PDA

View Full Version : Rich Burlew's Campaign Setting



Ice&Fire
2009-09-03, 07:59 AM
Has there ever been any information about the campaign setting that Rich entered in the competition to find a new campaign setting (the one Eberron won)? I know it's probably unlikely due to the agreement he has with WoTC, but one can hope.

Yora
2009-09-03, 08:01 AM
From what I know wizards owns it and has it in a drawer somewhere, to do with it as they like.

Ice&Fire
2009-09-03, 08:28 AM
From what I know wizards owns it and has it in a drawer somewhere, to do with it as they like.

I wonder if they will ever do anything with it

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-03, 08:35 AM
Now that 3.5 is over?

BooNL
2009-09-03, 08:42 AM
What a waste... I'm pretty curious what his setting would have looked like, themes etc.

I still can't believe almost every setting published is a high fantasy, high magic one. Of course, they want people to be able to use every splatbook and option there is. In essence, every setting of theirs is Greyhawk with extra's on top...

Anyway, if Rich's setting was any good, chances are they might use the fluff for one of their 4e settings. Though I doubt it'll ever see the light of day again.

Bayar
2009-09-03, 08:44 AM
Eberron is not Greyhawk, right ?

Myou
2009-09-03, 08:56 AM
Eberron is not Greyhawk, right ?

Greyhawk is the original high fantasy and magic setting (although Blackmoor predates it, Greyhawk was the first to be published) and the default D&D 3.5 setting.

Eberron is a steampunk setting (magic-powered trains and the like) that was created much more recently. :3

Morty
2009-09-03, 08:59 AM
Greyhawk is the original high fantasy and magic setting (although Blackmoor predates it, Greyhawk was the first to be published) and the default D&D 3.5 setting.

Eberron is a steampunk setting (magic-powered trains and the like) that was created much more recently. :3

I think Bayar's point was indeed that Eberron is so different from Greyhawk that "all settings are Greyhawk + extras" simply isn't true.
Anyway, I'm curious as to how would the setting look like too, but mildly. It'd certainly be better than Eberron, of course.

BooNL
2009-09-03, 09:00 AM
Eberron is not Greyhawk, right ?

What I meant was that all the fluff in every book published is based on Generica (or Grayhawk), all the Races of books, Complete series, etc.

Consequently, because Wizards want to make lots of money, every official campaign setting (FR, Eberron) should be able to use every splatbook out there and even caters to it. For example, Eberron has a continent specifically for psionics. No other place in the world has psionics, but hey, they have to be somewhere...

I'm just slightly bitter that there's no dark, gritty setting, with limited options or at least a logical selection...

Irreverent Fool
2009-09-03, 09:02 AM
What I meant was that all the fluff in every book published is based on Generica (or Grayhawk), all the Races of books, Complete series, etc.

Consequently, because Wizards want to make lots of money, every official campaign setting (FR, Eberron) should be able to use every splatbook out there and even caters to it. For example, Eberron has a continent specifically for psionics. No other place in the world has psionics, but hey, they have to be somewhere...

I'm just slightly bitter that there's no dark, gritty setting, with limited options or at least a logical selection...

There is. It's just not in D&D. There are other systems.

obnoxious
sig

BooNL
2009-09-03, 09:11 AM
There is. It's just not in D&D. There are other systems.

obnoxious
sig

I know, there's also third party campaign settings which are way cooler than anything Wizards have ever created.

My point is that the Wizards only create high fantasy, high magic campaigns. Which in my opinion devolves into: campaign setting + "any Greyhawk stuff ever created 'cause we managed to fit it in somehow for you."

woodenbandman
2009-09-03, 09:16 AM
Perchance then we should make a functional low-magic campaign setting, then.

Who wants to start it up? I'll contribute.

Harperfan7
2009-09-03, 09:19 AM
[QUOTE=BooNL;6853914]I know, there's also third party campaign settings which are way cooler than anything Wizards have ever created.
/QUOTE]

LEEEEEEEEEENKSSSSSSSSSSS

EDIT: Apparently I'm retarded.

kamikasei
2009-09-03, 09:21 AM
Perchance then we should make a functional low-magic campaign setting, then.

Honestly? 3.5 D&D is a high-magic game. Unless you want to play E6, I'd say you're better off trying a different system than trying to make it low-magic via setting alone. (Of course, E6 pretty much is a different system.)

Mordokai
2009-09-03, 09:22 AM
Perchance then we should make a functional low-magic campaign setting, then.

Who wants to start it up? I'll contribute.

Throw in some horror elements(not Ravenloft, of course, though I'm not realy familiar with that setting) and you have my cooperation right there. But starting it I ain't.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 09:23 AM
It'd certainly be better than Eberron, of course.

So... you're starting a setting war over a setting you haven't even seen?

BooNL
2009-09-03, 09:24 AM
I know, there's also third party campaign settings which are way cooler than anything Wizards have ever created.
/QUOTE]

LEEEEEEEEEENKSSSSSSSSSSS

Can't really help you there, sorry. I have played a couple, but never owned any books and I'm not in touch with the dm I played them under anymore.
I remember a setting with a spy based class, different flavours of humans and mongol-like halflings. It felt a bit like FR, only done right. I think it had Stones or something in the name, can't say for sure.

Most of my campaigns have always been homebrew. In fact, I should start working on one again. I have some ideas that could end up as a nice setting.

Also, to further illustrate my point on Wizards. Planescape was cool as it had a very distinct feel to it. Despite being able to draw from any source of inspiration. But Spelljammer? Come on...

Morty
2009-09-03, 09:27 AM
So... you're starting a setting war over a setting you haven't even seen?

No, not really.


Honestly? 3.5 D&D is a high-magic game. Unless you want to play E6, I'd say you're better off trying a different system than trying to make it low-magic via setting alone. (Of course, E6 pretty much is a different system.)

This, pretty much. Trying to make a low-powered D&D setting is hammering it into something it hasn't been made for. It'd be like running a high-powered, comicbook-inspired game in WFRP or Riddle of Steel.

woodenbandman
2009-09-03, 09:33 AM
I love adding horror elements. It just seems to make the game more fun to me.

Anyway, low magic settings in DnD can work.

For starters, you need to kill the magic mart mentality. No market for magic items at all. You can't just buy them, you take what you can get. Obviously you can't suck as a DM to pull this off, you have to work with the players and give them items that will help them. Make it harder to craft them as well, and charged items are right out.

Then you BAN 9th level spells. And certain other gems, like polymorph, because, let's face it, they need it. Make magic more subtle and less flashy. Charm spells are good, as are illusions, and maybe a bit of transmutation, but cut back on evocation and make summonings a bit harder.

THEN you need to fix CR. Dragons are too good. Skeletons aren't good enough. Just toss that out the window and stick with your gut. Test out fights beforehand if you have to.

Gutting a large part of the game? Entirely possible. But consider that it is adding quite a lot to the game as well. For starters, it helps out the lower classes quite a lot, by taking away some of the megatoys that casters play with. It makes magic items more fun, because they are more unique and cool.

This is kinda like a return to 2.0. Anyway I will think about this a bit more and I'll start up a thread over in homebrew.

BooNL
2009-09-03, 09:35 AM
No, not really.



This, pretty much. Trying to make a low-powered D&D setting is hammering it into something it hasn't been made for. It'd be like running a high-powered, comicbook-inspired game in WFRP or Riddle of Steel.

There's also the difference is how you power it.

Seriously, why do Eberron and FR need access to every method of spellcasting?
We have prepared casting, spontaneous casting, invocations, binding, incarnum, truespeak, shadowcraft, psionics, strange oriental casting (wu jen et al), Wis based casting, Cha based casting, Int based casting...

For me, a setting would make a lot more sense if they just selected one, maybe two, sources of magic and stuck with it.

The problem I mostly have with those settings is not really the amount of high poweredness (as you said, that's a given), but more the crazy amount of options. A lot of them not even making sense within the context of the world.

In FR, Magic and Psionics are treated as the same thing. Why not use one system then? Because Wizards thought up two systems at the time and consequently, had to use both of them.

kamikasei
2009-09-03, 09:38 AM
Gutting a large part of the game? Entirely possible. But consider that it is adding quite a lot to the game as well.

Maybe so, but to my mind, gutting one large chunk of the game and radically altering another means you might as well have started from a different system closer to your destination.

woodenbandman
2009-09-03, 09:44 AM
^That is perfectly valid, but also consider that classes are not supposed to automatically be included no matter what (where would you find a monk in a campaign setting with no monks, or a sorceror in a campaign with no dragons?) As written, those classes wouldn't work in those settings. Same could go with a system where magic must be innate, and can't be learned. This would make the magic system much more exclusive, and would limit casters to being spontaneous, probably charisma based casters.

That's fine with me. I'm not saying that low magic = no magic, I'm saying maybe you don't want to have wizards that destroy the world before breakfast and build it again to eat for dinner.

I like the idea of magic being more exclusive, and not like (forgive me for this horrible comparison) Harry Potter, where there is exactly one spell to do everything and any wizard can learn it and cast it, and it's never explained at all, so everyone just takes it for granted and goes back to work. Actually, that's a valid comparison. Give me a sorceror any day.

Hijax
2009-09-03, 09:50 AM
^That is perfectly valid, but also consider that classes are not supposed to automatically be included no matter what (where would you find a monk in a campaign setting with no monks, or a sorceror in a campaign with no dragons?) As written, those classes wouldn't work in those settings. Same could go with a system where magic must be innate, and can't be learned. This would make the magic system much more exclusive, and would limit casters to being spontaneous, probably charisma based casters.

That's fine with me. I'm not saying that low magic = no magic, I'm saying maybe you don't want to have wizards that destroy the world before breakfast and build it again to eat for dinner.

I like the idea of magic being more exclusive, and not like (forgive me for this horrible comparison) Harry Potter, where there is exactly one spell to do everything and any wizard can learn it and cast it, and it's never explained at all, so everyone just takes it for granted and goes back to work. Actually, that's a valid comparison. Give me a sorceror any day.

this. i agree wholeheartedly. count me in if you're making this.

Dublock
2009-09-03, 09:52 AM
^That is perfectly valid, but also consider that classes are not supposed to automatically be included no matter what (where would you find a monk in a campaign setting with no monks, or a sorceror in a campaign with no dragons?) As written, those classes wouldn't work in those settings. Same could go with a system where magic must be innate, and can't be learned. This would make the magic system much more exclusive, and would limit casters to being spontaneous, probably charisma based casters.

That's fine with me. I'm not saying that low magic = no magic, I'm saying maybe you don't want to have wizards that destroy the world before breakfast and build it again to eat for dinner.

I like the idea of magic being more exclusive, and not like (forgive me for this horrible comparison) Harry Potter, where there is exactly one spell to do everything and any wizard can learn it and cast it, and it's never explained at all, so everyone just takes it for granted and goes back to work. Actually, that's a valid comparison. Give me a sorceror any day.

I would like to help as well ;).

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 09:59 AM
I think if enough people wanted Rich to get his campaign setting back and they all did something about it wizards would be inclined to give it back.

kamikasei
2009-09-03, 10:01 AM
woodenbandman, were you responding to me or to BooNL?

HealthKit
2009-09-03, 10:04 AM
I wonder if they will ever do anything with it


Anyway, if Rich's setting was any good, chances are they might use the fluff for one of their 4e settings. Though I doubt it'll ever see the light of day again.

Maybe they already have, but we just don't know what it is.



I still can't believe almost every setting published is a high fantasy, high magic one.

Well, if you ask me, that's what D&D is all about. And it's not like you can't adjust the magic system to suit your own purposes for one of your homebrew games.

If not, then maybe Dungeons and Dragons isn't the right game for you.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 10:06 AM
I think if enough people wanted Rich to get his campaign setting back and they all did something about it wizards would be inclined to give it back.

They'll probably (hopefully) publish it after his death... but I doubt it will see the light of day before that.

AslanCross
2009-09-03, 10:07 AM
There's also the difference is how you power it.

Seriously, why do Eberron and FR need access to every method of spellcasting?
We have prepared casting, spontaneous casting, invocations, binding, incarnum, truespeak, shadowcraft, psionics, strange oriental casting (wu jen et al), Wis based casting, Cha based casting, Int based casting...


Err, you don't have to include the optional books if you don't want to. You can play Eberron without psionics at all if you want to. Stick to Khorvaire, Xen'Drik, Argonnessen, or even the parts of Sarlona where the Inspired aren't hanging out. At least the setting has a logical explanation for why psionics (should you decide to use them) are different from arcane and divine magic, given the presence of the Quori and to a lesser extent, the Daelkyr. The ECS simply assumes that you are using the XPH.

Same thing with FR. It has its own setting-specific assumptions (the Shadow Adept, the Weave, etc), but it never really says you have to include psionics just because of House Oblodra.

I think it's not so much that the settings include every single optional ruleset but more of the optional rules being usable anywhere.

Hijax
2009-09-03, 10:12 AM
Err, you don't have to include the optional books if you don't want to. You can play Eberron without psionics at all if you want to. Stick to Khorvaire, Xen'Drik, Argonnessen, or even the parts of Sarlona where the Inspired aren't hanging out. At least the setting has a logical explanation for why psionics (should you decide to use them) are different from arcane and divine magic, given the presence of the Quori and to a lesser extent, the Daelkyr. The ECS simply assumes that you are using the XPH.

Same thing with FR. It has its own setting-specific assumptions (the Shadow Adept, the Weave, etc), but it never really says you have to include psionics just because of House Oblodra.

I think it's not so much that the settings include every single optional ruleset but more of the optional rules being usable anywhere.

you dont need to have dragons in eberron either. Its just that some people will consider altering campaign setting(like erasing sarlona) to not really be using that campaign setting anymore.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 10:13 AM
There's also the difference is how you power it.

Seriously, why do Eberron and FR need access to every method of spellcasting?
We have prepared casting, spontaneous casting, invocations, binding, incarnum, truespeak, shadowcraft, psionics, strange oriental casting (wu jen et al), Wis based casting, Cha based casting, Int based casting...

WotC can't win it seems. If they made either of those settings and left out Incarnum, Psionics, Truespeech etc. then purchasers of those supplements would feel like they wasted their money.

So they make new magic systems universally applicable, and get lambasted for THAT, too.

And fluffwise, how do you keep these out of your setting anyway? In 3.x, Truespeak is the language that made reality, The Astral Plane is in every setting somewhere, and almost every living thing has a soul of some kind. So yeah.

Hijax
2009-09-03, 10:16 AM
WotC can't win it seems. If they made either of those settings and left out Incarnum, Psionics, Truespeech etc. then purchasers of those supplements would feel like they wasted their money.

So they make new magic systems universally applicable, and get lambasted for THAT, too.

And fluffwise, how do you keep these out of your setting anyway? In 3.x, Truespeak is the language that made reality, The Astral Plane is in every setting somewhere, and almost every living thing has a soul of some kind. So yeah.

you, respectively, rule that truespeak didn't make reality, that you cant use your mind to tap into the astral, and that tapping into the souls of the dead doesn't work that way.

kamikasei
2009-09-03, 10:16 AM
you dont need to have dragons in eberron either. Its just that some people will consider altering campaign setting(like erasing sarlona) to not really be using that campaign setting anymore.

Aslan didn't suggest "erasing Sarlona" - he specifically says that you could go there - just having the party avoid going to the parts where psionics are important, or encountering characters from such places.

Eberron is built to accomodate just about anything you want to throw in to it, but you lose nothing by not using anything non-Core, barring psionics which are easily simply skirted.

Hijax
2009-09-03, 10:21 AM
Aslan didn't suggest "erasing Sarlona" - he specifically says that you could go there - just having the party avoid going to the parts where psionics are important, or encountering characters from such places.

Eberron is built to accomodate just about anything you want to throw in to it, but you lose nothing by not using anything non-Core, barring psionics which are easily simply skirted.

yes, but by deliberately removing every possibility to encounter any kinda of psionics, you've effectively erased a part of sarlona. what if the players wish to be somewhere where psionics happens to be important?


im not saying that you'd lose anything special by doing that. But 'you can just rule it out' is not an argument why it had to be there in the first place.

kamikasei
2009-09-03, 10:23 AM
I guess I don't see why it's a bad thing for a setting to contain something that apparently the players want to have there.

If the problem isn't that you don't have the sourcebooks for aspect X or that some/all of the players and DM don't like it, in which case you can simply say "we'll set that aside", then what is the problem?

Mordokai
2009-09-03, 10:32 AM
I love adding horror elements. It just seems to make the game more fun to me.

Anyway, low magic settings in DnD can work.

For starters, you need to kill the magic mart mentality. No market for magic items at all. You can't just buy them, you take what you can get. Obviously you can't suck as a DM to pull this off, you have to work with the players and give them items that will help them. Make it harder to craft them as well, and charged items are right out.

Then you BAN 9th level spells. And certain other gems, like polymorph, because, let's face it, they need it. Make magic more subtle and less flashy. Charm spells are good, as are illusions, and maybe a bit of transmutation, but cut back on evocation and make summonings a bit harder.

THEN you need to fix CR. Dragons are too good. Skeletons aren't good enough. Just toss that out the window and stick with your gut. Test out fights beforehand if you have to.

Gutting a large part of the game? Entirely possible. But consider that it is adding quite a lot to the game as well. For starters, it helps out the lower classes quite a lot, by taking away some of the megatoys that casters play with. It makes magic items more fun, because they are more unique and cool.

This is kinda like a return to 2.0. Anyway I will think about this a bit more and I'll start up a thread over in homebrew.

Be a kind soul and drop me a PM once that happens :smallsmile: I'd love to watch how this turns out but I'm usually not hanging around Homebrew and it's very likely I'll forget about this in next hour or so :smalltongue: So yeah, if you could remind me when you start this, I'd appreciate it :smallwink:

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 10:46 AM
you, respectively, rule that truespeak didn't make reality, that you cant use your mind to tap into the astral, and that tapping into the souls of the dead doesn't work that way.

Which is fine, except none of that is true for D&D 3.5. It would be like saying there's no such thing as spell slots or feats; you need a whole new system.

Such as... 4E.


^That is perfectly valid, but also consider that classes are not supposed to automatically be included no matter what (where would you find a monk in a campaign setting with no monks, or a sorceror in a campaign with no dragons?) As written, those classes wouldn't work in those settings. Same could go with a system where magic must be innate, and can't be learned. This would make the magic system much more exclusive, and would limit casters to being spontaneous, probably charisma based casters.

Ugh. Settings where magic only exists through right of birth always fall flat for me. Nobody can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, so to speak, in a setting like that.

And having every caster walk around with dazzling white teeth and perfect hair? What is this, Twilight?

kamikasei
2009-09-03, 10:48 AM
And having every caster walk around with dazzling white teeth and perfect hair?

That's a rather blinkered view of "charisma-based".

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 10:54 AM
That's a rather blinkered view of "charisma-based".

I suppose it is. How would the players interpret it?

Mordokai
2009-09-03, 10:54 AM
Yeah. Last time I checked, Hannibal Lecter was anything but good looking, but hot damn, the man had charisma :smallbiggrin:

kamikasei
2009-09-03, 10:58 AM
I suppose it is. How would the players interpret it?

Are you asking how they could, or how at a best guess they would? I won't attempt the latter. However, especially when it comes to spellcasting, charisma can be force of personality, and conjures up an image (to my mind) less of attractive or well-groomed appearance than a burning gaze that seems to reach the back of your skull when you dare to meet it, or a quiet voice that commands absolute silence from everyone else in the room when it speaks, or a broken-toothed grin that makes you feel like nothing can keep this guy down, or a thin-lipped smirk that doesn't denote pleasure but the knowledge that this person has the advantage over you and will use that advantage to hurt you very, very badly.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 11:00 AM
Charisma is your force of will right?

I think I know of a few bad people in history who had high charisma but didn't look good.

since I'd rather avoid invoking Godwin's law I'm going to mention somebody else. Grigory Rasputin. although I haven't read enough on him to say he was bad.

Didn't look good at ALL but he had quite a few followers.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 11:21 AM
Sigh. I'm aware of the true definition of Charisma. But I just don't see any attempt to make a setting where Charisma is the only casting stat ending up any differently.

Fishy
2009-09-03, 11:27 AM
Well, look at it this way. Take a look at the world around you.

We don't have one form of science. We don't have one theory of physics. We don't have one computer programming language. We don't have one language. We don't have one method of representing information. We don't have one form of art. We don't have one form of music. We don't have one form of martial arts. We don't have one kind of army. We don't have one country. We don't have one form of governance. We don't have one family structure. We don't have one philosophy. We don't have one religion. We don't have one style of clothing. We don't have one form of footwear. We don't have one sport. We don't have one form of recreation. We don't have one edition of D&D.

If it were possible for human beings to alter reality with our minds, we would find multiple ways of doing it.

And then fight over which one was better.

woodenbandman
2009-09-03, 11:31 AM
How's this: Everyone has innate magic, and you can choose to develop it, but you don't have control over your powers (obviously as a meta-concept you can choose what spells your character can cast, but the characters themselves can't choose a particular spell over another).

Hijax
2009-09-03, 11:35 AM
Well, look at it this way. Take a look at the world around you.

We don't have one form of science. We don't have one theory of physics. We don't have one computer programming language. We don't have one language. We don't have one method of representing information. We don't have one form of art. We don't have one form of music. We don't have one form of martial arts. We don't have one kind of army. We don't have one country. We don't have one form of governance. We don't have one family structure. We don't have one philosophy. We don't have one religion. We don't have one style of clothing. We don't have one form of footwear. We don't have one sport. We don't have one form of recreation. We don't have one edition of D&D.

If it were possible for human beings to alter reality with our minds, we would find multiple ways of doing it.

And then fight over which one was better.

all you mentioned there, except physics, is a human abstraction. psionics, magic, and all that jazz, is very real cosmic forces. music(for example), is nothing but just ordinary sound. the argument about which music is better is universally moot, because its just sound, and that cant be categorized into good and bad.

you dont 'invent' magic. its something that just happens to exist.

arguskos
2009-09-03, 11:37 AM
True Hijax, but then again, there is more than one way to use it, and people will argue over which way is better. It's human nature in every world ever, after all.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 11:40 AM
Sigh. I'm aware of the true definition of Charisma. But I just don't see any attempt to make a setting where Charisma is the only casting stat ending up any differently.

Charisma can be interpreted as good looks as well. hopefully you're not one of those ones who say moron things on the miss America pageant. (your character not you.)

Fishy
2009-09-03, 11:42 AM
all you mentioned there, except physics, is a human abstraction. psionics, magic, and all that jazz, is very real cosmic forces. music(for example), is nothing but just ordinary sound. the argument about which music is better is universally moot, because its just sound, and that cant be categorized into good and bad.

you dont 'invent' magic. its something that just happens to exist.

Music is ordinary sound, but it's produced in a staggering variety of ways and used for thousands of different purposes, some of which can barely be recognized from others.

And maybe you don't 'invent magic', but you do have to invent a way for people to make use of it, and things for them to do with it.

kamikasei
2009-09-03, 12:26 PM
Sigh. I'm aware of the true definition of Charisma. But I just don't see any attempt to make a setting where Charisma is the only casting stat ending up any differently.

Er, way to belittle everyone who might want to contribute to such a project, then, I guess. Seriously, that's the point you want to make? "Based on this one detail about your project, I predict that you and anyone else who might work on something similar will handle it in the worst possible way"?

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 12:31 PM
Er, way to belittle everyone who might want to contribute to such a project, then, I guess. Seriously, that's the point you want to make? "Based on this one detail about your project, I predict that you and anyone else who might work on something similar will handle it in the worst possible way"?

I'm just cynical like that. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony.)

But really, who's going to make an ugly sorcerer?

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 12:33 PM
I'm just cynical like that. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony.)

But really, who's going to make an ugly sorcerer?

me!:smallbiggrin:

no not really. I'm currently too addicted to Drow warblades of Eris who are pyromaniacs.

Yora
2009-09-03, 01:57 PM
There is. It's just not in D&D. There are other systems.
Just not in officially published D&D settings for D&D.

AD&D had Planescape, which mostly served to the niche now filled by Eberon. And Ravenloft, which was also very different.
And of course the Infinite Worlds of Homebrew. :smallwink:

Zeful
2009-09-03, 02:08 PM
or a sorceror in a campaign with no dragons?

*twitch*
...
...
Sorcerers are not related to dragons by default! A world with no Dragons does not mean there are no Sorcerers, it just means there are no Dragon Disciple/Shaman/what-have-you and no kobolds. That's it.

Hijax
2009-09-03, 02:20 PM
True Hijax, but then again, there is more than one way to use it, and people will argue over which way is better. It's human nature in every world ever, after all.

valid argument.

lsfreak
2009-09-03, 02:21 PM
*twitch*
...
...
Sorcerers are not related to dragons by default! A world with no Dragons does not mean there are no Sorcerers, it just means there are no Dragon Disciple/Shaman/what-have-you and no kobolds. That's it.

Doesn't even mean that. Kobolds are in no way required to be related to dragons, and dragons being non-existent doesn't mean people don't think they exist (they simply tap into magic in a particular way such that the result comes out what the wielder would expect from dragon magic, even though dragon magic doesn't exist).

Yora
2009-09-03, 02:27 PM
In the PHB sorcerers are not related to dragons and neither are Kobolds in the MM. It was just a side note that some people in Generica might belive that there is a relation, but somehow some of the writers really started to like it and present it as an official fact.

chiasaur11
2009-09-03, 02:27 PM
Doesn't even mean that. Kobolds are in no way required to be related to dragons.

True.

They, for example, could be fur covered baby eaters who follow King Torg.

ALL HAIL KING TORG!

FlawedParadigm
2009-09-03, 02:31 PM
Wow, horrible derailment in action.

arguskos
2009-09-03, 02:35 PM
Wow, horrible derailment in action.
Welcome to GitP! We don't have topics, we have off-topics!

Yora
2009-09-03, 03:12 PM
Well, there is not much to say to the topic anyway. Question in the first post, answer in the second. And then the usual random ramblinh about stuff and such. :smallbiggrin:

Raiki
2009-09-03, 03:18 PM
...and using the past two posts a a segue BACK to the original topic...

I actually had a series of emails (written mostly in a form of bastardized lawyerese on their part) back and forth with the WotC legal department about 6 months ago on this very topic.

Here are the copies of those emails that I managed to dredge up...at least the emails that didn't lead into an infinite loop of lawyer-deflection...

"I was recently perusing your archives of news articles and came across a mention of a Campaign Setting by "Order of the Stick" auther Rich Burlew. I was wondering if, considering it was not the final winner in the 'Create a Campaign' contest, Wizards had any plans to publish the material? And, if the material was not going to be published, if the rights to the material were ever going to be returned to the original author or sold?

I would greatly appreciate if you could find time to reply.

Sincerely,"
Raiki.

Raiki,

"Thank you for writing. There are currently no plans publish that campaign setting. You will want to contact the creator of the campaign and see if they have any plans for it.

Take Care!"

To which I reply

"Then can I take that answer to mean that Mr. Burlew is no longer under the "very strict Non-Disclosure Agreement" he mentions in the FAQ of his site?"

To which THEY reply

Raiki,

"I'm sorry, but that is not information we have access to here in Customer Service.

Good Gaming!"

Needless to say, after this, I sent email to one of their other departments (I forget which...the one that seemed to make the most sense at the time)...only to be told that all customer questions had to be related to Customer Service...repeat ad nauseum.

So...I guess all we can do is ask Rich...anyone know his number? (/sarcasm)

~R~

Woodsman
2009-09-03, 03:19 PM
So...I guess all we can do is ask Rich...anyone know his number? (/sarcasm)

~R~

We could always put a thread up. Maybe he'll see this one.

Raiki
2009-09-03, 03:22 PM
We could always put a thread up. Maybe he'll see this one.

Nice thought...but I have yet to see The Giant post in ANY thread...save "New Comic's Up" on the OOtS board.

~R~

Random832
2009-09-03, 03:25 PM
Maybe try starting your email to the other department with "I have already asked Customer Service and they do not have the information required to answer my question. Now that that's out of the way..."

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 04:53 PM
I tried sending him a PM but he has yet to respond.

I sent WOTC an E-mail. hopefully they respond back with good news.

I keep getting an E-mail from Mailer Daemon saying I can't send Email and that they've given up. I'm assuming this isn't good?

sentaku
2009-09-03, 05:40 PM
I keep getting an E-mail from Mailer Daemon saying I can't send Email and that they've given up. I'm assuming this isn't good?

Nope not good. The mailer daemon is the program that handles your mail and I'm guessing that the address you sent to either does not exist, or blocks any attempt to email it.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 05:43 PM
that's bizzare because it's WOTC's customer service address. So either A they're not accepting Emails from me or B something is preventing me from emailing them.

guess it's time for me to get a new E-mail

EDIT: none of my Emails are going through.Even with a new account.

TheCountAlucard
2009-09-03, 06:26 PM
I tried sending him a PM but he has yet to respond.Good luck with that. I sent him a PM a year-and-a-half ago, and never got a reply. :smallsigh:

sentaku
2009-09-03, 06:31 PM
that's bizzare because it's WOTC's customer service address. So either A they're not accepting Emails from me or B something is preventing me from emailing them.

guess it's time for me to get a new E-mail

EDIT: none of my Emails are going through.Even with a new account.

what's the address?

Roland St. Jude
2009-09-03, 06:32 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread is pointless and largely off topic. No one speaking knows anything and no one who knows anything is speaking. If Rich has news regarding his campaign setting, I'm confident that he'll let you know.