| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Faraer |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 12:56:16
Here's a thread on the Paizo forums about how the World of Greyhawk might be handled in the 4E era. Now that we're somewhat used to the Realms recasting, I think this perspective is valuable. If you don't have time to read the thread, skip to Erik Mona's posts. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 28 Mar 2008 : 14:16:21
Personally, my PCs that are playing my game are "special".
Not because there are a few exotic races. Not because they are "different" from "commoners" but because they are the protagonists of the story. I set up, what I like to call, a house of cards (group A trying to accomplish X, group B trying to accomplish Y, group C trying to accomplish Z) and the PCs are the ones that shake the house and deal with the falling cards.
They're special, not because of their heritage, but because they are the ones who are going to do what needs to be done.
Which is VERY analogous with how life works. It's not that the important people in history were vastly different from you or me, it's that they did something important. Sure, they had gifts, were better at X or Y, but at those gifts aren't so massive that they are inherently different from us. |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 23:52:37
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Still... it's a more pleasant thought then his rival Vecna doing the same thing. 
We really need a 'vomit' smiley. 
I thought Iuz possesses that special part of Vecna.  Vecna lost his hand, eye, and .....
How is THAT for disturbing images? Somewhere, some party has found part of Vecna, and a PC has a compulsion to attach it.... |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 22:40:28
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
And again, we worry about population figures when figuring out if a race is a legitimate choice for a PC race, but we don't think about population figures when it comes to the Chosen supposedly saving every person in Faerun by themselves, or when we figure that there are "too many" gods for the setting?
Awesome point. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 22:36:42
Faraer, glad to see you back to this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Where Erik said 'the smart strategy, in my opinion, is to _not_ do that, to offer something different with Greyhawk than what you offer with the Forgotten Realms', I feel the smart strategy would have been to let the Realms offer something not given by mainstream D&D. I felt the same way in 2001.
Indeed, each setting should offer something different! I've always enjoyed how various settings I like are different from each other, and I wouldn't want one to have to conform to the design principles of another. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 22:06:56
KEJr, this entire heroes vs commoner business rings disturbing, IMO. Übermensch and whathaveyou... Aryan bullshine brought to life in D&D so to speak. Makes me really sick to think about that possibility... |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 21:58:45
You know, its an odd string of logic used sometimes. 4th edition seems predicated on the idea that PCs aren't just driven individuals, but a special class of people akin to Greek heroes, able to do things not just that others might have trouble doing, but that they flat out can't, because they are "commoners."
Yet, with this thinking in place, there still needs to be hundreds of thousands if not millions of a given race to "justify" that races being used by a player?
It took me a while when I first came back to D&D when 3rd edition hit to figure out why elves and dwarves were no longer in Retreat or Decline. When I finally realized that some of the designers thought that you couldn't legitimately play an elf or a dwarf if the race was in decline, I was rather confused by the logic.
And again, we worry about population figures when figuring out if a race is a legitimate choice for a PC race, but we don't think about population figures when it comes to the Chosen supposedly saving every person in Faerun by themselves, or when we figure that there are "too many" gods for the setting?
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 21:47:36
The Realms isn't really much less humanocentric than Greyhawk's world, despite the fanservice elf and drow coverage, at least until the ridiculous reversals of the dwarven decline and the Retreat. I don't object to the tiefling influx because it couldn't happen, but because I don't see any advantage to it. As you say, people don't like playing weird races because they're usual.
The thinking seems to be part of a larger trend I've called foreshortening, in which far, difficult, complex, rare and mysterious become ever nearer, easier, simpler, and more common and familiar. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 21:31:28
Well, GH was mostly humano-centric because it was the first 'official' D&D world (technically the 2nd), and back then non-humans were rare, and IIRC you needed DM permission to play one back then.
Not to mention, there were all kinds of level-restrictions to keep them from being a popular player choice.
I also see Faraer's point very well - why does a race have to have ANY presence on a world for a Player to play one? 
On Oerth it might be 'slightly' hard to justify, but on Abeir-Toril? The World of Portals? ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be found in Faerûn - always was, always will be. We needn't have entire nations dropped pell-mell into the center of our setting, especially when we already had things like Tieflings, Genasi, and Dragonborn all in 3e canon already!
With things like Spelljamming, Planescape, and Ravenloft, cross-world pollination has been going on since the beginning, and you can place a PC race from any setting on any world, and you don't need justification, just a half-way decent back-story.
I've always used stuff from every setting I liked, with little fuss, so why do they feel the need to 'force it' now?
I've probaly run more GH modules in FR then any FR modules in my day. 
Its almost as if they are taking away a lot of the DMs control, and creating rules where we didn't need them.
In a nutshell, here is why I think WotC's thinking is flawed -
They talk about races with 'traction' - races that get a lot of game play. They want to concentrate on those races, and not so much on races they feel saw little 'traction' (such as the Gnome). Obviously they didn't think the gnome was 'cool enough' for 4e, hence that video showing him as a 12 yr old imbecile. Races like Genasi, Tieflings, and Half-Dragons are 'COOL', and therfore see a lot of traction.
What makes them cool? The fact that nobody else has them? The fact that they are different then the ordinary host of PCs (Elves, Dwarves, halflings, etc)?
I remember when those demi-human races were cool, just because they were so RARE. In GH, there was only ONE Elven Kingdom, and it was hidden and closed to humans. The Dwarves pretty much stayed in their Mountain Fortresses, and the same could be said for the other races (Drow stayed in the Underdark!) With 2e/3e, we saw these races 'pop-up' all over the place, in every nook and cranny, and they lost that 'specialness' that we loved about them. They lost their 'Cool'.
So... my point (finally)... Don't they (WotC) realize that they are making this same fatal mistake all over again? By forcing entire nations of these 'cool' races upon us, they are making them lose their 'cool'?
Remember when Drizzt was cool? Ya know... back when he was the only one....  |
| Faraer |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 21:09:45
I think splicing Oerth into 4E-shape would be slightly more invasive than Toril, but not by much. As with attempts to define the essence of the Realms, the examples Erik chose like the tieflings were emblems rather than the real essence of the matter. Regarding that particular change, has the thinking that PC races have to be common and prominent ever been explained?
Where Erik said 'the smart strategy, in my opinion, is to _not_ do that, to offer something different with Greyhawk than what you offer with the Forgotten Realms', I feel the smart strategy would have been to let the Realms offer something not given by mainstream D&D. I felt the same way in 2001.
Wizards doesn't need to use the Realms as a flagship setting, or to subsume it into a single uniform 4E market. Once it decided to do those things, it 'needed' to try to implement them. I doubt Erik would have been as sanguine with his favourite world.
Ditto the wish to make the setting easy to write for for new designers. But will lowering the standard encourage people to waste their time reading poorly researched Realms material, or help it complete with other settings? |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 17:28:47
Thanks for the clarification. I understand from the comments of other freelancers that they often know only as much as everyone else does (they learn details on a "need to know" basis) as they are not actual WotC employees. And if they aren't following the hype, they might know even less then the average internet-using fan does.
I'm not trying to slam Eric Mona--I don't know him personally, I was just annoyed at his comment, and even though it was presented in a matter-of-fact tone, I'm talking it with a grain of salt as I don't know how much Realms-expertise is really behind it. |
| Bakra |
Posted - 27 Mar 2008 : 15:42:03
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Caedwyr
I took this post by Eric Mona somewhat differently than people seem to be taking it here. The post seems to be from the business/costs perspective and as such makes a lot of sense for the pencil pushers.
While he may not have as large a stake in the FR as he does in Greyhawk, it offers a fairly unattached perspective on the FR setting and why exactly the massive changes are happening in 4th Edition.
I'm aware that he was trying to be objective, but I'm still not convinced that the Realms setting "really needed blowing up" as he asserts, even from a business perspective.
And as far as business perspectives go, is Eric Mona a Wizards of the Coast employee? Does he have access to sales records, marketing research, etc? I'm not yet convinced that his opinion holds so much weight (more than the average "layperson's") as far as what is "needed" for the setting goes.
Erica Mona is an editor for the other publishing company Paizo, he might still freelance for WoTC. I'm not sure what he would have access to when it comes to WoTC. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 18:47:58
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
In my book that means none of the people involved did try their best, or try at all, to retain the setting's integrity.
The visual of 'Bulls in a China Shop' come to mind.
Or flamethrowers at an origami-exhibition |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 18:32:25
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
In my book that means none of the people involved did try their best, or try at all, to retain the setting's integrity.
The visual of 'Bulls in a China Shop' come to mind. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 17:36:01
quote:
Originally posted by Caedwyr
I took this post by Eric Mona somewhat differently than people seem to be taking it here. The post seems to be from the business/costs perspective and as such makes a lot of sense for the pencil pushers.
While he may not have as large a stake in the FR as he does in Greyhawk, it offers a fairly unattached perspective on the FR setting and why exactly the massive changes are happening in 4th Edition.
I'm aware that he was trying to be objective, but I'm still not convinced that the Realms setting "really needed blowing up" as he asserts, even from a business perspective.
And as far as business perspectives go, is Eric Mona a Wizards of the Coast employee? Does he have access to sales records, marketing research, etc? I'm not yet convinced that his opinion holds so much weight (more than the average "layperson's") as far as what is "needed" for the setting goes. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 15:35:37
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I agree 100% with Wooly on this one. Anything is possible in the Realms, it's just a question of scope, degree and respect for the setting and the established lore.
-- George Krashos
IMO, the bold part is where WotC seems to have slipped up in their design and presentation of the 4e Realms.
Slipping up would imply an accident, as far as I can tell from what has been said there is not one single thing accidental in the design. WotC did not slip up, the deconstruction or destruction of the Realms was and is deliberate.
In my book that means none of the people involved did try their best, or try at all, to retain the setting's integrity. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 15:29:10
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I agree 100% with Wooly on this one. Anything is possible in the Realms, it's just a question of scope, degree and respect for the setting and the established lore.
-- George Krashos
IMO, the bold part is where WotC seems to have slipped up in their design and presentation of the 4e Realms. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 00:43:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not trying to get into yet another anti-D&D Extreme or anti-Shattered Realms discussion, here. I'm just trying to say that some things in a setting, within reason, can be changed using existing lore without breaking the setting. I don't feel that the Sellplague is an example of this; I'm just saying it is possible to do.
I agree 100% with Wooly on this one. Anything is possible in the Realms, it's just a question of scope, degree and respect for the setting and the established lore.
-- George Krashos
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 00:32:39
Still... it's a more pleasant thought then his rival Vecna doing the same thing.
We really need a 'vomit' smiley. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 00:10:54
Ew . . . I was just thinking of the Old One participating in the program himself . . . ick . . . ick . . . must think of Iggwilv . . . |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 22:17:19
Well, thats why I said that Iuz is the perfect place... who really knows what the hell has been going on in there for the last century? If anyone in GH were to hide some sort of 'demonic breeding program' from the rest of the world, it would be Iuz.
He's sneaky that way.  |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 22:13:10
Well, "traditional" tieflings make sense, as people with demonic ancestry, since some places in Greyhawk are just crawling with demons, but on the other hand, the "new" tieflings, with their "nation of cursed people that made pacts with devils," maybe not so much. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 22:01:59
I wonder how many old-time designers (read ex-TSR employess) will be developing for Pathfinder? It would be nice to have a place to go and experience some 'old school' designer goodness.
Anyhow, I think Tieflings would be a perfect fit in GH - they have a very long tradition of 'tainted' human types (like the Animus), and the 'big baddy' of the setting - Iuz - is the "mother-of-all-Tieflings!" (a Cambion). I could see, with Iuz's Fiendish 'contacts', an entire sub-race of Tieflings evolving within his kingdom (also called Iuz)
Dragonborn, not so much, but if I had to I'd throw them down in Hepmonland and say they were always there. 
And thats the whole point - with at least half the planet un-detailed from previous editions, the designers felt the need to go 'further afield' to explain stuff?
There are THREE entire continents that have NO history to them, and we barely scratched the surface of Maztica. Not to mention at least three humongous islands and hundreds of smaller ones that practically anything could have been placed on.
And yet, rather then further developing the setting we love, they choose to 'import' stuff from other settings/planes of existance.
I just don't 'get it'. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 21:32:31
Yeah, I think Erik was in "publisher" mode when he was discussing that. His point being that if you are going to make the Realms your flagship setting, and if you drastically change the rules that that setting is the flagship for, and if you add new features like new races, it doesn't make much sense to say that the new races don't fit in well to your flagship setting, or that the new rules work slightly differently in the flagship setting. The flagship should be your baseline.
Now, if you want to preserve the feel of a given setting rather than make it your flagship, you don't want to do these things to it, but from a business point of view, your most popular setting should probably be your flagship.
Its kind of like saying that if you are going to write Civil War it had darn well better affect Captain America, Spider-man, and Iron Man. The above is true. It does not also follow that that means that Civil War is a story that needs to be told, however. (And for non-comic buffs, just switch out "Civil War" for "Star Wars Prequels" and switch out "Captain America, Spider-man, and Iron Man" for "Anakin, Obi-Wan, and the Emperor.) |
| Caedwyr |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 21:20:31
quote:
Originally posted by Eric Mona
FR is in a slightly different position, it being the most popular and best-selling campaign setting. "Blowing it up" really needed to be done, for two reasons:
1) Your best-selling, most popular campaign setting really ought to follow the rules as written.
2) Continuity is hard. Starting over so that your in-house designers and freelancers only have to "know" one book is a lot easier on managing internal resources.
Morphing the Forgotten Realms allows WotC R&D to neatly solve both problems with a single stroke.
I'd rather that not happen to Greyhawk, personally. And the smart strategy, in my opinion, is to _not_ do that, to offer something different with Greyhawk than what you offer with the Forgotten Realms.
I took this post by Eric Mona somewhat differently than people seem to be taking it here. The post seems to be from the business/costs perspective and as such makes a lot of sense for the pencil pushers.
While he may not have as large a stake in the FR as he does in Greyhawk, it offers a fairly unattached perspective on the FR setting and why exactly the massive changes are happening in 4th Edition. |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 16:40:45
First, about Greyhawk in 4e.
Given what seems to be WotC's preference I just don't see Greyhawk fairing any better than the Realms, should WotC focus on the setting. I can't help but think that they'd feel the need to crash a planet into Oerth in order the justify importing planetouched and moots and the like, because that really looks like it's the goal. Crazy fantasy land. Because that's "cool".
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
The thing that gets me all worked up is that there was no problem with the Realms and, IMO, a lot of the Spellplague wrought changes are frickin stupid.
I'm not trying to get into yet another anti-D&D Extreme or anti-Shattered Realms discussion, here. I'm just trying to say that some things in a setting, within reason, can be changed using existing lore without breaking the setting. I don't feel that the Sellplague is an example of this; I'm just saying it is possible to do.
I totally agree, just got worked up when writing so it got all ranty, sorry about that. :)
In fact, back in 2e it was simplicity itself to play any playable race from any setting (though Darksun and Ravenloft were a little tough to work in, but if you just decided that portals to and from Athas were just really rare then it still works, Ravenloft, not so much *g*) in any setting. You might not have a nation of Minotaurs but you could feel free to play a Dragonlance Minotaur in a Realms game.
In 3e it was a bit more difficult but the Great Tree still provided some access to the Wheel (I think, as far as canon goes) so it still wasn't an issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
2) How about making, even if just for internal use, a "master guidebook" that contains all the relevant bits of Realmslore, and letting your designers use that? Heck, even searchable pdfs of all existing books would make things easier. Chucking out the door what made the setting successful is not the way to continue that success.
My stance on this is that it's absolutely unforgivable that they don't do research. Honestly, they are getting paid so they should be doing the research. I have to do independent research for my job and it's frickin boring, especially if you compare what I research to researching realmslore, so you won't find any sympathy from me.
Heck, the Elves of Faerun net book is of a higher quality than a few Realms products, IMO.
I pretty much believe that these sorts of projects are the future of FR, because I just don't see FR in Realms 4e. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 16:03:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
1) Your best-selling, most popular campaign setting ought to continue to follow the existing formulas that made it the best-selling and most popular, not have things broken to fit (mis-)percieved ideals.
2) How about making, even if just for internal use, a "master guidebook" that contains all the relevant bits of Realmslore, and letting your designers use that? Heck, even searchable pdfs of all existing books would make things easier. Chucking out the door what made the setting successful is not the way to continue that success.
Indeed, Mace and I agree with you about that. If something is "best-selling", why change it?
Also, that comment doesn't really mesh well with other comments from "those in the know" (like the designers) that implied that FR sales were in decline and the setting is being changed to attract new (and hopefully more) customers. Who is correct, here? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 15:48:39
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
OK, lest it seem like I'm behind Erik Mona all the way, I just read the post where Mr. Mona thinks it's fine that the Realms setting is being thrown under the bus:
quote:
FR is in a slightly different position, it being the most popular and best-selling campaign setting. "Blowing it up" really needed to be done, for two reasons:
1) Your best-selling, most popular campaign setting really ought to follow the rules as written.
2) Continuity is hard. Starting over so that your in-house designers and freelancers only have to "know" one book is a lot easier on managing internal resources.
Morphing the Forgotten Realms allows WotC R&D to neatly solve both problems with a single stroke.
I'd rather that not happen to Greyhawk, personally. And the smart strategy, in my opinion, is to _not_ do that, to offer something different with Greyhawk than what you offer with the Forgotten Realms.
Thanks Erik, thanks a whole lot. I guess setting integrity doesn't matter to every setting, just the one YOU happen to like?
But I still don't think Greyhawk should be thrown under the bus either. Or, for that matter, Eberron.
Ouch.
1) Your best-selling, most popular campaign setting ought to continue to follow the existing formulas that made it the best-selling and most popular, not have things broken to fit (mis-)percieved ideals.
2) How about making, even if just for internal use, a "master guidebook" that contains all the relevant bits of Realmslore, and letting your designers use that? Heck, even searchable pdfs of all existing books would make things easier. Chucking out the door what made the setting successful is not the way to continue that success. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 15:45:03
Wooly: I get what you're saying, and for the record, I agree with you. I believe new elements can be introduced into the setting slowly and in small doses, and that can work (and yes, Greyhawk does have plenty of unknown lands).
I guess it just comes down to me not trusting that WotC would introduce the 4E elements into Greyhawk in such a manner, given what happened to the Realms setting.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 15:41:57
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
The thing that gets me all worked up is that there was no problem with the Realms and, IMO, a lot of the Spellplague wrought changes are frickin stupid.
Like Hollywood action movie stupid.
Like trying to turn WoW into an RPG setting stupid (verisimilitude does not exist in WoW, good for a video game, bad for an RPG setting).
And it didn't have to be stupid, it could have been decent. I don't personally feel that 4e will be a good match to the Realms but you need to work with the rules you have, not the rules you wish you had (heh). What really gets me though, is the destruction of what was and the lack of information on how the current situation came about. Without that information I feel like I'm shooting in the dark when I write a campaign arch.
Alright, I'm done for now.
I'm not trying to get into yet another anti-D&D Extreme or anti-Shattered Realms discussion, here. I'm just trying to say that some things in a setting, within reason, can be changed using existing lore without breaking the setting. I don't feel that the Sellplague is an example of this; I'm just saying it is possible to do. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Mar 2008 : 15:39:15
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think it breaks the setting to import a race, depending on how it's done. Tieflings and other planetouched weren't originally in the Realms, after all, but the always-stated multitude of portals and bits of backstory like the Calim and Memnon thing make them fit in with little work -- as long as it's some here and there, rather than an entire nation of them popping up.
Right, but we're talking Greyhawk here--it's very humanocentric (in my opinion, anyway) and less likely to have tieflings in it than the Realms (and I've never even heard of creatures like the Dragonborn being there).
Understood. I was just using specific Realms examples to show that new races can be introduced into a setting, using existing lore, without breaking the setting -- so long as it was properly handled. I'm not overly familiar with Greyhawk, but I'd assume that there are areas of that setting where existing lore can be used to introduce small numbers of new races like tieflings or dragonborn. Not wholesale race importation, certainly, but a previously little-known line of these races could be worked in. For example (againing, drawing on what little I know of the setting), I'd think you could have a few tieflings wandering around in those lands ruled by Iuz.
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Also, even if one can rationalize the presence of this or that race or other knicknack, I think the basic concern--"Is the nature of the setting being changed drastically to fit into new (and foreign) design principles?"--is still a valid one, for any setting.
I'm not advocating throwing everything into every setting. But I think small things (like limited numbers of a new race) can easily be worked in, so long as existing lore makes it believable. As long as these things are done on a small scale, and are fully meshed into the setting (again, meaning done with well-established existing lore), then I think such changes can be done without changing the basic nature of the setting. Like with my planetouched example above -- we've known since the Old Grey Box that the Realms contains a gazillion portals to other worlds and planes, so it stands to reason that every now and again, particularly in areas near these portals, someone might pop up with a bloodline that comes from a nearby-linked elsewhere. |
|
|
