| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Jan 2008 : 01:09:13
|
My review of "Worlds and Monsters" for the Realms
* Dedicated to the poster Rinonalyrna Fathomlin.
Okay, before we proceed any further. I'd like to state that I'm not a "Hater." I trust Richard Baker and his Adventuring Party of Game Designers to turn in an excellent product. On the other hand, I'm going to seriously discuss my opinions on some of his choices but they're not going to be dismissed out of hand like some people have done. To keep this thread relevant, it will also deal primarilly with those things that affect the Forgotten Realms.
Overall, I'm impressed with the work on 4E. It's an evocative and fascinating work that is well detailed with a coherent and interesting mythology. The place has a large focus on the mystical and surreal in order to heighten the fantasy elements of the world while downplaying the mundane. So, I definitely recommend gamers to get it. However, I have quite a few reservations and things I would have done differently.
Not enough for me to say that it wasn't a clear labor of love....but reservations.
For example; Richard, do you play a lot of Exalted?
Cause, either you do or you really should pick up that game since I think you'd enjoy it a great deal. You have the same "Primordial beings overthrown by the weaker and smaller gods who create their own static universe but aren't that nice" mixed with the heroes expected to be overthetop powerful figures while the environments aren't just weird and fantastical, they are WEIRD and FANTASTICAL. Plus, the Alien Fae and Lovecraftian horrors are both present with the big Sheol style Afterlife.
I'm not saying these don't have a shared mythological basis but there's a pretty clear Exalted-style feel here.
Richard Baker's Core Setting is what I like to term "Ultimate Greyhawk" in the Marvel sense. It's a place that has a clear similiarity to the D&D Core setting that has been left behind but it's also got striking differences that are even larger than the shift from 2E to 3E. Really, this is a totally different universe from anything that's come before in D&D's mythology. It'd be less problematic if this wasn't going into effect setting wide. But yes, there's no real way to reconcile 4E with the Old D&D world.
I'm going to just say this is the Sarah Conner Chronicles while D&D 3.5 was to Terminator 3. D&D 1st Edition is still on-going thanks to Hackmaster, so we know things go on. Nevertheless, 4E might better be called Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 3E or something else to differentiate it from the D&D Core Setting we're leaving behind.
Just accepting this is better than attempting to imagine the Crisis on Infinite Earths style things that would be necessary to reconcile the two.
Just some basic notes of what I liked and didn't like.
1. The Dragons: It didn't really need to be said that there's no need to state that Dragons can be bad or good no matter what their color. However, it's an explicit part of the work. I think that very little is honestly changed here but Richard Baker highlights some facts that the typical Alignment Double-think is off. I did like the changes to Green Dragons, however.
One questionable choice is Io is dead now and was split into Bahamut and Tiamat.
2. Giants: I appreciate Richard Baker correcting a long annoying flaw that I've had in that Giants were just too small for the kind of huge ass bad guys that I wanted. However, I'm not really sure about his solution that there's identical versions that are just shorter. In other words, there's HUGE ass Frost Giants and comparatively ting ones. It's like human and Dwarf Frost Giants.
3. Inhuman Civilizations: Ultimately, I have issues with Richard Baker's decisions that an Egyptian civilization ruled by mummies is something that's less interesting than an inhuman civilization of Salamanders. Honestly, not really. My players would have less reason to empathize with Salamanders and would be less likely to care if they were totally destroyed. Really, relatability is an important part of the gameworld.
4. The Undead: I'm not sure that I think the complication of whether undead have "souls" or not was really needed for the world to be honest and it seems like something that's just going to be needlessly confusing in the long run. Honestly, I also think he should have stuck with the idea that Negative Material Energy is evil rather than neutral but different strokes for different strokes.
5. The Shadowfel: I didn't appreciate the Eberronish combining the Negative Material Planes and Plane of Shadow to be honest. It comes off as a little too much like the Greek Underworld or the Jewish Sheoul to be honest. A bunch of ghosts wandering around in a lightless world may work for some mythologies but not all of them.
I also dislike Wee Jas being renamed "The Raven Queen."
6. The Feywild: I have no problems with this depiction, even if I think that Richard is unfortunately making the Fey realms to be too "close" to humankind. I rather liked that they were powerful and mysterious where they are really very close in this setting.
7. The Afterlife: One major mistake that I think Richard Baker has made in that the gods don't know where souls go. While I always felt it was pretty dodgy that "souls melt into their deity" I'm not sure this is really better. For me, I think I'll stick with my "Fluffy Cloud Heaven."
http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FluffyCloudHeaven
8. The Gods and Primordials: I appreciate Richard Baker's take on the gods and this fits the Forgotten Realms very really. The gods in Richard Baker's view are not omnipotent, omniscient, or undefeatable by mortals. They're able to be tricked and often have glaring personality disorders.
Honestly, I'm not sure about dividing the gods from the "Primordials" however. It's clear that Richard Baker is going for a 'Titans vs. Gods' and 'Giants vs. Gods' style battle between the Old Gods and the New Gods. However, I'm not sure if it's not another case of just making things more complex than they are.
Also, I don't really think that the Origins of the Universe should be spelled out so clearly as in these books. I liked the mystery of previous editions.
9. The Combination of the Inner Planes and Abyss: Despite my hesitation, I'll agree with Richard that the Inner Planes really were pretty much damned impossible to use. I'm not sure that the Elemental Chaos is better, however since it seems like a bit of a random combination of the Abyss/Inner Planes/Pandemonium without fixing any of the flaws.
Making it one plane doesn't make the unplayable regions any more playable.
10. No Blood War: I confess, I get Richard's reasoning. The Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil fighting one another is probably something that everyone should be happy about. Nevertheless, I always felt that it provided a massive conflict that could be the source of many new adventures.
It really seems to have just been replaced with the Primordial vs. God war. Also, it's one of the clearest signs this is "Ultimate D&D" rather than a continuition of the previous D&D universe.
11. Devils and Demons: I like Richard's desire to move the Devils more clearly from Demons. I don't mind the Succubi being Devils. What I am confused by is the fact that it seems to be undercut by its own text. Devils are all thinkers and corrupters now, yet they have massive armies? Without Pit Fiends, who exactly is supposed to be leading them? Likewise, if the Yugoloths are now Demons then what have the Demons really lost since the Loths are still all corruptors?
I don't mind the transformation of Asmodeus and his company into Fallen Angels, though. It's almost identical to at least some of his origins anyway. What I don't get is why Richard insists that Devils make soul bargains. With Asmodeus as a god, why doesn't he just have his own religion?
A bit disappointed that all the Demon Lords are not gods, though. Orcus should be, at least. The Elemental Evil also seems to be a bit weak for the Ultimate EvilTM.
Overall, I'm rather pleased with this book and despite my belief it's pretty close to Exalted D20, it's not really a bad sign of things to come. I'll definitely be picking up 4E even if I ignore a great deal of the Planar Material for my old Planescape works.
7/10
|
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Shilo99
Seeker
63 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 13:15:42
|
Great review, thanks Charles.
I se that Bane has assumed the role of Haxtor as the evil miltaristic god in the core pantheon.
Any word on how the rest of the pantheon sits, and how well they'll gel with the FR pantheon? (Not saying its necessary, but makes it easier to convert core lines, items, spells, NPCs etc when there is an easy FR analogy.)
Shilo |
 |
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2008 : 17:13:36
|
| I have this book, and there isn't *that* much in there about the actual 4E roster of the gods, although there is some good information about the design principles behind it (ie. making all the gods the type of being an adventurer would want to worship). |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
My review of "Worlds and Monsters" for the Realms
