Blood War. The War between the Devil's of the Nine Hell's and the Demon's of the Infinite Abyss.

Let me repeat that INFINITE Abyss. The reason why the INFINITE Demons of the Infinite Abyss have not long since curb stomped good in all of it's finite forms is because the Demons of the Abyss war between themselves, then they war between the Devils of the Nine Hell's and they fight good, they fight neutral, they fight everyone. And because of that the fact, it makes sense that the Infinite Abyss is to busy fighting everyone along with their very nature to go curb-stomping the Outlands in mass or any one of a dozen other places that two billion demon's could quickly conquer.

Bear in mind, the cosmology's different now. Devils are now stuck in a prison floating on the Astral Sea, and Demons are stuck in a gigantic pit in the Elemental Maelstron. They haven't covered all the lands in a Second Darkness because they need mortal help to get into the Material Plane.

Granted, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to that one argument. I still think it's a bad decision. Seriously, at the very least you'd think they'd consider the needs of Evil PCs, but beyond that, I just like backstory information.

Blackadder
2008-02-18, 12:12 AM
Bear in mind, the cosmology's different now. Devils are now stuck in a prison floating on the Astral Sea, and Demons are stuck in a gigantic pit in the Elemental Maelstron. They haven't covered all the lands in a Second Darkness because they need mortal help to get into the Material Plane.

Granted, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to that one argument. I still think it's a bad decision. Seriously, at the very least you'd think they'd consider the needs of Evil PCs, but beyond that, I just like backstory information.
The cosmology's different to an extent that it's a totally different world that bears no relation to the old one in any way.
But apparently since all major civilizations are done with then there exists no empires to crack down on Wizard's summoning up dread beasts from beyond. And all it takes is the first person to hit a high enough level to cast "Gate" and then the world's @#$@#

Demon's and devil's have been limited from curbstomping the Prime Material by the God's since Planescape, but it was expected that there were no such equivalent gods in the Plane of Fire or Water, except the highly hostile natives who would fight off any demon incursion. Except now since everything is one big soup why have they not expanded? Is the new logic now they can't even leave the Abyss to go to the corner store without a spellcaster to hold their hand?


*Edit that conjures up a very amusing image of a little old bent-back Wizard helping a Pit Fiend cross the street.

Chronos
2008-02-18, 12:25 AM
Straight from the source:
For a while the hobbits sat in silence. At length Sam stirred. 'Well, I call that neat as neat,' he said. 'If this nice friendliness would spread about in Mordor, half our trouble would be over.'

'Quietly, Sam,' Frodo whispered. 'There may be others about. We have evidently had a very narrow escape, and the hunt was hotter on our tracks than we guessed. But that is the spirit of Mordor, Sam; and it has spread to every corner of it.In all of the great epic fantasy, one of the defining differences between Good and Evil is that Evil fights among itself, and Good, for the most part, does not. I want a game that emulates, in some way, the great fantasies, and that means I want a game where the villains don't always get along.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 12:33 AM
Straight from the source:In all of the great epic fantasy, one of the defining differences between Good and Evil is that Evil fights among itself, and Good, for the most part, does not. I want a game that emulates, in some way, the great fantasies, and that means I want a game where the villains don't always get along.
In what fashion do the mechanics impede this in 4e? In what fashion do the mechanics support this in 3.5e?

EvilElitest
2008-02-18, 01:11 AM
In what fashion do the mechanics impede this in 4e? In what fashion do the mechanics support this in 3.5e?

Didn't you have a mechanics aren't important ideal?
from
EE

Eldmor
2008-02-18, 01:48 AM
I am all for dumbing down the Evil/Evil battles by making them smarter. I think it's just as easy to get a Good/Good battle going. Self-righteous is the new black, methinks. This also makes it more possible for Evil campaigns that don't revolve around who can cause the most turmoil.
I'm also getting tired of people assuming in 4th that if the PCs aren't involved it's not important. This is an entirely setting-specific thing and I can't imagine someone that would run a game with that in mind. Hell, most video games that people falsely accuse 4th of becoming don't even follow that.
For what I want out of 4th, I want an enjoyable experience using smooth mechanics. Everything I've been seeing so far is supporting this and I can't wait.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 01:48 AM
Didn't you have a mechanics aren't important ideal?
from
EE

They're not. But fluff is player-determined. Therefore, the problem mustn't be in the fluff, but in the mechanics, no?

Talya
2008-02-18, 02:10 AM
So Evil will be less retarded? Sounds good.

...Hah, nah, that won't happen. WotC will manage to keep Evil just as stupid and nonsensical as in 3rd and 2nd eds. At least that'll get rid of the contrived Demon/Devil war.

The Blood War was never contrived. That history is brilliant--devils were lawful celestials sent to battle the infinite abyss and keep chaos from destroying all existence. An eternity of fighting chaos corrupted them beyond recognition, but they have always lived up to their lawful duty.

Until 4th edition, where some jerk at WotC decided he didn't like that fluff.

horseboy
2008-02-18, 02:22 AM
Well, there's a good chance they're switching back to the 666 layers of the Abyss. :smalltongue:

Charles Phipps
2008-02-18, 02:31 AM
Without a Blood War to distract the Demons, why are the planes not cover in darkness and destruction? Lazy Demon's.

The "new" Abyss is finite.

But yes, also, the Good Guys are no longer hanging out either. The Angels and Demons are curb-stomping one another when the former used to do absolutely nothing.

Talic
2008-02-18, 02:32 AM
Well, first off, I dislike the notion that wizards is using, assuming the heroes are not evil.

That said, they did say "LESS evil vs evil", not "NO evil vs evil". Sounds like nothing's really changing too awfully much, they're just shifting the focus on the assumption that the PC's are the "good guys".

Expect a splat book early on for the people that don't like being good.

shadowdemon_lord
2008-02-18, 02:35 AM
I'd have to agree with Eldmoor. My favorite 3.5 setting (Arcanis) spits in the face of all D&D alignment stereotypes, and yet works with D&D mechanics very well. 4th ed seems to offer much better refined mechanics then 3.5. I say bring it on, the fluff can be changed later.

Jothki
2008-02-18, 02:55 AM
One of the more practical parts of having Evil tend to fight itself is that you can have regions of monsters that usually fight amongst themselves, but are occasionally united by a warlord and go on a rampage through civilization until they are stopped, at which point they go back to squabbling while another region unites somewhere else.

That's really the only way that the presence of vast areas controlled by monsters that the average soldier couldn't dream of taking on could be justified.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 03:07 AM
The Blood War was never contrived. That history is brilliant--devils were lawful celestials sent to battle the infinite abyss and keep chaos from destroying all existence. An eternity of fighting chaos corrupted them beyond recognition, but they have always lived up to their lawful duty.

Until 4th edition, where some jerk at WotC decided he didn't like that fluff.

So they warped every tenet of their former code except the one that perpetuated the war? Yeah that's not contrived. But whatever floats your boat and sinks your battleship.

LotharBot
2008-02-18, 03:09 AM
Contrived? What?! They were perfectly justified!
They eat their toast with the butter side down!

Now that song is stuck in my head... I hope you're happy.

-----

On topic, I mostly agree with blackadder. I want a world that makes sense. I hope WotC is smart enough to set up the various evil factions in a way that makes sense. If that means little fighting amongst themselves, that's OK -- as long as it makes sense. Having a coherent game world provides us with a nice backdrop for our gaming, and I'd prefer if I have to do a minimum of tweaking to get it that way (among other things, because it's easier to deal with players if I can describe my tweaks in 3 sentences than if I have to have a 12-page list of changes.)

Pronounceable
2008-02-18, 04:30 AM
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to waste space on things the players can't use...."
EE

Although the (seemingly) removal of Blood War is the single worst offence of 4e for me yet, that sentence is my main problem with 4e. There'll be a new cosmology, one infinitely smaller than its predecessor (infinity/finity=infinity). Which might turn out to be a good idea. Lessening (or even removal of) enmity between demons and devils can also turn out to be a good idea (yeah, right).

But this PCophile attitude implied by that sentence, which can be summed up as "if it's not directly related to PCs, it can go screw itself" is unacceptable. Many players (munchkin, newbie, jerk...) already have this effing attitude towards RPing, and now it's being officially integrated into DnD.

As someone has said above, people are stupid. They adopt to whatever the official fluff says. Which means standard DnD player will be something from DM of The Rings webcomic.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-18, 04:47 AM
The more of these threads I see, the more I wonder whether there was any conceivable statement that could be made about 4e that people *wouldn't* be up in arms about.

Except possibly, of course, for "Fourth Edition will be exactly the same as third edition".

If you're really so concerned about dumbing down, go play OSRIC.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 04:51 AM
Except possibly, of course, for "Fourth Edition will be exactly the same as third edition".

OMG I HAVE TO SPEND 400 dollars on all these books!

Actually, that would kinda frost my cookies.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-18, 05:00 AM
The more of these threads I see, the more I wonder whether there was any conceivable statement that could be made about 4e that people *wouldn't* be up in arms about.

eh think 4e is a pretty cool guy, eh slims down some mechanics, gives small static bonuses, AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING.


So they warped every tenet of their former code except the one that perpetuated the war? Yeah that's not contrived. But whatever floats your boat and sinks your battleship.

I think that it's self evident from real life that people get fairly nasty and twisted during a war, but is that going to get them to pull out?

Rutee
2008-02-18, 05:05 AM
I think that it's self evident from real life that people get fairly nasty and twisted during a war, but is that going to get them to pull out?

Nasty and twisted isn't the deal; They no longer respect any of the reasons why they went to war in the first place, seemingly, except that they went there to make war. I'd be a lot more respectful of it if they admitted that it was stupid and done to give Good an excuse to be predominant, on an OOC level.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-18, 05:08 AM
Nasty and twisted isn't the deal; They no longer respect any of the reasons why they went to war in the first place, seemingly, except that they went there to make war. I'd be a lot more respectful of it if they admitted that it was stupid and done to give Good an excuse to be predominant, on an OOC level.

I thought that quite a few of them (Asmodeus, for example) actually think that they still are fighting the right war - he's sniffy about the Pact Primeval, and (arguably, rightly) feels fobbed off that he's been given the job of defending the universe from chaotic evil.

AslanCross
2008-02-18, 05:43 AM
I thought that quite a few of them (Asmodeus, for example) actually think that they still are fighting the right war - he's sniffy about the Pact Primeval, and (arguably, rightly) feels fobbed off that he's been given the job of defending the universe from chaotic evil.

Exactly.

"It is to your benefit to ensure that we, who labor for you in a place you will not venture, to continue to carry out your will. This agreement specifies the fate of damned soils. In exchange, it allows us to draw magic from these soils, so we can fuel our spells and maintain our powers."

Of course, I'd say the Pact Primeval is more of a written license from the gods of Law and Good that Asmodeus and his cronies can "continue" their duty as is---to battle chaos and punish wicked mortals---but with the intention of corrupting them and using them for their own ends. (The fine print) The LG gods were so happy to be rid of the corrupted angels that they didn't bother to "read the fine print."

Poison_Fish
2008-02-18, 05:50 AM
eh think 4e is a pretty cool guy, eh slims down some mechanics, gives small static bonuses, AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING.

Damn it. That meme has been stuck in my head all day. Thanks Illiterate, I almost got it out.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-18, 05:52 AM
Good should fight evil, I never liked the idea that evil was so stupid that it fought among itself to the point that good always had the upper hand. It also implies that good is powerful enough to keep evil at bay.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-18, 06:03 AM
Although the (seemingly) removal of Blood War is the single worst offence of 4e for me yet, that sentence is my main problem with 4e. There'll be a new cosmology, one infinitely smaller than its predecessor (infinity/finity=infinity). Which might turn out to be a good idea. Lessening (or even removal of) enmity between demons and devils can also turn out to be a good idea (yeah, right).

The new cosmology is only "smaller" in the sense of having fewer "infinities" in it.

Something I'm very fond of saying is that the "size" of a fictional setting actually has very little to do with its physical dimensions, and everything to do with how much there actually is to see and do in it.

The examples I always cite are Gormenghast, Middle Earth, and Star Wars.

Gormenghast is a single castle, but it contains the terrifying swelter of the kitchens (along with terrifying Swelter the cook), the hall of bright carvings, the spider-haunted rafters, the owl-roosts, the cat-room, it includes Lady Gormenghast lying covered in candles, and a vast collection of strange nooks and crannies.

Middle Earth is a continent. It contains the bright tower of Minas Tirith, the dark tower of Minas Morgul, the heights of Isengard, the frosty slopes of Kharadras, the peaceful vales of the shire and the deeps of mirkwood.

Star Wars covers an entire *galaxy*. It contains a desert, some snow, a swamp, and two copies of the same space station.

I exaggerate for effect, of course, but the point is that just because a cosmology is *geographically* smaller that doesn't mean it will contain less *content*. Functionally, a 666 plane abyss is no smaller than an infinite abyss.


But this PCophile attitude implied by that sentence, which can be summed up as "if it's not directly related to PCs, it can go screw itself" is unacceptable. Many players (munchkin, newbie, jerk...) already have this effing attitude towards RPing, and now it's being officially integrated into DnD.

Many players (mature, sensible, dedicated), also have this attitude towards RPing. And so, in my experience, do the best GMs.

Players are the *audience* of the game - never mind all the hooha about whether they're the "main characters" and what that means if they are - they're the *audience*. The game is not about how the world gets by when they're not looking at it, it's about what happens in front of them.

If the Illithid are having a war with the Beholders in the Underdark, while the players are looting a dungeon a thousand miles away, it really doesn't matter.


As someone has said above, people are stupid. They adopt to whatever the official fluff says. Which means standard DnD player will be something from DM of The Rings webcomic.

Maybe I misunderstood the DM of the Rings, but I always interpreted it as the story of a perfectly decent bunch of players who'd been saddled with a really crappy DM who was more interested in the Epic Backstory of his world than actually entertaining his players.

The reason those guys in DMotR ignore everything that isn't loot is that everything else in the world is totally non-interactive. NPCs talking to other NPCs on the other side of the world should *not* be more important than what your PCs are doing right now. I'm genuinely amazed at how many people disagree with this.

Morty
2008-02-18, 06:07 AM
Until 4th edition, where some jerk at WotC decided he didn't like that fluff.

More like we, poor, dumb players can't cope with such a complicated cosmology. Poor stupid us.
But otherwise, I think EvilElitest is making a big thing out of nothing. It's less evil vs. evil infighting, not getting rid of it. However, the reason behind that change is utterly ridiculous. Do they really want the whole gameworld to become grey, dull, blurred background to the superheroes that are PCs? And what about evil PCs? Plus, they're wasting a perfect opportunity, because by making stupid 3ed alignment system less prevalent they had a great occasion to make traditionally Evil and Good forces less obvious and black-and-white.
Plus, I liked Blood War.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-18, 06:25 AM
Damn it. That meme has been stuck in my head all day. Thanks Illiterate, I almost got it out.

I live to serve. :smallamused:

Xuincherguixe
2008-02-18, 06:30 AM
The Blood War was one of the few things I liked about D&D.

It's getting removed because it's not something the players can use? What in the name of the unnamable is that?! Plot is always useful, because it helps you come up with reasons for things.

"A cult is preparing to summon a large army of demons, who will be mind controlled by the cults master demon. If they are not stopped, they will cause significant damage and destabilize the blood war."

Not only that, but a lot of people like buying books so they learn more about the setting.

Shouldn't the Dungeon you're currently in have some explanation as to it's creation? It's frightening when one just suddenly appears out of thin air. But if it keeps happening people are going to stop caring.

It really kills the atmosphere if they only things going on is what affects the PCs. I imagine THIS conversation coming up. "Well Sir Heros, I'd mention that I was very worried that after you leave I will cease to exist, but because my lack of existence isn't going to affect you really it doesn't particularly bother me."

And what's really frightening? For the people this attitude seems to be written for, hearing that isn't going to bother them in the slightest.

If anything, there should be penalties to the players for not paying attention to the lives of the other people.


What makes a character a player isn't that all these big important events start happening around them. It's that they choose to go out and do big important things. It's not just that there's some PC faerie that comes along and turns you into a real person.

Or to borrow from The Matrix, what makes a character a player is Free Will. Other people around them might have the capacity for it, but they don't exercise it.

At least that's how I see it.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 06:35 AM
I have a question. Is the Blood War specifically the name for the Forgotten Realms version, or is this the name of the generic Demon/Devil war?

Morty
2008-02-18, 06:40 AM
I have a question. Is the Blood War specifically the name for the Forgotten Realms version, or is this the name of the generic Demon/Devil war?

I think that Blood War actually originates from Planescape, not FR. In fact, I don't remember seeing it in my FR book.

Fuzzy_Juan
2008-02-18, 06:41 AM
I have a question. Is the Blood War specifically the name for the Forgotten Realms version, or is this the name of the generic Demon/Devil war?

Generic name to the endless fued between Baatezu and Tanari, the Arch Devils and the Demon Lords...the inner fueds between Archdevils and the individual Demon Lords amongst their own ranks is just that...inner fueds and power games.

Xuincherguixe
2008-02-18, 06:47 AM
To the best of my knowledge, the Blood War is only the fight between the Baatezu and Tanari.

The infighting is another thing.

To the best of my knowledge.

Muyten
2008-02-18, 07:08 AM
The Bloodwar is not gone! It's just not getting much attention.
Here's a quote from Rich Baker:

In core D&D, don't expect much about the Blood War.

In FR, we wouldn't retcon it away, but if it's strongly deemphasized in 4e core, it won't play much of a role in 4e Realms. So think of the Blood War as something that was going on intensely in the Realms' cosmos before the Spellplague, but now has diminished greatly.


So in short...there still seem to be evil vs. evil it's just not emphazised that much in 'core'.

Kioran
2008-02-18, 07:49 AM
Nasty and twisted isn't the deal; They no longer respect any of the reasons why they went to war in the first place, seemingly, except that they went there to make war. I'd be a lot more respectful of it if they admitted that it was stupid and done to give Good an excuse to be predominant, on an OOC level.

But it does actually happen quite often: Revenge, and the day-to-day requirements of waging war take a toll on those who fight, gradually obscuring the reason one went to war in the first place. There are some current-day examples, but I wonīt venture there. Take a look at this: 30_Year_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Year_War)

Thatīs european history, and not really unique. A religious war blown out of proportion until it engulfed most of europe and killed about a fifth of the german populace and caused severe casualties in neighbouring countries as well.

These things happen, easily. Evil infighting and the slippery slope are totally normal Features of a world with less than absolute morality, and even in some of those. I agree it is to early to really judge 4th Ed. , but the comment bothers me somewhat. But hey, thatīs Mike Mearls agains, so what exactly did I expect?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-18, 08:36 AM
Until 4th edition, where some jerk at WotC decided he didn't like that fluff.

I imagine they might have been listening too much to John Lennon.

The proponents of the Blood War should have hired better propagandists:


Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Blut Krieg?

WoTC majority vote: Nahh, not really. We are more interested in using our own ideas than building on all the old fluff.
With this change no sacred fluff cow is sacred, no matter how fluffy and cute it may be.


Wollt ihr ihn? Wenn nŲtig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute Łberhaupt erst vorstellen kŲnnen?

WoTC majority vote: Nope, spotlight will be on PCs and that Law/Chaos thing is too confusing for us anyway.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 09:01 AM
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to was space on things the players can't use...."

From worlds and Monsters p. 14

Does this upset anyone? Isn't evil fighting evil one of the main concepts of evil?
from
EE

Wow the really thoughtful comments in this thread have totally convinced me! 4e will completely suck! I was excited but now that I see that not only has WotC had the temerity to *gasp* change things, they have also rewritten the entire English language to boot!

Before reading this thread I thought Wizards was using normal English, but the posters in this thread have shown me they are actually using some new version where "Less" means "None" and simple, short statements are actually secretly coded messages saying that DMs have all become powerless to stop fluff changes.

+1 flaming vorpal acidic wit

Seriously though, lighten up kids. Evil can still fight evil, they are just saying they aren't going to waste space writing it up.

You anti-4e people need to make a decision here:


Oh noes! WotC is taking away all the fluff!!!1
Oh noes! WotC is putting in too much fluff!!!1


Pick one.

I am sick of hearing the same tired arguements about how Wizards has taken away some sacred cow and how the removal of some microscopic piece of fluff minutia has 'ruined D&D forever!!'; only to be followed in the same breath that by naming a feat, adding a race or calling a location by a name they have 'ruined D&D forever!!'

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-18, 09:04 AM
I am sick of hearing the same tired arguements about how Wizards has taken away some sacred cow and how the removal of some microscopic piece of fluff minutia has 'ruined D&D forever!!'; only to be followed in the same breath that by naming a feat, adding a race or calling a location by a name they have 'ruined D&D forever!!'

Particularly since we all know that D&D was *really* ruined forever when they decided to turn "magic users" into "wizards".

I mean, the old "magic user" class was infinitely flexible, you could use it to represent any possible magic-using character you could *imagine*. Then they changed it to "wizard" and they all turned into old men with beards casting spells out of books.

HarmlessPenguin
2008-02-18, 09:08 AM
Aww...this news rather saddens me; I've always liked the Blood War as well.


The "new" Abyss is finite.

But yes, also, the Good Guys are no longer hanging out either. The Angels and Demons are curb-stomping one another when the former used to do absolutely nothing.

Well that's the thing; perhaps I read too much into it, but I thought that the Blood War was basically proof of why the 'Good Guys' don't get involved as much anymore. The Good Guys tried going out to fight the good fight, they even took the fight down to the lower planes to the demon's door step.

The fight doesn't end though; the demons don't go down easy and it just drags on and on. The constant contact with evil beyond comprehension wears down and warps anyone and anything over eternity.

The Good Guys learned that lesson; the ones they sent down turned to be just as bad if not worse than the things they set out to fight. Thus spawning another great threat to the world since their force had to be powerful enough to face the demons in the first place.

So now the Good Guys try to maintain the status quo that they accidentally set up with the Blood War. They even largely try to accomplish that through mortal agents instead of intervening directly anymore. Since mortals are both numerous enough and have great enough potential, especially if given some help, to foil any 'End Game' scenarios that either side of the Blood War plans.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 09:08 AM
Particularly since we all know that D&D was *really* ruined forever when they decided to turn "magic users" into "wizards".

I mean, the old "magic user" class was infinitely flexible, you could use it to represent any possible magic-using character you could *imagine*. Then they changed it to "wizard" and they all turned into old men with beards casting spells out of books.

Exactly - I think we all know it is utterly impossible to call a Wizard a Magic-User. I mean just look, they are spelled so different and one has a hyphen and everything.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-18, 09:17 AM
Exactly - I think we all know it is utterly impossible to call a Wizard a Magic-User. I mean just look, they are spelled so different and one has a hyphen and everything.

Increasingly, these threads remind me of those tabloid headlines you get (at least here in England) which say things like "LOCAL COUNCIL BANS CHRIST" and when you look into it, it turns out that a museum has just taken to labelling its geological samples "Before Present" rather than "BC".

HarmlessPenguin
2008-02-18, 09:38 AM
I am sick of hearing the same tired arguements about how Wizards has taken away some sacred cow and how the removal of some microscopic piece of fluff minutia has 'ruined D&D forever!!'; only to be followed in the same breath that by naming a feat, adding a race or calling a location by a name they have 'ruined D&D forever!!'

My apologies, but could you kindly take your own advice and lighten up as well? I would also appreciate it if you did not generalize everyone who makes any remotely disparaging remark against an unfinished product as some kind of fundamentalist caricature.

Having said that, I certainly did not mean to come across as some doom-sayer or anything regarding the entire setting much less the entire edition mechanics included. I just wished to express my sadness that they were doing away with one of the more interesting cosmology plot in the current setting, personally.

I mean is it really so wrong to say, 'Oh, I like the idea that absolute incomprehensible evil can corrupt anything over time?' I mean it even allows for the possibility of absolute all-encompassing goodness can redeem anything over time. You just rarely see demons trying to break into the upper planes =P. They tend to be much more interested in messing with the Prime as it's much more easily bent to their uses =P.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-18, 09:48 AM
I'm looking forward to 4e more and more... Was there a particular article that sparked this latest outcry?
Or is it just more, oh noes 4e!

It is an animated dead horse dressed up as a sacred cow.

Even if you can make hamburgers after beating the sacred cow you are still basically eating dead horse.

Personally I prefer popcorn while watching the Blood War.

Matthew
2008-02-18, 09:56 AM
If you're really so concerned about dumbing down, go play OSRIC.

Heh, I feel the need to hyperlink that: OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/).

And yes, this is all very familiar. Hard core 1e players said 2e was dumbing down AD&D (which was actually part of the design concept), hardcore 1e and 2e players said 3e was dumbing down AD&D and now hardcore 3e/D20 players are saying 4e is dumbing down D20. No surprises about this particular trend or the claim that X is more like a computer game than Y. These are cyclical arguments common to edition wars.

The designers are understandably interested in making D&D more accessible to the majority and removing the reliance on that seemingly rare bird, a skilled GM/DM. That, in fact, was what D20 was all about; it is hardly earth shattering news that 4e will also have that in mind.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-18, 09:58 AM
My apologies, but could you kindly take your own advice and lighten up as well? I would also appreciate it if you did not generalize everyone who makes any remotely disparaging remark against an unfinished product as some kind of fundamentalist caricature.

Having said that, I certainly did not mean to come across as some doom-sayer or anything regarding the entire setting much less the entire edition mechanics included. I just wished to express my sadness that they were doing away with one of the more interesting cosmology plot in the current setting, personally.

That's fair enough. However it has since been demonstrated that the plot will still be *in* the Realms, and presumably in Planescape.


I mean is it really so wrong to say, 'Oh, I like the idea that absolute incomprehensible evil can corrupt anything over time?' I mean it even allows for the possibility of absolute all-encompassing goodness can redeem anything over time. You just rarely see demons trying to break into the upper planes =P. They tend to be much more interested in messing with the Prime as it's much more easily bent to their uses =P.

Nothing wrong with that at all, the people that Mr Friendly and I are so narked at are the ones who take every single snippet of information about 4E as evidence that it's "turning into an MMO".

I mean literally every *single* snippet of information.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 09:59 AM
It is an animated dead horse dressed up as a sacred cow.

Even if you can make hamburgers after beating the sacred cow you are still basically eating dead horse.

Personally I prefer popcorn while watching the Blood War.

Personally, I never found the Blood War to be compelling at all. I thought, at the time of it's creation, it was a stupid plot device created in the wake of 2e and getting rid of Demons, Devils and Daemons.

If you need to write up a complex and convoluted set of reasons for living incarnations of evil to fight each other, you're doing it wrong.

Plus, the Blood War doesn't even make sense within it's own context. "I am a demon prince - I need souls to increase my power! I know, I will destroy the souls of a devil price with absolutely no tangible gain for myself! And since I am a DEMON prince and I embody EVIL and CHAOS, I will join together with my demon prince rivals and fight overly complex and strategic warfare for no gain whatsoever, instead of warring with my fellow demon prices to steal their soul supply and gaining more power."

Yeah.

Reinboom
2008-02-18, 10:11 AM
I think the blood war idea is a bit better than that...
Demons "I want more space and power. So, I'm going to try to conquer everything else."

Devils (once angels): "We were made to stop you, and forever we shall survive, we shall strive to."

Then devils started becoming darker and more closely resembled demons.
But they have always kept their pact.

At least, this is how Fiendish Codex 2 describes it.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 10:16 AM
I think the blood war idea is a bit better than that...
Demons "I want more space and power. So, I'm going to try to conquer everything else."

Devils (once angels): "We were made to stop you, and forever we shall survive, we shall strive to."

Then devils started becoming darker and more closely resembled demons.
But they have always kept their pact.

At least, this is how Fiendish Codex 2 describes it.

Right and they (later) explained it *a little* better via the Codexes. In 3e.

However the original inception was a hack job to create a backstory for "Tanar'ri", "Baatezu" and "Yugoloths".

I will assume that in 2 editions and twenty sourcebooks you will find the new version just as appealing. :smallwink:

Reinboom
2008-02-18, 10:21 AM
Right and they (later) explained it *a little* better via the Codexes. In 3e.

However the original inception was a hack job to create a backstory for "Tanar'ri", "Baatezu" and "Yugoloths".

I will assume that in 2 editions and twenty sourcebooks you will find the new version just as appealing. :smallwink:

I didn't give much thought to the whole thing in 2e.
My urge to play an Erinyes made me in 3e.

Aside, if the above stays consistent and true, I wish I could be alive for D&D 44th edition when it comes out...
Those splat books should be masterpieces.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-18, 10:52 AM
The origins of the Blood War are, shall we say, unclear.

Even the two FCs gives different reasons and 2nd edition Yugoloth fans will perhaps introduce 2nd edition material as the real explanation when playing 3.5.

I can certainly understand the dislike for such ambiguity and the inconsistencies presented in different books through the editions, but I can also see why people might like their Blood War (especially if based on FC I & II fluff), whether they have decided on a specific origin or reason.

I think the massive fluff changes between editions are natural and partially necessary when the new staff comes with their own ideas (if the fluff is well written and interesting of course (from an unbiased point of view), whether I personally agree with all changes.

As long as new mechanics are sound and balanced I see no reason not to ignore these young punks' new fancy ideas about the multiverse and continue the Blood War as if nothing has happened.

I can understand why this is far from ideal for hard core fans and I can also understand that they vent their justified "rage" here such a Talya and HarmlessPenguin do, but that will always be a very subjective debate and one party is not very likely to convince the other that the fluff should be sacred or that the fluff is a rotting carcass that should have been disposed of long time ago.

HarmlessPenguin
2008-02-18, 11:01 AM
Ha, yes; I can see entire literature classes dedicated to the splat books now, Sweet Rain =).

Oh as for me, Lord Silvanos, I'll live with whatever fluff they end up putting out. I just wanted to voice my opinion that I'll be saddened if they take out the bits that I like, but I'll live =P.

I just didn't like the guy telling people to lighten up being so wound up about it himself. I also don't like blanket negative statement towards whole groups of people. It tends to make it rather confusing in discussions to discern which parts of whose argument you're talking about at any given point in your statement and often times just comes off as condescending in general.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-18, 11:21 AM
I also don't like blanket negative statement towards whole groups of people. It tends to make it rather confusing in discussions to discern which parts of whose argument you're talking about at any given point in your statement and often times just comes off as condescending in general.

That is exactly why I hope there will still be a Disarm mechanic in 4E. :smallwink:

Deepblue706
2008-02-18, 11:31 AM
Less Evil vs. Evil?

Whatever this means, I just hope it doesn't unify baddies to a point where I'm fighting Monster Mash.

AtomicKitKat
2008-02-18, 11:59 AM
I already knew they were wasting my time when they talked of Assmodeus going Godly and Succubi being drafted to the side of Law because "Demons are stupid icky monsters while Devils are debonair manipulators.":smallyuk: Obviously, those boys need to take a peek under Pale Night's shroud.:smallamused:

Edit:


Plus, the Blood War doesn't even make sense within it's own context. "I am a demon prince - I need souls to increase my power! I know, I will destroy the souls of a devil price with absolutely no tangible gain for myself! And since I am a DEMON prince and I embody EVIL and CHAOS, I will join together with my demon prince rivals and fight overly complex and strategic warfare for no gain whatsoever, instead of warring with my fellow demon prices to steal their soul supply and gaining more power."

Where to begin? For one thing, souls are power, simple as that(BoVD for more details, but the usual mechanic of XP/Gold for crafting applies). For another, you destroy the Arch Devil opposite you so that you can tip the scales towards Chaos. Eventually, you hope to embody the Chaotic aspect of whatever Domains that Devil would have granted, thereby getting his followers to your side, and thus getting closer to Apotheosis. Finally, Demon Princes do spend resources fighting their fellow Demon Princes. It's just that with the Infinite Hordes of the Abyss, there's more than enough up and coming Demons who are willing to fight on either front for the prospect of moving up the ladder.

Karaswanton
2008-02-18, 12:35 PM
I always thought the Blood War was kind of neat.
Although, I hope they get rid of the Yugoloths. In 3E they barely discussed them, and I don't think they are needed anymore.

EvilElitest
2008-02-18, 12:44 PM
So they warped every tenet of their former code except the one that perpetuated the war? Yeah that's not contrived. But whatever floats your boat and sinks your battleship.
Not really, Demons hate everything and everyone, Devils are using an "ends justifies the means" ideal to justify their actions, and thus they logically would fight the Demons.



They're not. But fluff is player-determined. Therefore, the problem mustn't be in the fluff, but in the mechanics, no?
Except the fluff here isn't player or DM determined, it is WOTC determined


Although the (seemingly) removal of Blood War is the single worst offence of 4e for me yet, that sentence is my main problem with 4e. There'll be a new cosmology, one infinitely smaller than its predecessor (infinity/finity=infinity). Which might turn out to be a good idea. Lessening (or even removal of) enmity between demons and devils can also turn out to be a good idea (yeah, right).

But this PCophile attitude implied by that sentence, which can be summed up as "if it's not directly related to PCs, it can go screw itself" is unacceptable. Many players (munchkin, newbie, jerk...) already have this effing attitude towards RPing, and now it's being officially integrated into DnD.

As someone has said above, people are stupid. They adopt to whatever the official fluff says. Which means standard DnD player will be something from DM of The Rings webcomic.
Thank you, that attitude more than anything else is what annoys me most.


The more of these threads I see, the more I wonder whether there was any conceivable statement that could be made about 4e that people *wouldn't* be up in arms about.

1) i'm cool with Female Dwarves, and giant
2) because the hobby we enjoy is being warpted into something we can no longer understand nor find enjoyable, and the developer's attitude about it makes things even worst.


Except possibly, of course, for "Fourth Edition will be exactly the same as third edition".
3E needed a fix up, 4E doesn't give us that



If you're really so concerned about dumbing down, go play OSRIC.

How naive, you really think it is that simple? People here enjoyed 3E and don't appreciate what is happening to the game they all enjoyed

oh and Yugloths are not devils by the by. There are no NE creatures (weren't their Daemons at some point?)

from
EE

Xuincherguixe
2008-02-18, 12:51 PM
Has the Blood War ever been fought in a House?

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 01:04 PM
Not really, Demons hate everything and everyone, Devils are using an "ends justifies the means" ideal to justify their actions, and thus they logically would fight the Demons.

Mmm, yes, quite logical.

Devil: Hey look, a paladin - hrrm, well I think I will go fight Demons in the Abyss instead!
Demon: Hey look, a paladin - Oh well I am off to follow orders and obey my general as I die in an assault against the Nine Hells!


Except the fluff here isn't player or DM determined, it is WOTC determined

Poor DMs have been rendered utterly powerless by the ruleset! I guess there will never be an original plotline again.....


Thank you, that attitude more than anything else is what annoys me most.

Thank you, that attitude is what annoys me the most, namely that if you like 4e, you are stupid.


1) i'm cool with Female Dwarves, and giant
2) because the hobby we enjoy is being warpted into something we can no longer understand nor find enjoyable, and the developer's attitude about it makes things even worst.

Too bad your opinion isn't everyone elses. Apparently people other than you like what they see. I know it's a shock, but WotC isn't using your personally homebrewed D&D ruleset as a basis for D&D.


3E needed a fix up, 4E doesn't give us that

Since you hate it so, could you fax me a copy of your advace issue 4e Core rulebooks?


How naive, you really think it is that simple? People here enjoyed 3E and don't appreciate what is happening to the game they all enjoyed

Yes, we ALL enjoyed 3e and since some of us like what we see with 4e, by your logic we ALL like the 4e changes.


oh and Yugloths are not devils by the by. There are no NE creatures (weren't their Daemons at some point?)

Yes, they WERE Daemons originally, back in 1e which just coming out when I started playing. And they were originally NE. Too bad 2e started screwing them up so bad that they were made useless.

EvilElitest
2008-02-18, 01:07 PM
Seriously though, lighten up kids. Evil can still fight evil, they are just saying they aren't going to waste space writing it up.

For a guy's who's tone scream elitist and who blatantly insults people, you have a strange way of telling people to calm down. Your not very friendly mr. Friendly


You anti-4e people need to make a decision here:

1. Oh noes! WotC is taking away all the fluff!!!1
2. Oh noes! WotC is putting in too much fluff!!!1


3. Oh noes, WOTC is taking away all the fluff we like, and forcing new fluff down our throat. Wow, i mean Oh my god, this would be fine if WOTC has a specific setting, but even the generic game is two specific.




I am sick of hearing the same tired arguements about how Wizards has taken away some sacred cow and how the removal of some microscopic piece of fluff minutia has 'ruined D&D forever!!'; only to be followed in the same breath that by naming a feat, adding a race or calling a location by a name they have 'ruined D&D forever!!'

And i'm tired of 4E defenders who simply go "Ohmygodthisisthebestthingeveranyonewhocritiziesitm ustnotknowhowtoroleplay"
And then assume a haughty overbearing attitude with a "Your wrong, i'm right" and still don't address the points but you don't see me complaining. I mean being overbearing is fine, but adress the points

And on hte mindflayer beholder war, ever study history? In a realistic world, all stuff effects everyone in it, even if it seems minor


from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-02-18, 01:12 PM
Mmm, yes, quite logical.

Devil: Hey look, a paladin - hrrm, well I think I will go fight Demons in the Abyss instead!
Demon: Hey look, a paladin - Oh well I am off to follow orders and obey my general as I die in an assault against the Nine Hells!


Except were the blood war is being fought there aren't any paladins


Poor DMs have been rendered utterly powerless by the ruleset! I guess there will never be an original plotline again.....

To get one you need rule zero


Thank you, that attitude is what annoys me the most, namely that if you like 4e, you are stupid.
So you user name is a clever parody of what friendless really is? I never said liking 4E makes you stupid, i said i don't like 4e for this reason


Too bad your opinion isn't everyone elses. Apparently people other than you like what they see. I know it's a shock, but WotC isn't using your personally homebrewed D&D ruleset as a basis for D&D.

guess what, even your option isn't everyone else's ether Mr. Friendly. The issues is the changes to 4E that annoy people, and you "oh my god your a moron" zealotry isn't going to change that.




Since you hate it so, could you fax me a copy of your advace issue 4e Core rulebooks?
Cough* Preview books*cough



Yes, we ALL enjoyed 3e and since some of us like what we see with 4e, by your logic we ALL like the 4e changes.

Don't misquote, the people who enjoyed aspects of 3E are upset that they are being taken away in 4E




Yes, they WERE Daemons originally, back in 1e which just coming out when I started playing. And they were originally NE. Too bad 2e started screwing them up so bad that they were made useless.

What happened
from
EE

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 01:14 PM
Since you hate it so, could you fax me a copy of your advace issue 4e Core rulebooks?

Thank you, that attitude is what annoys me the most, namely that if you like 4e, you are stupid.

Since you like it, can I see a copy of yours? No need to fax it, a scan will do fine. Or you can just send it and I'll return it after I read it. ;-)

Artanis
2008-02-18, 01:19 PM
And i'm tired of 4E defenders who simply go "Ohmygodthisisthebestthingeveranyonewhocritiziesitm ustnotknowhowtoroleplay"
And then assume a haughty overbearing attitude with a "Your wrong, i'm right" and still don't address the points but you don't see me complaining. I mean being overbearing is fine, but adress the points
1) I have yet to see a "4E defender" do that, or anything that that might be a caracture of. Anywhere. Ever.

2) YOU are the one spouting "You're wrong, I'm right" in every single post.

3) Yes, I do see you complaining. Just read your post that I just quoted.

4) YOU never address any points. You have yet to ever address the point of "we don't know the mechanics yet". You are utterly convinced that everything about 4e is going to suck and suck horribly - the mechanics, the fluff, everything - without ever seeing one single word of the final version of the corebooks. And you spend every single post shouting this assertion from the rooftops.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 01:19 PM
For a guy's who's tone scream elitist and who blatantly insults people, you have a strange way of telling people to calm down. Your not very friendly mr. Friendly

Yes, I am clearly elitist because you have started two combative "4e is ruining D&D" threads today and insinuate the same garbage in both. Namely that "D&D is turning into an MMORPG".


3. Oh noes, WOTC is taking away all the fluff we like, and forcing new fluff down our throat. Wow, i mean Oh my god, this would be fine if WOTC has a specific setting, but even the generic game is two specific.

Please find me the quote from the designers that says you have to go out and buy 100 new sourcebooks for fluff that has been trod over in no less than 2 and sometimes 4 reprints? You can always use your old books.... but no, it's easier to complain that 4e is ruining everything. As for ruining your precious fluff - it is ruining the fluff - FOR THE GENERIC setting. It isn't even a setting, the designers themselves have said so. They aren't fleshing it out, other than to make it a generic backdrop. I suppose for some people though it is is just too difficult to rename things.


And i'm tired of 4E defenders who simply go "Ohmygodthisisthebestthingeveranyonewhocritiziesitm ustnotknowhowtoroleplay"
And then assume a haughty overbearing attitude with a "Your wrong, i'm right" and still don't address the points but you don't see me complaining. I mean being overbearing is fine, but adress the points

What points? That there is no more evil vs. evil, the logical fallacy in the thread title that started this ridiculous 4e bash fest? It's obviously false on the face of it.

Oh wait... oh yeah, here is a scanned page from the new DMG.... it's right there in black and white... "Rulez 9 - EVUL KANT FITE EVUL NEMOAR!111 KTHXBYE!111" Oh gods, you are right... 4e IS an MMORPG!!!


And on hte mindflayer beholder war, ever study history? In a realistic world, all stuff effects everyone in it, even if it seems minor

Again:


You can change all the fluff you want.
The fluff they are putting out thusfar is for the default, generic, NAMELESS, setting.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 01:27 PM
Since you like it, can I see a copy of yours? No need to fax it, a scan will do fine. Or you can just send it and I'll return it after I read it. ;-)

While I like what I have seen - so far - from the stuff the playtesters and designers have released, I like it.

If however, I was ranting and raving about how awesome 4e will be based upon, say, a single line, from a single designer, saying that oh... the Blood War was being phased out... then that comment might be warrented.

However, with multiple articles and playtest reports, I can safely say I have a good impression of how things will work and following the progression of what they seem to be doing, I like it.

*I* however reserve final judgement until it is out - or at least until D&D Experience and we hear some first hand accounts.

Narmoth
2008-02-18, 01:41 PM
...or 4th edition's core setting will turn out to be a world under the complete and total dominion of a demon/devil alliance, with all good eradicated from the prime material plane. I guess that'd be different. And it would explain all the tieflings...

Not a bad setting. I think I'll try to make one.
For 2nd ed, which those who don't care to spend money on updates play :smallbiggrin:

Jack Zander
2008-02-18, 02:10 PM
While I like what I have seen - so far - from the stuff the playtesters and designers have released, I like it.

If however, I was ranting and raving about how awesome 4e will be based upon, say, a single line, from a single designer, saying that oh... the Blood War was being phased out... then that comment might be warrented.

However, with multiple articles and playtest reports, I can safely say I have a good impression of how things will work and following the progression of what they seem to be doing, I like it.

*I* however reserve final judgement until it is out - or at least until D&D Experience and we hear some first hand accounts.

And those of us who are anti 4th Ed are using the same references you are to say that we don't like how things are turning out. I don't see how this makes us ignorant savages and you a highly advanced philosophical being.

I'm even going to give 4th Ed a fair chance with an open mind, but from what I've seen and heard, it's going to be fail with a capital PH.

To be honest though, I don't like change.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 02:23 PM
And those of us who are anti 4th Ed are using the same references you are to say that we don't like how things are turning out. I don't see how this makes us ignorant savages and you a highly advanced philosophical being.

I'm even going to give 4th Ed a fair chance with an open mind, but from what I've seen and heard, it's going to be fail with a capital PH.

To be honest though, I don't like change.

THANK YOU!

That's an answer I can respect and understand. For the record, I do not believe I called anyone an ignorant savage nor called myself any more enlightened than anyone else.

I just wish that more people were as honest about their opinions towards 4e and not create straw man, flame bait threads, designed to do nothing but sow disinformation and animosity, while furthering some half-baked notion that 4e was designed between respawns of a guild raid gone bad against Onyxia. (That was a WoW reference)

I could care less if someone likes 3e and hates 4e or vice versa, but at least have something to back it up other than '4e = WoW' or 'People are stupid'

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-18, 02:38 PM
Interestingly, my biggest grudge with 4th is not current, but old. Once again, they fail to use NG and NE as the true Good and Evil, and Yugoloths are missing again.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-18, 02:46 PM
Interestingly, my biggest grudge with 4th is not current, but old. Once again, they fail to use NG and NE as the true Good and Evil, and Yugoloths are missing again.

From what I have read the alignments are just Good and Evil (and presumably Chaotic and Lawful as well).

Tragically Yugoloths Daemons have been folded into Demons and Devils. (Some going one way, others..)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-18, 02:51 PM
Mais non. Yugoloths have gone extinct, and LG and CE have finally been declaired the "true" good 'n evil. Of if they haven't, it'll happen on 5th.

SurlySeraph
2008-02-18, 02:57 PM
Mais non. Yugoloths have gone extinct, and LG and CE have finally been declaired the "true" good 'n evil. Of if they haven't, it'll happen on 5th.

I'm... not so sure about that.

Does anyone else get the sense that WotC is going to get rid of the Law/Chaos axis?

Rutee
2008-02-18, 03:07 PM
Does anyone else get the sense that WotC is going to get rid of the Law/Chaos axis?

I believe they outright say as much in the Races and Classes book, but my reading time is reserved for my material for games I'm actually going to run in the next 7 months, atm. If they do get rid of law/chaos, I will be a sad panda, because Law/Chaos was always a more interesting alignment battle, to me.

Muyten
2008-02-18, 03:12 PM
I believe they outright say as much in the Races and Classes book, but my reading time is reserved for my material for games I'm actually going to run in the next 7 months, atm. If they do get rid of law/chaos, I will be a sad panda, because Law/Chaos was always a more interesting alignment battle, to me.

Yes that looks entirely possible but it's still unclear what exactly will be the mechanical purpose of alignment in 4E. But I do hate to see a panda saddened :smallfrown:

Rutee
2008-02-18, 03:30 PM
What I'm hoping is that the mechanical effects are null or few, so I can just toss around Law/Chaos as replacements or whatnot.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-18, 03:38 PM
I'm... not so sure about that.

Does anyone else get the sense that WotC is going to get rid of the Law/Chaos axis?


You see, the reason I got that is that there were LOADS of material on the abyss and Celestia, and virtually zilch on Hades and Elysium. the trend continued in 3x editions, and since in 4th demons are going to be the hack 'n slash outsiders, this is the logical conclusion.

fendrin
2008-02-18, 04:29 PM
Ok, for those of you who played (and were involved in discussions like this) prior to the release of 3.0: Isn't this pretty much the same argument that people had about Greyhawk as the default setting ruining the game?

You know, in the what, 7? 8? years since 3.0 came out, I have played or run countless games, but only one was explicitly set in Greyhawk. And no, it was not the first game I played in 3.0 (it was actualy a 3.5 game).

Oh, and I haven't heard too many complaints about the Realms being ruined by Greyhawk specific rules in that time, either.

So really, the default setting doesn't matter much. 2E didn't even have a default setting...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-18, 05:16 PM
Why do I feel we're getting ever closer to Dis Continuity?

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-02-18, 05:29 PM
Well gee... there goes the whole plotline for an entire campaign I was going to run... the evil party banding together to go rob/loot/steal from other evil beings in order to be the biggest and most billy badass of evils, in preparation to taking over the world.

But I guess since there's no more evil fighting evil, I'll just have to scrap it...

Oh, wait...

I already decided to swear off MMO's, so I'm not going to deal with 4E anyways.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 05:32 PM
1: 4e is not an MMO anymore then 3rd ed is.
2: You can set whatever plotline you want, as GM, default setting be damned.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 05:34 PM
And those of us who are anti 4th Ed are using the same references you are to say that we don't like how things are turning out. I don't see how this makes us ignorant savages and you a highly advanced philosophical being.

I'm even going to give 4th Ed a fair chance with an open mind, but from what I've seen and heard, it's going to be fail with a capital PH.

To be honest though, I don't like change.

Indeed. I agree with this entirely. Even EE has more than one issue and as far as I can tell read the same material (even if I sometimes wonder at his interpretation thereof), he's merely bringing up one issue (which I personally don't give a hoot about) on this thread.



That's an answer I can respect and understand. For the record, I do not believe I called anyone an ignorant savage nor called myself any more enlightened than anyone else.

I think it was more in your phrasing which implied some rancor.


I just wish that more people were as honest about their opinions towards 4e and not create straw man, flame bait threads, designed to do nothing but sow disinformation and animosity, while furthering some half-baked notion that 4e was designed between respawns of a guild raid gone bad against Onyxia. (That was a WoW reference)

See, this is an example of why people think you are insulting them.


I could care less if someone likes 3e and hates 4e or vice versa, but at least have something to back it up other than '4e = WoW' or 'People are stupid'

Fair point. Lets all just be sure before we start accusing others of having no more argument than those two snippets that they actually don't and not that they have other arguments that we just happen to think are bunk.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-02-18, 05:42 PM
1: 4e is not an MMO anymore then 3rd ed is.

1) When I have to pay a monthly fee to maintain an account on the WotC website, and pay for each expansion splatbook, and put that code from the front of the book into the account to gain access to the material therein, it is an MMO.

Artanis
2008-02-18, 05:46 PM
1) When I have to pay a monthly fee to maintain an account on the WotC website, and pay for each expansion splatbook, and put that code from the front of the book into the account to gain access to the material therein, it is an MMO.
Edit: The previous version of this post was...harsh, to put it mildly.


Shneekey, get your facts straight. Practically every single word of the quoted post is flat-out, objectively, blatantly wrong.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-02-18, 05:51 PM
Have you actually...you know...READ THE DAMNED INFORMATION?

You don't have to pay a monthly fee. Not one single cent worth of monthly fee. Ever. Anywhere. Period.

You CAN, if you want to, pay a monthly fee to access a couple neat features on the website, like an overglorified OpenRPG.

You CAN, if you want to, put a code found in a book that you bought in order to use that book with the overglorified OpenRPG. Or you can just use the book. Without the website. Without paying a single cent in monthly fees.


*headdesk*

Get your facts straight before you start spouting idiocy like the post I quoted :smallfurious:

yes, because personal attacks make things much more reasonable...

Of course, being able to actually MAKE characters is kinda important. And since, yanno, the ONLY character generator for 4E allowed is gonna be ON that OpenRPG clone (because anyone who tries to come up with a 3rd party one is gonna get sued out of business), and they're even talking you NEED the membership to be able to get the online versions of the character sheets, it'll be kinda hard to make characters without it, unless you plan on going to your local kinkos with the PhB... if they even decide to put the character sheet in the PhB, which I doubt.

So yea, fact checking? Done. Next time, try asking for proofs rather than making personal attacks and you might not get egg on your face next time. :smallwink:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-18, 05:51 PM
Yeah, I got it right. We ARE heading into discontinuity. What could bring us back together?

Ah, of course.

*Cue The Beatles We can Work It Out*.

Trog
2008-02-18, 05:53 PM
Honestly I think WotC concentrating more on the interactions that the PCs have vs. a big fancy story of hot evil on evil action just makes sense. Where do you spend the majority of your time gaming? At the point where the PCs get involved. I'm all for Keeping It Simple, Stupid. Focusing less on wars being fought that involve nary a PC and more on the stuff PCs do just makes sense.

Plus with WotC scaling back on alignment, where most people, creatures, etc are unaligned and their alignment unknowable the whole thing become a moot point anyway. Some extreme creatures are evil. Some extreme creatures are good. But the majority are somewhere in between and the rules seem to now reflect that. Fine by me.

Rutee
2008-02-18, 05:57 PM
Of course, being able to actually MAKE characters is kinda important. And since, yanno, the ONLY character generator for 4E allowed is gonna be ON that OpenRPG clone
To my knowledge, WotC haven't quite reached the level of black arts mastery necessary to destroy all paper, pencils, pens, and .txt files one can use to store character data.

Artanis
2008-02-18, 05:58 PM
yes, because personal attacks make things much more reasonable...

Of course, being able to actually MAKE characters is kinda important. And since, yanno, the ONLY character generator for 4E allowed is gonna be ON that OpenRPG clone (because anyone who tries to come up with a 3rd party one is gonna get sued out of business), and they're even talking you NEED the membership to be able to get the online versions of the character sheets, it'll be kinda hard to make characters without it, unless you plan on going to your local kinkos with the PhB... if they even decide to put the character sheet in the PhB, which I doubt.

So yea, fact checking? Done. Next time, try asking for proofs rather than making personal attacks and you might not get egg on your face next time. :smallwink:
I apologize for the personal attacks, and edited my post accordingly.


I'll go more in-depth into where you're wrong:

1) What makes you think the only way to make a character will be on the website? You'll be able to use the corebooks to make a character the old-fashioned way. All the website will do is let you add a picture and maybe calculate derived stats (i.e. saves, AB, whatever) for you.

2) What makes you think the splatbooks will need the website to be used? They've flat-out said that splatbooks will still be books, just like they literally always have been. Those splatbooks will, however, include a code so that if you want to, you can use them in conjunction with the website's overglorified OpenRPG. Or, you can just use splatbooks the old-fashioned way, as books, just like you always have.

3) What makes you think the website will be mandatory? They've gone out of their way to make it abundantly clear that the website will be optional. It'll let you have access to a couple things (like Dragon), and let you use their OpenRPG-substitute. Nothing more. If you want to play without a monthly fee, you can go ahead and do so, by doing it the old-fashioned way: buying the books and using the books just like you always have, and have been able to do in literally every single edition ever.

4) So what if they have the character sheets on the website? Are you THAT dependant on somebody making a character sheet for you that you can't do it yourself? Just whip up an Excel spreadsheet or Word document, and voila, character sheet ten minutes later. Maybe not as pretty as the "official" ones, but I don't see how it becomes impossible.

Catch
2008-02-18, 06:03 PM
1) When I have to pay a monthly fee to maintain an account on the WotC website, and pay for each expansion splatbook, and put that code from the front of the book into the account to gain access to the material therein, it is an MMO.

Both of those investments are a matter of personal prerogative. You buy the core setting just like you would any other game, book or movie, but from there, it's up to you. Make no mistake, WotC isn't reaching into your pockets and surreptitiously filching the contents, you're willing paying for a service and a product that you desire. By no means are you required to pay for an account in order to play any version of D&D, nor are you forced to buy supplements that you don't feel you need or want. You determine the value you place on such investments, that's for sure, but you're completely entitled to not plunk down the greenbacks for new books if you feel they're not worthwhile.

Seriously, I understand that people are somehow grossly offended by the notion that certain hobbies cost money, but frankly, the martyr shtick just isn't fooling me, sorry.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 05:00 AM
1) and pay for each expansion splatbook,

You're right. Releasing supplements which cost money is *totally* only something MMOs do.

RPGs *never* charge money for their supplements.

EvilElitest
2008-02-19, 11:36 PM
Yes, I am clearly elitist because you have started two combative "4e is ruining D&D" threads today and insinuate the same garbage in both. Namely that "D&D is turning into an MMORPG".

1. Yes you are. You have an almost radical defense of 4E to the point of absurdity, you belittle and dimiss points, you turn refuse to address things and have a wanna be "acid wit" that does nothing but derail the issue
2. On two separate concerns with different issues. I also started a thread in the media forums recently, how about that.
3. Garbage. Maybe mr. not so friendly, i'm concerned about the problem. Namely, WOTC's reason for making evil not fight evil. Why did they do this? Because it apparently wastes space to write about things that don't directly effect hte PCs, evil exists to fight hte PCs not eachother


Please find me the quote from the designers that says you have to go out and buy 100 new sourcebooks for fluff that has been trod over in no less than 2 and sometimes 4 reprints? You can always use your old books.... but no, it's easier to complain that 4e is ruining everything.

Well we have two whole books of "This is how the fluff works ,deal with it" as well as huge lapse in consistency


As for ruining your precious fluff - it is ruining the fluff - FOR THE GENERIC setting. It isn't even a setting, the designers themselves have said so. They aren't fleshing it out, other than to make it a generic backdrop. I suppose for some people though it is is just too difficult to rename things.

They are mighty specefic for a generic setting
1. The Pins of light thing
2. No racism at all
3. No real countries bigger than city states
4. High magic, high monsters and stuff (I honestly don't mind this one)
5. PCs are super unique special heros
6. Monsters roam the world and the good races surrounded by threats
7. The PCs are good, always
8. Evil exists to get slaughter by the PC
9. NPCs are kinda, well there, they don't do anything important really. They are kinda the quest giver people
10. Specific histories/lands for most of the monsters

Kinda specific for a generic world eh?



What points? That there is no more evil vs. evil, the logical fallacy in the thread title that started this ridiculous 4e bash fest? It's obviously false on the face of it.
Oh your a reasonable debater aren't you their? Wow, you really proved my point about your haughty zealotry wrong there, good job.

Wait....

And it is the reasons for evil not fighting evil that is my general concern




Again:


You can change all the fluff you want.
The fluff they are putting out thusfar is for the default, generic, NAMELESS, setting.


You confuse default. In 3E, there is very little specific fluff. We get the basic race fluff, the cosmology (which i don't mind in ether 3E or 4E, both are cool) and some basic fun facts and then we go off to make our own setting. However this 4E has a very specific 'type' of game, it works under the assumption taht all of the races are dotting a monster filled world with little unification or organization. Cool concept sure, but it shouldn't be the generic setting, it should be a specific setting


*I* however reserve final judgement until it is out - or at least until D&D Experience and we hear some first hand accounts.
but that doesn't let you stop accusing and attacking others however



That's an answer I can respect and understand. For the record, I do not believe I called anyone an ignorant savage nor called myself any more enlightened than anyone else.

I just wish that more people were as honest about their opinions towards 4e and not create straw man, flame bait threads, designed to do nothing but sow disinformation and animosity, while furthering some half-baked notion that 4e was designed between respawns of a guild raid gone bad against Onyxia. (That was a WoW reference)
except that isn't your attitude at all, you've launch this anti anti 4E attack without really listening to the points. I don't hate everything about 4E, i hate specific issues about it and i wish to voice my complaints. That isn't a crime by the way. I also thinkg 4E i becoming like a video game (which would make sense as WOTC would want to get that crowd in) but i believe you have another thread for that. But that is no reason for that for these absurd "YOUR WRONG" attacks. If you disagree, fine but address the issues, not the idea of not liking 4E. Calm down, and be reasonable and we can discuss this like a pair of civil demonic trolls, er, people



Mais non. Yugoloths have gone extinct, and LG and CE have finally been declaired the "true" good 'n evil. Of if they haven't, it'll happen on 5th.

don't care about Yugoloths ether way, they never were well supported but are they really doing the alignment thing?


Now onto the issues, my complaint is the fact the evil vs. evil fighting rule exists not because evil is becoming more organized or unified, it is because WOTC doesn't consider it important to the PCs, which is another annoying "World revolves around the PCs" ideal.
Am i wrong?

from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-02-19, 11:37 PM
Due to computer issues, this post will be finished later


Mais non. Yugoloths have gone extinct, and LG and CE have finally been declaired the "true" good 'n evil. Of if they haven't, it'll happen on 5th.

don't care about Yugoloths ether way, they never were well supported but are they really doing the alignment thing?


Now onto the issues, my complaint is the fact the evil vs. evil fighting rule exists not because evil is becoming more organized or unified, it is because WOTC doesn't consider it important to the PCs, which is another annoying "World revolves around the PCs" ideal.
Am i wrong?

from
EE

horseboy
2008-02-20, 12:28 AM
Personally I think that the Blood Wars created more problems than it really solved. After all, take Elminster for example, Why doesn't Shadowdale have a teleport circle? Well, Elminster is busy making sure that a pit fiend doesn't establish a base over at location X. Why aren't high level good cleric wandering around dolling out create food/water/cure/raise deads for free? Because they're busy tracking down demons. Suddenly when the high levels in the area say they're busy, it's actually a lot more believable.

Rutee
2008-02-20, 12:32 AM
Personally I think that the Blood Wars created more problems than it really solved. After all, take Elminster for example, Why doesn't Shadowdale have a teleport circle? Well, Elminster is busy making sure that a pit fiend doesn't establish a base over at location X. Why aren't high level good cleric wandering around dolling out create food/water/cure/raise deads for free? Because they're busy tracking down demons. Suddenly when the high levels in the area say they're busy, it's actually a lot more believable.

....How's that creating problems, in that limitted context?

Talic
2008-02-20, 01:12 AM
They are mighty specefic for a generic setting
1. The Pins of light thing

Not sure, leaving it alone...


2. No racism at all

Well, garsh, let's see, that sounds like a "people's viewpoint". Which means if you make up different people, and a different setting, you're not run down a railroad track and FORCED to do that? Yup, sounds like that to me.


3. No real countries bigger than city states

Sounds like a "nature of the realms" thing, which again, if you changed to your own or a different realm, you could, *gasp* change to suit your preferences. Even if not, though, you could do worse than modelling a fantasy setting after ancient greece.


4. High magic, high monsters and stuff (I honestly don't mind this one)

3.5 has the same assumption. So did 3.0. Nothing's changing there, so this isn't really a "4th ed gripe", so much as a "general I don't like how the game sets the rules for the base and am completely unable to modify any of the mutable portions of the game.


5. PCs are super unique special heros

Again, sounds like a playstyle preference. With high monsters, it seems like the DM will still be able to make the PC's small fishes in a big pond. As for heroes, who doesn't want to feel special? Most people play the game because they LIKE doing the impossible, and being more than like everyone else.


6. Monsters roam the world and the good races surrounded by threats

Again, sounds like a fine way to make a world in tension, and give the players in the game things to do, as well as give the DM options. Also, COMPLETELY changable from campaign setting to campaign setting... But Wizards NEVER releases campaign settings with different rules *coughfaeruncougheberroncough*... What were WE thinking?


7. The PCs are good, always

That assumption, I actually don't like. Again, though, easily fixable when you change the setting. Look at Scarred lands and Eberron for examples of campaign settings that tinkered with overall alignment issues.


8. Evil exists to get slaughter by the PC

Well, the evil that doesn't have any interaction whatsoever isn't really a factor in the story, is it? And it's not "no evil vs evil". It's "less". Less implies that there WILL be some, it's just not the focus. Which is good. I hear players like to be the focus of their stories.


9. NPCs are kinda, well there, they don't do anything important really. They are kinda the quest giver people

What? As a DM, you're incapable of ROLE-PLAYING? Doesn't sound like 4th ed has this problem. Sounds like YOU do.


10. Specific histories/lands for most of the monsters

Sounds about right. By giving a specific BASE history, it helps a DM determine the overall tendencies for the monster. It doesn't mean that every Snark has to come from Fluffelville. Look at ALL the gods in your 3.5 PHb. If you're playing Eberron, tell me, exactly how many of those deities do you use? That's what he means by Generic. It's the stuff that can be popped out and replaced, as needed.


Kinda specific for a generic world eh?

Even a generic world is a world. It needs specifics.


Oh your a reasonable debater aren't you their? Wow, you really proved my point about your haughty zealotry wrong there, good job.

Actually, I'd lay odds he's more reasonable, and less fanatical about his defense than you are about your attack.


Wait....

And it is the reasons for evil not fighting evil that is my general concern

Gee, good thing they didn't say evil wouldn't fight evil... Only that it wouldn't be so prevalent. You can breath easy now.


You confuse default. In 3E, there is very little specific fluff. We get the basic race fluff, the cosmology (which i don't mind in ether 3E or 4E, both are cool) and some basic fun facts and then we go off to make our own setting. However this 4E has a very specific 'type' of game, it works under the assumption taht all of the races are dotting a monster filled world with little unification or organization. Cool concept sure, but it shouldn't be the generic setting, it should be a specific setting

Actually, the "generic setting" is Greyhawk. Not as well known as Faerun, sure. But highly specific, still. Just sayin.


but that doesn't let you stop accusing and attacking others however

Why not? You don't.
[/QUOTE]

horseboy
2008-02-20, 01:13 AM
Well, if most of the demons and devils are off fighting amongst themselves, then they're not as big of a threat to the material plane. There fore "high level" people were just sitting around waiting for orcs to raid every little town, or not building infrastructure because they're jerks. Now it's actually far more likely that really don't have the time.

Rutee
2008-02-20, 01:19 AM
Ah.. completely misread that then. Makes sense, definitely.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-20, 02:48 AM
Well, if most of the demons and devils are off fighting amongst themselves, then they're not as big of a threat to the material plane. There fore "high level" people were just sitting around waiting for orcs to raid every little town, or not building infrastructure because they're jerks. Now it's actually far more likely that really don't have the time.

Nothing has changed in that regard. None of the bigwig Demons and Devils had/have much focus on the Blood War, they are/were occupied with their own schemes and power struggles and do/did not really want to waste any more resources than necessary on it.

If the Blood War was to end, with an all else being equal assumption, chances are that the other planes would be overrun.

So removing the Blood War by itself does not offer any explanation to the indifference of high level heroes. You need to make dramatic changes to the power and numbers of lower plane outsiders.

Talic
2008-02-20, 03:19 AM
Nothing has changed in that regard. None of the bigwig Demons and Devils had/have much focus on the Blood War, they are/were occupied with their own schemes and power struggles and do/did not really want to waste any more resources than necessary on it.

If the Blood War was to end, with an all else being equal assumption, chances are that the other planes would be overrun.

So removing the Blood War by itself does not offer any explanation to the indifference of high level heroes. You need to make dramatic changes to the power and numbers of lower plane outsiders.

Or to their ability to exercise that power. For instance, if there are a limitless number of horrid creatures, with many myriad nasty stabby powers, but they cannot cross the barrier between the material and the abyss without direct mortal intervention on a 1:1 level, then the tide of demons and such is stemmed. Now, the only way a demon gets out is if it's called... By a mortal.

Poison_Fish
2008-02-20, 04:38 AM
Now onto the issues, my complaint is the fact the evil vs. evil fighting rule exists not because evil is becoming more organized or unified, it is because WOTC doesn't consider it important to the PCs, which is another annoying "World revolves around the PCs" ideal.
Am i wrong?

Because, heaven forbid, Narrativist theory has no place belonging in a roleplaying game. "That's only for books, zomgeleventyone1".

Have you ever thought that reason why most of these things aren't showing up in the initial 4E stuff is because they are focusing on the more common areas where an adventurer will be. Honestly, how many of your D&D games are going to be going to the demons and devil lairs? How many of your D&D games are going to start moving off their small little plain of being?

You want to see more about the blood war? They have a supplement for that and will have a supplement for it.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 05:21 AM
Because, heaven forbid, Narrativist theory has no place belonging in a roleplaying game. "That's only for books, zomgeleventyone1".

Books and MMORPGs


Have you ever thought that reason why most of these things aren't showing up in the initial 4E stuff is because they are focusing on the more common areas where an adventurer will be. Honestly, how many of your D&D games are going to be going to the demons and devil lairs? How many of your D&D games are going to start moving off their small little plain of being?

But ... just because the players will never go near, experience, or encounter something, that doesn't mean it isn't important! That's like saying that because, in real life, I've never been to Canada, that Canada doesn't exist!

Think of the Canadians! Somebody please think of the Canadians!


You want to see more about the blood war? They have a supplement for that and will have a supplement for it.

A supplement? You mean they're going to make us pay money to get additional content for the game?

Like an MMO!

That's totally unacceptable. When 3.5 was released it had all of the information ever published for any D&D setting ever included in the core rulebooks! We, the players, deserve to have 4th edition contain all the information we want. Not that we're going to buy it. Because it will suck. But we will have to buy it. Because they will *force us*.

I feel curiously better after that.

Poison_Fish
2008-02-20, 05:49 AM
Of course!!! How could I forget that MMO = Books, because both totally cater to their audience!? Unlike RPG's, which don't do that silly "cater to the audience thing". Geez, why can't RPG's go back to the good old days of 3.5, where it bent it's audience over and told them how things were?!? 4E doesn't bend players over!? That's not an RPG!! That's a crime!

I mean, if RPG's start catering to their audience, then what's next? A world that doesn't measure a PC's skills by their ability to kill something? Now that's just preposterous!! I must be speaking crazy talk!

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 05:58 AM
I mean, if RPG's start catering to their audience, then what's next? A world that doesn't measure a PC's skills by their ability to kill something? Now that's just preposterous!! I must be speaking crazy talk!

Worse! A world that doesn't measure NPCs skills by their ability to kill something.

That's not just preposterous, it's dehumanizing

Rutee
2008-02-20, 06:01 AM
But ... just because the players will never go near, experience, or encounter something, that doesn't mean it isn't important! That's like saying that because, in real life, I've never been to Canada, that Canada doesn't exist!

Think of the Canadians! Somebody please think of the Canadians!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/canada.png

See? Thinking about the Canadians. I'm a helper!

Artanis
2008-02-20, 12:34 PM
Of course!!! How could I forget that MMO = Books, because both totally cater to their audience!?
On a related note, I suddenly have a morbid curiosity regarding just how bad a novel about Chuck Norris running a Fish Mine would be :smalltongue:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 12:44 PM
On a related note, I suddenly have a morbid curiosity regarding just how bad a novel about Chuck Norris running a Fish Mine would be :smalltongue:

In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris runs a fish mine, and wonders how bad a novel about *you* would be.

Fax Celestis
2008-02-20, 06:44 PM
Elect me. Or the Giant i suppose.sarcasm, calm down



on topic, Rutee, the irony here is that WOTC has made the distinction between Demons and devils even more radically different, so it would seem like the justifications for a war would be more likely
from
EE
Maybe the justifications are, sure, but the ability is less prevalent. Demons are imprisoned in the Abyss, remember? Hard to war on someone when you can't leave home.

As for "evil not fighting evil", I think the intent here was to say that "alignment is not going to be the main basis of dissent between groups now".

Yakk
2008-02-20, 11:59 PM
First, the Blood war isn't really worth the bother of being core fluff.

Second, look at the Demons and Devils in core fluff. Devils are trapped in a prison and are trying to make deals with mortals to give them power in exchange for access to the world.

Demons, meanwhile, are elemental creatures of pure destruction.

I could see the Devils attempting to advance into Demon-saturated territory, or the Demons seeing the Devils in their way to somewhere they are heading -- but a war?

In a sense, the 4e Demons are more chaotic than the 3e false-chaotic Demons (like the false-chaotic elves of 3e). There isn't anything to war with -- one might as well go to war with a hurricane as go to war with the Demons.

You can try to defend against the hurricane. You could even try to manipulate the climate to make the hurricane not happen, or deflect it, using insane amounts of power: but going to war against it doesn't work.

...

What they are saying is that they where revamping the cosmology to provide interesting adventures for the players. They looked at the new Demons and Devils, and somebody said "what about the blood war". It didn't fit very well anymore: they could force it in (place the Devil trap in the Demon pit, and have them fight each other), but the two beings are quite different. Hooking them together didn't really do much for either, and both where kept in check by other forces.

(Demons, by their sheer randomness, and the huge amount of non-Devil out there (the elemental chaos). Devils, because they are trapped in their prison.)

It didn't add much to either, and it would be forcing it to have a Blood war with that cosmology.

So they threw it away.

That doesn't mean that Gnolls and Orcs won't be fighting each other: but rather, you shouldn't burn a bunch of fluff effort in the core detailing the Gnoll/Orc war.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-21, 02:58 AM
Without a Chaos-Law axis there is no reason to engage in a large scale war against chaos from the Devil's point of view and certainly not if history has changed enough that the the reasons for the war are no more. (No contractual obligations to fight said war for instance or being unable to break out of your confinement.)

fendrin
2008-02-21, 09:26 AM
Without a Chaos-Law axis there is no reason to engage in a large scale war against chaos from the Devil's point of view and certainly not if history has changed enough that the the reasons for the war are no more. (No contractual obligations to fight said war for instance or being unable to break out of your confinement.)

Is there actually anything published saying they are goign to do away with the Law/Chaos axis, or is it just rumor based on hearsay based on incomplete tidbits of information?

Even if it is no longer a mechanic, you will always have the tension between the law-abiding/enforcing and the law-breaking, the organized and the disorderly, and the planners and the impulsive. the Law-Chaos axis doesn't really add much mechanically worthwhile, in my opinion.

Not to mention that Law Vs. Chaos wars always seem a bit... contrived. The best of them would be Babylon 5, but that part of the plot was, in my opinion, one of the weakest parts of the show.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-21, 10:02 AM
1. Yes you are. You have an almost radical defense of 4E to the point of absurdity, you belittle and dimiss points, you turn refuse to address things and have a wanna be "acid wit" that does nothing but derail the issue

Yes I know, it's a radical and novel defense called "let's wait and see". Not jump to conclusions and use LIES and half-truths to spread a negative viewpoint in what is either serious psychogical issues where you *need* to be right, so much so that you will generate lies to support your false viewpoint, just so you can sucker a few more people in to believing you. The other reason would be... well let's just say you shouldn't make too many more posts - you wouldn't want to lose your current title. :smallwink:


2. On two separate concerns with different issues. I also started a thread in the media forums recently, how about that.

Yes, funny that. Here's the thing: Both posts followed roughly the same format; FALSE premise, FALSE conclusions and voicing your "concerns" to others. It is the same format several of your posts have followed, in most of the 4e threads. The saying goes: Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action.


3. Garbage. Maybe mr. not so friendly, i'm concerned about the problem. Namely, WOTC's reason for making evil not fight evil. Why did they do this? Because it apparently wastes space to write about things that don't directly effect hte PCs, evil exists to fight hte PCs not eachother

And this is EXACTLY what I am talking about. First, Wizards DID NOT say that evil cannot or will not fight evil. This is a STRAW MAN you have constructed to give you something to argue about. Now of course you have to feign innocence, because after all "you're just concerned about it". Sheesh - puh-lease; I didn't start posting on the interwebs yesterday.



Well we have two whole books of "This is how the fluff works ,deal with it" as well as huge lapse in consistency

What two books? What are you even argueing about? Faerun fluff still exists exactly as it does now; just stuff happens; kind of like what happens every time a new novel or sourcebook comes out. Eberron? It's fluff is all still there as well. If you are talking about the two preview books, that's fluff for the generic setting.


They are mighty specefic for a generic setting
1. The Pins of light thing
2. No racism at all
3. No real countries bigger than city states
4. High magic, high monsters and stuff (I honestly don't mind this one)
5. PCs are super unique special heros
6. Monsters roam the world and the good races surrounded by threats
7. The PCs are good, always
8. Evil exists to get slaughter by the PC
9. NPCs are kinda, well there, they don't do anything important really. They are kinda the quest giver people
10. Specific histories/lands for most of the monsters

Let me address your points, one by one....

1. What does that even mean? You realise that "points of light" is a concept right? A generic concept, for a generic world. I know you feel hurt and betrayed that WotC didn't choose to use your homebrewed setting and houserules as the basis for 4e and instead went with something generic enough to be playable out of the box, yet fluffy/specific enough that novice DM can pick it up and run with it.
2. Citation, please. I already can tell you this is more of your hyperbolic hysterics.
3. Again, keeping with the genericness, they kind of need to not flesh everything out.... see making stuff up is part of being a DM.
4. Isn't even a valid point, since as you say, you agree with it. It's freaking D&D. However, they have also said that it is easier to run a no magic game than with previous editions...
5. OMG! They have ruined D&D forever. Next you will be telling me that PCs can slay dragons and get treasure. You may want to look into playing a game called AD&D or D&D sometime. They are really fun - the characters are super-powered, unique and special.
6. How is this different from D&D in any other edition, for all of time throughout all D&D worlds? Players fight monsters, get treasure. That is pretty much what D&D always has been and always will be...
7. Again, citation or this is another invented ďfactĒ on your part. Aside from that, D&D has pretty much always supposed that characters would be good or at least not evil.
8. If that's how YOU run it. I usually run it that Evil is, yíknow, being evil.
9. NPCs exist as they have always existed Ė as tools of the DM.
10. You really have to give me those advance copies you have. I didnít know they went into so much detail. Which area do Yuan-Ti come from? Oh yeah, they are from the Jungles of ChultÖ. In FORGOTTEN REALMS. And they have for many yearsÖ.


Kinda specific for a generic world eh?

No not really. It's kinda specific for D&D. I'm beginning to think it isn't 4e you have a problem with, you have a problem with D&D period.



Oh your a reasonable debater aren't you their? Wow, you really proved my point about your haughty zealotry wrong there, good job.

Wait....

And it is the reasons for evil not fighting evil that is my general concern

Yes you have demonstrated your concern... your concern that you have invented a false claim, have tried to convince others that it is true, have been called on it, so now you are concerned that you like a liar.


You confuse default. In 3E, there is very little specific fluff. We get the basic race fluff, the cosmology (which i don't mind in ether 3E or 4E, both are cool) and some basic fun facts and then we go off to make our own setting. However this 4E has a very specific 'type' of game, it works under the assumption taht all of the races are dotting a monster filled world with little unification or organization. Cool concept sure, but it shouldn't be the generic setting, it should be a specific setting

Yeah, 3e was very generic, nothing specific there. Only Greyhawk....



but that doesn't let you stop accusing and attacking others however

Yes, if telling someone that they are lying and confusing others on an issue is accusing and attacking.


except that isn't your attitude at all, you've launch this anti anti 4E attack without really listening to the points. I don't hate everything about 4E, i hate specific issues about it and i wish to voice my complaints. That isn't a crime by the way. I also thinkg 4E i becoming like a video game (which would make sense as WOTC would want to get that crowd in) but i believe you have another thread for that. But that is no reason for that for these absurd "YOUR WRONG" attacks. If you disagree, fine but address the issues, not the idea of not liking 4E. Calm down, and be reasonable and we can discuss this like a pair of civil demonic trolls, er, people

And I am perfectly willing to discuss whatever points you want, if you have any to make. Thus far though most of your complaints about 4e seem to be that it is D&D. The rest of your points are false. I'm sorry, but when your arguement is a lie, "You're wrong" is unfortunately the only answer. The truth is easy enough to prove.



Now onto the issues, my complaint is the fact the evil vs. evil fighting rule exists not because evil is becoming more organized or unified, it is because WOTC doesn't consider it important to the PCs, which is another annoying "World revolves around the PCs" ideal.
Am i wrong?

Yes. You are wrong. There is no 4e rule (to my knowledge, or anyone elses) that says that evil cannot or will not fight evil. You have picked a single remark, by a single designer and woven a rich tapestry of supposed rules and fundamental changes to D&D. Unfortunately none of it is supported by what facts we do have; so unless you have a sneak peek of the rules....

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-21, 10:07 AM
Is there actually anything published saying they are goign to do away with the Law/Chaos axis, or is it just rumor based on hearsay based on incomplete tidbits of information?

No, I don't think it was worded that clearly, so I guess you can call it "guesswork" based on the things they have actually said about alignment or you can call it something else entirely if you so please.


Even if it is no longer a mechanic, you will always have the tension between the law-abiding/enforcing and the law-breaking, the organized and the disorderly, and the planners and the impulsive. the Law-Chaos axis doesn't really add much mechanically worthwhile, in my opinion.


There is quite a difference between being organized and being a creature that is the embodiment of order or being impulsive and being a creature that is pure chaos.


Not to mention that Law Vs. Chaos wars always seem a bit... contrived.

In that case you should be happy if the "rumor based on hearsay based on incomplete tidbits of information" turn out to be true. :smallwink:

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-21, 10:21 AM
Lord_Silvanos, fendrin: See my impression that I had taken away from the rumormill was that they were simply paring alignment down to a single axis (axi? axiom? :smalltongue: ) and that the new alignments would be (unaligned), Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. I know Formians have been mentioned and I believe Slaad have as well. I will do some digging... (searches for information via the interwebs - a series of tubes)

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-21, 10:30 AM
Lord_Silvanos, fendrin: See my impression that I had taken away from the rumormill was that they were simply paring alignment down to a single axis (axi? axiom? :smalltongue: ) and that the new alignments would be (unaligned), Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. I know Formians have been mentioned and I believe Slaad have as well. I will do some digging... (searches for information via the interwebs - a series of tubes)

Morty
2008-02-21, 10:30 AM
Yes I know, it's a radical and novel defense called "let's wait and see".

It's not. However, jumping at everyone who finds news about 4ed bad and calling them "bleating crowd" as well as other belittling and insulting terms, is fairly strange way to use "wait and see" approach and will be frowned upon.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-21, 10:38 AM
Lord_Silvanos, fendrin: See my impression that I had taken away from the rumormill was that they were simply paring alignment down to a single axis (axi? axiom? :smalltongue: ) and that the new alignments would be (unaligned), Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. I know Formians have been mentioned and I believe Slaad have as well. I will do some digging... (searches for information via the interwebs - a series of tubes)

That was also more or less my impression (Replace with: random (un)founded notion, or any other word you find more fitting).
However, Law and Chaos could very well be subtypes that are only used in special less-contrived cases (and not something ordinary like it is today).
You might still use these labels for Demons and Devils of course, making them opposites and causing tension, but without being opposites on any alignment axis there might not be a need to eradicate each other on site.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-21, 10:47 AM
It's not. However, jumping at everyone who finds news about 4ed bad and calling them "bleating crowd" as well as other belittling and insulting terms, is fairly strange way to use "wait and see" approach and will be frowned upon.

I believe the "bleating" I refered to was the tired refrain of "4e = WoW".

Also, isn't it disingenuous to call a a lie 4th Edition news?

I've already stated I have no issue with debating *actual* things. I do however get rather irked by the frequent use of confabulation and outright lies by *certain* posters who seem hellbent on "proving" that 4th Edition is the death-knell of D&D and is ruining their beloved game.

As I told the above poster "I don't like change" is a completely acceptable answer to me; fine. At least pick something *real* though. "I don't like the changes to alignment" or even better "I don't like the looks of where alignment is heading..." also actual topics. However, taking a single snippet of information and catastrophizing it in such a way that *seems* to be intended to create hysteria and panic among undecided players is something I do not take lightly.

Morty
2008-02-21, 10:51 AM
I believe the "bleating" I refered to was the tired refrain of "4e = WoW".

Also, isn't it disingenuous to call a a lie 4th Edition news?

I've already stated I have no issue with debating *actual* things. I do however get rather irked by the frequent use of confabulation and outright lies by *certain* posters who seem hellbent on "proving" that 4th Edition is the death-knell of D&D and is ruining their beloved game.

As I told the above poster "I don't like change" is a completely acceptable answer to me; fine. At least pick something *real* though. "I don't like the changes to alignment" or even better "I don't like the looks of where alignment is heading..." also actual topics. However, taking a single snippet of information and catastrophizing it in such a way that *seems* to be intended to create hysteria and panic among undecided players is something I do not take lightly.

Then perhaps you should try to make yourself more clear, as I'm afraid your posts in this thread and few others did leave a certain impression of equaling all 4ed critics with those few certain posters. No offense, just advice.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-02-21, 10:55 AM
It's not. However, jumping at everyone who finds news about 4ed bad and calling them "bleating crowd" as well as other belittling and insulting terms, is fairly strange way to use "wait and see" approach and will be frowned upon.

That's not what's going on, though. I've read his posts, and his problem is with the people who take every snippet of 4ed information, misinterperet it, and use it to fuel needless 'D&D IS WoW' comparisons (I haven't seen him post anything like -> You hate 4ed? Well I HATE YOU!!). Take this thread for example. The heading of the article he's referenced is: Less Evil Fighting Evil (which goes on to say that evil vs. evil will be de-emphasized). Though leaps and bounds of logic, the OP states: D&D will no longer allow evil to fight evil. THIS IS BAD and makes the system more like an MMORPG. However, NO WHERE does it mentioned that the rules will prohibit this. The OP misunderstood the article (whether intentionally or not) and created a thread that bashes 4ed for doing away with evil vs evil.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 11:01 AM
Not sure, leaving it alone...

Read Worlds and Monsters


Well, garsh, let's see, that sounds like a "people's viewpoint". Which means if you make up different people, and a different setting, you're not run down a railroad track and FORCED to do that? Yup, sounds like that to me.

The assumption of 4E is that there is literally no racism at all with hte good guy races, at worst vague mistrust. Seems quite silly doesn't it, i mean us humans are all one race and we are known to be extremely racist when the greatest difference between each other is the color of our skin or Religion, and now we have dragonfolk, demon folk and fey elves and nobody is upset?


Sounds like a "nature of the realms" thing, which again, if you changed to your own or a different realm, you could, *gasp* change to suit your preferences. Even if not, though, you could do worse than modelling a fantasy setting after ancient greece.
Sure, but i'm going against WOTC in doing so. I can (and have) altered wizards from 3E's mode. The setting and feel of the game set by WOTC is one that i disagree with greatly



3.5 has the same assumption. So did 3.0. Nothing's changing there, so this isn't really a "4th ed gripe", so much as a "general I don't like how the game sets the rules for the base and am completely unable to modify any of the mutable portions of the game.

So the part where i said "i don't really mind this one" in that quote was totally ignored i take it?


Again, sounds like a playstyle preference. With high monsters, it seems like the DM will still be able to make the PC's small fishes in a big pond. As for heroes, who doesn't want to feel special? Most people play the game because they LIKE doing the impossible, and being more than like everyone else.
you can be a hero, and still have other blokes like you wandering around. And


Again, sounds like a fine way to make a world in tension, and give the players in the game things to do, as well as give the DM options. Also, COMPLETELY changable from campaign setting to campaign setting... But Wizards NEVER releases campaign settings with different rules *coughfaeruncougheberroncough*... What were WE thinking?
except that is the generic assumption of most D&D games, where in 3E there was very little generic setting assumptions, just basic things, now we have a very specific idea of D&D for any not setting game. So if i buy any splat book, the assumption will be that the world is mostly covered by evil and the good races live in small protective areas


That assumption, I actually don't like. Again, though, easily fixable when you change the setting. Look at Scarred lands and Eberron for examples of campaign settings that tinkered with overall alignment issues.

It is WOTC attitude towards the game, they even stated that they don't see the need to stat good creatures most of the time



Well, the evil that doesn't have any interaction whatsoever isn't really a factor in the story, is it? And it's not "no evil vs evil". It's "less". Less implies that there WILL be some, it's just not the focus. Which is good. I hear players like to be the focus of their stories.

the reasons for it through. Evil isn't fighting itself because it has become more organized or is more coherent, it has just isn't considered central for the PCs and thus isn't important. Evil exists to be killed by hte PCs, not by itself


What? As a DM, you're incapable of ROLE-PLAYING? Doesn't sound like 4th ed has this problem. Sounds like YOU do.

I have no problem with roleplaying, however hte role NPCs have been cast into (read worlds and monsters p. 13) is a very weak and kinda useless one


Sounds about right. By giving a specific BASE history, it helps a DM determine the overall tendencies for the monster. It doesn't mean that every Snark has to come from Fluffelville. Look at ALL the gods in your 3.5 PHb. If you're playing Eberron, tell me, exactly how many of those deities do you use? That's what he means by Generic. It's the stuff that can be popped out and replaced, as needed.
A base history sure, a base world assumption?


Even a generic world is a world. It needs specifics.

3E has a very gneric world that was totally left up to the Dm



Actually, I'd lay odds he's more reasonable, and less fanatical about his defense than you are about your attack.

It is worth noting you don't prove this in the least


Actually, the "generic setting" is Greyhawk. Not as well known as Faerun, sure. But highly specific, still. Just sayin.

how many Greyhawk books were published in 3E by the by? 1? I hadn't heard of Grey hawk until three years after i started playing.



Why not? You don't.
[/QUOTE]
How so? I"m defending my case (oh gods, the humanity)
from
EE

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-21, 11:27 AM
Read Worlds and Monsters

Solid advice - I suggest you do that.


The assumption of 4E is that there is literally no racism at all with hte good guy races, at worst vague mistrust. Seems quite silly doesn't it, i mean us humans are all one race and we are known to be extremely racist when the greatest difference between each other is the color of our skin or Religion, and now we have dragonfolk, demon folk and fey elves and nobody is upset?

Source? Page, paragraph and line, please. Or a link to a post/article. I have seen nothing that says there is no racism. Perhaps they just didn't build racism into the game, to keep it, y'know, generic like you were just complaining about?



Sure, but i'm going against WOTC in doing so. I can (and have) altered wizards from 3E's mode. The setting and feel of the game set by WOTC is one that i disagree with greatly

So then that confirms it, your gripes have nothing to do with 4e, your complaint is against D&D in general.


you can be a hero, and still have other blokes like you wandering around. And

except that is the generic assumption of most D&D games, where in 3E there was very little generic setting assumptions, just basic things, now we have a very specific idea of D&D for any not setting game. So if i buy any splat book, the assumption will be that the world is mostly covered by evil and the good races live in small protective areas

What do you base this hypothesis on? If you bought any splat book for 3e the assumption was you were playing in Greyhawk. By your rationale Radiant Servant is a useless PrC since it is the Radiant Servant of Pelor.


It is WOTC attitude towards the game, they even stated that they don't see the need to stat good creatures most of the time

Source?


the reasons for it through. Evil isn't fighting itself because it has become more organized or is more coherent, it has just isn't considered central for the PCs and thus isn't important. Evil exists to be killed by hte PCs, not by itself

Again, no one is saying that except YOU. Stick to actual arguements, not straw men.


I have no problem with roleplaying, however hte role NPCs have been cast into (read worlds and monsters p. 13) is a very weak and kinda useless one

Uh... that isn't what it says.....


A base history sure, a base world assumption?

3E has a very gneric world that was totally left up to the Dm

No, it was Greyhawk. I can prove it - flip to Deities.


how many Greyhawk books were published in 3E by the by? 1? I hadn't heard of Grey hawk until three years after i started playing.

Technically? All of the non-Faerun/non-Eberron books.



How so? I"m defending my case (oh gods, the humanity)
from
EE

No, you aren't.

fendrin
2008-02-21, 11:29 AM
Lord_Silvanos, fendrin: See my impression that I had taken away from the rumormill was that they were simply paring alignment down to a single axis (axi? axiom? :smalltongue: ) and that the new alignments would be (unaligned), Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. I know Formians have been mentioned and I believe Slaad have as well. I will do some digging... (searches for information via the interwebs - a series of tubes)

Umm, not saying you are wrong, because I don't have that information, but just as a general note...

A single axis implies a 1 dimensional gradient. You cannot have 4 mutually distinct points along a single axis. Unless you completely redefine what an axis is.

Perhaps creatures can only belong to one extreme of a 2 axis system, producing a plus-shape diagram (where N is unaligned/neutral):
\G/
LNC
/E\

I would argue that you would still have 'good' or 'evil' extreme beings that also have 'law' or 'chaos' tendencies and vice versa, but for the purposes of effects (i.e. Protection From X) a creature can only have one designation.

If this is the case, I am even happier. It means that they have (likely) separated general behavior from alignment subtypes. That means a succubus paladin would still take extra damage from Holy weapons, because her physical being is formed of evil-stuff, regardless of the fact that she conforms to the 3.5 LG paladin's code.

How is that an improvement, you might ask. How does that even make sense? Simply put, they have made alignment extremes into elements. So a 'Good' attack spell deals positive energy damage, just as an 'Air' attack spell deals lightning energy damage. It codifies the alignment extremes as having physical existence, not just a type of behavior.

Hmm, even if they don't do that, I might houserule it...

Morty
2008-02-21, 11:48 AM
Actually, I belive there's a strong hint that there's no Law/Chaos axis: in Pit Fiend's entry there was not mention about it. Pit Fiend was classified as Evil, but not Lawful or Chaotic. Since in 3ed demons and devils were separated from each other by Law/Chaos disctinction, I'd say it's preety important clue. Of course, it can also mean alignment now works a bit like in 1ed WFRPG, which wouldn't be very good.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-21, 11:55 AM
Actually, I belive there's a strong hint that there's no Law/Chaos axis: in Pit Fiend's entry there was not mention about it. Pit Fiend was classified as Evil, but not Lawful or Chaotic. Since in 3ed demons and devils were separated from each other by Law/Chaos disctinction, I'd say it's preety important clue.

I would say though there is just as much a chance that it is as I say above - 4 alignments (Good, Evil, Law and Chaos) Demons and Devils are EVil. Angels are GOOD. Modrons/Formians are LAW and Slaad are CHAOS.

Artanis
2008-02-21, 12:03 PM
Actually, I belive there's a strong hint that there's no Law/Chaos axis: in Pit Fiend's entry there was not mention about it. Pit Fiend was classified as Evil, but not Lawful or Chaotic. Since in 3ed demons and devils were separated from each other by Law/Chaos disctinction, I'd say it's preety important clue. Of course, it can also mean alignment now works a bit like in 1ed WFRPG, which wouldn't be very good.
Or they could've just changed the alignment of Devils.

If there's no Blood War, there's no reason to contrive some sort of reason for Demons and Devils to fight each other. In previous editions, the obvious choice was to give them differing alignments, but them both being evil meant making one Lawful and one Chaotic.

I'm sure I could think up other reasons (such as "they changed the alignment because they felt like it") as well.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-21, 12:19 PM
Actually, I belive there's a strong hint that there's no Law/Chaos axis: in Pit Fiend's entry there was not mention about it. Pit Fiend was classified as Evil, but not Lawful or Chaotic. Since in 3ed demons and devils were separated from each other by Law/Chaos disctinction, I'd say it's preety important clue. Of course, it can also mean alignment now works a bit like in 1ed WFRPG, which wouldn't be very good.

If alignment was fold into an unique choice between the 4 and "unaligned" the Devil may not have had the choice of staying Lawful too. :smallwink:

Rich Baker is quoted for having said that there will be those four options in regard to the Paladin.
Most commonly they are Lawful or Good, but can be Chaotic or Evil also.

Perhaps, if we must compare it to the current system, this means that Lawful entails something close to what we call LN and Chaotic something close to CN?

Morty
2008-02-21, 12:22 PM
Or they could've just changed the alignment of Devils.

I did say it was a strong hint, not solid proof.
This whole 4 alignments + unaligned might be a step backwards or a step forwards, depending on how they're done. The alignments from 3ed actually worked fairly well when applied to cosmology, planes and outsiders, it was common mortals where it failed miserably.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 12:36 PM
Yes I know, it's a radical and novel defense called "let's wait and see". Not jump to conclusions and use LIES and half-truths to spread a negative viewpoint in what is either serious psychogical issues where you *need* to be right, so much so that you will generate lies to support your false viewpoint, just so you can sucker a few more people in to believing you. The other reason would be... well let's just say you shouldn't make too many more posts - you wouldn't want to lose your current title. :smallwink:

What lies? How lies and half-truth have i spread. I made a quote and issued a complaint, is that wrong? Your accusing me of some sort of anti 4E conspiracy and i honestly doubt i have the resources or the motivation to pull that off. Your accusing me of untrue thing, you are uncivil, uncouth, insulting, flaming, and lying, as well as not addressing the issues. You've accused me of being a liar and a flamer, with not evidence to back this up. Your defense of 4E and attack on those who disagree is radical and zealous, as well as uncivil.



Yes, funny that. Here's the thing: Both posts followed roughly the same format; FALSE premise, FALSE conclusions and voicing your "concerns" to others. It is the same format several of your posts have followed, in most of the 4e threads. The saying goes: Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action.
Prove it. Go ahead, prove that i am false. How is my annoyance that at WOTC's reason for making evil not fight evil a lie.


Default 4th Edition, Evil Vs. Evil is no longer true
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to was space on things the players can't use...."
What is WOTC reason? Oh wait, it is because they don't consider it important to the PCs, ah. Not because evil is organizing or becoming more unified, because it wastes time directed at the PCs.

How is that a lie mr. Friendly. Your untrue accusations and blatant insults are false, spawned by your overt zealotry



And this is EXACTLY what I am talking about. First, Wizards DID NOT say that evil cannot or will not fight evil. This is a STRAW MAN you have constructed to give you something to argue about. Now of course you have to feign innocence, because after all "you're just concerned about it". Sheesh - puh-lease; I didn't start posting on the interwebs yesterday.

it is WOTCs reason for the evil not fighting evil, it doesn't make sense. You however turned this into some great pro 4E crusade



What two books? What are you even argueing about? Faerun fluff still exists exactly as it does now; just stuff happens; kind of like what happens every time a new novel or sourcebook comes out. Eberron? It's fluff is all still there as well. If you are talking about the two preview books, that's fluff for the generic setting.

um, yeah, that is where the quotes come from.

Let me address your points, one by one....


1. What does that even mean? You realise that "points of light" is a concept right? A generic concept, for a generic world. I know you feel hurt and betrayed that WotC didn't choose to use your homebrewed setting and houserules as the basis for 4e and instead went with something generic enough to be playable out of the box, yet fluffy/specific enough that novice DM can pick it up and run with it.
2. Citation, please. I already can tell you this is more of your hyperbolic hysterics.
3. Again, keeping with the genericness, they kind of need to not flesh everything out.... see making stuff up is part of being a DM.
4. Isn't even a valid point, since as you say, you agree with it. It's freaking D&D. However, they have also said that it is easier to run a no magic game than with previous editions...
5. OMG! They have ruined D&D forever. Next you will be telling me that PCs can slay dragons and get treasure. You may want to look into playing a game called AD&D or D&D sometime. They are really fun - the characters are super-powered, unique and special.
6. How is this different from D&D in any other edition, for all of time throughout all D&D worlds? Players fight monsters, get treasure. That is pretty much what D&D always has been and always will be...
7. Again, citation or this is another invented ďfactĒ on your part. Aside from that, D&D has pretty much always supposed that characters would be good or at least not evil.
8. If that's how YOU run it. I usually run it that Evil is, yíknow, being evil.
9. NPCs exist as they have always existed Ė as tools of the DM.
10. You really have to give me those advance copies you have. I didnít know they went into so much detail. Which area do Yuan-Ti come from? Oh yeah, they are from the Jungles of ChultÖ. In FORGOTTEN REALMS. And they have for many yearsÖ.

1. The generic D&D world is a total monster filled wilderness with a few small good guy settlements. It is a rather specific setting idea, and that is the assumption 4E will be working off of (unless they change that). I wouldn't expect them to use my homebrew world, but i would expect them to make something non specific. If they made a new setting with this Point's of light bit I wouldn't mind, but the generic setting.

For those who don't have the book

"I came up with the phrase "points of light in a dark world" to capture this concept. A point of light might be a border town, a remote village, a dwarf stronghold, the tribal lands of human barbarians, or a powerful city state. But if you go more than a few miles from that point of light, things get dark and dangerous quickly. The city-state might keep all monsters and marauders at bay for a day's ride in all directions, but at some point the law doesn't stretch any further. And the darkness might include brigands, and bandits, orc tribes, goblins cities, and vampire haunted ruins, a dragon's hunting grounds"
ect ect ect, that is hte established D&D world
2. Worlds and Monsters p. 14, and cease with the semi trolling. You've been accusing me of untrue crimes that only reveals you radical nature
"There is no inherit racial enmity between PC races, and hostile attitudes do not generally go beyond fear or lack of respect"
3. Except 4E Core is deliberately made up to move away from the whole "Countries and political boundaries" as well as the real life basis.
"One of the first things we tackled in the Scramjet team was the creation of a set of "key conceits"- things we knew we wanted to be true about teh game world and the character's role in it.
During those discussions we found ourselves wandering into a debate about campaign designing and the "typical" D&D game. Many of the campaign settings we created in previous editions look a lot like the map of the modern world-neat borders are drawn around countries,l implying that the world is more or less carved up between an number of political entities or civilizations. Were weren't very happy with that, to tell you the truth. It works against the sense of mystery, wonder, and dread you'd like to see in most D&D settings."
4. Well they were options for low magic in 3E, but i never played it that way as i said, i really don't care
5. You can be a hero without being unique one of a kind special. Lets look at 3E, the PCs do super epic things and the like, but they don't get one of a kind powers from the get go
6. See points of light,
7. You accusations are untrue and unneeded. P. 29 Worlds and Monsters, this is concerning good dragons "Monsters the players never fight don't need combat statics. But we rebelled at the idea of putting such monsters in the Monster Manual. THe alternative was to ensure that every monsters was at least a potential enemy for even the most good and noble characters" They then go on to say how Metallic Dragons can be evil (one of the good changes i say) and that is the reason why they are putting them in the MM, because they can be evil and thus challenge the PCs. Good can fight good, and PCs can be evil. It isn't an absolute rule no, but it is another of WOTC really annoying assumptions that they use to justify their changes.
8. No i run evil as one of the most powerful forces in the world. However it seems that WOTC doesn't want evil to fight itself and to focus on fighting the PCs (and dying)
9. Maybe how you run them, but what about a realistic consistent world. WOTC doesn't like that ether, see the burden of History*
10. FR is optional to play, it is different from the generic 3E D&D. I i play a specific setting, yes i want a unique history, but not in a generic game



Yes you have demonstrated your concern... your concern that you have invented a false claim, have tried to convince others that it is true, have been called on it, so now you are concerned that you like a liar.

Loverly flaming, and what lies did i tell pray tell?


Yeah, 3e was very generic, nothing specific there. Only Greyhawk....


Read the PHP, is there even a mention of Greyhawk in that?



Yes, if telling someone that they are lying and confusing others on an issue is accusing and attacking.

When the accusations are untrue and aren't based on facts it is attacking


And I am perfectly willing to discuss whatever points you want, if you have any to make. Thus far though most of your complaints about 4e seem to be that it is D&D. The rest of your points are false. I'm sorry, but when your arguement is a lie, "You're wrong" is unfortunately the only answer. The truth is easy enough to prove.
You haven't proved a thing however, you've just made an attack and didn't back it up



*
"The Burden of History

The D&D game has always been influenced by European history and culture. If you look back at the game's roots, you can see why. Gary Gygax's Chainmail game, D&D's precursor added fantastic elements to a medieval battle game that he had already developed.
the various editions of D&D continued this trend by drawing source material form the real world. Supplements and magazine articles delved into minutiae-everything from the myriad blades used on pole arms by various cultures to how monstrous inhabitants of dungeons get clean air and remove waste. Through interesting from a historical and scientific, such details have very little effect on how the game is played. They add verisimilitude but rarely increase the fun of playing.
The 3rd Edition of the game took a first step away from reliances on real world by designing new and unique appearances for armor and weapons, but the urge to make fantasy reflect reality remained. The setting was still a historic, medieval world onto which fantasy elements were grafted......."
ect ect

from
EE
This is my general beef with WOTC, and their attitude

Ralfarius
2008-02-21, 12:52 PM
Personally, I always found the fixation of evil being self-defeating and containing lots of group animosity to be a bit of a damper in previous editions. It made it feel like good was only allowed to snake out underdog victories because of some evil being played against itself, rather than some sort of decisive outmaneuvering or pure force on the part of good.

Granted, this wasn't necessarily how I played my games, or how my fellows ran their respective campaigns. However, I think de-emphasizing intra-evil conflict is, in general, a middling-to-good idea. It gives a more even starting place for people to decide how they want to run their campaign settings. That is to say, someone could pile on the power-games between overwhelming forces of evil, allowing good to skulk about and secure their little victories. Or, evil and good could be on relatively even footing, and victory would be decided entirely by the skills of the opposed forces. Or, good could even be the dominant force, with evil subtly eroding the power base through insidious and quiet means.

Not to say you couldn't do this with previous editions, but less of a bias toward evil vs. evil generally encourages people to decide for themselves how the dark forces work, especially in manners that would have a direct effect on the PCs.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 12:55 PM
Personally, I always found the fixation of evil being self-defeating and containing lots of group animosity to be a bit of a damper in previous editions. It made it feel like good was only allowed to snake out underdog victories because of some evil being played against itself, rather than some sort of decisive outmaneuvering or pure force on the part of good.

Granted, this wasn't necessarily how I played my games, or how my fellows ran their respective campaigns. However, I think de-emphasizing intra-evil conflict is, in general, a middling-to-good idea. It gives a more even starting place for people to decide how they want to run their campaign settings. That is to say, someone could pile on the power-games between overwhelming forces of evil, allowing good to skulk about and secure their little victories. Or, evil and good could be on relatively even footing, and victory would be decided entirely by the skills of the opposed forces. Or, good could even be the dominant force, with evil subtly eroding the power base through insidious and quiet means.



If they gave a reason like that, i'd be fine, if evil became unified, or focused upon something that would be cool, or if they were really up to something. It is WOTC reason that annoys me greatly
from
EE

Ralfarius
2008-02-21, 01:11 PM
Eh, we'll see what they ultimately do. If nothing else, I can take their idea and give my own reason for it. Or ignore it entirely, at my discretion.

In my mind, the worst case scenario is I pick up the 4E books, find out I hate 50%+ of what they've done, and never buy another 4E book. Then I'll cherry pick whatever I do like and make some sort of MYD&D, 1st edition ('Cause I've never actually been so aghast at a previous edition that I had to do a ton of homebrewing before).

BRC
2008-02-21, 01:22 PM
If they gave a reason like that, i'd be fine, if evil became unified, or focused upon something that would be cool, or if they were really up to something. It is WOTC reason that annoys me greatly
from
EE

well heres the way I see Evil. It has two forms, Willingness and intent.
Person A kills person B (who has never met person A before in his life and is just your average merchant or somthing) and takes his money, there are two explinations for this, both say person A is evil.
Willingness: person A wanted Person B's money, and was willing to kill him for it.
Intent: Person A likes nothing more than to cause cruelty and suffering, and killed person B for that reason. He then took person B's money as an added bonus.

Now, evil as an Intent won't do much infighting, since they share a common goal of making the world a worse place. but Evil as a Willingness tends to be more intresting (because evil for evils sake gets old preety quickly). However, Evil as a Willingness DOES get in each other's way, because Evil as a willingness means that the evils in question are out for their own gain.

That said, Good only exists as an Intent (make the world a better place), and therefore can work together.

However, Evil will always win because good is dumb.

SmartAlec
2008-02-21, 01:25 PM
I rather like this idea.

I'm a long-time Planescape DM/player, and I can tell you now that it was a real pain trying to differentiate between Baatezu, Yugoloths and Tanar'ri.

"Devils always keep their word. Unless they can find a way around it. But Demons just won't. Unless it benefits them in some way. And neither will Yugoloths. Unless it benefits them in some way. But they do that less than Demons. Reportedly."

Shame about the lack of the Blood War, but whaddayagonnado? I get the feeling it's likely that WOTC came up with the new direction for Devils and Demons, and then realised the Blood War no longer made sense, rather than saying "Ok, let's get rid of the Blood War!" and changing everything to fit.

BRC
2008-02-21, 01:29 PM
I rather like this idea.

I'm a long-time Planescape DM/player, and I can tell you now that it was a real pain trying to differentiate between Baatezu, Yugoloths and Tanar'ri.

"Devils always keep their word. Unless they can find a way around it. But Demons just won't. Unless it benefits them in some way. And neither will Yugoloths. Unless it benefits them in some way. But they do that less than Demons. Reportedly."

Shame about the lack of the Blood War, but whaddayagonnado? I get the feeling it's likely that WOTC came up with the new direction for Devils and Demons, and then realised the Blood War no longer made sense, rather than saying "Ok, let's get rid of the Blood War!" and changing everything to fit.

well, actually no blood war makes sense if evil is an Intent ( as it would be for outsiders). The both want to make the world a worse place.

fendrin
2008-02-21, 02:04 PM
First, EE, I just want to say that the quote by Setra in your sig is not, in my opinion, a compliment. It is an insult.

Moving on the content of your post.

I will not call you a liar, whether or not it is true. That implies intent, which I have no way to judge or prove. I will say that I believe you are wrong.


"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to was space on things the players can't use...."
You seem to have largely overlooked the word 'less'. 'Less' does not mean, as the title of this thread implies, 'is no longer true'. It means 'not as much'.


What is WOTC reason? Oh wait, it is because they don't consider it important to the PCs, ah. Not because evil is organizing or becoming more unified, because it wastes time directed at the PCs.
The text you quote does not imply that nothing in the game world will exist/happen without the PCs being there to witness it. It is saying that, for a generic setting, there is no point to writing content that the PCs will likely never actually encounter. Note I said in a generic setting, not a specific one. A generic setting exists to be a platform to add detail to. Thus if a DM wants to write a campaign in which the players find themselves in the midst of a war between Demons and Devils, the DM can do so. Such a war does not have to exist in the printed core rules book for such a campaign, which, I'm sure you will agree, is only one of a near infinite number of campaigns that could exist. If every one of those was detailed in the core books, WotC would be setting a new record for deforestation caused by single product.


it is WOTCs reason for the evil not fighting evil, it doesn't make sense. You however turned this into some great pro 4E crusade It is, in fact your interpretation of WotC's reason. It is not mutually exclusive with the text you quoted, but Occam's Razor leads me believe otherwise.


The generic D&D world is a total monster filled wilderness with a few small good guy settlements. It is a rather specific setting idea, and that is the assumption 4E will be working off of (unless they change that). I wouldn't expect them to use my homebrew world, but i would expect them to make something non specific. If they made a new setting with this Point's of light bit I wouldn't mind, but the generic setting.

For those who don't have the book

"I came up with the phrase "points of light in a dark world" to capture this concept. A point of light might be a border town, a remote village, a dwarf stronghold, the tribal lands of human barbarians, or a powerful city state. But if you go more than a few miles from that point of light, things get dark and dangerous quickly. The city-state might keep all monsters and marauders at bay for a day's ride in all directions, but at some point the law doesn't stretch any further. And the darkness might include brigands, and bandits, orc tribes, goblins cities, and vampire haunted ruins, a dragon's hunting grounds"
This is, in fact, far more generic than anything else. Why? Because it allows for a DM to run a game in this setting without having to worry about why the king doesn't dispatch his army to quell the goblinoid attacks. Simply put, it is because they do not exist. In fact, "points of light" is one of the few rational ways such a thing can be explained without adding additional detail to the setting.



"There is no inherit racial enmity between PC races, and hostile attitudes do not generally go beyond fear or lack of respect"
My interpretation here is dictated by the word 'inherent'. This means that you won't find dwarves being persecuted in every elven region simply because they are dwarves. That doesn't mean there won''t be distrust or racism, it just means that not all elven communities will act that way towards all dwarves, and vice versa. It means that in the generic setting, a player doesn't have to worry about playing a race that is treated as socially inferior by the society in which they are playing. also, such a lack of racism is by definition more generic than any level of racism. Again, a DM can add any level of detail they want to. Generic settings are intended to have as little content that needs to be removed to make a particular storyline work. Whether or not the 4e team has achieved (or was even completely aiming for) a truly generic setting is a matter that can be debated, but please not here, as it is not particularly relevant to this discussion.


4E Core is deliberately made up to move away from the whole "Countries and political boundaries" as well as the real life basis.
"One of the first things we tackled in the Scramjet team was the creation of a set of "key conceits"- things we knew we wanted to be true about teh game world and the character's role in it.
During those discussions we found ourselves wandering into a debate about campaign designing and the "typical" D&D game. Many of the campaign settings we created in previous editions look a lot like the map of the modern world-neat borders are drawn around countries,l implying that the world is more or less carved up between an number of political entities or civilizations. Were weren't very happy with that, to tell you the truth. It works against the sense of mystery, wonder, and dread you'd like to see in most D&D settings."
Perhaps they moved away from the 'modern' or 'medieval European' basis for the setting, but the 'points of light' concept fits much of real world history far better than 'kingdoms butting up against each other's borders' (e.g. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron) does. Dark Ages Europe, Ancient Greece, Roman times, Ancient Egypt, Incan civilization, African tribes, native american tribes, ancient China, etc.


P. 29 Worlds and Monsters, this is concerning good dragons "Monsters the players never fight don't need combat statics. But we rebelled at the idea of putting such monsters in the Monster Manual. THe alternative was to ensure that every monsters was at least a potential enemy for even the most good and noble characters" They then go on to say how Metallic Dragons can be evil (one of the good changes i say) and that is the reason why they are putting them in the MM, because they can be evil and thus challenge the PCs. Good can fight good, and PCs can be evil. It isn't an absolute rule no, but it is another of WOTC really annoying assumptions that they use to justify their changes.
Actually, it looks like they are removing much of the stereotyping involved with the alignment system. From everything you have quoted and said here, They are making things better, not worse. As much as people bash Eberron fo r'magic trains' and such, almost everyone agreed that the alignment changes were a good idea. If an idea gets that kind of traction in the fan base, they would be morons not to include it. However, they really can't say that...


i run evil as one of the most powerful forces in the world. However it seems that WOTC doesn't want evil to fight itself and to focus on fighting the PCs (and dying)
It seems to me that WotC want s the story to focus on the players, not on events that are not currently affecting the PCs. That doesn't stop such events from happening, but if your game is a story about something OTHER than the PCs, it is not going to be fun for them. I speak from experience...
This is actually something that was talked about in 3.X DMG2, and also in several non-system specific books that have been written about roleplaying. A rich detailed world is awesome, so long as it doesn't shift the story away from the PCs.


Maybe how you run them, but what about a realistic consistent world. WOTC doesn't like that ether, see the burden of History* Mr. friendly is right. NPCs, whether peasants or nobles, foes or friends, are all tools of the DM to create a story. Preferably a story about the PCs. NPCs never exist in-game unless the DM makes them exist. This true regardless of setting or design ideology. For instance, in the one FR game I ever played in, Elminster existed as part of the setting, but he never existed as an NPC. Do you see the difference?



Read the PHP, is there even a mention of Greyhawk in that?
Every deity, the names Hewerd, Bigby, Mordenkainen, and several others I am not thinking of off the top of my head, all of the artifacts, Illithids, Githyanki and Githzerai, and so on. All have thier roots in the world of Greyhawk. Basically, anything in the PHB, MM, or DMG that is not in the SRD is Greyhawk-specific.

If you look at the 2e PHB, it reads a lot like the SRD. It is all crunch and no fluff. All of the fluff that made it into the 3e PHB is from Greyhawk.

If I am not misremembering, Greyhawk was Gary Gygax's original setting, existing prior to the first copy of D&D was ever sold.

That is, in fact, what that entire "The burden of history" article is about. It is not world history, it is the history of D&D. They had a similar article when 3.0 was first published, too. It's basically their way of saying 'yeah, we butchered some sacred cows, deal with it. They are antiquated, setting specific, and no longer serve the needs of D&D as a whole. You can always houserule them back in'.

I'll have to see if I can find the 2e to 3e article...

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-21, 02:23 PM
What lies? How lies and half-truth have i spread. I made a quote and issued a complaint, is that wrong? Your accusing me of some sort of anti 4E conspiracy and i honestly doubt i have the resources or the motivation to pull that off. Your accusing me of untrue thing, you are uncivil, uncouth, insulting, flaming, and lying, as well as not addressing the issues. You've accused me of being a liar and a flamer, with not evidence to back this up. Your defense of 4E and attack on those who disagree is radical and zealous, as well as uncivil.

List of lies and half-truths on your part: This thread only.

(1) Thread Title: 4th Edition, Evil Vs. Evil is no longer true; implies that evil cannot/will not fight evil in 4e. This is backed up by your posts throughout the thread. This is a lie, because as you yourself directly quote, they say they are reducing the amount, not eliminating.
(2) Post #6: Oh Talya, you and your silly ideas like a world beyond the PCs, don' you know that evil creatures exist for the sole purpose of running mindlessly into the PCs and dying
from
EE

Edit

Yeah, this does remind me of a video game: This is actually just snarky 4e attacks, but it is, technically, a lie. In this case you are pandering in an attept to win supporters to your crusade against 4e. I will also note that this is your first "This is a video game" post this thread... which I would define as at least a half-truth, at the very least it is a manipulative statement. Let's also note that at this point, no one in thread has made any positive comments about 4e or even about 3e. It is just a 4e bash, with no reprisals.
(3) Post #35: Watch it misconception. The annoyence here is not the fact that evil can be organized (which was already true) it is the reason why they aren't fighting. The reason? Because WOTC doesn't think it directly effects the PCs (eh?) Lie. Actually a continuation of a lie, namely that demons and devils WILL NOT FIGHT AT ALL. Wht Wizards actually said was it was being reduced.
(sidebar) At this point it is worth noting that Post #33 by blackadder declares that all players are stupid. The definite implication of his post is that anyone who likes the 4e fluff is also stupid. I mention this because in Post 35 also, you EE say you agree with blackadder.
(lots of 4e bashing and snark)
(I enter the thread at post 71)
(4)Post #90: Rutee: They're not. But fluff is player-determined. Therefore, the problem mustn't be in the fluff, but in the mechanics, no?

You: Except the fluff here isn't player or DM determined, it is WOTC determined
(sidebar Post# 90) Thank you, that attitude more than anything else is what annoys me most. ; said in response to the notion that players who accept WotC fluff are stupid.

(5) Post #90: Except the fluff here isn't player or DM determined, it is WOTC determined
Half-truth. As a dodge you attempt to avoid being boxed in by answering a question that wasn't asked.

(6) Post 90: 3E needed a fix up, 4E doesn't give us that ; outright lie unless you own a 4e PHB. This is an unknowable quantity; thus a lie.

(7) Post 93: For a guy's who's tone scream elitist and who blatantly insults people, you have a strange way of telling people to calm down. Your not very friendly mr. Friendly; I place this for reference and as a notation of a smear attack. Now I was snarky and sarcastic, but I didn't call anyone out in specific or make personal attacks. Blatently insulting would be calling you a gutless coward. I never said that though. :smallwink: It's technically a half-truth, but I will let it slide, because you are obviously starting to get emotionally invested at this point in the thread.

(8) Post 93: 3. Oh noes, WOTC is taking away all the fluff we like, and forcing new fluff down our throat. Wow, i mean Oh my god, this would be fine if WOTC has a specific setting, but even the generic game is two specific.

Lie, on the face of it. WotC is not taking away "all the fluff".

(9)Post 93: And i'm tired of 4E defenders who simply go "Ohmygodthisisthebestthingeveranyonewhocritiziesit mustnotknowhowtoroleplay"And then assume a haughty overbearing attitude with a "Your wrong, i'm right" and still don't address the points but you don't see me complaining. I mean being overbearing is fine, but adress the points Lie + Lie + Lie. No one in the thread has said that, or anything close to it. You and others however already played the WoW card. None of the "defenders" have said it will be the best, nor have we said people who dislike it can't roleplay, so technically that is two lies, but since it was one word, I will count it as one. Lie 2 here is that I didn't address your points. I did. 'Less' is not the same thing as 'no longer true'; if you fail to grasp the basic premise that your whole aruement is a lie, then I really see no realistic bypass. Lie #3 is you saying that you aren't complaining, whichh you say.... while compaining.

(multiple personal attacks against me by you)

(you also attibute quotes to me via "" that I never said....)


Prove it. Go ahead, prove that i am false. How is my annoyance that at WOTC's reason for making evil not fight evil a lie.

I think I did just prove you a liar. Also, that statement of yours contains a lie; WotC is not forcing evil to not fight evil as you allege.


Default 4th Edition, Evil Vs. Evil is no longer true
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and arch-devils war with each other rather than being threatening the PCs. We don't want to was space on things the players can't use...."
What is WOTC reason? Oh wait, it is because they don't consider it important to the PCs, ah. Not because evil is organizing or becoming more unified, because it wastes time directed at the PCs.

You yourself showcase this as a lie. Less is still not the same as not.


How is that a lie mr. Friendly. Your untrue accusations and blatant insults are false, spawned by your overt zealotry

Unlike you, I haven't resorted to personal attacks. Which you did almost immediately upon seeing my post. That's also a technical lie. I would be Zealous if I cared about 4e. I haven't tried to promote it or show off its features because it isn't out yet. I am just trying to stop people like you from poisoning the well with lies and disinformation.


it is WOTCs reason for the evil not fighting evil, it doesn't make sense. You however turned this into some great pro 4E crusade

No, I haven't. I've turned this into a crusade for balanced opinions and more importaant; the truth.

I think I will let the rest of your post speak for itself....

[/quote]
Let me address your points, one by one....

1. The generic D&D world is a total monster filled wilderness with a few small good guy settlements. It is a rather specific setting idea, and that is the assumption 4E will be working off of (unless they change that). I wouldn't expect them to use my homebrew world, but i would expect them to make something non specific. If they made a new setting with this Point's of light bit I wouldn't mind, but the generic setting.

For those who don't have the book

"I came up with the phrase "points of light in a dark world" to capture this concept. A point of light might be a border town, a remote village, a dwarf stronghold, the tribal lands of human barbarians, or a powerful city state. But if you go more than a few miles from that point of light, things get dark and dangerous quickly. The city-state might keep all monsters and marauders at bay for a day's ride in all directions, but at some point the law doesn't stretch any further. And the darkness might include brigands, and bandits, orc tribes, goblins cities, and vampire haunted ruins, a dragon's hunting grounds"
ect ect ect, that is hte established D&D world
2. Worlds and Monsters p. 14, and cease with the semi trolling. You've been accusing me of untrue crimes that only reveals you radical nature
"There is no inherit racial enmity between PC races, and hostile attitudes do not generally go beyond fear or lack of respect"
3. Except 4E Core is deliberately made up to move away from the whole "Countries and political boundaries" as well as the real life basis.
"One of the first things we tackled in the Scramjet team was the creation of a set of "key conceits"- things we knew we wanted to be true about teh game world and the character's role in it.
During those discussions we found ourselves wandering into a debate about campaign designing and the "typical" D&D game. Many of the campaign settings we created in previous editions look a lot like the map of the modern world-neat borders are drawn around countries,l implying that the world is more or less carved up between an number of political entities or civilizations. Were weren't very happy with that, to tell you the truth. It works against the sense of mystery, wonder, and dread you'd like to see in most D&D settings."
4. Well they were options for low magic in 3E, but i never played it that way as i said, i really don't care
5. You can be a hero without being unique one of a kind special. Lets look at 3E, the PCs do super epic things and the like, but they don't get one of a kind powers from the get go
6. See points of light,
7. You accusations are untrue and unneeded. P. 29 Worlds and Monsters, this is concerning good dragons "Monsters the players never fight don't need combat statics. But we rebelled at the idea of putting such monsters in the Monster Manual. THe alternative was to ensure that every monsters was at least a potential enemy for even the most good and noble characters" They then go on to say how Metallic Dragons can be evil (one of the good changes i say) and that is the reason why they are putting them in the MM, because they can be evil and thus challenge the PCs. Good can fight good, and PCs can be evil. It isn't an absolute rule no, but it is another of WOTC really annoying assumptions that they use to justify their changes.
8. No i run evil as one of the most powerful forces in the world. However it seems that WOTC doesn't want evil to fight itself and to focus on fighting the PCs (and dying)
9. Maybe how you run them, but what about a realistic consistent world. WOTC doesn't like that ether, see the burden of History*
10. FR is optional to play, it is different from the generic 3E D&D. I i play a specific setting, yes i want a unique history, but not in a generic game


Loverly flaming, and what lies did i tell pray tell?


Read the PHP, is there even a mention of Greyhawk in that?


When the accusations are untrue and aren't based on facts it is attacking


You haven't proved a thing however, you've just made an attack and didn't back it up



*
"The Burden of History

The D&D game has always been influenced by European history and culture. If you look back at the game's roots, you can see why. Gary Gygax's Chainmail game, D&D's precursor added fantastic elements to a medieval battle game that he had already developed.
the various editions of D&D continued this trend by drawing source material form the real world. Supplements and magazine articles delved into minutiae-everything from the myriad blades used on pole arms by various cultures to how monstrous inhabitants of dungeons get clean air and remove waste. Through interesting from a historical and scientific, such details have very little effect on how the game is played. They add verisimilitude but rarely increase the fun of playing.
The 3rd Edition of the game took a first step away from reliances on real world by designing new and unique appearances for armor and weapons, but the urge to make fantasy reflect reality remained. The setting was still a historic, medieval world onto which fantasy elements were grafted......."
ect ect

from
EE
This is my general beef with WOTC, and their attitude[/QUOTE]

Rutee
2008-02-21, 04:37 PM
If alignment was fold into an unique choice between the 4 and "unaligned" the Devil may not have had the choice of staying Lawful too. :smallwink:

Rich Baker is quoted for having said that there will be those four options in regard to the Paladin.
Most commonly they are Lawful or Good, but can be Chaotic or Evil also.

Perhaps, if we must compare it to the current system, this means that Lawful entails something close to what we call LN and Chaotic something close to CN?
...Now, I don't mean to be mean here, but can you tell me where you got the idea that they're keeping Law/Chaos? I thought they were killing that axis.

Artanis
2008-02-21, 04:40 PM
...Now, I don't mean to be mean here, but can you tell me where you got the idea that they're keeping Law/Chaos? I thought they were killing that axis.
The only quote I could find one way or the other mentioned Lawful Good (I'll edit in the exact quote in a moment).

The way they've described the difference between Devils and Demons also sounds a hell of a lot like Lawful and Chaotic (respectively) even if they aren't officially dubbed that.


Edit: From ENWorld

What changes are in store for alignment? "In the end, there's still alignment. There will be some changes though. There'll be some tweaks... Even non-gamers know what a 12th level lawful good paladin is."


Not very conclusive, but all I could find :smallfrown:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-21, 05:11 PM
...Now, I don't mean to be mean here, but can you tell me where you got the idea that they're keeping Law/Chaos? I thought they were killing that axis.

I most certainly do not want to be mean either, but I did paraphrase the quote attributed to Rich Baker as I remembered it. :smallamused:


In response to a poster asking whether WotC considered changing the name of the paladin in light of the fact that paladins can be of any alignment, Rich Baker had this to say:: "Yes, the question was considered, but ultimately it boils down to this: We want one class in the job of "holy warrior", not nine...Currently the text in the Player's Handbook says something to this effect: Paladins are almost always lawful or good. Chaotic or evil paladins do exist in the world, but they're almost never heroes; go see the DM if you want to play one."
http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e#classes

So at least we know that there still exist Chaos and Law.
We also know that the Devils are no longer Lawful and Evil (at least not the Pit Fiend (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125)).
Perhaps having two alignments is rare...

Rutee
2008-02-21, 05:17 PM
Oh~
Spiffy! Yay for keeping the Axis I like better then.

EvilElitest
2008-02-22, 11:11 PM
First, EE, I just want to say that the quote by Setra in your sig is not, in my opinion, a compliment. It is an insult.

It is intended to be one, on find it quite funny


Moving on the content of your post.

I will not call you a liar, whether or not it is true. That implies intent, which I have no way to judge or prove. I will say that I believe you are wrong.

Thank you, i'm fine with you thinking me to be wrong, but accusations of lying is not true


You seem to have largely overlooked the word 'less'. 'Less' does not mean, as the title of this thread implies, 'is no longer true'. It means 'not as much'.


fair enough


The text you quote does not imply that nothing in the game world will exist/happen without the PCs being there to witness it. It is saying that, for a generic setting, there is no point to writing content that the PCs will likely never actually encounter. Note I said in a generic setting, not a specific one. A generic setting exists to be a platform to add detail to. Thus if a DM wants to write a campaign in which the players find themselves in the midst of a war between Demons and Devils, the DM can do so. Such a war does not have to exist in the printed core rules book for such a campaign, which, I'm sure you will agree, is only one of a near infinite number of campaigns that could exist. If every one of those was detailed in the core books, WotC would be setting a new record for deforestation caused by single product.

I think you misunderstand the reason for evil no longer fighting is is that it it WOTC is under the impression that evil fighting evil somehow makes evil less threating to hte PCs (no i don't get it ether). The justification is silly, not the reason. As for a generic setting, why write anything, evil vs. evil should vary from setting to setting, in FR it happens all the time, in Midnight far less so. I see your point about settings, but they aren't specifically talking about the blood war, they are talking about in generic settings evil won't be fighting evil as much, which i think is very silly.


It is, in fact your interpretation of WotC's reason. It is not mutually exclusive with the text you quoted, but Occam's Razor leads me believe otherwise.


"Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: demons lords and archdevils war with each other all the time rather than threating the PCs. We don't want to waste space on things the players can't use."
doesn't seem much to interpret, they are kinda directly stating there reason



This is, in fact, far more generic than anything else. Why? Because it allows for a DM to run a game in this setting without having to worry about why the king doesn't dispatch his army to quell the goblinoid attacks. Simply put, it is because they do not exist. In fact, "points of light" is one of the few rational ways such a thing can be explained without adding additional detail to the setting.
It is a simple setting i admit, but i'm not against the setting itself just that fact it is the generic one. Why have a generic one? Why not just establish the general world and leave the material plane itself to the DM, pretty much what 3E did (if you weren't aware of greyhawk, you basically had no idea of what the 3E world was like and would then make your own). More to the point, it doesn't change much, i mean why don't the forces of evil just take down these points of light one by one? More to the point, such an idea is limiting, for example in 3E i could make a Points of light game, or a political game, or a mix if i wanted, nothing forced me to do one or the other. Sure i could still make a political world in 4E, but 4E generic won't support such a play style, it focus on one particular style of world. Same with evil fighting evil or PC fighting, it is a single style of play supported by WOTC, leaving any other hanging



My interpretation here is dictated by the word 'inherent'. This means that you won't find dwarves being persecuted in every elven region simply because they are dwarves. That doesn't mean there won''t be distrust or racism, it just means that not all elven communities will act that way towards all dwarves, and vice versa. It means that in the generic setting, a player doesn't have to worry about playing a race that is treated as socially inferior by the society in which they are playing. also, such a lack of racism is by definition more generic than any level of racism. Again, a DM can add any level of detail they want to. Generic settings are intended to have as little content that needs to be removed to make a particular storyline work. Whether or not the 4e team has achieved (or was even completely aiming for) a truly generic setting is a matter that can be debated, but please not here, as it is not particularly relevant to this discussion.
1. the second line disturbs me as well
2. That doesn't make much sense however, use humans have committed many racist acts or crimes and the greatest difference between use is skin color or religion, i mean think what would happen when a tiefling starts walking around, even their history is evil.
3. alright, i'll leave the generic thing for another thread
4. However this is like all of the other things that annoy me, in the generic setting everything works under this assumption.


Perhaps they moved away from the 'modern' or 'medieval European' basis for the setting, but the 'points of light' concept fits much of real world history far better than 'kingdoms butting up against each other's borders' (e.g. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron) does. Dark Ages Europe, Ancient Greece, Roman times, Ancient Egypt, Incan civilization, African tribes, native american tribes, ancient China, etc.

not quite, in most of the societies you mentions except for the dark ages they were plenty of nations and stats vying for power, just not too a lesser exent. There wasn't a bunch of small "good" creatures (WOTC has stated that not all of the points of light are good) surrounded by evil nasty creatures. I mean trade was popular in Ancient greece and Ancient China still had plenty of political boundaries



Actually, it looks like they are removing much of the stereotyping involved with the alignment system. From everything you have quoted and said here, They are making things better, not worse. As much as people bash Eberron fo r'magic trains' and such, almost everyone agreed that the alignment changes were a good idea. If an idea gets that kind of traction in the fan base, they would be morons not to include it. However, they really can't say that...
That doesn't strike me as such, it seems that they are making normally good creatures not always good so that the PCs can fight them, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't like stating always good creatures because they think that PC won't fight them. Ignoring the fact that it is good to stat creatures even if the PCs aren't going to fight them, evil PCs? It seems like a silly idea. I don't object to them making dragons not always good or evil (that has always struck me as silly) nor making fighting good creatures more common, it is just there idea that always good creatures shouldn't be given stats because they won't fight hte PCs seems silly


It seems to me that WotC want s the story to focus on the players, not on events that are not currently affecting the PCs. That doesn't stop such events from happening, but if your game is a story about something OTHER than the PCs, it is not going to be fun for them. I speak from experience...
This is actually something that was talked about in 3.X DMG2, and also in several non-system specific books that have been written about roleplaying. A rich detailed world is awesome, so long as it doesn't shift the story away from the PCs.

Here is the thing, evil has aways fought evil. Evil generally goes against unity (i know this isn't totally true but here me out) because it has no restrictions it makes it inclined to fight itself, evil creature don't have to have any moral qualms about anything and are all selfish (the core motive of evil). Some evil organizations can work together fine, but even in them back stabbing and infighting are to be expected. Now some evil organizations could be perfectly unified, as they don't think themselves as evil and believe what they are doing is right, and so can be quite loyal to each other. Often times these groups might fight other evil groups who oppose them, because evil people don't need to make compromises with other groups. Also loyal evil people can and do exist in the D&D world, but for every evil person that is loyal to his comrades there are three who aren't. goblins, orcs, bugbears, orges and Gnolls all have a strong live, weak die philosophy, are generally selfish, worship evil deities and have no real loyalties to each other other than cultural ties or religion (generally via WOTC, they haven't mentioned anything about changing that). Evil cultist, ambitious people, and differing evil churches still exist i believe and would make perfect sense to fight each other. Mercenaries, bandits, and general evil people have no problems to fight each other over the normal things people fight over (pride, women, loot, power, ambition, power, or grudges) and unlike good people that don't have any moral problems with doing so. When you talk about creatures like demon or devils who's nature are violently opposed to each other, them fighting each other makes sense, and demons fighting each other matches their chaotic nature, devil's are naturally ambitious. So evil fighting each other makes perfect sense. Now in 4E it won't be doing so as much. My question is why? Why aren't they fighting? to my knowledge they aren't getting more organized, they aren't getting some sort of unification, their isn't some sort of binding force making them work together, so why? Why are the not killing each other as much. The given reason? Because for some reason WOTC thinks that evil fighting itself keeps it from fighting the PCs. Now my two questions
1) We know that evil fighting itself doesn't hinder the PCs, we've had three editions of evil doing that without a problem. what, do they want the PCs to take on all of the evil in the multi verse now?
2) how does evil fighting itself keep the attention away from the PCs? Normally the PCs take advantage of that,

Mr. friendly is right. NPCs, whether peasants or nobles, foes or friends, are all tools of the DM to create a story. Preferably a story about the PCs. NPCs never exist in-game unless the DM makes them exist. This true regardless of setting or design ideology. For instance, in the one FR game I ever played in, Elminster existed as part of the setting, but he never existed as an NPC. Do you see the difference?
Generally , but i think i'm missing your point


Every deity, the names Hewerd, Bigby, Mordenkainen, and several others I am not thinking of off the top of my head, all of the artifacts, Illithids, Githyanki and Githzerai, and so on. All have thier roots in the world of Greyhawk. Basically, anything in the PHB, MM, or DMG that is not in the SRD is Greyhawk-specific.

When i first started playing 3E i never heard of Greyhawk or any other setting. It took me a year before i learned about FR, and three more years before i really knew what Greyhawk was. Everything from the 3E books might be from Greyhawk, but did you see how vague it was? It was so general, i mean no mention of countries, gods were totally easy to adept to anything, monsters could fit any mold, it was just so generic that you could just do what ever the hell you wanted with it. I could do Points of light, a political game, a war torn game, a pioneer game, a conquest game, a LOTR styled game, what ever, very little was specific



If you look at the 2e PHB, it reads a lot like the SRD. It is all crunch and no fluff. All of the fluff that made it into the 3e PHB is from Greyhawk.

If I am not misremembering, Greyhawk was Gary Gygax's original setting, existing prior to the first copy of D&D was ever sold.
Sure, but there was no greyhawk setting in 3E made by WOTC, non at all (or at least any i've ever heard about, it certainly didn't make the big screen), so that is kinda meaningless, sure they took the fluff, but there wasn't any setting to attach it from, making it very open ended and generic.


That is, in fact, what that entire "The burden of history" article is about. It is not world history, it is the history of D&D. They had a similar article when 3.0 was first published, too. It's basically their way of saying 'yeah, we butchered some sacred cows, deal with it. They are antiquated, setting specific, and no longer serve the needs of D&D as a whole. You can always houserule them back in'.

Breaking off from a specific world is fine, by why stop taking real world inspiration, that is kinda our way of understanding how cultures, societies and people work.
Anyways, they make that claim, but plenty of what the published is very setting specific. Sure i could house rule them, but i could also houserule wizards to make them less absurd in 3.5, when you have to houserule something to make it work you know you have a problem.



I'll have to see if I can find the 2e to 3e article...
Thanks that would be interesting, of the few 2e books i own 1 is like that, the other two are very fluff heavy
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-02-22, 11:42 PM
List of lies and half-truths on your part: This thread only.

(1) Thread Title: 4th Edition, Evil Vs. Evil is no longer true; implies that evil cannot/will not fight evil in 4e. This is backed up by your posts throughout the thread. This is a lie, because as you yourself directly quote, they say they are reducing the amount, not eliminating.
(2) Post #6: Oh Talya, you and your silly ideas like a world beyond the PCs, don' you know that evil creatures exist for the sole purpose of running mindlessly into the PCs and dying
from
EE

1. Exaggeration for the title, but the point still remains, evil fighting evil is no longer the focus of WOTC
2. What posts, what lies? you provide nothing, as per normal
3. As for post 6, that is kinda WOTC justification. That is an interpretation yes, but not a lie. A lie would be calling somebody a liar and providing no evidence to prove it




Yeah, this does remind me of a video game: This is actually just snarky 4e attacks, but it is, technically, a lie. In this case you are pandering in an attept to win supporters to your crusade against 4e. I will also note that this is your first "This is a video game" post this thread... which I would define as at least a half-truth, at the very least it is a manipulative statement. Let's also note that at this point, no one in thread has made any positive comments about 4e or even about 3e. It is just a 4e bash, with no reprisals.
1. How is this a lie? It is an option, but not a lie
2. In most video games (not all) evil creatures exist to get slaughtered by the PC(s)
3. How does people's options up to that point matter, it shouldn't make a differences and certainly is a justification for you flaming


(3) Post #35: Watch it misconception. The annoyence here is not the fact that evil can be organized (which was already true) it is the reason why they aren't fighting. The reason? Because WOTC doesn't think it directly effects the PCs (eh?) Lie. Actually a continuation of a lie, namely that demons and devils WILL NOT FIGHT AT ALL. Wht Wizards actually said was it was being reduced.
wait, so i make my statement clear and you call me a liar and then don't even bother to prove it? They have stated their reason for making evil not fight evil plainly enough, do you bother to read evidence?


(sidebar) At this point it is worth noting that Post #33 by blackadder declares that all players are stupid. The definite implication of his post is that anyone who likes the 4e fluff is also stupid. I mention this because in Post 35 also, you EE say you agree with blackadder.
1. Thank you for totally misinterpreting him
2. And for putting words in his mouth, that is fare closer to lying than anything you've claimed i've done
3. Agreeing with somebody doesn't make it a lie, it makes it an option

This is what Blackadder said

It matters what the fluff says, because people are stupid. Specifically players are stupid, and players like fluff. I like fluff, I don't want a novel, but I like reasons for my PC's to do the things they do.

As I've said time and time again I love worlds which make sense. They are believable in their own worlds. The rules can be nonsensical, they can be crazy, but as long as the world follows those rules, everything can work itself out in the end.

A good example, the everlasting Blood War. The War between the Devil's of the Nine Hell's and the Demon's of the Infinite Abyss.

Let me repeat that INFINITE Abyss. The reason why the INFINITE Demons of the Infinite Abyss have not long since curb stomped good in all of it's finite forms is because the Demons of the Abyss war between themselves, then they war between the Devils of the Nine Hell's and they fight good, they fight neutral, they fight everyone. And because of that the fact, it makes sense that the Infinite Abyss is to busy fighting everyone along with their very nature to go curb-stomping the Outlands in mass or any one of a dozen other places that two billion demon's could quickly conquer.

Without a Blood War to distract the Demons, why are the planes not cover in darkness and destruction? Lazy Demon's?

Which makes more sense and feels better from a storytelling point? The infinte demon's can be bothered to invade(Until the PC's get there of course) or the infinte demons are fighting everything and everybody and are to Chaotic to get a serious army going before the Devil's smash it.



(lots of 4e bashing and snark)
(I enter the thread at post 71)
(4)Post #90: Rutee: They're not. But fluff is player-determined. Therefore, the problem mustn't be in the fluff, but in the mechanics, no?





(5) Post #90: Except the fluff here isn't player or DM determined, it is WOTC determined
Half-truth. As a dodge you attempt to avoid being boxed in by answering a question that wasn't asked.
[/QUOTE]
How is this a half truth and how am i not answer the question? Because you saying it is so doesn't make it so


(6) Post 90: 3E needed a fix up, 4E doesn't give us that ; outright lie unless you own a 4e PHB. This is an unknowable quantity; thus a lie.

Not an outright lie, i own two preview books about 4E, and i have already said that i will be happy if it turns out to be a great system.


(7) Post 93: For a guy's who's tone scream elitist and who blatantly insults people, you have a strange way of telling people to calm down. Your not very friendly mr. Friendly; I place this for reference and as a notation of a smear attack. Now I was snarky and sarcastic, but I didn't call anyone out in specific or make personal attacks. Blatently insulting would be calling you a gutless coward. I never said that though. :smallwink: It's technically a half-truth, but I will let it slide, because you are obviously starting to get emotionally invested at this point in the thread.
You called all the people who criticized 4E or voiced complaints wrong and total fools, ignored the issue and made bias judgments rather than addressing the issue in a civil and adult manner



(8) Post 93: 3. Oh noes, WOTC is taking away all the fluff we like, and forcing new fluff down our throat. Wow, i mean Oh my god, this would be fine if WOTC has a specific setting, but even the generic game is two specific.

Lie, on the face of it. WotC is not taking away "all the fluff".

I've already backed up my option, what to try disputing it? Or are you just content to simply say i'm a liar and not back it up?


(9)Post 93: And i'm tired of 4E defenders who simply go "Ohmygodthisisthebestthingeveranyonewhocritiziesit mustnotknowhowtoroleplay"And then assume a haughty overbearing attitude with a "Your wrong, i'm right" and still don't address the points but you don't see me complaining. I mean being overbearing is fine, but adress the points Lie + Lie + Lie. No one in the thread has said that, or anything close to it.
Your first post is an irrelevant attack on the people upset by the issue



You and others however already played the WoW card.
Now this is a lie, as i said on the thread you made, i find 4E more like video games in general, not WOW specifically



1. No you didn't, you just made an attack in that post, you made no attempt to adress the issue
2. not complaining about the overbearing attitude, not the attacks

[QUOTE]I think I did just prove you a liar. Also, that statement of yours contains a lie; WotC is not forcing evil to not fight evil as you allege.

No you didn't, you just found statements and claimed i was a lier, you prove is ether false or faulty


You yourself showcase this as a lie. Less is still not the same as not.

And that isn't my issue, but that would require reading my post for what i'm really saying now wouldn't. Hint read the what i said about my annoyence


Unlike you, I haven't resorted to personal attacks. Which you did almost immediately upon seeing my post. That's also a technical lie. I would be Zealous if I cared about 4e. I haven't tried to promote it or show off its features because it isn't out yet. I am just trying to stop people like you from poisoning the well with lies and disinformation.
Your kidding right? You've called me a lier, an manipulate, and zealot when that is untrue, avoided the issues and then you step back and say you'v avoiding personal attack?



No, I haven't. I've turned this into a crusade for balanced opinions and more importaant; the truth.
you have a very strange and unorthodox way of going about it, i think Lord Silvanos does that far better than yourself



I think I will let the rest of your post speak for itself....

Basically, your not going to respond to it? Well, um, that proves you right?
from
EE

Edit
now we've been wasting to much time with personal attacks, can we get back to the issues?

SmartAlec
2008-02-23, 05:47 AM
Without a Blood War to distract the Demons, why are the planes not cover in darkness and destruction? Lazy Demon's?

Didn't spot this earlier, but if -

- The Abyss is not only infinite but very hard to get out of (which in 4th Ed it is)

and

- Demons are mindless and insane (which, in 4th Ed, they are)

- then the Planes not coming up against a vast army of demons makes total sense. Not only are they not co-ordinated enough to even form an army, it's very rare that even one of them manages to leave the Abyss. Most of the time, they spend their insane, gibbering existences rampaging through the Abyss killing each other.

Also explains why the Devils don't try to fight them. Invading the Abyss is the ultimate 'land war in Asia' scenario.

fendrin
2008-02-23, 08:55 AM
Didn't spot this earlier, but if -

- The Abyss is not only infinite but very hard to get out of (which in 4th Ed it is)

and

- Demons are mindless and insane (which, in 4th Ed, they are)

- then the Planes not coming up against a vast army of demons makes total sense. Not only are they not co-ordinated enough to even form an army, it's very rare that even one of them manages to leave the Abyss. Most of the time, they spend their insane, gibbering existences rampaging through the Abyss killing each other.

Also explains why the Devils don't try to fight them. Invading the Abyss is the ultimate 'land war in Asia' scenario.

Precisely. This means that if the DM wants a rampaging demon, they can can easily figure out a plot based reason to have one (like a summoning gone wrong), and if there happens to be a devil nearby whose intricate and delicate plans are endangered by said demon, you can bet your britches that there will be some evil on evil violence.


Or do you suppose the rules would prevent that? Maybe demons will have a persistent protection from evil effect? Oh, I know, it would be like the scene in Stardust where the star is trying to hit the witch, and some invisible and impenetrable barrier prevents her from doing so...

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-23, 08:58 AM
Or do you suppose the rules would prevent that? Maybe demons will have a persistent protection from evil effect? Oh, I know, it would be like the scene in Stardust where the star is trying to hit the witch, and some invisible and impenetrable barrier prevents her from doing so...


Of course technically they have that already: it's just expressed as DR/Good.

fendrin
2008-02-23, 09:40 AM
Of course technically they have that already: it's just expressed as DR/Good.

The DR/Good makes evil attacks less effective, not ineffective.

It's kind of like the truth of this thread vs. the hyperbole :smallwink:

EvilElitest
2008-02-23, 12:13 PM
- Demons are mindless and insane (which, in 4th Ed, they are)

They are insane, but they aren't mindless, just chaotic and bloodthiristy and totally disorganized. Mad yes, not mindless (I think)
from
EE

Artanis
2008-02-23, 12:44 PM
They are insane, but they aren't mindless, just chaotic and bloodthiristy and totally disorganized. Mad yes, not mindless (I think)
from
EE
*ring* *ring* Hell, Satan? Check your thermometer, because for once I agree with EE :smalltongue:

From everything I can find, Demons aren't mindless. The lower-level demons are certainly single-minded to the point of being almost (but still not quite) mindless, while the bigger, smarter ones are quite capable of organizing army-ish and alliance-ish structures (that mostly exist for the purpose of causing even more destruction and never last long, but still...).

Artanis
2008-02-23, 12:47 PM
*grumble* stupid double post

fendrin
2008-02-23, 12:48 PM
They are insane, but they aren't mindless, just chaotic and bloodthiristy and totally disorganized. Mad yes, not mindless (I think)
from
EE

They are mindless in the same sense that an elemental is: they are embodiments of power, and don't particularly make plans or schemes.

They are not mindless in the sense that a plant is mindless: they are not immune to mind-affecting abilities, they can speak, etc.

SmartAlec
2008-02-23, 01:00 PM
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the basic idea behind Demons was different in 4th Ed - that they were Devils trapped in the swirling crazy vortex of the Abyss and who had lost their minds from the eternal imprisonment and the mad, swirling chaos of the place.

Renegade Paladin
2008-02-23, 01:03 PM
Did any of you guys like the Fiendish Codices? Not a whole lot of player material in either one, but unholy fiendish dire cow, they have a ton of prepackaged, quintessential evil stuff for the busy DM.
Have 'em, love 'em, use the crap out of 'em, and am mad as hell that they're just tossing all that out the window for the new edition.

EvilElitest
2008-02-23, 01:15 PM
Have 'em, love 'em, use the crap out of 'em, and am mad as hell that they're just tossing all that out the window for the new edition.

The demon devil thing is annoyingly vague, i really can't tell the difference between 3E and 4E anymore sadly.

Anyways, demons don't have totally free will, but they aren't mindless, they are just chaotic insane versions of devils (understatement i know)
from
EE

fendrin
2008-02-23, 01:21 PM
Have 'em, love 'em, use the crap out of 'em, and am mad as hell that they're just tossing all that out the window for the new edition.

What, have you found a detonator in them set to go off on 6/6/08? If so, call the bomb squad!

It's not like you can't continue to use those books for fluff and the basis of homebrew material.

A lot of early 3.0 homebrew (and even published material) came from adapting 2e stuff.

Renegade Paladin
2008-02-26, 02:01 PM
What, have you found a detonator in them set to go off on 6/6/08? If so, call the bomb squad!

It's not like you can't continue to use those books for fluff and the basis of homebrew material.

A lot of early 3.0 homebrew (and even published material) came from adapting 2e stuff.
"You can homebrew it" is not an excuse for bad product.

fendrin
2008-02-26, 02:13 PM
"You can homebrew it" is not an excuse for bad product.

Read what I was responding to. It's all about fluff. Fluff that doesn't match the DMs campaign idea isn't "bad product". Just different. DMs have always been encouraged to create their own fluff. It is, in fact, impossible to have a game with coherent fluff if the DM does not create any. Unless, of course, you are merely playing out the events of a book, in which case you aren't really gaming anyway...

As for crunch, I agree with you 100%.

RukiTanuki
2008-02-26, 03:33 PM
I took the original WP:W&M paragraph, in context, to mean "the number of times your players will be in the middle of a devil-vs.-demon feud will probably be counted on one hand; thus, we're devoting less space from the already-cramped first books to describe that conflict." If those pages instead went to, say, expanding rules for social encounters or providing more interesting traps, then I approve of the change, as my value-to-page ratio just went up.

I did not read it as "demons and devils aren't fighting anymore." If you did, I'm sorry, I don't think that's what they meant. If you insist it is, I guess I don't really have much else to say about it. No matter whose perceptions are correct, only the book itself will matter. No point discussing information we don't have, and we interpreted the information we do have in radically different ways, so... I guess we're done here. :)

fendrin
2008-02-26, 03:47 PM
I took the original WP:W&M paragraph, in context, to mean "the number of times your players will be in the middle of a devil-vs.-demon feud will probably be counted on one hand; thus, we're devoting less space from the already-cramped first books to describe that conflict." If those pages instead went to, say, expanding rules for social encounters or providing more interesting traps, then I approve of the change, as my value-to-page ratio just went up.

I did not read it as "demons and devils aren't fighting anymore." If you did, I'm sorry, I don't think that's what they meant. If you insist it is, I guess I don't really have much else to say about it. No matter whose perceptions are correct, only the book itself will matter. No point discussing information we don't have, and we interpreted the information we do have in radically different ways, so... I guess we're done here. :)

You have just summed up what I have been trying to say this entire thread into two sucint, clear, and well written paragraphs. You rock.

EvilElitest
2008-02-27, 10:47 PM
Badly done or unneeded fluff is basically a bad product
from
EE

fendrin
2008-02-28, 12:29 AM
Badly done or unneeded fluff is basically a bad product
from
EE

'Badly Done' and 'unneeded' are opinions and not relevant.
I happen to like what I'm seeing for fluff so far (though I didn't buy the teaser books so I have not seen it all), but that is just an opinion, and also doesn't matter.

Just like people could play in Forgotten Realms or Eberron in 3.5 without using Pelor and the other Greyhawk gods, you can create your own campaign setting that doesn't use the fluff you don't like.

Claiming anything else is ridiculous.

Titanium Dragon
2008-02-28, 03:00 AM
The Blood War was never contrived. That history is brilliant--devils were lawful celestials sent to battle the infinite abyss and keep chaos from destroying all existence. An eternity of fighting chaos corrupted them beyond recognition, but they have always lived up to their lawful duty.

Until 4th edition, where some jerk at WotC decided he didn't like that fluff.

See, the problem here is you're making really bad assumptions, which are A) that that fluff is good and B) that changing that fluff is bad.

That fluff isn't all that spectacular, and I have no reason to follow it. Indeed, my campaign already does away with most of the planar cosmology in the first place, so it doesn't affect me at all. If you can't keep the blood war running, then that's your own problem, eh?

There is just no reason for the Blood War to exist in fluff. You can have it if you like it, but there is no obligation not to keep it in the fluff. Just because you like it doesn't mean twenty other people don't think it is stupid or just don't care.

I personally prefer demons as things which are kept locked away wherever, unleashed into the world by the foolish actions of mortals and gods. That's much more fun in my opinion than some endless Blood War. I like that fluff better.

I would prefer a simpler, more flexible cosmology than the current hodge-podge of planes. I don't have a problem with them, but they do have a tendency to creep into the rules - I don't really want an Ethereal Plane or an Astral Plane, but a number of spells call for them specifically. There are also spells like Plane Shift I just ignore because they don't make sense in my world. But this could get annoying for players, so I have to watch out. Having a less complicated cosmology would make me a lot happier, especially if it is something which the crunch deals with less so I can throw it out the window if I choose to do so.


I exaggerate for effect, of course, but the point is that just because a cosmology is *geographically* smaller that doesn't mean it will contain less *content*. Functionally, a 666 plane abyss is no smaller than an infinite abyss.

I would argue that in many ways a 666 layered Abyss is larger than an infinite one; it implies that there are 666 different things, which is a lot, whereas an infinite number seem much more likely to be more similar because of their lack of definition.

For instance, I played once on a NWN server which was the 404th layer of the Abyss. It was a rather crazy place and a lot of fun because it was defined so. It was very rich and very cool, and it was just one layer (the lost layer).


Of course, being able to actually MAKE characters is kinda important. And since, yanno, the ONLY character generator for 4E allowed is gonna be ON that OpenRPG clone (because anyone who tries to come up with a 3rd party one is gonna get sued out of business), and they're even talking you NEED the membership to be able to get the online versions of the character sheets, it'll be kinda hard to make characters without it, unless you plan on going to your local kinkos with the PhB... if they even decide to put the character sheet in the PhB, which I doubt.

Seriously folks.

You're going to be able to make 4th edition characters with the PHB the same as with the 3rd edition books. The computer will be completely unnecessary to play D&D. I never read the D&D website during 3rd edition's run, and my games worked fine and dandy with just physical rulebooks.

Your argument is simply silly. You'll be able to make characters using paper and pencil. You'll be able to write your own program to make characters, or download another program to do so. Or just use an excel spreadsheet.

And the character sheets will be in the PHB, and available online. If you don't have a scanner, then someone else will, and a quick google search will find a thousand copies of the character sheets which people have scanned out of their books and put online. Not to mention that I'd be completely unsurprised if WotC themselves posted the character sheets freely online as giving in to the inevitability.

And even if the character sheets weren't in the PHB, you could very easily write them up yourself, using Word, Excel, or just a pencil and a piece of paper. I've done that dozens of times; it isn't at all difficult.

The internet will be completely unnecessary to play 4th edition, as will every single splatbook.

Not to mention splatbooks predate MMOs; arguably, what MMOs do has been done by RPGs since the 1970s. Again, another example of MMOs being RPG knock-offs, not the other way around.

Anyway, onto some specific complaints:

1) Cities/nations being "points of light" admid a dark world.

This is actually a very common assumption in RPGs and fantasy novels. Read, say, The Lord of the Rings; there are vast wilds between places "people" are. Or maybe read The Wheel of Time, where it specifically says that the nations have been shrinking and the wilderness growing. Or any of a large number of other fantasy worlds. The world of fantasy is a demon-haunted world, a world where "there might be dragons" means there WILL be dragons, and faeries really do live in the woods, with giant wolves which will eat men and races of inhuman monsters dwelling under every hill.

This is a world ripe for adventure, and is common in mythology and fantasy. Monsters lurk everywhere, but the heroes keep them at bay.

There's nothing wrong with this being the standard world, and indeed, this has ALWAYS been the standard Dungeons & Dragons world. This sort of world is full of ruins and adventure. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. A heavily populated world is a very different sort of place, and much less ripe for monsters and ruins.

Complaining about this is silly because it is no change and it is a good set of standard fluff. Every single edition of D&D assumed exactly this. This complaint is baseless.

2) No racism is fine, and again, is no real change. What was the last time they were really racist? We all know the elves and dwarves kind of distrust each other, yet somehow in edition after edition they work together. The racism between the good races has always been low; indeed, the racism towards kender and halflings (in 3.5) is probably the MOST racism which has ever been present in the game among the "good races".

The reason for this is simple - the party needs to work together and if people can't go to the cities of other races then the party generally just can't go there. And if racism is common, the base assumption, then why are these characters working together? It just gives all the more opportunity for the party to tear itself apart.

I don't like it and I disregard it in my worlds, and this is very, very easy to do - there's little crunch which this really affects, so I don't see why it matters.

3) No countries bigger than city-states is the standard assumption. See (1). Additionally, it has a number of other perks: there are lots of kings to work for (and kill off), there are lots of different countries to flee to, there are lots of possible intrigues which won't necessarily take over the campaign, and there is less opportunity for a monolithic empire to chase down one character all the time. Again, the crunch involved with this is minor anyway, and in reality, for a lot of history most countries were city-states. It took a very long time before countries got anywhere near as big as they are today. Ironically, this is actually somewhat realistic, and complaining about a reality which is good for adventure seems kind of silly to me.

4) I dislike high magic - I prefer magic items to be special, not something I buy down at the corner shop. I liked the second edition level of magic far better, where it was far rarer. That said, it doesn't HAVE to be a bad thing, depending on how it is done. I would prefer for casters to NOT be overpowered this time, though. High monsters are, likewise, a matter of taste, but also it is easy to completely ignore monsters altogether and just have purely inter-"people" plotting. It works just fine and dandy.

5) PCs are always super unique special heroes in D&D; that has been true since first edition, and is especially true in 3.X, where they have better gear and often better stats than NPCs. This is no real change. While I don't like it, it isn't all that new (and hopefully it won't cause problems). It probably is done for reasons of fun anyway (more random = more PC deaths/less DM control anyway) so I think it is fine as long as handled properly - indeed, I've seen few signs of it being a problem.

6) Monsters roam the world and the good races are under attack. Isn't this #1 and #4 again? See #1 and #4. As I said before, this has always been the default and is a good recipe for adventure, and is the basic recipe for many, perhaps most fantasy novels. How often DOESN'T this happen at some point?

7) PCs are almost always good or neutral, and this has been true across editions. It doesn't have to be true, but it is a fine basic assumption as that is what most people want to do and it isn't all that hard to throw in evil PCs if you're an experienced DM; if you aren't an experienced DM or player, then playing an evil character is probably going to cause more problems than it is worth.

8) Evil exists to be killed by the PCs, and this is absolutely true in almost every story ever. That is why evil exists - to be beaten by good. Sure, it isn't at all realistic, but it is incredibly common in virtually all forms of entertainment. Again, this is easy to change as a DM but, really, fundamentally, no matter how much effort you put into the backstory of evil people... they're there to be beaten by the PCs, fundamentally. That is their storyline purpose; adding versimilisitude is the job of the DM. I like fluff (ALA 2E Monster Manual) but not forced fluff.

9) NPCs are always in this awkward position. Why doesn't Elminster solve problem X? Why doesn't Dumbledorf just kill off the Death Eaters? The answer is, quite simply, it doesn't make for a good story. In the end, the purpose of NPCs is to add versimilitude to the world, to give the PCs more people to interact with, and to generally be fun to play with, as well as to give out quests. Complaining about this is silly; they occupy this role in every story... ever. If they aren't there to be beaten they are there to give quests or advice or magical items, but not to do the job for you.

10) I have no problem with lots of fluff, as long as it isn't in the crunch. I think it is fun to read about the habits of dragons, goblins, orcs, gnolls and the like and to be able to use them as springing boards or toss them out the window.


except that is the generic assumption of most D&D games, where in 3E there was very little generic setting assumptions, just basic things, now we have a very specific idea of D&D for any not setting game. So if i buy any splat book, the assumption will be that the world is mostly covered by evil and the good races live in small protective areas

I almost said very nasty things here, but I stopped myself.

You're incredibly, completely, totally, and utterly wrong. Have you ever read the 2nd edition player's handbook? Do you know how much fluff is in there? Outside of druids (which according to itself were an example of a specialist priest type) there was virtually no fluff whatsoever in the player's handbook (though the races did get a little). The monster manual had tons of fluff in it, but that was fine - it gave DMs ideas for what they could do with their world. As long as they keep fluff out of the PHB and DMG I'm fine with it; the MM can have tons of fluff if it wants, it just is there to give me ideas.

The third edition player's handbook has tons more fluff in it than the second edition one did. The entire gods section, for instance, is pure fluff, and there's plenty of other fluff elsewhere. Your whining is silly. And the assumptions you're complaining about are the exact same assumptions which are made by third edition, which makes it look less like whining and more like trolling.


It is WOTC attitude towards the game, they even stated that they don't see the need to stat good creatures most of the time

I almost never stat anything I don't expect the players to need stats for.

I will be sad if there aren't good creatures, ALA gold dragons and the like, but I suspect we will see as many good creatures in 4th edition as we saw in third (which is to say, not all that many).


What is WOTC reason? Oh wait, it is because they don't consider it important to the PCs, ah. Not because evil is organizing or becoming more unified, because it wastes time directed at the PCs.

How is that a lie mr. Friendly. Your untrue accusations and blatant insults are false, spawned by your overt zealotry

Reread what they wrote. Read it again. Now try and think about what it -means-. Why would you eliminate extant stuff?

You should think about that more.

Here is reality for you, plain and simple. They spent their time focusing on things they thought would make the game better for the players. They have limited time and limited space. They should spend that time and space on things which are going to be maximally enjoyable so as to make a better game. Which is more important, something which directly affects the PCs or something which does not? The former, obviously.

Therefore, their efforts should be primarily directed towards making the game better. Thus, your argument is totally groundless because you don't even understand what you're arguing for or against.

What you're actually arguing against is them making the game better, and only a troll would do that. Assuming good faith, I must assume you simply don't understand what you're reading, which is possibly because you simply lack the knowledge, experience, and wisdom which comes from reading much or dealing with words often.

Your flaw is your lack of reading comprehension and understanding of the business model.

fendrin
2008-02-28, 10:33 AM
Titanium Dragon, you are my hero.
That was well written, informed, cool headed, and above all, totally accurate on all points.

EvilElitest
2008-02-28, 09:51 PM
See, the problem here is you're making really bad assumptions, which are A) that that fluff is good and B) that changing that fluff is bad.

That fluff isn't all that spectacular, and I have no reason to follow it. Indeed, my campaign already does away with most of the planar cosmology in the first place, so it doesn't affect me at all. If you can't keep the blood war running, then that's your own problem, eh?

There is just no reason for the Blood War to exist in fluff. You can have it if you like it, but there is no obligation not to keep it in the fluff. Just because you like it doesn't mean twenty other people don't think it is stupid or just don't care.

I personally prefer demons as things which are kept locked away wherever, unleashed into the world by the foolish actions of mortals and gods. That's much more fun in my opinion than some endless Blood War. I like that fluff better.

I would prefer a simpler, more flexible cosmology than the current hodge-podge of planes. I don't have a problem with them, but they do have a tendency to creep into the rules - I don't really want an Ethereal Plane or an Astral Plane, but a number of spells call for them specifically. There are also spells like Plane Shift I just ignore because they don't make sense in my world. But this could get annoying for players, so I have to watch out. Having a less complicated cosmology would make me a lot happier, especially if it is something which the crunch deals with less so I can throw it out the window if I choose to do so.

1) the issue is evil vs. evil in general, not blood war specifically
2) more to the point, you counter isn't a defense of 4E, as it also has a very specific cosmology, and thus that idea isn't changing



I would argue that in many ways a 666 layered Abyss is larger than an infinite one; it implies that there are 666 different things, which is a lot, whereas an infinite number seem much more likely to be more similar because of their lack of definition.

For instance, I played once on a NWN server which was the 404th layer of the Abyss. It was a rather crazy place and a lot of fun because it was defined so. It was very rich and very cool, and it was just one layer (the lost layer).
From a personal perspective, i think that makes every level unique and interesting



1
) Cities/nations being "points of light" admid a dark world.

This is actually a very common assumption in RPGs and fantasy novels. Read, say, The Lord of the Rings; there are vast wilds between places "people" are. Or maybe read The Wheel of Time, where it specifically says that the nations have been shrinking and the wilderness growing. Or any of a large number of other fantasy worlds. The world of fantasy is a demon-haunted world, a world where "there might be dragons" means there WILL be dragons, and faeries really do live in the woods, with giant wolves which will eat men and races of inhuman monsters dwelling under every hill.

1. Not really the care in LOTR books
2. And i could think of fantasy worlds where there is a real society and people are organized into nations. Shannara, Song of Fire and Ice, FR, ebberon, Even freaking Deltoria. the Points of light thing is a very specific setting idea, much like Midnight or LotFR. Cool on its own, but shouldn't be the generic assumption


This is a world ripe for adventure, and is common in mythology and fantasy. Monsters lurk everywhere, but the heroes keep them at bay.

There's nothing wrong with this being the standard world, and indeed, this has ALWAYS been the standard Dungeons & Dragons world. This sort of world is full of ruins and adventure. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. A heavily populated world is a very different sort of place, and much less ripe for monsters and ruins.

Complaining about this is silly because it is no change and it is a good set of standard fluff. Every single edition of D&D assumed exactly this. This complaint is baseless.
1. Adventures and worlds are different. I mean FR and Ebberon. I mean the designers even said they were going away from the old National boundries in the game. So you can't make that argument that it has always
2. You can have ruins and adventures with political nations, see FR



2) No racism is fine, and again, is no real change. What was the last time they were really racist? We all know the elves and dwarves kind of distrust each other, yet somehow in edition after edition they work together. The racism between the good races has always been low; indeed, the racism towards kender and halflings (in 3.5) is probably the MOST racism which has ever been present in the game among the "good races".

1. Work together? By that you mean don't go to outright war with each other? Because racism still exist without outright war. in no edition did any of the races form any sort of united racially based group
2. You have no proof. We have plenty of examples of racism being used in games, and you claim we don't have racism
3. And that is irrelevant, because even if 3.5 didn't promote racism being a real thing, it didn't deny it in any way.
4. And 4E doesn't give any in game reason for why something like racism doesn't exist, when we know the real world effects of it



The reason for this is simple - the party needs to work together and if people can't go to the cities of other races then the party generally just can't go there. And if racism is common, the base assumption, then why are these characters working together? It just gives all the more opportunity for the party to tear itself apart.

Well lets look at the real world racism, and we find that racism isn't absolute, nothing stops people from differing races from working together. Racism isn't a law, you can't declare "nobody is racist" or "everybody is racist". It is something that happens,


I don't like it and I disregard it in my worlds, and this is very, very easy to do - there's little crunch which this really affects, so I don't see why it matters.
Because that is the assumption that every 4E adventure, world, setting or splat book will be work under. It is a silly and illogical idea


3) No countries bigger than city-states is the standard assumption. See (1). Additionally, it has a number of other perks: there are lots of kings to work for (and kill off), there are lots of different countries to flee to, there are lots of possible intrigues which won't necessarily take over the campaign, and there is less opportunity for a monolithic empire to chase down one character all the time. Again, the crunch involved with this is minor anyway, and in reality, for a lot of history most countries were city-states. It took a very long time before countries got anywhere near as big as they are today. Ironically, this is actually somewhat realistic, and complaining about a reality which is good for adventure seems kind of silly to me.

1. And you can have lots of intrigue and adventure in a nation, or an empire ect
2. Why make that for the entire world? Why not make it generic (no assumption in terms of world and have that left up to specific settings or GMs) or open to all styles of play?
3. Countries as big as the are today? Well no, but that isn't hte point, nations existed way back in the BC times, in technological levels before D&D (Like Rome, or Egypt, or Persia)



4) I dislike high magic - I prefer magic items to be special, not something I buy down at the corner shop. I liked the second edition level of magic far better, where it was far rarer. That said, it doesn't HAVE to be a bad thing, depending on how it is done. I would prefer for casters to NOT be overpowered this time, though. High monsters are, likewise, a matter of taste, but also it is easy to completely ignore monsters altogether and just have purely inter-"people" plotting. It works just fine and dandy.

So wouldn't 4E be better off if its generic setting applied to both high magic and low magic dudes?



5) PCs are always super unique special heroes in D&D; that has been true since first edition, and is especially true in 3.X, where they have better gear and often better stats than NPCs. This is no real change. While I don't like it, it isn't all that new (and hopefully it won't cause problems). It probably is done for reasons of fun anyway (more random = more PC deaths/less DM control anyway) so I think it is fine as long as handled properly - indeed, I've seen few signs of it being a problem.

As i said on the thread on this topic, that isn't totally true. NPCs and PCs work under the same system, NPCs with totally PC stats make perfect sense and can be understood. Them working under different rules do not


As for your comment on fun,
1) there is no in game reason for why these half dozen are harder to kill than anybody else
2) DM control doesn't need to be complete, part of the game is that you can screw up and you can die


6) Monsters roam the world and the good races are under attack. Isn't this #1 and #4 again? See #1 and #4. As I said before, this has always been the default and is a good recipe for adventure, and is the basic recipe for many, perhaps most fantasy novels. How often DOESN'T this happen at some point?
There is a difference between monsters being in the world, and monsters owing most of the world


7) PCs are almost always good or neutral, and this has been true across editions. It doesn't have to be true, but it is a fine basic assumption as that is what most people want to do and it isn't all that hard to throw in evil PCs if you're an experienced DM; if you aren't an experienced DM or player, then playing an evil character is probably going to cause more problems than it is worth.
Why is that a good assumption? Evil exists, nothing keeps the PCs from doing it. 3.5 assumed that most PCs were good yes but while that wasn't a totally good thing nothing stopped them from doing so. Nothing in the generic world worked under that assumption and plenty of options existed for evil characters



8) Evil exists to be killed by the PCs, and this is absolutely true in almost every story ever. That is why evil exists - to be beaten by good. Sure, it isn't at all realistic, but it is incredibly common in virtually all forms of entertainment. Again, this is easy to change as a DM but, really, fundamentally, no matter how much effort you put into the backstory of evil people... they're there to be beaten by the PCs, fundamentally. That is their storyline purpose; adding versimilisitude is the job of the DM. I like fluff (ALA 2E Monster Manual) but not forced fluff.

No in your games evil exists to be killed, if you read BoVD and BoED evil is far more than that. Hell if you read their settings, evils is far more complex than that, your simplifying things.



9) NPCs are always in this awkward position. Why doesn't Elminster solve problem X? Why doesn't Dumbledorf just kill off the Death Eaters?
As Dumbledore isn't from a game, Elminster isn't omnipotent and tends to focus with the epic level challenges, the ones the PCs deal with later


The answer is, quite simply, it doesn't make for a good story. In the end, the purpose of NPCs is to add versimilitude to the world, to give the PCs more people to interact with, and to generally be fun to play with, as well as to give out quests. Complaining about this is silly; they occupy this role in every story... ever. If they aren't there to be beaten they are there to give quests or advice or magical items, but not to do the job for you.

Except if these half dozen are randomly unique and special for no in game reason, there is no verisimilitude, and they really only exist as scenery. The world is no longer consistent or logical



I almost said very nasty things here, but I stopped myself.

You're incredibly, completely, totally, and utterly wrong.
I'll wait a few seconds for the irony to kick in


Have you ever read the 2nd edition player's handbook? Do you know how much fluff is in there? Outside of druids (which according to itself were an example of a specialist priest type) there was virtually no fluff whatsoever in the player's handbook (though the races did get a little). The monster manual had tons of fluff in it, but that was fine - it gave DMs ideas for what they could do with their world. As long as they keep fluff out of the PHB and DMG I'm fine with it; the MM can have tons of fluff if it wants, it just is there to give me ideas.

The third edition player's handbook has tons more fluff in it than the second edition one did. The entire gods section, for instance, is pure fluff, and there's plenty of other fluff elsewhere.
Except all of this fluff is extremely generic and can be used for any world.
So 3E is pretty much the same as 2E in that regard, 4E is not

Your whining is silly. And the assumptions you're complaining about are the exact same assumptions which are made by third edition, which makes it look less like whining and more like trolling.

Is disagreeing with you trolling? Narrow standard

I
almost never stat anything I don't expect the players to need stats for.


Then how do you determined its powers? If the PCs encounter a Solar angle, even if they don't fight it, the question arises, how do these things effect the world? What determines that? Its stats, that is how you control how Solars effect the world (their tatics for fighting evil, their cities, how they help other casters ect). Then the question comes up, why don't they use there powers when the PCs need it most?


Reread what they wrote. Read it again. Now try and think about what it -means-. Why would you eliminate extant stuff?

You should think about that more.
I notice you still don't provide an in game reason for why evil isn't focused on fighting evil?



Here is reality for you, plain and simple. They spent their time focusing on things they thought would make the game better for the players. They have limited time and limited space. They should spend that time and space on things which are going to be maximally enjoyable so as to make a better game. Which is more important, something which directly affects the PCs or something which does not? The former, obviously.

1. How does this make the game maximally enjoyable?
2. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I didn't see anyone complaining about evil groups fighting each other over perfectly logical reasons
3. Define fun for everybody. They should have left the choose up to the individual people and not forces it


Therefore, their efforts should be primarily directed towards making the game better. Thus, your argument is totally groundless because you don't even understand what you're arguing for or against.

Except that doesn't make the game better, they think that makes the game better. The also thought that 3.5 wizards made the game better and that didn't work.


What you're actually arguing against is them making the game better, and only a troll would do that. Assuming good faith, I must assume you simply don't understand what you're reading, which is possibly because you simply lack the knowledge, experience, and wisdom which comes from reading much or dealing with words often.


This disgusts me, you working under the assumption that this making the game better is an absolute. And so arguing with the absolute makes me a troll. Maybe i just don't think this makes the game better and it isn't needed. And then you go on to say that i lack reading skills and wisdom/knowledge/experience, which is just as bad as calling me a troll. If your going to argue, don't hold a double standard



Your flaw is your lack of reading comprehension and understanding of the business model.

You have named no specifics for this rather absurd claim, except that if i disagree with you, i must be wrong. Don't evade the question
from
EE

Jade_Tarem
2008-02-28, 11:25 PM
Contrived? What?! They were perfectly justified!
They eat their toast with the butter side down!

Can I sig this for a while?

Titanium Dragon
2008-02-29, 12:01 AM
2) more to the point, you counter isn't a defense of 4E, as it also has a very specific cosmology, and thus that idea isn't changing

I think the new cosmology is much more flexible because it is likely to involve fewer spells which directly interact with said cosmology.


1. Not really the care in LOTR books

They spend an enormous amount of time wandering around where there really aren't people, in both The Hobbit and in The Lord of the Rings. A lot of the world doesn't seem to have people in it, and the world is far from densely populated. And there were monsters lurking under the hills (goblins) and even dragons in the mountains, there. It is absolutely the case that LotR is a points of light style world, which is why the archetype is quite common.


2. And i could think of fantasy worlds where there is a real society and people are organized into nations. Shannara, Song of Fire and Ice, FR, ebberon, Even freaking Deltoria. the Points of light thing is a very specific setting idea, much like Midnight or LotFR. Cool on its own, but shouldn't be the generic assumption

Points of light is very common, at least as common as otherwise. You are complaining because the default assumption is not YOUR assumption, but let's face it: that's entirely idiosynchratic. From my experience with D&D campaigns, and with fantasy in general, you want/need large wild areas to adventure in for the classic sort of D&D game.

Your complaints are baseless, here. This is the way things are typically anyway, it supports adventuring better, and it has little impact on your game because it won't have any impact whatsoever on the crunch.


1. Adventures and worlds are different. I mean FR and Ebberon. I mean the designers even said they were going away from the old National boundries in the game. So you can't make that argument that it has always

Actually, I can and I will. Those designers are wrong. 100%. Ebberon is an oddity for a campaign world, which is why it got published. But while FR has lots of big nations and national boundries, every game I've played in FR has been set in places where there really weren't that many humans, or I wandered off into the middle of nowhere, or what have you. Despite the maps being "full", there was still a lot of empty wilderness for me to go wandering around in. This has always been the default assumption of D&D, and they're finally verbalizing it again. Msot of the adventures I've seen involve going off into the wilderness to do the actual adventuring; it seems near-omnipresent. I don't think I've ever played in a campaign where there wasn't wilderness to go wandering off into, and only in one campaign did we spend less time in the wilderness than we did in cities.

Look at reality, not just what you want to see.


1. Work together? By that you mean don't go to outright war with each other? Because racism still exist without outright war. in no edition did any of the races form any sort of united racially based group

Working together as equals is very common in games. VERY common. Yeah, the elves and the dwarves supposedly dislike each other, but it doesn't do a whole lot in the end and it has little in the way of consequences. Basically its a sham to pretend that there is depth, but there is no depth; it is naught but words and has no actual impact even in the town generation systems, where, while towns will be predominantly one race or another, you still find quite a bit of mixing. This is also true in various related products, where you won't find much racism - have you ever played Neverwinter Nights?


2. You have no proof. We have plenty of examples of racism being used in games, and you claim we don't have racism

This is quite funny, given you're basically ranting on a forum. Proof? The proof is in the games, in the experiences. There is virtually no real racism in D&D by default; I can walk into any town as one of the main playable races (and arguably some others) and order an ale and get it without any problems. Rarely will someone bring it up as an important point, and then almost always in the evil sense - the evil empire discriminates against some group or what have you.

Even in campaigns where there is racism it doesn't drive the party apart.

Reality check: look at the various D&D affiliated games. There is very little racism in there at all between the main races, and even outside of them there tends not to be a whole lot other than "goblins are evil, let's go kill them". My argument is based on empirical evidence, actual games, and they don't involve a whole lot of racism. Where is YOUR evidence? Your ranting? That won't convince anyone.

You're making up stuff to whine about. This was the standard reality before, and acknowledging it out loud is a good thing. They don't want to restrict players too much in race selection. There was much more racism base in second edition, but even then how much was there? Third edition did away with most of what there was, and there wasn't a whole lot.


3. And that is irrelevant, because even if 3.5 didn't promote racism being a real thing, it didn't deny it in any way.

That's a fallacious argument for the reasons given above.


4. And 4E doesn't give any in game reason for why something like racism doesn't exist, when we know the real world effects of it

The more diversity you're exposed to on a continual basis the less likely you are to be racist. In a world where there are things as alien as beholders, an elf is not very alien at all.


Well lets look at the real world racism, and we find that racism isn't absolute, nothing stops people from differing races from working together. Racism isn't a law, you can't declare "nobody is racist" or "everybody is racist". It is something that happens,

Ever heard of aparthied? The Holocaust? Genocide? The Crusades? Segregation?


Because that is the assumption that every 4E adventure, world, setting or splat book will be work under. It is a silly and illogical idea

You're assuming uniformity, which is highly unlikely; they WILL include other things, and if you don't think they will, then you need to get a reality check. They will release splatbooks which assume city settings, they will rerelease popular campaign settings such as Ebberron, and there will be other types of adventures than "go into the forest and kill goblins".

They're already acting under most of these assumptions anyway, much as you like to not acknowledge that, and yet you still seem to buy their products. Seems to me you aren't really paying attention to what is happening now.

You are being silly and illogical, not them.


1. And you can have lots of intrigue and adventure in a nation, or an empire ect

This does nothing to counter my argument and is entirely a matter of taste.


2. Why make that for the entire world? Why not make it generic (no assumption in terms of world and have that left up to specific settings or GMs) or open to all styles of play?

Because it is good for the game to give some guidance to new GMs; it is very easy for an experienced GM to throw out fluff if they want to.

Are you saying you're incapable of doing so?


3. Countries as big as the are today? Well no, but that isn't hte point, nations existed way back in the BC times, in technological levels before D&D (Like Rome, or Egypt, or Persia)

This, again, doesn't in any way affect my point.


So wouldn't 4E be better off if its generic setting applied to both high magic and low magic dudes?

You're assuming this is possible. I don't really know that it is. I've yet to play a game which allowed for such.


1) there is no in game reason for why these half dozen are harder to kill than anybody else

Yes there is. They're heroes. They are a cut above. The reason you play Aragon and not Bob the Farmer is because Aragon is a hero and Bob is not. Heroes ARE different from everyone else because they're self-selecting; fundamentally, if there wasn't something special about them the story wouldn't focus on them. That is why they are different. This is an entirely logical reason for it; the players are taking on the roles of the best, not of the mediocre.

Not to mention they can also be the chosen ones/blessed by the gods/cursed by awesome/what have you. There are plenty of plausible in-game reasons for their specialness. But I prefer my explanation better.


2) DM control doesn't need to be complete, part of the game is that you can screw up and you can die

This is a flawed assumption. The DM does not want or need complete control, but he SHOULD be able to control (roughly) when people are likely to live or die. As a DM, I don't want people dying to random stupid stuff; I want them to die heroically, ignomously, or hilariously if they are a PC. It isn't much fun for your PC to randomly die to the first orc you run into because he rolled a natural twenty. Part of a good RPG is to slant the odds in the favor of the heroes on an individual encounter basis because otherwise they're going to die horribly very, very quickly.

If someone does something really stupid then sure, they can die. But it shouldn't be arbitrary or random.


There is a difference between monsters being in the world, and monsters owing most of the world

It is a demon-haunted world; they should own much of it. And in any event, they are MONSTERS; indeed, the real question is not why do the monsters own the world but how have the squishy humans survived in the face of dragons and various other things?

You've got your reality all backwards. These monsters are much more powerful than humans; the better question is why they wouldn't own the world.


Why is that a good assumption? Evil exists, nothing keeps the PCs from doing it. 3.5 assumed that most PCs were good yes but while that wasn't a totally good thing nothing stopped them from doing so. Nothing in the generic world worked under that assumption and plenty of options existed for evil characters

Why is it a good assumption? Because it is a -correct- assumption. People play RPGs to be heroes. Yes, some people do enjoy being the bad guys from time to time, but far more people are interested in being heroes than villians. As such, your game should support that basic assumption. The purpose of the game is to sell, after all, not to suit some random guy on the internet's idiosynchratic preferences.

Additionally it is a good assumption for the purposes of party cohesion. Most of 3.5 assumes the party is good or neutral; your claims otherwise are terribly fallacious at best, and outright ignorance at worst. You either haven't played much 3.5 or are trolling to even pretend that being good or neutral wasn't the base assumption of 3.5.

This has always been the base assumption of D&D, and should remain so for marketing reasons. There is some support for the evil, but there does not need to be nearly as much support for it as for the good and neutral characters because it is a much smaller market. And smaller markets (reality check!) are going to recieve less, which is good for D&D as a game because otherwise WotC would go out of business.

Nothing in 4th edition prevents people from being evil outright any more than it was prevented in 3.5.


No in your games evil exists to be killed, if you read BoVD and BoED evil is far more than that. Hell if you read their settings, evils is far more complex than that, your simplifying things.

No, you don't understand. You really just don't understand. Let me spell it out for you:

The purpose of evil is to be overcome by the PCs.

This is true in movies, books, video games, and RPGs. The reason this is true is because evil exists as a plot device; the reason there are evil people is to drive the plot. Evil creates antagonists for good to fight. This is the purpose of evil.

You may make all sorts of silly arguments to the contrary, but you're always going to be wrong. This is not a "Reality" thing, this is about storytelling. The purpose of evil in stories is to create conflict, and it has absolutely no other purpose whatsoever. Arguing otherwise is silly.

Yes, there is characterization and motivations and all that to dress it up in interesting ways for the players, but the reality of the game is that it is designed to be played and evil exists in order to drive the heroes onward to feats of greatness and glory, or at least to situations entertaining for the players playing the game. That is its out of character purpose. Stuff which gets in the way of an interesting game is ultimately bad for it.

I'm talking from a design and storytelling standpoint, not from a fluffy standpoint. And I am absolutely correct.


As Dumbledore isn't from a game, Elminster isn't omnipotent and tends to focus with the epic level challenges, the ones the PCs deal with later

You failed to answer my point at all. You just mumbled something. This is reality. RPGs are a form of collaborative storytelling. High level NPCs often cause awkwardness in such, which was why I pointed it out.


Except if these half dozen are randomly unique and special for no in game reason, there is no verisimilitude, and they really only exist as scenery. The world is no longer consistent or logical

You failed to read and comprehend what I wrote yet again. I asked you to try doing this last time but you obviously didn't take the effort to do so.

I'm talking about structure and design. Here you are whining and complaining about them not putting in fluff for you, when just a few paragraphs earlier you were whining about them adding in fluff.

This is reality. NPCs exist for the aforementioned storytelling purposes. If you don't understand that, you don't really understand storytelling. Yes, you dress them up in fluff, but the game, by your own claims, is supposed to allow YOU to supply your own fluff and give you what you need. What do you need for NPCs? What they know, what they have, and what they're likely to do to help or hinder the party, along with a bit of personality to spice them up.


Except all of this fluff is extremely generic and can be used for any world.
So 3E is pretty much the same as 2E in that regard, 4E is not

3rd edition is less generic than 2nd edition was, and there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that 4th edition is any less generic than third edition was. It may use slightly different assumptions, but your problem is you simply have rendered yourself unable to see those assumptions because you simply ASSSUME they must be so without thinking about them. Think about them. Really. There's nothing particularly generic about the druidic stuff in 2nd edition, but third edition has the massive section on the gods which is very specific, it has some very specific racial information, ect. It makes a lot of assumptions.

You appear to have little understanding of previous editions and little understanding of what the fluff books you have read are - fluff books.


Then how do you determined its powers? If the PCs encounter a Solar angle, even if they don't fight it, the question arises, how do these things effect the world? What determines that? Its stats, that is how you control how Solars effect the world (their tatics for fighting evil, their cities, how they help other casters ect). Then the question comes up, why don't they use there powers when the PCs need it most?

Well, if they encountered a solar angle, I'd call it a timepiece and be done with it, eh? :P

Now, if they encountered a Solar angel, I'd handwave it. I don't need their stats at all if they aren't going to fight it and it isn't going to fight on their behalf. You're telling me to do a whole lot of work for nothing. They're powerful beings of good with limitations on what they can do; I don't really care beyond that. You don't need stats to know what being ruled by a red dragon is going to do to a populace; you need to understand its sociology, not how many D10s of fire damage its breath weapon does. I don't need stats other than what will actually affect the game.


I notice you still don't provide an in game reason for why evil isn't focused on fighting evil?

And I don't see you suppling a reason why it would focus on it. Your argument is at its core fallacious. You say you want less fluff, but then you complain when they remove stuff. If you want evil v evil, then add it yourself as you claim you want to do.

What you're actually sounding like you want, as many people have pointed out in this thread, is for them to cater to your personal fluff preferences, which is just silly - they aren't going to. Learn to live with it.

It isn't that they don't ever fight each other so much as it takes place offscreen and thus affects the players less than having ability X, Y, or Z does. They have finite time, quit whining. I'd rather they focus on making the game fun, interesting, and balanced than telling me the details of racial emnities which are unlikely to come up in my campaigns.


1. How does this make the game maximally enjoyable?

Read my paragraph. Read it again. Read it again. Read it again. Keep doing so until you understand. I answered this question in the paragraph, with these sentences: Which is more important, something which directly affects the PCs or something which does not? The former, obviously.


2. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I didn't see anyone complaining about evil groups fighting each other over perfectly logical reasons

You see, your problem is you aren't reading what I wrote. Read it again. And again. Or just read the bolded sentence I wrote previously.

If you aren't going to read what I write, why are you posting in response?


3. Define fun for everybody. They should have left the choose up to the individual people and not forces it

And yet again you failed to read what I wrote and understand game design. People have finite time, space, and effort. In the end, they should focus on things which the most players will use the most often. The blood war and evil infighting are less important to everyone's enjoyment than things that everyone uses. Some people DO enjoy internal evil conflicts, but a lot don't. What you're saying is "I'm more important than those people". You aren't, you're actually less important than those people. Therefore, the correct business decision for WotC to make is to spend time on things which the most people enjoy, given their goal is to make the best-selling and most universally appealing RPG.


Except that doesn't make the game better, they think that makes the game better. The also thought that 3.5 wizards made the game better and that didn't work.

They are more competant than you are. They are not perfect, but they're much better at this than you. You have shown little comprehension of their design processes. And this does make the game better, given they are focusing more on more important things. They prioritized things which more players would use and enjoy, which is a good thing and is the mark of a good company and a good product.


This disgusts me, you working under the assumption that this making the game better is an absolute. And so arguing with the absolute makes me a troll. Maybe i just don't think this makes the game better and it isn't needed. And then you go on to say that i lack reading skills and wisdom/knowledge/experience, which is just as bad as calling me a troll. If your going to argue, don't hold a double standard

I'm not holding a double standard here. Many of your posts don't even involve you capitalizing the first letter of every sentence, and clearly you failed to read what I wrote as you asked questions the quoted text already answered. The two most likely reasons are you aren't very literate or you are trolling.

I explained what making the game better consists of, and you clearly don't understand it and, it would seem to me, don't want to understand it.

I didn't evade the questions at all, you simply didn't understand my answers.

captain_decadence
2008-02-29, 12:02 AM
1)
1. Not really the care in LOTR books
2. And i could think of fantasy worlds where there is a real society and people are organized into nations. Shannara, Song of Fire and Ice, FR, ebberon, Even freaking Deltoria. the Points of light thing is a very specific setting idea, much like Midnight or LotFR. Cool on its own, but shouldn't be the generic assumption

from
EE

It is actually the case in the LOTR books. The power of gondor is shrinking, so is Rohan. The elves have retreated to their forests. Both the hobbit and the lord of the Rings are stories about traveling from one point of light to another (Shire to Rivendell, Rivendell to Rohan, Rohan to Gondor (but with branching and stuff)).

I don't know what Deltoria is, but Shannara and Song of Ice and Fire both have the points of light concept. There are small areas of human (or other race) concentration but between these areas there is wilderness, magic, danger, all that fun stuff.

Forgotten Realms used to have that feel before it was filled up to the top with stuff. Before you couldn't stumble three feet without hitting a 20th level caster that is...

Large parts of Eberron also have that feel (the eldeen reaches for example).

Yakk
2008-02-29, 12:38 PM
Heck, in a song of fire and ice, travelling on major highways between a nearby barony and the capital was considered suicidal without a small army along!

During peacetime, it wasn't points of light: but peace only existed in the first part of the first book. Soon afterwards, things fell apart. Bandits are everywhere, and worse things. And we all know it will get worse before it gets better.

EvilElitest
2008-03-01, 01:02 AM
I think the new cosmology is much more flexible because it is likely to involve fewer spells which directly interact with said cosmology.

Um, where did you get that idea? We have a different cosmology, not great wheel, but why would there be less spells



They spend an enormous amount of time wandering around where there really aren't people, in both The Hobbit and in The Lord of the Rings. A lot of the world doesn't seem to have people in it, and the world is far from densely populated. And there were monsters lurking under the hills (goblins) and even dragons in the mountains, there. It is absolutely the case that LotR is a points of light style world, which is why the archetype is quite common.

And there were also many nations in other areas/times. They went through those areas, but hte nations did exist. If we have both civilized nations and certain dangerous "points of light " areas i'd be cool but everything that 4E is based in?



Points of light is very common, at least as common as otherwise. You are complaining because the default assumption is not YOUR assumption, but let's face it: that's entirely idiosynchratic. From my experience with D&D campaigns, and with fantasy in general, you want/need large wild areas to adventure in for the classic sort of D&D game.

1. My complaint is that everything in 4E is based on one single concept, not numerous ones. If options existed for different styles of gaming, i'd be fine
2. Your experience isn't absolute. Look at FR and Ebberon, that is certainly not the case
3. Why? Why can't you have both nations and wilderness based games? FR pulled it off, Ebberon pulled it off, i fail to see the problem


Your complaints are baseless, here. This is the way things are typically anyway, it supports adventuring better, and it has little impact on your game because it won't have any impact whatsoever on the crunch.
1. Baseless, even WOTC mentioned the change
2. It supports one type of adventuring better. That is limiting and close minded on WOTC's part, alienating potential customers.
3. Yeah it will have an effect, any book i buy from 4E will be working under that assumption that all of their worlds will work under point of light. Any other style is no longer supported.


Actually, I can and I will. Those designers are wrong. 100%. Ebberon is an oddity for a campaign world, which is why it got published. But while FR has lots of big nations and national boundries, every game I've played in FR has been set in places where there really weren't that many humans, or I wandered off into the middle of nowhere, or what have you. Despite the maps being "full", there was still a lot of empty wilderness for me to go wandering around in. This has always been the default assumption of D&D, and they're finally verbalizing it again. Msot of the adventures I've seen involve going off into the wilderness to do the actual adventuring; it seems near-omnipresent. I don't think I've ever played in a campaign where there wasn't wilderness to go wandering off into, and only in one campaign did we spend less time in the wilderness than we did in cities.
1. Every game you played has been set in certain places, that is you. For others, games have been set in the detailed cities/ nations the've made up. in FR both concepts can be supported, not just one. Just because you only played points of light, it is simple arrogant to assume that nobody who played FR used the massively detailed nations ever.
2. Those designers are wrong? How so? Prove
3. FR has an absurd amount of nations and countries/states to explore and adventure in, as well as plenty of wilderness.
4. Prove that this is the only way to play D&d, not that it is the only way you played D&D



Look at reality, not just what you want to see.
Then base what your points off material, not personal experience


Working together as equals is very common in games. VERY common. Yeah, the elves and the dwarves supposedly dislike each other, but it doesn't do a whole lot in the end and it has little in the way of consequences. Basically its a sham to pretend that there is depth, but there is no depth; it is naught but words and has no actual impact even in the town generation systems, where, while towns will be predominantly one race or another, you still find quite a bit of mixing. This is also true in various related products, where you won't find much racism - have you ever played Neverwinter Nights?

1. Prove it. Prove that it is official in 3.5 that all of the main races work together in some unified force.
2. Ever played Baldur's gate? Plenty of NPCs say racist slurs, and if you are the right race you can get funny responses
3. Yet again, your are basing this off limited personal experience and the idea of one "absolute true" way of playing, when we have had racisim as a tool exist in 3.5 products


This is quite funny, given you're basically ranting on a forum. Proof? The proof is in the games, in the experiences. There is virtually no real racism in D&D by default; I can walk into any town as one of the main playable races (and arguably some others) and order an ale and get it without any problems. Rarely will someone bring it up as an important point, and then almost always in the evil sense - the evil empire discriminates against some group or what have you.
Yet again, you base this on your personal experience, where in 3E does it say there is no racism ever? Hell, if you read the race descriptions they have stereotypes of each others generally and that is a very minor case.

E
ven in campaigns where there is racism it doesn't drive the party apart.

Reality check: look at the various D&D affiliated games. There is very little racism in there at all between the main races, and even outside of them there tends not to be a whole lot other than "goblins are evil, let's go kill them". My argument is based on empirical evidence, actual games, and they don't involve a whole lot of racism. Where is YOUR evidence? Your ranting? That won't convince anyone.
1. Proof? Proof that there is very little racism between main races. That isn't hte case in Ebberon certainly. Or FR for taht matter. Or even some splat books.
2. Your evidence is frankly non existent, simple a statement "this is how it is" without any backing



That's a fallacious argument for the reasons given above.


prove that 3E limited racism at all



The more diversity you're exposed to on a continual basis the less likely you are to be racist. In a world where there are things as alien as beholders, an elf is not very alien at all.
Assuming everybody is fully integrated. Oh wait, they are not, because they are in a massive world wide wilderness with lots of monsters fighting them. ah


Ever heard of aparthied? The Holocaust? Genocide? The Crusades? Segregation?

Was every single personal of those ethnic groups racist? No, assuming every German was a radical anti Semite (the racism existed, i'm not denying that, but not every German on the planet hated Jew). Sure governments and organizations might use racism as a tool, act upon racism, or activity attempt genocide, but that can be expected to happen, the PCs don't have to go along with it (hint, adventuring hook). Racism isn't absolute, nothing stops a Party made up from different races from working together


You're assuming uniformity, which is highly unlikely; they WILL include other things, and if you don't think they will, then you need to get a reality check. They will release splatbooks which assume city settings, they will rerelease popular campaign settings such as Ebberron, and there will be other types of adventures than "go into the forest and kill goblins".

But the generic setting for 4E will be "Big world with no civilizations/nations and the good races are in a wilderness with monsters attacking them". in 3E the generic assumption was far less specific. I will need to have specific splat books to support a play style taht should be supported from teh get go



They're already acting under most of these assumptions anyway, much as you like to not acknowledge that, and yet you still seem to buy their products. Seems to me you aren't really paying attention to what is happening now.

you make this claim, and yet have no proof. It is a simplistic assumption that 'Everything' in D&D is one particular way rightfully, and that is the way it should be



This does nothing to counter my argument and is entirely a matter of taste.

Yes it does, i'm saying that you don't need points of Light to make a good adventure game, and that making the game run under one assumption is silly and close minded. you don't need points of light to make a good game. Your entire argument is based on personal preference and the idea that D&D should be one particular way instead of being left up to the particular group


Because it is good for the game to give some guidance to new GMs; it is very easy for an experienced GM to throw out fluff if they want to.

That isn't a justification, taht is what settings are for. New DMs should ether make their own worlds using the rules, or use a pre made setting. If 4E came up with different world options or different types of worlds (points of light being one) then i'd be fine, but forcing a single world type upon everybody who plays 4E is limiting.


Are you saying you're incapable of doing so?
Don't be simplistic, i'm not saying that, nor have i ever. I am saying that having only one world idea for generic D&D that the entire game based on one particular world idea.


This, again, doesn't in any way affect my point.


other than countering your claim


You're assuming this is possible. I don't really know that it is. I've yet to play a game which allowed for such.

3.5 tries. in DMG there is a section on high, mid, and low magic settings. It fails because its crunch is screwed up, but it tries to make that option open


Yes there is. They're heroes. They are a cut above. The reason you play Aragon and not Bob the Farmer is because Aragon is a hero and Bob is not. Heroes ARE different from everyone else because they're self-selecting; fundamentally, if there wasn't something special about them the story wouldn't focus on them. That is why they are different. This is an entirely logical reason for it; the players are taking on the roles of the best, not of the mediocre.
As a said again and again on the thread on this topic
That isn't an in game reason.
1) Aragorn wasn't born super powerful, he became super powerful, very different. The same way high level PC/NPCs are considered powerful, he worked his way up
2) if the PCs are Aragorn from the very start level 1, then it is just silly? Why? What in game reason makes these half dozen Aragorns running around the world with unique special powers. No reason is given at all
3) You can be talented and powerful without being unique one of kind heros (which falls apart in any world with more than one PC group)


Not to mention they can also be the chosen ones/blessed by the gods/cursed by awesome/what have you. There are plenty of plausible in-game reasons for their specialness. But I prefer my explanation better.

1. You explanation is a meta game explanation
2. There is no given in game reason. you can make one, but i shouldn't have to, if WOTC is going to make them super special, then they should have a given reason more than "they are played by real people)


This is a flawed assumption. The DM does not want or need complete control, but he SHOULD be able to control (roughly) when people are likely to live or die.
This is a close minded assumption. The DM makes the world based on rules, if the rules say people die, well they die. D&D is not a story telling game, it is a rule based game. A DM can opt to make the game story telling based, but doesn't have to, and nothing in 3E makes him do so



As a DM, I don't want people dying to random stupid stuff; I want them to die heroically, ignomously, or hilariously if they are a PC. It isn't much fun for your PC to randomly die to the first orc you run into because he rolled a natural twenty.
That is verisimilitude, the idea that you can fail, the idea that you can die, the idea that the world doesn't bend backwards to make you heros, if you screw up, you die. Hence the motivation not to screw up, to be afraid of death, the feeling that this is an immersing world, and fate isn't being twisted to keep you alive until it is dramatic. If i know that random orc won't kill me, then what do i have to fear? If i die, then i roll up a new character and move on, this time trying harder to be more careful.


Part of a good RPG is to slant the odds in the favor of the heroes on an individual encounter basis because otherwise they're going to die horribly very, very quickly.

Yet again, a very close minded and absolutist view on what makes an RPG "good" If the PCs die horrible because of the dangerous stuff that exist in the world, well then wow, that must because it is dangerous stuff. OMG, the dangerous stuff can kill you, wow, that must be motivation to be careful. Nothing in the Fluff establishes the PCs as "chosen ones" or the people who the world's fate revolves around, they are protected from the gods or anything like that. A consistent world needs to have odds based on teh situation, not on what is most dramatic.

4E needs this option available for both people, not just one group



It is a demon-haunted world; they should own much of it. And in any event, they are MONSTERS; indeed, the real question is not why do the monsters own the world but how have the squishy humans survived in the face of dragons and various other things?

In 4E? I have no idea. In 3E there is a reason, no idea in 4E




Why is it a good assumption?Because it is a -correct- assumption.

Base this on something now


People play RPGs to be heroes. Yes, some people do enjoy being the bad guys from time to time, but far more people are interested in being heroes than villians.
Yet again, close minded. You/people you know play to be heroes, not everybody. some people, including people who like playing heroes want a consistent logical world. Some people play for role playing benefits, some people play for experiencing worlds, some people play out of a desire to use their imagination, it is nothing but close minded for you and WOTC to assume htis


As such, your game should support that basic assumption. The purpose of the game is to sell, after all, not to suit some random guy on the internet's idiosyncratic preferences.
I'm not idiosyncratic, i'm simple not close minded enough to assume that their is only one play style that WOTC needs to support.


Additionally it is a good assumption for the purposes of party cohesion. Most of 3.5 assumes the party is good or neutral; your claims otherwise are terribly fallacious at best, and outright ignorance at worst. You either haven't played much 3.5 or are trolling to even pretend that being good or neutral wasn't the base assumption of 3.5.
Prove it. Go ahead, 3E has the assumption that the party is often good or neutral, but plenty of options exist for evil characters, hell look at hte amount of books/PrCs/Classes/weapons/groups/gods/spells/feats exist for evil characters in 3.5 Yet again, your entire argument is based on one close minded assumption of what is the only/best/absolute way to play without providing one shred of evidence to support this. Anyone who disagrees is ether a troll, a fool, or idiosyncratic




No, you don't understand. You really just don't understand. Let me spell it out for you:

The purpose of evil is to be overcome by the PCs.

Why? Evil exist to effect the world. Evil groups presumably have evil goals and schemes. Evil creatures have motives and justification. Evil people do evil things, major or minor and live their lives. This isn't a video game where evil simple exist to be killed.


This is true in movies, books, video games, and RPGs. The reason this is true is because evil exists as a plot device; the reason there are evil people is to drive the plot. Evil creates antagonists for good to fight. This is the purpose of evil.
No that is the purpose of antagonists, not evil. Evil is another force effecting the world, just like good or neutral, antagonists are the direct opposes of the PCs. Very different, not everything that is evil is an antagonist and deserves to be killed (see BoED)



You may make all sorts of silly arguments to the contrary, but you're always going to be wrong. This is not a "Reality" thing, this is about storytelling. The purpose of evil in stories is to create conflict, and it has absolutely no other purpose whatsoever. Arguing otherwise is silly.

What about a consistent world? What about verisimilitude? What about play styles that (gasp) are different from WOTC's new extreme simplification of verisimilitude



You failed to answer my point at all. You just mumbled something. This is reality. RPGs are a form of collaborative storytelling. High level NPCs often cause awkwardness in such, which was why I pointed it out.

no i just don't agree with your single absolutist dictation of what is the correct way to play D&D (and an unbacked on at that)


I'm talking about structure and design. Here you are whining and complaining about them not putting in fluff for you, when just a few paragraphs earlier you were whining about them adding in fluff.

I'm complaining about the way WOTC handles fluff. Very different




3rd edition is less generic than 2nd edition was, and there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that 4th edition is any less generic than third edition was.
Other than the two advertisement books that were nothing but fluff


It may use slightly different assumptions, but your problem is you simply have rendered yourself unable to see those assumptions because you simply ASSSUME they must be so without thinking about them. Think about them. Really. There's nothing particularly generic about the druidic stuff in 2nd edition, but third edition has the massive section on the gods which is very specific, it has some very specific racial information, ect. It makes a lot of assumptions.

3E has a very generic assumption, there was no given world (if you didn't already play Grewhawk) there was no given way the world was run. They had Gods, but that was about it, and even then, the gods were really damn vague, you just had what they were god of and some basic beliefs, you could twist them however way you wanted




You appear to have little understanding of previous editions and little understanding of what the fluff books you have read are - fluff books.


prove it. Really provide evidence for once to support your points



Well, if they encountered a solar angle, I'd call it a timepiece and be done with it, eh? :P

Now, if they encountered a Solar angel, I'd handwave it. I don't need their stats at all if they aren't going to fight it and it isn't going to fight on their behalf. You're telling me to do a whole lot of work for nothing. They're powerful beings of good with limitations on what they can do; I don't really care beyond that. You don't need stats to know what being ruled by a red dragon is going to do to a populace; you need to understand its sociology, not how many D10s of fire damage its breath weapon does. I don't need stats other than what will actually affect the game.
This sort of attatuid is exactly what makes 4E like a video game, things exist only to interact with the PCs, not to interact with the world. They basically like a video game, and is yet another verisimilitude killing decision. The Solar should exist outside its interaction with the PCs. Its abilities should effect how it interacts with the world, how it fights evil, how it interacts in its society, how it aids the forces of heaven, what it can do to help hte PCs or others ect.



And I don't see you suppling a reason why it would focus on it. Your argument is at its core fallacious. You say you want less fluff, but then you complain when they remove stuff. If you want evil v evil, then add it yourself as you claim you want to do.

1. yeah i did, again and again and again. Mainly it increases verisimilitude and WOTC reason for removing it is silly and illogical

Here is the thing, evil has aways fought evil. Evil generally goes against unity (i know this isn't totally true but here me out) because it has no restrictions it makes it inclined to fight itself, evil creature don't have to have any moral qualms about anything and are all selfish (the core motive of evil). Some evil organizations can work together fine, but even in them back stabbing and infighting are to be expected. Now some evil organizations could be perfectly unified, as they don't think themselves as evil and believe what they are doing is right, and so can be quite loyal to each other. Often times these groups might fight other evil groups who oppose them, because evil people don't need to make compromises with other groups. Also loyal evil people can and do exist in the D&D world, but for every evil person that is loyal to his comrades there are three who aren't. goblins, orcs, bugbears, orges and Gnolls all have a strong live, weak die philosophy, are generally selfish, worship evil deities and have no real loyalties to each other other than cultural ties or religion (generally via WOTC, they haven't mentioned anything about changing that). Evil cultist, ambitious people, and differing evil churches still exist i believe and would make perfect sense to fight each other. Mercenaries, bandits, and general evil people have no problems to fight each other over the normal things people fight over (pride, women, loot, power, ambition, power, or grudges) and unlike good people that don't have any moral problems with doing so. When you talk about creatures like demon or devils who's nature are violently opposed to each other, them fighting each other makes sense, and demons fighting each other matches their chaotic nature, devil's are naturally ambitious. So evil fighting each other makes perfect sense. Now in 4E it won't be doing so as much. My question is why? Why aren't they fighting? to my knowledge they aren't getting more organized, they aren't getting some sort of unification, their isn't some sort of binding force making them work together, so why? Why are the not killing each other as much. The given reason? Because for some reason WOTC thinks that evil fighting itself keeps it from fighting the PCs. Now my two questions
1) We know that evil fighting itself doesn't hinder the PCs, we've had three editions of evil doing that without a problem. what, do they want the PCs to take on all of the evil in the multi verse now?
2) how does evil fighting itself keep the attention away from the PCs? Normally the PCs take advantage of that,

2. I want open options when it comes to fluff, not arbitrary fluff.



What you're actually sounding like you want, as many people have pointed out in this thread, is for them to cater to your personal fluff preferences, which is just silly - they aren't going to. Learn to live with it.

I'm complaining about WOTC alienating people who enjoy verisimilitude and standing up and voicing what makes me upset. If any sort of play style is alienated then the person in question has a right to complain, are you saying that people who don't like CoDvilla have no right to stand up and say why it annoys them?


It isn't that they don't ever fight each other so much as it takes place offscreen and thus affects the players less than having ability X, Y, or Z does. They have finite time, quit whining. I'd rather they focus on making the game fun, interesting, and balanced than telling me the details of racial emnities which are unlikely to come up in my campaigns.

1.If disagreeing about WOTC decisions is whining, then you are basically going under the assumption that WOTC can do what ever hte hell they want
2. If the world isn't like a video game and remotely consistent, then yes things will happen off screen will effect them, just like things were aren't instantly aware of still effect us. Or if i use a rather ironic example, the Game Witcher things effect you that you aren't aware of until last minute, in the game Baldur's Gate and Jade Empire this is true to a far lesser extent. Any consistent world will have thing happening other than the PCs existent


Read my paragraph. Read it again. Read it again. Read it again. Keep doing so until you understand. I answered this question in the paragraph, with these sentences: Which is more important, something which directly affects the PCs or something which does not? The former, obviously.

1. Yeah i read what you wrote. And guess what? I disagree. i don't believe that your absolutist idea of fun and not fun is in fact correct, nor that i should accept you are right simple because you say so and i should apparently support WOTC decisions i disagree with simple because you say that the game is played in a certain way
2. Things taht don't effect hte PCs directly will effect them indirectly.


You see, your problem is you aren't reading what I wrote. Read it again. And again. Or just read the bolded sentence I wrote previously.

If you aren't going to read what I write, why are you posting in response?


No my problem is that i disagree. I am not arrogant enough to assume there should only be one way to play a game, nor close minded enough to assume that D&D should be played in one particular manner. I want a new edition yes, but i want one that is fun for more than one group of people, that supports different play styles and doesn't have an absolutist idea of what is fun and what is not. Everything you've written boils down to "This is how the game works, this is how it has always worked, this is the only way you can have fun with this system, stop whining and accept it, your wrong" And this is nothing more than absurdly simplistic as well as oppressive of other options. and yet again, close minded. You aren't arguing, you are dictating, what you say is right, what I say is wrong. Any attempt to call me a troll is under this simple hypocritical.

Some people DO enjoy internal evil conflicts, but a lot don't.
prove it. I never noticed a mass of complaints and demands for less evil vs.evil fighting.





They are more competant than you are. They are not perfect, but they're much better at this than you. You have shown little comprehension of their design processes. And this does make the game better, given they are focusing more on more important things. They prioritized things which more players would use and enjoy, which is a good thing and is the mark of a good company and a good product.
It turns out that you simple saying something is a good product doesn't make it so. You make grand claims of its greatness and usefulness as a good product as much as WOTC staff, but you haven't proved it, you haven't argued it more than "This is what is fun, this is what isn't" you haven't supported things. Your justification for there competence and their proper prioritizing as well as my apparent lack competence or game design is nothing more than your apparent inability to accept other play styles or options.
Plenty of other people disagree with WOTC and 4E hence the many threads on this matter. According to you they are wrong because your way is the way D&D is played period.


I explained what making the game better consists of, and you clearly don't understand it and, it would seem to me, don't want to understand it.


I didn't evade the questions at all, you simply didn't understand my answers.
No i disagree with you definition. Because guess what? You apparent inarguable knowledge of game design is nothing more tan total absolutism and stating your options as truth


Large parts of Eberron also have that feel (the eldeen reaches for example).
Key word, parts. The concept itself is ok, but the entire world isn't like that, different types of play styles are supported in ebberon



Heck, in a song of fire and ice, travelling on major highways between a nearby barony and the capital was considered suicidal without a small army along!

During peacetime, it wasn't points of light: but peace only existed in the first part of the first book. Soon afterwards, things fell apart. Bandits are everywhere, and worse things. And we all know it will get worse before it gets better.
1. That is because of a civil war and banditry, which is something to be expected in a consistent world.
2. Oh what are the odds of Song of Fire and Ice's world getting darker and nastier. Like that would ever happen. I mean it isn't like we've lost any main characters right?:smallbiggrin:
from
EE

fendrin
2008-03-02, 07:29 PM
EE,

Prove to me that 4e forces DMs to use the core fluff.
Unless a DM is forced to use that fluff, it doesn't matter.

In my opinion, WotC has gone for fluff that enables the most simple type of campaign (the stereotypical dungeon crawl). The idea here is that if the DM is capable of running a more advanced type of campaign, they are capable of using different fluff.

One other request, less important than the first: can you give is some examples of setting-generic WotC-published 3e modules would not work with the points of light concept? I can't think of any, but I don't own many.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-02, 08:19 PM
EE,

Prove to me that 4e forces DMs to use the core fluff.
Unless a DM is forced to use that fluff, it doesn't matter.

In my opinion, WotC has gone for fluff that enables the most simple type of campaign (the stereotypical dungeon crawl). The idea here is that if the DM is capable of running a more advanced type of campaign, they are capable of using different fluff.

One other request, less important than the first: can you give is some examples of setting-generic WotC-published 3e modules would not work with the points of light concept? I can't think of any, but I don't own many.Oberroni Fallacy. Just because I can doesn't mean that should be the default assumption.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-02, 08:41 PM
As a said again and again on the thread on this topic
That isn't an in game reason.
1) Aragorn wasn't born super powerful, he became super powerful, very different. The same way high level PC/NPCs are considered powerful, he worked his way up

Aragorn was a 1/2 Elf. In LOTR any elfness made you powerful.



2) if the PCs are Aragorn from the very start level 1, then it is just silly? Why? What in game reason makes these half dozen Aragorns running around the world with unique special powers. No reason is given at all

Again, all elves in LOTR were powerful.

Rutee
2008-03-02, 08:49 PM
Oberroni Fallacy. Just because I can doesn't mean that should be the default assumption.

Oberonni Fallacy does not apply to fluff, which technically speaking is supposed to be handcrafted by the GM. Guidelines are well and good, but you will depart from established fluff unless you make a slavish effort not to. It applies to the idea that the system is balanced/fine just because a 'competent GM' will always know the perfect houserule/adjudication.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-02, 08:53 PM
It's a part of the books that is not only utterly worthless, but is intrinsically tied to the way the mechanics work and creates an expectation in the minds of the players that that is how the game will be played. Maybe it's not Oberroni, but it's pretty darn close.

Rutee
2008-03-02, 08:57 PM
FFS. What are you talking about, suck fluff inextricably tied to mechanics? The new Cosmology?

SamTheCleric
2008-03-02, 08:58 PM
So it's an overhaul of the entire system... you expected nothing to change? :smallconfused:

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-02, 09:00 PM
Paladins, among others.

Rutee
2008-03-02, 09:02 PM
....So... the non LG Gods getting champions was stupid? I really hope you mean "The concept behind the Paladin Class from the word Go", because they've /been/ that way.

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 09:38 PM
Aragorn was a 1/2 Elf. In LOTR any elfness made you powerful.

WTF? No he wasn't. His ancestor 28 generations back was a half elf i think, but the reason why he is awesome is because of his training. He wasn't born and was all like "I'm awesome"



Again, all elves in LOTR were powerful.

But there is an in game reason for said power, it wasn't just "they are powerful, because..........the pot demands it. There was a justification for it, namely immortality.

EE,


Prove to me that 4e forces DMs to use the core fluff.
Unless a DM is forced to use that fluff, it doesn't matter.

That isn't the point, the point is all D&D not setting books will be based on using this core fluff. Sure i can change that, but i can also make monks a useful class, diplomacy logical and druids less powerful, but that still makes it WOTC fault in the first place.


In my opinion, WotC has gone for fluff that enables the most simple type of campaign (the stereotypical dungeon crawl). The idea here is that if the DM is capable of running a more advanced type of campaign, they are capable of using different fluff.
Here i can come up with a solution. Don't give us any generic idea. Just let us come up with our own worlds, own fluff, and own style of play. If people want simplicity, then WOTC can pocket more money but selling a small book on that point of light subject. If other people want political or nation based worlds, well give us that. But don't make the core assumption aimed at only one play style


One other request, less important than the first: can you give is some examples of setting-generic WotC-published 3e modules would not work with the points of light concept? I can't think of any, but I don't own many.

Every single part of the Races series, FR, Ebberon (except for those specifically stated to be in a wild area and that is ok) Cityscape, want more?


...So... the non LG Gods getting champions was stupid? I really hope you mean "The concept behind the Paladin Class from the word Go", because they've /been/ that way.
If you want champion of the gods, you get knights, Crusaders or clerics. If you want champions of goodness, you get paladins. Hence their point

from
EE

horseboy
2008-03-02, 09:44 PM
But there is an in game reason for said power, it wasn't just "they are powerful, because..........the pot demands it.
I thought the pot demanded funyuns. :smallconfused:

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 10:07 PM
I thought the pot demanded funyuns. :smallconfused:

what?
from
EE

BRC
2008-03-02, 10:08 PM
The thing is, sure fluff can and will be changed, but the WoTC rules are the common denominator, and therefore should be used when discussing alignments.

horseboy
2008-03-02, 10:11 PM
Funyuns (http://www.fritolay.com/fl/flstore/cgi-bin/Nutrition_ProdID_3049.htm).

Man, now I've got the munchies.

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 10:13 PM
Funyuns (http://www.fritolay.com/fl/flstore/cgi-bin/Nutrition_ProdID_3049.htm).

Man, now I've got the munchies.

sign, yes horseboy, we have the those don't worry
from
EE

Matthew
2008-03-02, 10:17 PM
WTF? No he wasn't. His ancestor 28 generations back was a half elf i think, but the reason why he is awesome is because of his training. He wasn't born and was all like "I'm awesome"

Actually... one of Aragorn's ancestors was a Maiar, and one of Bilbo's ancestors was rumoured to be a Fairy. Tolkien followed fairly standard conventions with regard to the heritage of his heroes. Not to mention that only Aragorn could command the army of the dead on account of being a descendent of kings.

I'm not saying Aragorn didn't deserve his victories by dint of his own achievements, but his awesomeness was in part due to his heritage.

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 10:37 PM
Actually... one of Aragorn's ancestors was a Maiar, and one of Bilbo's ancestors was rumoured to be a Fairy. Tolkien followed fairly standard conventions with regard to the heritage of his heroes. Not to mention that only Aragorn could command the army of the dead on account of being a descendent of kings.

I'm not saying Aragorn didn't deserve his victories by dint of his own achievements, but his awesomeness was in part due to his heritage.

1. The grand mother of that half elf was a Maiar
2. The difference is that there is an in game reason for his power, because in Tolkien's world Birthright=power. It is an accepted fact. not so in 4E, because no in game reason is given
from
EE

fendrin
2008-03-02, 10:46 PM
Oberroni Fallacy. Just because I can doesn't mean that should be the default assumption.

BS Fallacy. They can't include all possible fluff, therefore no matter what they put in would be considered an OF by your definition.


Aragorn was a 1/2 Elf. In LOTR any elfness made you powerful.

No. Arwen was a half-elf. Aragorn was a Numenorean, which were similar in concept to an ubermensch, except that they had, for the most part, had their superior genetics diluted into the general gene pool that is non-numenorean humankind. It was rare for any individual human to have enough numenorean blood to be significantly super-human. The Gondoran royalty, having kept their bloodline more or less 'pure', are significantly super-human.


That isn't the point, the point is all D&D not setting books will be based on using this core fluff. Sure i can change that, but i can also make monks a useful class, diplomacy logical and druids less powerful, but that still makes it WOTC fault in the first place.
It is absolutely the point. It has always been assumed that DMs would create their own fluff. The same is not true of crunch.
You cannot conflate fluff and crunch!
Crunch exists to have a (more or less) balanced, fun, fair game.
Fluff exists to have a context in which to use crunch.
Both are important, but they function completely differently.


Here i can come up with a solution. Don't give us any generic idea. Just let us come up with our own worlds, own fluff, and own style of play. If people want simplicity, then WOTC can pocket more money but selling a small book on that point of light subject. If other people want political or nation based worlds, well give us that. But don't make the core assumption aimed at only one play style
You are one of a rather (numerically) insignificant minority that has a problem with having to eliminate fluff from core. It's really not difficult, and I would be willing to bet you already do it (though I doubt you would ever admit it).

On the other hand, creating consistent fluff can be one of the most difficult tasks a DM ever has to tackle. Therefore the obvious thing is for WotC to include fluff that is basic, consistent, and easily removeable/augmentable.

Seems to me they have done the right thing.


Every single part of the Races series, FR, Ebberon (except for those specifically stated to be in a wild area and that is ok) Cityscape, want more?
Good examples... of you not reading what I wrote.
1. I said non-setting specific (so no FR, no Eberron, etc)
2. I asked for modules, not supplements.

As for what you brought up... no. It all still works (well, except for the setting specific stuff, but that intrinsically assumes you are cutting core fluff anyway).

The point is that the 'points of light' concept is nothing new. Like the class roles, it is an old idea codified, and in effect changes nothing, just makes some things easier.

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 11:35 PM
It is absolutely the point. It has always been assumed that DMs would create their own fluff. The same is not true of crunch.
You cannot conflate fluff and crunch!
Crunch exists to have a (more or less) balanced, fun, fair game.
Fluff exists to have a context in which to use crunch.
Both are important, but they function completely differently.

Crunch determinds how you effect the game. The Crunch the mechanics of the fluff. For example in 1-3E thieves are sort of sneaky trap guys with kinda duelist style fighting. Now they are fancy acrobatic dudes. Different flavor, different crunch.
the DM should make their own worlds to suit their own tastes.


You are one of a rather (numerically) insignificant minority that has a problem with having to eliminate fluff from core. It's really not difficult, and I would be willing to bet you already do it (though I doubt you would ever admit it).

Oh really, when misquoting reaches the point of absurdly dense it just gets pathetic. I don't use core fluff to the letter, i've never said i do, i've already made that clear. You assumption on this shows that you ether don't read posts, or can grasp basic concepts. If the former, do your reaserch. If the latter, well i can't help you.
I don't use 3E's fluff to the letter, i make my own. But can alter their fluff into something i like. And in terms of world fluff, there isn't any in 3E, just gods and basic race descriptions. However now, the assumption of the fluff for core is set in stone. I can change it sure, that doesn't excuse WOTC however.



On the other hand, creating consistent fluff can be one of the most difficult tasks a DM ever has to tackle. Therefore the obvious thing is for WotC to include fluff that is basic, consistent, and easily removeable/augmentable.

Wow, then we have a lesson here. If your going to be a DM, make sure your good at it. Really through, if that was WOTC concern they could just make a short section in the DMG on "How to make a world" not bass all of the core/splat book fluff on one concept of a world. That is what settings are for

Seems to me they have done the right thing.


A
s for what you brought up... no. It all still works (well, except for the setting specific stuff, but that intrinsically assumes you are cutting core fluff anyway).
It works ether way. the Races series assume that all of the races live in nations what can see relative peace, a concept impossible with points of light. I can play it ether way



The point is that the 'points of light' concept is nothing new. Like the class roles, it is an old idea codified, and in effect changes nothing, just makes some things easier.
I never said it was something new, it is now however official, instead of optional
from
EE

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-03, 02:22 AM
Um, where did you get that idea? We have a different cosmology, not great wheel, but why would there be less spells

Because, fundamentally, it is simply a looser cosmology in the sense that you don't need spells which reference a lot of specific cosmological things, such as which plane you contact and the like, as well as various other tie-ins (like the Plane of Shadow which, while cool, is not something every cosmology wants; same goes for the various elemental planes and the positive/negative energy planes).

Also, I suspect the new power list will simply include fewer such things, given wizards will have the number of spells they have cut down considerably.


And there were also many nations in other areas/times. They went through those areas, but hte nations did exist. If we have both civilized nations and certain dangerous "points of light " areas i'd be cool but everything that 4E is based in?

It was a points of light world. As you obviously feel that it is fine, then you have no real opposition to points of light; you just don't really understand the premise.


1. My complaint is that everything in 4E is based on one single concept, not numerous ones. If options existed for different styles of gaming, i'd be fine

There's absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever beyond "4e is combat centric", which is true of all editions of D&D. That's not necessarily a bad thing; its a system for people who want to have a good bit of solid tactical combat in their games. If you don't want fairly large amounts of good tactical combat then D&D is really not the system for you, go play something else.

Your argument that it doesn't support non-points of light is silly anyway; there's no mechanical tie-ins to points of light unless you want to argue that wilderness classes like the ranger tie into that.


2. Your experience isn't absolute. Look at FR and Ebberon, that is certainly not the case

As I pointed out before, FR acts like a points of light world in practice; when I play in FR I spend huge amounts of time where there aren't people, despite the fact that the world is obstensibly "full". Eberron is distinct because it is non-points of light.


3. Why? Why can't you have both nations and wilderness based games? FR pulled it off, Ebberon pulled it off, i fail to see the problem

You're whining over silly things. Again, I already answered these above, and as I pointed out, there are NO RULES WHATSOEVER which dictate "no, your world can't be a giant sprawling metropolis". It may make some class abilities less useful, but the same is true of all editions of D&D - if you stray too far from the basic premise of high fantasy the system will get a bit weirder.


1. Baseless, even WOTC mentioned the change

WOTC acknowledged it, but they're trying to sell it as a new edition; saying "We decided to acknowledge what we've been doing for a long time" isn't a great way to sell a product to people like you. Their claims are change are dubious at best; every D&D product I've ever purchased operated on the points of light premise.


2. It supports one type of adventuring better. That is limiting and close minded on WOTC's part, alienating potential customers.

It will always support one type of adventuring better than others; that is to say, D&D is oreinted towards dungeon crawls and interior combat. Any system MUST make such choices; they chose the popular and enduring archetype. Your whining shows you don't even understand it isn't a change. It isn't a change. You're wrong. There were TWO wilderness classes, arguably three, in 3.x core. There is now one. And you're claiming they're favoring it? Seriously. Get a grip.

They are going to give the most support to what makes them the most money; quit whining about it. That's the correct decision.


3. Yeah it will have an effect, any book i buy from 4E will be working under that assumption that all of their worlds will work under point of light. Any other style is no longer supported.

Whine whine whine. You said you hate fluff, yet this is easily ignored fluff and it is already an inherent premise of all current D&D products (barring Eberron). You BOUGHT fluff books. You are whining specifically because you didn't get your way. You don't understand that such premises must underly any good system. The basic premise of D&D is very popular, and frankly, fairly adaptable.

Your whining is not "I want it general." Your whining is "I want it MY way", and you're just pretending to yourself it is otherwise.

Seriously, this is the way things are already in the D&D products I purchase, so I see no reason they'd arbitrarily change it. Maybe you are far, far more attached to the fluff that you want us to believe, eh?

And different campaign settings may function different ways; who knows if Eberron will be points of light? FR won't be, but that's not really a change anyway.


1. Every game you played has been set in certain places, that is you. For others, games have been set in the detailed cities/ nations the've made up. in FR both concepts can be supported, not just one. Just because you only played points of light, it is simple arrogant to assume that nobody who played FR used the massively detailed nations ever.

Neverwinter Nights and the various expansions? Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? I don't think it is arrogant to assume that points of light is the way it is, given that those are prominent products which seem to operate under the model (though the original NWN campaign less so than the others). And what I've seen in Dungeon magazine has mostly been the same sort of formula - something happens to the adventurers while travelling, or they are in town and end up getting sent out to wherever to do whatever in the wilderness.


4. Prove that this is the only way to play D&d, not that it is the only way you played D&D

Here, yet again, you show your inability to comprehend the written word. Did I say this was the ONLY way to play D&D? The answer is, of course, no.

What I said was this was the most popular and common way to play D&D, which is why 4th edition (rightly) focuses on it.

Your argument is "this is the way HE plays D&D", but that isn't the argument I'm making at all. The point is that the majority of D&D campaigns operate in this fashion, so the rules, logically, should support the majority of the campaigns over the minority. Fundamentally, they have more money than you do, so their desires come above yours, and if it is between yours and theirs, theirs will always win.

I NEVER once said this was the way you had to play D&D. YOU said that's what I said, but this is what is known as a "straw man argument", which is to say, you make up something then attack it. The problem is that it really just shows that you have absolutely no answer to me and are a small, petty individual.


1. Prove it. Prove that it is official in 3.5 that all of the main races work together in some unified force.

Half-elves and city composition rules. QED?

Even more though, read the "relations" sections of the races. Humans get along with EVERYONE; they're called "everyone's second-best friends". Fundamentally, the only racism at all exhibited towards any core race is the half-orcs; all the others get along famously as mentioned in their racial relations entries.

And you don't think this isn't the status quo? Maybe you should, I dunno, read the PHB?


3. Yet again, your are basing this off limited personal experience and the idea of one "absolute true" way of playing, when we have had racisim as a tool exist in 3.5 products

Your argument is "racism should be the default", when obviously racism is not currently the default and is a good way to annoy players who want to play varied races in a campaign. Again, who are they going to want to support more, the people who want to be able to run whatever race they choose or you? The answer is clearly the former.

There is absolutely nothing which says "You cannot allow racism in your campaign world", but it would be stupid to make that the default as clearly people enjoy being able to play whatever race they choose without having a high chance of being forced to wait outside of city X.

You are arguing that YOUR idiosynchratic preference should be preferred, when clearly the opposite should be from a business standpoint. There's nothing preventing you from changing the fluff which you supposedly don't care about, is there? What mechanical impact will lack of racism have on the game? I'm going to go with "none". Racism might have an impact on crunch, but lack of racism won't, so again, it should be the preferred position as it is easier to add in racial distrust than to take away built-in special abilities.

You lose. Horribly. As I said, maybe you should try reading what you comment on, eh?


Was every single personal of those ethnic groups racist? No, assuming every German was a radical anti Semite (the racism existed, i'm not denying that, but not every German on the planet hated Jew). Sure governments and organizations might use racism as a tool, act upon racism, or activity attempt genocide, but that can be expected to happen, the PCs don't have to go along with it (hint, adventuring hook). Racism isn't absolute, nothing stops a Party made up from different races from working together

It does when the players can't go into certain game areas or, when they do go into those areas, one character gets left out because they can't show their face in the city. That's just bad, and in many of those cases that is the sort of thing which happened.

Yes, racism CAN be a very fun adventure hook, but it should not be forced onto players and GMs. You want to force it onto people, when clearly it is unpopular.


But the generic setting for 4E will be "Big world with no civilizations/nations and the good races are in a wilderness with monsters attacking them". in 3E the generic assumption was far less specific. I will need to have specific splat books to support a play style taht should be supported from teh get go

Actually, the basic premise of both is "Big world with civilizations being spread out and relatively small with monsters attacking them periodically", usually with vague allusions to the former glory of past civilizations. But the world the PCs live in is generically that sort of world; it was in second edition as well.


you make this claim, and yet have no proof. It is a simplistic assumption that 'Everything' in D&D is one particular way rightfully, and that is the way it should be

And you're making that assumption, that it should be YOUR way, when it is clear WotC's market research has shown otherwise.

You think WotC doesn't do market research? It does. It does a lot of market research, and very good market research. That's why its games sell so well. You clearly cannot wrap your brain around this fact.

And it isn't "rightfully", it is "base assumption". They're going to make the base assumption which pleases the most people and allows for the DM to set up a story fairly easily. Points of light is ideal for such purposes.


Yes it does, i'm saying that you don't need points of Light to make a good adventure game, and that making the game run under one assumption is silly and close minded. you don't need points of light to make a good game. Your entire argument is based on personal preference and the idea that D&D should be one particular way instead of being left up to the particular group

You're being closed-minded; you're claiming fluff with absolutely no crunch impact whatsoever (well, besides the enormously thick monster manual, but that has always been true of D&D, yet another point in my favor - where else are all these monsters?) will cripple your ability to play the new edition when it is already taht way. It isn't that you HAVE to play it that way; it is that it is the base assumption. They must make some basic assumptions about the world you're going to be in, and as the points of light model is popular and good for adventure, that's what they're going to go for.

My argument is not one of personal preference; it is yours which is one of personal preference. My point is that they're going to do what makes the most economic sense for them, and they know that they aren't going to please everyone, ESPECIALLY people like you, so they will focus on pleasing the average gamer which buys their products, while simultaneously not making the game so tied-into that premise that you MUST play that way.

The default setting of 2nd edition was points of light, yet there was nothing preventing you from playing in a vast empire or a collection of feudal kingdoms where the focus was on fighting the other kingdoms rather than random monsters. You suffer from the bizzare delusion that points of light being the default makes it so they can come into your living room, slap you across the face, and say "I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Starfox!"


That isn't a justification, taht is what settings are for. New DMs should ether make their own worlds using the rules, or use a pre made setting. If 4E came up with different world options or different types of worlds (points of light being one) then i'd be fine, but forcing a single world type upon everybody who plays 4E is limiting.

Wrong. The point of the PHB, DMG, and MM is that is all you need to play; they're going to make it so you have a vague idea of a good setting. Given the rest of us can easily ignore it if we so will (as you clearly do), there's absolutely no reason they won't use the basic premise to market the game. The reason they're making FR points of light is to be more condusive to new DMs; it is going to be a simpler setting and easier for them to use, while simultaneously not requiring them to buy more books to run a game at all if they've never played D&D before.

They aren't "forcing" points of light on you. You're suffering from the same bizzare delusion as the people who say WotC is "forcing" them to play 4th edition. They're doing nothing of the sort. You can do what you want and the crunch is simply not going to affect your ability to run inter-kingdom intrigues.


other than countering your claim

How does it counter my claim at all? That was my POINT; it doesn't adress it.


3.5 tries. in DMG there is a section on high, mid, and low magic settings. It fails because its crunch is screwed up, but it tries to make that option open

No it doesn't. Saying "blah blah blah low magic" doesn't mean they tried at all; they basically threw it in as an untested option. It fails because the crunch has to decide one way or the other; every edition decides that way. In 2nd edition, every world was low magic; in 3rd edition, every world was monty haul by comparison. Fourth edition looks like it is going back towards the second edition model.


As a said again and again on the thread on this topic
That isn't an in game reason.

Yes it is, you just don't understand the logic. I know it is hard for you, but you're going to actually have to think about the argument and try to comprehend it; you have obviously decided not to do so. Try to understand the argument, and you will be a lot better off for it.

Suffice to say there IS an in-game reason Aragon is special; there is an in-game reason Frodo and Bilbo were special too. The books focused on these special people; the fellowship of the ring were nine special people, nine heroes. They weren't randomly picked; they were special in various ways for various reasons. They were heroes due to their natures and their pasts, plus two random hobbits (Sam and Frodo were both special, and hobbits in general were somewhat special as well).

The reason YOU are Aragon is because that is more fun. You aren't super-powered, but you're a cut above the normal person at the start, and eventually develop into a greater and greater hero. But you start out a cut above; that's why the action centers on you. We wouldn't be playing this character if they weren't special in some way.

Your complaints show you don't understand the basic premise of high fantasy, so I just explained it to you. Try to listen, read, and comprehend it.


2. There is no given in game reason. you can make one, but i shouldn't have to, if WOTC is going to make them super special, then they should have a given reason more than "they are played by real people)

Here you are contradicting yourself again. Earlier you said they SHOULDN'T force a playstyle down your throat, now you're claiming they SHOULD? Earlier you were claiming they SHOULDN'T force fluff down your throat, now you're saying they should?

This indicates you are arguing for the sake of arguing; e.g. you are a troll.

Frankly, my storytelling explanation is entirely logical and coherent; the ydon't need to come up with some reason for why the heroes are heroes because that has a good chance of influencing crunch. If you're the chosen of the gods/have special bloodlines/what have you, that will have crunchy, in-game consequences; by leaving it open-ended as to why these people are special (and they do not have to be unique, something you apparently don't comprehend) they don't have to put in crunch which pulls it one way or the other.

Fundamentally, the points of light fluff doesn't tie their hands on crunch; the crunch needs to be able to support that, but that's really just having a lot of various kinds of monsters and good mechanics for interior and wilderness combat, which can be fairly genericized in and of themselves. It also does what is important, giving starting DMs a jumping point and basic comprehension of high fantasy. Defining why heroes are heroes DOES tie their hands, so they wisely left it open and a starting set of players will probably either choose to make themselves special or simply not question it.


This is a close minded assumption. The DM makes the world based on rules, if the rules say people die, well they die. D&D is not a story telling game, it is a rule based game. A DM can opt to make the game story telling based, but doesn't have to, and nothing in 3E makes him do so

No, this isn't a close-minded assumption; this is part of game design, something you don't understand. D&D is a roleplaying game, which means that if people die (the closest thing there is to losing in D&D), they should feel that their death meant something, that it wasn't just a random, stupid death but that they died doing something meaningful (or at least amusing to the player). The point of D&D is to have fun, and giving the DM more ability to make the leathal points in the story, the parts which are the most dangerous, center around meaningful and interesting combat and other situations is a good thing.

If you had any comprehension of what roleplaying gamers want, you'd understand that.


That is verisimilitude, the idea that you can fail, the idea that you can die, the idea that the world doesn't bend backwards to make you heros, if you screw up, you die. Hence the motivation not to screw up, to be afraid of death, the feeling that this is an immersing world, and fate isn't being twisted to keep you alive until it is dramatic. If i know that random orc won't kill me, then what do i have to fear? If i die, then i roll up a new character and move on, this time trying harder to be more careful.

Anyone can die in my D&D campaigns, but the point is that no, a hero DOESN'T die to that random orc; they may die to the orc general, or his pet wyvern, or the horde of orcs they woke up in the barracks, but a random orc on guard duty doesn't randomly off a hero with an axe.

The point of the game is not to be simulationist (something you seem not to comprehend) but rather to be enjoyable joint storytelling in the form of a game. That's much more popular than simulationism, which is why the much more abstract D&D and World of Darkness triumph over systems where heroes are much more likely to die.


Yet again, a very close minded and absolutist view on what makes an RPG "good" If the PCs die horrible because of the dangerous stuff that exist in the world, well then wow, that must because it is dangerous stuff. OMG, the dangerous stuff can kill you, wow, that must be motivation to be careful. Nothing in the Fluff establishes the PCs as "chosen ones" or the people who the world's fate revolves around, they are protected from the gods or anything like that. A consistent world needs to have odds based on teh situation, not on what is most dramatic.

This isn't closed-mindedness; that's what you suffer from. You also suffer from absolutism, as proven by your post above where you say what it SHOULD be like (despite that being, again, clearly unpopular as proven by the market).

PCs dying horribly to dangerous stuff is fine, but a random orc is simply not dangerous stuff, so they should not die to them unless the situation is absolutely dire for some reason (and even then they shouldn't, to be honest - kill them with dignity, eh?)

And a realistic world is not as desirable as a fun to play in one, which is something you don't comprehend. That is YOUR problem. You don't understand that. It is fundamentally inconsistant with high fantasy.


In 4E? I have no idea. In 3E there is a reason, no idea in 4E

There is actually no reason at all why dragons don't rule the world.


Yet again, close minded. You/people you know play to be heroes, not everybody. some people, including people who like playing heroes want a consistent logical world. Some people play for role playing benefits, some people play for experiencing worlds, some people play out of a desire to use their imagination, it is nothing but close minded for you and WOTC to assume htis

I will bet you 100 dollars right here and now that WotC's market research shows me correct and you wrong. I'm serious. I'll lay a hundred real American dollars on this.

The reason that characters are heroes in so many fantasy systems is because that is much more popular than being villians; its the same reason heroes are so popular in popular entertainment. Its the reason Superman beats Lex Luthor, why Batman beats The Riddler. People want the heroes, and by extension themselves, to triumph, and while occaisonally the protagonist will be a villian, it is far, far less common. This is due to popular taste.

You seem to be under the incredibly delusional idea that we just made this up and it is entirely arbitrary. This is not at all arbitrary and is common throughout popular culture and even internationally.


I'm not idiosyncratic, i'm simple not close minded enough to assume that their is only one play style that WOTC needs to support.

Says the guy who says the game needs to be realistic at the cost of fun. You are so close-minded you can't even tell you are closed-minded.


Prove it. Go ahead, 3E has the assumption that the party is often good or neutral, but plenty of options exist for evil characters, hell look at hte amount of books/PrCs/Classes/weapons/groups/gods/spells/feats exist for evil characters in 3.5 Yet again, your entire argument is based on one close minded assumption of what is the only/best/absolute way to play without providing one shred of evidence to support this. Anyone who disagrees is ether a troll, a fool, or idiosyncratic

Of course options exist for evil characters. Guess what? The BoVD will be in 4th edition as well, and there will be tons of options for evil characters - mostly slanted towards DMs, I might add, because they are the primary consumers, but there will still be plenty which PCs can use. I'd be surprised if, for instance, necromancy wasn't still extant in some form - maybe it will be a seperate class now, but I'm sure you'll be able to create undead with a player character class eventually.

Your argument is poor, though, because 3e core has very few spells for the evil character, and most are inferior to their "good forms" (or simply less useful in the typical campaign, where most enemies are evil). Core, the premise is that you are good or neutral, but there is not a whole lot of support for an evil PC core; most of the evil PRCs are intended for DM use, not for PC use.

Splatbooks WILL exist for evil characters, but it certainly shouldn't be core for my aforementioned reasons. You should be smart enough to understand this.


What about a consistent world? What about verisimilitude? What about play styles that (gasp) are different from WOTC's new extreme simplification of verisimilitude

YES, you want to make them believable. BUT THAT IS NOT THEIR STORYTELLING PURPOSE. Their purpose in existing is to be antagonists, NOT to be believable characters. This is what you fundamentally cannot wrap your brain around. Their purpose is, first and foremost, to be antagonists; belivability is built out of that.

Simulationism, excessive realism, is simply not fun for a lot of people. They WANT to be able to throw around fireballs.

It is the DM's job to make a believable world; it is WotC's job to make good crunch which makes people want to play in that world and give that world good, consitant, and balanced mechanics which are fun to play with.

You do not understand this at all. Read what I write and actually try to comprehend it.


no i just don't agree with your single absolutist dictation of what is the correct way to play D&D (and an unbacked on at that)

No, what you disagree with is actually reading my post and thinking about what I say. I NEVER said you MUST play a certain way; what I did say is what is popular and what WotC is going to direct their efforts towards primarily to maximize their profits. Try to understand what I write. Quit with your paranoid delusions and straw man arguments. I never once said you must play the way I do; I said what people enjoy the most.

You, conversely, say that people SHOULD play the way they do. YOU are the absolutist. And your absolutionist philosophies are not popular, which is why they are not being supported by WotC.


Other than the two advertisement books that were nothing but fluff

That's not an indication of increasing amount of fluff; that's an idication of "you buying something which is blatently a fluff-only product which, if you don't like the fluff therein, you aren't going to enjoy at all". They always sell fluffy books, but that doesn't mean they're ever worth buying.

Have you ever read the Complete Villian's Handbook from 2nd edition? It has no crunch in it at all; its all about fluffing out your villians. It is quite cool, and probably the best 2nd edition purchase I made, but that's because it gives useful advice on how to construct fluff. Something which is just descriptive fluff is very hit and miss because, if you don't like it, then you'll never use it and you wasted $30.

If you buy a book entirely composed of fluff, what do you expect to get? If you expect something that isn't fluff, then you are simply being unreasonable.

Their existance says absolutely nothing about the amount of fluff in the 4th edition core books.


This sort of attatuid is exactly what makes 4E like a video game, things exist only to interact with the PCs, not to interact with the world. They basically like a video game, and is yet another verisimilitude killing decision. The Solar should exist outside its interaction with the PCs. Its abilities should effect how it interacts with the world, how it fights evil, how it interacts in its society, how it aids the forces of heaven, what it can do to help hte PCs or others ect.

This shows you don't understand what I said at all. Again, re-read and try to comprehend what I said. I have limited time too, I'm not going to bother writing up stats for something the players will never fight. They are completely valueless. All I need to know is what it is and what its goals are; its particular abilities are completely meaningless. If you don't understand that, you understand nothing. Unless the solar is going to fight on-screen, any time I spent on its statistics and abilities are utterly wasted, just wankery.

You don't need to know its attack bonus or its damage to know that it fights evil and is powerful.


I'm complaining about WOTC alienating people who enjoy verisimilitude and standing up and voicing what makes me upset. If any sort of play style is alienated then the person in question has a right to complain, are you saying that people who don't like CoDvilla have no right to stand up and say why it annoys them?

Alright, if this is your entire basis of your complaints (which, from your most recent post, it appears to be) I'm going to tell you the cold, harsh reality:

Simulationism (which is the name for your playstyle) is unpopular.

Period. End of report.

Simulationism has MASSIVE fluff consequences, as does idealism (which is what is preferred by the vast majority of gamers). Dungeons and Dragons has always been on the idealistic side of things, where idealism is the opposite of simulationism. This is not to say simulationism is bad, but rather that most people don't enjoy it as much as they enjoy idealism.

As such, Wizards of the Coast MUST make a decision there. Given their extant audience prefers the idealistic end of the scale, the populace as a whole prefers the idealistic end of the scale, AND it gets rid of a lot of problems with players randomly dying (which, I might add, is not all that popular among even simulationists when you get right down to THEIR character dying randomly) and you understand that the logical thing for them to do is to shun simulationism for idealism. Realism is not a major concern of theirs and, frankly, when people can throw fireballs from their fingertips I think it is entirely justified.

The point is that you DO have an idiosynchratic preference which you simply don't understand you have. That is your problem. There ARE systems out there for you, but D&D isn't and will never be that system.

And as for CoDzilla, that is an entirely seperate issue; balance is seperate from simulationism and idealism. I've seen both camps argue both for and against class balance, but ultimately if you understand game design you'll understand that balance is important. CoDzilla is bad because it is unbalanced and because it makes certain party members likely to feel useless or completely overshadowed.


1.If disagreeing about WOTC decisions is whining, then you are basically going under the assumption that WOTC can do what ever hte hell they want

WotC can, in fact, do whatever they want. But what they WANT to do is to sell their product to the most people possible. Understanding that will be your first step towards understanding the world at large.


2. If the world isn't like a video game and remotely consistent, then yes things will happen off screen will effect them, just like things were aren't instantly aware of still effect us. Or if i use a rather ironic example, the Game Witcher things effect you that you aren't aware of until last minute, in the game Baldur's Gate and Jade Empire this is true to a far lesser extent. Any consistent world will have thing happening other than the PCs existent

Thing is, those things only exist insofar as they influence the player; if something will never influence the player, then it may as well not exist at all.

What simulationists like yourself do not comprehend is that this isn't soley the realm of the simulationists; even idealists prefer to maintain suspension of disbelief. But we have looser standards and prefer to make the game fun over making it realistic if it comes down to a choice between the two; you believe fun and realism are intimately tied together, whereas our fun is much less directly tied to realism.

This isn't to say you are WRONG about what is fun, so much as you have different tastes. I personally enjoy hard-SF, and my Alternity campaigns attempt to be as hard-SF as possible, but in fantasy I have different tastes when I'm gaming.


1. Yeah i read what you wrote. And guess what? I disagree. i don't believe that your absolutist idea of fun and not fun is in fact correct, nor that i should accept you are right simple because you say so and i should apparently support WOTC decisions i disagree with simple because you say that the game is played in a certain way
2. Things taht don't effect hte PCs directly will effect them indirectly.

Can you try to at least type properly? It is very hard to not imply you are an argumentative 13-year old when you type "taht" instead of "that", use "here" instead of "hear", and the like. Resisting the temptation becomes all the harder given you seem to be plugging your ears and yelling at me rather than actually read what I wrote.

This time, though, you DID read what I wrote, and I think you finally understood it and thus managed to get your actual point across - you're a simulationist.

The problem is that you're missing that simulationism is not heavily supported by D&D and that something which directly influences the PCs (a monster, a spell, a power for the PCs, a piece of equipment, a magical item, or what have you) is usable by everyone, whereas four paragraphs about the blood war are usable by far, far fewer people. There's nothing WRONG with talking about the blood war and lots of evil vs evil stuff, but it really should not be an in-depth topic in the core books. That's what campaign settings are for; pre-made fluff and suchlike.

Everyone can use a power, lots of people can use a monster, but few people can use the Blood War and similar. Its just that simple. In the core rules, they want to please their base as much as possible, and as much of their base as possible.


prove it. I never noticed a mass of complaints and demands for less evil vs.evil fighting.

And I never noticed a mass of people saying "We want more information about this stuff!" Some people did, but most people simply didn't care. If most people don't care, then it isn't as important as things most people DO care about.


It turns out that you simple saying something is a good product doesn't make it so. You make grand claims of its greatness and usefulness as a good product as much as WOTC staff, but you haven't proved it, you haven't argued it more than "This is what is fun, this is what isn't" you haven't supported things. Your justification for there competence and their proper prioritizing as well as my apparent lack competence or game design is nothing more than your apparent inability to accept other play styles or options.
Plenty of other people disagree with WOTC and 4E hence the many threads on this matter. According to you they are wrong because your way is the way D&D is played period.

I have "proved" many of my points; more options in combat, for instance, greater rules coherency, ect. Those are all knowns. We know there are more combat options now. We know the way the defense system works, by and large. We know about the at will/per encounter/per day abilities, which is a fun system and gives everyone something.

My justification is in my knowledge of game design, something you really don't understand. I'm an engineer, and perhaps my explanations simply miss someone who has no knowledge of design in general because I take for granted that you will put 2 and 2 together when, in fact, you don't even realize that 2 and 2 are there.

It isn't "my way is the only way", and indeed, I haven't said that. I have said things like "simulationism is not as important to them as "fun"" and various other such things, and you don't understand what I'm talking about because you think fun is a universal constant. Different people enjoy different things, but more options is probably the most universal form of added fun there is.


I explained what making the game better consists of, and you clearly don't understand it and, it would seem to me, don't want to understand it.

No you haven't. What you've stated are your personal preferences, something you are too thick to comprehend. You don't understand that they are personal preferences.

I understand game design far better than you do; I understand far better than you do what makes for a good game in general, and I even understand what makes for a good simulationist game, something you yourself seem not to be able to verbalize very well.


On the other hand, creating consistent fluff can be one of the most difficult tasks a DM ever has to tackle. Therefore the obvious thing is for WotC to include fluff that is basic, consistent, and easily removeable/augmentable.

The only reason I forgive them for including generic gods in the core books is because creating a pantheon is a complete pain in the rear. I've done it multiple times and while I enjoy it, it is incredibly time consuming and the players, by and large, can't be bothered to care anyway (except for Derek Dragonsbane - players always love the dwarf god of dragonslaying, though that's probably because at one point, long ago in a different campaign, he was a fun PC of one of the players).

I actually dislike that they include fluff core because it confuses my players, but I understand that the purpose is basically "everyone else". Not literally, of course, but figurtively.

Artemician
2008-03-03, 06:57 AM
<snip>

You, my friend, appear to have too much free time. Don't worry, it happens to all of us. :P

Next time though, please try not to debate Paragraph by Paragraph. Posts start ballooning, and it becomes very hard for other people to participate in the discussion, even if they'd like to help you.

Just summarize the paragraphs, willya? Really. Debating in such a manner with EE is an exercise in futility, as he always has more spare time than you.

Always.

-----------------

EE, you say that Badly Written fluff is unecessary and should not be put into books, yet you decry the move to cut down on the in-built fluff in mechanics and move the system to a more generic one where fluff can be more easily removed.

Doesn't that strike you as extremely hypocritical?

Later, you also say that you hate how the system is forcing you to play a "Points of Light" setting, when in fact it's much easier now to adapt the mechanics to a different setting, given the genericization of the mechanics (Simplification of complicated/specific Planar cosmology, more uncharted lands allowing for greater DM wriggle room, decreased reliance on Magic Items). Again, that strikes me as extremely hypocritical, given that you earlier talk about how bad fluff should not even be written.

hamlet
2008-03-03, 08:29 AM
Nevermind.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-03, 09:08 AM
Nevermind.

Quoted For Truth.

:smallbiggrin:

Charity
2008-03-03, 09:48 AM
yeah ^


You, my friend, appear to have too much free time. Don't worry, it happens to all of us. :P

Next time though, please try not to debate Paragraph by Paragraph. Posts start ballooning, and it becomes very hard for other people to participate in the discussion, even if they'd like to help you.

Just summarize the paragraphs, willya?

Artemician makes a good point here, although some posters enjoy picking over the a post sentence by sentence, it rarely has the desired effect, it just encourages reply in kind it also has the unfortunate side effect of displaying text I would rather ignore.

I have never really bothered with the published fluff prefering my own.
Is there really any reason why one cannot use the new system but the old fluff?

JBento
2008-03-03, 10:00 AM
Do you not read these forums?!?!?!?!! :smallsigh: Do you not know that, should we attempt such crime againt the Order of things, then WotC will send a crack team of assassin ninja-pirates to kill you, destroy your books and erase all trace of your existence!?!?!?!?!?!?! :smallamused:

Such has been pointed out repeatedly by great posters such as Solo and is exactly the same reason why people who prefer the 3.X ruleset over the 4E's one (beats me where they got it) are so incensed!!!!!!* :smallwink:

*Derpending on who you ask, it might not be the assassin ninja-pirates team; it could be the self-destruct chips that WotC embedded in every 3.X book and that will trigger when 4E hits retail. Nevertheless, the above still stands. :smallbiggrin:

fendrin
2008-03-03, 05:13 PM
I had a lot more to say, but Artemician is right. It will only prolong the ridiculousness.

To summarize:
DMs are NOT forced to use 'Points of Light' or any other core fluff (as is evidenced by EE's admission that he does not always use the core fluff of 3e)

Therefore therefore the inclusion (or exclusion) of fluff in core does not in any way prevent anyone from playing the way they want to.

That invalidates all fluff arguments, as far as I am concerned.

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 10:36 PM
Because, fundamentally, it is simply a looser cosmology in the sense that you don't need spells which reference a lot of specific cosmological things, such as which plane you contact and the like, as well as various other tie-ins (like the Plane of Shadow which, while cool, is not something every cosmology wants; same goes for the various elemental planes and the positive/negative energy planes).

We have a different cosmology, and WOTC has made no statement that they are cutting out cosmology specific spells. Prove it.



Also, I suspect the new power list will simply include fewer such things, given wizards will have the number of spells they have cut down considerably.

We shall see


It was a points of light world. As you obviously feel that it is fine, then you have no real opposition to points of light; you just don't really understand the premise.

Dislike is different from misunderstand, a common mistake of yours. You claim it was a points of light world, and as per normal, you do nothing to prove this, and i claim that we have both points of light and nations as the same time



There's absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever beyond "4e is combat centric", which is true of all editions of D&D. That's not necessarily a bad thing; its a system for people who want to have a good bit of solid tactical combat in their games. If you don't want fairly large amounts of good tactical combat then D&D is really not the system for you, go play something else.

You can have combat centric worlds with nations dudes, look at FR


Your argument that it doesn't support non-points of light is silly anyway; there's no mechanical tie-ins to points of light unless you want to argue that wilderness classes like the ranger tie into that.

But that is the only concept WOTC is going to support, for no given reason. They claim points of light is better and nations/countries are not good for WOTC




As I pointed out before, FR acts like a points of light world in practice; when I play in FR I spend huge amounts of time where there aren't people, despite the fact that the world is obstensibly "full". Eberron is distinct because it is non-points of light.

No you claim that FR plays out light a point of light game in practice. I have the books, and it is pretty clear that you can have both. In icewind dale you are using a point of light concept, in other areas you have nations of countries which WOTC is trying to avoid


You're whining over silly things. Again, I already answered these above, and as I pointed out, there are NO RULES WHATSOEVER which dictate "no, your world can't be a giant sprawling metropolis". It may make some class abilities less useful, but the same is true of all editions of D&D - if you stray too far from the basic premise of high fantasy the system will get a bit weirder.

Except WOTC is supporting only one style of play. Not any others, just one. Everything in 4E will work off the assumption that this one style is absolute. And that is limiting and close minded. According to WOTC, that is the 'proper' way to play, and all other ways be hanged



It will always support one type of adventuring better than others; that is to say, D&D is oreinted towards dungeon crawls and interior combat. Any system MUST make such choices; they chose the popular and enduring archetype. Your whining shows you don't even understand it isn't a change. It isn't a change. You're wrong. There were TWO wilderness classes, arguably three, in 3.x core. There is now one. And you're claiming they're favoring it? Seriously. Get a grip.

Yet again, your arrogance and hubris shows through. 'You' claim that this system needs to chose only one fluff concept. You claim that this can be the only way. And yet you provide no evidence other than "Hey look, three wildness classes, see the proof".

I mean honestly, you can use the combat and still have a world that doesn't follow points of light, nothing stops you in any ways. See Ebberon, See FR, see, hell, name me any rule limiting combat to a points of light concept.


They are going to give the most support to what makes them the most money; quit whining about it. That's the correct decision.

What you say does not equal truth. Get over yourself. You say it is a correct decision, i say it is not. Your entire argument is based on "I say it is true". And hate to break it to you, that proves nothing.



Whine whine whine. You said you hate fluff, yet this is easily ignored fluff and it is already an inherent premise of all current D&D products (barring Eberron). You BOUGHT fluff books. You are whining specifically because you didn't get your way. You don't understand that such premises must underly any good system. The basic premise of D&D is very popular, and frankly, fairly adaptable.

1. You call it whine, i call it complaining. As your word is in fact not the world of god, you need to prove this.
2. Except you haven't proven this is a premise in all current D&D products, you've just claimed this and seem to hope that this somehow means it is the truth.
3. I'm complaining because we don't need the entire 4E world limited to one concept. Now everything is going to be working off this one concept


Your whining is not "I want it general." Your whining is "I want it MY way", and you're just pretending to yourself it is otherwise.

Yet again, this brings to question the fact you don't seem to read the posts in question. My complaint is them having a generic setting for a game that doesn't need one. If the made a new setting based off this, i'm cool. If they made a new adventure based off this, fine. If they published a book on this concept, fine. But if they make it the generic assumption of all games, not fine. It is simply claiming one way is the 'right' way by WOTC and forcing that into all 4E products. By misquoting me in such a fashion, you are proving to be lying and misdirecting.



Neverwinter Nights and the various expansions? Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale?
Um, those are video games dude, what are you talking about. On that subject, compare Baldur's Gate to Icewind Dale. In Baldur's gate (I and II), a massive amount of the game takes place in civilized cities, not in the wilderness. You can go out into hte wilderness and fight stuff, but it is apparent that the world isn't dominated by evil and the good guys are surrounded. It is a dangerous world, but not points of light

Icewind dale is points of light yes, but it takes place in an area of FR that is specifically made to be points of light.


I don't think it is arrogant to assume that points of light is the way it is, given that those are prominent products which seem to operate under the model (though the original NWN campaign less so than the others). And what I've seen in Dungeon magazine has mostly been the same sort of formula - something happens to the adventurers while travelling, or they are in town and end up getting sent out to wherever to do whatever in the wilderness.
1. Well considering those are video games, go figure
2. Name said Dragon Magazine articles. Or D&D book articles for that matter



Here, yet again, you show your inability to comprehend the written word. Did I say this was the ONLY way to play D&D? The answer is, of course, no.

What I said was this was the most popular and common way to play D&D, which is why 4th edition (rightly) focuses on it.
I love the double standard. Prove to me that this is the most popular and common, the 'right' way to play D&D then. Prove to me that D&D can't work under a different assumption without changing the rules. in 3E, the fluff was generally left totally up to you. You can do with it as you will. There wasn't much of a generic world at all (if you hadn't already played Grewhawk that is, and no mention of it was made), just that some races lived in groups, some races, there is a cosmology, and these monsters wander around. Nothing made me do points of light, or nations based worlds, all of the fluff could be fitted into ether/or



Your argument is "this is the way HE plays D&D", but that isn't the argument I'm making at all. The point is that the majority of D&D campaigns operate in this fashion, so the rules, logically, should support the majority of the campaigns over the minority. Fundamentally, they have more money than you do, so their desires come above yours, and if it is between yours and theirs, theirs will always win.
And your proof for this assumption? So far, zip, nada, zero, nothing. Other than you making high minded claims, you have provided no proof to support your statement.


I NEVER once said this was the way you had to play D&D. YOU said that's what I said, but this is what is known as a "straw man argument", which is to say, you make up something then attack it. The problem is that it really just shows that you have absolutely no answer to me and are a small, petty individual.
And you are an arrogant individual who's hubris is enough that you think that you word =truth. You have proven nothing, you have claimed that points of light is the most popular, most supported, best generic setting 4E could do based upon nothing more than your claim.

Incidentally, you also have a massive double standards, as you are showing off my "straw man argument" by using a straw man argument, go figure




Half-elves and city composition rules. QED?

Um, your point?


Even more though, read the "relations" sections of the races. Humans get along with EVERYONE; they're called "everyone's second-best friends". Fundamentally, the only racism at all exhibited towards any core race is the half-orcs; all the others get along famously as mentioned in their racial relations entries.
1. Humans are also made clear to be of every alignment/moral ideal. So their reason for being everybody's second best friend is because humans can be close to any races ideal, some humans are hard working and stubborn like the dwarves, or nature loving like the elves, or travelers like the halflings. Hence why they tend to be the "second best friend"
2. Also where in the PHP does it say that all of these races are unified?



Your argument is "racism should be the default", when obviously racism is not currently the default and is a good way to annoy players who want to play varied races in a campaign. Again, who are they going to want to support more, the people who want to be able to run whatever race they choose or you? The answer is clearly the former.
1. Look at the real world interactions, none of use have pointy ears and racism is quite popular
2. If racism isn't default, then give us a reason. 4E hasn't, they just said "well they don't do that"
3. Why would racism limit people from choosing race? You can have a group of idealistic people who don't judge people by race (like real life maybe?) while still maintaining that racism exists. Yet again, nothing forces the PCs to be racist.


There is absolutely nothing which says "You cannot allow racism in your campaign world", but it would be stupid to make that the default as clearly people enjoy being able to play whatever race they choose without having a high chance of being forced to wait outside of city X.
Racism can exist without segregation. However if you want to make racism non existent, give us a reason why? Why wouldn't radically different cultures and creatures have some hostility towards each other. It doesn't make sense


You are arguing that YOUR idiosynchratic preference should be preferred, when clearly the opposite should be from a business standpoint. There's nothing preventing you from changing the fluff which you supposedly don't care about, is there? What mechanical impact will lack of racism have on the game? I'm going to go with "none". Racism might have an impact on crunch, but lack of racism won't, so again, it should be the preferred position as it is easier to add in racial distrust than to take away built-in special abilities.
So i disagree with you, i'm idiosyncratic? I love your standards here. Maybe i just want a world to make sense. Wanting a logical consistent world is a perfectly reasonable need that plenty of people on this board have expressed, are you calling that idiosyncratic?

here is a very simple solution for 4E, don't mention racism at all. Just leave it at that, let the players deiced on their own, hence flexibility



You lose. Horribly. As I said, maybe you should try reading what you comment on, eh?

Yet again, maybe you should try basing your points off something other than your ego? I mean come on, "you lose."? BS, just because you say that i'm wrong, doesn't make it so.




Actually, the basic premise of both is "Big world with civilizations being spread out and relatively small with monsters attacking them periodically", usually with vague allusions to the former glory of past civilizations. But the world the PCs live in is generically that sort of world; it was in second edition as well.


1. Not for 4E, assumption is that good civilization is isolated in small pockets across an otherwise monster dominated world
2. 3E hinted at that, but nothing make it so ether way, i could do points of light, or civilizations if i wished.


And you're making that assumption, that it should be YOUR way, when it is clear WotC's market research has shown otherwise.

No i'm making the complaint that i don't want ether way to be forced. Your making the claim that it should be one way, basically because WOTC says so.




You think WotC doesn't do market research? It does. It does a lot of market research, and very good market research. That's why its games sell so well. You clearly cannot wrap your brain around this fact.

If WOTC did perfect market reaserch, they would have realized the flaws in 3E a lot eariler than they did. Ergo, they would have fixed some of the most broken things in 3.5 (diplomacy, casting, wizards). So no, they are perfect.


And it isn't "rightfully", it is "base assumption". They're going to make the base assumption which pleases the most people and allows for the DM to set up a story fairly easily. Points of light is ideal for such purposes.

Why do we need a generic world? If points of light is so damn easy, then any new Dm could do it. Or they could include a section in the DMG about world making. Why make it the entire edition based on one concept.


You're being closed-minded; you're claiming fluff with absolutely no crunch impact whatsoever (well, besides the enormously thick monster manual, but that has always been true of D&D, yet another point in my favor - where else are all these monsters?) will cripple your ability to play the new edition when it is already taht way. It isn't that you HAVE to play it that way; it is that it is the base assumption. They must make some basic assumptions about the world you're going to be in, and as the points of light model is popular and good for adventure, that's what they're going to go for.

1. The MM monsters fit into your world depending on the nature of your world. If i run points of light, they are another random encounter, if i run an nation based world then they are most likely another civilization, if they are in FR, well they most likely have been fitted in anyways.
2. No i don't like that every 4E product will work under the assumption that the entire world is X. Instead of it being left up to hte DMs in particular on the nature of the world, i am going to have to homebrew every single thing that is related to hte points of light game if i don't play that way. If i play in a different way, well suddenly i'm unsupported.
3. Why do we need a generic setting? We worked fine under 3E. You claim that 3E was in fact points of light all along, while not providing any proof to hte claim.




The default setting of 2nd edition was points of light, yet there was nothing preventing you from playing in a vast empire or a collection of feudal kingdoms where the focus was on fighting the other kingdoms rather than random monsters. You suffer from the bizzare delusion that points of light being the default makes it so they can come into your living room, slap you across the face, and say "I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Starfox!"

Proof? Anything other than your apparent words of truth?


Wrong. The point of the PHB, DMG, and MM is that is all you need to play; they're going to make it so you have a vague idea of a good setting. Given the rest of us can easily ignore it if we so will (as you clearly do), there's absolutely no reason they won't use the basic premise to market the game. The reason they're making FR points of light is to be more condusive to new DMs; it is going to be a simpler setting and easier for them to use, while simultaneously not requiring them to buy more books to run a game at all if they've never played D&D before.
1. And they are all you need to play, then why have a generic setting? You can make do with other options. As i said, include a section in the DMG about different style of worlds and let the buyer choose for themselves
2. I imagine you didn't read hte setting on FR, the complaints about it becoming points of lights were rather amusing
3. On that subject, FR is an example of a setting that wasn't points of light. I liked FR, i played it often. Now if i'm expected to go with 4E, FR is now suddenly and inexplainable points of light, because it is going along with the new decision. A settings premise has been changes dramatically from a setting that supports lots of different types of gaming styles, to only one.



No it doesn't. Saying "blah blah blah low magic" doesn't mean they tried at all; they basically threw it in as an untested option. It fails because the crunch has to decide one way or the other; every edition decides that way. In 2nd edition, every world was low magic; in 3rd edition, every world was monty haul by comparison. Fourth edition looks like it is going back towards the second edition model.
1. As i said, they gave the option. They just didn't support it but that isn't the issue. Also mid/high magic
2. And in 3E i could play any style world i wanted as allowed by the crunch (by the by, hte crunch supports this point of light style you realize right?) i could play point of light or non point of light without homebrewing
3.


Yes it is, you just don't understand the logic. I know it is hard for you, but you're going to actually have to think about the argument and try to comprehend it; you have obviously decided not to do so. Try to understand the argument, and you will be a lot better off for it.

Then try to base you arguments off something other than your own worlds. I know it is hard for your, but your going to actually have to provide backing for your arguments other than your own statements. Try to understand the proof your providing, you will be a lot better off for it


The reason YOU are Aragon is because that is more fun. You aren't super-powered, but you're a cut above the normal person at the start, and eventually develop into a greater and greater hero. But you start out a cut above; that's why the action centers on you. We wouldn't be playing this character if they weren't special in some way.

There is a difference between cut above the average and unique one of a kind. in 3E, both NPCs and PCs could have PCs classes, the average NPC had an NPC class but he could have a PC class. A fighter was a more talented Warrior basically. In 4E, from what we have seen, the PCs have unique on of a kind abilities that only they have. NPCs generally are just lesser from the get go. No in game reason is given for this special treatment, they just 'are' special. They die at -9 instead of 0, they are most likely to come back from the dead, the world revolves around them ect.

Also if everybody played aragorn, you are going to have a problem. Aragorn is powerful because he is the last decedent of the ancient line of kings, and in Tolkien's world heritage= Power. As family=power, the reason Aragorn is so special (that and his 80 years fighting monsters in the wilderness) are established reasons for his power.

In D&D power comes from your class. Now the PCs are unique one of a kind dudes. How did they get this power? No reason is given. Unlike Aragorn, no justification for their power exist. We have a meta gaming reason, "They are the PCs" but no in game reason. now in a world like FR, it is expected that there are maybe a few thousand PCs (i mean player characters) effected the world in some way or another. For every player character, there are maybe 5 times that many NPCs with a PC class. In D&D, the NPCs with PC classes and the PCs are simply better trained talented powerful blokes, but not unique. Now in FR, we will have a thousand dudes running around, with powers no body else has. Apart from this killing in game consistency and causing rule problems, the question occurs, why are they so powerful


Your complaints show you don't understand the basic premise of high fantasy, so I just explained it to you. Try to listen, read, and comprehend it.

No my complaints show that i don't take your word as truth. Your statements show that your can't comprehend any argument that opposes yours.


Here you are contradicting yourself again. Earlier you said they SHOULDN'T force a playstyle down your throat, now you're claiming they SHOULD? Earlier you were claiming they SHOULDN'T force fluff down your throat, now you're saying they should?
Thank you for misquoting me again.
By making the PCs special and unique one of a kind dudes, they are in fact forcing a play style down my throat. Now it would be easier to stomach if they at least gave an in game reason. I'm for the old 3E system of classes personally, but that is apparently not supported any more


This indicates you are arguing for the sake of arguing; e.g. you are a troll.

here we are, the real crux of your argument. You call me a troll. This reveals something important, your attempt to discredit me. the reason why is because you canít prove your points. You canít prove that you understand game design better, because the only thing backing this claim is your statement that you do. You donít demonstrate any understanding on this thread or others, you simple claim something is true and try to make everyone else believe you. You canít counter many of my points because you ether donít use evidence or go by the assumption that everything you say is right and thus everything I say is wrong, and thus make no attempt to activlly counter anything. so you entire argument boils down to discredit me, if your only proof is your own word, in order to prove that you need to make anyone who disagrees look bad (by saying they do, go figure) in the hopes that will make their points look better. You need to discredit me, because you canít or wonít counter me directly. Frankly however, this only weakens your own stance, because you have nothing to go on. Iím a jerk yeah, but I make no attempts to hide it, that doesnít make my points untrue. Disagreeing with a point doesnít make me a troll, having a difference preference for gaming doesnít make me idiosyncratic, complaining about WOTCs decisions doesnít make me a whiner, no more than complaining about diplomacy being unbalanced makes one a whiner. Saying you arenít right because you say so doesnít make me wrong, not going along with your un backed claims of good decisions and understanding of Role-playing doesnít make me foolish. You claim my apparent lack of understanding in both game design and role-playing and history of D&D, but you determinedly do nothing to prove me wrong, prove your right, nor make such lofty claims as ďI understand Game Design, you donít understand role-playingĒ. Grow up, you word isnít truth and no matter how many times you insist that Iím wrong simply because I donít conform to your ideology that everything you say is absolutely right and demand evidence doesnít make me ignorant.


from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 10:57 PM
Frankly, my storytelling explanation is entirely logical and coherent; the ydon't need to come up with some reason for why the heroes are heroes because that has a good chance of influencing crunch. If you're the chosen of the gods/have special bloodlines/what have you, that will have crunchy, in-game consequences; by leaving it open-ended as to why these people are special (and they do not have to be unique, something you apparently don't comprehend) they don't have to put in crunch which pulls it one way or the other.
Um, dude, their crunch indicates they are unique, no in game reasons is given




No, this isn't a close-minded assumption; this is part of game design, something you don't understand. D&D is a roleplaying game, which means that if people die (the closest thing there is to losing in D&D), they should feel that their death meant something, that it wasn't just a random, stupid death but that they died doing something meaningful (or at least amusing to the player). The point of D&D is to have fun, and giving the DM more ability to make the leathal points in the story, the parts which are the most dangerous, center around meaningful and interesting combat and other situations is a good thing.
1. Dying in D&D isn't loosing. see raise dead, magic, or making a new character
2. Why should every death be meaningful? It doesn't make sense from an in game perspective. The rules dictate the world, and if the rules say you'd die, you die.


If you had any comprehension of what roleplaying gamers want, you'd understand that.

Apperently in order to understand role playing gamers, i need to agree with you on everything. Yet again, your comprehension comes from what 'you' want, not want everyone wants.


Anyone can die in my D&D campaigns, but the point is that no, a hero DOESN'T die to that random orc; they may die to the orc general, or his pet wyvern, or the horde of orcs they woke up in the barracks, but a random orc on guard duty doesn't randomly off a hero with an axe.

Why? A dude without a name can kill somebody just like a dude with a fancy hat can. Now it might be harder for this weakling to do so, and the stronger guy will have a very good chance of wining, but that is no reason for the PC to be literally immune to all death effects from random dudes. If your going to have rules for how people die/donít die, make them universal. The orc can kill a PC. People die dramatic deaths, and people die non dramatic deaths (normally making the dramatic deaths more dramatic incidentally) both in real life, and in every edition of D&D. It makes sense both from an in game and meta game point of view. Now unless drama is special mechanical force in 4E, I just call this hog wash



The point of the game is not to be simulationist (something you seem not to comprehend) but rather to be enjoyable joint storytelling in the form of a game. That's much more popular than simulationism, which is why the much more abstract D&D and World of Darkness triumph over systems where heroes are much more likely to die.

And not stimulation, something many people enjoy is no longer being supported and activlly hindered.


This isn't closed-mindedness; that's what you suffer from. You also suffer from absolutism, as proven by your post above where you say what it SHOULD be like (despite that being, again, clearly unpopular as proven by the market).

1. I think fluff should be open ended and left up to the individualís choice, not forced by 4E. Oh how absolutist of me
2. No, as proved by what you say is the market, yet again I donít believe you.


PCs dying horribly to dangerous stuff is fine, but a random orc is simply not dangerous stuff, so they should not die to them unless the situation is absolutely dire for some reason (and even then they shouldn't, to be honest - kill them with dignity, eh?)

Um, a random orc isnít dangerous? Yeah he is he has an axe. He isnít dangerous to a high level PC, but you donít need high death rules for that. If a high level orc has a weapon and can do damage, it is reasonable that he can kill somebody should they get hurt enough. that is part of the games risk, you can die, and you can get hurt. Hence the motivation to play smart. Drama has no mechanical aspect in the game, so there should be a reason for why these half dozen just donít die easy. Weíve gone through three editions with death being easy, why make rules support that. this is a game, not a story. In a story, people normally die dramatic deaths. In a game, with rules for death, undramatic deaths will happen. If WOTC hopes to stop that, then they should make drama a crunch rule in the game



And a realistic world is not as desirable as a fun to play in one, which is something you don't comprehend. That is YOUR problem. You don't understand that. It is fundamentally inconsistant with high fantasy.

Yet again, that is what you claim, not what you prove. Also
verisimilitude is always a nice thing to have in a world, so it makes sense. And consistency, logic, and common sense. These are all desirable traits in a world, and high magic worlds can have them



There is actually no reason at all why dragons don't rule the world.

1. Lack of organization. Even dragons of the same type are no inclined to form large groups and prefer to be alone. And not all metallic dragons work together, and colored dragons tend to hate everyone.
2. It takes a long time for them to grow up and become powerful, time in which their life can be easily killed.
3. They require a lot of land and space to live.
4. They are naturally greedy and not inclined to unite for any goal, canít trust each other and tend not to have the organizational skills when it comes to being fair to each other, each one is too selifh
5. Their culture/life style is given to isolation
6. They are hated by almost everyone
7. Their goal I to obtain lots of loot, not conquest generally (not totally true however)
8. Nations often go out of their way to keep dragons from destroying their land, often spending lots of money to slay them if they can
9. They are spread out over the world and have many enemies to keep them in relative check?
Want more


I will bet you 100 dollars right here and now that WotC's market research shows me correct and you wrong. I'm serious. I'll lay a hundred real American dollars on this.

Ok, that is just sad. Your betting a 100 dollars on that on the internet? Iím sorry, that just kills me, this is simple saddening. I really canít form a response that wonít get me in trouble, just wow. Hysterical,
Anyways, provide those figure if you want, it would be interesting to see them.


The reason that characters are heroes in so many fantasy systems is because that is much more popular than being villians; its the same reason heroes are so popular in popular entertainment. Its the reason Superman beats Lex Luthor, why Batman beats The Riddler. People want the heroes, and by extension themselves, to triumph, and while occaisonally the protagonist will be a villian, it is far, far less common. This is due to popular taste.

Except the important difference here is in a role playing game, nothing limits in terms of alignment. I can role-play who ever I want, be them evil or good. nothing stops me. The option exist, hence role playing. evil characters can vary from well intentions extremists to selfish bastards. The option exists, I can play who I want. And plenty of people play evil character, you donít have to be Chaotic Stupid. Coop options. Canít both be supported by the system? It worked in 3E, they have even published books for evil characters. Also fun fact, many heroes from modern culture are evil by 3E D&D standards. Dirty Harry for Example. Protagonists are no always good


You seem to be under the incredibly delusional idea that we just made this up and it is entirely arbitrary. This is not at all arbitrary and is common throughout popular culture and even internationally.

I am under the assumption that you are totally unable to base all your points off you saying it, have a close minded ideal of what is ďrightĒ for role playing and game design, and uses a hypocritical judgments and misquotes to prove his points. You base your arguments off a personal idea that D&D only works one way.




Of course options exist for evil characters. Guess what? The BoVD will be in 4th edition as well, and there will be tons of options for evil characters - mostly slanted towards DMs, I might add, because they are the primary consumers, but there will still be plenty which PCs can use. I'd be surprised if, for instance, necromancy wasn't still extant in some form - maybe it will be a seperate class now, but I'm sure you'll be able to create undead with a player character class eventually.

WOTC has stated in their books their unwillingness to stat good creatures because they donít wonít normally fight the PCs.


Your argument is poor, though, because 3e core has very few spells for the evil character, and most are inferior to their "good forms" (or simply less useful in the typical campaign, where most enemies are evil). Core, the premise is that you are good or neutral, but there is not a whole lot of support for an evil PC core; most of the evil PRCs are intended for DM use, not for PC use.

Any option that exists for evil PCs also exists for PCs. Evil people can not use evil only options you realize




YES, you want to make them believable. BUT THAT IS NOT THEIR STORYTELLING PURPOSE. Their purpose in existing is to be antagonists, NOT to be believable characters. This is what you fundamentally cannot wrap your brain around. Their purpose is, first and foremost, to be antagonists; belivability is built out of that.


Simulationism, excessive realism, is simply not fun for a lot of people. They WANT to be able to throw around fireballs.

Which can be done with fire balls


1. what WOTC has said about the mechanics indicate they arenít consistent
2. And a believable world isnít possible if we have inconsistent and unneeded rules.





That's not an indication of increasing amount of fluff; that's an idication of "you buying something which is blatently a fluff-only product which, if you don't like the fluff therein, you aren't going to enjoy at all". They always sell fluffy books, but that doesn't mean they're ever worth buying.

Itís a preview book, it is an indication of what the game is going to be like. Hence why you get it. They talk about the planned mechanics and the fluff. Wow, I wonder




This shows you don't understand what I said at all. Again, re-read and try to comprehend what I said. I have limited time too, I'm not going to bother writing up stats for something the players will never fight. They are completely valueless. All I need to know is what it is and what its goals are; its particular abilities are completely meaningless. If you don't understand that, you understand nothing. Unless the solar is going to fight on-screen, any time I spent on its statistics and abilities are utterly wasted, just wankery.

You don't need to know its attack bonus or its damage to know that it fights evil and is powerful.

I read your said, I donít agree. A solarís mechanics show how it will effect the world. If you have its mechanics, then you have its limitations and its abilities mapped out. What spells can it use to hurt evil? How does it cast and how powerful can it cast. How much can it do? ect ect ect. This indicates its abilities and effects on the world. If you have a whole society of Solars, what effects could they reasonable have on the world around them. If you make everys stats focus on the PCs, you have the Demon devil canít hurt each other problem. It is inconsistent and lazy






Alright, if this is your entire basis of your complaints (which, from your most recent post, it appears to be) I'm going to tell you the cold, harsh reality:

Simulationism (which is the name for your playstyle) is unpopular.

Period. End of report.

1. Prove it. Because every indication Iíve seen of you shows that you never base this stuff off anything but your apparent word of god. You donít make any prove, you just makes statement. Back your self up
2. That isnít a justification however for the decision being a good one.


Simulationism has MASSIVE fluff consequences, as does idealism (which is what is preferred by the vast majority of gamers). Dungeons and Dragons has always been on the idealistic side of things, where idealism is the opposite of simulationism. This is not to say simulationism is bad, but rather that most people don't enjoy it as much as they enjoy idealism.

And it is totally possible to support both systems, it has been done on these very boards. A consistent world can be maintained by good rule base


As such, Wizards of the Coast MUST make a decision there. Given their extant audience prefers the idealistic end of the scale, the populace as a whole prefers the idealistic end of the scale, AND it gets rid of a lot of problems with players randomly dying (which, I might add, is not all that popular among even simulationists when you get right down to THEIR character dying randomly) and you understand that the logical thing for them to do is to shun simulationism for idealism. Realism is not a major concern of theirs and, frankly, when people can throw fireballs from their fingertips I think it is entirely justified.

1. verisimilitude and conistency then, that is always good to have in a good game
2. And that can be supported by WOTC without alienating the other side. You can have consistent worlds that are still dramatic and fun.


WotC can, in fact, do whatever they want. But what they WANT to do is to sell their product to the most people possible. Understanding that will be your first step towards understanding the world at large.

That isnít a justification for inconsistency.



Thing is, those things only exist insofar as they influence the player; if something will never influence the player, then it may as well not exist at all.

What simulationists like yourself do not comprehend is that this isn't soley the realm of the simulationists; even idealists prefer to maintain suspension of disbelief. But we have looser standards and prefer to make the game fun over making it realistic if it comes down to a choice between the two; you believe fun and realism are intimately tied together, whereas our fun is much less directly tied to realism.

This isn't to say you are WRONG about what is fun, so much as you have different tastes. I personally enjoy hard-SF, and my Alternity campaigns attempt to be as hard-SF as possible, but in fantasy I have different tastes when I'm gaming.

Well at least your backed up your points, that is something I suppose.
1. D&D tries to create a realistic fantasy world. Things work this way, other things work that way. Except they donít even maintain this consistency. That is shoddy, and bad writing.
2. You have made it clear that idealism > consistency. Which is a rather arrogant assumption. A fantasy fantastical game should still have consistency, hence the mechanical rules. If D&D was as drama based, then there would be rules for that, there wouldnít be mechanics that were written in stone, the mechanics would be based upon drama not set down rules. They arenít however.
3. And both styles can be supported if properly balanced and thought out

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 11:13 PM
Can you try to at least type properly? It is very hard to not imply you are an argumentative 13-year old when you type "taht" instead of "that", use "here" instead of "hear", and the like. Resisting the temptation becomes all the harder given you seem to be plugging your ears and yelling at me rather than actually read what I wrote.


Then back your points up on something other than grand claims. You supposed knowledge of game design and the workings of role playing and WOTCís marketing styles is based only on your claims. You donít prove anything, you donít back anything, you just stat unbacked things like it is fact and expect me to believe you.




This time, though, you DID read what I wrote, and I think you finally understood it and thus managed to get your actual point across - you're a simulationist.

The problem is that you're missing that simulationism is not heavily supported by D&D and that something which directly influences the PCs (a monster, a spell, a power for the PCs, a piece of equipment, a magical item, or what have you) is usable by everyone, whereas four paragraphs about the blood war are usable by far, far fewer people. There's nothing WRONG with talking about the blood war and lots of evil vs evil stuff, but it really should not be an in-depth topic in the core books. That's what campaign settings are for; pre-made fluff and suchlike.

Everyone can use a power, lots of people can use a monster, but few people can use the Blood War and similar. Its just that simple. In the core rules, they want to please their base as much as possible, and as much of their base as possible.


See that, that is supporting your point. I suggest you keep doing that, it makes things a lot easier.

Sure some people might not use evil vs. evil (which is more the point of the thread than the blood war in particular), but that isnít any reason to not support it. Evil creatures will fight each other, because that is the nature of evil. Part of the concept and the nature of evil. Now in any logical world, evil will do so. WOTC doesnít need to write a ten page essay on the blood war in core, but they also donít need to go out and say ďwe no longer are going to focus on this because we donít think it is importantĒ



And I never noticed a mass of people saying "We want more information about this stuff!" Some people did, but most people simply didn't care. If most people don't care, then it isn't as important as things most people DO care about.

I have, a good deal of people on these boards have been asking for stuff for like three years at least. And if most people donít care, why take it away?


I have "proved" many of my points; more options in combat, for instance, greater rules coherency, ect. Those are all knowns. We know there are more combat options now. We know the way the defense system works, by and large. We know about the at will/per encounter/per day abilities, which is a fun system and gives everyone something.

We also know the basic attitude of the game from the two preview books.


My justification is in my knowledge of game design, something you really don't understand. I'm an engineer, and perhaps my explanations simply miss someone who has no knowledge of design in general because I take for granted that you will put 2 and 2 together when, in fact, you don't even realize that 2 and 2 are there.

1. Your knowledge and my apparent lack there of is only justification by you saying ďwell you know nothing, and I know how things worked. No Iím not going to back that up, because you are a troll and are in fact wrongĒ. you donít back these points, and flaunt claims as proof, and you donít support most of your statements
2. And engineer, what does that have to do with game design? Like at all? What? Sure, and I worked part time processing imagines, that doesnít act as a qualification



No you haven't. What you've stated are your personal preferences, something you are too thick to comprehend. You don't understand that they are personal preferences.

Consistency is more than a personal preference, it is an expectation in an rigidly mechanical game

But more the point, my complaint is that many things in 4E, but in this thread evil vs. evil is no longer a major factor in the 4Eís worlds for no real reason, or at least needed reason


I understand game design far better than you do; I understand far better than you do what makes for a good game in general, and I even understand what makes for a good simulationist game, something you yourself seem not to be able to verbalize very well.

No you claim to understand game design and simulationism more than I do, you donít prove anything. And Iív seen other things that make your claims of knowledge sketchy.



The only reason I forgive them for including generic gods in the core books is because creating a pantheon is a complete pain in the rear. I've done it multiple times and while I enjoy it, it is incredibly time consuming and the players, by and large, can't be bothered to care anyway (except for Derek Dragonsbane - players always love the dwarf god of dragonslaying, though that's probably because at one point, long ago in a different campaign, he was a fun PC of one of the players).

I actually dislike that they include fluff core because it confuses my players, but I understand that the purpose is basically "everyone else".
Not literally, of course, but figurtively.

1. Generic gods are easy, you can use real life or just make anything up

The Singers- Animals of peace and war, for they are peaceful until roused then unless great anger
The Ageless- The death bringer, the ageless, the immortal, the ever watcher, he is guardian of death, immortals and the underworld.
The Companion- The sigh of loyalty and companions. He is the great friend and the protector.
The Thief- The small furry creature with rat like eyes and a long body, the thief is called so because it stole the stone that Ile had with him when he died. It is the embodiment of cunning money, as well as self serving interesting. It is also the god of trick, pranks, and new ideas.
The Watcher- Arrogant and lazy, the watcher is the cruel master, making other do its work for it. He demands other to serve him and does nothing in return. However, when things get out of hand, he can not only show his cruel claws, he also can show a great intelligence. The lord of nobles and merchants.
The Shadow- The great black bald carrion bird, the Shadow is the lord of destruction and rebirth. He represents the need end of time and the rebuilding. He does nothing to cause destruction but watches it when it nears its time. He devours what is left, then helps the rebirth.
The Night Eyes- The gods of the wilderness, little is known save for their savage honor and beauty.
The Eater- The lord of all the evils of man, he is the most cunning, gluttons, cold, cruel, greedy, fat, dirty, ugly, brilliant, manipulative and indulgent. Most powerful of the animal gods, he is the king of darkness and enjoyment. He sets him self as an example that other should not follow. His priests run charity and confessionals.

2. Alright, generic gods are an inconsistency, but by the same argument, why do we need a generic world? Just make it optional for everybody and donít go under any one assumption, and everybody is happy. Comprise the great American Value (or was)
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 11:17 PM
Just summarize the paragraphs, willya? Really. Debating in such a manner with EE is an exercise in futility, as he always has more spare time than you.

Always.

I write fast, is that a crime? And i'm damn stubborn



EE, you say that Badly Written fluff is unecessary and should not be put into books, yet you decry the move to cut down on the in-built fluff in mechanics and move the system to a more generic one where fluff can be more easily removed.

Doesn't that strike you as extremely hypocritical?

Let me clarify, by bad i mean inconsistent or illogical. For example, if Eragon became a D&D game, can you imagine the problems that would emerge from that. Also 3E didn't really have a generic setting in the least



Later, you also say that you hate how the system is forcing you to play a "Points of Light" setting, when in fact it's much easier now to adapt the mechanics to a different setting, given the genericization of the mechanics (Simplification of complicated/specific Planar cosmology, more uncharted lands allowing for greater DM wriggle room, decreased reliance on Magic Items). Again, that strikes me as extremely hypocritical, given that you earlier talk about how bad fluff should not even be written.

How does points of light make adapting mechanics easier? the cosmology i can understand, but points of light? the could work just as well in a nation based game
from
EE

Artanis
2008-03-03, 11:18 PM
Wow. GG quadruple posting.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-03, 11:48 PM
I am adding you to my ignore list, Evil Elitist; it looks to me like you're trolling, and other people have pointed out that I'm doing nothing but feeding you, and they are right. Hopefully if you no longer get a rise out of people you'll go elsewhere. I won't be able to read your response to this post.

No one will ever respect you as long as you continue to not read, nor comprehend the posts of others and simply argue for the sake of arguing, rather than bringing up any reasonable or rational points, especially when you yourself don't understand what you are arguing for or why you are arguing for it.

Artemician
2008-03-04, 08:25 AM
Generic Setting versus Specific setting

You say, and I quote, that your complaint is them having a generic setting for a game that doesn't need one. You also dislike how they appear to be forcing it into your playstyle.

Let's speak from the perspective of a player who doesn't like say, the Monty Haul effect of 3e. He naturally, tries to homebrew it out. However, he runs into problems doing so because the whole monty haul thing is ingrained into the system.

How is this different from your complaint? What kind of fluff and mechanics people like always vary, and it is not possible for WotC to please everybody. Therefore, they pick the simplest, nonspecific choice; a points of light setting, which can be easily adapted to other settings too, as you are so fond of pointing out.

How does it make adaptation easier - I'll talk more about this later, in the section of versimilitude, but basically it's easier to adapt because there are less specific fluff to being with, unlike a fully fleshed out setting like FR or Eberron.

Is there anything wrong with that?


Mutability of 3e Fluff

I almost choked on my pretzel when I saw this. 3e fluff is, if anything, even more hard-wired into the system than 4e fluff. The sheer number of cosmology-related spells, how Game Balance falls apart when you try to adjust WBL, a stupidly detailed planar diagram, numerous numbers of awfullly setting specific races, etc.

4e is, if anything, moving away from having a defined setting and into the grey areas that let DMs explore their own world. The streamlining of the planes to a more conventional, generic one is an example of this. Faerie, the Underworld, Chaos and the Silver Sea. Much more generic and adaptable than the Planar Wheel.


Racism

.......

If you want to put in Racism, nothing's stopping you. Racism, does not, in any way, affect the mechanics, at all.


PCs and speshulness

You know what's stopping you from simply making an NPC with PC stats, just like you used to in 3.5? Nothing.


Justification for Cultural Phenomenon X

You complain how the 4e handbook doesn't justify a lot of things, then complain about what they do justify, because it's "forcing a playstyle on you". I seriously don't understand you.


Versimilitude, consistency, etc etc

4e may be inconsistent, but I fail to see how it is more inconsistent than 3.5. If anything, it's moving back towards AD&D's "everything is up to the DM", which is the trend we've seen in changes (Points of Light, encouraging of fudging, simplified NPC creation rules, etc). This might in fact be more consistent than trying to stat every little thing out. If you try to do that, you end up with FATAL.

fendrin
2008-03-04, 09:08 AM
4e may be inconsistent, but I fail to see how it is more inconsistent than 3.5. If anything, it's moving back towards AD&D's "everything is up to the DM", which is the trend we've seen in changes (Points of Light, encouraging of fudging, simplified NPC creation rules, etc). This might in fact be more consistent than trying to stat every little thing out. If you try to do that, you end up with FATAL.

FATAL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Artemician
2008-03-04, 09:12 AM
FATAL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.

A simple wikipedia search would have sufficed, but suffice to say that FATAL is what happens when simulationism goes wrong.


F.A.T.A.L. had a system containing a large number of character traits; unlike most roleplaying games, individual abilities such as Intelligence and Charisma are further broken down into sub-abilities. For example, a character's Vocal Charisma determines whether or not his voice has a pleasant quality. Other sub-abilities tracked minutiae such as how fast a character could speak in words per minute, how complex a machine they could assemble, and the most complex word in their vocabulary. Other randomly rolled traits for characters include anatomical features such as anal circumference and "hymen resistance". In addition, the game contained a large number of random tables for determining character traits, adventure encounters, wounds sustained in combat, results from casting magic spells, etc.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-03-04, 09:13 AM
FATAL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Fantasy Adventure To Adult Lechery

OR

From Another Time, Another Land

Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATAL).

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-04, 09:23 AM
I am adding you to my ignore list, Evil Elitist; it looks to me like you're trolling, and other people have pointed out that I'm doing nothing but feeding you, and they are right. Hopefully if you no longer get a rise out of people you'll go elsewhere. I won't be able to read your response to this post.

No one will ever respect you as long as you continue to not read, nor comprehend the posts of others and simply argue for the sake of arguing, rather than bringing up any reasonable or rational points, especially when you yourself don't understand what you are arguing for or why you are arguing for it.

This. For the love of Bahamut, this.

I....I want to hug you.

For the record though, "putting people on ignore" seems to do nothing.

Charity
2008-03-04, 10:05 AM
Works for me friendly, make sure you save the list.
The only issue I have is when folk insist on putting huge quotes in their posts, you end up with most of the post anyhow...

Titanium Dragon, I'm not sure there is much point telling someone you've put them on ignore as you can't read their response.

fendrin
2008-03-04, 10:11 AM
A simple wikipedia search would have sufficed, but suffice to say that FATAL is what happens when simulationism goes wrong.

Ah yes, I suppose I should have done that. I was expecting some obscure game term (like MAD and SAD but less used), so I wasn't expecting a wikipedia entry.

I think a clearer way to phrase it would be "Too much emphasis on simulationism leads to systems like FATAL."

Which, by the way, I 100% agree with.

Sometimes people forget that there are always tradeoffs with any design decisions. Having classes restricts character design, but also (in theory) makes it harder to make a useless character (unlike my first foray into the HERO system), and also allows for faster character creation.

Simulationism is more accurate, but also more complicated. Each system tries to find a 'sweet spot' on this gradient, but it is impossible to please everybody.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-04, 10:14 AM
Works for me friendly, make sure you save the list.
The only issue I have is when folk insist on putting huge quotes in their posts, you end up with most of the post anyhow...

Titanium Dragon, I'm not sure there is much point telling someone you've put them on ignore as you can't read their response.

Ah... I never saved it! THANK YOU! :elan:

Ah.......

Artanis
2008-03-04, 10:15 AM
FATAL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.
Consider yourself lucky.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-04, 10:50 AM
Sometimes people forget that there are always tradeoffs with any design decisions. Having classes restricts character design, but also (in theory) makes it harder to make a useless character (unlike my first foray into the HERO system), and also allows for faster character creation.

Having played HERO/Champions quite a bit, I know what you mean. On a side note have tried Silver Age Sentinels/Tri-X System? I find it very similar, but not quite as bulky. The basic rules are free too. (or were, for the generic Tri-X)

All in all, I think I like a bit more stringent narrowing of class roles. It helps give people focus, which can be a serious issue; more frequently it is an issue than a non-issue, in my experience at least. Often we will get a player (in 3.5 that is) who has this nebulous idea of a character, asks for help and suggestions, get the suggestions, but become distracted by shiny things in other books, taking bits and pieces and ending up with a subpar, useless character.

Now while you can make all the arguements you want about there "being no useless characters as long as you have fun" etc. however, *I* have never been in a D&D gaming group (many, many, many over the years) in *any* edition where the goal wasn't to "win". "Winning" of course being defined as finishing the mod, rescuing the princess, slaying the demon, whatever.

While it may be "fun" and "neat" to make a character that has levels of Commoner and Skill Focus (Underwater basketweaving), that really doesn't do much of anything against what D&D, as a a genre, expects you to deal with. If your character can't kill a monster of appropriate challenge (or even a challenge well below you) and can't even help the rest of the party kill it, or can't even be of use in non-combat situations, you have a useless character. Quite frankly, setting the system so you can't make that character is fine with me. (at least, can't make it without setious alterations or using NPC classes)

Now if the whole party is making "useless" characters, that's a whole other ball of wax and we are moving so far from default D&D that it is irrelevant.



Simulationism is more accurate, but also more complicated. Each system tries to find a 'sweet spot' on this gradient, but it is impossible to please everybody.

I find the various concepts of "simulationism" and "vermi.." "vermin?" "vermicelli?" that Vermi thing, to honestly be anathema to D&D. You are playing a game where you fight dragons, use magic, kick ass and save the day. If you want reality, this isn't the game system for you. Call of Cthulhu is honestly more realistic than D&D and that features giant walking octopus headed monsters from another world.

Does it really matter how "realistic" it is? Physics has *never* worked in D&D. It never can.

All you can do is eyeball it and fake it. Make it look as good as you can, but don't drag the game to a crawl with it.

My opinion anyway.

/disclaimer: Yes, I know it's verisimilitude - I prefer truthiness.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-04, 12:01 PM
This. For the love of Bahamut, this.

I....I want to hug you.

For the record though, "putting people on ignore" seems to do nothing.

It stops their posts showing up for you, but only if you're logged in (and this forum logs you out fairly aggressively). I noticed ignore-listed people showing up, but it was always because I was logged out.

Of course you can still see when other people quote them.

Rutee
2008-03-04, 12:11 PM
I just want it on the record that I believe simulationism is more likely to lead ot GURPS then FATAL. FATAL is more like Simulationism + Really sickening mind then it is "Simulationism taken to its illogical extreme", from what I've seen of it on Wikipedia and whatnot. Of course, I never /read/ it, so my opinion is superceded by those who have.

horseboy
2008-03-04, 12:48 PM
Swordguy and Matt have copies if you really want to see it. For some reason my system erased my copy.

Rutee
2008-03-04, 12:52 PM
No no, I'm sure if I actually wanted it, I could find it. I really don't want to read it. I'm just saying, "I'm not sure if one can say this is truly simulationism".

fendrin
2008-03-04, 01:23 PM
I just want it on the record that I believe simulationism is more likely to lead ot GURPS then FATAL. FATAL is more like Simulationism + Really sickening mind then it is "Simulationism taken to its illogical extreme", from what I've seen of it on Wikipedia and whatnot. Of course, I never /read/ it, so my opinion is superceded by those who have.

It seemed tp me (again, purely from Wikipedia) that it was "simulation gone too far by someone with a sick mind". I mean, separating out 'vocal charisma'? if that's not "simulation gone too far", what is?

As for GURPS, I haven't really played it, though I do own the basic rulebook. Although it definitely favors simulation over abstraction, it doesn't seem quite as bad as FATAL in that respect.


Having played HERO/Champions quite a bit, I know what you mean. On a side note have tried Silver Age Sentinels/Tri-X System? I find it very similar, but not quite as bulky. The basic rules are free too. (or were, for the generic Tri-X)
I played in one or two tri-stat games back in college, I just found it a little too abstract for my taste.

Artanis
2008-03-04, 03:34 PM
It stops their posts showing up for you, but only if you're logged in (and this forum logs you out fairly aggressively). I noticed ignore-listed people showing up, but it was always because I was logged out.

Of course you can still see when other people quote them.
There's a checkbox next to the login fields that you can use to keep it from logging you out.

EvilElitest
2008-03-04, 08:55 PM
I am adding you to my ignore list, Evil Elitist; it looks to me like you're trolling, and other people have pointed out that I'm doing nothing but feeding you, and they are right. Hopefully if you no longer get a rise out of people you'll go elsewhere. I won't be able to read your response to this post.

Yet again, this supports me theory that your only real point you are able to produce is an attempt to discredit me. As i said, your only "proves" of any of your claims are in fact the claims themselves. You haven't produced any evidence to back any of your claim, you've claimed knowledge of game design and role playing games on this thread and others and has have it disputed and don't support them, you simple state your idea and expect me to take what you say as the holy truth. Its not. Saying something is true doesn't make it so, and attempted to evade that topic by calling me a troll is simply pathetic.

As for the troll comment, and decent reading of my posts will reveal that while i am a stubborn bastard, i'm not a troll. A troll simple starts conflict for the pleasure of watching them fire up. If i was a troll, i wouldn't make such an effort to be consistent in my arguments. Hell, i wouldn't have an argument, i'd just simple use my own words as truth and no provide evidence. I haven't done so, i've stuck by my complaints, i've stuck by my annoyances, and i've countered arguments based upon evidence and those arguments. By calling me a troll, you reveal that you can't or won't even bother to properly counter my points and need to resort to personal attacks to make your point seem remotly valid. This is pathetic, and disgusting, that you are so totally absorbed in your own ideal of what is 'right' that you can't even comprehend people disagreeing with your assumptions and claims that you can begin to understand game design of games when you refuse to provide evidence. Ignoring is the last act of a desperate man.



1. No you won't respect me, and frankly, i don't care. Everyone one of your claims is unsupported, and so if you refuse to argue by backing your points with evidence and proofs, then it is no problem to me if you simply wish to give up and leave a debate.
2. You haven't even provided any proofs or backing for the points i apperetnly can't read or comprehend,
3. Nor your claim that i argue for its own sake
4. Nor any support for your claims.


If you can't pull off a support any arguments, then quite frankly resorting to such crude claim is expected and honestly i don't care. I really don't care if you ignore me, because you aren't provding any evidence or support for your claims other than the fact that your word is apperently the absolute proof and doesn't need support, a claim that has been contested in this thread and others where you attempt such a method and so i don't care


And Mr. Friendly, i find some irony here, i didn't notice you being so rude to me when i was arguing on your side. Remember that? I doubt you do, back when 4E was first announced there were quite a few threads saying that "we don't need a new edition" or "4E is going to fail from the start" before the preview books came out. And i was supporting you in that, as i hadn't seen anything of 4E and knew a new edition was needed. It wasn't until i saw the 4E preview books that i started to express annoyence. So any claim that i hate change or nothing but troll is simple absurd


And Charity, do you even do anything on this thread? Really, do you even have any points to make?

Now onto Artemician, who besides actually making supported arguments, is also a pretty good avatar artist (i didn't get one sadly :smallfrown: )

[QUOTE]
You say, and I quote, that your complaint is them having a generic setting for a game that doesn't need one. You also dislike how they appear to be forcing it into your playstyle.

Let's speak from the perspective of a player who doesn't like say, the Monty Haul effect of 3e. He naturally, tries to homebrew it out. However, he runs into problems doing so because the whole monty haul thing is ingrained into the system.

How is this different from your complaint? What kind of fluff and mechanics people like always vary, and it is not possible for WotC to please everybody. Therefore, they pick the simplest, nonspecific choice; a points of light setting, which can be easily adapted to other settings too, as you are so fond of pointing out.,
yes that is my complaint but please explain the Monty Haul effect?



How does it make adaptation easier - I'll talk more about this later, in the section of versimilitude, but basically it's easier to adapt because there are less specific fluff to being with, unlike a fully fleshed out setting like FR or Eberron.

Is there anything wrong with that?
however everything in 4E will work under the assumption of points of light, FR is being changed to points of light sadly. Everything will be tailored to a setting idea that is very specific. No support for any other style.



I almost choked on my pretzel when I saw this. 3e fluff is, if anything, even more hard-wired into the system than 4e fluff. The sheer number of cosmology-related spells, how Game Balance falls apart when you try to adjust WBL, a stupidly detailed planar diagram, numerous numbers of awfullly setting specific races, etc.

4e is, if anything, moving away from having a defined setting and into the grey areas that let DMs explore their own world. The streamlining of the planes to a more conventional, generic one is an example of this. Faerie, the Underworld, Chaos and the Silver Sea. Much more generic and adaptable than the Planar Wheel.
1. Examples of the 3E fluff being extremly specific please? Nation based, points of light, other
2. The cosmology thing is an understandable complaint, however even within the cosmology any style of play can be supported within them
3. How is 4E cosmology any less specific than 3E? It is different yes, but no less generic.




If you want to put in Racism, nothing's stopping you. Racism, does not, in any way, affect the mechanics, at all.
why wouldn't this generic world have racism however? If i had a logical in game reason i'd be fine, but none is given. It is silly



4e may be inconsistent, but I fail to see how it is more inconsistent than 3.5. If anything, it's moving back towards AD&D's "everything is up to the DM", which is the trend we've seen in changes (Points of Light, encouraging of fudging, simplified NPC creation rules, etc). This might in fact be more consistent than trying to stat every little thing out. If you try to do that, you end up with FATAL.
1. The NPC/PC/Monster realtionship is very inconsistent for one
2. How would an entire world even turn into a points of light situation? It doesn't make logical sense, you'd need a major disaster to affect many advanced civilizations
3. Ok, comparing that to FATAL is just out right insulting i'm sorry, don't compare anyone here to FATAL, none of us on this board deserve that.
4. Also for the record, FATAL isn't infamously inconsistent and lacks both consistency and verisimilitude, it is just disgusting and totally absurd
A better minor example would be Morrowind's attempt.
from
EE